Would anybody tell me what kind of subjects we may develop first with a supplier that is not very concerned by the OEM ?

We have identified our critical subcontractors. But we produce items for customers who make business with OEM. It has already been hard for us to follow all QS9000 requirements (like PPAP for example). So, we anticipate the answers of our suppliers if we ask them to built stuff like "control plan" or "FMEA" ?

Any comments ?

This is one of the big problems. My customers, Tier 1 or OEM do not conform to this clause in my respect and any attempts by me to receive help advice, training is generally rebuffed .
We are now in a situation wherby we are required to show our customers the warrant of our purchased parts.
I try to explain them the requirements and expect that they will give me a control plan , not neccesarily as I submit but as a collection of their work instructions, which is what the control plan really is. The enlightened suppliers realise that the requests by me are in the long run to their benefit.
It is a lot of work and if we do not do it we will get a non conformacy.
Ask for the simple stuff first .
Howard

Thanks for your comments Howard. We have requested us almost the same. Our purshasing manager have recently completed the annual subcontractor's evaluation. We sent in the same mailing some directives to explain to the critical subcontractors our needs related to the subcontractors development.

Basically, we ask for their control plans. We explained us the difference between a "control plan" and "an inspection and test plan" that we used to talk with ISO standards. Almost of our critical subcontractors are ISO 9002 registered or maybe more.

So, we simply explained us, as a first request, the added elements compared to ITP as: "reaction plan", "special characteristics, ...

In an effort to define our scope, I need to understand ISO/QS's definition of "Development."

Anyone seen the definition, or at least a distinction between Design and Development from ISO or QS?

Background information: my employer does not have design responsibility insofar as setting dimensional and chemical specs. We are, however, responsible for developing the processing steps that will result in the desired performance results. Does our responsibility classify as development rather than design?

Thanks in advance,
Steve.

Steve,
I had the same discussion (nicely put) with my Engineers in 96 as we were developing the APQP Level II and III's. They oh so wanted to include the DESIGN part of APQP. I explained that we do not (have never) owned a drawing, and do not have the authority to change it, but their arguement was that we "design" the process that makes the product. I agreed that we do in fact put together the process - Man, Materials, Machinery, etc. - to make the parts, but that is NOT what is meant by DESIGN. THAT is DEVELOPMENT. When I am asked about this, my simple answer is always "Who's name is on the Request for Quote?" Having a Request for Quote is actually the answer.

Steve-

geez Steve i really don't think there is a difference. Design responsible is defined as if a supplier (your company) has the authority to establish a new, or change an existing product specification for any product shipped to a customer. Customer approval of a design responsible suppliers product does not waive the supplier's design responsible status. Ask your customer's SQE for clarification.

At our company we develop a certain design, but our customer wants design responsibility. We still have to document everything required in section 4.4 eventhough we are not design responsible.

What your customer is doing is analogus to hiring a subcontractor to develop a product. The customer "owns" the design your are the subcontractor hired to do it.

A recent external auditor defined "development" and the wording of 4.6.2.1 so literally that even a subcontractor's QS-9000 registration wouldn't mean that we could stop with their development (ie: continuous improvement). We currently tier our suppliers regarding development activities, do surveys and annual performance apprasials/awards. How much is enough? Certainly you can't force a large supply base into compliance when some of the big ones don't care about automotive or our business.

I've seen a range of supplier development from a survey every year to the extremem of haviong someone at a supplier's facility every day. In my opinion, what you are doing is sufficient.

I agree with Marc. As a matter of fact, when was the last time any of the Big 3 conducted "Supplier Development" activities at your facility besides dictating the QS-9000 certification requirement (excluding Q1 Suspension or Level 2 Containment, of course)? Besides, having the Big 3 live inside your facility every day because of problems hardly constitute it as "supplier development."

In responce to what Mark has seen used to comply with subcontractor development,
I would like to know how sending a self survey can be considered Subcontractor Development. Having had to fill these assessments out and reviewing a large quanity of them, I have been hard pressed to find any value in them.

I have spoken to a lot of my customers as to help with development of our systems. Some have said " you know as much as me"
Others give lectures on APQP from a timetable point of view and others try to be more helpfull.
We had a Picos workshop with Delphi a few years ago which was based on reducing set up time and this was helpful. I have suggested to customers that they organise supplier conferences but to no avail.
The smaller that you are IMHO the more the auditors check you.

We are the OEM electronic assembly manufacturer in Hong Kong. Our sister company is located in Thailand and try to certify to QS9000:1998. As the Hong Kong plant is responsible for all material supplies, we have to react the purchasing activities for Thailand, and for QS9000. However, we failed QS9000 in section requirement 4.6.2.1 as we have no plan (we don't know how to plan) to develop the subcontractors. Most of the subcontractors are defined by our customers, and some of them are very small in size. Although we have the regularly subcontractors survey, we know that most of our subcontractors cannot be fulfilled to complie the 4.6.2.1 (Section I of QS9000) Can anyone give me some advice? Thanks a lot.
E-mail: andy_cheung@dg2.ims-us.com

Supplier development is another dark hole. I would baseline your suppliers and then ask for a plan for them to eventually be QS9000 compliant. It can be a 5 year plan. Then yearly, ask for a summary of progress and a revised plan. You might want to 'develop' them to ISO900x first (which QS is, as we know, based upon) with an eye to QS in the future (and we know QS is dead in another 4 years or so).

To be honest I have yet to see supplier development as a big problem during a registration audit.

I will say that in my opinion the requirement to develop suppliers to QS9000 is silly, especially the small 'Mom & Pop' companies.

How about some of you other folks? How have you handled supplier development for QS9000?

In my previous life as Supplier Development Manager at a Tier 1 automotive sensors supplier company, we conducted several "Supplier Day" where we invited our suppliers to visit our facility for 2 days to tour the plant, and conducted fundamental training sessions on quality topics, i.e., PPAP, APQP, 8D, etc., manufacturing topics, i.e., JIT, Kanban, etc., and engineering topics, i.e., how does our product work in a car. We even had our Marketing VP give a presentation of our market presence and who our competitors are (they had to sign a nondisclosure agreement before entering the plant).

Overall it was successful with the bigger suppliers, but the "Ma and Pa" shops, they were hit or miss.

Good example. I've been to a few meetings like that. They can be very effective.

Significant problems often arise when we start looking at smaller companies. Anyone with examples for smaller companies?

NOTE: I would still like to hear examples from larger companies - I'm not trying to focus on smaller companies, but rather to solicit examples from all sides.

Some of my comments can be seen here The meaning of APQP (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000047.html)
As a smallish supplier I have helped at least 2 of my suppliers to achieve QS registration. They know that they can ask me questions and get replies usually more relevant than from most advisors (no offence meant)
The best way I think of showing supplier development is by demanding PPAP from your suppliers. This is evidence of supplier development.
Make supplier guidelines as the larger companies, this also gives proof of your attempt to develop suppliers.
All meetings with suppliers should be documented and tell the purchasing dept. that at each meeting there should be a presence for some of the time of a quality person.
Data on non conformancies can also be used with your evalution system, these are all ideas to show "evidence" of supplier development.
We are also planning a supplier day for us to explain the philosophy behind our requests.

I hope this helps.

Supplier Development......

Well we did the usual thing sent out a survey asking for information about the supplier. We also developed a "Supplier Quality Assurance Manual".

Once we recieved back the survey from the suppliers we made contact and asked if any of then required assistance. The majority indicated they did. We managed to sqeeze out of this clause by contacting a consulting firm and having them provide a development service to our suppliers. since this plan was started we have all ISO9000 certified supplier and a handful are QS9000.

Whilst we may not have met the intent of the clause we had meet the needs of the auditing body.

We managed to sqeeze out of this clause by contacting a consulting firm and having them provide a development service to our suppliers. since this plan was started we have all ISO9000 certified supplier and a handful are QS9000.Novel idea! I'm impressed!

UNDER SECTION 4.6.2.1 WE ARE REQUIRED TO CARRY OUT SUPPLIER DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE STARTED A PROGRAM OF 2ND PARTY AUDITS AS SOME OF OUR SUPPLIERS HAVE NO QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND SOME HAVE ISO9000. ONCE THE AUDIT RESULTS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OUT WE ASSIGN THE SUPPLIER A SCORE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF NON CONFORMANCES FOUND AND WEATHER THEY ARE MAJOR OR MINOR. WE CAN THEN SEE FROM ONE AUDIT TO THE NEXT IF THE SUPPLIERS QUALITY SYSTEM HAS IMPROVED OR NOT.
IS THIS SUPPLIER DEVELOPMENT.

ANY COMMENTS OR IDEAS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

Is this supplier development? Hmm.What happens if scores don't improve - Strike them off your supplier list? Is your assessor satisfied you've met the criteria? If so stay with it. I'll expect you'll be asked searching questions about what happens over poor scores. You may end up designing some woefully impartial scoring document that looks wonderful but is totally meaningless in the real world(like most rating systems out there).

As a small finishing company whoose suppliers are big chemical concerns 4.6.2.1 could be problamatical (using qs 9000 as the fundemental development tool bit). I did not have the resources (or desire) to start assessing to QS-9000. I took the view that improvements are more likely to be self-sustaining if identified in house and so designed a self-assessment questionnaire based around QS-9000. (Basically just turned the requirements into statements)and asked our suppliers to identify if they 'met' or 'partially met' the statement or if a 'significant gap' existed .The latter two would be an 'opportunity for improvement'which they could document and forward for me to provide evidence of supplier development based around QS-9000.
Our assessor is unpreterbed at the lack of approved supplier lists and second party audits.

Are we developing our suppliers? Probably not. Supplier development requires more than a few lines in a quality system. If I had a customer come here and tell me he was going to develop me because his quality system required it I'd tell him to 'go away'.

[This message has been edited by Paul Morrow (edited 22 June 2000).]

I've seen this often "disguised" as "Partnerships". Result is customer inputs "this is what we expect of you" Supplier input is "ok if thats what you want".

You might want to take a peek at:
Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000098.html (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000098.html)
and Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000108.html (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000108.html)
and Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000234.html (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000234.html)
and Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000248.html (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000248.html)
and Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000282.html (http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000282.html)

I am writing now the diploma work, which will be devoted to quality system development and implementation under ISO 9000:2000. Please, tell me, what should include the plan of quality system development and implementation and which sequence of activities should an organization follow ? Unfortunately, I have no books in ones I could get answers to my questions. This Forum is more concrete and have been helping many. Thank you in advance for help.

This is a cross post. See http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000192.html

How does 4.6.2.1 apply to my company?
Since we are II tier supplier or subcontractor, as defined by the standard, and QS registered I am not really sure if we are required to comply with this element.

I assume since you are already QS-9000 that you have a system in place. 4.6.2.1 is a requirement and needs to be addressed.

Just as a good business practice, wouldn't you want to develop and improve your supplier base?

Don't think of it as a cost, think of it as a potential cost savings!

ASD...

I agree with Al.
IMHO the real point of supplier development is to get your supplier to understand the industry you are working in. The demands of your customer for targets of 0 PPM are not understood down the tiers and you need them to understand the problems of non conformaties for you and your customers. They need this support to build a system that helps them to help you. The importance that you know about being proactive must be transfered to them.
My big beef is that the OEM's and the big tier 1's do not spend enough time on supplier development but just wield the big stick.


------------------
Howard Atkins

As you know, in QS9000 3rd edition interpretations, it requires "subcontractors to achieve compliance within a defined period of time not to exceed 18 months ...".

My question is: what is the meaning of "subcontractor"? for directly raw material supplier only ? who can give me a category?

Thanks in advance!

Allen

------------------
Allen Lee

subcontractor for raw material supplier :
is a :
raw material manufacturer
raw material processor

Thanks!
By definition (page 133 of the Standard, definition of SubContractor) a subcontractor is "defined as providers of production materials, or production or service parts, directly to a supplier to Chrysler, Ford, General Motors or other customers subscribing to this document."
And we have direct raw material subcontractors just like Lead frame, gold wire, epoxy, compound..., sub material subcontractors: wafer mount tape, alcohol,packing box..., also have the tooling subcontractor as die saw blade, wire bond capilliary, trim/form die ...

All of them need get the minimum ISO9000 certificate?

Rgds!

Allen


------------------
Allen Lee

This could also mean any component as well as raw material.
Mooser

The key words are "production materials" and "production parts.

Raw material supplier = yes
Tooling supplier = yes
Gage suppliers = yes
Packaging suppliers = yes
Staples = no
Local harware store = no

I guess a hazy idea is how do you differentiate a sub-contactor that has direct affect on the product and a sub-contractor that does not.

Just as an example:

Marc has posted a few comments that says he requires that he be on the approved supplier/sub-contractor list.

Does this mean he has to be ISO certified by whatever date has been given?

I really don't think so, since Marc has no direct applications to the end product.

Sorry Marc, your view ha been posted by others but you are the only one I can remember as a refference point.

I guess in the end my belief is that QS is now close to defunct and that the new TS will be the wave of the future.

Sorry for pontificating (almost)!

ASD...

C9 Supplier Development (4.6.2.1)

After going through the latest sanctioned interpretations (July1, 2001), we feel that the purpose of the Sanctioned Interpretations is not for clarifying things, but for confusing the whole matter.

In the title, it is mentioned as ‘Supplier development’. But, in the paragraph under this title it is talking about subcontractors. It looks like the IASG has forgotten the definitions of supplier and subcontractors given in QS-9000 quality system requirements.

Question 1: We being a QS-9000 supplier, Is it necessary for our subcontractors (2nd tier suppliers onwards) to be ISO 9000 certified within 18 months from 07/01/01? or Does IASG mean to say that the supplier (1st tier suppliers) need to be ISO 9000 certified within 18 months from 07/01/01

Question 2: Has IASG changed the title of 4.6.2.1 “Subcontractor development” to “Supplier development”?
It is said by IASG that “Sanctioned Interpretations” are for clarification and interpretation, not for revision on QS-9000:1998. Hence we can presume that you have not amended the title 4.6.2.1. Then kindly clarify that what were in IASGs mind when they referred “Supplier development” instead of “Subcontractor development” in the Sanctioned interpretations (July1, 2001)?

Question 3: “ Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1” If we feel that this sentence is contradicting the first and second sentences of C9, the IASG has to accept the responsibility in not providing clear-cut instructions. Kindly give your valued comments on this

Roney/Jayen

Dear Roney /Jayen

I am agree completely with roney's /Jayen's statements regarding the clarity of interpretations.

I personnaly feel that this is the time IASG has to release the interpretations for the "Sanctioned interpretations."
Entertaining valuable comments.

Here is my take. The "rub" will be how the individual auditor interprets "subcontractor". I have seen some that require any vendor that can impact the QMS to fit the definition. In that case, just about everyone you purchase from will have to become registered (including you, Marc). Hmmmmm, What does 16949 say about this?

-> including you, Marc

Naw. They'll GrandFather me - because I am one!

QS-9000 defines subcontractors as providers of production materials or production or service parts as well as heat treat etc. The "directly to" statement includes anyone else who subscribes to QS-9000 which is how the chain stretches so deep.
We are preparing for our full production supply base to be included. I see no way to intrepet "any vendor that can impact the QMS" and would certainly challenge an auditor who wanted to go there, so at least you are safe fo a while here Marc.

Dave

Lets see if I can help you see it this way.

<<Question 1: We being a QS-9000 supplier, Is it necessary for our subcontractors (2nd tier suppliers onwards) to be ISO 9000 certified within 18 months from 07/01/01? or Does IASG mean to say that the supplier (1st tier suppliers) need to be ISO 9000 certified within 18 months from 07/01/01>>

Yes, all subcontractors who supply production materials or production or service parts (and heat treat etc.) have 18 months to comply.

<<Question 2: Has IASG changed the title of 4.6.2.1 “Subcontractor development” to “Supplier development”? >>

No they haven't. 4.6.2.1 which is titled "Subcontractor Development" starts out with the requirement "the supplier shall perform subcontractor ... development". The title in the IASG interpretations is titled "Supplier Development" because it addresses the supplier's (you) activity in developing the subcontractors.

<<Question 3: “ Assessment by an OEM or an OEM approved second party will be recognized as meeting subcontractor compliance requirements to 4.6.2.1” If we feel that this sentence is contradicting the first and second sentences of C9, the IASG has to accept the responsibility in not providing clear-cut instructions. >>

This sentence simply restates the implementation options which have always been part of QS-9000 (see Appendix A page 80 - Alternative method for verifying supplier conformance) and should clear up any question of this being acceptable in meeting this requirement.

The whole purpose of the interpretation was to set a reasonable date for the word "goal" in the original requirement. Just as the old "timely" had to be interpreted as "days, not weeks", there had to be some sort of closure or it would be stretched and misused forever.

This is of course only my opinion and you are certainly welcome to joust with any windmill you like.

Dave

Related threads:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=451

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=495

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4813

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=478

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4813

Poll Threads:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5800

and

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4694

For example, if I have a software business with only 5 suppliers:
Huge Brand Name X CD supplier,
Huge Brand Name Y Label supplier,
Small mfg of a CD duplication machine,
Small printer of manuals,
Small maker of cardboard boxes (to put everything in when I'm done).

I hope that my auditor doesn't expect me to "develop" companies X and Y, since they are about a million times my size. The duplication machine is a one off purchase and I have validated that it processes my design properly, so where is the value to me or my customer for their "development". However, there is plenty of value in developing the manual printer and box maker since they can (and will) impact my end product. Are most assessors this reasonable?
-John Humphries

Yes, we deal with US Steel, Alcoa, etc. They understand. Here is the response I got from our Registrar when I asked the same question.
As far as the requirements go, I feel you can interpret them reasonably and practically. Your first task is to ensure that all your suppliers are aware of the new requirement (communication).
After that, do what is practical within the spirit of the requirement.
You should never have to assume costs on behalf of your suppliers. Take care.
Regards

We are QS9000, do our suppliers have to be ISO 9001 certified/registered to comply with QS9000, or is auditing them enough?

We are QS9000, do our suppliers have to be ISO 9001 certified/registered to comply with QS9000, or is auditing them enough?

According to C-9, your subcontractors have to be either:

a) registered to the current version of ISO 9001
b) pass an assessment to QS-9000, Section 1 by the OEM custoemr, an OEM customer-approved, second party, or an accreditied third party certification body/registrar by December 31, 2002.

Now, I have several registrars that are saying the B3 are telling them to allow "waivers" from the OEM customer, but that is not an option of the Sanctioned Interpretation.

Of course the OEMs violating their own rules does not mean you can violate them.

Any contemporary comments - opinions?