If ANSI can self-declare, why not you?

[Randy]

Interesting problem.....

I guess if I was your auditor I'd see it that way too.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by Randy

Interesting problem.....

I guess if I was your auditor I'd see it that way too.

Come on folks. Let's not stretch it. If you expand this train of thought, where do you draw the line? If you consider ANSI as a supplier that "requires" accredited ISO 9001 certification, then ask your utility company to be ISO 9001 certified too, the internet provider you use, the phone carrier(s), etc....

[Howard Atkins]

In Reply to Parent Post by Icy Mountain

I must buy ANSI/ISO/ASQ standards like TS16949 in order to keep my QMS registered.
Therefore, ANSI and ASQ are suppliers under my QMS.
TS requires that these suppliers must be THIRD PARTY registered to ISO9001 unless waived by my customer.
So, I am hereby removing ANSI and ASQ from my approved supplier list and I'm not buying any more standards that they copyrighted until they can prove 3rd part registration.

Who's with me?

I am sorry but not me.
The supplier in clause 7.4.1.2 is in fact defined as a manufacturer, see guidelines P20. We have discussed this before in relation to jobbers of raw material.
Further you do not need to buy from ANSI or ASQ. You can buy from ISO direct, from BSI, from Australia etc etc.
Are all your suppliers on the list including the butcher the baker and the candlestick maker

[Wes Bucey]

Of course, no one seriously expects suppliers of goods and services other than those directly part of the product which goes on to the next link in the supply chain to be registered to an international standard.

The point of the bitter sarcasm is that neither should a long-time approved supplier be bumped from the supply chain merely because he doesn't have a 3rd party registration to a Standard. Yet, it is the blind adherence to a policy of requiring ALL suppliers in the chain to be registered which triggers this bitterness.

I think we'd all like to see more customer attitudes of
"how can we be good, happy partners?"
instead of
"there's no reason for it; it's just company policy!"

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Wes Bucey

I think we'd all like to see more customer attitudes of
"how can we be good, happy partners?"
instead of
"there's no reason for it; it's just company policy!"

Amen, brother . The utterance of the phrase "We've always done it that way" should be a capital offense, imo. The fact is that the single most reliable indicator of future performance in suppliers is past performance. In my own experience (and I currently deal with hundreds of suppliers), the single least reliable indicator is quality system registration.

[Carl Keller]

Unfortunately, Saying "we have never had a problem with this supplier, therefore we accept them as a certified supplier" usually does not work with most registrar auditors. It has been my experience that some might accept it, but most would not.

BTW,
The last company I worked for I talked into declaration rather than registration. It was a beautiful thing. Everybody was happy and we saved a bundle. Some of our customers had a deadline for registration that was waived after we declared compliance and sent them our manual.

It was a "win-win"

I don't think it would work for everyone, but it would certainly work for more than are currently doing it.

Carl-

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by Carl Keller

Unfortunately, Saying "we have never had a problem with this supplier, therefore we accept them as a certified supplier" usually does not work with most registrar auditors. It has been my experience that some might accept it, but most would not.

And that's a sign that something ain't right. BTW, I don't think that saying, "Everything's been fine in the past so it should be in the future" is enough either. There should be a statistical basis for making the decision. This is one of those situations where Lord Kelvin* was right--if you can't express it in numbers, it's not worth expressing.



*Here's what he said:

When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science.
-- Lord Kelvin

[Craig H.]

In Reply to Parent Post by JSW05

Amen, brother . The utterance of the phrase "We've always done it that way" should be a capital offense, imo. The fact is that the single most reliable indicator of future performance in suppliers is past performance. In my own experience (and I currently deal with hundreds of suppliers), the single least reliable indicator is quality system registration.

I'd have to disagree here. For us the single least reliable indicator is (was) the score derived from a supplier self audit questionnaire. Questionnaire=hot and smelly aire.

Sure, past performance trumps all others. But, all others being equal, I'll take the folks with the third party certificate.

Somewhere in the middle is the self-certified firm. We don't have one as a supplier, but one of our large customers is. Are they a pain to deal with? No, but they sure do want things right, and I'd buy from them without hesitation.

I see the logic behind wanting ANSI to have a third party cerificate. But, as customers of theirs, and knowing their past performance, what would be our motivation for making them do the dog and pony show for an outside auditor? Have any of us experienced performance issues with them?

That said, maybe ASQ should be audited as well...

Oh, now I have it. Anyone want to gang audit the IRS?