Supplier Quality vs. Supplied Material Quality

[BishDamo]

I'm new to supplier quality and am confused by the practice of using Approved Vendor Lists. I'm wondering why is it industry practice for some companies to have a list of "approved vendors", if being "approved" says nothing about the ability of that supplier to provide a specific component?

I'm sure it's not uncommon to have an "approved" supplier that has been supplying injection moulded part X for years, but is incapable of consistently supplying injection moulded part Y? In this case, surely the supplier should be on a list of "vendors approved for supply of component X", rather than a list of "approved vendors"? What is the benefit of having a list of "approved vendors" unless it's specific to supply of a particular part? Or another way of looking at it is why can't I just buy from any vendor I like, without any form of AVL, as every time I inspect the component at incoming, am I not "re-evaluating" that suppliers ability to provide the product as required by ISO 9001/13485 (e.g. via Supplier Corrective Action process)?

I do appreciate that there'll obviously be a relationship between a supplier's general systems and their ability to consistently supply quality product, but at the end of the day, isn't it your incoming inspection system that verifies the quality of the components provided? Why waste valuable resources on supplier evaluations and periodic customer audits?

Any info would be much appreciated.
Rgds,
D

 

[Sorin]

Re: Supplier Quality vs Supplied material quality

A little

In one of my other lives I had a supplier that was consistently of the mark regarding quality. And if you can imagine it was even worse than that: I was marking the NC parts (hidden marks) and he was returning them months later disseminated in other shippings.
The directive (from owner) was: you raise the nc, ensure the credit is processed and that only good parts are used.

 

[JAltmann]

Re: Supplier Quality vs Supplied material quality

In the grand scheme being and approved supplier is alot more than meaning they are capable of supplying part 'X'. It looks at their quality systems, infastructure, finances and capabilities/type of prduct they can supply. You may have a supplier that can supply a 10 pc order without issue, but what if you need 100,000 pc.'s they may not have finances and equipment to to do that.

Just because a supplier is on the "approved" list does not mean they get a free pass to make parts for your company, it means your company is willing to give them the business for producing for them, and should still go through proper production part approval process after being awarded a new product.

Just going to any vendor by pulling a name from a hat is a highly risky practice when dealing with large volume orders and just in time deliveries.

 

[Bob the QE]

Re: Supplier Quality vs Supplied material quality

The AVL (Approved Vendor List) is not intended to provide the level of inspection at incoming inspection. It is to provide the frame work for the organization to determine that level. This is done by the scope of products to be purchased from that supplier and maintenance or review of that supplier and AVL. In my view the reason you can't buy from anyone regardless of the level inspection for given products is because it will affect your customer. If the parts are rejected you could miss delivery dates which are suppose to be evaluated and planned for prior to accepting the contract with the customer. There is also the clause that you need to assure any special processes used by your suppliers are controlled especially if that process produces characteristics that can not be verified until the product is at the customer facility or in use. I think of it as cost reduction why pay inspectors to do the job that you’re paying the supplier to do. Good suppliers with good QMS's are paying for that system so there products may appear more expensive a first but the cost savings at your plant will justify it through reduced inspection times, less scrap and happier customers. Two things I suggest to keep in mind even 100% inspection is not 100% effective and the old saying "garbage in, garbage out".
Good luck

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Supplier Quality vs Supplied material quality

Three things come to mind that should be considered in this conversation.

1st, the level of scrutiny needed to apply to the supplier and/or the product is dependent on how the product impacts your final product.

2nd, you really cannot separate the supplier from the product in your consideration. They either do a good job of providing product that meets your requirements or they don't. They cannot be a good supplier and provide lousy product.

3rd, just because a supplier is good at providing one product doesn't mean they are good at everything. You choose them for their ability to supply you according to their capabilities for the item wanted. In AS9100B, one of the aerospace enhancements speaks to this. It requires the Approved Supplier List to include the "scope of approval".

 

[BishDamo]

Re: Supplier Quality vs Supplied material quality

Thanks all for your responses - things are starting to get a lot clearer for me now.

In AS9100B, one of the aerospace enhancements speaks to this. It requires the Approved Supplier List to include the "scope of approval".

By "scope" of approval on the AVL, do you mean for example: "approved for provision of part #123456" & "approved for provision of tensile testing per ASTM 1234".

Or is it a bit more general like: "approved for provision of micro-moulded components" or "approved for provision of mechanical testing services"?

I've seen AVL's that say both. At the moment, the latter makes more sense to me, as other systems (e.g. QC-incoming, Calibration) can be used to determine if the specific product/service being delivered on the day meets our specific requirements? What say you?

Rgds,
D

 

[Bob the QE]

Re: Supplier Quality vs Supplied material quality

The scope is up to you the standards says " maintain a register of approved suppliers that includes the scope of approval". So it can be by product, part ,special process or what ever criteria your org. needs.

 

[somashekar]

I'm new to supplier quality and am confused by the practice of using Approved Vendor Lists. I'm wondering why is it industry practice for some companies to have a list of "approved vendors", if being "approved" says nothing about the ability of that supplier to provide a specific component?

I'm sure it's not uncommon to have an "approved" supplier that has been supplying injection moulded part X for years, but is incapable of consistently supplying injection moulded part Y? In this case, surely the supplier should be on a list of "vendors approved for supply of component X", rather than a list of "approved vendors"? What is the benefit of having a list of "approved vendors" unless it's specific to supply of a particular part? Or another way of looking at it is why can't I just buy from any vendor I like, without any form of AVL, as every time I inspect the component at incoming, am I not "re-evaluating" that suppliers ability to provide the product as required by ISO 9001/13485 (e.g. via Supplier Corrective Action process)?

I do appreciate that there'll obviously be a relationship between a supplier's general systems and their ability to consistently supply quality product, but at the end of the day, isn't it your incoming inspection system that verifies the quality of the components provided? Why waste valuable resources on supplier evaluations and periodic customer audits?

Any info would be much appreciated.
Rgds,
D

Hii .. It has always been a supplier and part combination which has been applied to pick a vendor for being approved in our quality management system. One who can repair a wallclock need not necessarly also know how to repair a wrist watch, though both are meant to show time.

 

[outoftown]

Although not stated as a requirement, approved vendor lists became the norm for ISO 9001 registered companies because it was the easiest way to show what subset of all your suppliers needed to be evaluated and controlled. Sometimes the list is nothing more than the non-MRO suppliers. Sometimes it is based on an evaluation that may include financial (D&B report), on-site visit, survey questionnaire results, existing certifications and prior experience (possibly via corporate or sister plants) or the supplier may even be mandated by your customer. Grandfathering suppliers prior to your original registration audit is also a possible way to get on the AVL. The best approach for an AVL is to include any supplier that may impact your QMS, obviously raw material and component suppliers, but it should also include any that you have subcontracted some aspect of the ISO 9001 standard, e.g. training, calibration, maintenance.

A supplier on your AVL doesn't necessarily mean it is recognition of any quality status. Listed on the AVL is only evidence of meeting your company's minimal requirements. If you wanted to establish something on recognition of quality, optional "preferred" vendor awards or allowing dock-to-stock status, bypassing normal inspections could be in place. If you have incoming inspection, a reduced inspection, based on risks and required AQL levels could be implemented.

Using a supplier not on your AVL, without justification, would be more a legal or company compliance issue. SOX rules probably would come into play. What if your brother owned that injection molding company or you had stock with that particular supplier? It's best to use the AVL to avoid a potential conflict of interest issue, else you could be terminated.

Bill

 

[BishDamo]

Thanks all for your help. I've pieced together a draft SOP based on what I think people are telling me and also from trawling a lot of other threads on the cove. Would be very interested in any feedback that anyone may have.

Please appreciate that it was drafted around the reality of a small start-up, so its probably a long way from what many are used to seeing. We don't have the resources to do any vendor audits/ complicated performance evaluations, etc. - not for a while anyway. We also don't yet have an appreciation of how critical different suppliers may be to our requirements. Hence the 2 bucket classification system - I hope to break these out over time when I understand better the criticality of our different suppliers). Anyway, please let me know if you think I'm missing the point or on the right track?

Rgds,
D