Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

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?
 
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).
 
#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?
 
#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.
 
#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.
 
Top Bottom