Who is responsible to initiate a Supplier Corrective Action?

[useridpain]

Who is responsible to initiate a Supplier Corrective Action when a non conformance is found?

 

[howste]

Re: Supplier Corrective Action

You're not providing much detail. There is no single answer to your question that will apply in all situations.

How was the nonconformity found?
Do you have a company policy/procedure about supplier management and such issues?
Who has done this in the past in your organization?

 

[Golfman25]

Re: Supplier Corrective Action

Who is responsible to initiate a Supplier Corrective Action when a non conformance is found?

No. Who is the guy on first.








Sorry. Had to do it.

 

[useridpain]

Re: Supplier Corrective Action

Nonconformity is found at in coming inspection.
Yes, there is a procedure. Seems like it is not followed and the expectation is that someone "in quality" is responsible.
In the past and currently it might be initiated by incoming inspection, or it might be initiated by the Project Manager, or it might be initiated by the Quality Systems Coordinator, or it might get passed to the Supplier Quality Coordinator.
My understanding, in my previous job, was that the person who found the non conformance would initiate the SCAR since they have first hand understanding of what the requirement is (hardness for instance) and how the part does not meet the requirement.

 

[RoxaneB]

Re: Supplier Corrective Action

Nonconformity is found at in coming inspection.
Yes, there is a procedure. Seems like it is not followed and the expectation is that someone "in quality" is responsible.
In the past and currently it might be initiated by incoming inspection, or it might be initiated by the Project Manager, or it might be initiated by the Quality Systems Coordinator, or it might get passed to the Supplier Quality Coordinator.
My understanding, in my previous job, was that the person who found the non conformance would initiate the SCAR since they have first hand understanding of what the requirement is (hardness for instance) and how the part does not meet the requirement.

There is no correct answer to this question. What works for one organization may not work for another.

The person who discovers the nonconformance could be an operator or an hourly inspector, and perhaps is not in a position to work with the supplier. Still, they should have the authority (and responsibility) to identify the nonconformance to an individual who can work with the supplier for resolution.

This individual could be quality or could be purchasing or could be receiving...again, there is no RIGHT individual for this as long as it is done.

In my own experience, however, I like to leave with Receiving (which was often a sub-department of Purchasing). Why? Because they're in the trenches...they're the ones doing the job and recording the results. That said, in my experience, Receiving then brings the results of supplier conformance (or lack thereof) to Purchasing so that supplier evaluation AND negotiations can be done with the necessary information at hand.

 

[ncwalker]

Re: Supplier Corrective Action

So here is a little bit of a rant and hopefully something to make you think....

First the rant: Someone in receiving inspection finds a problem. And the feeling is that "someone in quality" is then responsible. For writing it up.

Definitely "someone in quality" needs to FOLLOW the issue and ensure corrective actions make sense and all your procedures, whatever they may be, are met. But let us talk about writing it up ....

Does the person in receiving inspection NOT communicate the issue to the quality department? How does this communication happen?

Now, go download an 8D. Heck, download 5 different ones. And look at steps 1 through 3 of an 8D. This is what we expect our suppliers to give back to us, but really look at steps 1 through 3. A LOT of information in these steps must come from the customer, the receiver of the bad part. Simply because the supplier doesn't know it. Heck, just consider "description of the problem."

Now think about this - we all look at our "lean" efforts. And we all know that double handling product = a very bad thing. It's wasteful.

How about double handling data? Think about it. Why would I email you, my supplier, a problem and then want you to transcribe my problem onto an 8D? That's double handling the data. Why don't I fill out an 8D for you with the stuff I know, send you this, and have you fill in YOUR part of it?

And ... that's my suggestion.

When your receiving inspection has a problem, the notification to YOU should be a partial 8D. Not an email. Not a problem report. The portion of an 8D they know - what is the problem and what's the details (how large is the hole, the hardness was to by X and it is Y, here's a picture of the broken part, etc, etc, etc) Then, you can fill in more of it (containment, how many parts you have, etc) and send it to the supplier to fill his portion.

If people are complaining about filling it out. Saints on Bikes, they are either typing it or writing it anyway to tell you. Doing the exact same work but "containerizing" it on an 8D isn't more work, it's new habits. That are lean, eliminating double handling. There is no reason not to.

 

[PaulJSmith]

Re: Supplier Corrective Action

Yes, there is a procedure.

Then, this is how is should be handled, ideally. Follow the procedure.

Seems like it is not followed and the expectation is that someone "in quality" is responsible.
In the past and currently it might be initiated by incoming inspection, or it might be initiated by the Project Manager, or it might be initiated by the Quality Systems Coordinator, or it might get passed to the Supplier Quality Coordinator.

So, here is an opportunity to flush out the aforementioned procedure. Why is it not followed? Is it wrong? Has it evolved over time? Either your company is not following its own procedures, or they are not up-to-date. This is a wonderful opportunity for your Quality department to shine, and fix this.

There is a question bigger than "Who does it?"
That is, "Why doesn't anyone/everyone know who does it?"

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Once a nonconforming product is discovered, it has to be dispositioned (e.g., though a Material Review Board MRB team). Most organizations have an established process to accomplish that, and, in some cases, it involves a cross functional team.

Keep in mind that, SOMETIMES, the nonconforming situation is NOT the supplier's fault. So, it would make no sense to request a SCAR when the supplier did no wrong. When and if the MRB team decides an SCAR is justified, than the process should clarify who is responsible to communicate with the supplier. Most of the organizations I know of require someone in purchasing to be the primary point of contact with the supplier. For technical reasons, typically people in quality and engineering will assist purchasing when dialoguing with the supplier's rep.

by the way, from an ISO 9001:2015 perspective, if people don't know who is responsible for this important aspect of a QMS, top management failed to comply with the first paragraph of 5.3:

Top management shall ensure that the responsibilities and authorities for relevant roles are assigned, communicated and understood within the organization

Risky. Based. Not thinking.

 

[randomname]

Technically, whoever your procedure designates.

Ideally, Purchasing. After all they're the primary contact with suppliers.

 

[RoxaneB]

Once a nonconforming product is discovered, it has to be dispositioned (e.g., though a Material Review Board MRB team). Most organizations have an established process to accomplish that, and, in some cases, it involves a cross functional team.

Depending on the size of the organization, a Material Review Board may not exist...and not all incoming nonconformances are related to the actual product (i.e., sometimes it's the paperwork, such as an incorrect certificate, that is the issue). Still, the nature of possible nonconformances, associated disposition measures, and those responsible for following through on the disposition measures (and corrective measures) should be identified. In my experience, this is done through a controlled document, easily read if in matrix form.