QS 4.7 control of customer supplied product

E

EricChan

I have one client (producing automobile electrical spare parts) experienced a QS registration audit several days ago. One NC states that no documented procedrue for the control of customer supplied product which does not conform to the requirement of 4.7 of QS9000.

The fact is the factory has no customer supplied product at all. All of their products are not for manufacturers including oem, instead, only for the maintenance market. In its quality manual, it is clearly stated that 4.7 is not covered in the qs system for the time being.

Another fact is that the qs audior himself admit there are no existing customer supplied products. No parts, no toolings, no drawings/specs, no packagings except purchase orders.

Last fact is the QS auditor insists that an extra produre should be prepared to address 4.7 requirements. (His point is suppose you have in future customer supplied products, how you manage them).

The auditor asked too much or NOT?

eric
 
A

Al Dyer

I can't see where the auditor went wrong. 4.7 is one of those elements that requires procedures. It should be a fairly easy issue to cover since you have no customer supplied product. The procedure (s) would be hypothetical and easy to change if you do get customer supplied product.

ASD...
 
T

tim banic

I would agree with Al, in the manual 4.7 is a shall.

It can be as easy as "All incoming product/material from the customer is identified in the same fashion as all other incoming material (refernce to 4.8 Product ID & Traceability).

Don't forget to add a statement about customer supplied equipment also.

good luck
Tim

"if it moves, train it...if it doesn't move, calibrate it...if it isn't written down, IT NEVER HAPPENED!"
 
E

EricChan

I clearly understand 4.7 is a shall requiring procedures.Same case in 9k (which is also a shall requiring procedure), the auditor can be easily persuaded around. One other example is I know one QS certified company has no procedrue for 4.19 for it declares in quality manual no on site service either at oem or end user side.In the latter case, customer complains addressed in 4.14 and external NC product in 4.13.

My concern is how we use the standards, NOT the other round.In this sense, I would say the year 2000 9k is a good revision, which allows for exclusion.
 
A

Al Dyer

Originally posted by EricChan:
I clearly understand 4.7 is a shall requiring procedures.Same case in 9k (which is also a shall requiring procedure), the auditor can be easily persuaded around. One other example is I know one QS certified company has no procedrue for 4.19 for it declares in quality manual no on site service either at oem or end user side.In the latter case, customer complains addressed in 4.14 and external NC product in 4.13.

My concern is how we use the standards, NOT the other round.In this sense, I would say the year 2000 9k is a good revision, which allows for exclusion.
Click to expand...

Eric,

I think 90% of the companies registered to QS-9000 do not include elements 4.4 and 4.19 (Design/Servicing) because they don't do either and there is a clause in QS-9000 that allows these elements to be excluded (page 3 QS-9000 3rd Edition).

You mention 2000 9k, in your post, are you mixing apples with oranges, you are going between QS and ISO?

Maybe some more detail?

Al...
 
A

ALM

"Customer-supplied products/equipment is handled as if it were wholly-owned by ABC Company. As such, it is governed by the same handling, storage, packaging, preservation, traceability, and identification procedures as detailed in our manuals."

Auditor: Show me customer supplied product.

Me/You: We have none, but we have surely covered any future situations whereby they may supply us with product and/or equipment.

Good luck.
 
E

EricChan

ALM,

I like your fix of same procedures ...

(but fyi some auditor dont buy it)

eric
 
E

EricChan

Al,

I meant ISO 9000:2000 gives more flexibility of exclusion, for instance, 7.5.4 (customer property) can be excluded if the user has no customer property at all. However, in QS9000, this requirement 4.7 must be addressed with a procedure regardless of whether the user has it or not. I would say this is meaningless.

On second thought, since 4.4 & 4.19 can be excluded why 4.7 cannot? I would guess the standard designer took it for granted that every standard user has customer supplied product. The reality does not support that.

(one fact is they did not expect so many users as it is now).
 
M

ml retcher

We have added a page in level one document that states:
4.0 Design control
Not used in our method of operation
We currently do not design products for our customers.
Design control will be addressed if and when it becomes a customer requirement for our facilities.

One of our OI's were to perform an audit with one question asking if this is still not part of our operations. I instead wrote in level one of 4.17 it will be reviewed through APQP and when it becomes part of our operation we will begin to audit this element. Then we included it in the APQP documents.
 
A

Al Dyer

Eric,

Find an auditor/registrar that does, if you want to use that approach. In my experience there are some OEM's that dictate thet you will use xyz supplier as they are on the OEM's approved supplier list.

They also note that just because they say you must use them you are still responsible for controlling that supplier. See 4.7 QS-9000 3rd edition.

In reality the big 3 don't care where the product came from, if you as a supplier send them bad product, you are the one that is going to take the fall.

Don't base a system on assuming that the big 3 is always right and that the inspector on the shipping dock (or lab) had a fight with his wife, or had one too many "beverages" the night before.

It's a life we choose (manufacturing) and we have to live with most of the rules.

ASD...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom