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

[drgnrider]

We had a similar issue for approval of contractors, namely, there were new contractors in-use and no reviews completed per our procedures. Suggested policy from higher HQ, that was just "accepted", was a 12-page questionnaire and, in part, stated '[all] contractors needed multi-million dollars in liability insurance with [us] named as an additional insured and submit copy of said insurance policy'. :mg: Why does the groundskeeper need a multi-million dollar policy? In our area, aside from the "government entities" we are probably one of five business that carry that much insurance.
We modified the questionnaire to: 1) three questions, 2) that 'we would tell them if they needed liability insurance and how much', and 3) a section for us to do an internet search on them (looking for negative issues).
Hopefully, this version will get utilized... and returned.

(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.)

I absolutely agree with Wes on this topic (I have also been fighting this EXACT same battle here ). I see this question as one of those Risk-analysis' things needing addressed in ISO 9001:2015 for any prime/major supplier.

 

[Gman2]

Ever thought about just NOT having supplier surveys in your ISO system?
An AVL is not required, neither are surveys.

An actuall they dont spell out how or what criteria you use to choose a vendor, just that you perform some sort of evaluation.

Our answer to this issue this time around (we were certified years ago here and it was so massive with the extra tasks that then instituted that it just collapsed and they stopped doing them and they lost their cert), now we only record the "BAD" things that happen that involve suppliers. Late deliveries, poor product quality, quantities off, whatever causes us issues. We record whenever these things happen. Then every quarter we can just look at this list and see who was a bad boy this quarter (if any) and then decide if we want to do anything about it.
We dont calculate OTD or individual good/bad numbers or any of that nonsense per supplier, that would be way too much work and it would really be serving the same purpose, which is to get rid or troubled suppliers.
We just look at the log and if company x ended up on the log 10 times we might have an issue.

But really no one has time for all of that survey, AVL business, not here.
And we would certinaly not hold anyone off from purchasing from them if they were not ISO certified or even if they dont have ANY QMS. If anything we would just watch their incoming material a little closer at the start.

Why make more work?

 

[hogheavenfarm]

I could not agree more. Our surveys are sent out every three years, if I get some back, great, otherwise I do not worry about it, I just make a note of when it was sent out and that it was not returned. As for AVL index, we too really only track defective material. The index shows the amount of material bad relative to the length of time they have been supplying us. Needless to say, a quick glance is all that is needed to see how the quality is. In the MR report I give a quick pie chart of the vendor indexes, just so the PTB are informed. You can make too much of this, and quickly get buried under paperwork. As Gman says, it is not required, but it does satisfy our customer audits very quickly, so it works well for us.

 

[GStough]

While my situation is not identical, it is similar. As part of our supplier audit process, we send out an audit report form that contains a portion for the supplier to complete prior to the audit. They are expected to have objective evidence available that supports their self-rating to save time at the actual audit.

Recently, however, we had a supplier whose policy it is (unbeknownst to me at the time) to NOT complete, sign/date customer surverys, etc. So, what they sent in lieu of the form that I'd sent was a packet of information (their selection, yet relevant to the product we purchase) that they felt met any ISO or FDA requirements. As a result, I will now have to revise the supplier audit procedure to make allowance for accepting suppliers' own documentation in lieu of ours. While I don't think we have a large number of suppliers who would refuse, I want to make sure that we have that flexibility to accept external documents that are equivalent and meet the needs of our business.

I hope this helps.

 

[normzone]

Ah yes, I've met those guys.

" We're sure you understand, we're all busy, and we get so many of these things it would be really annoying to fill them all out, so here's our package. Deal with it, buy from us or not, your choice "

And they're right. It's usually a supplier you would really benefit from, in a very small niche group of suppliers with no real competition.

 

[GoKats78]

When we got those surveys they got handed down to the lowest on the ladder...the least qualified to accurately respond...most, as someone said, got pitched. There is no requirement for you to survey you suppliers...unless you put that requirement on yourself.

 

[TrivialSublime]

When we got those surveys they got handed down to the lowest on the ladder...the least qualified to accurately respond...most, as someone said, got pitched. There is no requirement for you to survey you suppliers...unless you put that requirement on yourself.

AS9100 (Aerospace) has many additional requirements to the ISO, something to do with probably not wanting lazy suppliers causing air crashes by their lackadaisical approach to customers.

While I am not a believer in any business being forced to do what it doesn't want to do the market is already making the decision. Boeing some years ago mandated AS9100 or one of its derivatives for companies wanting to supply them, other primes have followed. The word was Boeing dropped about 30 % of their supplier base which could not or would not comply.

The news (good or bad) depending on your viewpoint is industry has spoken and as the years go by will want more and more control over suppliers through some sort of Quality certification.

Companies that fail to embrace it will fall by the wayside, sort of an economical evolution.

From the way you have stated it, your company seems to believe that a customer?s requirements especially if they sound like a bit of work are to handed off to ?the least qualified to accurately respond ? , an interesting if not disappointing corporate culture.

 

[hogheavenfarm]

Correct, our inclusion of AVL indexes and surveys is driven by our customer auditors, not CB's. It is a bit difficult to disagree with your customer, if you actually want to supply them. I could argue, but whats the point? We want to be their supplier, so we go along like the rest. I just try to make the job as simple as possible for me and my company.

 

[NikkiQSM]

Correct, our inclusion of AVL indexes and surveys is driven by our customer auditors, not CB's. It is a bit difficult to disagree with your customer, if you actually want to supply them. I could argue, but whats the point? We want to be their supplier, so we go along like the rest. I just try to make the job as simple as possible for me and my company.

That is exactly correct and the reason why I have a survey in the first place.

It is purely customer driven. How can I get rid of the survey requirement if my customer is telling me to do so?

 

[Golfman25]

AS9100 (Aerospace) has many additional requirements to the ISO, something to do with probably not wanting lazy suppliers causing air crashes by their lackadaisical approach to customers.

While I am not a believer in any business being forced to do what it doesn't want to do the market is already making the decision. Boeing some years ago mandated AS9100 or one of its derivatives for companies wanting to supply them, other primes have followed. The word was Boeing dropped about 30 % of their supplier base which could not or would not comply.

The news (good or bad) depending on your viewpoint is industry has spoken and as the years go by will want more and more control over suppliers through some sort of Quality certification.

Companies that fail to embrace it will fall by the wayside, sort of an economical evolution.

From the way you have stated it, your company seems to believe that a customer?s requirements especially if they sound like a bit of work are to handed off to ?the least qualified to accurately respond ? , an interesting if not disappointing corporate culture.

I have a colleague who runs one of the best molding shops around. Works for all of the "big guys." Has a great culture. He does not complete vendor surveys on the grounds that they are not value added. Hasn't hurt him one bit because he is no nonsense and performs where the rubber meets the road.