Suppliers for R&D department - Approved?

W

WisdomseekerSC

#1
Our R&D department :tunnel: loves to order and experiment with new materials many of which are not ordered from suppliers on our approved supplier list (ASL). I realize that if the materials work well for the application and the prototype proves feasible that the suppliers will need to be approved prior to using the materials in production. I have thought of creating a new category or list of suppliers called "Research Only Material SUppliers" and "Research Only Service Providers" that would not fall under the requirements for approval during the research stages of product development. How are others handling this issue?

Another dilemma is when the novel raw materials or services are made by small startups that do not have a quality system. We then must assume the responsibility for them. Purchasing and Quality departments are at odds with R&D under these circumstances. Any advice on the best way to handle this situation? :argue:
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#2
Hi,

The best (and actually the only) advice I can offer, is leave R&D be under the design control SOPs. If these are properly established, they will give more than enough control, documentation, breaks and balances to ensure proper conduct on development stages and swift transfer on later stages. The generic requirement for critical review and justification of just about everything under design control will, in most cases, ensure that R&D will not put you into too much mess.

Under this approach, no need to restrain R&D with "suppliers evaluation and approval" procedures, and as a consequence, the requirement for a quality system becomes a matter of benefit vs. burden, rather than a mandatory issue.

Cheers,
Ronen.

(The undersigned is a R&D veteran who crossed the lines into QA :lol:)

Our R&D department :tunnel: loves to order and experiment with new materials many of which are not ordered from suppliers on our approved supplier list (ASL). I realize that if the materials work well for the application and the prototype proves feasible that the suppliers will need to be approved prior to using the materials in production. I have thought of creating a new category or list of suppliers called "Research Only Material SUppliers" and "Research Only Service Providers" that would not fall under the requirements for approval during the research stages of product development. How are others handling this issue?

Another dilemma is when the novel raw materials or services are made by small startups that do not have a quality system. We then must assume the responsibility for them. Purchasing and Quality departments are at odds with R&D under these circumstances. Any advice on the best way to handle this situation? :argue:
 
G

gholland

#3
We break our development process up into stages. R/D and advanced concepts fall into 'Stage 0' which is a open playing field with no mandated controls or lists. This allows the eggheads to play and not get upset about having their 'creativity constrained' by things such as rules and regulations.

Once the 'idea' is officially a project as determined by management it gets kicked over into stage 1 and Design Controls start. At that point the suppliers must get put on the ASL, etc etc.

I wouldn't support the 'research only' list fo suppliers, it's a burden to the R/D people and will just be more headache for little gain. If you put out a list of 'research only' suppliers the R/D folks will come up with a new supplier that isn't on your list and will work around it rather than take the time to fill out the forms and get put on the list. Or they'll forget because they consider it non-value added. That's what I did when I worked as an engineer in R/D...


:2cents:
 

somashekar

Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Our R&D department :tunnel: loves to order and experiment with new materials many of which are not ordered from suppliers on our approved supplier list (ASL). I realize that if the materials work well for the application and the prototype proves feasible that the suppliers will need to be approved prior to using the materials in production. I have thought of creating a new category or list of suppliers called "Research Only Material SUppliers" and "Research Only Service Providers" that would not fall under the requirements for approval during the research stages of product development. How are others handling this issue?

Another dilemma is when the novel raw materials or services are made by small startups that do not have a quality system. We then must assume the responsibility for them. Purchasing and Quality departments are at odds with R&D under these circumstances. Any advice on the best way to handle this situation? :argue:
This is a very good opening post and I am sure many across the industries are faced with this.
First thing is that R&D must realize at every stage that what ever they do is finally for the production activities to take over and do in numbers. Like we talk about manufacturability or serviceability and such stuff, the R&D purchasing activity must be a branch of the purchasing process and look into the aspect of long term availability, ability of the existing supplier to develop parts which are similar to already supplied parts and these must form a vital part of the design review meetings.
The more thought and plan done at this stage, the better the purchasing activities when design outputs come to manufacturing. Going further, at appropriate time the necessary controls on such out-sourced processes, if necessary, will be a lot more easier.
Its all about the interaction of the design process with other processes, and the better this interaction is, lesser the dilemma. Evaluation and selection of any new supplier takes birth during the design stages. When R&D works in isolation, the dilemma in other production processes crops up.
 
A

alspread

#5
I'm going through a similar situation myself right now. Its a real dilemma.

On the one hand, you want to permit some lattitude for the design folks ("eggheads") to permit them to be creative and all.

But, on the other hand there is a requirement to control and approve suppliers.

If you give them too much rope it gets messy later when you have to reel it in. Meaning you either need to get that R & D supplier approved, or find another supplier to make the product or do the process and have to re-learn everything all over again.

If you put too much control on the R & D group it will stifle the process and they'll probably just find a way to work around it anyway. We hired them because they were smart and resourceful.

The ERP/MRP system requires the suppliers to be loaded anyway. So I went with a special designator for suppliers approved for R & D work. They can use suppliers from either group (production or R & D) to make their R & D parts. I won't say that I am crazy about this approach, but I had to do something.

By the way, the other driver comes from the sourcing group who are always trying to reduce the overall number of suppliers too.

Good Luck
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#6
Slightly :topic:
From a risk management perspective, keep in mind that whatever suppliers, materials, technologies being validated during the R&D phase have to be considered for volume manufacturing. I have seen a few number of cases where a supplier being used by R&D did not have any intention to increase their production capacity to support volume manufacturing. And the company developing the product could not qualify any supplier to support the volume demand, once the product design was approved.

So, make sure that the materials, processes, suppliers, etc. will be there to support the work at the rates necessary to make the product/program profitable.

There is no point going through the effort and expense of validating a new product design, if it can not be offered in a commercial basis, because of supplier limitations.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#7
Our R&D department :tunnel: loves to order and experiment with new materials many of which are not ordered from suppliers on our approved supplier list (ASL). I realize that if the materials work well for the application and the prototype proves feasible that the suppliers will need to be approved prior to using the materials in production. I have thought of creating a new category or list of suppliers called "Research Only Material SUppliers" and "Research Only Service Providers" that would not fall under the requirements for approval during the research stages of product development. How are others handling this issue?

Another dilemma is when the novel raw materials or services are made by small startups that do not have a quality system. We then must assume the responsibility for them. Purchasing and Quality departments are at odds with R&D under these circumstances. Any advice on the best way to handle this situation? :argue:
R&D needs to have some flexibility to experiment, but as Sidney explained, if it is to be commercialized, then that opens up another layer of validation. Maybe you should view it as a series of layers and approvals, the closer it gets to commercial product, the more ironed out it needs to become.
 
D

DrM2u

#8
Our R&D department :tunnel: loves to order and experiment with new materials many of which are not ordered from suppliers on our approved supplier list (ASL). I realize that if the materials work well for the application and the prototype proves feasible that the suppliers will need to be approved prior to using the materials in production. I have thought of creating a new category or list of suppliers called "Research Only Material SUppliers" and "Research Only Service Providers" that would not fall under the requirements for approval during the research stages of product development. How are others handling this issue?
Here's about :2cents: worth of wisdom: what is the value of creating (another) list of suppliers? I don't recall any requirement in the ISO 9001 standard (clause 7.4) that an organization maintains a list of approved suppliers. One requirement is that suppliers are selected based on some established criteria. Does your selection criteria include availabiltiy of materials? For example, if you can procure a certain material only from a certain supplier, can you approve that suppleir simply on that criteria?
Another dilemma is when the novel raw materials or services are made by small startups that do not have a quality system. We then must assume the responsibility for them. Purchasing and Quality departments are at odds with R&D under these circumstances. Any advice on the best way to handle this situation? :argue:
I am not sure what you mean here: "we then must assume the responsibility for them". Are you assuming the responsibility for the supplier or for the material? If you are talking about the supplier, you are assuming the responsibility for selecting that supplier regardless if that supplier has a QMS or not (unless that supplier is specified by the customer). If you are talking about the material, the responsibility for compliance with your specifications remains with the supplier. You could implement an internal verification process (i.e. receiving inspection) but that does not absolve the supplier of their responsibilities. Of course, local regulations might have an impact on responsibilities beyond the contractual agreements.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#9
I have seen a few number of cases where a supplier being used by R&D did not have any intention to increase their production capacity to support volume manufacturing. And the company developing the product could not qualify any supplier to support the volume demand, once the product design was approved.
Excuse me for asking, but where were manufacturing / purchasing representatives during R&D stages design reviews and risk analyses? Further, such a generic requirement probably belongs in the R&D design checklists in the first place.

On a slightly different issue: Design validations are expected to cover actual commercial manufacturing processes and volumes. I don't see the point in "validating" a design in small scale / R&D scale. Small scale is only for verification.

Cheers,
Ronen.
 
W

WisdomseekerSC

#10
Thanks to all responders for your input.

The "experimentation" in the early stages of new product design is considered research for us until feasibility is established. Basically answering the question "Can it be done?" closely followed by "Should we do it?" from a business stand point.

We have an established and documented procedure for design and development that is based on a gate review model and we do have representatives from R&D management, engineering, sales, RA/QA and manufacturing, as well as, other specialist as needed and someone without direct responsibility for the design stage being reviewed present during the formal design review meetings. Supplier approval must begin by Gate I review in order to proceed to the next phase of development.

The suppliers are evaluated and approved based on a set of criteria that includes consideration of their level of criticality and risk.

R&D is getting push back from Purchasing during the initial purchase request for the "experimental" materials in an effort to limit the number of suppliers and I suppose the extra effort it requires to approve new suppliers down the road. These kind of checks and balances are good but can delay the acquisition process (R&D mind-set is to beat the competition).

And so it goes....:truce:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
lanley liao Does all of the suppliers need to integrated into the supplier list qualified of the company? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 2
M PSA Suppliers - CSR matrix and need the quality manual of PSA APQP and PPAP 2
O How to give a score/yield more correctly to my suppliers Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 12
P Managing How PPAP Requirements are Communicated in the Manufacturing Process and to Suppliers APQP and PPAP 5
B General Motors and Honda Alliance - What does this mean to suppliers? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
S Conflict Minerals - Tin Suppliers CMRT Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 2
T ISO 13485 - Process validation at critical suppliers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
P Mylar plot suppliers in accordance with D6-51991 document AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
T Reaction Plan To Drive suppliers to IATF 16949 registration IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
I Approved Suppliers ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and used test equipment ISO 17025 related Discussions 6
C Critical Suppliers for EU medical device approvals May 2020 EU Medical Device Regulations 1
M Who should receive the bills from suppliers and vendors, account payable or procurement? Consultants and Consulting 4
P Qualifying commercial off the shelf (COTS) external suppliers ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
Nicole Desouza Are Shipping Companies Suppliers? Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
J Painted cut threads - ASME Pipe Suppliers Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
G ISO 9001 8.4 applied to 7.1.3 - Suppliers of infrastructure requirements - IT and Print solutions ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
P IATF 16949 Clause 8.4.2.3 - Justification for non-certified suppliers IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 14
J Requirements for customer directed suppliers Customer and Company Specific Requirements 5
R Supplier Controls we can place on Single-Source Suppliers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
L Audit boundaries - Is a Registrar permitted to audit a company's QMS by visiting their suppliers? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 26
R ISO 9001 versus ISO 13485 for Suppliers to Medical Device Companies ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
R Critical suppliers (Definition of) and MDSAP (Medical Device Single Audit Program) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 15
P IATF 16949 - Monitoring Suppliers for Premium Freight IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
DuncanGibbons Documentation aerospace OEMs require with purchase of parts from manufacturers/suppliers Manufacturing and Related Processes 0
K Supplier Controls for Animal Tissue Suppliers for Medical Devices Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
optomist1 Survey of Tier 1 & Tier 2 suppliers APQP and PPAP 6
P Non-Active Suppliers on CE Certificate EU Medical Device Regulations 2
C Suppliers re-classification from Critical to Significant or from Significant to Non-critical Supply Chain Security Management Systems 0
D Training for AS13000 - Problem Solving Requirements for Suppliers Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 14
eule del ayre List of Level 3 PPAP requirements for automotive suppliers APQP and PPAP 20
Q Does our material suppliers’ supplier have to be at least ISO 9001 certified? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
N How to deal with catalog parts suppliers who refuse to submit PPAP documents? APQP and PPAP 0
S Outsourcing manufacturing - Who controls the suppliers of parts to the CMO? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
Ed Panek Supplier Auditing - No purchases from our key suppliers in the last 24 months ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
I IATF 16949 - 8.4.2.3 - Applicability to Shipping Suppliers IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
A MedAccred being flowed down to Suppliers (2018) MedAccred Industry Group Program 0
T What's the quality standard adopted by BMW for its suppliers Customer and Company Specific Requirements 5
S Do suppliers of prototyping components need to undergo supplier qualification? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
O ISO 13485 for software company - Selecting suppliers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
M Are Medical device Raw material suppliers required to be ISO 13485 certified ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
qualprod ISO 9001 - 9.3.2 c) 7 is answer for 8.4.1? Performance of external suppliers ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 9
J How to verify the actual capacity of suppliers Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 3
D VDA 6.4 Audit checklist - Production tool suppliers VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 1
T How to plan the monitoring of suppliers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
C Approval of raw material suppliers which do not manufacture the material ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
B AS9100 - Are special process suppliers required to be NADCAP accredited? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 15
L Informational IATF 16949 certification requirement for Tier 2/Tier 3 Suppliers IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 15
S Supplier Qualification - How do we determine which suppliers to qualify? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
O How do reduce the risk of suppliers having similar problems? Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 4
N API Q2 clause 6.2.2.1 Auditing Outsourced Suppliers Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom