Do 'Certified Suppliers' perform better than Non-Certified Suppliers?

[RCBeyette]

In Reply to Parent Post by JSW05

In my experience with a major vehicle manufacturer that will remain nameless but is not one of the Big 3, I found that QS-9000 registered suppliers consistently had much lower first-pass PPAP approval rates than non-registered suppliers. Their registration was a non-factor when it came to product quality, as it was for ISO 9000-registered companies in general.

Why do you think this was the case?

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by RCBeyette

Why do you think this was the case?

Because the Big 3 stopped scrutinizing PPAP submissions a long time ago, and the company I work for has the gall to expect submissions to make sense. I wish I had a nickel for every time a QS-9000 registered supplier has tried to defend a nonsensical PPAP submission by saying, "Well, it's good enough for Ford." My stock reply is, "Great. You get Ford to pay for our parts and we'll use their PPAP acceptance criteria."

[Jim Howe]

When I first read the initial post I asked myself "Certified to what?" As I read the other posters comments they seemed to assume that the original poster meant certifed to ISO?
My experiences with ISO certified suppliers leaves me wandering just why anyone would make the effort to get certified. Even to the point when the ISO certifed Customer is supplying documentation such as drawings or specifications. I can recall when a ISO certified customer visited and performed their own audit. When done the customer rep could not believe it was possible that his certified company could send such a disarray of documents to their supplier.
On the other hand we had our own supplier rating system that certified high performance suppliers for our "dock to stock" program. We did the evaluations and rated the suppliers based on our own factual data. We even issued certificates to our supplier to inform them that they earned this award and as such were a valued and trusted supplier. There products were not inspected but went straight to stock. Any one else have a supplier rating program?

[Mike S.]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Howe

On the other hand we had our own supplier rating system that certified high performance suppliers for our "dock to stock" program. We did the evaluations and rated the suppliers based on our own factual data. We even issued certificates to our supplier to inform them that they earned this award and as such were a valued and trusted supplier. There products were not inspected but went straight to stock. Any one else have a supplier rating program?

I've found this route (certify your own suppliers) to be much more helpful in finding a good supplier than ISO certification. In a previous company I did a crude dock-to-stock plan of my own because I could find very little information "out there" from others who did it. I guess I did okay, as at least one of the suppliers I worked with (to certify them) has offered me a job several times. But I'd be interested in seeing any other examples of folks who have dock-to-stock/customer-designed supplier certification programs.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Mike S.

I've found this route (certify your own suppliers) to be much more helpful in finding a good supplier than ISO certification. In a previous company I did a crude dock-to-stock plan of my own because I could find very little information "out there" from others who did it. I guess I did okay, as at least one of the suppliers I worked with (to certify them) has offered me a job several times. But I'd be interested in seeing any other examples of folks who have dock-to-stock/customer-designed supplier certification programs.

The only worthwhile supplier "certification" scheme is one that's based on empirical observation. The "dock-to-stock" idea, wherein material bypasses receiving inspection after a given number of trouble-free received lots (or evidence of conscientious process control), makes good sense, whereas depending on a supplier's having passed a registration audit is asking for trouble. There is risk involved in either case, but evaluation of risk must be based on data, not speculation.

[asutherland]

For whatever my 2 cents is worth.

I also agree that supplier certification should not be based on whether the supplier has a credited certified supplier based ISO, but on the customers accreditation of how well they screen for zero non-compliance.

If in my ISO program, as a supplier, I state that I will send zero defects to the customer, and show the auditor that my outgoing inspection chart shows we are sending zero defects, (assuming I remember not to record the ones I do find), then I am in compliance. Therefore, I am a good supplier. yea, right.

Is there any money to be made in certifying ISO certification certifiers?

[Helmut Jilling]

In Reply to Parent Post by JSW05

In my experience with a major vehicle manufacturer that will remain nameless but is not one of the Big 3, I found that QS-9000 registered suppliers consistently had much lower first-pass PPAP approval rates than non-registered suppliers. Their registration was a non-factor when it came to product quality, as it was for ISO 9000-registered companies in general.

Well, JSW, your dislike for QS may have hit a new benchmark. Would you argue that suppliers who were not certified to QS, actually did QS based PPAP's better than suppliers who were certified to QS? PPAPs are a QS based system. How can not-certified be an actual benefit? That would seem to distort logic.

Or, are you referring to a small handful of vendors that perhaps may be not a statistically valid sample. I could understand it being a draw, but a negative defies logic. I'm curious, what did you feel the cause would have been? Thanks.

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by hjilling

Well, JSW, your dislike for QS may have hit a new benchmark.

I challenge you to find any post where I ever expressed "dislike" for QS or ISO or 16949 or whatever standard you might care to mention. It's registration that I have a problem with, not the standards themselves.

In Reply to Parent Post by hjilling

Would you argue that suppliers who were not certified to QS, actually did QS based PPAP's better than suppliers who were certified to QS?

That's exactly what I'm saying. The company in question adopted the AIAG PPAP process about 7 years ago. Most of their suppliers were not familiar with the automotive requirements, although many were ISO-registered. I personally reviewed thousands of those PPAP submissions, and I say again: QS-9000 registered suppliers were uniformly terrible at doing PPAP.

In Reply to Parent Post by hjilling

I could understand it being a draw, but a negative defies logic. I'm curious, what did you feel the cause would have been? Thanks.

It's certainly ironic to the uninitiated, but it doesn't defy logic. The big three just don't pay much attention to PPAP submissions, and I know that as fact from my experience on the other side of the fence. I can't tell you how many times a quality manager for a QS-registered supplier, when faced with a page and a half of problems with his PPAP, said "But it's always been OK that way with (insert name of B3 company here)." My standard response is always, "Great. Get Ford to pay for our parts, and we'll review PPAPs their way."