How to satisfy with AS9100 Clause 8.4.3 a, Information for external providers?

[Mike S.]

Mike, I hear you but... if you don't want to take the time to understand your customers' needs, somebody else will. As a supplier you may be annoyed with "alleged experts" but as a customer I like to do business with folks that try to make my life easier rather than expect that I should make thier's easy and I try to keep that in mind when I'm working with my customers.

I think the customer/supplier relationship should be a 2-way street.

If your customer tosses you a 60 page document of T's and C's and Quality Clauses and says "here, figure out what applies to the order I just sent" how are you gonna do that?

If they say all 60 pages apply, can you imagine the work involved in assuring that?

If they say clauses 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 100, 105, 203 and 322 from our T's and C's and Quality Clauses document apply to the order, they have then clearly stated their requirements and saved me lots of time and grief.

 

[Cari Spears]

We have a few customers that list all kinds of quality clauses on their POs that do not apply to tooling. When we quote, we have to make statements that we're quoting with exceptions to quality clause so-and-so. Then when we receive the award, the Program Manager has to contact them for exception to those clauses in writing, because they just "always put those boilerplate clauses in the POs".

 

[Kronos147]

We created a document that catalogs our customer requirements, be it T's & C's or Supplier Quality Manuals.

We catalog the revision\date of the docs, and then set up a table for them.

For each clause (ex. Q101), we state the actual requirement in one column, and our process to meet it in the next column. If Q101 says "shipments must include a certificate of conformance...." our requirement may say something like "no action required - see WI-CRP-103 for shipping, C of C always included." If Q102 says 'source inspection required' our column may say 'make sure to set up source inspections, and flow down to suppliers. Check that we have the current source inspector contact information.'

Our document is currently 383 pages long, and has a list of 140 changes in the log (since 2014). The real challenge is looking at all the customer websites and such to make sure we are at the latest and greatest of their documents.

 

[Mike S.]

Wow, Kronos, that is quite an undertaking.

I wish quality clauses could be somewhat standardized because it really is a huge effort to keep track of them for all the different customers and all the revisions from each customer. And there is always the pain in the rear customer who wants something special on their C of C, different than everyone else, requiring a special form or procedure just to satisfy them.

And it seems like some clause writers go out of their way to be excessively verbose as though they are getting paid by the word, and paid more for added complexity. Simplicity is becoming rarer all the time, which just seems wrong.

 

[Big Jim]

I realize this is an older discussion and I'm hoping my issue is relevant, so... I'm trying to determine if a revision to our Customer Requirements doc is needed to address the communication to suppliers requirements. (This is an Opportunity for Improvement / Preventive Action rather than an audit finding CA.) The current practice has evolved from the original through revisions to the procedure that supports compliance to 8.4.3 and I have began to question if it has been a bit corrupted with respect to the information actually provided to the suppliers. A statement on our P.O.s directs suppliers to our website where our requirements can be reviewed. This document addresses some of the items noted in 8.4.3, but not all of them. I understand that the statement in 8.4.3 is that the organization shall communicate " its "requirements and I've read various opinions as to what that really means. Some say that you needn't include the items that do not typically apply while others feel it's just safer to include everything, with phrases such as "when applicable" or "when appropriate" or "when required" or "when requested", etc. I have a draft of a revision to our document that covers all of the items in 8.4.3 where I've used some of these terms - "Special requirements shall be provided, when applicable." (just an example, it's not written exactly like this). What's the consensus ? Has anyone had similar issues / questions, if so , what was the final resolution? Any input that you have would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

You hit a very important and controversial topic. Controversial because some certification bodies don't seem to know the definition of "its". Its in this context can ONLY mean the organization, that is YOU. It is not a list of things that always apply as many certification bodies seem to believe. It is YOUR discretion, not an auditors.