Do you think a Dock to Stock system can be used as a supplier performance review method? To me it is constantly reviewing supplier performance rather than having scheduled reviews. Do you see this procedure passing an ISO audit?:


Do away with scheduled reviews of each supplier
New parts qualify for dock to stock once 10 acceptable lots have been received without problem. Having "dock to stock" status designates the supplier performance as acceptable for that part number. "Inspection required" designates that the supplier is on probation.
Supplier performance is to be evaluated on individual part number quality levels.
If line rejections (by part number) exceed a defined level, then dock to stock status in changed to "Inspection Required" and increased inspection is mandated until the supplier deliverys 10 lots of acceptable product. Again, "Inspection Required" status indicate the supplier in on probation.
The evaluation records includes the supplier SCAR forms, computer transactions showing the change in status, and inspection records indicating the increased inspections.


To me this addresses the ISO requirement for supplier performance evaluation. What do you think?

Mike,

Sounds like a system similar to that of my (recent) last ISO certified supplier :notme: used...so yes, I think as described you have a fairly robust system of supplier control and evaluation sketched out. Our problem was that the one "certified" DTS supplier we had couldn't stay certified.:mad: :2cents:

We have this kind of system implanted since 1999 and have never had trouble. Actually is was suggested during our pre-audit by the auditor ! The method I use is : if the supplier attains a result of 96 (out of 100) or above in three consecutive trimesters, his product/service does not pass through receiving inspection. If during assembly one of his products is found to be non conforming, he receives a CAR and the correspondign demerit. If his "grade" goes below 96 (depending on the severity of the NC), it´s 3 more trimesters on the "probation" list.

The 3 trimesters is a time frame that we came up with to show stability in the suppliers products... you can increase or decrease this time, but be prepared to justify if you reduce this time frame.

Today I have 68% of my suppliers in this category which reduces my lead time for production.

Do you think a Dock to Stock system can be used as a supplier performance review method? To me it is constantly reviewing supplier performance rather than having scheduled reviews. Do you see this procedure passing an ISO audit?:

Do away with scheduled reviews of each supplier
New parts qualify for dock to stock once 10 acceptable lots have been received without problem. Having "dock to stock" status designates the supplier performance as acceptable for that part number. "Inspection required" designates that the supplier is on probation.
Supplier performance is to be evaluated on individual part number quality levels.
If line rejections (by part number) exceed a defined level, then dock to stock status in changed to "Inspection Required" and increased inspection is mandated until the supplier deliverys 10 lots of acceptable product. Again, "Inspection Required" status indicate the supplier in on probation.
The evaluation records includes the supplier SCAR forms, computer transactions showing the change in status, and inspection records indicating the increased inspections.
To me this addresses the ISO requirement for supplier performance evaluation. What do you think?


Sounds very suitable and robust to me...:applause:

We have used a similar system for some time with no issues. You do loose some imformation, such as being able to rate the suppliers on PPM based on your prior sampling plan, but you can make this up by rating the supplier on delivery and number of issues found during the process, and resulting 8D requests.:agree1:

How would you address 7.4.3 Verification of purchased product? Do you insist that the supplier provide inspection data or CofA's/CoC's? The requirement says to "implement inspection or other activities" to ensure conformity. What are examples of "other activities" that are acceptable methods?

How would you address 7.4.3 Verification of purchased product? Do you insist that the supplier provide inspection data or CofA's/CoC's? The requirement says to "implement inspection or other activities" to ensure conformity. What are examples of "other activities" that are acceptable methods?


In post #4, I indicated this works. Many companies do it, including a lot of your customers. I suggest you probably do it too. For example, when was the last time you sent a can of Pepsi to a lab for inspection testing before drinking it? It is dock to stock too, isn't it?

Dock to stock works if you have data to confirm which suppliers have good performance. If you know they have good performance, there is little bebefit to spot check quality even more.

It could also work if you have tests in place to check quality before you invest a lot of further work into it.

There is no requirement that you actually inspect the quality, merely that you confirm it.

In post #4, I indicated this works... There is no requirement that you actually inspect the quality, merely that you confirm it.

I trust your feedback. I have been advised by another colleague that certificates and inspection data must accompany the shipments to be compliant with 7.4.3. Just don't wanna get burned at our next ISO audit.

I trust your feedback. I have been advised by another colleague that certificates and inspection data must accompany the shipments to be compliant with 7.4.3. Just don't wanna get burned at our next ISO audit.


Unfortunately, some auditors believe that you do. But, all an auditor is allowed to audit to is the standard and your procedures (plus a few related normative docs like CSR's and SI's). If the auditor is uninformed, you really don't want him leading you down the wrong path.

Unless the auditor can show you that the standard says so, it is not a valid finding.

In ISO, cl 7.4.3 says inspection or activities necessary to ensure product meets requirements. Statistical history of good performance (ie: the Pepsi can example), can meet this requirement.

In TS, cl 7.4.3.1 gets more prescriptive. But, the first example, evaluation of statistical data, could work. Some would say that only applies to C of A's but it does not say you can't evaluate your own statistical data. After all, the Big 3 do the same.

Bottom line, do what is appropriate. Don't do non-value-added stuff.

Good luck!