The Elsmar Cove Forum and Site Map The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page

Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard > QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard


The Elsmar Cove Forum SideBar!
Monitor the Forum
Monitor New Forum Posts
New Threads Feeds
RSS FeedRSS Feed
Sponsor Link










$ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


Howard's International Quality Services

Atul's Symphony Technologies

Dave Scott's Scott Quality Solutions

Praxiom Research Group


NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest Portal

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

ASQ - American Society for Quality


All the Important Standards and Related Web Sites in the World
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  #1  
Old 4th March 1999, 11:46 AM
pgking
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default purchasing review and approval process

QS9000 4.6.3 states "The supplier shall review and approve purchasing documents for adequacy of specified requirements prior to release." Is the review of "adequacy of specified requirements" a check to make sure that sections 4.6.2 (a, b, c) have been met?

Thanks for your help

Paul
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12th March 1999, 10:32 AM
Bryon C Simmons
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi.

THe intent of 4.6.3 is to ensure that the purchasing documents that you use, i.e. PO's, have the required information included. That information is spelled out in 4.6.3 (a,b,c.). What we do in my company, is have an independent buyer(one other than the person who generated the PO), review it for accuracy, and then initial it as proof of review, prior to release. It is a simple, but effectie way of satisfying the standard.

Hope this helps.

Bryon
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 17th March 1999, 10:10 AM
Tom Goetzinger Tom Goetzinger is offline
An Early Cover

Registration Date: Mar 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI USA
 
Posts: 122
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 0
Karma: 25
Tom Goetzinger has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Default

The intent of the standard is ensure that the supplier has all of the information necessary to supply the item ordered correctly. The requirement is not that someone other than the buyer placing the order review it. It all depends on how you write the governing procedures. I would hesitate requiring a second person review all orders; this seems like an added cost better avoided if possible. The buyers need to be responsible for what they order. Very large dollar or complex orders might be different, but I would require that review to be done a mangement level higher.

------------------
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 17th March 1999, 02:21 PM
Bryon C Simmons
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom,

I concur. The standard does not require an independent review of a PO, only that the purchasing documents are reviewed prior to release. However you decide to do that is up to you, as long as it is proceduralized.

The independent review simply is how the review process is handled at my employer.


Bryon
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20th April 2003, 11:42 AM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is offline
Your Elsmar Cove Host

Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
 
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 605
Karma: 11559
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via AIM to Marc Send a message via Skype™ to Marc
Question

Any other thoughts on this?
__________________
A Search is a terrible thing to waste!
One Test is Worth 1000 Expert Opinions - The plural of anecdote is not data.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. - Unknown
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20th April 2003, 01:24 PM
Al Dyer's Avatar
Al Dyer Al Dyer is offline
Mod...

Registration Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oregon, MI
Age: 51
 
Posts: 577
Thanks Given to Others: 4
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Karma Power: 46
Karma: 398
Al Dyer is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.Al Dyer is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.Al Dyer is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.Al Dyer is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.
Send a message via AIM to Al Dyer
Default

On a P.O./Contract, the company needs to review:

-prices
-production rates
-shipping timelines
-environmental regulations that may apply
-workforce required
-machinery requirements
-customer specific requirements
-print revision levels
-capability to meet specs
-contingency plans
-and others as applicable to individual company processes

This review is a form of and to ensure that there are no disputes with the customer.

I have typically seen this function performed by the APQP team with checklists and such but in smaller companies it may be only one or two people. Either way it needs to be completed by some methodology that ensures covering all the bases.

Too many times over the years I have been party to an owner or salesman that shows up with a signed P.O. and says make it work. Surely not pro-active and can lead to losing alot of money if a profit margin is not met.

Al...
__________________
"Para ... Bellum"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21st April 2003, 09:14 AM
Randy Stewart's Avatar
Randy Stewart Randy Stewart is offline
VINI, VIDI, DORMIVI

Registration Date: Feb 2002
Location: Walled Lake, Michigan
 
Posts: 1,153
Thanks Given to Others: 20
Thanked 79 Times in 51 Posts
Karma Power: 84
Karma: 1481
Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Randy Stewart is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.
Thumbs up I agree

Since the PO is THE contract it must be complete and convey the requirements. IMO all the review does is to ensure that customer and company requirements have been addressed (SPC data, inspection type, etc.).
__________________
"What this country needs is more unemployed politicians." Edward Langley
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard > QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard

Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Purchasing Procedure - Purchasing process is not complete until product is received? S.Frieda ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11 25th July 2007 03:33 PM
TS 16949 - 7.5.2 - Process Validation - Criteria for review and approval of processes Morpheus ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8 8th August 2003 12:14 PM
Review and approval methodology Paul Morrow Documentation Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1 21st June 2002 06:23 PM
Do signatures need to appear on procedures to indicate review and approval? Marc Documentation Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2 28th July 2000 12:56 PM
Evidence of Review and Approval Shannon ISO 9001:1994 4 27th April 2000 02:13 AM



The time now is 04:56 AM. All times are GMT -4.
The time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



   

All Y'All Come Back Now, Y' Hear?

Made With A Mac! FreeBSD OS Powered by Apache!
Using php4 Forums provided and maintained by Marc Smith Database by MySQL

FAIR USE and CORRECTNESS NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe herein constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In addition, I do not guarantee the correctness of the content. The risk of using content from the Elsmar Cove web site and forums remains with the user/visitor.

Responsibility Statement: Each person is responsible for anything they post in the Elsmar Cove forum. Neither I, Marc Timothy Smith, nor any of the forum Moderators, are responsible for the content of posts people make. Liability for post content resides with the poster as does interpretation and/or acceptance and/or use of advice by the reader.

Complaints: If you have a complaint with a post in a forum discussion thread, including Content in general, fighting, flaming, copyright infringement, defamation and/or 'slander', please use the 'Report This Post Report This Post Button button which appears at the top of every post in every thread.

Site courtesy of:
Marc Timothy Smith - Cayman Business Systems, 8466 Lesourdsville-West Chester Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929 - USA
(513) 341-6272

To contact me, click the Google Voice link below, enter Your Name and Your Phone Number and Google will ring your phone and connect you for free!

The Elsmar Cove Web Site is *CopyFree*
no new posts