I am in the process of reviewing our procedure for vendor/supplier approval. Should the term "Supplier" or "Vendor" be used? Or, does it not matter as both have the same meaning. :confused:

I am in the process of reviewing our procedure for vendor/supplier approval. Should the term "Supplier" or "Vendor" be used? Or, does it not matter as both have the same meaning. :confused:

It doesn't matter, so long as everyone understands the meaning of whichever word you use, which is usually evident in the context. See here (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=16237) for another discussion on the topic.

:thanks:

The standard usues the term supplier rather than vendor, but either one is really fine. Just be sure you are satisfying the shall statements and if your procedures already refer to vendor rather than supplier, you may want to make that reference. No biggie either way.

I am in the process of reviewing our procedure for vendor/supplier approval. Should the term "Supplier" or "Vendor" be used? Or, does it not matter as both have the same meaning. :confused:

Hello Jan,

Because the word "supplier" is used in most standards and professional literature, that's what I personally prefer.
When I hear the word "vendor", I smell Hot Dogs....:D (Can't help it.)

Happy New Year!

Stijloor.

Thanks Stijloor, I agree, when I hear the word vendor, I do think of the same! That answers my question: Supplier it is!
Happy New Year!!!

Hello Jan,

When I hear the word "vendor", I smell Hot Dogs....:D (Can't help it.)

Happy New Year!

Stijloor.

I would like to see your AVL...:lmao:

I would like to see your AVL...:lmao:

What's an AVL?

What's an AVL?

Approved Vendor List

Technically, either would suffice. However, as some have pointed out language can have an effect on our thoughts.

I think of suppliers as partners. I think of vendors as something you kick/shake when you put coins into them and don't get what you want.

Which of these more accurately reflects how your organization thinks of the folks you purchase from?

Technically, either would suffice. However, as some have pointed out language can have an effect on our thoughts.

I think of suppliers as partners. I think of vendors as something you kick/shake when you put coins into them and don't get what you want.

Which of these more accurately reflects how your organization thinks of the folks you purchase from?

Duke,

You make an excellent point! So true. In that context, suppliers are often treated like "vendors." A certain industry, that we're all too familiar with is a prime example.... :(

Another "terminology" example pertains to organizations that call their workers "associates", "partners", "colleagues", "team members", etc., that find themselves kicked out the door when times (supposedly) are bad.

Stijloor.

Another "terminology" example pertains to organizations that call their workers "associates", "partners", "colleagues", "team members", etc., that find themselves kicked out the door when times (supposedly) are bad.
Stijloor.

Yes, good example. Although the language/terminology differences may be minor one never knows what the impacts will be.

In a similar vein I like to think of a boss as introducing one of his/her employees to someone else, and has the choice of saying either of the following:

"This is Duke, he works for me." or "This is Duke, he works with me."

I always ask what the difference in perceptions might be of both the employee and the person who s/he is being introduced to. Subtle, but could be very significant.