Supplier Selection Criteria Discussion

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#1
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:41:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Supplier Selection Criteria /../Isackson/Scalies

From: "Charley Scalies"

> It is painful to observe that many organizations are responding to the
> DIS in this manner. It speaks volumes about the semantically dreadful
> nature of this document that it brings exegesists, eschatologists and
> tea-leaf readers out of the quality closet. I personally cannot wait for
> the concordance. Can Quality wait much longer for its Martin Luther and a
> cathedral at Worms or perhaps Weehawken?

I knew I liked this guy!

BTW, I prefer Weehawken, because it has a ferry that will take me across the river Styx, AKA Hudson.

> Any firm that selects its suppliers with the concerns of its ISO
> Registrars uppermost is likely to go the way of Studebaker-Packard.

Remember, "Wheelbarrow" Johnny Studebaker said, "Always give the customer what he wants - but not too much or you'll go broke."

> A bit of ancient wisdom: Tofasto merubo lo tofasto.
> He who seeks too much finds nothing - Talmud

And that is exactly why I have concluded ISO9000:2000 is a very bad idea. It's not what it says, but what the "Experts" say it means.

Here's my advice - for whatever it's worth. If anyone thinks a portion of the new standard doesn't make good common sense or that someone's interpretation of it doesn't make good common sense, then somebody is reading it wrong. Or, if I can quote from one of my favorite burlesque routines:

Patient - "Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this. What should I do?"
Doctor - "Stop doing that."

Charley Scalies
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#2
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 15:16:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Supplier Selection Criteria /../Scalies/Humphries

From: "Edwin Humphries"

G'day all,

Although I didn't seem to get the original posting on this thread, I've been following the responses with some interest.

Just as an early aside: not only does the new Standard bring out "exegesists, eschatologists and tea-leaf readers", it also seems to bring out obfuscators!

Now I know that some of us talk about quality with an almost religious zeal, but do we have to countenance the possibility of the mistakes of all major religions? Just as with most religious zealots, we "Experts" (read consultants and auditors) seem to be so happy to tell others what is "right" and what is "wrong" in Quality Systems, that we forget what it is really all about: what is effective (and, contrariwise, ineffective) in delivering consistent and improving quality of product and service to the customer. If this is the target, then as a corollary, what does not contribute, directly or indirectly to the achievement of this outcome, should be thrown out, as it then only contributes to costs.

For once, I disagree with Charley: I don't think 9K-2K is any worse an idea that previous versions, because "Experts" (read consultants and auditors) have always told companies what is "right" and what is "wrong", based more on their own limitations and prejudices than on any reality. 9K- 2K, if anything, makes this a little more difficult - although, as I've previously said, it provides many new opportunities for experts to scare the life out of their clients, and in the process, make a killing.

That's why I'm a Baha'i, because I'm a little weary of other fallible humans telling me what to believe and what not to believe, when all have a piece of the truth; maybe that's my Quality philosophy as well: that only I can decide what works for me.

So I do agree with those who've said that the system must not be designed around the whims of the auditors.

I don't agree that arbitrary and subjective criteria have no place in an assessment of a supplier (how, for example, can you simply quantify management commitment to quality, customer relations, housekeeping, corporate citizenship, etc.: yet all these are legitimate considerations in supplier selection).

And I don't agree that 9K-2K requires measurement of EVERYTHING: it has general requirements to measure those things relevant to "assure conformity and achieve improvement", and has specific requirements for customer satisfaction, internal audit, product and process, and nonconformity. It also requires the analysis of data to provide information on, amongst other things, suppliers. To read into this a requirement to measure the effectiveness and operation of the supplier selection criteria (other than, perhaps, by inference) is drawing a long bow indeed.

So let's leave it up to organisations to define what business strategies are appropriate for themselves. Those of us who are consultants or auditors: our job is to use our broad experience - not our petty prejudices - to guide our clients to business strategies that are more efficient and effective for them, not to tell them they must do something because "the Standard" says so.

- End Rant -

Best Regards
 
R

Roger Eastin

#3
Reality check here - no standard is going to be perfect. Any standard is always going to be subject to some human interpretation. That's why any organization's focus should be on intent. Now I'll be the first to agree that "intent" is hard to measure, but, as was pointed out in another post, one should be able to see evidence of the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle in the system. I think the ISO9000:2000 is a step in the right direction. It may be harder to audit, but it has more potential to help organzations put the emphasis on the quality SYSTEM - system is the key word here. Of course, a company has to have the right culture as well. This has been discussed many times here before. (For Edwin - what is truth? Especially, if that "truth" comes from humans in the first place - humans did write ISO9000:2000.)
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration
Staff member
Admin
#4
I agree, Roger. But I'm not above adding more fuel to the fire!

------snippo---------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:47:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Supplier Selection Criteria /../Scalies/Humphries/Paten

From: "Mike Paten"

I can't resist joining in the "supplier selection" discussion - but I will be brief (at least as brief as an "expert" can be)!

Initial supplier qualification is nothing more than a "ticket of admission" - it gives a supplier the opportunity to succeed (or fail) in meeting your requirements. Hence, initial qualification can be based on just about any reasonable criteria INCLUDING self reported claims (i.e. responses to survey questions or claims in catalogs or brochures) that can be verified. That's of course why ISO registration is usually an "instant" qualifier (technical capability assumed). Checking with a few previous customers is the easiest way I know of to verify a supplier's claims.

I believe the more important issue is how you go about monitoring on-going supplier performance and taking appropriate action. Even suppliers "grandfathered in" should have at least "minimally acceptable past performance". The easy part is to define that criteria (in terms of % on time deliveries, average days early/late, % defective parts, % shipments with returns, etc.) The tougher part is to actually measure/monitor on-going performance. The hardest part though is holding suppliers to the criteria. You always have an "out" though if you allow "emergency" buys from unqualified suppliers. But, you should monitor "emergency" buy trends too - when the exception (emergency) becomes the rule (practice) you're wasting your time with the whole business.

Mike Paten
 
K

kheldar

#5
Quote :
''The easy part is to define that criteria (in terms of % on time deliveries, average days early/late, % defective parts, % shipments with returns, etc.) The tougher part is to actually measure/monitor on-going performance. The hardest part though is holding suppliers to the criteria. You always have an "out" though if you allow "emergency" buys from unqualified suppliers. But, you should monitor "emergency" buy trends too - when the exception (emergency) becomes the rule (practice) you're wasting your time with the whole business.''

Doing this by calculting the performances in % I think is a pain in the a**.
Why dont evaluate the suppliers trough NCR?
If you have a minimal control at reception and you trace all NCR regarding suppliers, then will be mor easily to evaluate suppliers
And you can keep to all these criterias (as shipping, service, technical support, availability, and so on).

At least this is how I've put it in the cie where I work - and is really effective and accepted by the registrar.

------------------
Smile...tomorrow will be worse
 

QAnalyst1

Starting to get Involved
#6
I have a question regarding ongoing qualification of a supplier.

If you use ISO certification as the basis of acceptance to the approved supplier list, then shouldn't you keep an up to date certificate on file for them, or is it enough to point to the ongoing evaluation of their performance, but not worry about keeping a current certificate in the approved vendor file? This issue came up in a meeting and I'd appreciate any clarity you can give.

In the past I've always kept a current cert on file for vendors that were given instant qualification through proof of ISO certification, and auditors have asked to see these from time to time.

I'm asking this because it's obvious that the ongoing evaluation of their ability to meet requirements is certainly important, (and required) but if you use ISO certification as the initial qualifier, it seems to me you'd still want to keep a current certificate on file, or why bother having one in the first place, correct?

If you can get by with the original certificate they provided which would expire at some point, why bother having one at all.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B AS9100 8.4.1 Supplier Selection/Evaluation criteria and reevaluations AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 13
M Supplier selection criteria - Medical devices ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
N ISO 13485:2016 - Supplier Selection Criteria ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
W Supplier Selection Criteria Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 7
J IATF 16949 8.4.1.2 Supplier selection process IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
A IATF 16949 Cl. 8.4.1.2 Supplier Selection Process - assessment example IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
a_bardi Excluding ISO9001 Cl. 8.4 - Supplier Selection and Evaluation ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
B IATF 16949 Clause 8.4.1.2 - Supplier Selection Process - Service Providers IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
I Supplier Selection based on Total Cost question Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 4
L Supplier Selection and Evaluation - Raw Material Manufacturer vs. Distributor ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
J API Q1 7.4.1.2 Supplier Selection Supplemental Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 1
A Purchasing Verification & Supplier Selection ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
H ISO 13485 Sec 7.4 - Supplier Selection, Evaluation and Re-evaluation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 20
A Supplier Selection - Assembly Activities Assessment Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 1
A Procedure for Supplier Selection and Performance Evaluation - Comprehensive Example Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
Sidney Vianna Should customers influence a supplier's registrar selection? Registrars and Notified Bodies 88
C Supplier Qualification/Selection and Decision Methods Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 1
Q Supplier Selection - ISO 9001 Clause 7.4.1 - Need Help Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
A Purchasing - Supplier Evaluation vs. Selection - What is the difference? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
G Supplier Evaluation and Selection for Electronic Parts Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 3
G 7.4.1. Supplier selection, evaluation and re-evaluation - McMaster, Grainger, etc. Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 9
D Supplier Evaluation and Selection in the ?Service? industry Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 2
C Purchasing Procedure - Supplier selection, evaluation and re-evaluation Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 22
A Supplier Selection by recommendation! Will this fly? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 12
Jerry Eldred Calibration Supplier Selection - Calibration & Temperature & Work Instructions General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
L Supplier within the Organization ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
D Supplier Quality - How to classify a supplier level Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 7
F Supplier Quality Assurance Job Openings - 8/2020 Job Openings, Consulting and Employment Opportunities 0
P Understanding DFMEA and PFMEA - Supplier Related IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 21
S Can assembly manufacturing sub-supplier be certified IATF 16949? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M How Supplier Capacity check is done by competitors Manufacturing and Related Processes 0
C One Time Service Supplier - Temperature and Humidity Testing Service ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
M Supplier Audits - Stop Wasting Everyone's Time! General Auditing Discussions 15
G Supplier management when the supplier is your headquarter IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
V Supplier wants to perform pre-qualifications prior to every run instead of locking in parameters. Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 7
D Class 3 Device - Change of supplier of material Canada Medical Device Regulations 6
D List A IVD - Change to material supplier EU Medical Device Regulations 3
J Minimum Supplier Certifications for Food Supplements Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 2
R Supplier/Vendor Surveys (360) Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 1
was named killer AS9100 Supplier Approval Requirements AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 10
J Sub-supplier change from manual to automated process - same specs - Report to FDA? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
M Supplier Audit Report - Template for second party audit wanted Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 1
T Difference between a subcontractor and a supplier ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 21
Ed Panek Corona Virus impact on Supplier Audits and Received Parts ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
NDesouza Verification of Supplier RCCAs Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
K Supply Agreement Regarding MDR 2017/745 - Manufacturer-supplier cooperation Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
L How to deal with an ISO 13485 Supplier Audit nonconformance ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 17
P Supplier Audits in the wake of COVID-19 ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
T Ideas for developing a Supplier Quality Management System, non automotive ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
B Vendor (Supplier) Evaluations and Reports Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 11

Similar threads

Top Bottom