I'm trying to think of how often I should plan to audit our suppliers (and I did a search through the forum but didn't find this particular question). My current thought is to have each supplier on their own unique audit schedule and that the audit schedules be part of the agenda for when the annual QMS review occurs. That way, problem suppliers could get more coverage and higher quality suppliers are audited less.

Does that sound acceptable or have others handled it differently?

I'm trying to think of how often I should plan to audit our suppliers (and I did a search through the forum but didn't find this particular question). My current thought is to have each supplier on their own unique audit schedule and that the audit schedules be part of the agenda for when the annual QMS review occurs. That way, problem suppliers could get more coverage and higher quality suppliers are audited less.

Does that sound acceptable or have others handled it differently?Why audit them at all? Those that are not up to snuff can be dropped and those that are performing well don't need any attention!

We audit our top 5 outsource vendors once per year because we spend over 75% of our outsource dollars there, and we want to know how our products are handled. We do not require it for the top 5 in our procedure, but results are reviewed, actions are taken, and records are retained. Other than that, we do not require an on site audit to be add a vendor to our "Approved" list, nor do we require an audit is performed if they perform poorly, but rather we list it in our procedure as an option for further investigation of any vendor. If follow up is required, this is the only time we include it on our Audit Plan Schedule.

The hard part for you will be figuring out what works best for your company. Good Luck!

Why audit them at all? Those that are not up to snuff can be dropped and those that are performing well don't need any attention!But Al, using only past performance to determine future business with suppliers is like driving a car by looking at the rear view mirror only...(great quality cliche')
Suppliers are both an asset and a liability. Well conducted assessments (and I am not saying QMS assessments only) can provide an organization with confidence about supplier's ability to support future business.
Sleepless, the concept of performance to adjust frequency of supplier audits is sound, but you should broaden the concept of the risks involved. As a suggestion, consider reading the SAE ARP 9134 (http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=ARP9134) Supply Chain Risk Management document. It will not tell you exactly what you are asking on this thread, but I think it will make you consider certain risks when evaluating suppliers.

But Al, using only past performance to determine future business with suppliers is like driving a car by looking at the rear view mirror only...(great quality cliche')

Past performance is the only reliable indicator of future performance, short of a supplier's building burning down. This is not to say that it's an infallible indicator; s**t happens, but when it does, it's usually not something that an audit, per se, would reveal anyway.

Suppliers are both an asset and a liability. Well conducted assessments (and I am not saying QMS assessments only) can provide an organization with confidence about supplier's ability to support future business.

I'm not sure what "assessment" means in this context. Going to a supplier's building and looking around to see how busy he is, or what kind of shape the equipment is in isn't a bad idea, but it can be done without marching through the building with clipboards and canned questions. I very much agree that suppliers should be visited on a regular basis, but actual auditing is a waste of time, imo.

Audit Suppliers?
who has the resources for that?

Seriously - we currently go with a supplier survey re-done every three years. All of our key suppliers are registered to the appropriate ISO standard and that makes the system easier to swallow.
I'm focusing more on internal auditing for the near to medium term.

We do a restricted audit (select processes relating to our work) within the first 6 months. If performance slips, we are back there in a heartbeat. Otherwise, if we are satisfied and so is everyone else, we move to a bi-yearly schedule with bi-monthly email check-ups and Q&A sessions.

Sleepless,

At the current place that I work at we do supplier surveys every 3 years. If the suppliers, when added, are not ISO or equivalent certified, then we will send someone to audit their facility. Otherwise, we may send someone to do an audit if we are experiencing problems with the supplier and think that it will help.
You of course need to work out what's best for you. It will depend on the number of suppliers you will maintain on your ASL.

Rick
:)

Thanks to all for the good information. :applause:

So far, I'm thinking of the following:

1. New suppliers are audited by default, unless they have AS9100 compliance.
2. Existing suppliers will be audited according to a schedule created by our Quality Leadership Team (during the annual QMS review).
3. Suppliers with a good track record will be audited much less than ones with a poor track record (probably once every couple of years).
4. Probationary suppliers will be required to have an audit within 3 - 6 months of the start of their probation.

Thanks to all for the good information. :applause:

So far, I'm thinking of the following:

1. New suppliers are audited by default, unless they have AS9100 compliance.
2. Existing suppliers will be audited according to a schedule created by our Quality Leadership Team (during the annual QMS review).
3. Suppliers with a good track record will be audited much less than ones with a poor track record (probably once every couple of years).
4. Probationary suppliers will be required to have an audit within 3 - 6 months of the start of their probation.


Sounds like a pretty good plan.

But Al, using only past performance to determine future business with suppliers is like driving a car by looking at the rear view mirror only...(great quality cliche')

Using that thinking, doesn't the whole idea of using SPC become worthless? After all, we look at the process as it is run (looking in the rear view mirror), how can we use that information to predict future performance? I am not saying that supplier audits should never happen, I just really think they are way too over-rated. For two months this spring I didn't get a thing worthwhile done for going through our customers' supplier audits. What a waste. The only thing that was given to us as a nonconformance was that we should start a 5s program.:bonk:

Am I the only one whose management doesn't believe in on-site supplier audits? (Waste of time, we've had these suppliers for years and cost is the driver, not quality)

We do a first article and that's it folks.

Am I the only one whose management doesn't believe in on-site supplier audits? (Waste of time, we've had these suppliers for years and cost is the driver, not quality)

We do a first article and that's it folks.

Been there at most companies I've worked for.

I've been the subject of many many customer audits but rarely have audited suppliers. Most of the time management's attitude was like "Come on... It's DuPont (for example)! What's the point?"

One company I worked for I was able to put together a supplier audit program and actually went on some audits of key suppliers that were not large companies. I'm looking forward to doing the same in my current job eventually, but as I said earlier I'm more focused on internal auditing right now.

I think, as someone eluded to earlier, that you don't have to audit a supplier that has a certification (and large companies usually are already certified). I would think you could rely on the registrar to provide that service. In the case of a large company like Dupont, I doubt that they would even make any changes if you DID find a non conformance UNLESS you were equally large and represented a significant investment for them. $$$

...In the case of a large company like Dupont, I doubt that they would even make any changes if you DID find a non conformance UNLESS you were equally large and represented a significant investment for them. $$$

Gee, and that sums up the problem MOST of us face. If you don't have enough financial clout, then your opinion doesn't matter - no matter how "on target" your assessment may be. I think I should add this one to my "pet peeve" list!:frust:

Since we're talking about supplier audits and/or the lack thereof - just had a situation yesterday that I thought I would share. All the auditing in the world would not preclude this from happening...

We had a problem with a supplier's product and contacted them for corrective action. They responded that they would make the necessary changes and repair our defective product at no cost to us (OK, so far Right?). So here's the kicker - in the same email response, it was pointed out that "Since this feature was not specifically pointed out on your drawing then it is not technically a failure". The failure was realated to bond strength of two components - the bonding of which is "intrinsically implied" based on industry standards (analogous to expecting the sidewalls of your tires to hold the pressure and not go flat!).

Being the "Quality Kind of Guy" I am, I hopped on my soapbox and gave a customer service lecture. Got an appology today, and I thanked them.

We don't audit suppliers either - small company, resources, benefit(?)... I guess I'm just agreeing with the sentiment that having a supplier audit program is not the 'be all and end all' some Quality Pundents would preach as the reason to perform them.

... just one humble opinion... :)

I think, as someone eluded to earlier, that you don't have to audit a supplier that has a certification

there is nothing in ISO 9001-2000 that says you have to audit ANY supplier, just that that is one method that can be used to evaluate a supplier.

There are several other threads on this topic that you might find helpful also.

I´ve worked for 2 different companies: an automotive and, later on, a small mechanical industry.

In automotive industry, when you have a new supplier of a critical part, it´s normal to have a Quality Assessment. Only after Quality approval the purchase and logistic evaluation are started. But, as a partnership, it is not necessary to have other assessment as a "system" evaluation, because the product is approved and has been delivered according all the quality, comercial and logistic specifications. To control and mantain this level, what is controlled is the product itself (by the supplier). Some process evaluation can be performed once a year depending on the part (I mean process because it is not only quality what is assessed, but also technical issues).

In a smaller industry, I tried to make something similar, but I failed because it is really too expensive working in that way in an industry where the final product do not have such an agregate value as a car. I think that many colleagues who has worked in automotive industrie before has had this experience. Many times, you just need to re-evaluate your suppliers in each delivery of raw material, in a simple product inspection that will aprove or reject the lot, because is cheaper than making assessment and that´s it. And the registars can be the electronic controls (ERP) of approval and rejection, making a "macro-evaluation" annually, for example. That´s what I´ve been doing and my customers (final, internal - the boss - and certifier assessor) are satisfied with that.

Out of 800+ suppliers, we have identified 12 critical suppliers and based on further criticalness, proximity, consistancy and based on supplier's QMS adherence.

We find by teaching and explaining and extending our WCM (World Class Manufacturing) techniques, supplier are welcoming our visit and getting beifitted. During audit we not only point out NC but also try to suggest 2 -3 better method of doing the process / best contemporary practices.

We (Including our supplier) are getting benifitted by Supplier Audit.

Instead of basing the frequency of audits on individual suppliers. Group suppliers by Risk and Spend. That is by what they are supplying high risk or low risk based on critically to your product or service and by how much you spend with that supplier over a defined period of time.


IE: High Risk and High Spend - Type and frequency of the audit is the greatest

This will give you the greatest ROI focusing on key suppliers

Instead of basing the frequency of audits on individual suppliers. Group suppliers by Risk and Spend. That is by what they are supplying high risk or low risk based on critically to your product or service and by how much you spend with that supplier over a defined period of time.


IE: High Risk and High Spend - Type and frequency of the audit is the greatest

This will give you the greatest ROI focusing on key suppliers

I think there's a basic fallacy at work here, because so-called "high risk" products or suppliers are, by definition, not properly selected or developed. Of course I understand the realities, and that sometimes risks are created that we have to deal with, like it or not. In those cases I think your strategy makes sense. But risk is not the result of spontaneous generation. We create risk, and then scramble around looking for ways to mitigate it. We need to work on developing ways to prevent risk.