Page 245 - The Handbook for Quality Management a Complete Guide to Operational Excellence

232 P r o c e s s C o n t r o l S u p p l y C h a i n M a n a g e m e n t 233

Criteria Pass Fail See Note
The quality system has been developed ❏ ❏ ❏
The quality system has been implemented ❏ ❏ ❏
Personnel are able to identify problems ❏ ❏ ❏
Personnel recommend and initiate solutions ❏ ❏ ❏
Effective quality plans exist ❏ ❏ ❏
Inspection stations have been identified ❏ ❏ ❏
Management regularly reviews quality program status ❏ ❏ ❏
Contracts are reviewed for special quality ❏ ❏ ❏
requirements
Processes are adequately documented ❏ ❏ ❏
Documentation is reviewed by quality ❏ ❏ ❏
Quality records are complete, accurate, and up-to- ❏ ❏ ❏
date
Effective corrective action systems exist ❏ ❏ ❏
Nonconforming material is properly controlled ❏ ❏ ❏
Quality costs are properly reported ❏ ❏ ❏
Changes to requirements are properly controlled ❏ ❏ ❏
Adequate gage calibration control exists ❏ ❏ ❏

Figure 11.1 Vendor evaluation checklist.

The above checklist is a simplified version of those used in practice,
which can consume 15 pages or more. Caution should be exercised in con-
structing overly cumbersome and difficult-to-use checklists. If you are not
bound by some government or contract requirement, it is recommended
that you prepare a brief checklist similar to the one above and supplement
the checklist with a report that documents your personal observations.
Properly used, the checklist can help guide you without tying your hands.
While a checklist is a useful aid, it can never substitute for the knowl-
edge of a skilled and experienced evaluator. Numerical scores should be
supplemented by the observations and interpretations of the evaluator.
The input of vendor personnel should also be included. If there is dis-
agreement between the eval uator and the vendor, the position of both
sides should be clearly described.
In spite of their tremendous popularity, physical vendor surveys are
only one means of evaluating the potential performance of a supplier, and
studies suggest they are limited in their usefulness. One such study by
Brainard (1966) showed that 74 of 151 vendor surveys result ed in incor-
rect predictions; that is, either a good supplier was predicted to be bad or
vice versa; a coin flip would’ve been as good a predictor, and a lot cheaper!
Desk surveys (discussed later in this chapter) may provide a satisfactory
alternative. Perhaps more important than surveys is the actual perfor-
mance of the vendor. Vendors should submit “correlation samples” with

11_Pyzdek_Ch11_p227-240.indd 232 11/9/12 5:13 PM