Supplier Selection Criteria Discussion

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:41:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Supplier Selection Criteria /../Isackson/Scalies

From: "Charley Scalies"

> It is painful to observe that many organizations are responding to the
> DIS in this manner. It speaks volumes about the semantically dreadful
> nature of this document that it brings exegesists, eschatologists and
> tea-leaf readers out of the quality closet. I personally cannot wait for
> the concordance. Can Quality wait much longer for its Martin Luther and a
> cathedral at Worms or perhaps Weehawken?

I knew I liked this guy!

BTW, I prefer Weehawken, because it has a ferry that will take me across the river Styx, AKA Hudson.

> Any firm that selects its suppliers with the concerns of its ISO
> Registrars uppermost is likely to go the way of Studebaker-Packard.

Remember, "Wheelbarrow" Johnny Studebaker said, "Always give the customer what he wants - but not too much or you'll go broke."

> A bit of ancient wisdom: Tofasto merubo lo tofasto.
> He who seeks too much finds nothing - Talmud

And that is exactly why I have concluded ISO9000:2000 is a very bad idea. It's not what it says, but what the "Experts" say it means.

Here's my advice - for whatever it's worth. If anyone thinks a portion of the new standard doesn't make good common sense or that someone's interpretation of it doesn't make good common sense, then somebody is reading it wrong. Or, if I can quote from one of my favorite burlesque routines:

Patient - "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this. What should I do?"
Doctor - "Stop doing that."

Charley Scalies

[Marc]

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:16:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Supplier Selection Criteria /../Scalies/Humphries

From: "Edwin Humphries"

G'day all,

Although I didn't seem to get the original posting on this thread, I've been following the responses with some interest.

Just as an early aside: not only does the new Standard bring out "exegesists, eschatologists and tea-leaf readers", it also seems to bring out obfuscators!

Now I know that some of us talk about quality with an almost religious zeal, but do we have to countenance the possibility of the mistakes of all major religions? Just as with most religious zealots, we "Experts" (read consultants and auditors) seem to be so happy to tell others what is "right" and what is "wrong" in Quality Systems, that we forget what it is really all about: what is effective (and, contrariwise, ineffective) in delivering consistent and improving quality of product and service to the customer. If this is the target, then as a corollary, what does not contribute, directly or indirectly to the achievement of this outcome, should be thrown out, as it then only contributes to costs.

For once, I disagree with Charley: I don't think 9K-2K is any worse an idea that previous versions, because "Experts" (read consultants and auditors) have always told companies what is "right" and what is "wrong", based more on their own limitations and prejudices than on any reality. 9K- 2K, if anything, makes this a little more difficult - although, as I've previously said, it provides many new opportunities for experts to scare the life out of their clients, and in the process, make a killing.

That's why I'm a Baha'i, because I'm a little weary of other fallible humans telling me what to believe and what not to believe, when all have a piece of the truth; maybe that's my Quality philosophy as well: that only I can decide what works for me.

So I do agree with those who've said that the system must not be designed around the whims of the auditors.

I don't agree that arbitrary and subjective criteria have no place in an assessment of a supplier (how, for example, can you simply quantify management commitment to quality, customer relations, housekeeping, corporate citizenship, etc.: yet all these are legitimate considerations in supplier selection).

And I don't agree that 9K-2K requires measurement of EVERYTHING: it has general requirements to measure those things relevant to "assure conformity and achieve improvement", and has specific requirements for customer satisfaction, internal audit, product and process, and nonconformity. It also requires the analysis of data to provide information on, amongst other things, suppliers. To read into this a requirement to measure the effectiveness and operation of the supplier selection criteria (other than, perhaps, by inference) is drawing a long bow indeed.

So let's leave it up to organisations to define what business strategies are appropriate for themselves. Those of us who are consultants or auditors: our job is to use our broad experience - not our petty prejudices - to guide our clients to business strategies that are more efficient and effective for them, not to tell them they must do something because "the Standard" says so.

- End Rant -

Best Regards

[Roger Eastin]

Reality check here - no standard is going to be perfect. Any standard is always going to be subject to some human interpretation. That's why any organization's focus should be on intent. Now I'll be the first to agree that "intent" is hard to measure, but, as was pointed out in another post, one should be able to see evidence of the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle in the system. I think the ISO9000:2000 is a step in the right direction. It may be harder to audit, but it has more potential to help organzations put the emphasis on the quality SYSTEM - system is the key word here. Of course, a company has to have the right culture as well. This has been discussed many times here before. (For Edwin - what is truth? Especially, if that "truth" comes from humans in the first place - humans did write ISO9000:2000.)

[Marc]

I agree, Roger. But I'm not above adding more fuel to the fire!

------snippo---------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:47:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Supplier Selection Criteria /../Scalies/Humphries/Paten

From: "Mike Paten"

I can't resist joining in the "supplier selection" discussion - but I will be brief (at least as brief as an "expert" can be)!

Initial supplier qualification is nothing more than a "ticket of admission" - it gives a supplier the opportunity to succeed (or fail) in meeting your requirements. Hence, initial qualification can be based on just about any reasonable criteria INCLUDING self reported claims (i.e. responses to survey questions or claims in catalogs or brochures) that can be verified. That's of course why ISO registration is usually an "instant" qualifier (technical capability assumed). Checking with a few previous customers is the easiest way I know of to verify a supplier's claims.

I believe the more important issue is how you go about monitoring on-going supplier performance and taking appropriate action. Even suppliers "grandfathered in" should have at least "minimally acceptable past performance". The easy part is to define that criteria (in terms of % on time deliveries, average days early/late, % defective parts, % shipments with returns, etc.) The tougher part is to actually measure/monitor on-going performance. The hardest part though is holding suppliers to the criteria. You always have an "out" though if you allow "emergency" buys from unqualified suppliers. But, you should monitor "emergency" buy trends too - when the exception (emergency) becomes the rule (practice) you're wasting your time with the whole business.

Mike Paten

Quote :
''The easy part is to define that criteria (in terms of % on time deliveries, average days early/late, % defective parts, % shipments with returns, etc.) The tougher part is to actually measure/monitor on-going performance. The hardest part though is holding suppliers to the criteria. You always have an "out" though if you allow "emergency" buys from unqualified suppliers. But, you should monitor "emergency" buy trends too - when the exception (emergency) becomes the rule (practice) you're wasting your time with the whole business.''

Doing this by calculting the performances in % I think is a pain in the a**.
Why dont evaluate the suppliers trough NCR?
If you have a minimal control at reception and you trace all NCR regarding suppliers, then will be mor easily to evaluate suppliers
And you can keep to all these criterias (as shipping, service, technical support, availability, and so on).

At least this is how I've put it in the cie where I work - and is really effective and accepted by the registrar.

------------------
Smile...tomorrow will be worse