QS-9000 - Supplier Quality

[Randy Stewart]

Look Out

I know I didn't hear the whole conversation with the auditee, and just maybe the auditor spotted something else in your incoming inspection and didn't feel it was being performed properly, so I'll cut them a little slack.
However!!!!!!
IMO this is a classic case of an auditor over stepping their bounds by hitting this clause. It states that "consideration shall be given", it gives you the flexibility to place the amount of control on your suppliers that YOU deem necessary, not the auditor. I can see my company going to Aloca and demanding a similar test to be conducted - yeah right, we'll get right on it, the results are in the mail.
To me this is petty. Yes you should have some control over your suppliers, yes they need to be monitored. How, how often and to what degree is up to you.

 

[db]

Consider "Considerations"

Hey Stew, what evidence would you look for to show "consideration shall be given"? I’m not trying to start an argument, I agree with you. My question is simply one of curiosity.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I'm not arguing db, I'm just a nice mellow guy. What I use is a supplier questionaire that is required in order for purchasing to place them on the "Approved Supplier List". Once the questionaire is received myself, purchasing, program mgr, or dept. mgr will review the supplier. This may be in the form of phone call, emails, personal visit, etc. All contact is docuemented on the form. We usually place them on a probationary period until we have a little history with them. Their performance is tracked and the control level exercised is dependent on their track record.
I'm use to having to answer question in this area because of the business we're in. We have a supplier for e-coat that is horrible. Lost parts, changed labels, damage, etc.. They are still being used because their the only ones who will take the job. It is a extremely low volume, galvanized steel tub for Natural Gas Vehicles that has a ton of regulations and requirements on it. Not much we can do with them, but we show where we have a different ordering and replenishment system with that part to protect the customer. Another way is to document on-site visits may be required on the PO.
Okay, no argument db. If you feel that the NC was valid (from info given) can you explain to me why? I know we don't have the whole story - my feeling is that s/he was following a trail and wasn't given the warm fuzzy that it was understood or happening, been there done that.
Here is the form we use to let the supplier know what we are looking for. When the PO is issued the requirement numbers are listed.
:truce:

 

[db]

No argument

Stew, the reason I asked is I sometimes have trouble with the comments like "shall consider". They are too elusive statements for my liking. When someone, like you, bring up the subject, I like to know what they use for “evidence”.

As far as the NC. I too, have trouble with 4.10.2.2. My first post indicated that. I could possibly support a NC to 4.10.2.4, as I also stated, but only with certain limits. I too feel that 4.10.2.2 is not a proper cite.
:thedeal:

 

[Randy Stewart]

I agree with the 4.10.2.4. I know I sound like I classify the ISO/QS audits up there with the Spanish Inquisition and IRS audits, it's just that I don't agree with the cert/registration system. Is it a necessity? I believe it is in this day and age, customer service & "quality" has gone out the door for the almighty buck and bottom line (look at the Firestone issue). I look at it like trying to legislate and govern freedom. You just can't do it. The more laws you write the less freedom you have. ISO was viewed as a way the B3 could force suppliers to give them good parts. If you doubt that look at how many of their plants are registered to QS! Not many and it is not a requirement (do as I say, not as I do).

I believe that a properly organized and implemented business system aligned with ISO 9K2K & or TS 16949 will ensure quality products, continual improvement, higher profits and satisfied customers. Isn't it really based on sound business practices?? It's just a shame that I have to have an outside firm come in and prove it. No wonder JAMA laughs at us, it's their culture and we still can't seem to get the basic concepts right.

 

[db]

QS is the greatest

Stew, I beg to differ.

Once an organization becomes QS three things magically happen. First, your sales triple. Second, all quality problems disappear. And thirdly, the weather becomes just like any other Michigan day…sunny and 75.






Then you wake up!

Actually, I don’t differ at all. I often say, if your system is good ISO or QS probably won’t help much. If you have no controls it could help. The key is if you want it to help. One of my clients put it this way. The QS banner is their “right to do business tax”.