Supplier and Outsourced Services Nonconformances

[tracey]

Outsouring/nonconformances

Good afternoon Cove members, we have be looking at our outsourcing process. Up until 6 months ago we very rarely outsourced anything. In the past 6 months we have outsourced designing, surfacing, cnc, and a few times a complete tool. We have documents in place for each department that the outsource company must fill out. It has been brought to my attention that there has been several times that we have received services that were less than satisfactory. We have nothing in place for this. It was ask if a Corrective Action Report should be written. Although this method could be used I was thinking that perhaps a outsource/nonconformance form should be created. A copy sent to the outsource company and a copy kept for our records. I think that these noncomformances should be review by the owners so that a outsource company, first of all will be held accountable, and secondly to track the frequency of problems that occur at each particular place. I think that this is an important issue that should be handle separate from our corrective actions.
As many of you are, I am new to the Quality field. I have taken a 5 day lead auditor course and a transitional course but most of my training has occurred here, at the cove. The owners have come to me for ideas and I was hoping that I could get a few different thoughts from people here at the cove on how they handle this situation.

Thanks in advance,

Tracey

 

[tomvehoski]

I normally handle outsourced processes under purchasing. You should have a system to track supplier issues. Exactly how you set it up is your options.

In large organizations that have a distinct supplier quality function, you often have a dedicated supplier quality reporting and corrective action system. Suppliers respond to corrective actions or nonconformances the same as an internal department would, but the routing does not go through the same process as internal issues. Management should still be made aware of the issues.

In small companies or those that don't do much purchasing, I normally rely on the internal corrective action system to address supplier issues. Just issue it to them as you would an internal finding. Again problems must be presented to top management.

Hope this helps,

Tom

 

[Craig H.]

Tracey:

I work in a small company, too. What we have is one big database with all of our C/A, P/A, SCARs, etc in it. Then, each item (occurrance) has fields in them where the type of problem, category (Internal Audit N/C, SCAR, complaint) is listed. Then, to cull out the items of interest, we just do a quick query.

It seems to work well for us, and finding what you need justs a little creativity when the system is designed, and when writing the query. Unless you are a big company, I would suggest keeping it all together, if at all possible.

Hope this helps.

 

[Bob_M]

...we have be looking at our outsourcing process....

I've also come into the quality field with about the same amount of training...
We have not typically run into problems with outsource or purchased products/services to often. I agree the "resolution" of the non-satisfactory "service" should TYPICALLY be handled by the Purchasing Department AND the Quality department based on how your system is setup.

At a minimum (based on my limited experience) I'd suggest you place inspection requirements into your purchasing documents BEFORE you have something out sourced. Then nonconforming items can be reviewed within "supplier performance" as well as "nonconforming product" review.

Don't make extra forms/paperwork unless you need to. Start with DEFINING your requirements/expectation while purchasing and follow up with Non-conformance reports.

Basically follow some of the core ideas within ISO 9k2k.

Actually in "theory" you should already have this situation somewhat covered within your ISO9k2k system... In reality its hard to cover every issue if you don't normally deal with them...

MY $0.02

 

[db]

I agree with what Tom said. We must remember the point is to have effective corrective actions. The method you use can be wide open, in Craig's words: "a little creativity". But regardless of how creative you get, it still has to work. And by work I mean that the root cause of the supplier nonconformance is corrected. It makes no difference whether you use your form, or theirs, your process, or theirs, you just have to make sure the problem is fixed (not just a band aid solution).

 

[Mike S.]

If it is a minor issue I usually just send an e-mail to the supplier's Quality Manager to let them know what happened. This way minor issues are caught early and the supplier knows we're watching carefully.

If it is more than minor, I use a formal SCAR form (supplier corrective action request) sent to the supplier in which I've identified the nonconformance (in detail), PO #, etc. and ask the supplier to repair, replace, refund, etc. as applicable and submit a written corrective action report within a certain time frame. The Purchasing Dept. and I work closely on this and mgt. reviews problems with suppliers. Usually I can work with the supplier and get things straightened out but I have had to drop a few suppliers who habitually caused problems and did not work to fix them.

 

[tracey]

We are a small company( approx 50) and we build injection moulds. To give a corrective action seems improper. Let me give an example; We outsource a job to be CNC cut. The CNC operator at the outsource company puts in the wrong cutter and too much stock is removed. or perhaps they drill a hole in the wrong location. In house this would be recorded in our hold/nonconformance log. If there was a pattern of this happening then, yes, a Corrective Action would be written and the root cause found.

To write a CAR, unless there is a pattern, seems incorrect. The owners want to make sure that they are made aware when an outsource company produces a product that is less than satisfactory so they are made responsible for the cost and/or repair and for tracking purposes for future outsourcing.

I think that a Supplier nonconformace form maybe the answer. The supplier will then be made aware that we are not satisfied with there product and there will be sufficient documention for tracking as they have requested..... Thanks

Any more thoughts?

 

[db]

We are a small company( approx 50) and we build injection moulds. To give a corrective action seems improper. Let me give an example; We outsource a job to be CNC cut. The CNC operator at the outsource company puts in the wrong cutter and too much stock is removed. or perhaps they drill a hole in the wrong location. In house this would be recorded in our hold/nonconformance log. If there was a pattern of this happening then, yes, a Corrective Action would be written and the root cause found.

To write a CAR, unless there is a pattern, seems incorrect. The owners want to make sure that they are made aware when an outsource company produces a product that is less than satisfactory so they are made responsible for the cost and/or repair and for tracking purposes for future outsourcing.

I think that a Supplier nonconformace form maybe the answer. The supplier will then be made aware that we are not satisfied with there product and there will be sufficient documention for tracking as they have requested..... Thanks

Any more thoughts?

It is important to give the supplier enough information so that they can find and correct the cause of the problem. The format you use may be based on the significance of the problem, or your relations with the supplier, and you do not have to use the same format for every supplier.

 

[Mike S.]

When you issue a formal SCAR vs. just an informal note for a reminder vs. doing nothing at all is basically up to you. I don’t imagine you would put up with an entire shipment of thousands of dollars worth of product sent to you in unusable condition without saying anything to the vendor. By the same token if 1 part worth $3 out of 10,000 were broken when it arrived you might not want to do a formal SCAR and ask for credit and replacement. Use what makes sense for your business, but don’t simply ignore serious problems with a vendor, either. Usually if you are fair and cooperative most vendors will work with you to get things right. However, like everything else in life, there are exceptions to this general rule, too.