Evaluation of a Contract Manufacturer

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#11
Personally, I would prefer to send someone with technical expertise on product or process or both, but only if the supplier has kind of "thrown in the towel" and admitted an inability to resolve the situation on its own. It is one of the reasons I mentioned "attitude" in my previous post.

Third party auditors do not need technical competence in the product or process to determine if there is sufficient process and adherence to the process and thus decide if the process needs tweaking or if the operators need tweaking to follow the process.
This is not a third-party audit situation, and perhaps not even a second-party audit. There's a problem with a supplier and the OP is apparently being dispatched to deal with it. Without some experience and knowledge, there isn't much the OP can do on his own. There's been a growing tendency on the part of OEMS to send quality people to supplier sites when there are problems, and often the people sent lack experience and aren't given a good idea of what it is they're supposed to accomplish. Supplier quality problem? Send an SQE!! In one extreme case I know of, an SQE was sent all the way to the far end of Australia and when I asked what he was supposed to do there replied, "I have no idea."

The primary questions which seem to be missing from this thread are whether

  1. supplier acknowledges the n/c as valid
  2. supplier agrees the n/c originated in his shop, not in shipping or at customer or at one of his suppliers
  3. supplier has presented a cogent description of his efforts to date in trying to resolve the situation and has no solution
I absolutely agree that if the OP or any SQA feels out of his depth (needing more than just a tip in the right direction), he should be looking for more direct help than a couple of guys throwing random comments on an internet forum. As brilliant as those folks may be in person with hands and eyes on the situation, it is nearly impossible to convey the breadth and width of that knowledge and experience in a few pithy lines in an internet forum for an unseen situation.[/QUOTE]

My guess is that perhaps 80% or more of the situations such as the OP's can be handled from a distance, and only extreme cases call for in-person intervention. As you suggested earlier, those cases should be handled as offering help rather than as blame-seeking missions. If the person sent isn't qualified to troubleshoot the process(es), there's no point in sending him.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#12
OOPS!
Somehow, my fat fingers deleted an entire explanatory paragraph after the sentence
"Third party auditors do not need technical competence in the product or process to determine if there is sufficient process and adherence to the process and thus decide if the process needs tweaking or if the operators need tweaking to follow the process."
The gist of that paragraph was something to the effect second party auditors (often an SQE or SQA [engineer or analyst]) are NOT really engineers or analysts except in unusual cases and are probably not qualified to troubleshoot and offer advice on correcting a systemic fault in a process or a machine, BUT they are able to assess whether the supplier personnel are working on the problem or merely running around like clowns at a circus. They can observe whether there are obvious breaches in performing the process according to the written procedures and instructions. When it appears the supplier is working diligently at trying to solve a problem, they may suggest the supplier call in "reinforcements" from experts to help solve the problem. When he feels he's visiting "clown alley," that may be the time to suggest to the bosses back at the customer HQ that new sources be sought.

Speaking from my contract machining experience, I agree with Jim W. that I never saw a customer's SQE who knew as much about machining as my least knowledgeable operator, so how could such an SQE do anything more than take up time in my shop? When we came across a problem whose solution eluded us (long before it ever came to a customer's attention, if ever), we called in experts from a variety of fields.
 
B

brandon1357

#13
Before you do anything, I think you need to know where you stand. Take a look at the agreement/contract between both parties.

Harry brings up a great point here about knowing where you stand. Usually in our contracts we only allow one external audit by our customers per year. We already go through multiple audits for certifications. If an audit isn't an option you would be better off starting some kind of non conformity or corrective action report which they would need to specifically address and correct any issue or breakdown in the system or product that may be contributing to the issues that you are seeing.

Also go into it with a friendly and understanding attitude. You will get more accomplished with them and find them more wiling to work with you.
 
1

1Noob

#14
Thanks for all the helpful suggestions.

Let me explain a little more I am actually not going to assign "blame". They have accepted that the failures were theirs and we have RMA the units back to them.

Since I am new to the company, I am there only as an observer to see how the product is built and to gain understanding of there process & product.

I will be there asking for there Quality Manual, overview of their quality system.
- specifics about their Incoming/In-process/Final inspection
- record keeping and results
- and how their non-conformance process and corrective action works.

Going out of the CM I would like to have an understanding how how those processes work and hopefully help find a solution to the incoming DOA's they have sent to us.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
P Evaluation of personnel suppliers (Contract / Temporary - Engineers) Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 8
shimonv Clinical evaluation report for class I device EU Medical Device Regulations 1
A Applicability of Photobiological Safety Evaluation for LED used in medical devices Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 1
P GSPRs / Clinical Evaluation EU Medical Device Regulations 3
silentmonkey Overall Benefit/Risk Analysis - Risk Management VS Clinical Evaluation ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
M NICE Medical Technology Evaluation Programme - Recommendations Service Industry Specific Topics 0
Q Summative Usability Evaluation Testing: prior or during Clinical Investigation? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 6
S Regular updates of clinical evaluation report EU Medical Device Regulations 6
K Surface finish (Evaluation Length) Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 3
M Clinical Evaluation Benchmark vs. Equivalent EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M IVDR and Performance Evaluation Plan CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 2
S User evaluation for self monitoring blood glucose test systems US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
S Australia TGA Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
S API Spec. Q1 clause 5.6.1.2 On site evaluation Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 10
B Biological evaluation plan and report Other Medical Device Related Standards 5
F Biocompatibility evaluation for Hardware/Interface Components? Other Medical Device Related Standards 12
B Clinical Evaluation Expert Panels - MDR EU Medical Device Regulations 1
T Clinical evaluation of a new medical device EU Medical Device Regulations 0
dgrainger Informational MDCG 2020:13 - Clinical evaluation assessment report template EU Medical Device Regulations 0
S A clinical performance evaluation study with an IVD product as Investagional Use product - Clinical Monitor requirements 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
B AS9100 8.4.1 Supplier Selection/Evaluation criteria and reevaluations AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 13
R Clinical evaluation without clinical data - MDR Article 61(10) EU Medical Device Regulations 8
M Clinical Evaluation Plan vs. PMCF Plan EU Medical Device Regulations 24
K Biocompatibility evaluation of gas pathways Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 5
T HF testing / Summative evaluation for MDDS class I necessary? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 2
N Evaluation of service providers Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 2
M Can someone share a scrubbed version of Clinical Evaluation Plan (CEP) EU Medical Device Regulations 8
S EU MDR Annex XIV - Clinical Evaluation Plan - What do these methods mean? EU Medical Device Regulations 16
C Material from outside CER evaluation period CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 8
DitchDigger IEC 60601-1 subclause 5.1 - Adequate evaluation in lieu of testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
S Clinical Evaluation - Is this an ISO 13485:2016 requirement? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
P SOUP anomaly evaluation for MMA (Mobile Medical Application) IEC 62304 clause 7.1.3 IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 6
M Informational How to perform a clinical evaluation of medical devices – Part 2 – Level of clinical evidence and what sufficient clinical evidence means Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 9
P IEC 62304 - evaluation of integration and system testing IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 4
R Supplier evaluation and business needs in the context of ISO 13485 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
U Changes to Internal Processes and Risk Evaluation - Mitigations Risk Management Principles and Generic Guidelines 10
M Informational Work in progress at the FDA for biological evaluation – Color Hazard and RISk calculator (CHRIS) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational How to perform a clinical evaluation of medical devices – Part 1 – Overview and sample of activities Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
T EU MDR Article 61- Clinical Evaluation EU Medical Device Regulations 2
pashah Looking for Clinical Evaluation SOP acc. MEDDEV and EU MDR Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
K Supplier re-evaluation (API Q1) Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
B Evaluation of Basic Safety during EMC Immunity or Climate Testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
S ISO 10993 Biocompatibility Evaluation - Electronic thermometer Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
D Clinical Evaluation Report - Consultant Recommendations Consultants and Consulting 9
qualprod ISO 9001 Clause 9.1 - Monitoring measurement analysis and evaluation ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
M CER (Clinical Evaluation Reports) updates - Product Codes EU Medical Device Regulations 2
A Medical device CER (clinical evaluation report) training/seminar services EU Medical Device Regulations 2
M Informational US – National Evaluation System for Health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc) Solicits Public Comments for Data Quality and Methods Frameworks Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational IMDRF – Proposed update to Clinical Evaluation documents Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational MDCG 2019-3 Interpretation of Article 54(2)b – Pre- market clinical evaluation consultation procedure with the involvement of expert panels Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0

Similar threads

Top Bottom