Why evaluate Suppliers that are Brands we represent?

[totty]

on-time delivery = deliver the goods on time.

You can still measure them on their performance, issue corrective actions, remind them when they do not respond and finally close the corrective action request without a response.

I am sorry, but I do not understand your business model to keep "bad suppliers". Good luck.

The standard does not care if it is waste of time. You have to comply with the standard. Your task is find the most effective solution for your business that is to be compliant with the standard. Good luck.

You can still measure them on their performance, issue corrective actions, remind them when they do not respond and finally close the corrective action request without a response.

First of all: why would I do this if I'm sure my boss wouldn't even think of removing the brand from our store? I do nothing with an evaluation in this case.

Even if the delivery takes too long, first they normally already know, and if they don't know they are warned.

We should open a corrective action for each supplier that takes too long to deliver? Based on what is too long, just to be coherent. We have some that "normally" (word of mouth) takes 3 months, others 1 month and others 1 day.

But even in the case I tell our suppliers that it's taking too long what this would result? normally they do nothing because of our warning because when this happens, it happens for a reason (blocked supply-chain...) and they would not fix this faster.


What other evaluation I might do, and what are the objectives of doing it?



The standard does not care if it is waste of time.
But I care

 

[TPMB4]

This is interesting. It seems to me that you are kind of selling a service more than the product. You're selling service of transferring ownership of a branded product from the Brand company to your customer if that makes sense. If I'm right you have no direct control over the quality of the brands or the quality of supply of the brands (delivery, etc.) so there is no point in evaluating this for conformity to the view of the standard.

Tricky I think. Taking the nike brand product as an example of your service is warehousing (storage in the shop), consultancy (sales advice as to which shoe, sports vest, bag, etc. is best suited to your customer) and you provide a means for them to take the brand's product away from your site (plastic bag). In this case there is one supplier in the supplier of the plastic bag and perhaps more. I don't know enough to say if you can argue the case that the branded goods are the property of the brand until the end user/customer pays and takes it away from your company.

Could it be argued you are a service company for the brands and would that enable you to circumnavigate the non comformity issue? I'd be interested to know.

I do believe there are some retailers who sell brands on a sale or return basis where they only pay up to the brand once the goods have been sold. In those cases it could be that the branded goods are still owned by the brand. Not sure if this helps but I guess it could feasibly be argued in some narrow cases. Or am I getting something totally wrong?

 

[TPMB4]

Another point, if you measure something such as on time deliveries, what is the effect of doing nothing about the results? If you get told delivery is 3 months and it takes 4 then record it and all the other deliveries. You have a record of some kind with little benefit because nothing will be done to improve the delivery times. Nothing can be done I guess. The benefit to your company of making it an issue is not there so you have evaluated the situation and are making no action. Is that conforming to the standard?

Reminds me a bit of catch-22 by joseph heller. An impossible situation perhaps.

 

[RoxaneB]

First of all: why would I do this if I'm sure my boss wouldn't even think of removing the brand from our store? I do nothing with an evaluation in this case.

If you don't even record the occurrence, you have no data to potentially support your store's position down the road should the decision be made to take some action in the future.

Even if the delivery takes too long, first they normally already know, and if they don't know they are warned.

Who is "they" in your statement? The supplier? If so, what is the purpose of the warning? If the supplier already knows that your store will take no action, the issuance of a warning will carry little weight with them.

Out of curiousity, are the suppliers in these situations truly Nike, Puma, Adidas, etc." Or is the supplier a distributor for them? The answer does matter, by the way, because if it a distributor you are dealing with, then the situation is not so much with the brands your story carries, but the distributor your store deals with.

We should open a corrective action for each supplier that takes too long to deliver? Based on what is too long, just to be coherent. We have some that "normally" (word of mouth) takes 3 months, others 1 month and others 1 day.

There is no definition for "too long". That is up to your store to determine. What I would recommend is that you track the timliness of deliveries - I'm sure there is a log here in the Cove that can help you with that if your store does not already have one. From that log, you will be able to see how many deliveries are late, and by how much, and why and so on.

With that data, you can determine the triggers that will determine which deliveries require further action and those that are simply dealt with. But at least this way, you're recording the data for further analysis. If something is late by half a day due to weather, no point in sending a corrective action request. However, if something is late by 30 days for an unknown reason, that might require an explanation from the supplier.

But even in the case I tell our suppliers that it's taking too long what this would result? normally they do nothing because of our warning because when this happens, it happens for a reason (blocked supply-chain...) and they would not fix this faster.

If you request, as a minimum, an explanation for the really late deliveries, over time, you may identify a common reason, perhaps even with a common supplier. This may not change anything with your supplier, but pehaps it can change something within your organization...such as ordering product with 4 months of notice to the supplier instead of 3 months.

What other evaluation I might do, and what are the objectives of doing it?

While I like on-time delivery, you could also consider other aspects like:

• Product Returns from Customers - % due to supplied product issues
• Product Returns from Receiving - % due to supplied product issues
• Receiving Accuracy - % of errors with received product (e.g., paperwork, quantity, quality, etc.).

 

[somashekar]

How can I explain to the auditor that the brands aren't suppliers if shows me this?

"As per ISO 9000:2005 ( quality management systems fundamentals and vocabulary) definitions
3.3.6
supplier
organization (3.3.1) or person that provides a product (3.4.2)
EXAMPLE Producer, distributor, retailer or vendor of a product, or provider of a service or information.
NOTE 1 A supplier can be internal or external to the organization.
NOTE 2 In a contractual situation a supplier is sometimes called "contractor"."
source: http://www.qualitygurus.com/courses/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=865

First, do not categorize your brands as suppliers.
Half the problem solved.
No auditor can force you to include anything unless it is a gross violation.
Next is justification: (need not be in documentation)
On your application you have been evaluated and selected by the brands to represent them and display / sell their products. So there is no way that you consider selecting them as your suppliers.
This must seal your position about brands not being your suppliers in the sense of purchasing scope.

 

[TPMB4]

So if a company/brand chooses or selects your company to sell it's products it is no longer a supplier?

 

[somashekar]

So if a company/brand chooses or selects your company to sell it's products it is no longer a supplier?

In the sense of ISO9001 purchasing scope, Yes.
If you are a big retail chain and you select brands and give space to display and sell them and can command off season / season discounts or get specific models supplied to you exclusively with promotional offer, brands can be your supplier where you decide to select and exercise controls.
If the other way around, then brands decide to supply you what they assess as the best combination of models and discounts and you as a authorized dealer just operate your business and sell the brands, then brands are not your supplier. It depends upon how you map purchasing. Of course you can call up and ask them to supply you more / less or a specific brand based on your sale experience and confidence, but the final say is with the brands. You are more an extended arm of the brand, keeping it your own enterprise and having agreement with the brands, keeping deposit with the brands, and committing to not deal with competitive brands if they so desire.
I do not know the OP's enterprise scope. I guess totty can clarify his scope.

 

[GURU SDI]

Hi totty!!

Really this case is different... All people are trying to convince you that you should monitor your suppliers & take corrective action....But you are not accepting the method of evaluation of your suppliers...Measuring supplier's performance is to improve the service level of the suppliers by taking corrective actions...But you cant take actions even if they fail...because they are world-class brands....moreover you are so comfortable with your supplier's quality & delivery...

They are exactly meeting your requirements....now you wanted to justify your auditors... right?..you better maintain supplier's performance records in such a way that all are meeting 100% delivery & "zero" quality defects....now u can convince your auditors & with supplier's past performance, you can say that they are performing well & no need for audit

I think this is one of the ways to jusfy your auditors..



Thanks
Gururaghavendran.R

 

[Motorhead]

Even though you currently believe your company will "never" give up any of these suppliers, I think there's still value in evaluating and monitoring performance of these vendors. And while I do not know your business details, it sounds as if you are purchasing product from these suppliers.

Not only are you satisfying the requirements of ISO9001 and your auditor, I also see some value to your company. If you keep records of supplier performance, and present your data to management at management review (or other times), it will help management decide if....maybe.....they might want to give up Adidas for poor performance, and take on Reebok instead. Right now you won't give up any of your current suppliers, but things change in business, and it would be good to have hard data to make supplier decisions down the road.

Even if a supplier performs badly in the opinion of the auditor, its up to you to decide whether or not to keep that supplier as an approved vendor. It's not the auditor's call or anyone else's. Its your call.

 

[Murphys Law]

Our business represent many brands which will not be removed by our portfolio. Imagine we have the following brands: Adidas, Nike, Puma... Why would we waste time by evaluating them, knowing we will not leave them?

How can I explain to the auditor this thing and how to not get a non conformity? (ISO 9001:2008)

thanks for your time,

An interesting question. From a Quality system point of view, you have no purchasing power of them to give them direction wrt to how they do their business. Internally, if you are buying direct, you could and a business process assess which companies give you best deliveries, pricing, returns in order, who sells most by brand and who gives you best service to return unsuccessful brands. If you are big enough, you could give than feedback to the branded companies assuming they'd even care.

I also don't know much about your company and how you position yourself to your customer. If you are supertrendy environmental company then you could consider how the parent company of them manufacturers their product (eg/ using sweatshops to make their stuff) so you could then use that to influence your decision on how to do business with that brand (That is if your end customers think it is important.)