Currently if there is a problem with product we receive from a supplier, we deal with it on a case by case basis. Typically via phone or email. We follow a similar process to what a formal CAR would cover (give a description, find the root cause, explain how it can be prevented in the future) but we dont exactly document it. I am not sure if we need to have a formalized CAR we send out to our suppliers to meet the Standard.

I am not sure if we need to have a formalized CAR we send out to our suppliers to meet the Standard.If your concern is just about satisfying the ISO 9001 standard, I am sure you will find a people on both sides of the fence, as well some people on top of the fence, IF SCARS are required by ISO 9001 or not. But this is one of those issues that makes BUSINESS SENSE. Even when organizations have FORMALIZED supplier corrective action requests, they normally have problems, in terms of root cause determination and corrective action effectiveness by suppliers; imagine those organizations that, like in your case, have semi-formal or informal supplier CAR processes. My opinion is: forget if ISO 9001 requires an SCAR process or not. If you want to have an effective QMS in place, you better have an effective way to deal with supplier escapes, which typically will require a SCAR-like process.

you better have an effective way to deal with supplier escapes, which typically will require a SCAR-like process.

And do the suppliers escape with or without scars upon them?
:lol:

I agree with Sidney.

Technically the ISO standard does require CARs for customer, internal, and supplier issues, but remember that in all cases it is up to the organization to decide whether or not to raise a CAR for each issue.

Sounds to me like you're actually doing it, just not documenting it. Documenting it would allow you better capability to do trend analysis, etc., as well as to demonstrate that you have a system to create supplier scars (good one, Jane!).

If your concern is just about satisfying the ISO 9001 standard, I am sure you will find a people on both sides of the fence, as well some people on top of the fence, IF SCARS are required by ISO 9001 or not. But this is one of those issues that makes BUSINESS SENSE. Even when organizations have FORMALIZED supplier corrective action requests, they normally have problems, in terms of root cause determination and corrective action effectiveness by suppliers; imagine those organizations that, like in your case, have semi-formal or informal supplier CAR processes. My opinion is: forget if ISO 9001 requires an SCAR process or not. If you want to have an effective QMS in place, you better have an effective way to deal with supplier escapes, which typically will require a SCAR-like process.

:agree1: Good advice. In designing a corrective action system, it's always best to avoid painting yourself into a corner with it. Make sure there are options for deciding when to use the formal process and when not to. In order to make good decisions, you have to be aware of the costs involved. Don't design your system such that you have to invoke a $100 process to address a $2 problem.

I now see there are actually two parts to my question. The first is are supplier CAR's required. It sounds like yes.

The second part, I now see, is how much do we want to formalize this process? This is something to decide internally.

It does sound however that we do need to have a formalized SCAR system and retain these as records?

I now see there are actually two parts to my question. The first is are supplier CAR's required. It sounds like yes.

The second part, I now see, is how much do we want to formalize this process? This is something to decide internally.

It does sound however that we do need to have a formalized SCAR system and retain these as records?

The standard says you have to have a documented process, and that the process must include a provision for keeping records. The optional part is deciding when to invoke the formal process.

:agree1: In order to make good decisions, you have to be aware of the costs involved. Don't design your system such that you have to invoke a $100 process to address a $2 problem.

Sage advice, Jim. I'm dealing with that now in my company. We write SCARs for everything and it's just not cost effective. I'm working to fix that now.

We also issue SCAR's on a case-by-case basis. We use the same database which covers internal cars and internal audits. Still working on follow-thru from all parties involved, that's our main problem at this time.

I have moved this thread to the Supplier Quality Assurance and Supplier Issues forum, since this is pertaining to Supplier CA. Another Moderator may want to place this back where it was if they think it is more focused on ISO9001.

I would be a bit careful about leaving this to the subjective discretion of the initiator as to whether a formal procedure is followed.

I will quote a line from our Non-Conformance procedure:

Supplier to be advised of problem and depending on severity of fault a "corrective / preventative action" form may be sent.

I have just had a Non Conformance that has been going unnoticed for 2 years, and has not been properly documented in CAR and so I have no idea, why or how it occurred and I am now left with an issue to resolve and ensure does not happen again! It had in fact been spotted two years ago, and rework carried out, but because no CAR was raised, there was no actions initiated to ensure it did not happen again. It was only because I went into the warehouse to get samples of this product that I noted the issue. Everyone else is like :confused: , and why? Because no investigation was done. I would say document it always! you never know, a $2 problem today may escalate into a $2000 in a years time.

Keep your document flexible, so the subjective decision on whether to follow a formal procedure is based on sound thinking and not on whether the person initiating it can be BOTHERED!

I would be a bit careful about leaving this to the subjective discretion of the initiator as to whether a formal procedure is followed.

Keep your document flexible, so the subjective decision on whether to follow a formal procedure is based on sound thinking and not on whether the person initiating it can be BOTHERED!

You seem to be contradicting yourself. When you discovered a two-year-old problem that came home to roost, the real problem had nothing to do with the parts, or the documentation. Someone made a wrong decision, and people who habitually make wrong decisions won't miraculously change when the documentation changes.

I recall reading about an incisive comment Dr. Deming made during the Q&A portion of one of his seminars. One one of the attendees remarked that Deming had not addressed the issue of incompetent employees, and how to deal with the "deadwood." Deming's response was something like, "Were they dead when you hired them, or did you kill them?"

Quality system documentation must be written with the assumption that people will make rational decisions, and people have to be allowed to make rational decisions. If they can't or won't, you have a problem that really needs investigation and correction.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. When you discovered a two-year-old problem that came home to roost, the real problem had nothing to do with the parts, or the documentation. Someone made a wrong decision, and people who habitually make wrong decisions won't miraculously change when the documentation changes.

I recall reading about an incisive comment Dr. Deming made during the Q&A portion of one of his seminars. One one of the attendees remarked that Deming had not addressed the issue of incompetent employees, and how to deal with the "deadwood." Deming's response was something like, "Were they dead when you hired them, or did you kill them?"

Quality system documentation must be written with the assumption that people will make rational decisions, and people have to be allowed to make rational decisions. If they can't or won't, you have a problem that really needs investigation and correction.

I did not mean it to appear as a contradiction, although I can see why it looks like one. My point was resting on the fact that the NCM procedure stated that you MAY, raise a CAR. However you are right, it was, in this case down to the poor decision made by a human! My point is there should be a point, within the written procedures and documentation, where the human is made to think and not coaxed into an easy decision (in this case you may raise the CAR but think of the work needed to follow it up!).

I go back to the original question in this thread. Is there a need to document and implement a formal procedure, IMO YES! How far that process is taken is the subjective decision, but there should be clear evidence that it has HAPPENED and that there is reasonable grounds for the formal process to OR not to proceed.

I hope this makes sense. In my head it does!