Non-conformity - Not performing Supplier Development on one specific supplier

[D.Scott]

I also side with the auditor on this. 7.4.1.3 states "The use of customer-designated sources, including tool/gauge suppliers, does not relieve the organization of the responsibility for ensuring the quality of purchased products".

This clearly puts the supplier management requirements squarely in the lap of the organization. One of those supplier management requirements is supplier development. Determining the status of their quality system in regard to conformity with TS16949 would be a prerequisite step to determining the development needed.

Sorry, but I agree, the auditor is correct in writing the N/C.

Dave

 

[db]

You make a good point wrt who pays the supplier, but there's still the issue of control. The only way that you can have control over a supplier is if you also control whether the supplier gets the business or not. It's simply not reasonable to assume that when the customer controls all of the relevant aspects of the relationship, that they shouldn't also be responsible for "developing" the supplier.

That is, in part, my point as to why I consider this a stupid requirement. If your customer says you must use db Resins*, and db Resins refuses to get registered, and your customer doesn’t waive db Resins, then you could lose your registration. To me that just doesn’t make sense.

*db Resins is using my registration name. It has nothing to do with any real company

Using this definition (i.e., any entity that supplies something) then customer-supplied product is also included, no?

If you use the ISO 9000 definition, you would be correct. However, after reading howste's post, it does make more sense to treat customer-supplied product differently (and that is the argument I would use). I also must admit, the copy of ISO 9000 I have in front of me is the 2000 edition, but I don’t think that changes the question (or answer).

 

[AndyN]

You mean there are darker bowels...........

On our recent triennial TS reassessment, I managed to get a non-conformity for not performing supplier development on one specific supplier.
The supplier in question provides plastic components and is nominated by our customer. The customer funds and approves tooling and component level PPAP is conducted directly from our supplier to our customer, we only get a copy of the approved PSW. Even the price of the components is negotiated directly between the customer and supplier. The company is located in the darkest bowels of Europe and to visit them would be costly in time and money. We have few quality issues with the supplier and keep full records of quality and delivery performance which are fed back monthly to the supplier and customer.
The auditor was particularly concerned that I have no record to show if the supplier holds any third party ISO or TS registration.
Although I can get this information easily, I contend that, in this case, supplier development is the responsibility of my customer. I can think of an appropriate reply to the auditor but I'm having difficulty with an appropriate polite reply. Any suggestions?
Surely none of you would agree that the non-conformity was valid. Would you?

than Milton Keynes..................???

Tyker, sorry about that.........MK has probably changed since I lived there!

So, is this one supplier the only one you've got that isn't in need of supplier development? Haven't you got others who are further down the evolutionary chain in terms of giving you problems. If you don't have some kind of prioritized action plan based on your suppliers' performance(s) it might be easy for an auditor to pick on one and make your life difficult, since you can't demonstrate where your organizations priorities are. You've probably got bigger fish to fry elsewhere (although I did read that the Fish and Chip shops are a dying breed............ )

Bite the bullet, if all you need to do is get the auditor off your back by having a record of some ISO certificate, just do the honorable thing.

Andy
ex Kingsfold, Bradville, MK resident (honest)

 

[howste]

I made the comment about payment since this falls under the "Purchasing Process" clause of the standard. If it's not purchased, then I don't believe it applies.

Also, to give your auditor's finding a little more weight, consider the statement in 7.4.1.3: "The use of customer-designated sources, including tool/gauge suppliers, does not relieve the organization of the responsibility for ensuring the quality of purchased products."


*edit* this thread is moving fast. It looks like D.Scott beat me to 7.4.1.3...

 

[Jim Wynne]

I also side with the auditor on this. 7.4.1.3 states "The use of customer-designated sources, including tool/gauge suppliers, does not relieve the organization of the responsibility for ensuring the quality of purchased products".

This clearly puts the supplier management requirements squarely in the lap of the organization. One of those supplier management requirements is supplier development. Determining the status of their quality system in regard to conformity with TS16949 would be a prerequisite step to determining the development needed.

Sorry, but I agree, the auditor is correct in writing the N/C.

Dave

It's a bit of a leap from "ensuring the quality of purchased products" to having full responsibility for supplier development. I think what's most important here is the customer's expectations, not the auditor's personal interpretation of the standard (or mine, for that matter). IMO, the way to proceed in this situation would have been for the auditor to have recognized that the requirements aren't absolutely clear, and if the OP's company was uniformly doing development with other suppliers, and had a reasonable explanation for not doing it with this one, a bit of time should have been granted to get the customer's input before issuing an NC. I will say this: The OP's company probably should have seen this coming, and perhaps on that basis an NC is fitting (in that it will provide a documented vehicle for resolution).

 

[db]

IMO, the way to proceed in this situation would have been for the auditor to have recognized that the requirements aren't absolutely clear, ...

What part isn't clear? If a company is a supplier, then they have to be registered to ISO 9001 (unless waived). Now, you might argue about who a "supplier" is, but that is covered in ISO 9000. If you want to argue about the "reasonableness" of the requirement, I’ve got no defense. I can’t see much value for any party in 7.4.1.2 (excluding consultants, such as myself), but that doesn’t change the requirement.

 

[howste]

Here's a quote from the IATF guidance document:

Supplier quality management system development is the demonstrated performance of a process with the goal to achieve conformity with ISO/TS 16949:2002. Indicators of performance include:
1. conformity with ISO9001:2000
2. achievement of ISO9001:2000 certification, as a minimum, unless otherwise specified by the customer
3. compliance with ISO/TS 16949:2002, unless otherwise specified by the customer
4. evidence of a process to achieve the above steps

And how about the FAQ from the IAOB website?

Supplier development was written purposely that way, with the provision that "unless otherwise agreed with the customer" - meaning - if not possible to do, get customer approval of a different approach. "Customer" in this context is defined in the guidance supplement as the "affected" customers. Also, guidance includes wording "a process to achieve the above" - meaning you could accept a plan to achieve the requirement - and as far as maximum timing of that plan - our view is that it should be achievable during the three year life of the certificate. Surveillance visits shall monitor achievement of the plan.

Whether it's a good requirement or not, I don't think this is a gray (grey?) area. The guidance has been there from day 1 and the FAQ has been there since at least July 2003. No offense intended, but did the company consider how they were meeting this requirement? This audit was the recertification audit - I'm surprised it didn't come up in any of the other audits during the initial 3-year period.

 

[Laura M]

So getting customer agreement that they are not responsible for supplier development would be one agreement.

However, it sounds more like 'customer supplied product' with PPAP approval and everything going through the customer. Especially the customer negotiating the price, then they have to pay what the customer negotiates? How would THAT work? So if truly customer supplied product, then the supplier development clauses don't apply?

 

[ralphsulser]

So getting customer agreement that they are not responsible for supplier development would be one agreement.

However, it sounds more like 'customer supplied product' with PPAP approval and everything going through the customer. Especially the customer negotiating the price, then they have to pay what the customer negotiates? How would THAT work? So if truly customer supplied product, then the supplier development clauses don't apply?

I agree, this is not your supplier, it is your customer's supplier. If your customer negotiated the contract with this company, approved their PPAP and this company invoices your customer, you are merely a pass thru operation. Thus no responsibility to supplier development. The NC was written without inderstanding of all the facts.
Or, as stated you can just bite the bullet and get a copy of their certification, compliance statement or planned timing to achieve certification. Just my

 

[tyker]

Thank you for all the responses. Just to clarify a few points.
We buy the product and pay the invoices at a price negotiated by the customer.
We accept responsibility for the quality of incoming goods. They pass through our receiving inspection and, if any problems slip through, we take responsibility for containment, sorting, correction etc and claim any costs back from the supplier.
We have other suppliers that we do select and develop. The auditor has always taken his sample from these on previous visits and is happy with our process for handling them.
We have no choice with this supplier. If it chooses not to obtain any form of registration we still have to use it.
Just to complicate things, occasionally the customer moves the tools to a different supplier. As I've already stated, the customer deals with the component level PPAP but we then have to resubmit PPAPs for our assembly. I can obtain registration data and develop the existing supplier, but next month the business may be with someone else.

PS AndyN The chip shops in Milton Keynes have definitely gone downhill recently but the town has developed into a really excellent place to live.