Supplier Corrective Action: Are you requiring suppliers to follow a defined process?

[jwendt2]

Supplier Corrective Action Process

How is everyone handling supplier corrective actions? Are you requiring your suppliers to follow your defined processes? For example, if you have an 8D process are you requiring that your suppliers perform steps 4-8 and provide you the results that get entered into your system or do you require that they have a system of their own and the supplier corrective action on your side is just closed with a reference to theirs? The majority of our suppliers are not ISO certified (nor are we) so I am trying to get a handle on best practice for supplier corrective actions.

Thanks,

John

 

[Rob Nix]

We remain fairly flexible regarding the methods used to get the supplier to act on the concern, but we consistently document the results on our own internal CA/PA reports. With smaller suppliers we interview them and help them work through the problem resolution process. For larger suppliers with mature processes (i.e. ISO registered) we provide them (electronic, faxed, hand-delivered, etc.) our initiated report for them to complete within a specific time frame.

Of course, at the very least, the individual driving the effort must have strong 8D problem resolution skills.

I believe the methods used to resolve problems have to be flexible enough to fit the supplier's style and abilities, but all problem reporting must eventually be consistent - for historical reference purposes.

 

[Cari Spears]

I just modified ours a little to make it for Suppliers. See attachment in "Thoughts on Preventive Action" post #11 in the Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement forum if you like. We fill out the top portion and send it to the supplier to complete.

FYI - We are a smallish machine detail shop that is ISO registered.

 

[ISO Cheesy]

I’m in the middle of determining the same thing here. In my previous life we sent a form with very specific guidelines for the req. 8-D sections. I no longer have access to it, but I have attached my SCAR procedure.

Now that we are on the subject:
The place I’m at now has only issued 5 request for supplier corrective action in the past 3 years. I was told the reason is because isn’t worth the time (suppliers time also) to do a root cause/corrective action. They said, “it’s just easier to request credit if it’s under a reasonable $$ amount”. I asked what else besides $$ determines a SCAR and I got a blank stair from the Purchasing depart. And in the QA area I was told if they start to see a trend. Fair enough, but when I asked how this was being tracked on BOM suppliers, the response was “We only track quality on the top 5 $$ suppliers”

This was identified during an internal audit and I issued an observation, but now I’m thinking it should be a finding. I have attached the IA report.

I'm asking for feedback on this - What do you all think?

 

[Randy Stewart]

The overall impact on the company should be considered, not just $$. Another issue you must look at is cause. There are a number of posts that refer to customer caused problems that come back on the supplier (give supplier wrong ship to address and then issue a SCAR to figure out why they missed the delivery).

 

[bpritts]

We have typically allowed the supplier to use their own form for CAR's
(but most of our suppliers also sell automotive, so almost all of them are
familiar with 8D process.) Then we record on our summary.

I have thought about requiring use of our form but haven't stepped up to
that yet. Would rather encourage the supplier to work harder on the CA
than fuss about the format. BUT-- as noted, our suppliers are used to
formal problemsolving. If you have a supply base where this is uncommon,
your own 8D form is probably the way to go. Then be prepared to chuckle
over some of the replies, and work patiently with the suppliers.


In Cheesy's case -- I would bet a dollar of my own money that most any
company will have had a lot more than 5 supplier issues in 3 years!!! It is
hard, time consuming, and costly to do supplier CAR's, but it's effort well
spent. Yes, you should consider the total impact as several others suggest.
Depending on impact, you may let some issues go unrecorded but be careful
that there is a point of control here (so that there's more than the good ol'
boy network making that call.)

Regards,

Brad