|
|
 |

2nd May 2000, 05:01 PM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,859
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,569 Times in 1,020 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
Supplier Audits - Do we have to Rate suppliers?
This thread was imported and the sequence of posts was messed up. I think it started with this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by clark530
I work for a company that is not ISO certified. They have sent me through Lead Auditor/Lead Assessor training. We want to qualify our suppliers. Purchasing and engineering have taken my Supplier Audit Checklist which uses the 20 Elements and totally changed it. They do not want to rate our suppliers they think. They just want to ask yes or no questions. What can I say to convince them that we should use a rating system for example Satisfactory, Concern, Non Conformance, Not Applicable. Help
|
Even if it's yes-no questions there has to be numbers! I see no problem with a yes no as long there is an evaluation methodology. What does 5 yes's and 16 no's mean? You have to have some sort of criteria.
Or try a cattle prod while they're sitting on the pot. Stick it under the door - nail their ankle - and they won't even know who did it. But you can smile a lot when you see them as you pass in the hall. They may still not rate the suppliers, but you'll be happy anyway! Cattle prods are always good for a laugh!
|

2nd May 2000, 05:12 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm not from a Purchasing environment and may not have the best examples, but consider these:
1. You may need to qualify two suppliers of the same commodity, one as a back-up. Both will rate 'Yes' on the important questions but one will be better than the other. Of course you'll use the best as your primary supplier and only the 'shades of gray' answers will document which one that is.
2. If you're checking ISO registration as one of your qualifiers, the company that's not registered may actually be complying with the standards better, and making a better product, than the registered supplier (is that heresy?). You'll need some explanatory text on that one.
There are probably better examples and it occurs to me that if I had to audit under the constraints facing you, I couldn't expect to provide management with the information they really need.
|

3rd May 2000, 01:33 AM
|
|
|
Supplier Audits
I work for a company that is not ISO certified. They have sent me through Lead Auditor/Lead Assessor training. We want to qualify our suppliers. Purchasing and engineering have taken my Supplier Audit Checklist which uses the 20 Elements and totally changed it. They do not want to rate our suppliers they think. They just want to ask yes or no questions. What can I say to convince them that we should use a rating system for example Satisfactory, Concern, Non Conformance, Not Applicable. Help
|

3rd May 2000, 08:20 AM
|
 |
Forum Moderator
Registration Date: Mar 2000
Location: MID-WEST USA
|
|
Posts: 486
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Karma Power: 51 Karma: 114  
|
|
Wally - do you get a higher rating for speling? Or do you simply avoid Marc's cattle prod
|

3rd May 2000, 09:18 AM
|
|
Courtesy Access
Registration Date: Dec 1998
Location: South Central Massachusetts
|
|
Posts: 788
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
Karma Power: 63 Karma: 151  
|
|
the really savy edit out the "edited by" so it only shows one....:-)
|

3rd May 2000, 03:25 PM
|
 |
One of THE Original Covers!
Registration Date: Nov 1998
Location: Wallingford, CT USA
Age: 43
|
|
Posts: 1,158
Thanks Given to Others: 22
Thanked 63 Times in 43 Posts
Karma Power: 94
|
|
|
Barb,
You're too clever! Still, I don't think it will help me much. Without spell check, I am plain awful!
Marc,
Quite the prankster! Unfortunately (or quite possibly, Fortunately) I share that same affliction. The lighter-side is a good thing.
Wally,
Don't worry about the spelling too much. I can barely read anyway and wouldn't know if your spelling (and Jim's) is good or bad (LOL).
And speaking of good and bad, I will throw this one out to the group...
Nothing new, I suppose, as we have discussed scale systems for rating audit responses/supplier status. Scaling systems are not as useful as people suppose they are (unless a correlation study was done and shows how ratings are connected to response details, I would be skeptical). If one is to use a scaling system, then you should do so understanding this.
As for yes or no, good or bad, descriptions, these are amongst the worst, IMHO. The less descriptive, the higher probability of generating bad data and incorrect conclusions.
Regards,
Kevin
|

3rd May 2000, 07:18 PM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,859
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,569 Times in 1,020 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
Living seriously is dangerous...
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|