Hi,
We are working on a project to Control inventory in one of our plants using SIx Sigma methodology.
Our project response is "number of days of inventory". Have there been any calculations done on calculating "sigma levels" for number of days of excess inventory by anyone of you?
Do you know of any link or web page where I can get help
Send to friendSign In to get started!
Comments
qdigest 11/5/2001
I needed more than a week to contemplate this excellent question from Jim because of one simple fact: I love ISO 9001:2000 and organizations that seek ways to take advantage of its reduced requirements for documentation that is not value-added. The first thing I would like to do is ask Jim (jreck) two questions:
1. What does that 32-page Supply Survey form ask of suppliers and have you evaluated the form to see if the survey length and depth is justified?
2. What is the reaction of the suppliers to this survey form? I assume it is used only once with a supplier prior to the initial second-party audit for QS-9000 conformance.
To rephrase what I said earlier, I hate documentation that represents little more than a waste of people's time, and at first glance any form that is 32-35 pages long sounds like a waste of time to me. However, I spoke with a colleague who works on-site at one of the Big Three and asked whether a supplier survey 32-35 pages long was reasonable for conducting initial supplier development to satisfy QS-9000. Remember that QS-9000 expands on what is required by ISO 9001:1994 in terms of "subcontractor development" and is intended to ensure that quality procedures are in place and are being used throughout the supply chain.
My colleague indicated that, if you took the Quality System Assessment (QSA) manual that some or all of the Big Three require their suppliers to use, and you were to turn it into a survey form, it would likely run 32 pages or so. What the QSA manual does is turn QS-9000 third edition into a checklist of sorts, with each requirement in QS-9000 turned into a question to be used in conducting a gap analysis at the start of QS-9000 implementation, to conduct ongoing internal audits before and/or after registration and as a "worksheet" for conducting self-declared conformance with QS-9000 (the QSA contains a 2-page checklist that summarizes the requirements of QS-9000 and could be used to provided an assessment to top management internally or to a customer externally of the conformance of the quality system with QS-9000).
I would therefore ask Jim to determine if indeed the survey form is based on the QSA manual and if, in reviewing the form, the survey is overkill and could be slimmed down. The reason his company may have opted for the form it is using if based on the QSA is because its customers want his company to verify subcontractor development was being achieved.
I would then ask whether Jim is hearing a lot of complaints from suppliers regarding the need to fill out such a long form or if they don't mind or there are so few new suppliers that need to fill out that initial form. Any organization should ask its suppliers if such survey forms are an unfair burden, a reasonable request even if a burden or a great opportunity to motivate their organizations to assess where their quality systems stand. You may find that some suppliers appreciate the form while others hate it (although these would probably hate the old 10-12 page form).
I would imagine that the point of any such supplier survey is to determine the state of a supplier's quality system and quality procedures. Anyone familiar with documentation of any kind will understand that, depending on what a survey or any other form demands in terms of information provided and evaluations to be conducted and reported, a 100-page survey could be a breeze to fill out compared with a badly done 2-page survey.
If the survey in question is not based on the QSA, I would recommend that Jim examine the QSA and see if the existing survey could be replaced by something based on the QSA or if the survey does a good job of covering what is in the QSA and going further. Look for three things:
1. Questions that will not result in subjective or vague answers
2. Questions that your supplier should like to see answered
3. Answers that meet your company's need to develop its suppliers to satisfy ISO 9001 and QS-9000.
Keep in mind that the International Automotive Sector Group (IASG) recently issued a new sanctioned interpretation of QS-9000 (C9) that requires an organization registered to QS-9000 to "develop" their suppliers by either requiring those suppliers to register to ISO 9001/2 or conducting second-party audits of those suppliers using auditors "qualified" by your customer(s). In reality, having each supplier to your organization fill out a 35-page survey at the start of the contractual relationship with that supplier would be quite useful in either conducting that second-party audit or in informing your supplier whether it should begin the registration process or keep working on its system.
If anyone has a different experience, whether their company is a supplier to the automotive sector or not, I would encourage them to share their experience. No matter how good an organization's quality system is, if one of its suppliers is not as good, it will detract from the orgaization's ability.
jreck 11/14/2001
Thank you for your reply. A little background before I answer your questions and/or make comments.
We are a small company (about 225 employees, total, worldwide) that provides chemicals, equipment and expertise to basic manufacturers in the semiconductor and optics/optical sensor industries.
Our customers may be suppliers of the suppliers of the tier one suppliers - that is, we are pretty far down the automotive food chain. We obtained QS registration to reinforce our commitment to consistent Quality for all our customers.
The recent IASG (C9) interpretation is what started the internal discussions over how we audit, survey, rank and develop our suppliers and why. Our suppliers are small (40 or less employees) operations either performing highly specialized, unique services such as cabinetry and machining or are chemical distributorships (not manufacturers).
With that in mind, to answer your first 2 questions:
1. The current survey form follows the QSA guidelines and, in my opinion, is agonizing in the detail it asks for. It would make a great QS-9000, continuing effectiveness audit when administered by a registrar.
2. The vast majority of our suppliers have negative comments about the survey, whether they are already ISO-900x registered or not. Being small companies, the amount of time and effort needed to properly fill out the form is a very large investment for them.
Most of our suppliers are willing to work with us and put documented systems in place that are necessary for assuring consistent, high quality, however, they balk (and rightly so, in my opinion) at the cost of becoming ISO-9001/2 registered. Due to their size and overall customer base, the financial burden would be excessive and have no real ROI.
What I have proposed here, based on my interpretation of the IASG interpretations, is that we have a 3 tiered system for our suppliers. Each tier would have surveys based upon what is expected for that tier.
1. The first tier are those who can not afford to be ISO or QS registered. This group would be audited against ISO-9002:1994 standards by our internal auditors.
2. The second tier are those who are already ISO-9001/2 registered. This group would be audited against either the ISO-9001/2 standards or the QS-9000 standards based upon mutual agreement, using both our internal auditors and their registrar.
3. The third tier are those already QS-9000 registered. This group would be audited against the QS-9000 standards using their registrar's audits and, as needed, our internal auditors.
This would mean the generation of 2, possibly 3, new survey forms. That is why posted the question I did - to get ideas of what other companies use so that we can set up a fair and equitable supplier survey form and procedure.
bminick 11/13/2001
Using the long supplier survey checklist allows your quality department to have a documented structure for the specific supplier. If problems arise and an on-site audit or plant visit is required in the future, the responses and the observed supplier activity (i.e., motivation towards providing quality products) can assist your company's management to either start looking for another supplier or plan opportunities to educate the supplier on your quality and product needs.
Usually a supplier will fall into two categories:
1. Will be very cooperative in providing what you want without documenting internal activities. This group has a difficult time of maintaining consistant product from shipment to shipment and needs to be trained on your needs.
2. Will require documented specifications or requirements for products or services. This group re-acts to customer feedback and incorporates activities to improve their process at a larger scale than the first group.
In summary, the long survey checklist can identify which category the supplier falls into and management can determine the company's direction on selecting acceptable suppliers.