Differences

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

--- articles:purchasing-quality_clauses_vs_sqr_manual [2020/10/13 21:11] – [“Supplier Quality Requirments Manual” (SQRM)] rrandall
+++ articles:purchasing-quality_clauses_vs_sqr_manual [2023/05/14 17:17] (current) – [“Supplier Quality Requirments Manual” (SQRM)] rrandall
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 **PROS**
   * Flexibility - Each PO can be uniquely tailored to invoke specific quality requirements.
-  * Simplicity for Supplier - Each PO contains only those specific quality requirements applicable to the product or supplier... making them easier to understand (due to the omission of superfluous inapplicable requirements).
+  * Simplicity for Supplier - Each PO contains only those specific quality requirements applicable to the product or supplier... making them easier to understand AND identify applicable flow-down requirements (due to the omission of superfluous inapplicable requirements).
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
   * Inconsistency - Since each PO will have different quality requirements, different Buyers or Supplier Quality Teams, may be inconsistent in which "Quality Clauses" they select (invoke) for //similar// products, services, or suppliers.
   * Omissions - In some instances, "Quality Clauses" that should be invoked are not, due to differing opinions held by various Buyers or Supplier Quality Team members.
-  * Inefficient - Each product and/or supplier must be individually evaluated to determine the appropriate applicable "Quality Clauses".
+  * Inefficient - Each product, service, and/or supplier must be individually evaluated to determine the appropriate applicable "Quality Clauses".
   * Time-Consuming for Supplier - Since each PO has different quality requirements, the Supplier "should" review __each__ PO in detail to ensure that each "Quality Clause" can be met... even where the same product is ordered on a repetitive basis.
+<WRAP center round tip 80%>
+When using this approach, it is a "Best Practice" to have technically knowledgeable Supplier Quality personnel, rather than Buyers, assessing and determining which "Quality Clauses" are applicable to each product, service, and/or supplier.
+</WRAP>
 "Quality Clauses" (or Codes) are used by organizations such as:
@@ Line 34: / Line 38: @@
 **CONS**
-  * Comprehensive - The supplier will need to read the entire SQRM to determine the applicability of the quality requirements.
+  * Comprehensive - The supplier will need to read the entire SQRM to determine the applicability of the quality requirements AND flow-down requirements.
+<WRAP center round info 80%>The above "CON" may be considered a "PRO" considering that the rock group "Van Halen" actually embedded nonsensical requirements in their standard contract to provide a quick visual indicator of whether the contract had been read by the Promoter ([[articles:brown_m_and_ms|Visual Management... the Van Halen way]]).</WRAP>
-<note>The above "CON" may be considered a "PRO" considering that the rock group "Van Halen" actually embedded nonsensical requirements in their standard contract to provide a quick visual indicator of whether the contract had been read by the Promoter ([[articles:brown_m_and_ms|Visual Management... the Van Halen way]]).</note>
+  * Interpretation - While both "Quality Clauses" and SQRMs require a degree of "interpretation", this issue tends to be more prevalent in SQRMs. For example, some SQRMs fail to clearly address when requirements must be "flowed down" (e.g., do flow-down requirements apply to suppliers of COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) items?).
+<WRAP center round info 80%>The above "CON" is easily addressed by having the SQRM undergo a comprehensive review by technically competent Supply Chain quality personnel.</WRAP>
+  * Document Distribution - An SQRM must be maintained under document control. And Suppliers often fail to verify that the version of the SQRM they're following is the current version (whether it is distributed in hardcopy, electronic, or made available via a website).
+<WRAP center round tip 80%>
+The above "CON" may be turned into an opportunity by e-mailing a short quarterly, biannual/semi-annual, or annual newsletter to suppliers containing relevant information. For example:\\
+  * Notification of revisions/updates to the SQRM
+  * Details of changes to SQRM
+  * Interpretive clarifications of SQRM requirements or FAQs
+  * Notification of changes in Procurement and/or Supplier Quality personnel along with updated contact information
+  * Requests for information (RFI) to identify potential new product/service sources from existing suppliers
+</WRAP>
 The "SQRM" approach is used by companies such as: \\
@@ Line 49: / Line 67: @@
   * [[https://www.parker.com/parkerimages/Parker.com/About%20Us/Literature/PH-SQRM%20March%202016.pdf|Parker Hannifin Corporation]]
   * [[https://www.rtx.com/suppliers/United-Technologies-Suppliers/United-Technologies-ASQRD|Raytheon Technologies / United Technologies]]
+  * [[https://www.volvogroup.com/content/dam/volvo/volvo-group/markets/global/en-en/suppliers/our-supplier-requirements/SQAM-2019.pdf|Volvo]]