Customer Supplied Product and Traceability - No Customer Requirement - Toll Processor

[Matt Swartwood]

I have come across a unique situation that I need to address in the near future. I was wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience who could share how it was handled within their organization.

I have a new customer who does not require ISO/QS/TS and to be honest, would rather not be bothered by any of the associated documentation. They want to:

1. Supply their material for us to manufacture parts
2. Supply their pre-manufactured components for us to assemble

We have always in the past provided product from raw material through assembly and have not had this request until now. Should the traceability of their material and/or product be an issue if it is not important to them (not in writing)? Should a waiver of reposibility at the least be drafted?

Thank you for your time.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by Matt Swartwood

I have come across a unique situation that I need to address in the near future. I was wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience who could share how it was handled within their organization.

I have a new customer who does not require ISO/QS/TS and to be honest, would rather not be bothered by any of the associated documentation. They want to:

1. Supply their material for us to manufacture parts
2. Supply their pre-manufactured components for us to assemble

We have always in the past provided product from raw material through assembly and have not had this request until now. Should the traceability of their material and/or product be an issue if it is not important to them (not in writing)? Should a waiver of reposibility at the least be drafted?

Thank you for your time.

This is a CONTRACT REVIEW question. get waivers in writing. determine what your organization needs to do in terms of inspecting incoming material prior to use to determine fitness for use.

1. criteria
2. instruments
3. referral to MRB (material review board - yours or customers)

Absolutely be sure whose responsibility [at customer] for final determination whether to

1. use as is
2. rework
3. return to sender
4. scrap

[CINDY]

Get everything spelled out! It will save you grief later. If the Customer provides you with nonconforming product, you do not want to get the blame for it. We handle a lot of Customer supplies product and we still perform receiving inspection to ensure the product is good before we process it. We also have clear directions for scrap (their responsibility and ours), rework, repair, clear marking on the processes we perform etc. If you are ISO/QS/TS, you still have that responsibility regardless.

We have also been called in to the Customer's plant because nonconforming product caused their line to fail and production was stopped. They wanted to charge us thousands of dollars! Because we maintain good records and after an investigation, it was clear that our process was not involved in this failure. Lesson learned: No matter what the Customer requirements are, verify all requirements (internal and external) and have a good understanding of them clearly spelled out.

Cindy

[D.Scott]

These are all good answers. I would remind you that the requirements of the customer over ride the requirements of the standards so as it has been pointed out, you had better be sure you know what those requirements are.

We have a number of customers who are the same as you are describing. They simply don't care about traceability. We maintain traceability as a normal part of our business and quite honestly it would be pretty hard to drop it for these customers. We find that our internal records don't hurt our customer and they certainly help us in the case of liability.

Regardless of the requirements of the customer, try to fit them into your normal system. Treat their "non-requirements" as customer specific requirements and don't deviate from your system. Your customer will benefit without any effect on them and you will benefit from the acurate records.

I agree with Cindy that with any of the standards she mentioned you can't "waive" responsibility. Your process still has a responsibility to produce good product so you have a definate accept/reject responsibility for the material you use - no matter who supplies it. JMHO

Dave

[The Taz!]

All good advice. . . if you are a TS or QS company, you have ONE Quality System. Suggest you not compromise your company's position for anyone. Also, they are now your SUPPLIER.

Have done this dance before, and it can get sticky. They are a supplier and bound by your Quality System requirements. They are a customer and call the shots.

In the past, the companies I have dealt with in this situation were happy to find out if anything went wrong with their product or service. Afterall, we essentially did their verification for them.

Just make sure that you are not open to end product liability. You will, at minimum, have to defend your position and that in itself can get costly.

Be the professional your were hired to be.

[Matt Swartwood]

Thank you for the quick responses. I have pretty much taken the same stand with the Project Engineers. I just wanted to make sure that I was not the only one who felt this should be done internally regardless of of what the customer specific requirements are.

Thanks again

[Mike Smith]

This is just my opinion, and thats all it should be taken for. If you are a ISO-TS company, is this company/customer in the scope of your quality system. I assume they are not since their customers do not require a registered QMS. I believe that you can not only set them apart from your regular QMS, but must if your other customers require your QMS to be certified/registered. A lot depends on the scope of your current QMS assuming you have one.
What was previously posted is good advice, but I believe you must set this company apart from your regular processes.
Taz,
Just because they are a supplier and a customer does not mean they are bound by your quality system requirements. It all depends on the scope of your QMS.

Just my two cents worth.

[David Hartman]

I have always felt that it would be more costly to attempt to operate with two or more distinct quality management systems, than it is to handle ALL contracts under the system with the most stringent requirements. Additionally, injecting "exceptions" into your system can lead to confusion among your employees and can result in errors that may impact your "controlled" product.

More than a few years ago, I worked in a defense industry environment where we had four major contracts (two DoD-based and two NASA-based). Of the DoD-based contracts we had one that was to Mil-Q-9858a (the grandfather/mother of the ISO 9000 series), and the other to Mil-I-45208a (a basic "inspection" system); we chose to handle all product under the Mil-Q system for the very reasons I stated above.

The NASA-based contracts were similar in that they were to NHB5300.4(b) a Mil-Q-9858a type of QMS, and NHB5300.4(c) a basic "inspection" system. Once again these were both handled under the more stringent program requirements.

Later when we changed over to ISO 9001, all of our programs were then handled under that standard.