hi,
i just want to ask, about my supplier for tooling equipment,coolants, or anything that not effect the product quality or part.
i need to audit a big things like material supplier, sub contractor also the component. but for others, what have i to answer to the auditor i not audit them.

tq

Dear dear07,

The standard (ISO9001:2000) does not talk about auditing your supplier. If your procedure says so, then it be so to the extent specified therein.

I would like to draw your attention to the following statements in the standard from clause 7.4.1 Purchasing Process:

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 realisation or the final product'

2. 'Criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation shall be established'

How about "they also have a 3rd party certification to TS16949/ISO9001?"

hi,
i just want to ask, about my supplier for tooling equipment,coolants, or anything that not effect the product quality or part.
i need to audit a big things like material supplier, sub contractor also the component. but for others, what have i to answer to the auditor i not audit them.

tqWelcome to The Cove! :bigwave:

When you say coolant, are you referring to CNC machine tool coolant? If so, could this impact product if it was not made to spec or the wrong coolant was delivered? That is, might the cutting tool chatter if the coolant did not properly neutralize the temperatures the particular material is being cut at the speed it's being cut? What about the cutting bits? Is there any reason why the CNC chucks would not affect the quality of the part?

If the tooling or consumable material used for making your product can affect the product's fitness for use, then chances are good you need supplier control for something besides material.

As Randy said, third party registration often suffices, or at least cuts out a lot of the leg work. Your role is to understand what control methods are needed in order to comply with your customer requirements, standards that you register to, and your internal needs. If you suppliers' registration to TS16949 or whatever is enough, very good. If not, define what you need to do and then do it.

I hope this helps!

…one of the best way to justify whether to audit your suppliers or not is through “cost & effect” (not cause & effect)… we have similar problem before (with my previous company), regarding our bolts & nuts suppliers… we have 2 suppliers… Supplier A supplies more than 60% of the materials (common bolts & nuts), while Supplier B supplies special bolts & nuts (which in nature is more expensive than normal bolts & nuts) – so, the company is more focus on Supplier B… then when we adopted ISO9001, we started monitoring our incoming material rejection rate (including the in-process materials)… and with factual data, we realized that, although Supplier A supplies common bolts & nuts (which is cheaper) and constitutes of more than 60% of bolt & nuts requirements to assemble our product, they have greater impact on accumulative rejections compare with other materials… believe it or not, they constitute an overall of 30% of lost cost due to rejection!?!

…again, if you can somehow express everything in numerical values, it would be easy for your organization to make vital decision…

:2cents:

The standard (ISO9001:2000) does not talk about auditing your supplier. If your procedure says so, then it be so to the extent specified therein.

I would like to draw your attention to the following statements in the standard from clause 7.4.1 Purchasing Process:

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 realisation or the final product'

Atitheya gave exactly the answer I would give. Your organization determines what actions will be taken, and all suppliers don't need to be treated equally.

Dear dear07,

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 realisation or the final product'

Athitheya is absolutely true - typically in most organizations all suppliers are categorized in different categories to indicate the criticality of the supplies provided. An example is Class I, II, III or IV suppliers where Class I suppliers would be audited on an annual basis, Class II may be once in 2 years, and so on.

The supplies by Class IV suppliers may not be critical and may not be audited.

hi,
i just want to ask, about my supplier for tooling equipment,coolants, or anything that not effect the product quality or part.
i need to audit a big things like material supplier, sub contractor also the component. but for others, what have i to answer to the auditor i not audit them.

tq

Welcome Dear07,

Like Jennifer, I am not sure if you are right to assert that tooling equipment and coolants do not have any effect on the product quality or finished part. Without knowing what you do, I guess it does as in most machining cases.

With regards to the second part of your query, you have good answers from post #2 and #7. I would also like to add that past performance can be used as a guage. You need to pay more attention to the problematic ones compared to those that had not been giving you problems.

FWIW:
The primary distinction I made in suppliers was "off-the-shelf" (OTS) versus "custom made." I further divided OTS suppliers into "critical" and "non-critical."

ALL custom made suppliers got close scrutiny, including on-site audits by one or more of our employees or trusted agents hired for the purpose BEFORE entering into a contract. (It was NOT sufficient for our purposes that a custom supplier had a certificate of registration to any QMS Standard, but it might limit the scope of and certainly speed up the on-site audit, simply because of the availability of Quality Manuals and records maintained for the QMS Standard.)

ALL critical OTS suppliers were thoroughly investigated regarding capability, capacity, and reputation BEFORE entering into a contract. Sometimes (rarely), that included an on-site visit, but not a formal audit.

The limit of investigation of non critical OTS suppliers (and a part of EVERY investigation of a critical OTS supplier) was an inspection of samples of OTS products to determine whether they fit our requirements. Inspections often included functional testing as well as dimensional inspection and testing for physical and chemical properties.

We tracked ALL suppliers (OTS and custom) regarding nonconformance in product, delivery, responsiveness to inquiry, etc. and intervened when we thought it necessary or merely changed suppliers if the intervention would have been economically or psychologically untenable.

Obviously, some OTS purchases escaped any but the slightest scrutiny (stationery supplies, wiping rags, janitorial supplies) and others got much more scrutiny than might be expected (metal bar stock, cutting tool bits, cutting fluids, worker's gloves, and other protective clothing.)

Services like heat treating and chemical coating or plating were always considered "custom." We used custom-designed packaging materials for our products and ran them through an independent testing facility operated by UPS to determine suitability for use.

Athitheya is absolutely true - typically in most organizations all suppliers are categorized in different categories to indicate the criticality of the supplies provided. An example is Class I, II, III or IV suppliers where Class I suppliers would be audited on an annual basis, Class II may be once in 2 years, and so on.

The supplies by Class IV suppliers may not be critical and may not be audited.

Quoting to Ajit's post previously, can anybody share the best practice to classified which supplier would go into Class I, II, III and IV ? If possible, could you share the base criteria which your company develop for such classification.

* a generic criteria would be helpful, since it would not go for the ISO/TS 16949 issues.

Thank you.

BR,
Andrey

Yes, look at which suppliers are critical to your business : In my industry, they are ones that supply raw materials.

We have two levels - Level 1 are ones we regard as strategic or partner suppliers. These are ones that we regard as inovators and bring something to the table.

Level II are ones that could be second sources or ones that we regard as tactical suppliers. They may be tactical in that we don't actively source them due to quality, pricing or technology issues.

It is perfectly acceptable to have regular reviews with a supplier but not necessarily audit them. They key is to give them feedback with an objective scorecard. Strategic suppliers, you may want to have face2face meetings.

After reading all these replies, i like to add --
ISO-9001 does not tell anything about supplier development, but TS-16949 clearly specifies the supplier development, also gives the CRITERIA -
"the prioritization of suppliers for development depends upon, for example, the supplier's quality performance and the importance of the product supplied"

Your categorization of suppliers (A,B,C,D) may not meeting the TS requirements. For example, your categorization of A,B,C,D may be on the basis of cost, bulk etc. And you start with A-suppliers, but a few D-suppliers whose supplies quality is very important for your product quality, but you ignore them in your supplier development process, you know what the consequence..

Thanks

* a generic criteria would be helpful, since it would not go for the ISO/TS 16949 issues.

Thank you.

BR,
Andrey

Andrey,

The attached applies to these suppliers of: raw material, components, outside processors, calibration services, new capital and tooling suppliers.

Hope this gives you a starting point.

How about "they also have a 3rd party certification to TS16949/ISO9001?"
Since this thread is in the TS forum, Randy's comments need to be considered. TS has some pretty specific requirements. Although, based on the old FAQ, the term "Supplier" was also defined. Look at the requirements for TS on supplier development.

The Elsmar Cove has had many discussion on supplier development and clause 7.4.1.2 of TS 16949.

Consider searching the archives for discussions on supplier development requirements, definitions, sanctioned interpretations, etc.

http://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/docs/English%20NEW%20%20IATF%20TS%20SIs%20Non%20Table%20Version.pdf

Welcome Dear07,

Like Jennifer, I am not sure if you are right to assert that tooling equipment and coolants do not have any effect on the product quality or finished part. Without knowing what you do, I guess it does as in most machining cases.


What we found was that it was more important to control the coolant concentration which contributed more to quality and tool wear. We assigned a full time person to daily monitor and document the concentration levels of each CNC lathing operation. It not only made more consistent cuts, but also improved insert cutting tool life. Lack of this control caused some issues such as chips fused to the part.

I've just had exactly this conversation with our External Auditor. We use something like 400 suppliers but three of them account for nearly 92% of all our purchases (for raw materials). I wanted to reduce the amount of work we were doing with a stupidly complex monitoring system that I inherited when I took the job. He had no problem with my proposal and quoted exactly the same sections of the standard quoted above.

In my company supplier monitoring apply for all supplier, but for auditing we done for supplier for direct material which is in bad performance.


jhonie