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

[Haddad9921]

NIKKIQSM, out of curiosity, can you share the ISO survey you send your suppliers?

 

[NikkiQSM]

Here it is.

 

[Jen Kirley]

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.

This represents one solid reason why these surveys can be a waste of time on the part of both parties.

I have even found that ISO certification might not be enough assurance, though it is supposed to be. The cert can be based on an auditor whose style and focus might not match yours or suit your needs. Indeed here on the Cove we have (elsewhere) noted one self-accredited registrar - and what good does that do you?

ISO 9001 provides a range of choices for approving suppliers, one of which is their performance. Their answers to your survey might not even reflect their actual performance, which might include packaging integrity and on-time delivery, also customer service.

So I agree that focus should be on how their product and service suits your needs. The standard requires you to be evaluating that; it doesn't require surveys... for good reason in my view. If you have concerns and really need what they provide, maybe a visit would be more valuable and even (dare I say it?) provide a means to start developing a relationship with them.

 

[hogheavenfarm]

After looking at the survey, I would suggest not including any 'scoring information' on the questions themselves, or the note about qualification, as it comes across as a 'test'. I have a tiny block at the top of our 'for company use only', that implies a 'score', but in actuality this may be quite flexible depending on the supplier. What you really want to know is the answers to your questions, not much else, as that will affect your use of that supplier (maybe). The questions should be worded in such a way that "NO" answers are not seen as 'bad' and "YES" answers as 'good'. These questions are pre-loaded with your desired response. I supply multiple choice answers and always include a "N/A" or "Other" with them. All they need to do is highlite the choice(s) and email the same sheet back. While response is not overwhelming, I do get a fair amount back because I try to make it painless and quick, but still get the info I need.

 

[NikkiQSM]

After looking at the survey, I would suggest not including any 'scoring information' on the questions themselves, or the note about qualification, as it comes across as a 'test'.

I agree... This was not included on the first version, but again, we were pushed by one of our top large customers. They insisted we add this...

If only I could tell my customers no

 

[Pretorian]

I (we) ditched the supplier survey thing the second day I came on board as the QA Manager. If they have a cert,,,all is good,,,if not,,,all is good,,, providing they meet delivery and quality criteria. We manage by exception and canvas only suppliers that are non-conforming at one time or another. If our customer demands "single source" purchasing and that supplier goes out of business then I lay it back on them to deal with it. There many more issues to worry about, compliance wise, than if they will or will not fill out a document not worth the paper its written on. Just my .02

 

[Wes Bucey]

I (we) ditched the supplier survey thing the second day I came on board as the QA Manager. If they have a cert,,,all is good,,,if not,,,all is good,,, providing they meet delivery and quality criteria. We manage by exception and canvas only suppliers that are non-conforming at one time or another. If our customer demands "single source" purchasing and that supplier goes out of business then I lay it back on them to deal with it. There many more issues to worry about, compliance wise, than if they will or will not fill out a document not worth the paper its written on. Just my .02

AMEN!

I might add, however, that single source suppliers should only be single source if the customer has an information route to keep tabs on how they are doing - even it's only a weekly or monthly phone call to assure the same key players at the supplier remain in place and haven't abandoned a sinking ship.

 

[Buckyb]

I know this is an old post but still helpful as I began looking at better ways to re-define my list of suppliers. One thing I noticed; the industry uses the term "approved supplier list" (ASL). Actually AS9100C states that the organization shall maintain a "register" of suppliers that includes their status (e.g. approved, conditional, disapproved). I prefer the term Supplier Register where I keep a list of all suppliers (who effect product) using the status of COTS, approved, disapproved, inactive or conditional. I have a survey but only send it out to those suppliers I need info from. I also use the Supplier Register to indicate supplier risk; low if ISO/AS certified, medium if no ISO/AS but maintain a quality system and high if no ISO/AS certification and no quality. I can also change the risk status if on-time-delivery and acceptance falls below acceptable. At one time I too painted myself into a corner assuming all suppliers needed to respond to my survey.....and found wet paint on my shoes too many times.

 

[QC_geek]

I'm the guy on the other side not wanting to fill out these stupid surveys...
I work for an OEM machine tool manufacturer. In purchasing our equipment we end up on the AVL of every company we sell to. As such I see a stream of these emailed requests that at first I would push back on...only to find it easier to simply comply.

That said...what argument can I use to convince those sending to STOP!

My equipment does not get sent in any product you produce and as such I'm NOT YOUR SUPPLIER. We are no more a supplier to your company than the provider of your copy machine (likely on their AVL as well).

Though with ISO 9001:2015, I'm not sure how valid this argument is anymore...

Any ideas?

 

[Al Rosen]

My equipment does not get sent in any product you produce and as such I'm NOT YOUR SUPPLIER. We are no more a supplier to your company than the provider of your copy machine (likely on their AVL as well).

Any ideas?

There is a difference. The copy machine is not used to produce product.