ISO 9001 - 9.3.2 c) 7 is answer for 8.4.1? Performance of external suppliers

qualprod

Quite Involved in Discussions
#1
Hello cove members


I´m trying to understand regarding the external suppliers.

In 9.3 .2 c7 , in the Management review meetings
(the performance of external suppliers ).
Is this the answer of the request in 8.4.1 (Monitoring of performance of external suppliers)?
Ans if it is so, is not enough to say that we reevaluate suppliers at every 3 months) ?

Or are there additional activities for the monitoring additional to carry on the reevaluation?

Thanks for your feedback
 

AMIT BALLAL

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
How do you evaluate your suppliers? Does it include only supplier visits to check whether it has the capacity and capability to perform good (Potential capability) or actual performance of the supplier is also being considered during these evaluations?

If performance of the supplier is also being considered as a part of evaluations, then these evaluations can be input to your management review.

Otherwise you can have different criteria such as monitoring quality performance of suppliers, worst 5 / top 5 suppliers can be determined during these performance monitoring. IMHO, I wouldn't recommend monitoring suppliers only based on Quality. Other parameters such as Delivery, Premium freight, customer disruptions, etc. to be included. Again inclusion of these parameters depends upon risk assessment, if these parameters doesn't affect your organization / suppliers are meeting them already / of less risk, then you can go with Quality only. This supplier performance can be input to your Management review leading towards actions for improving supplier performance / awarding business to best suppliers, etc.
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
#4
Hello cove members


I´m trying to understand regarding the external suppliers.

In 9.3 .2 c7 , in the Management review meetings
(the performance of external suppliers ).
Is this the answer of the request in 8.4.1 (Monitoring of performance of external suppliers)?
Ans if it is so, is not enough to say that we reevaluate suppliers at every 3 months) ?

Or are there additional activities for the monitoring additional to carry on the reevaluation?

Thanks for your feedback
Yes - Management is one tool to discussed Supplier Performance.

While the standard is not clear what to measure for suppliers - look at it differently.

Remember the saying - garbage in = garbage out so if you measure quality to customer - why not measure quality from supplier.

and if you measure OTD (On Time Delivery to customer - why no measure OTD from suppliers.

These are the ones that add value - so continue to look for opportunities to improve the products from suppliers.

... and don't forget to make the analysis for management review under 9.1.3f
 

qualprod

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
Thanks to all
But my root question is:
What do auditors may ask me to comply with monitoring of performance, if when I do the reevaluation, I consider activities which measure the performance.
E.g. at the reevaluation, I consider otd, bad product, visit to supplier to inspect product, I also do a check for informing raw materials.
So why the standard mention apart performance of suppliers, If this is done intrinsically at the reevaluation.
Or the criteria for reevaluation is different compared against the criteria for the measuring of performance?
Could someone give sample of criteria for evaluation, selection, reevaluation and performance of suppliers?
Thanks for your help.
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
#6
Thanks to all
But my root question is:
What do auditors may ask me to comply with monitoring of performance, if when I do the reevaluation, I consider activities which measure the performance.
E.g. at the reevaluation, I consider otd, bad product, visit to supplier to inspect product, I also do a check for informing raw materials.
So why the standard mention apart performance of suppliers, If this is done intrinsically at the reevaluation.
Or the criteria for reevaluation is different compared against the criteria for the measuring of performance?
Could someone give sample of criteria for evaluation, selection, reevaluation and performance of suppliers?
Thanks for your help.
Auditors are looking for goals and actual results.
OTD from suppliers: Goal - 95.% - Actual 97.3%
Quality from supplier - Goal 80.0% - Actual 81.7%

(Note: Take the average of the last 12 month of Data in order to establish Goal)

Most of the time - once established they stay the same - no need to rethink anything.

If the auditors makes statement that are not in the standard - challenge the auditor.
 

AMIT BALLAL

Quite Involved in Discussions
#7
Thanks to all
But my root question is:
What do auditors may ask me to comply with monitoring of performance, if when I do the reevaluation, I consider activities which measure the performance.
E.g. at the reevaluation, I consider otd, bad product, visit to supplier to inspect product, I also do a check for informing raw materials.
So why the standard mention apart performance of suppliers, If this is done intrinsically at the reevaluation.
Or the criteria for reevaluation is different compared against the criteria for the measuring of performance?
Could someone give sample of criteria for evaluation, selection, reevaluation and performance of suppliers?
Thanks for your help.
The reason to include both - evaluation and performance monitoring is sometimes it is treated differently and sometimes merged by organizations. Although the requirement is constant, implementation varies from organization to organization.
We keep these two different. Our supplier evaluations include only supplier visits and assessment to check its capacity, capability to provide material as per our requirement. And we monitor performance of supplier based on Quality, Delivery, Premium freight, customer disruptions, etc. Based on this supplier rating, we determine whether we need to reevaluate the supplier.

I think, since supplier evaluations and supplier performance monitoring were considered different by some organizations, to reduce confusion, ISO might have mentioned both terms - evaluation and performance monitoring.

You can follow any approach whether to club evaluation and performance monitoring (as you are already doing it) or keep it separate. This will comply with the requirement of the standard and you'll have to demonstrate same to the auditor.
 

qualprod

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
Thanks Amit
I think is similar to the approach I do.
For me , evaluation is same criteria, and what you call performance, for me is a mix.
I do a quarterly reevaluation needed it not for all suppliers, where I evaluate the initial conditions plus what for you is performance.
So In reevaluation I consider the performance, so I think, will comply to the standard, which asks reevaluation and monitoring if performance.
Do you thinks is ok may approach?
Thanks
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
#9
Thanks Amit
I think is similar to the approach I do.
For me , evaluation is same criteria, and what you call performance, for me is a mix.
I do a quarterly reevaluation needed it not for all suppliers, where I evaluate the initial conditions plus what for you is performance.
So In reevaluation I consider the performance, so I think, will comply to the standard, which asks reevaluation and monitoring if performance.
Do you thinks is ok may approach?
Thanks
This is the formula that most shop use

Certificate + OTD goals + Quality goals = approved supplier

This is done during management review or monthly, quarterly semi annual and or annual.

If any supplier fails in any of the above formulas - they are in probation or eliminated.

Unless customer directed.

for additional information visit the Suppliers Handbook
Supply Chain Management Handbook - Terms of Use
 

AMIT BALLAL

Quite Involved in Discussions
#10
Thanks Amit
I think is similar to the approach I do.
For me , evaluation is same criteria, and what you call performance, for me is a mix.
I do a quarterly reevaluation needed it not for all suppliers, where I evaluate the initial conditions plus what for you is performance.
So In reevaluation I consider the performance, so I think, will comply to the standard, which asks reevaluation and monitoring if performance.
Do you thinks is ok may approach?
Thanks
Your approach is fine, nothing wrong.

Sent from my CPH1821 using Tapatalk
 
Top