If ANSI can self-declare, why not you?

[Randy]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

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....

If they consider an organization to be a supplier as defined by their systems definition then Icy is correct.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by Randy

If they consider an organization to be a supplier as defined by their systems definition then Icy is correct.

Sorry to disagree, buddy. This is the kind of reasoning that leaves a lot of organizations with a bad taste for management system auditors.
Remember one of the ten commandments for auditors :
Thou shall NOT forget COMMON SENSE!

[Randy]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

Sorry to disagree, buddy. This is the kind of reasoning that leaves a lot of organizations with a bad taste for management system auditors.
Remember one of the ten commandments for auditors :
Thou shall NOT forget COMMON SENSE!

I like disagreement...adds spice to life , however his analysis for the C/A could be that there is no effect on quality and achieving customer expectations so therefore nothing is required or needs to be done....But it was at least looked at.

[Carl Keller]

I agree with Lord Kelvin, it needs to be expressed in numbers.

But I think saying 127 shipments received, 0 rejected wouldn't fly either. It's one of those situations where 7.4.1 does not specify the method for determining.

ANSI is certainly a supplier that can have an affect on the end product and should, under many supplier acceptance systems, be ISO registered.

Registration is great for companies that need the discipline. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that more companies use it for marketing or because they have to rather than because they want to.

For most, self-declaration is of greater benefit.

Carl-

[Paul Simpson]

In Reply to Parent Post by Carl Keller

ANSI is certainly a supplier that can have an affect on the end product and should, under many supplier acceptance systems, be ISO registered.

Where does this come from? ANSI has no effect on the day to day quality of anyone's product.

In Reply to Parent Post by Carl Keller

Registration is great for companies that need the discipline. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that more companies use it for marketing or because they have to rather than because they want to.

For most, self-declaration is of greater benefit.

Carl-

This would be in the "keep the auditor in his / her box", "no such thing as value add" world, would it?

[Icy Mountain]

In Reply to Parent Post by Randy

If they consider an organization to be a supplier as defined by their systems definition then Icy is correct.

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

Sorry to disagree, buddy. This is the kind of reasoning that leaves a lot of organizations with a bad taste for management system auditors.
Remember one of the ten commandments for auditors :
Thou shall NOT forget COMMON SENSE!

Sidney, it is my common experience with auditors that forget this commandment that causes my overboard response. It is not a stretch for me to imagine having to defend this one against an auditor (although not one from DNV) . See my “calibrated ruler” rant elsewhere in this forum.

In Reply to Parent Post by Howard Atkins

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

Allow me to apologize, Howard. Sometimes satire does not come across well. I am a big fan of overstating the point to make the point. That said, ANSI is one of the authors of the standard in this country (i.e. ANSI/iso/asq Q9001-2000); therefore, whomever I purchase from, they are one of the "manufacturers". Secondly, I believe that the folks at ANSI could gain a lot of insight into the ENTIRE process by having a 3rd party conduct an audit of their system. Since they are THE American National Standards Institute, it just seems to me that if they are to SET the standard, they should be HELD to the standard in word and deed.

This is a serious answer, no satire or sarcasm: You are correct in the semantic details. ANSI cannot be construed as a “supplier” under TS language and therefore I do not really need for them to be 3rd party registered. They are definitely a supplier under the language in 9000-2000 Section 3.3.6. As you have pointed out, the 9001-2000 Section 7.4 Purchasing and surrounding definitions and guidance do not require 3rd party registration.

As for the butcher and the baker and the candlestick maker:
We have four levels to our approved supplier list. 1 is automotive supply chain, 2 is ISO9001 supply chain, 3 is generic (office supplies, catering services, etc.) and 4 is inactive. So, yes, all our suppliers appear somewhere on our “approved suppliers” list. The butcher and baker are category 3 in our supplier list. Their services do not directly impact the quality of the product delivered to our customers. However, our teams (translate this to processes) are rewarded for achieving certain goals and objectives (metrics) in our system. Sometimes the reward is a catered luncheon. If the butcher and baker (level 3) supplied a product of low quality, and therefore not “rewarding”, I would expect some feedback from the team and these particular suppliers would not be used again to supply team rewards. Before everyone jumps on the pile, I wouldn’t run this through a formal corrective action, BUT there would be (reasonable) action.

The candlestick maker better keep the lights on. Believe me, our power supplier is on the level 2 list. We track power outages and have a contingency plan for power outages. One could make a very powerful (pun intended) argument that American Electric Power should be on our automotive supply chain list and be required to ISO9001 register with a 3rd party. Again, reason must reign. Since this company is subject to a number of other regulatory agencies and audits, ISO9001 registration would seem to be overkill. Notice that this does not relieve them from supplying power to us in a manner that meets our requirements. Enough outages and we would replace them. Why? Because we have metrics in place to know when and if such an action is warranted.

My point for this long-winded exposition is that no one is above scrutiny. The de facto supplier of ISO/TS16949 publications and training in the USA, the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), is 3rd party registered to ISO9001-2000 by BSI. I have their certificate on file. BTW, they are not TS because they do not supply parts. While they fall outside the definition of supplier in the 7.4.12 guidance, ANSI made themselves a target by self-declaring. If it was important enough to them to become compliant I think that they should go all the way. I would.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by Icy Mountain

ANSI made themselves a target by self-declaring. If it was important enough to them to become compliant I think that they should go all the way. I would.

Good post, Icy. I can not argue against your reasoning. I have contacted ANSI and asked for a copy of their self declaration document. Let's see.
Since the first A in ANAB stands for ANSI-ASQ, should they've gone for an accredited certification, we would have had a very convoluted relationship. I.e., a part of the Accreditation Body would also be a client of a registrar that they accredit. So they would be customers and suppliers to each other. Messy?

[Icy Mountain]

Thanks, Sidney. I agree, this is a sticky wicket and it makes my head spin.