Recomended Values - Auditing process in a supplier

[Javier_Ruisoto]

The audit was part of the program of the supplier evaluation. This was the first time they were audit by the client.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The audit was part of the program of the supplier evaluation. This was the first time they were audit by the client.

Who is the client? Did you perform the audit as a third party? Did the scope of the audit include all of the products produced by the audited company, or just the client's products? I ask this question again because the previous answer to the question wasn't clear. Knowing the properties of the material that might be affected by ambient temperature, does the client store similar materials under controlled conditions?

 

[Jim Wynne]

The poll in this thread is missing a third possibility, which is "Ignore and move on."

 

[Javier_Ruisoto]

Good afternoon. The client it's a third party, and the scope was to audit the process of production of the products they recibe.

The supplier store all their products in the same deposit, and all their products are raw rubber, so the ambient temperature its afect it in the same way.

About the poll question, when you say ...The poll in this thread is missing a third possibility, which is "Ignore and move on"...
I really didnt consider it possible, when its that a option?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Good afternoon. The client it's a third party, and the scope was to audit the process of production of the products they recibe.

The supplier store all their products in the same deposit, and all their products are raw rubber, so the ambient temperature its afect it in the same way.

I asked how the client stores the product.

About the poll question, when you say ...The poll in this thread is missing a third possibility, which is "Ignore and move on"...
I really didnt consider it possible, when its that a option?

If you've decided that the audited company is in a state of nonconformity for the issue, then I'd say that your poll questions are apt. What we don't know is if any sort of nonconformity actually exists. If the audited company is storing material in a manner that's known to be potentially detrimental to end use, that's a different problem from how they're marking their packaging.

 

[Javier_Ruisoto]

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.

In that subject the client store de product in the same way, in a deposit with not controlled or monitored temperature.

That's way I know there is a problem in summer with the product that its stored because its disposed.

But when I see the legend in the box of the supplier, I though "Great, there its a way to take care of the product and avoid that scrap of material".

But, when I go to the supplier they dont control the temperature and says that the legend value of temperature limit its just a recommended value.

So again, I am in conflict, I know its a problem to the client, I know its in the legend on the box, but its not write as a requirement in any document (nor by the client, nor by the supplier).

Its a problem that its see but not recognised by any party.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.

In that subject the client store de product in the same way, in a deposit with not controlled or monitored temperature.

That's way I know there is a problem in summer with the product that its stored because its disposed.

If the client is not storing the material properly and has to scrap material because of not storing it properly, how do you think that the supplier storing it properly will help anything? I'm not disputing your basic premise, which is (I think) that the supplier needs better control of their inventory. This has nothing to do with labels on boxes. If you can establish that the documented material requirements include the need for temperature control, and no such controls exist, you probably have an actual nonconformity. I just think you're probably unnecessarily hung up on the labeling.

 

[Javier_Ruisoto]

Thank for your assistance. I will set a meeting with both parties and ask what they think. Maybe it's an opportunity for the improve the storage, or not, I will let them decide and take out the not conformity.

 

[Nicholas K.]

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding.

In that subject the client store de product in the same way, in a deposit with not controlled or monitored temperature.

That's way I know there is a problem in summer with the product that its stored because its disposed.

But when I see the legend in the box of the supplier, I though "Great, there its a way to take care of the product and avoid that scrap of material".

But, when I go to the supplier they dont control the temperature and says that the legend value of temperature limit its just a recommended value.

So again, I am in conflict, I know its a problem to the client, I know its in the legend on the box, but its not write as a requirement in any document (nor by the client, nor by the supplier).

Its a problem that its see but not recognised by any party.

Like you say, THEY put it on paper so its part of there documented system. As I understand it, they put down the temp. as a number to monitor so they should be doing so. I don't think an N/C would be wrong in that regard. In my opinion you stumbled onto something they don't want to deal with by the sounds of things. If what they say is true, and it is their own requirement, then they could choose to address it by just fixing the paperwork. They would have to make the business decision on cost of scrap vs. cost of temp. control. How they fix it is on them but by what you describe I would have thrown an OFI or an N/C at it depending on the situation when I was done digging into it. ( I am new to auditing at this point in time)