To everyone in the cove,
I need help! I am a quality manager for a service and maintenance company. We are working towards becoming ISO compliant and hopefully registered at some point. I have put an exclusion in my quality manual as we do not do any design. My problem is that due to the very nature of our business and expedited needs and/or customer requirements to use particular vendors, we can not readily pre-approve vendors. The purchase is at times dictated by availability of part, location of part and price. Am I able to exclude the assessment of vendors, and evaluation of vendors as long as I include this exclusion in the quality manual as this is element 7.4? If we ship an item directly from a vendor and it is defective, we do a nonconforming sheet and document it in our system that the vendor becomes a disapproved vendor. All other vendors are approved unless we have quality issues as well and again our record is that they are documented as disapproved vendor in our database. Our nonconforming sheet is also another record. Thanks!
Barb

Our Vendor List has different codes which indicate how they were approved. I can try a new source by using the code for "Trial Basis". After a period of time, with no problems, they can become approved.

If your customer specifies a vendor, it is THEIR responsibility to approve the vendor (your responsibility to provide feedback on said vendor may or may not be required), you need to follow customer requirements unless you have amended the contract.

Categorize vendors in a way that makes sense to you. Single source, customer specified, whatever. It is your system, make it work for you first, the standard does not specify HOW you should do it, only that you need to.

7.4.1 Purchasing process

The organization shall ensure that purchased product conforms to specified purchase requirements. The type and extent of control applied to the supplier and the purchased product shall be dependent upon the effect of the purchased product on subsequent product realization or the final product.

The organization shall evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply product in accordance with the organization's requirements. Criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation shall be established. Records of theresults of evaluations and any necessary actions arising from the evaluation shall be maintained (see 4.2.4).Why do you need to exclude it, you're meeting the requirement.

To everyone in the cove,
I need help! I am a quality manager for a service and maintenance company. We are working towards becoming ISO compliant and hopefully registered at some point. I have put an exclusion in my quality manual as we do not do any design. My problem is that due to the very nature of our business and expedited needs and/or customer requirements to use particular vendors, we can not readily pre-approve vendors. The purchase is at times dictated by availability of part, location of part and price. Am I able to exclude the assessment of vendors, and evaluation of vendors as long as I include this exclusion in the quality manual as this is element 7.4? If we ship an item directly from a vendor and it is defective, we do a nonconforming sheet and document it in our system that the vendor becomes a disapproved vendor. All other vendors are approved unless we have quality issues as well and again our record is that they are documented as disapproved vendor in our database. Our nonconforming sheet is also another record. Thanks!
Barb

You don't need to exclude it. You just apply it differently in certain situations.

I agree with JILLING, you need to apply it the way it applies to your process. As I understand, if you use 2nd party vendors to supply your customers this does falls under clause 7.4 Purchasing Process.

Now just a clarification, Barbra. You mention excluding "design" then you talked about excluding it in clause 7.4 of QMS. Can you clarify this or am I reading this wrong. Design of???

Hints --

7.4 requires you to determine the "type and extent of control" you apply to vendors. Your method of control might include your purchase order, where you carefully specify the product or service required; it might also include any monitoring activity such as listening to customer feed back about defective parts. If that level of control supports your company's quality objectives and customer requirements, then it's all you need. If it doesn't, then you need to put more stringent controls in place.

Likewise, 7.4 requires you to evaluate and select vendors according to established criteria. In your original post, you stated the selection criteria, which were, "availability of part, location of part and price." If those criteria support your company's quality objectives and customer requirements, they are all you need. If they don't, then you need to add evaluation criteria.

The "if it works for you" statements you keep reading are correct. What they mean in practice is if it keeps your customers happy enough and keeps the company's top management happy enough and if you as quality manager believe it's adequate on the basis of your process analysis and monitoring, then leave it alone.

So, no need for an exclusion.

Barbara:

Other have already answered your question.

You already defined your organization's type and extent of control in your posting. Read 7.4 critically and remove your paradigms of what you think it states. You do not have to take a traditional manifacturing appraoch. For example, there is no list (Approved Vendor List, AVL, ASL, etc.) of approved vendors required.

Regards,

Dirk

Barb, I thought about replying to this earlier but you have put so much in I had to have time to analyse / break down.

My problem is that due to the very nature of our business and expedited needs and/or customer requirements to use particular vendors, we can not readily pre-approve vendors. If your customers require you to use a supplier then that can be your approval criteria. It doesn't mean you don't still have responsibility for monitoring them and re-evaluating them. Even if you can't change them.

In a previous life we had a customer nominated supplier that gave us nothing but trouble. Our customer wouldn't let us change them and then beat us up because we had quality and supply problems because of them! :mad:

The purchase is at times dictated by availability of part, location of part and price. Not acceptable on its own. You must make some evaluation of quality.

I have no idea what you are buying. If the parts you buy are OEM then your assurance of quality is through the original specification and you can buy them from anyone in the supply chain.

All you then have to do is make sure the distributor hasn't messed up the part! If you see the parts then a packaging check may be enough.

Am I able to exclude the assessment of vendors, and evaluation of vendors as long as I include this exclusion in the quality manual as this is element 7.4?As discussed earlier, no. You just have to think about what you are buying and what controls you can / will apply on quality of part purchased.

If we ship an item directly from a vendor and it is defective, we do a nonconforming sheet and document it in our system that the vendor becomes a disapproved vendor. This would satisfy the monitoring / corrective action / re-evaluation of a supplier but not the requirement for initial evaluation. Unless you write into your system that the initial evaluation is by a trial order process - monitored with records to shw they successfully completed the trial and then became approved.

All other vendors are approved unless we have quality issues as well and again our record is that they are documented as disapproved vendor in our database. Our nonconforming sheet is also another record. How do you "approve" your other vendors? Not the infamous questionnaire, I hope. :frust:

In the parent post, Barbara wrote:
The purchase is at times dictated by availability of part, location of part and price.

In an excellent post, this statement appeared:
Not acceptable on its own. You must make some evaluation of quality.

Where, exactly, in the standard is the requirement for "some evaluation of quality?" We can see that purchased product has to "conform to specified purchase requirements," in element 7.4.1. But it seems that the specified purchase requirements are availability, location and price.

So where is the nonconformity?

Where, exactly, in the standard is the requirement for "some evaluation of quality?" We can see that purchased product has to "conform to specified purchase requirements," in element 7.4.1. But it seems that the specified purchase requirements are availability, location and price.
Thanks Cliff. I take it you didn't like my "some evaluation of quality," please forgive my paraphrasing of the standard but, as you will see, it can be difficult to get to the nub of the requirement.

The organization shall ensure that purchased product conforms to specified purchase requirements. So you have to make sure product you buy conforms with your requirements. Point 1

The type and extent of control applied to the supplier and the purchased product shall be dependent upon the effect of the purchased product on subsequent product realization or the final product. So how you do this depends on how the product you buy impacts on the product / service you supply. Point 2

Now I may be wrong but the way Barb portrayed her service organization the parts they buy will have a significant impact on whether their service does what the customer expects - i.e. returns the equipment to a functioning state or sets it up to work for the period up to the next service so the controls you apply have to be appropriate.

The organization shall evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply product in accordance with the organization's requirements. So now having established the product is important you have to evaluate the supplier's ability to supply this product. Point 3

Now I have put all those 3 points together and rolled it up into "some evaluation of quality" for simplicity. QED

Now I gave one example about how evaluation can be relatively easy if you are specifying OEM parts. Then availability is probably paramount in being able to meet customers other service requirements (e.g. speed).

Paul,

Thanks for the extended explanation of your reasoning.

I think we should all hesitate to make strong recommendations without knowing all the facts. ("Not acceptable on its own. You must make some evaluation of quality.") And we don't really know them, not on the basis of Barbara's single post in this thread here.

I think there are at least two better recommendations.

First, I believe Barbara should continue on her current course and closely monitor her customer satisfaction and customer complaints. If those two inputs indicate a need for corrective action, then take corrective action to remove the cause of the problem.

After all, her method of selecting vendors is the same one that everybody else uses:
1) Find likely vendor
2) Order material for evaluation
3) If satisfactory, continue to use vendor; if not, disqualify vendor

The only difference is that Barbara uses actual customer orders. Where does ISO 9001 forbid this practice? Further, if Barbara's customer set tolerates this method of qualifying vendors, where is our standing to say it's wrong? Perhaps they are aware of Barbara's availability constraints and know that no other method will give better results.

Second, Barbara could investigate her current method of operation as a potential cause of nonconformities and make a preventive action if warranted.

"Quality" is the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfis requirements.

A characteristic is a distinguishing feature. As stated in ISO 9000:2005, a characteristic can be availability.

I believe that the original poster defined her specified purchase requirements, for her purchased product, in her orignal posting. Purchased product must conform to specified purchase requriements. Timing, availability, etc. all can have an effect on prodcut realization or the final product.

I disagree with Paul that there is some other definition for "specified purchase requirements" that must make some additional evaluation of quality. The requirements that the original poster stated may be limited and could be improved but I don't see how her requirements do not conform to 7.4.1.

Regards,

Dirk

Paul,

Thanks for the extended explanation of your reasoning.

I think we should all hesitate to make strong recommendations without knowing all the facts. ("Not acceptable on its own. You must make some evaluation of quality.") And we don't really know them, not on the basis of Barbara's single post in this thread here. I accept the point. Slightly spoilt by the fact you then go on to justify your position without any further information from the OP! :notme: In my first post I did qualify my statement - that there needs to be some quality evaluation - and gave an example of how it can be satisfied by saying that with many service organisations the use of OEM parts meets the requirement.

Perhaps Barb can come back on this one?

I think there are at least two better recommendations.

First, I believe Barbara should continue on her current course and closely monitor her customer satisfaction and customer complaints. If those two inputs indicate a need for corrective action, then take corrective action to remove the cause of the problem. You still haven't satisfied the requirement 7.4.1 in ISO 9001 (as per my previous post).

After all, her method of selecting vendors is the same one that everybody else uses:
1) Find likely vendor
2) Order material for evaluation
3) If satisfactory, continue to use vendor; if not, disqualify vendor

Not that everybody uses. As I keep saying there are many realistic ways of evaluating suppliers before you use them.

Most people do a bit more than you have identified. As an example, if I want to buy a car:


I look to see who supplies my type of car
If in the happy position of buying a new car I might select a franchise dealer
If I am buying second hand I may go by reputation or past experience
I may ask around

At the end of my small process I have now selected my vendor.

The only difference is that Barbara uses actual customer orders. Where does ISO 9001 forbid this practice?
Let's not confuse customer communications with selection of vendors. ISO forbids nothing, it states requirements. You have to look at the reqiuirement and what you do and see if what you do satisfies the requirements - full stop / period.
Further, if Barbara's customer set tolerates this method of qualifying vendors, where is our standing to say it's wrong? Perhaps they are aware of Barbara's availability constraints and know that no other method will give better results. Now you have stretched it again, Cliff. We don't have any information about what Barb's customers will or will not accept so to bring them in to the discussion just confuses things.

If Barb's organisation is ISO 9001 certified I, for one, will expect them to meet 7.4.1 and make sure the parts her organisation provides to service my machines meets the OEM requirements (for example). Otherwise would I accept that they have replaced my drive belt with a piece of string just because it was on hand. :lol:

Second, Barbara could investigate her current method of operation as a potential cause of nonconformities and make a preventive action if warranted. I can suggest one preventive action - get a supplier evaluation process in place and you might not have a major non-compliance raised against 7.4.1. ;)

"Quality" is the degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfis requirements. Can't argue with an ISO definition!

A characteristic is a distinguishing feature. As stated in ISO 9000:2005, a characteristic can be availability. Availability is one characteristic - it doesn't mean you can ignore all the other characteristics - like product quality.

I believe that the original poster defined her specified purchase requirements, for her purchased product, in her orignal posting. Purchased product must conform to specified purchase requriements. Timing, availability, etc. all can have an effect on prodcut realization or the final product. Agreed - to a point. Barb asked if it was acceptable to just select just on price and availability. For the reasons stated before (and here) I said no.

I disagree with Paul that there is some other definition for "specified purchase requirements" that must make some additional evaluation of quality. The requirements that the original poster stated may be limited and could be improved but I don't see how her requirements do not conform to 7.4.1.

Regards,

Dirk I have posted (based on requirements from ISO 9001) how I believe her organisation has to consider part quality. I am quite happy to listen to any argument that can show I've missed a trick.

Maybe a topic for another thread but if you extend this argument doesn't it take you to the: "Don't mind if it doesn't meet the specification - get it out the door" argument that I, for one, have spent my working life arguing against.

"Availability is one characteristic - it doesn't mean you can ignore all the other characteristics - like product quality."

Why not? Where does ISO 9001 require that specified purchase requirements for purchased product must include your definition of "product quality?" Couldn't the specified puchase requirements for an off the shelf bolt be price and availability? Who says I have to include references to all examples of characteristics as provided in 3.5.1 of ISO 9000:2005?

If I ordered 5,000 bolts at 50 cents each to be delivered in one week, and I received 5,000 at 50 cents each in one week, I have determined that the purcahsed product met my specified purchase requriements.

And so what if her method is the same as any other organiztions?

Please use ISO 9001 to support your statement that "product quality" must be one of the specified purchase requirements? And what exaclty is "product quality?"

Thank you,

Dirk

Barbara,

As you can see, we lack consensus on the need for a "quality evaluation" of your suppliers. Some of us, I among them, believe that your current practice is adequate to meet the requirements of the standard - that your suppliers need to be able to meet YOUR organization's requirements and that you have criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation.

I believe you stated adequate criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation in your original post.

Having said that, I also recommend that you examine the consequences of your current practice. Does it benefit the company as a whole to operate this way? Do you need to do this to gain business you would otherwise lose? Is the company making money with business of this type? Are the customers satisfied? If the answer to any of those questions is no, then you might consider making a change, because it will benefit the company.

"Availability is one characteristic - it doesn't mean you can ignore all the other characteristics - like product quality."

Why not? Where does ISO 9001 require that specified purchase requirements for purchased product must include your definition of "product quality?" Couldn't the specified puchase requirements for an off the shelf bolt be price and availability? Who says I have to include references to all examples of characteristics as provided in 3.5.1 of ISO 9000:2005?

If I ordered 5,000 bolts at 50 cents each to be delivered in one week, and I received 5,000 at 50 cents each in one week, I have determined that the purcahsed product met my specified purchase requriements.

And so what if her method is the same as any other organiztions?

Please use ISO 9001 to support your statement that "product quality" must be one of the specified purchase requirements? And what exaclty is "product quality?"

Thank you,

Dirk
Already done, Dirk. Here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=191969&postcount=11).

Barbara,

As you can see, we lack consensus on the need for a "quality evaluation" of your suppliers. Some of us, I among them, believe that your current practice is adequate to meet the requirements of the standard - that your suppliers need to be able to meet YOUR organization's requirements and that you have criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation.

I believe you stated adequate criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation in your original post.

As a 3rd party auditor I would not accept "availability" as being the basis for evaluation. Interested if there are any other 3rd party auditors with an opinion.

Just as an aside the IRCA accredited Lead Auditor training course that I deliver has a very similar audit scenario for delegates to assess and the "model answer" is that it is a major N/C.

A third party auditor has to justify nonconformities on the basis of the standard. If the authors of the standard wanted an evaluation based on "quality," why didn't they say so?

Your second post claims to make the leap between the wording of the standard and "quality." The only trouble is, it relies on an assumed set of facts, which I believe you, yourself, acknowledge by admitting, "I may be wrong..." The trouble is that there are numerous real-world situations that could invalidate your assumed facts.

Shaky ground on which to base a very strong recommendation, which you gave with these words, "You must make some evaluation of quality."

A third party auditor has to justify nonconformities on the basis of the standard. If the authors of the standard wanted an evaluation based on "quality," why didn't they say so? But they do. As I posted earlier it's not in a nice simple 1 line statement but it is there!

Your second post claims to make the leap between the wording of the standard and "quality." I think it clearly shows the requirements, you obviously don't.

The only trouble is, it relies on an assumed set of facts, which I believe you, yourself, acknowledge by admitting, "I may be wrong..." Careful with the selective quotation, Cliff. My full quote was:

Now I may be wrong but the way Barb portrayed her service organization the parts they buy will have a significant impact on whether their service does what the customer expects - i.e. returns the equipment to a functioning state or sets it up to work for the period up to the next service so the controls you apply have to be appropriate. So I am saying I might be wrong about the importance of purchased parts to the service Barb's company provides but am fairly sure I'm not. I have yet to come across any service organisation that doesn't rely on replacement part quality.

The trouble is that there are numerous real-world situations that could invalidate your assumed facts. I can't think of one - perhaps you can give us an example?

Shaky ground on which to base a very strong recommendation, which you gave with these words, "You must make some evaluation of quality." Because the standard requires it, for that reason I am happy with the ground I am standing on.

Paul,

You know, dumb old me still can't find the word "quality" in element 7.4.1. I also have a little trouble believing that TC 176 decided to play hide-and-seek with it.

You claim that my "selective quotation" misrepresents your explanation of how quality gets into 7.4.1. Your second step, the one about the importance of purchased parts, begins with a disclaimer, "I may be wrong..." And what if you are? Doesn't that cast doubt on your conclusion?

In your follow-up post you explain that you really meant to say that you may be wrong, but you're fairly sure you're right. I think in that single statement you have provided enough information for a reader to evaluate your interpretation of 7.4.1.

Would you bet your business on "I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I'm right?"

As to examples. Are you accusing me of making stuff up? You wouldn't do that, would you? I mean, after all, this business is far too serious for fiction. It would be bad form to make things up, wouldn't it?

Well, the first example is staring us right in the face, in Barbara's parent post, where she says the criteria are sometimes availability, location and price. But there are also the following situations...

In the United States, many electric utilities use SCADA (IEEE standard C37.1 1994) systems to monitor and control substations. A Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) is a device, part of the SCADA system, that resides in the substation. Some of the RTUs in use today are orphans, in the sense that the manufacturer no longer exists. Do the utilities want to replace these RTUs? Heck, no. Utilities want stuff in substations to last forever. As a result, there is a cottage industry that keeps these RTUs running. Parts, when needed, are available when and where they can be found and gratefully accepted, without assurance of function. At best the seller may say, "it was working when taken out of service. Good luck." The thing is, the buyer and seller are both aware of the possible condition of the part, so there's no misrepresentation. Do non-functioning parts make the buyers happy? They do not. But the buyers were aware of the circumstances when they bought the parts. There was informed consent. There was a meeting of the minds. There was a contract.

The same holds true for any service situation where the equipment is obsolescent and parts are scarce. A party has the part, and you take it on his terms. If he wants to palaver with you about quality, fine. If he hasn't the patience, you can buy the part somewhere else if you can find it.

A similar condition exists, though not a service situation, in electronics manufacturing. I have worked with a company that has not updated its designs and therefore uses many obsolescent parts. Often they must resort to parts brokers, and the only guarantee they get is that the markings on the chip match (more or less) the part number specified on the purchase order. The purchase criteria here is certainly only availability. The company has no choice but to accept the parts where found and as found, because the alternative is to build no product.

Paul,

You know, dumb old me still can't find the word "quality" in element 7.4.1. I also have a little trouble believing that TC 176 decided to play hide-and-seek with it. Sometimes playing dumb is not so smart! I have explained my reasoning, if you still can't see it then we can agree to disagree.

You claim that my "selective quotation" misrepresents your explanation of how quality gets into 7.4.1. Your second step, the one about the importance of purchased parts, begins with a disclaimer, "I may be wrong..." And what if you are? Doesn't that cast doubt on your conclusion? There you go again, misquoting. Marc has invested all this time and effort in getting the technology so Covers can repeat back words from the OP and you choose to ignore it.

Let me say it for the third (and final) time: When I said "I may be wrong..." it was in connection with how Barb's organization delivers its service. As a number of us on this thread have said - we need more information about how her organisation operates before we can offer a fully considered opinion.

In your follow-up post you explain that you really meant to say that you may be wrong, but you're fairly sure you're right. I think in that single statement you have provided enough information for a reader to evaluate your interpretation of 7.4.1.Misquote No. 2 in a single post - this has to be a record of recent times. Readers of this thread will, as ever, make up their own minds.

I only ever post my opinions based on my knowledge of (in this case) the standard. If you can find a flaw in the logic please point it out.

Would you bet your business on "I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I'm right?" I wouldn't bet my business on my knowledge of someone else's (Barb). I do, however, bet my business on understanding of ISO on pretty much a daily basis. Both the consultancy and certification work I do (separately, I can assure you) are based on credibility. If I tell a client they can have an ISO compliant system without evaluating their suppliers for quality that would be the start of a long slippery slope.

As to examples. Are you accusing me of making stuff up? You wouldn't do that, would you? I mean, after all, this business is far too serious for fiction. It would be bad form to make things up, wouldn't it?How do you get to making things up from:

I can't think of one - perhaps you can give us an example?

Even more strange when you then go on to give an example or two. :confused:


Well, the first example is staring us right in the face, in Barbara's parent post, where she says the criteria are sometimes availability, location and price. But there are also the following situations...
That to me is not a valid example. In my OP I said her organisation would have to do more than that, again without further information it is a pointless exercise.

In the United States, many electric utilities use SCADA (IEEE standard C37.1 1994) systems to monitor and control substations. A Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) is a device, part of the SCADA system, that resides in the substation. Some of the RTUs in use today are orphans, in the sense that the manufacturer no longer exists. Do the utilities want to replace these RTUs? Heck, no. Utilities want stuff in substations to last forever. As a result, there is a cottage industry that keeps these RTUs running. Parts, when needed, are available when and where they can be found and gratefully accepted, without assurance of function. At best the seller may say, "it was working when taken out of service. Good luck." The thing is, the buyer and seller are both aware of the possible condition of the part, so there's no misrepresentation. Do non-functioning parts make the buyers happy? They do not. But the buyers were aware of the circumstances when they bought the parts. There was informed consent. There was a meeting of the minds. There was a contract.
:applause: Thank you, thank you. An example!

I could see that working as you've described but would again hope that the buyer would be looking to see that OEM parts were used, for example.

The same holds true for any service situation where the equipment is obsolescent and parts are scarce. A party has the part, and you take it on his terms. If he wants to palaver with you about quality, fine. If he hasn't the patience, you can buy the part somewhere else if you can find it. OK. If this is the case then you could see the case for limited evaluation of suppliers.

A similar condition exists, though not a service situation, in electronics manufacturing. I have worked with a company that has not updated its designs and therefore uses many obsolescent parts. Often they must resort to parts brokers, and the only guarantee they get is that the markings on the chip match (more or less) the part number specified on the purchase order. The purchase criteria here is certainly only availability. The company has no choice but to accept the parts where found and as found, because the alternative is to build no product. Again you have described how the company evaluates its supplier.

It has the part available
The part is the original chip type

Both of these together are the evaluation of the supplier. No. 1 on its own is not enough IMHO. There may also be other criteria the buyer uses.

Hello Paul:

Try applying your reasoning to all types of organiztions world wide. Availability is a VERY important characteristic for purchased product (service) for organizations.

Keep in mind that "product" includes service(s).

You may want to get the defintion for "characterisitc, 3.5.1" re-worded becaue it does not support your position.

The link you provided to your previous posting does not answer my question.

Please provide us with your definition of "purchase product quality." Since you state that this must be verified and that price and availability are not characteristics to be verified. We should understand what your definiiton is. Give us the text of your definition so we can understand how it is applied to all characterisitcs to be verified.

Quality - degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfis requirements.

I would be even more interested to understand if behaviroal things like "courtesy, honesty and veracity" can be characteristics that fulfil requirements.

Regards,

Dirk

Thanks for your post, Dirk.
Hello Paul:

Try applying your reasoning to all types of organiztions world wide. Availability is a VERY important characteristic for purchased product (service) for organizations.I always do. In some circumstances the blend of controls I would expect to see for evaluation of suppliers would be very different from a company like Barb's. I will say that I would always expect some element of product quality in tandem with availability. Most service contracts have both elements.

Keep in mind that "product" includes service(s). Something about Grandma and sucking eggs .... I have been dealing with service organizations since around 1990 and "translating" ISO for those industries. Service organisations know what is important to them and their customers. The auditor's job is to look at what they are doing and assess whether their controls are suitable in meeting standard requirements.

I am sure if Barb ever comes back she will be able to show that her company is doing more than just availability and price.

You may want to get the defintion for "characterisitc, 3.5.1" re-worded becaue it does not support your position.I am happy with the ISO definition (again). The point is you have to make a qualitative assessment of how well the company is addressing any clause (such as 7.4.1) and if a service organisation (that I assume is using spare parts to provide its service) doesn't consider part quality in evaluating its suppliers then my assessment will be that they don't have a fully compliant QMS.

The link you provided to your previous posting does not answer my question. It does. If you follow the logic through from Point 1 through Points 2 and 3 then clause 7.4.1 says you have to buy product that conforms to requirements.

Nobody seems to have an argument against this logic, just with the result

Please provide us with your definition of "purchase product quality." Since you state that this must be verified and that price and availability are not characteristics to be verified. Is this the misquote thread all of a sudden?

This thread is all about evaluation of suppliers (clause 7.4.1). Full stop / period. I have not posted anything material relating to verification of this purchased product (clause 7.4.3).

We should understand what your definiiton is. Give us the text of your definition so we can understand how it is applied to all characterisitcs to be verified. It has all been posted earlier, again here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=191969&postcount=11). You have said my logic doesn't answer your question. I am not going to rewrite this in the vain hope that I will hit on a set of words that satisfies you and Cliff - life is too short.

I would be even more interested to understand if behaviroal things like "courtesy, honesty and veracity" can be characteristics that fulfil requirements.

Regards,

Dirk These notes from ISO 9000 don't really add anything to the debate. In some circumstances they might be extremely significant to the service provided. Not a debate I'm going to get into.