Our Approved Vendor / Supplier list contains EVERY supplier we currently have

[tracey]

Our company has an approved vendors list which contains EVERY supplier we currently have. Our procedures state that we are able to use a supplier once (in an emergency) without them being place on the list. We want to change our procedures to state that " suppliers that affect our product" will be on the approved vendors list. We find ourselfs spending alot of time trying to get suppliers who have very little impact on our final product to fill out our questionairre. An example of these suppliers would be the gas station we may buy fuel from for our trucks while on the road or Tim Hortons where we buy our employees donuts on Saturdays. I know that every supplier does effect the final product wether the affect was cheering up the employees Saturday which in turn they produce a better product. Where is the line drawn? Do we decide?

[M Greenaway]

Tracey

Absolutely YOU decide.

Suppliers of raw material, and sub-contractors are a good place to start, and yes focus on the product !

[tracey]

Thank you M Greenway. Up until last November we had a consultant who really made things more confusing than they had to be. She told us that EVERY company/person that we purchase anything from must be on the list. We have had to write Corrective action after corrective action on this issue. I think there has been one open since I took over in November.

[M Greenaway]

My advice is never use consultants !

Too many have a vested interest in making things far more complicated and beurocratic than they need be.

Any system of control should be based on an analysis of the risks involved, and appropriate action taken based on that analysis.

[Mike S.]

Tracey,

IMO your consultant was a nut!

I agree with Martin (again -- twice in one day so far!). The phrase "where is the shall" comes to mind. The standard says you must determine the "type and extent of control" and the "criteria for selection, evaluation, and re-evaluation". It does not say what your consultant is saying. Do what works for you. We excluded by policy suppliers of stuff like office supplies, general hand tools, and food/drink from needing formal evaluation. For the balance of suppliers of product-related stuff, depending on the criticality of the product/service, we use either a mailed survey, on-site visit, previously demonstrated performance, or "emergency approval" by one of the "top dogs".

[E Wall]

Tracey - Looks like this one is answered already.

I can tell you how we approached this:
* Set classifications regarding the quality impact on product (or equipment, etc...based on your needs)
* Establish supplier criteria on classifications
* Only those suppliers providing parts/services/equip/etc.. within established classifications must be evaluated to the criteria defined.

Hope it helps,
Eileen

[tracey]

Thanks again, cove members, for your help. I now feel confident in proceding with the changes. I must say that I agree totally about the cunsultant ( in this case anyway). There was much unneeded work and confusion due to her. When I took over there was nothing but resentment towards ISO. Nobody wanted any part of it. Slowly but surely we are pulling it together.

[db]

Martin said:

My advice is never use consultants !

As a consultant, I take exception to that remark. However, you must ALWAYS listen carefully to what they say. Any time a consultant says you have to do something that is not a direct “shall”, you should question it.


Mike S said:

The phrase "where is the shall" comes to mind.

Hey! That's my line!

Good advice though.