Apparently before my time our purchasing guy was told by an ISO auditor that his approved supplier list needed to be controlled such that any time he made a change he had to issue a new rev of the list.

I disagree and feel that that it can be controlled like any other database type thing, control the format with a rev level if you want but control the content via procedure and access rights.

We don't rev our training database every time we update a training record. That would be ridiculous.

Thoughts?

For mi it is logic to have this list updated.

Firstly because PPAP call for a new revision if this list changes.

Secondly. Because according to that list you must have all the approval suppliers completed.

Be aware that many Quality problems comes with changes of Suppliers. I suffered this problem in the electronic components Industry, Buyers used to change for new suppliers but sometimes new problems appear with that, even after the reception of PSW.

And I am not going to tell you about when we used to be lack of parts we used to go to the aftermarket.

This techniques are bad and damage the product and the image of brand.

That List is also a requirement for some Suppliers.

I remember now: NTN Transmission Europe, they used to call for in the PSW submission as other document required.

:bonk:

An approved supplier list is actually a quality record, not a document. However, if each time an entry is made in the list the date of that entry is also included, that will take care of it.

Discordian
if you will put revision number for every time you add supplier to yr supplier list in the company Im working with now (vehicles parts puchasing ) , then I will reach to rev 100 withinn two months!!! ,
im just updating the list and make yearly review for it

I think this issue will be affected by the nature of the business you are in

samer

Thoughts?Subject already discussed.
Did you search before asking? http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12574

An approved supplier list is actually a quality record, not a document. However, if each time an entry is made in the list the date of that entry is also included, that will take care of it.


Hi.

I do not know if this issue is regarding translation (Spanish-English) , but for me

A register is one kind of Document.

Hi.

I do not know if this issue is regarding translation (Spanish-English) , but for me

A register is one kind of Document.

Yes quality record is one level of documentation system, I dont know what he meant here....may be it is too late in US now:D

We reviewing and approving the first classification of vendors (with a signature from quality manager ) and the next periodical vendors rating (with a signature from quality manager and purchasing manager). We use this for doing a suppliers list using the system classification of SAP. When some auditor ask me in which way we control and approve the information on the list I show to him the periodical vendor rating and issues of each vendor. This way of working is ok for our auditor.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_47x200/helpdata/en/c6/b9b3341a933f50e10000009b38f83b/frameset.htm
By
Cavanna

Apparently before my time our purchasing guy was told by an ISO auditor that his approved supplier list needed to be controlled such that any time he made a change he had to issue a new rev of the list.

I disagree and feel that that it can be controlled like any other database type thing, control the format with a rev level if you want but control the content via procedure and access rights.

We don't rev our training database every time we update a training record. That would be ridiculous.

Thoughts?

The list of supplier evaluation has to comply with 4.2.4. There's no revision needed of a supplier evaluation. And to take it from there, IMHO a record cannot have a revision since it's a result of a process, it's proof that requirements are met/the qms is operating efficiently.

Subject already discussed.
Did you search before asking? http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12574

indeed I did search and did not turn up that thread.
Either that or suffered from temporary blindness in the area of the screen that the thread appeared.
sorry for the faux pas.

Maybe this will simplify things a bit...
...our Approved Vendor List is the list of vendors in our inventory database system. Our Purchasing dept controls this list; when a vendor is disqualified, a lock is placed on the database record in order to prevent a PO from being issued for goods from said vendor. Newly approved vendors are added to the db. I'm sure that if someone wanted a printout of this, it could be provided.

I need to rate my suppliers as either critical or non-critical and would like to reference some examples of such.

Hi, welcome to the cove!

Critical/non critical suppliers can be defined fairly easily by assessing their influence on the quality of the product/service. In our case, the following set of suppliers are critical:
warehouses (storage conditions)
carriers (delivery in time)
contract manufacturers (they make the product)
laboratories (quality control)
engineering companies (maintenance in our plants)
etc.

Non critical suppliers are not named as such, they're just not part of the critical supplier list:
office cleaning company
supplier of paper for the printer (critical if you run a copyshop ;-))
etc.

I guess a discussion could arise about actually checking all suppliers and tagging them as critical/non critical. From a theoritical point of view you should of course ("how do you know that company is not critical?"). From a practible point of view we don't, and our auditor seems fine with it.

Once I determine if a part/component is deemed critical, major or minor I then can rate the suppliers accordingly. It is the classificaiton of such parts or components where I am having difficulty trying to find a good definition of the three critical, major or minor. Any one have any suggestions on this topic.

My guess is that if you look at suppliers from a component point of view, the question you'd have to ask yourself is what the component does for the product, and more important, what it does when it brakes down. This means you'd have to make some sort of risk analysis for your components, where you evaluate chance of component failure vs. effect. This is a bit outside my daily work, my guess is you can find much more info in the cove, especially the forums for the automotive industry.