Satisfying AS9100 7.4.2 Purchasing Requirements

V

ValleyGirl

#1
Requirement:
"The organization shall ensure the adequacy of specified purchase requirements prior to their communication to the supplier."

What the heck are they asking for here? For someone other than the purchasing agent to review the PO prior to sending it?

Who has time for all this? We barely have time to create a PO with the lead times we're given. :mg:

How are you satisfying this requirement?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
B

Boingo-boingo

#2
For someone other than the purchasing agent to review the PO prior to sending it?
No, the standard does not mandate an independent reviewer and approver of the PO's. Technically, whoever is creating the PO could be the one reviewing and approving it.
Who has time for all this? We barely have time to create a PO with the lead times we're given.
While I detected some frustration, we have to remember that AS9100 conformance and certification must mean something and the requirement you are inquiring about is actually an ISO 9001 requirement. Assurance of the adequacy of the requirements being communicated to suppliers is, obviously, an important aspect of product conformity. If your process does not provide you (and your colleagues) with enough time to adequately review the adequacy of the information in the PO's PRIOR TO PLACING an order, a critical resource - adequate time - is not being provided by your top management and they (top management) are violating 5.1 e).
 

Mikishots

Trusted Information Resource
#3
Requirement:
"The organization shall ensure the adequacy of specified purchase requirements prior to their communication to the supplier."

What the heck are they asking for here? For someone other than the purchasing agent to review the PO prior to sending it?

Who has time for all this? We barely have time to create a PO with the lead times we're given. :mg:

How are you satisfying this requirement?
We review our POs before we send them to the suppliers. It's clearly stated in our process, and we satisfy the standard by doing this. We also track logistical error metrics to show the degree of effectiveness (with respect to errors in POs).

This is part of business and yes, it does take 20-30 seconds. I'm sorry to hear that you feel crunched for time, but this simply because you're not doing it and then trying to comply after the fact. Are your timelines really that tight? Too tight to prevent basic errors?
 

Big Jim

Trusted Information Resource
#4
Requirement:
"The organization shall ensure the adequacy of specified purchase requirements prior to their communication to the supplier."

What the heck are they asking for here? For someone other than the purchasing agent to review the PO prior to sending it?

Who has time for all this? We barely have time to create a PO with the lead times we're given. :mg:

How are you satisfying this requirement?
Perhaps you are thinking you need to keep a record of these reviews. There is no recording keeping requirement attached to this element of the standard.
 

SmallBizDave

Involved In Discussions
#5
In the various systems I've done this is pretty straightforward. The key is that an auditor should be able to identify at least one point in your purchasing process where the requirements are looked at by a credible "expert". My preferred way of setting this up is to state in my process that the originator (typically an engineer in my world) is responsible for ensuring that the info provided to purchasing is complete and accurate. The originator becomes your expert.

And typically this is done at the Requisition step, not the Purchase Order step. It's much cleaner if you do all your checks, approvals, etc. at the req, prior to creating the PO. You don't need a second review (though some companies prefer this as an error check) and you don't need any record of a review. Make sure you somehow connect the req to the PO to maintain your chain of objective evidence.

Hope that helps.
 

Mikishots

Trusted Information Resource
#6
...And typically this is done at the Requisition step, not the Purchase Order step. It's much cleaner if you do all your checks, approvals, etc. at the req, prior to creating the PO. You don't need a second review (though some companies prefer this as an error check) and you don't need any record of a review. Make sure you somehow connect the req to the PO to maintain your chain of objective evidence.
I don't agree with this. This part of the clause asks you to review for adequacy any purchasing document or information created for your supplier before it is delivered, communicated or released to them. Also note that purchasing info should also be contingent on the dollar amount being purchased.

These are purchasing functions.
 
B

Boingo-boingo

#7
I don't agree with this. This part of the clause asks you to review for adequacy any purchasing document or information created for your supplier before it is delivered, communicated or released to them.
If the purchasing requisitions are reviewed for adequacy of the requirements and the process is one that there will be no glitches when transposing the requirements on to the PO's, both the requirements and the intent of the ISO 9001 requirement have been complied with. ISO 9001 talks about purchasing documents, not PO's. Actually the process you don't agree with is a better process because the purchase reqs' are probably reviewed by the people with the knowledge and competence to determine if the requirements contained there are adequate or not. Buyers, for the most part, are ignorant about quality related requirements and their review of the information is compromised because of that.

Also note that purchasing info should also be contingent on the dollar amount being purchased.
While many companies have the level of review subordinated by monetary amount, that is not a requirement of the ISO 9001/AS9100. That part has to do with financial authority, rather than technical review of requirements.

These are purchasing functions.
Instead of "functions", we need to think PROCESS. Processes cross over functional and departmental lines.
 

SmallBizDave

Involved In Discussions
#8
Yeah, what he said. The wording of the standard - I'm talking AS9100 here - is very intentional and one should be careful about changing the wording when assessing a process for conformance. The standard says in 7.4.2 that the requirements (I can't find the word 'documents' anywhere) have to be reviewed.

Purchasing certainly has a contribution to make but it is better applied at the PO level. Prior to that the technical data should be reviewed by an appropriate expert. Doing that at the requisition level provides a better review and, by the way, usually happens prior to any approvals so there is no worry that you'll need to revise it after approvals and deal with the associated issues.

Changing the wording of the standard usually leads to "over-intepreting" the standard and the cumulative result can be the stereotypical bureaucracy common in poorly designed QMS's. AS9100 need not bring in bureaucracy. [End of soapbox.]
 
A

andygr

#9
Here is an example of what it is speaking to as it applies to Boeing

Your firm needs a part processed to BAC 5019 ( chromic acid anodize)
Your firm has a dirrect contract with Boeing that you are working to
Your firm can not perform the work in house so you will send it out

Your firm selects an approved processor from the list in D1-4426
http://active.boeing.com/doingbiz/d14426/specindex.cfm?SpecPrefix=BAC

So far so good

You can not just send out the PO to process the part to to BAC 5019
There is other info needed for the supplier to properly perform the oppertation
1) what is the revision of BAC 5019?
2) what is the division of Boeing that the part is for? Yes the supplier needs this in order to know which of the active PSD will apply
3) What aircraft is the part for? Once again the supplier to you needs this info to know which PSD's will apply.
4) Some specifications also have requirements for material condition/information to be provided.

Who in your orginization is responsable to provide this to the person making the request of the supplier?
How do they get the information?

AS9100 does not define these roles but some one in your firm has to be responsable and know what and how to get the right information on the PO to the supplier.
What you can not do is throw the responsabillity over the wall to the supplier to identify what you forgot or what might be in error.

We know this is an issue and the further you get away from the firm that has the direct contract with Boeing the more likely the correct information will not be on the PO since many times over the years the repetitive orders just become cut and paste. There is a tool that is provided on the D1-4426 website at the bottom of the home page that helps the process houses to "guide" their customers in what information might be incorrect or missing. It shows the history and status of the various Boeing specifications. We unfortunatly had some folks who thought that it was not important to keep the information up to date but the outcry from us folks in the field convinced them the those down the food chain ie the process houses are using the tool to clear up errors and missing info in the flow down that they get.
They back tracked and now the information is being kept up to date.


Your organization must ensure that the flow down of information to your suppliers is complete and correct in order to assure compliance.
For chemical processing to BAC 5019 you would have to provide on the PO
Part Number
Product Form
Material / Alloy Designation or Specification
Present Condition
Chemical processing specifications Revision
Chemical Process Requirement
Boeing Division
Boeing Aircraft
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#10
Here is an example of what it is speaking to as it applies to Boeing

Your firm needs a part processed to BAC 5019 ( chromic acid anodize)
Your firm has a dirrect contract with Boeing that you are working to
Your firm can not perform the work in house so you will send it out

Your firm selects an approved processor from the list in D1-4426
http://active.boeing.com/doingbiz/d14426/specindex.cfm?SpecPrefix=BAC

So far so good

You can not just send out the PO to process the part to to BAC 5019
There is other info needed for the supplier to properly perform the oppertation
1) what is the revision of BAC 5019?
2) what is the division of Boeing that the part is for? Yes the supplier needs this in order to know which of the active PSD will apply
3) What aircraft is the part for? Once again the supplier to you needs this info to know which PSD's will apply.
4) Some specifications also have requirements for material condition/information to be provided.

Who in your orginization is responsable to provide this to the person making the request of the supplier?
How do they get the information?

AS9100 does not define these roles but some one in your firm has to be responsable and know what and how to get the right information on the PO to the supplier.
What you can not do is throw the responsabillity over the wall to the supplier to identify what you forgot or what might be in error.

We know this is an issue and the further you get away from the firm that has the direct contract with Boeing the more likely the correct information will not be on the PO since many times over the years the repetitive orders just become cut and paste. There is a tool that is provided on the D1-4426 website at the bottom of the home page that helps the process houses to "guide" their customers in what information might be incorrect or missing. It shows the history and status of the various Boeing specifications. We unfortunatly had some folks who thought that it was not important to keep the information up to date but the outcry from us folks in the field convinced them the those down the food chain ie the process houses are using the tool to clear up errors and missing info in the flow down that they get.
They back tracked and now the information is being kept up to date.


Your organization must ensure that the flow down of information to your suppliers is complete and correct in order to assure compliance.
For chemical processing to BAC 5019 you would have to provide on the PO
Part Number
Product Form
Material / Alloy Designation or Specification
Present Condition
Chemical processing specifications Revision
Chemical Process Requirement
Boeing Division
Boeing Aircraft
:applause:
Andy, I think you provided a fantastic example of how "complex" the process of capturing and providing the correct purchasing information on the PO can be. While not every procurement will be as involved as this example, people have to understand that, since we are talking about aviation, space and defense products, criticality and risks have to be managed.

Too many small organizations want to have the "AS9100 certified" badge, without having the resources and expertise to be part of the ASD supply chain. They want to be able to charge premium prices in aerospace, without having to upgrade their processes to "Aerospace Grade".

Unfortunately, some CB's and auditors are willing to sell give provide them with the badge, even when they don't deserve it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Satisfying ISO 9001 Clause 7.3.6 D & D Validation ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
smryan Satisfying the ISO 9001:2008 4.3.2.f External Document Control requirement ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
smryan Satisfying the ISO 9001:2008 7.3.5 Design & Development Verification requirement ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
F MSA and Control Plan - Satisfying Visual Inspection Requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
P Are they "Satisfying Customer Requirements?" - Thoughts and Comments Customer Complaints 1
Q QMS General Formula - Satisfying the Requirements ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 42
J Outside Calibration Laboratory Satisfying Gage R&R Requirement Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 8
E Objectives and Policy - Satisfying the 'Objectives' Requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
A Documents of External Origin - Approaching & Satisfying this Requirement? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 17
O Adding ISO 13485 to an AS9100 QMS ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
M Customers Request AS9100 certification - Small Company (less than 20 employees) AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 8
NDesouza AS9100 - D Capacity Planning Requirements AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
D ISO 9001 & AS9100 Certificate issued by a consultant for a Distributor Registrars and Notified Bodies 11
B FAR/Prime Contractor Flow-down Tool - AS9100 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
K AS9100 - 7.3 - Are these black and white questions with specific correct answers AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
A Does AS9100 require traceability to operators performing the work? AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
R Traceability on Unmarked Parts - AS9100 requirements AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 7
M When is FAI required? AS9100 8.5.1.3 and 8.4.3 requirements AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 9
M Ethics and Legality AS9100 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
K Counterfeit parts prevention - Audit Nonconformance - AS9100 8.2.2 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 25
classical_quality AS9100 Surveillance Audit - advice on drafting strong responses AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 11
L AS9100 - Infrastructure or Product? Inflight internet connectivity network AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 1
C AS9100 Rev D 8.1.1 & APQP - Operational risk management process AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
T AS9100 - Changing PEARs target AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 41
R AS9100 DELTA FAI - Sub-supplier for plating changed AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
G AS9100-8.1.2 Configuration Management AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 6
R AS9100 REV D gap analysis matrix AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 6
Sidney Vianna Informational New IAQG Document - AS9100 Clarifications of Intent AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
E Recommendations for CBs south of England AS9100 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
T Was Just told we could ONLY buy material for AS9100 customers if the DISTRIBUTION house is AS9100 / AS9120 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
E AS9100 installtion procedure AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
Q Connecting AS9100 D Clause 4.2 to 9.3.2 b - Interested parties and relevant issues AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 24
D AS9100 Inspection records - Is there a requirement to have gauge ID and calibration status AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 5
O Identifying KPI for AS9100 8.1.4 - Prevention of Counterfeit Parts - PCB assembly contract manufacturer AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 16
L AS9100 and Agile development processes AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 8
I Is this a Major AS9100 QMS change - Quality Concerns AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
C E signatures on Engineering Change Notes AS9100 / AS9116 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
T QMS Training for my organization - IATF16949 and also AS9100 or 9145 Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
W Tying the need for Demand Planning to a section of AS9100/9110 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
bryan willemot Documenting past problem history for fasteners for AS9100 Rev D AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
was named killer AS9100 FAIR - True Position hole out by .0011" on 50 parts AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 11
L AS9100 D- Handling Nonconformance Documentation for an organization that outsources most of the work. AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 11
APHX02 Thread Roll Process Verification w/in AS9100 (i.e. BSP-F-69/AS8879) Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
I AS9100 8.4.2 Type and Extent of Control - External provider test reports Manufacturing and Related Processes 24
F AS9100 D - Verification of purchased product - Sheet metal and aluminum extrusion stock AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
A A Question about Continual improvement process in AS9100 AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
Prashant G AS9100 Requirement - Verification of characteristics results with drawing requirements AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 13
A Definition of "Sensitive Products" Clause 8.5.4 (c) in AS9100 Rev. D AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 4
B AS9100 Multiple Distributor warehousing locations under same Company AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 12
T AS9100 Maintain Approval When Business Ownership Changes AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 8
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom