Still needing Input!
Wes & atetsade,
I was going to ignore this thread all together based on your responses, but after taking time to reflect on your responses I have decided to keep with the thread.
Doug, Wes' post nails it. The best thing I heard so far was that you want to include *key* suppliers in your approved supplier list.
atetsade,
I do not know where you are coming from on this statement. I do not say anything about "key suppliers." In fact, I am looking at how to establish the 7.4.1 criteria for selection, evaluation, and re-evaluation of suppliers that provide product relating to the Infrastructure (6.3) and Work Environment (6.4) 'needed to achieve conformity to product requirements."
If in the process of selecting and qualifying suppliers, who are utilized for "any process that effects product conformity with requirements" (last paragraph in 4.1), I determine the scope of this purchasing process by stating those products or services that establish and/or maintain our Quality Management System, then I would have to include those suppliers of Infrastructure and Work Environment. But historically I have not had MRO suppliers, or Capital Expenditure suppliers included in this selection and evaluation process. Is 9001:2000 pushing this envelope like it appears to be doing with the "Design and Development" 7.3? [I have a couple different questions pending in those threads too!]
Purchasing can reasonably be divided into three major categories:
Capital equipment and real estate (includes creature comforts of space, lighting, heat, etc. for employees.)
Maintenance, Repairs, Operations (MRO) which keep the operation running
Raw materials, components, and services which are incorporated in final product
These are all important, but rarely do items from the first two categories get included in Quality Management Systems since they have minimal direct effect on how the customer perceives his requirements are being met. In some cases, items from either or both of those categories have huge impact on finished product (process machinery and operations are two that spring to mind.)
Wes,
My initial response was limited and I did not include any Smilies to show my pleasure and frustration with your response. I was appreciative of the practical approach, or your approach involving the 'spirit of the standard' over the 'letter of the standard.' But I have to get a handle on this inter-relationship, to control the possible audit findings internally or externally.
But I was taken back with your conclusion that I was throwing a hissy fit!
It really is not "good form" to throw a hissy fit when no one rises to the bait you put forth in a post.
I was monitoring the thread to see what helpful feedback I would receive from Cove participants. A week had passed, so I thought I would re-word my wish to know how other's have addressed this inter-relationship. Our inter-action has not been condusive to that end. I believe that if I take your approach, I will always be open to audit findings. I want to fool-proof (as opposed to Poke-A-Yoke) the Quality Management System from these possible audit findings.
Thanks,
Doug
without commas, like the "maintenance" and "repair" were adjectives.
