The title pretty much says it all. Should our IATF Certification Body (e.g. TUV) be on our Approved Supplier List?
A partner facility who is ISO 9001:2015 certified recently had an audit and the auditor told them, off the record, that the CB should be on their Approved Supplier List.
I almost feel stupid asking, to be honest. I suppose, technically they have a direct impact on our ability to provide products to our customers in the sense that if they revoked our IATF cert, we may no longer be able to supply products to our automotive customers. But to me, that doesn't seem to be the intent of the standard.
This comment was not related to 3rd part auditing service provided by CB.
When they provide services as training, internal audits, product inspection (e.g,. regulation related), they have to be controlled in a similar manner as non-CB suppliers.
This comment was not related to 3rd part auditing service provided by CB.
When they provide services as training, internal audits, product inspection (e.g,. regulation related), they have to be controlled in a similar manner as non-CB suppliers.
I almost feel stupid asking, to be honest. I suppose, technically they have a direct impact on our ability to provide products to our customers in the sense that if they revoked our IATF cert, we may no longer be able to supply products to our automotive customers. But to me, that doesn't seem to be the intent of the standard.
i don't think so either. It would be reaching, in my opinion, for an auditor to write this up.
Lets look at it this way, if you add them to your approved supplier list, what value have you added? Any at all? If the answer is "I spent a few seconds of my life that I can never get back adding a name to a list", then i don't think that's what the standard intention was.
I've experienced something similar - albeit as a tongue-in-cheek response from an auditor. we were being held to the verbiage in our own procedures that required all suppliers to be on the ASL.
we updated our process to allow only product- and process-impacting suppliers to be required in the ASL (I forget the verbiage we actually used, but there was heated internal debate!). other services (e.g. consultants, office consumables) were excluded from the procedure, and thus not required to be identified on the ASL.
Our particular auditor was fine with that clarification.
Hi John, I think you are right that there is no requirement for an "approved supplier list," but I think it is a useful way to quickly verify a supplier has been evaluated (based on the selection criteria in 8.4.1.2). It's also a useful as a list of suppliers that need to be included in monitoring (periodic scorecards) and development activities.
That said, I'd be interested to learn of any alternative methods of keeping track of suppliers without using such a list.
Hi John, I think you are right that there is no requirement for an "approved supplier list," but I think it is a useful way to quickly verify a supplier has been evaluated (based on the selection criteria in 8.4.1.2). It's also a useful as a list of suppliers that need to be included in monitoring (periodic scorecards) and development activities.
That said, I'd be interested to learn of any alternative methods of keeping track of suppliers without using such a list.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.