How are you undertaking Supplier assessment and Educating Upper Management in ISO9000

[steve phillipo]

Hi all
I'm new to the forum and have been very impressed with the level of information and debate I've read.

Supplier rating is achieved by assessment of the supplier performance in terms of correct orders received, rejects raised, and delivery performance. Failure in any of these results in a reduction in their supplier rating leading to supplier visits or a block on any orders being place. Supplier performance is assessed every two months.

I'm looking at clause 7.4.1 of 9k2k and believe we are meeting the requirement to " evaluate and select suppliers based on their ability to supply product in accordance with the organisation's requirement"
So my question is how are others undertaking Supplier assessment and how do we get Senior Management aware of the ISO requirements??

Steve

[Marc]

Do you mean by Supplier Vendor Rating that you have to rate your supplier's suppliers - you don't.

If you are asking why you have to rate your suppliers - in ISO 9001 you don't per se have to 'rate' them. You do have to have a method of evaluation but nothing says how you have to do it. The typical paradigm is to have some sort of 'rating system'.

I think there are supplier evaluation examples floating around the site - I can't remember if anyone has posted an example as an attachment to a post in a thread but I think there is. I'm just too busy to look right now.

[M Greenaway]

Steve

As Marc has said the words of the standard are 'evaluate' your suppliers.

This would probably be a two stage process. Firstly what you do with new vendors, or new supplies from existing vendors, and secondly how you monitor the continuing supply.

What you speak of above sounds like the continued monitoring of vendors, i.e. reject rates, on time delivery, etc - I believe most companies would do this.

A rating system is normally applied so that you can determine the level of subsequent control you operate on your suppliers. For example those with high reject rates may well be subject to heightened goods inwards inspection, those with superior quality performance may go straight to stock with no inspection.

In answer to the Business Managers question I would answer that the supplier rating is used as above (assuming of course that it is, and its not just a rating for a ratings sake).

Dont know if this helps ?

[Atul Khandekar]

I think Al Dyer had posted some MS Word documents on Supplier Evaluation and Rating, but I don't seem to be able to locate them on the forums now.
I have these documents that Al had kindly sent me on my request. So if anyone wants or cant find them here, I can upload them again.
-Atul.

Supplier ratings are a good starting point but they must lead to some type of measurable improvement. To justify it to management measurables need to be initiated and trends reviewed. Determine which measurables affect the bottom line of your business profile. Is it cost, delivery, expediting, quality etc...?

We might use delivery as a measurable but it would need to be linked to meeting the production or shipping schedule to show some type of process effect.

If cost is used there would probably need to be a section benchmarking other suppliers. This could lead to a cost savings that woulf justify the program.

Any other examples out there????

[assuranceman]

To help reinforce your Vendor rating case: as an aerospace supplier you will be moving to the British equivalent of AS9100A, prEN9100A, if you are not already there. AS9100A is 9K2K plus additional clauses for aerospace requirements. Basic ISO 9K2K says in section 7.4.1, "Criteria for selection, evaluation and reevaluation of suppliers shall be established." AS9100A 7.4.1b adds "periodically review supplier performance;records of these reviews shall be used as a basis for establishing the level of controls to be implemented." If you are reevaluating and periodically reviewing it would appear to be Vendor Rating. Is your senior management aware of AS9100A?

[uma_kant123]

do u want to know iso requirement ?

[Wes Bucey]

Originally Posted by Hal

To help reinforce your Vendor rating case: as an aerospace supplier you will be moving to the British equivalent of AS9100A, prEN9100A, if you are not already there. AS9100A is 9K2K plus additional clauses for aerospace requirements. Basic ISO 9K2K says in section 7.4.1, "Criteria for selection, evaluation and reevaluation of suppliers shall be established." AS9100A 7.4.1b adds "periodically review supplier performance;records of these reviews shall be used as a basis for establishing the level of controls to be implemented." If you are reevaluating and periodically reviewing it would appear to be Vendor Rating. Is your senior management aware of AS9100A?

I recently spent a stint as QM of an aerospace company to help them achieve their FAA Certification as FAA-PMA. "Why do we need to record our evaluation of a supplier?" asked one of my bosses at the preliminary meeting with FAA. The FAA inspector jumped in while I was still gasping for breath at the naiveté of the question from a "suit."

"Look," said the FAA guy. "The FAA grants this FAA-PMA certificate when we believe you have enough control over your operation that we don't have to inspect every single product you produce before we can allow it to be installed on an aircraft. Part of that control is that you know exactly what you can expect from YOUR suppliers and what you have to do to ensure everything conforms to the FAA-approved specifications and requirements listed on the product you make. Keeping records of your evaluations is how the FAA can check whether you are doing that part of your control. No record, no FAA approval. Need more reason?"

The glibness of his reply tells me he has answered the question frequently. My "suit" shut up. We got the certificate. We evaluate different types of suppliers differently, depending whether they sell standard items or custom items. Price is way down the line of our criteria after

1. conformance to specifications (availability of supplier's quality records),
2. on-time delivery
3. availability of traceability documents
4. responsiveness to questions about product, delivery, documentation

Funny thing. When we factor in all of the above, often the guy with the lowest gross price does not have the lowest NET price after we consider our soft costs in dealing with him.