The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  QS-9000
  QS 4.7 control of customer supplied product

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   QS 4.7 control of customer supplied product
EricChan
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:China
Registered: May 2001

posted 14 May 2001 03:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for EricChan   Click Here to Email EricChan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have one client (producing automobile electrical spare parts) experienced a QS registration audit several days ago. One NC states that no documented procedrue for the control of customer supplied product which does not conform to the requirement of 4.7 of QS9000.

The fact is the factory has no customer supplied product at all. All of their products are not for manufacturers including oem, instead, only for the maintenance market. In its quality manual, it is clearly stated that 4.7 is not covered in the qs system for the time being.

Another fact is that the qs audior himself admit there are no existing customer supplied products. No parts, no toolings, no drawings/specs, no packagings except purchase orders.

Last fact is the QS auditor insists that an extra produre should be prepared to address 4.7 requirements. (His point is suppose you have in future customer supplied products, how you manage them).

The auditor asked too much or NOT?

eric

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 14 May 2001 08:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can't see where the auditor went wrong. 4.7 is one of those elements that requires procedures. It should be a fairly easy issue to cover since you have no customer supplied product. The procedure (s) would be hypothetical and easy to change if you do get customer supplied product.

ASD...

IP: Logged

tim banic
Forum Contributor

Posts: 28
From:St George, Ontario, canada
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 14 May 2001 12:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tim banic   Click Here to Email tim banic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would agree with Al, in the manual 4.7 is a shall.

It can be as easy as "All incoming product/material from the customer is identified in the same fashion as all other incoming material (refernce to 4.8 Product ID & Traceability).

Don't forget to add a statement about customer supplied equipment also.

good luck
Tim

"if it moves, train it...if it doesn't move, calibrate it...if it isn't written down, IT NEVER HAPPENED!"

IP: Logged

EricChan
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:China
Registered: May 2001

posted 15 May 2001 02:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for EricChan   Click Here to Email EricChan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I clearly understand 4.7 is a shall requiring procedures.Same case in 9k (which is also a shall requiring procedure), the auditor can be easily persuaded around. One other example is I know one QS certified company has no procedrue for 4.19 for it declares in quality manual no on site service either at oem or end user side.In the latter case, customer complains addressed in 4.14 and external NC product in 4.13.

My concern is how we use the standards, NOT the other round.In this sense, I would say the year 2000 9k is a good revision, which allows for exclusion.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 15 May 2001 07:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by EricChan:
I clearly understand 4.7 is a shall requiring procedures.Same case in 9k (which is also a shall requiring procedure), the auditor can be easily persuaded around. One other example is I know one QS certified company has no procedrue for 4.19 for it declares in quality manual no on site service either at oem or end user side.In the latter case, customer complains addressed in 4.14 and external NC product in 4.13.

My concern is how we use the standards, NOT the other round.In this sense, I would say the year 2000 9k is a good revision, which allows for exclusion.


Eric,

I think 90% of the companies registered to QS-9000 do not include elements 4.4 and 4.19 (Design/Servicing) because they don't do either and there is a clause in QS-9000 that allows these elements to be excluded (page 3 QS-9000 3rd Edition).

You mention 2000 9k, in your post, are you mixing apples with oranges, you are going between QS and ISO?

Maybe some more detail?

Al...

IP: Logged

EricChan
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:China
Registered: May 2001

posted 15 May 2001 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for EricChan   Click Here to Email EricChan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al,

I meant ISO 9000:2000 gives more flexibility of exclusion, for instance, 7.5.4 (customer property) can be excluded if the user has no customer property at all. However, in QS9000, this requirement 4.7 must be addressed with a procedure regardless of whether the user has it or not. I would say this is meaningless.

On second thought, since 4.4 & 4.19 can be excluded why 4.7 cannot? I would guess the standard designer took it for granted that every standard user has customer supplied product. The reality does not support that.

(one fact is they did not expect so many users as it is now).

IP: Logged

ALM
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 15 May 2001 01:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Customer-supplied products/equipment is handled as if it were wholly-owned by ABC Company. As such, it is governed by the same handling, storage, packaging, preservation, traceability, and identification procedures as detailed in our manuals."

Auditor: Show me customer supplied product.

Me/You: We have none, but we have surely covered any future situations whereby they may supply us with product and/or equipment.

Good luck.

IP: Logged

EricChan
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 4
From:China
Registered: May 2001

posted 15 May 2001 11:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for EricChan   Click Here to Email EricChan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ALM,

I like your fix of same procedures ...

(but fyi some auditor dont buy it)

eric

IP: Logged

ml retcher
Forum Contributor

Posts: 22
From:usa
Registered: Jun 99

posted 19 June 2001 02:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ml retcher   Click Here to Email ml retcher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We have added a page in level one document that states:
4.0 Design control
Not used in our method of operation
We currently do not design products for our customers.
Design control will be addressed if and when it becomes a customer requirement for our facilities.

One of our OI's were to perform an audit with one question asking if this is still not part of our operations. I instead wrote in level one of 4.17 it will be reviewed through APQP and when it becomes part of our operation we will begin to audit this element. Then we included it in the APQP documents.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!