Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
articles:supplier_quality_surveys [2020/09/24 20:28] – rrandallarticles:supplier_quality_surveys [2023/11/22 21:22] (current) – rrandall
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== Supplier Quality Surveys - You're probably doing it wrong ======+====== Supplier Quality Surveys - You're probably doing them wrong ======
  
 I've seen a large number of Supplier Quality Surveys (e.g., "Supplier Evaluation Survey") completed by suppliers (i.e., a self-assessment) and provided to potential customers as a basis for "qualifying" (i.e., "approving") them as a supplier. I've seen a large number of Supplier Quality Surveys (e.g., "Supplier Evaluation Survey") completed by suppliers (i.e., a self-assessment) and provided to potential customers as a basis for "qualifying" (i.e., "approving") them as a supplier.
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 ^  CORRECTIVE ACTION  ^  Yes  ^  No  ^ ^  CORRECTIVE ACTION  ^  Yes  ^  No  ^
-|Is a documented process(s) maintained for implementation of corrective actions? |  |  | +|1 - Is a documented process(s) maintained for the implementation of corrective actions? |  |  | 
-|Does the process provide for problem analysis and determination of root cause(s)? |  |  | +|2 - Does the process provide for problem analysis and determination of root cause(s)? |  |  | 
-|Are controls established to ensure that corrective actions taken are effective? |  |  |+|3 - Are controls established to ensure that corrective actions taken are effective? |  |  | 
 + 
 +You may be thinking that the above appears perfectly fine... until you consider: \\ 
 +  - The "documented process(s) maintained for the implementation of corrective actions" appear only //slightly// better than if it had been written by a first-grader... with only the most basic understanding of corrective action (at least it wasn't written in crayon). \\ 
 +  - The process for "problem analysis and determination of root cause(s)" is limited to the basic "5 Whys"... which might be fine... provided (1) personnel actually understand what the "5 Whys" is and (2) never encounter any //complex// cause & effect chains. \\ 
 +  - The "controls established to ensure that corrective actions are effective" do not involve people capable of "critical thinking". 
 + 
 +The point is that a "Supplier Quality Survey" can ask all sorts of questions that are, in the end, meaningless. 
 + 
 +So how can you improve this simple form? 
 + 
 +A great step is to ask "quality-related" questions relating to topics that are (1) “value-added”, and (2) include “performance-related” data that reveal more about the supplier. For example, the following 3 questions will provide you with much more pertinent, and value-added information about a supplier than most 20-page "Supplier Quality Surveys": 
 + 
 +<WRAP center round box 80%> 
 +For Manufacturers: \\ 
 +What is your FPY (First-Pass Yield)? \\ 
 +What is your product return rate? \\ 
 +What is your average OTD (On-Time Delivery)?  \\ 
 + 
 +Please attach data supporting these metrics for the past 6 months. \\ 
 +Also, attach details of any activities taking place to improve these metrics. 
 +</WRAP> 
 + 
 +Suppose that two manufacturing suppliers met all of the detailed "generic" requirements in a "Supplier Quality Survey"... and both are either ISO 9001 or AS9100 certified. However, upon reviewing the above set of questions, the first supplier reportedly achieves 65% FPY, 5% returns, and 55% OTD, with no meaningful improvement activities planned (only corrective actions - which are entirely "reactive"). The second supplier reportedly achieves 96% FPY, 1% Returns, and 90% OTD, and they have meaningful improvement activities in-process (e.g., Kaizens, DMAICs).  
 + 
 +Without having asked the above questions, these two suppliers would have “appeared” equal, when they clearly are not.