Major Flaw in Quality Standards

[TedCambron]

Quality Systems have made it nearly impossible to use more than one supplier for any given item. It's to the point where any changes to a supplier to a sub-supplier requires the supplier (the one who's supplier is the sub-supplier) to notify the customer before submitting a level 3 PPAP. I've experienced this first hand.
Bottom line is, if there's a deficiency in the supply chain, the likelihood of a line down is eminent unless the backup plan includes at least one secondary supplier.
You would think the technical standard would demand a secondary supplier for each item and frown on anyone who doesn't.
I give all quality standards to date a major nonconformance.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Quality Systems have made it nearly impossible to use more than one supplier for any given item. It's to the point where any changes to a supplier to a sub-supplier requires the supplier (the one who's supplier is the sub-supplier) to notify the customer before submitting a level 3 PPAP. I've experienced this first hand.
Bottom line is, if there's a deficiency in the supply chain, the likelihood of a line down is eminent unless the backup plan includes at least one secondary supplier.
You would think the technical standard would demand a secondary supplier for each item and frown on anyone who doesn't.
I give all quality standards to date a major nonconformance.

Let's see if I follow this correctly. When originally quoting a new part, the potential supplier qualifies only one (tier two) source. After being awarded the job and beginning production, the tier two supplier burns down, with the end customer suffering production shutdowns as a result.

The poor planning on the part of the tier one supplier is the fault of the standards, because tier one suppliers aren't allowed to use multiple sources because the standards don't demand it.

Have I got it?

 

[TedCambron]

Open your mind a little

Let's see if I follow this correctly. When originally quoting a new part, the potential supplier qualifies only one (tier two) source.

You can qualify as many as you wish but will the customer and at what cost? Tier two?! The example I gave went way down the food chain to tier four.

After being awarded the job and beginning production, the tier two supplier burns down, with the end customer suffering production shutdowns as a result.

That's one way of looking at it. What if there's a quality issue causing the entire inventory to be put on hold?

The poor planning on the part of the tier one supplier is the fault of the standards, because tier one suppliers aren't allowed to use multiple sources because the standards don't demand it.

Have I got it?

Don't be ignorant.

 

[RoxaneB]

Far be it from me to explain Jim...he's a darling enigma to me sometimes ...but I don't believe he was being ignorant, Ted. I believe he was trying - as I have been - to understand what your issue/concern/question/topic is about.

I'll be honest...I didn't find your original post here very clear and I'm not certain what kind of discussion or response you are looking for.

Jim was, more than likely, trying to rephrase your post in the form of an analogy to help the rest of us (and himself).

You have put this post in the category of "Philosophy, Gurus, Controversy and Evolution". Having read your "< 10 line post", I am still left a bit at trying to figure out if it falls under Philosophy, Gurus, Controversy or Evolution.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with more information...like what your concern is, what discussion you wish to have, or if you were just venting.

 

[Wes Bucey]

"light a candle . . ."

From my point of view, the ideal supply chain is single source from top to bottom, with each link in the chain having only one source for each custom component it purchases!

In the supply chain seminars I've given over the years, I make a strong distinction between suppliers of custom components and suppliers of commodities. In the case of a disaster with a commodity supplier (off-the-shelf goods), it is relatively easy to qualify a new supplier with little disruption.

With suppliers of custom components or services, qualifying the supplier and working with that supplier to "tweak" the component or service is an important undertaking.

If, after such qualifying, the supplier starts to slip in quality, that is a situation that should have been covered in the "FMEA" of selecting a supplier, with provisions for detecting the nonconformance and methods of corrective action.

A disaster is a completely different matter - hurricane, tornado, flood, fire, union strike, etc. - and different levels of risk require different contingent plans by the supply chain levels upstream. These contingencies can range from "safety stock" to a complete back-up plant where production can take place without more than a minor interruption.

The U.S. Dept of Defense was well-known for having these kinds of back-up plans in place if the "unthinkable" actually did happen. Why should the method be much different for any supply chain?

A key ingredient of the government method was the open discourse and collaboration among primary and back-up suppliers, so that each knew the other existed and would transfer goods, equipment, or personnel to the other to serve the purpose of keeping the supply chain up and running. Adequate compensation was provided for a supplier to keep machine time in reserve to pick up slack or to handle exceeding high short-term demands.

Sadly, the U.S. Government seems to have forgotten those lessons in the past few years and thus we see breakdowns in supply chains of goods to areas where armed services are operating or where natural disasters have put a strain on domestic infrastructures (Katrina.)

Rather than "curse the darkness," why not open a dialog to let in some light on real, workable ways to have a WIN-WIN situation in your supply chain?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Don't be ignorant.

I am ignorant about a lot of subjects, but this isn't one of them. Supply chain management isn't easy, but if it were, anyone could do it (even ignorant people)

It makes no sense on any level to blame inanimate objects for problems that are caused (and may be solved) by people.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Quality Systems have made it nearly impossible to use more than one supplier for any given item. It's to the point where any changes to a supplier to a sub-supplier requires the supplier (the one who's supplier is the sub-supplier) to notify the customer before submitting a level 3 PPAP. I've experienced this first hand.
Bottom line is, if there's a deficiency in the supply chain, the likelihood of a line down is eminent unless the backup plan includes at least one secondary supplier.
You would think the technical standard would demand a secondary supplier for each item and frown on anyone who doesn't.
I give all quality standards to date a major nonconformance.

I think you are painting with a very broad brush. This is not a fault of the standards, nor necessarily of the customer, though that gets closer. If you approve a supplier that you think might be problematic, then back it up with approving a second supplier. You are allowed to source two, or three. The standards don't address that. The standards do not forbid common sense planning and controls being applied. (In fact, I would suggest they are "common sense codified into a standard.")

Now, if you have a good supplier, and an emergency happens, call the customer and decide the best plan of attack to manage the emergency.

The tone of your post suggests it was written while you were in a rather foul mood. Did you by chance just have an supplier issue today? if so, we can sympathize.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Easier said than done.

You would think the technical standard would demand a secondary supplier for each item and frown on anyone who doesn't.

That would be an incredibly prescriptive requirement. Can you imagine if ISO 9001 would prohibit single sourcing? While you might like the idea, I can guarantee that many people would scream bloody murder at the thought. What about custom parts with expensive tooling to develop? Would you require a mandatory secondary supplier to develop a second tooling set? That would certainly increase the costs to produce the part, don't you think?

I give all quality standards to date a major nonconformance.

That is easy to say and it has been said many times. The difficult part is to follow up with a constructive suggestion and develop a better requirement that would endure the consensus based approach required for an International Standard to be homologated.

Like Jim and Wes alluded, supplier management is not easy. However to have prescriptive requirements embedded on to Standards, which, by design, are baseline, minimum acceptable requirements, is a sure fire way to impede it's application.

I remember many years ago auditing an organization that had made a business decision to single source ALL of their supplies. I remember having lively discussions about the risk involved with such decision. But at the end of the day, it was an educated (albeit risky) decision.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Far be it from me to explain Jim...he's a darling enigma to me sometimes ...quote]

Thanks, I think.

 

[TedCambron]

Love you Wes but...

In the supply chain seminars I've given over the years, I make a strong distinction between suppliers of custom components and suppliers of commodities. In the case of a disaster with a commodity supplier (off-the-shelf goods), it is relatively easy to qualify a new supplier with little disruption.

It's nearly impossible to qualify a new supplier in certain cases as descibed earlier. I deal with copper. That's a commodity. The customer did not except a supply chain solution to ensure an uniterrupted supply of materal. I'm speaking facts here people.