How do you justify that not all Suppliers need to be Audited?

[Murphys Law]

Yes, look at which suppliers are critical to your business : In my industry, they are ones that supply raw materials.

We have two levels - Level 1 are ones we regard as strategic or partner suppliers. These are ones that we regard as inovators and bring something to the table.

Level II are ones that could be second sources or ones that we regard as tactical suppliers. They may be tactical in that we don't actively source them due to quality, pricing or technology issues.

It is perfectly acceptable to have regular reviews with a supplier but not necessarily audit them. They key is to give them feedback with an objective scorecard. Strategic suppliers, you may want to have face2face meetings.

 

[munagada]

After reading all these replies, i like to add --
ISO-9001 does not tell anything about supplier development, but TS-16949 clearly specifies the supplier development, also gives the CRITERIA -
"the prioritization of suppliers for development depends upon, for example, the supplier's quality performance and the importance of the product supplied"

Your categorization of suppliers (A,B,C,D) may not meeting the TS requirements. For example, your categorization of A,B,C,D may be on the basis of cost, bulk etc. And you start with A-suppliers, but a few D-suppliers whose supplies quality is very important for your product quality, but you ignore them in your supplier development process, you know what the consequence..

Thanks

 

[Valeri]

* a generic criteria would be helpful, since it would not go for the ISO/TS 16949 issues.

Thank you.

BR,
Andrey

Andrey,

The attached applies to these suppliers of: raw material, components, outside processors, calibration services, new capital and tooling suppliers.

Hope this gives you a starting point.

 

[db]

How about "they also have a 3rd party certification to TS16949/ISO9001?"

Since this thread is in the TS forum, Randy's comments need to be considered. TS has some pretty specific requirements. Although, based on the old FAQ, the term "Supplier" was also defined. Look at the requirements for TS on supplier development.

 

[vanputten]

The Elsmar Cove has had many discussion on supplier development and clause 7.4.1.2 of TS 16949.

Consider searching the archives for discussions on supplier development requirements, definitions, sanctioned interpretations, etc.

http://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/docs/English NEW IATF TS SIs Non Table Version.pdf

 

[ralphsulser]

Welcome Dear07,

Like Jennifer, I am not sure if you are right to assert that tooling equipment and coolants do not have any effect on the product quality or finished part. Without knowing what you do, I guess it does as in most machining cases.

What we found was that it was more important to control the coolant concentration which contributed more to quality and tool wear. We assigned a full time person to daily monitor and document the concentration levels of each CNC lathing operation. It not only made more consistent cuts, but also improved insert cutting tool life. Lack of this control caused some issues such as chips fused to the part.

 

[Taliesyn]

I've just had exactly this conversation with our External Auditor. We use something like 400 suppliers but three of them account for nearly 92% of all our purchases (for raw materials). I wanted to reduce the amount of work we were doing with a stupidly complex monitoring system that I inherited when I took the job. He had no problem with my proposal and quoted exactly the same sections of the standard quoted above.

 

[jhoniegudel]

In my company supplier monitoring apply for all supplier, but for auditing we done for supplier for direct material which is in bad performance.


jhonie