Interesting Discussion How to Deal with Suppliers Who Refuse to Complete our ISO Survey?

[Ninja]

The 2nd page of the survey is a no change agreement - If they cant or wont follow our agreement - I just need them to list that on page 2. No change agreements are huge.

So the no change agreement isn't important either?
How can it bu huge (or required) if all they have to do is fill out page 2?

It's not useless - we are medical and no change agreements are needed in our line of business.

...unless you fill out page 2?

Anyway...looks like you got an overwhelming "Find another way to Approve the Suppliers" answer from all. Best of luck with your internal folks allowing this. Shouldn't be too bad, but you never can tell.....Good Luck!

 

[Wes Bucey]

Consultants like me have terrible scars on our tongues and the insides of our cheeks from biting them to prevent uttering our thoughts aloud about the architects of unthinking "MUSTS" put into place in company policies.

My [decidedly unscientific] recall of dozens of past incidents where I discover the root cause almost always tracks to some "genius" copying procedures from some other company without ever thinking, "What if ...?"

My take (if I were brought in as a consultant):
"Immediately scrap the current policy of questionnaires and the draconian consequences for not responding."

Next, immediately examine ALL our designs and begin changing those which incorporate proprietary products available from only a single source.

(Don't get me wrong here. Buying all of one "kind" of product from a single source is often economically sound, BUT what is the backup if disaster strikes and puts that source out of business for a week/month/year/forever? This means making designs where the ONLY proprietary component is/are ones which you hold rights to manufacture anywhere. Then the solution is to have sufficient inventory until a new production facility can be set up to replace one destroyed by disaster.)

 

[pkost]

Fully agree with what ninja has said. You SOP has boxed you into a corner. That you are medical and "require" this is incorrect...there are other ways

I have worked for both large and small medical companies, in the small one I hated filling out these forms because they were a waste of time:
1. You can see I have an ISO certificate - its posted on the website
2. If there are any changes to the products, I inform (and get your agreement) before the change as required by the original technical agreement and our SOPs - if you are waiting for an annual questionnaire to confirm no changes then you have a problem...what happens when someone says they made a change 360 days ago and you have been making non conforming product all that time?



Your supplier approval should be based on risk, not absolutes, if you inspect product on receipt, monitor deliveries etc you will have sufficient information to classify your supplier. Getting a supplier to complete a form does nothing to demonstrate that they are suitable as a supplier

 

[J0anne]

Your system is the problem; not your supplier and I agree, it is one more useless piece of paper to add to your QMS while it is still required by your procedure.

 

[Johnson]

If some suppliers reject such a "simple" request, that may be because that order is not important for them. It does not worth them to make some changse or compromise. That's not a thing the quality manager can solve, it is purchasing and top mananhgement should consider the strategy, or quality manager to change the requirements if the change does not effect supplier quality and performance and does not effect your quality performance.
If you need the supplier, just skip the requirements. Considering the consequence of loosing this supplier or not meeting your procedure requirements.

 

[TrivialSublime]

Hi NikkiQSm
I would concur with the comments about changing the way in which you Qualify suppliers / vendors to get through this hurdle. We encounter it on occasion.
There are some suppliers and from the looks of some the posts here a bit of arrogance about responding to a customer. To each their own, if I get the opportunity to 86 a non-responsive supplier then at some point I will.
In Aerospace I have used the IAQG Oasis database for contacts when it comes to questions about a potential suppliers system that goes beyond just having a certificate.
I'm also sure that if a Prime ask a small company and they do not respond they?re history.
And finally if a supplier responds to a survey from large company due to an economic necessity but not to a small company what?s that?s say about their management style?

 

[Illek]

We have had problems with suppliers not returning audits. We just raise their risk in their vendor profile and buy from them anyway if they supply something critical. The Approved Vendor list is more than a yes/no process to me. Risk mitigation is a big part of it.

 

[Ninja]

"The 2nd page of the survey is a no change agreement - If they cant or wont follow our agreement - I just need them to list that on page 2. No change agreements are huge."


Just since no one specifically pointed it out yet...

A Survey or such is far different than an agreement.
Joining the two together may be another reason why folks are ignoring them.

In my business, the survey (if it got filled out at all) would be filled out by a secretary or someone from Quality.
An agreement would go through legal and be signed by an officer.

Your vendors might have your "Survey + Agreement" in limbo somewhere in between.

A no-change agreement is not tied to quality...it is tied to sales or purchasing.

Consider making the no-change agreement part of the purchasing negotiation, not the vendor approval process.

 

[Big Jim]

As others have pointed out, you have painted yourself into a corner with your procedure which gives you no flexibility.

I don't know how or why it has come about, but there seems to be an attitude that the survey is some magic piece of paper, and it isn't. If you do use a survey, and it can be very useful most of the time, the magic comes from the EVALUATION of the survey. It is what you learn from the survey that matters.

Back to flexibility, one of the best supplier evaluation procedures I have seen reads something like this:

Suppliers are approved by evaluation of a supplier survey, site visit that may include an audit, trial buy, OR ANY COMBINATION OF THE THREE AS DETERMINED BY THE (title of the one that can make that determination).

That provides you with plenty of flexibility and still provides loads of control.

 

[hogheavenfarm]

Here is how we approach this -

"...Potential Vendor is supplied with POTA –(Purchase Order Terms and Agreements) - (PPP-020), and Supplier Quality Survey (PPP-019). These should be reviewed and renewed every three years, or as necessary.
Based on a preliminary risk assessment parts may be ordered in the following manner:

Full quantity – incoming inspection per ANSI Z1.9 or Z1.4
FPI – limited quantity, [company] in-house FAI inspection.
FAI – single unit, full validation before production.

In addition, a site audit may be requested periodically.

Based on the results of the inspection and other quality data, an index score will be kept of each supplier which will be used to select suppliers for future utilization.

The Approved Vendor List will be kept in a state of continual review.

Suppliers that are deficient in any area should be noted on the list for easy identification and follow up by [company]...."

The benefit here is that it allows us flexibility with some difficult suppliers that supply single source items, as well as providing that the incoming quality does not suffer, nor do we put ourselves in a box if we cannot get cooperation with them.