|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 ISO 9000:1994
 Show preference to certified suppliers
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Show preference to certified suppliers |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 06 February 2000 02:26 AM
   
When a consumer uses a certified supplier he/she has assurance that the supplier is committed to continually improving product and services and the systems of delivering them. This fact should be conveyed to consumer groups. The public should be made aware of the advantages of 'SHOWING PREFERENCE TO CERTIFIED SUPPLIERS'. This is what ISO900/ISO14000/AS4804 is all about. IP: Logged |
|
Andy Bassett Forum Contributor Posts: 274 |
posted 06 February 2000 09:01 AM
Alan - Is it your experience or beleive that suppliers that are certified are 'genuinely commited to improvement'. Do you really beleive that a certified supplier is turning out better quality that a none-certifed supplier. I would be very interested to know your thoughts about this, I personally have very mixed feelings about this. Regards ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 06 February 2000 09:11 AM
quote:Please define 'certified suplier'. Do you mean an ISO9000 registered company? IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 06 February 2000 03:15 PM
In Australia we use two terms: Accreditation meaning the activity where the Joint Accreditation Australia And New Zealand (JASANZ) gives authorisation to 'certifying bodies' to audit management systems, and issue an ISO9000 certificate. Certification meaning the granting of an ISO9000 certificate (Which I presume is your 'registration'). Any company which is certified in Australia must prove some level of commitment to 'continual improvement', this aspect is the subject of ISO9004.1 Y2K version which has been released as an interim version in Australia. The strongest driving force for implementation of ISO9000, has been in my experience, has been the 'second party audit', where the customer audits the QMS to see how his/her contract is being handled. I have experienced this on two occasions while working for a medium sized engineering company - the effect on the CEO and Engineering Manager was to say the least , galvanising. Wher lip service is often paid to ISO9000, it becomes genuine, at least for a short time, when the bottom line is affected. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 06 February 2000 05:30 PM
My personal opinion is that ISO9000 registration means very little except that the company is ISO9000 registered. It does not imply good quality. It does not imply on-time delivery. It does not imply much.
quote:I do not for a minute believe this is necessarily true. For some companies this is true. For many it is not. I have worked with many clients which ISO9000 did little for - they didn't need ISO to design and manufacture excellent products. They had good communication and business systems to begin with. In addition, I hear complaints somewhat regularly which amount to: "Such and such a company is ISO9000 registered, but they keep shipping me trash. Who can I complain to? I thought ISO companies couldn't do this..." ISO9000 is only 1 of many criteria I would consider in choosing suppliers. This is not to say that ISO9000 registration is useless. Quite the opposite. I think for many companies it is a positive tool. I believe it is a good idea. But I also see other tools which I believe are potentially just as important. I believe that each company has a 'karma' - a personality. Aspects such as "continually improving product" are a function of these - not ISO9000. While the year 2000 revision is supposed to stress continuous improvement and customer satisfaction more than the '94 version, I think the basic fact is that companies which do not improve are destined to failure by the market. There are many tools a company can use to improve. ISO9000 is just 1 of the many. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 06 February 2000 08:08 PM
quote:This came from my request for a definition for Certified Supplier. I asked because there are many 'certified' and 'approved' supplier schemes. [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 06 February 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 06 February 2000 08:13 PM
quote:I have not seen evidence that ISO (or QS for that matter) significantly reduces customer audits. If anything reduces customer audits, it is when a company embraces a frequency reduction to reduce the internal costs of sending people out to audit suppliers. IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 07 February 2000 01:25 AM
My experience with ISO9000 has been as Quality Manager in a medium sized engineering company handling reasonably large contracts. The need for customer audits of the supplier was still there despite 'registration', as the contracts were worth up to $10m. The QMS provided the means of evaluating whether the project (contract) was being handled. And whether the agreed documentation was being followed (QMS, contract and drawings). One aspect which ISO9000 does not address is the matter of 'Inspection & Test Plans' which are directly derived from setting up a project 'task list', as a result of 'contract review'. ISO9000 does not in itself give any guarantees, but it does give level of 'assurance' that the job is being 'done right'. The discipline which ISO9000 imposes can only be beneficial to any organisation. Transparent management techniques (documented) prevent 'ad hoc' management, particularly when careless decision makers 'arses are on the line'. IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 07 February 2000 01:34 AM
Further definition: Approved supplier: A supplier approved by an organisation's purchasing authority (higher level supplier), usually preferred on the basis of having ISO9000 'registration', experience with delivering similar supplies, and having published or other recommendation. A supplier's QMS should be audited by the organisation where appropriate (usually based on importance of the product or service provided). IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 07 February 2000 01:39 AM
Further definition: Approved supplier: A supplier approved by an organisation's purchasing authority (higher level supplier), usually preferred on the basis of having ISO9000 'registration', experience with delivering similar supplies, and having published or other recommendation. A supplier's QMS should be audited by the organisation where appropriate (usually based on importance of the product or service provided). IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 07 February 2000 01:41 AM
quote:You can only speak for that definition within your company. many companies have what they call certified suppliers. Certified to Stock is a common statement. It has nothing to do with ISO9000 registration. IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 07 February 2000 03:36 PM
Of course the means of 'approving' suppliers is the prerogative of your organisation. However all I suggest is that there is benefit to be derived by 'SHOWING PREFERENCE' to suppliers that adopt policies consistent with ISO9000. The term 'certification' has a definte meaning in Australia it does not mean 'approved' automatically. IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 07 February 2000 03:46 PM
There is another aspect to 'certification' which I have not mentioned. In Australia we are currently developing AS4801- OHS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS - CERTIFICATION. This standard will be compatible with ISO9000/ISO14000. AS4581 - MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTEGRATION has been published and provides guidance on integrating ISO9000/ISO14000/AS4801 into a rational, coherent, documented management system. At some time in the future it may be possible to gain 'certification' on the basis of the integrated system. This will mean that the consumer will dictate standards of quality, safety, environmental protection and security, which should exist within supplier organisations. (The four areas I mentioned are the 'OPERATIONAL RISK' areas which are part of any industrial process.) IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 07 February 2000 03:51 PM
I view the documented management system as 'administrative risk control'. ISO9000 based systems control the risk of 'supplying a nonconforming product to a customer'. The realisation of the risk directly affects the 'bottom line' - you might not get paid. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 07 February 2000 04:39 PM
quote:That may be in your country. I know in the US, Canada, Mexico and a number of countries I have worked with companies in there was no country wide definition for a certified supplier. What one company calls a 'certified supplier' the next calls an 'approved' supplier. Just as one company calls an assembly instruction a 'work instruction' and another calls an 'assembly instruction' and in another it is called a process instruction. Unfortunately, Al, Australia is not the 'last word' on the definition of a certified supplier. Nor does it matter. If company X internally defines a certified supplier with certain criteria, one of which is ship to stock, it doesn't matter what the Australian definition is. [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 12 February 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 07 February 2000 04:41 PM
quote:Maybe you should have stated "Alan Cotterell's definition of Approved Supplier"... [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 07 February 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 07 February 2000 04:45 PM
quote:This is simply not true. Obviously you haven't had the pleasure of working within a well run company to know. [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 07 February 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
David Mullins Forum Contributor Posts: 248 |
posted 07 February 2000 06:16 PM
Barb's feedback best fits the quality plans required for project management. This method is also extremely effective for process standardisation and workplace instruction. Remember to keep it in the language of the user, and where procedures don't exist to be referenced, then the plan should state what new documents are to be created, and how they will be used, controlled, etc. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 08 February 2000 02:29 AM
I think you might be right when you say I haven't had experience in a well run company, when I say ISO9000 can only be beneficial to any organisation. My experience has included exposure to a lot of hypocritical middle managers, who insist on managing on an 'ad hoc' basis - crisis management. Unfortunately I have often been the one to 'pull the irons out of the fire'. On three occasions this involved going to court for worker's compensation cases as expert witness. Please excuse me for being cynical, I would love to work for a company which actually listens to its workers, let alone professionally qualified people like myself. The documented management system is sorely needed in Australian companies. 'New starters' are still often instructed by word of mouth, you have heard of the message passed down a line of soldiers - the final message bears no resemblance to the initial. I would not be generalising when I say that many managers do not know why they should reference national and international standards, when making decisions. I suggest appropriate standards should be called up in the 'Management Policy Manual' associated with ISO9000 systems. Most middle managers run on 'gut feeling'based on experience, in Australia, risk management is relatively unknown. This means that 'we have already had the accident', where safety is concerned. Quality improvement is a joke in many companies, and environmental and security issues are similarly addressed on an 'ad hoc' basis, to the detriment of workers and society. IP: Logged |
|
Andy Bassett Forum Contributor Posts: 274 |
posted 11 February 2000 05:10 AM
OK Alan My original question was do you have objective evidence that ISO makes for better suppliers or is it your belief. I was hoping that you may be able to come up with some clear objective evidence. In spite of my scepticism on ths point i can offer you this. After setting up a QM System in a company, for the initial three months i managed the Qualified Supplier List 6 suppliers were dropped, and from these 5 were NOT certified. Thats the closest i have ever got to Objective evidence ( and by the way, this is a good thing to bring to managements attention). I pull this out whenever i may need to defend the standard (ie in the brief gaps between giving it a good slagging myself). Regards ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Kevin Mader Forum Wizard Posts: 575 |
posted 11 February 2000 01:44 PM
ISO9000 Registration can be a part of a well working system, provided many other elements in Quality thinking are present. Suppliers that are registered should not be necessarily be considered "Certified Suppliers." I know of no objective evidence that exists that shows an ISO registered organization performs better than one that is not. Organizations can be registered while meeting the ISO standard, but do not necessarily possess the other necessary ingrediants to improve/provide quality products or services. I read this post a couple of months ago. I think that the author had stated it pretty well, and it clearly shows how ISO is but one element in a Quality System. Here it is
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: ISO 9000 versus Deming Philosophy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our organisation became ISO9002 accredited before we came across Deming Plan for an improvement, be clear about your theory, be clear about purpose, Do - implement your plan in a small way as a test of the theory. Study - Observe. Gather data on the process performance measures. Was it a Act. This is where ISO9002 fits in. Standardise the improvement. Write it One of the benefits of ISO9002 is that it provides an organisation with a Some dos and don'ts for using ISO9002. DO arrange things so that people see it as something that helps them to do a DO use it as part of a process of continual improvement in which all are DO find auditors from all levels within the organisation DO, if you are a senior manager, subject yourself to internal audit DON'T use procedures as a way of bringing about change. Writing the ============================================ Any thoughts or comments folks? Regards, Kevin IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 12 February 2000 01:03 AM
Well said, Kevin. There has been a lot of discussion as to whether TQM is a better approach than ISO9000 certification. I suggest they are complementary and should run together. One organisation I worked for, declared TQM to be its management system, hwever there was no documented system. We processed ourselves into oblivion. No gains were set in concrete, and we did a lot of backsliding. I perceive ISO9000 to be administrative risk control. It is a way of contolling the 'risk of supplying a nonconforming product or service', it also serves the purpose of consolidating gains from detecting and taking advantage of 'opportunities for improvement' - another aspect of risk. You might be interested in my web site at: http://www.acotrel.com IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
