Hi All -

I have just revised our Purchasing Procedure in response to the minor nc we rec'd during our 9k2k registration. Specifically the supplier selection, evaluation and re-evaluation portion. I'd really like to know what you guys think and maybe point out any gaps I may have overlooked - you know, db's "fresh eyes".

Besides the content - all you grammar and spelling mavens have at it too.

I was going to go into a lot of detailed explanation about our company right now, but I changed my mind. I shall await your specific questions.

Thanks in advance!

Hi All -

I have just revised our Purchasing Procedure in response to the minor nc we rec'd during our 9k2k registration. Specifically the supplier selection, evaluation and re-evaluation portion. I'd really like to know what you guys think and maybe point out any gaps I may have overlooked - you know, db's "fresh eyes".

Besides the content - all you grammar and spelling mavens have at it too.

I was going to go into a lot of detailed explanation about our company right now, but I changed my mind. I shall await your specific questions.

Thanks in advance!


Just one comment/question:

In section 3.5.3c it states that the PA cannot procure more than 5 orders from a new (yet to be approved) vendor. Then again in 3.5.4B is a similar statement limiting it to 10 orders for new subcontractors. Is there a limit on order size/quantity?

In a previous life :) we sometimes purchased in one order enough for an entire year (or even enough to support an entire contract).

Cari Spears,

Tracing your Purpose and Scope for ... product meets requirements ... Vendor POs (3.2.3 & 3.2.4), Subcontrqactor POs (3.3.1 B & C) and Outsourcing POs (3.3.2 B & C) states that the load or vendor shipper is verified against the shipper and then the enitre order is received, verified & invoiced. Which would lead me to believe that is the only verification activity. But then in 3.5.3 D (Supplier Control) you state that the product verification and delivery requirements are determined on a per order basis. Not seeing the process, I do not know how these procedural requirements satisfy the purpose and scope.

As for the Purpose and Scope ...instruction for selecting and evaluating suppliers..., I wonder about the 'outstanding qualifications' (see 3.5.1) being noted in the remarks column of the ASL. I see the focus in making sure that vendors are capable of meeting contractual requirements (3.5.3 C) and subcontractors the same (3.5.4 B), but I do not feel that the instruction is clear(JMPO).

Doug

Just one comment/question:

In section 3.5.3c it states that the PA cannot procure more than 5 orders from a new (yet to be approved) vendor. Then again in 3.5.4B is a similar statement limiting it to 10 orders for new subcontractors. Is there a limit on order size/quantity?

In a previous life :) we sometimes purchased in one order enough for an entire year (or even enough to support an entire contract).

Thanks for having a look. :agree:

No limit on order sizes/qtys. We make or repair machine details (ballscrews, acme lead screws, spindles, etc.) and specialty tool holding devices (licensed Komet distributor).

When we are repairing an item or remanufacturing an unreparable item, the order is only for one piece - unless they decide to buy two in order to have a spare, which is not uncommon for some critical items. The repair/remanufacture portion of our business hovers right around 50%.

As far as OEM orders - those quantities are pretty low volume too. As low as 1, 5 or 10pcs. 150-200pcs is a large order for us. Example: one of our larger accounts is a provider of machining centers (just one of their commodities) to Ford. If Ford orders 10 of them, then our customer subcontracts to us 10 ballscrews.

We do receive the occasional blanket order for say 1,200 pcs and release 100 pcs per month - but that is not the norm.

Tracing your Purpose and Scope for ... product meets requirements ... Vendor POs (3.2.3 & 3.2.4), Subcontrqactor POs (3.3.1 B & C) and Outsourcing POs (3.3.2 B & C) states that the load or vendor shipper is verified against the shipper and then the enitre order is received, verified & invoiced. Which would lead me to believe that is the only verification activity. But then in 3.5.3 D (Supplier Control) you state that the product verification and delivery requirements are determined on a per order basis. Not seeing the process, I do not know how these procedural requirements satisfy the purpose and scope.

As for the Purpose and Scope ...instruction for selecting and evaluating suppliers..., I wonder about the 'outstanding qualifications' (see 3.5.1) being noted in the remarks column of the ASL. I see the focus in making sure that vendors are capable of meeting contractual requirements (3.5.3 C) and subcontractors the same (3.5.4 B), but I do not feel that the instruction is clear(JMPO).

Thank you for YPO :) I see what you mean. In 3.2 and 3.3, I'm just describing the verification of the "load" by the person receiving the shipment. Correct product, correct quantity.

That's where it stops for vendors (J&L Industrial Supply for example). The "product verification" described in 3.5.3 D is really just material certs for raw material or certificates of traceability for a new measuring instrument - that kind of thing.

For subcontractors and "product verification" see 3.5.4 C, E, & F. I have to admit, I struggled with trying to explain it clearly. Our products are all unique, 10 items might be ballscrews, but they're all different from each other.

Oops - forgot about the "outstanding qualifications" part.

Here's an example - we use a few plating sources, however we prefer Selfridge Plating for copper plating and stripping because we have a blanket quote set up with them for great pricing and delivery. We prefer Jo-Mar for chrome plating for a number of reasons, however part size or timing issues sometimes dictate that we send it to Selfridge.

Also - the Approved Supplier List denotes "Customer (name) specified for..." or "NADCAP Certificate #123" and other such notes in the remarks column that might affect their selection for use on a particular job.

I don't include revision history on my individual procedures and also I do not list reference documents. I know those 2 things are just a matter preference but I like to keep my procedures as clean as possible. I list the revision levels of all procedures on a separate matrix which can include a brief description of the change. I figure since I am doing it that way it would be overkill to do it on both.
Other that that it looks like a very thorough procedure that anyone would be proud of ;)

G.

I don't include revision history on my individual procedures and also I do not list reference documents. I know those 2 things are just a matter preference but I like to keep my procedures as clean as possible. I list the revision levels of all procedures on a separate matrix which can include a brief description of the change.

You know - I've been considering eliminating the reference documents section from our procedure outlines too. You have a matrix that lists revision levels - this is what our Master Document List does as well, and it serves as our "Table of Contents" for the two hardcopy QMS Binders we maintain.

I'm not sure about the revision history - we could just "across the board" keep an electronic historical reference copy. Our Document Administrator already has a secure folder set up for historical reference documents that we decided to maintain - maybe we could keep two revisions back or something. There's not too much revising going on around here, that would be very manageable.

Thanks for giving me some food for thought!

For rev. history I guess I'm -- well, you know. I like to add a very short, succinct note as to why the doc. was revised on the new revision as it takes so little time and comes in handy at times. I also like to keep a full copy of the old rev. -- an electronic copy is so cheap and easy to keep these days, and I find this is helpful at times as well. Is all this necessary? Nah, but it is so easy I find it worth the small effort. Just a personal preference.

For rev. history I guess I'm -- well, you know. I like to add a very short, succinct note as to why the doc. was revised on the new revision as it takes so little time and comes in handy at times. I also like to keep a full copy of the old rev. -- an electronic copy is so cheap and easy to keep these days, and I find this is helpful at times as well. Is all this necessary? Nah, but it is so easy I find it worth the small effort. Just a personal preference.

Yeah - the revision history section does not take too much room on the paper, this is what we currently do. We don't keep an electronic historical reference copy unless the revision is too complex/extensive to describe "succinctly" or if a document has been removed/deleted from the system. Like when I first started here, I tossed most of what they had paid a document writing company to write for them and completely rewrote it.

BTW - your comment in your email regarding the level of detail is well taken. This one is very detailed because of some issues around here. For example: The owner feels it is necessary to describe the PO numbering because of how $$ are entered into our job end reports and because of a supplier coding system we use in the payables software for monthly spending breakdowns.

you know, db's "fresh eyes".

Well, if you're going to involve me, I better comment. Although I'm not sure you can tie "fresh eyes" to me. With me, "tired eyes" might be more appropriate. :eek:

The biggest comment I could make has already been commented on. Whew! What a document! That is an awful lot of information. At that level of detail, it might be served better by breaking it into two, or three separate procedures.
I don't like to see too many words in procedures. The more words, the less it will actually be read. Folks will have a tendency to just "scan" the document and perhaps miss something.

Just my opinion, of course.

...I don't like to see too many words in procedures. The more words, the less it will actually be read. Folks will have a tendency to just "scan" the document and perhaps miss something...

Oh, I agree 100%! Actually, I deleted a 4 page Supplier Control Procedure (written by the aforementioned document company) and just added section 3.5 to the Purchasing Procedure.

I've explained why I had to go into detail about the PO numbering, as for the rest:

I did not feel it was necessary to describe "verifying the load" (not to be confused with "verification of product") or about the white and yellow copies of the PO/Shipper, but because of some past issues in receiving, it was insisted on. I've considered creating a work instruction for receiving and taking it out of the Purchasing Procedure...

Kind of the same deal for the "Other Authorized Purchases". This company has evolved from a very small shop where the guys all dealt with sales reps and did their own ordering of supplies. Some of the guys who have been around 10-20 years are still trying to do this and they've had some problems with things being double ordered, etc. so they decided to specifiy who was authorized to purchase what.

Thanks for your input. :agree:

Cari,

Sounds like you thought it out and did what you needed to do.

I'm not sure it would apply to your procedure here, but in some instances where the audience for a certain WI/procedure might be wide and varied, with some folks needing very few details and others needing more detail, I have been known to incorporate both a less-detailed flowchart and a more-detailed text description in the same WI or procedure. The document user can choose the level of detail he/she wants. Just another of many possible options. :bigwave:

...in some instances where the audience for a certain WI/procedure might be wide and varied, with some folks needing very few details and others needing more detail, I have been known to incorporate both a less-detailed flowchart and a more-detailed text description in the same WI or procedure. The document user can choose the level of detail he/she wants...

Actually - I think that is exactly what I should do with this one. I could break off all of the references to Shipping and Receiving into it's own WI in a flowchart format that can hang in our S&R area. That would shorten the procedure considerably in Sections 3.2 & 3.3

Then the only portion that applies to every employee would be Section 3.1 that describes the methods of initiating the purchasing process and describes the required inputs for purchase requisitions. After that, the rest is for the expeditors and me.

I'd have a problem eliminating any of Section 3.5 Supplier Control. We do not keep any metrics on suppliers, we do not send out a survey(gag) once a year, nor do we send out performance evaluations. We keep track of everything in our logs, supplier files, Approved Supplier List and non-conforming product log. We basically get all subcontracted operations quoted while we are quoting the job to our customer. Subcontractors are selected on a job to job basis. Some of our suppliers only see one or two orders a year from us - I can't get into any "blanket" requirements/criteria as the volume, complexity and delivery requirements are different for every job. This is the main reason I struggled with how to describe our process for selection, evaluation and especially re-evaluation.

:magic: What BS Standard or any standard? uses Supplier Performance = 0.6 x Quality Rating + 0.4 x Delivery Rating = Performance Rating

Deleted by request of original poster who has written:
I make apologies to the folks I have unintentionally insulted. I wish you to help me make these apologies in public , but I want to make them.
More importantly, I wish to repair any damage or feelings I have hurt.
Less important I have received plaudits & pats on the back, which I have recieved after putting a "New Vendor Rating System" into operation successfully. I wish to thank the people in your Forum for the help.

Looking back this would not have been without the help.But frustration at lack of progress on my own part, did lead to a bit of intemperance. Which may I say once again I sincerely apologise to those people who were really trying to help me.
-Wes Bucey Moderator

AL

Instead of wiping out a duplicate did it not occur to you that I need some help?


Your not waving your majic wand buddy

:magic:
Wow - that was rude. Any moderator who sees a duplicate post would delete one. Did it occur to you that Al does not know the answer?

Wow - that was rude. Any moderator who sees a duplicate post would delete one. Did it occur to you that Al does not know the answer?


Cari, I don't think it was rude much worse than that. That is why we have a search feature to see if there are duplicate or already responded to threads. Other than that, I think the procedure is well done.


Coury Ferguson

AL

Instead of wiping out a duplicate did it not occur to you that I need some help?


Your not waving your majic wand buddy
George, there is no point in duplicate posting, especially in the same thread. I didn't delete that post, but I believed there was no point in a posting the same question in the same thread.

Wow - that was rude. Any moderator who sees a duplicate post would delete one. Did it occur to you that Al does not know the answer?Actually I answered the question in this thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=145702#post145702) where George also posted it.

Deleted by request of original poster who has written:
I make apologies to the folks I have unintentionally insulted. I wish you to help me make these apologies in public , but I want to make them.
More importantly, I wish to repair any damage or feelings I have hurt.
Less important I have received plaudits & pats on the back, which I have recieved after putting a "New Vendor Rating System" into operation successfully. I wish to thank the people in your Forum for the help.

Looking back this would not have been without the help.But frustration at lack of progress on my own part, did lead to a bit of intemperance. Which may I say once again I sincerely apologise to those people who were really trying to help me.
-Wes Bucey Moderator

:magic: What BS Standard or any standard? uses Supplier Performance = 0.6 x Quality Rating + 0.4 x Delivery Rating = Performance Rating
To echo Al, there is no standard that I know of that specifies how to rate a supplier.

Please refer to the other thread you posted in: 7.4.1. Supplier selection, evaluation and re-evaluation (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9453)

The shortest distance between 2 pionts is a straight line not a circle that is all this website seems to do is go around in circles.

That is a silly comment. But, it is why we delete duplicate posts. When someone posts the same question in various threads it makes it difficult to get an answer. If someone stands in front of you and keeps asking the same question over and over, they are 'going in circles'.

Give a answer to my question & I will get you a entry in "Crufts" dog show otherwise you go to the cat & dog shelter.

Or am i barking up the wrong tree trying to get help off you so called pedigrees

These comments are totally uncalled for, George. I suggest that if you feel you are not being helped and that this web site 'goes in circles', that you visit Google or other search engine and consider getting information from another source. You won't get help here by insulting the folks trying to help you.

George,
Please note

There are a number of methods of evaluating suppliers dependent on the specific requirements that you as a customer have or your industry requires

Some standards such as ISO 9000 say
" The organization shall evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply products in accordance with the organization’s requirements. Criteria for selection, evaluation, and re-evaluation shall be established."

Whilst ISO/TS 16949 requires also

"Supplier performance shall be monitored through the following indicators:

* delivered product quality;
* customer disruptions including field returns;
* delivery schedule performance (including incidents of premium freight);
* special status customer notifications related to quality or delivery issues."

There is as far as we know no standard which specify the weightings of the characteristics and as such the answers that you have received have been to the point and courteous.

Well, George, I've also sent you a Private Message with a little more information than contained in this post. You can access the Private Message by clicking the link in the upper right corner of your screen.

On topic:
Between the two threads you have joined, you have received some excellent leads on systems to apply ratings to suppliers. Rating suppliers is always an inexact science because it must be tempered by political, practical, and regulatory considerations. Ideally, customers and suppliers throughout a supply chain work in partnership with each other to produce a final product or service which conforms to specifications in as efficient (read "inexpensive") a manner as possible. Even more ideally, the more efficient and experienced members of the supply chain share information and expertise with other members above or below them in the chain so that all can operate at peak performance.

Some call this a "WIN-WIN" philosophy. However, some individuals subscribe to a short-sighted WIN-LOSE philosophy and they seek to punish, rather than rehabilitate, below average performers in the supply chain. They justify their efforts by using a tool intended to point out areas for improvement as a tool to spotlight failings for punishment. Larger companies with many, many suppliers with a WIN-LOSE philosophy further justify their punishments by saying, "We just don’t have the time to rehabilitate a below-standard performer." while they forget about how much time it takes to find and REALLY qualify a new supplier. Instead, they continue to omit the necessary steps to truly qualify a supplier and find themselves in the same self-defeating cycle all over again.

The bald facts are these:

there is no universally recognized Standard for Supplier evaluation.
supplier evaluation is worthless if it is only used as a punishment aid instead of a rehabilitation aid
the best run companies truly try to make the links in their supply chains work as partners rather than adversaries
an individual creating and maintaining a supplier evaluation program will always be better off tailoring a program to precisely what his organization needs from suppliers than by using someone else’s numerical guideline
if you use a numerical rating system, you have to decide how to use the information you generate – will you punish some suppliers and reward others? or Will you use the numbers to help focus on the areas for improvement and work with the supplier to cure problem areas?