This dissertation intends to discover, assess and prioritise a variety of aspects of Supplier/dealer/dealer Quality Assurance Evaluation. It additionally aims at presenting a suitable methodology in a sequential order. To start with, this thesis exploits the fictional practices and reviews the methodologies authored by a selection of researchers. A reference company (Suzuki-Pakistan) has been chosen to conduct the Analysis of Supplier/dealer/dealer Quality Evaluation concept in the industry. Interviews were conducted and data was obtained and analysed. Thorough analysis has been made and essential answers have been mentioned.
Making use of academic and experimental research, a model/framework based on comprehensive methodology was established. Also, the enhancement points as well as the areas of weaknesses of the SQAE system in the pilot organization are clearly drawn. This thesis is mostly focused on real-time issues related to the managerial, tactical and methodological areas of Supplier/dealer Quality Assurance Assessment in light of Supply Chain Management.
Analyzing the proposed framework and looking into its use in the industry as well as possible results and viability has also been carried out. Every vital detail, format and content has been explained. Also, involvement of advanced manufacturing concepts has been discussed.
The proposed concept helps in making manufacturing companies come to terms with the need to introducing Supplier/dealer/dealer Quality problems into the mainstream of their manufacturing procedure. This is seen as the foundation for establishing a proper working principle for Supplier/dealer/dealer Quality Evaluation.
Supplier/dealer/dealer Quality Assurance (SQA), within the idea of Supply Chain Management, has received tremendous awareness in the last few years. Methodology of purchasing purpose has been formed quite a lot by the method of Total Quality Management and newer supply chain management practices resulting in a transform from detection to prevention viewpoint. “An extensive array of fresh supplies and new goods has emerged and the assemblies now days demand degrees of difficulty at the same time as performance needs are increasing and allowable tolerances are being lessened” [Lloyd, 1984]. However, to make sure that the standard of the product is up to the optimum level, it is mandatory to look into the supplier/dealer/dealer standard issue and only inspecting the supplier/dealer/dealer components is not the answer as the role of supplier/dealer/dealer is getting more and more essential regarding production and specially in the manufacturing procedures where various assemblies are included in the creation of the final product. Examination indeed cannot be done to such a massive number of components and purchaser has to take the supplier/dealer standard assurance operation into account.
Supplier/dealer/dealer-Purchaser relationship also relies on a larger contribution into the Quality of not only Supplier/dealer/dealer’s items but also into the Supplier/dealer/dealer’s quality assurance operations. Like Japanese organisations (huge names such as Suzuki, Nissan and Mitsubishi), adhering to the principle of supporting supplier/dealer/dealer to ameliorate the standard by assessing and later reforming their standard output against their own standards, as a result they managed to create optimum standard levels with regard to their products and succeeded in attaining the advantage in terms of taking control of the business and markets.
However, Supplier/dealer/dealer Evaluation concerning supplier/dealer/dealer range and post-selection audits, is an intricate procedure related to the assessment of supplier/dealer/dealer’s production capacity, quality control operation, procedure capabilities, consistency in supplies, rate linked to product and their co-ordination with the purchasers (Flynn & Flynn, 2005, 23-28).
Amid these essential issues, Product Conformance (with the conditions, prerequisites or standards) is of great meaning as it is directly linked to Quality and in some situations related to safety and effectiveness. As different products have differing standards of standard, it is quite tedious to set a single criterion to gauge their quality and as a result, to establish a single model or singular standard to evaluate the supplier/dealer/dealer’s operation and ability in this view. Any manufactured goods Confirmation structure or pattern must include all the appropriate matters like matching the product with the drawing, its fabric qualities, operational standards, functionality criteria and, to some extent, customer’s overall fulfilment point concerning the presentation of manufactured goods in any regard. However, “joint agreement on product substantiation methods and requirements for completion of excellence in quality disputes are necessary concerning supplier/dealer/dealer’s quality evaluation programme (Flynn & Flynn, 2005, 23-28).
In this research, Supplier/dealer/dealer Quality Assurance Evaluation (SQAE) with regard to Product Conformation shall be deliberated over. Step by step methodology of Supplier/dealer/dealer Evaluation is imperative to position and engaged into assessment. There are various working methods in this vision, applied in different industries, so it’s really vital to put the supplier/dealer/dealer assessment theories and principles under examination.
The aim of this study is to observe these complex issues by analysing the present practices and model/frameworks and their outputs and to assess the most appropriate model/framework, founded on the analysis and securitisation in various industries. Working in a step-by-step process for the assessment must also be evaluated and it must include all the procedural and managerial features of the supplier/dealer/dealer quality assurance assessment procedure (regarding Product Conformance) related to description of specifications, standards, prerequisites and examination methods.
– Recognize various features of supplier/dealer/dealer standard assurance assessment regarding product conformity and study their significance and effect on Supply Chain Management.
– Assessment of needs for provision and principles.
– Significance of Product Excellence in Supplier/dealer/dealer Assessment, choice procedure and assessment of selection criteria.
– Establishment of Supplier/dealer/dealer assessment methodology based on the scrutiny of current practices in industry.
– Analysis of height of understanding among supplier/dealer/dealers and purchasers with regard to agreement on Quality Assurance.
– Consolidation of a Strategy for Supplier/dealer/dealer Quality Assurance Evaluation with regard to produce good Conformance (Juran and Frank, 1993, 45-64).
One significant objective is to spot methods of using SQAE in order to restructure the supply chain management performance, not to only assess supplier/dealer/dealers but also to make decisions and to conduct trade with them on the basis of SQAE. It is necessary to use SQAE to improve the supplier/dealer/dealer’s performance and thus Supplier/dealer/dealer must be involved form the product improvement procedure and there SQAE can recognize the bottlenecks that could be set aside by both purchaser and supplier/dealer/dealer mutual efforts (Flynn & Flynn, 2005, 23-28).
As discussed over, supply chain management is a significant feature of trade in these times and it’s not simply regarding buying products at right time in a suitable quantity. It’s getting more and more intricate with globalisation and trade as well as ever-increasing intricacy in designs and presentation modes of different products. Supplier/dealer/dealer Assessment both prior to choice selection and after selection is imperative in order to ensure the quality/standard of the product or material supplied (Dorgan & Dowdy, 2002).
Now, the growing amount of business proceeds to the huge numbers of components and merchandise under supply chain where a solitary purchaser (especially ones that are assemblers) is trading with many supplier/dealer/dealers and has got numbers of mechanism to be given from supplier/dealer/dealers (Flynn & Flynn, 2005, 23-28).
The characteristics of these components are also important. Some supplied components are essential assembly components that must be accurate and up to the criterion so as no difficulty is experience concerning their meeting and at last their presentation, some raw materials are so essential that material properties surroundings up the performance criteria. Supplier/dealer/dealer has indeed has got more and more significance and so consequently, Purchaser-Supplier/dealer/dealer relationship are stronger and need betterment in each regard. Therefore, Quality/standard would come first to assure (Kotler, 1979, 2-12).
Engineering companies particularly deals with group of supply chain management issues. Supplier/dealer/dealer reliability and excellence are given much significance and most of the trade firms choose and assess their possible supplier/dealer/dealers for these two essential aspects. Manufacturing companies also gives much significance to their supplier/dealer/dealer’s performance in terms of quality/standard. However, resistance levels are being lessened, due to market pressures, release timetables have been narrowed too. This all guide up to the Supplier/dealer/dealer-Purchaser focus to achieve the most favourable quality/standard height and this can only be completed by appropriate coordination (Gunal, 2000, 28-35). However, SQAE is not all about investigating the supplier/dealer/dealer excellence in structure but it’s about the performance of continuous enhancement in standard and establishment of proper relationship between purchaser and dealer to get the highest profit leading to the reasonable benefit (Aaker, 2004, 138-139).
Supply Chain Management, together with its growing necessity, has developed into a very important division of industrialized trade all around the world. It has been focus by the Researchers and Practitioners, they have been focus on the issues [and still do] regarding the thought and methodologies appropriate to Supply Chain Management. So, an enormous quantity of matter is available that have to to be searched via with a complete examination of the Supply Chain Function. The writing helps to categorize the appropriate material for research on the subject of Supplier/dealer Quality Assurance.
This literature review is founded on different description of SQAE. Initially, literature review discusses the supply chain and its result. Secondly, it looks at SQAE usage as well as its advantages and its methodology, and finally SQAE investigation regarding Product Conformation. Though, SQAE is associated to the supplier/dealer positions and identification of their advantages and shortcomings, and this is also discussed in this literature review as an essential discussion point (Gunal, 2000, 28-35).
Bailey et al (2005) say that the supply chain is an action that deals with the run of material or goods from manufacturer or supplier/dealer to the organization or consumer. It is carried out in a way to increase value and lower asking price.
In conditions of manufacturing, the supply chain is described as the procedure of material processing that includes the following description.
– Delivery of products
– Alteration of products
– Requirement for products.
Delivery manages the changes in the uniqueness of the product or in other expressions it provides a explanation of quality/standard of the product that must be achieved while carrying out a production for customer satisfaction. This is the eventual goal of any business (Terpstra &Sarathy, 2000, 23-29).
Quality/standard Management has been the topic of a variety of practices function in the business. Beginning and execution of TQM makes companies alternative examination based activities with quality/standard preparation and quality assurance practices. SQAE has also come out as a vital means of procurement administration. In this observation, Benito and Dale state that the widespread practices in the industry include supplier/dealer selection based on quality and dependability considerations, supplier/dealer quality and reliability records on that the regeneration of contracts are based, supplier/dealer certification and supplier/dealer progress. The plan of these practices is to guarantee supplier/dealer quality.
Lloyd  puts stress on an essential matter linked to all-purpose supply chain management. Lloyd states “it is too late to protest about poor quality/standard of incoming supplier/dealers after the examination if the supplier/dealer is.
– Not qualified to meet the condition and tolerances mandatory required.
– May not be completely approachable of just what is understood by condition and tolerances mandatory required.
– Do not have a regular organise quality control program.”
These failures can cause enormous problems for any organisation concerned with purchasing and manufacturing.
Hahn  describes two significant uses of SQAE, to choose a fresh supplier/dealer and to assess the existing supplier/dealer. However, American companies chiefly apply this methodology to set up the ratings and rankings of their supplier/dealers for the purpose of decision-making regarding persistence of the business transaction with the supplier/dealers or not. Japanese and Korean producers use these assessment techniques differently and are less likely to construct any score or position structure for the supplier/dealers.
Motwani et al (1999) analyse the efficiency of SQAE procedure concerning ISO 9000 and TQM and persist on the investigation of how a supplier/dealer applies ISO 9000 in his administration and as a result they bring to a close that SQAE can also be completed by the inspection of ISO principles execution at the supplier/dealer’s end and the aim of Quality Assurance of the finishing manufactured goods ought to be satisfied.
Lloyd  says that the methodology of seller evaluation/assessment on the source of previous routine of vendor. He includes the following ways in that vendor quality/standard performance ought to be documented and assessed.
– Quality History Records concerning manufactured goods Conformance:
This is based mainly upon the quantity of acknowledged and discarded products complete in an exact time outline. This is a conventional method and reflects the expressions of satisfactory Quality Level.
– Assessment between Supplier/dealers on the grounds of Acceptance/Rejection:
Here, Statistical methods are used and usual sharing graphs used to investigate the comparative performance of vendors connected to the defected works/lot/period of time.
– Classic Frequency Allocation:
Once more this process is based on the examination results, either at the supplier/dealer or purchaser’s end. Tolerance restrictions are defined on charts and so quality/standard of loads is considered on the basis of changeability in goods.
However, the tactic described on top is completely based leading the theories of AQL and SPC, only considering the examination capabilities of the supplier/dealer and not focusing on the in-procedure ability or in-procedure quality/standard assurance of the supplier/dealer. Supply Chain Management is more about the presentation of every function in a speedy way and to rely a lot on assessment cannot help the cause of both price and time taken to produce a product.
Swift and Booker  use ability index in command to assess the product conformance and they announce the need of reliability of supplier/dealer’s data in this regard. They additional state that newer quality/standard reassurance tools like FMEA must be included into SQAE procedure to determine the causes of breakdown or defects in manufactured goods and so a dealer may be evaluated on the foundation of potential causes of breakdown and so severity height may be obtained. This is an essential point that wants to be evaluated. However, they make the most of the idea of variability forecast and acceptance chain analysis in this regard. Regardless, their study is mainly focussing on the engineering of manufactured goods conformity and didn’t contract much with the supply chain management idea in SQAE.
Russell  provides the method of Quality Management Benchmark Assessment, that fundamentally a checklist of several prerequisites related to all aspect of manufacturing purpose of a supplier/dealer and set progressively more challenging enhancement goals. It is fundamentally mission oriented and so a manufactured good approach regarding SQAE.
Feigenbaum  depend on supplier/dealer audit methodology to evaluate supplier/dealer quality. Curry recommends that a descriptive audit in terms of examination of a product may be done after a precise time frame of time and all sorts of routine and valuation/assessment tests must be done in this view. Schuurman relies more on the administration side of audits and Feigenbaum announces that over all audit of supplier/dealer’s quality control operation is necessary to guarantee the superiority of the product.
Jerry Wolfe  from the American culture for testing and resources hoists his model/framework for supplier/dealer assessment, although it deals particularly for the raw material supplier/dealer and the exact bits and pieces in steel but he formulated his tactic in a complete manner by bearing in mind the importance of dimensional evaluation/assessment and performance tests for material in provision and therefore makes these tests the criteria for Supplier/dealer Quality Assurance Evaluation. He establishes a sort of sample evaluation/assessment method, to build the foundation of Supplier/dealer Evaluation/assessment for Product Conformance.
Karl Springer  resolute on the establishment of the supplier/dealer-purchaser relationship and relates it to the procedure of Continuous Quality Enhancement and finally he makes CQI the stand of Supplier/dealer Assessment that whether the dealer is committed to implement Continuous Enhancement Strategy or not. Although this could be said to be as a stringent criteria but it must not be used by purchaser to put any force on supplier/dealer, it must only be used to assess supplier/dealer and then as a result help the supplier/dealer to set a certain degree of quality/standard assurance.
There are different methodological factors in SQAE, regarding examination and testing, based on contemporary Manufacturing Technology and Supply Chain Management Equipments. Elmaraghy  unveils the concept of Integrated Examination and deems it an essential factor in assessing the supplier/dealers, particularly in future as technology and manufacturing procedures are getting more complex. Japanese are functioning for the growth and execution of Multi-Vendor Integration software to assess many vendors at a period based on conformance principles for different goods and they use it to become aware of non-conformances and their amount. Bhote  declares that World-Class producers and Purchasers don’t rely only on mainstream Supplier/dealer Evaluation/assessment procedures like Supplier/dealer Quality System Audits, evaluation of supplier/dealer’s quality manuals and relationship based primarily on reporting. They make SQAE a mutual procedure, both for supplier/dealer and purchaser, by implementation techniques like Specification Optimisation, Classification of features of products and procedurees, early supplier/dealer involvement mainly in product development and they set up product and cross functional teams to assess supplier/dealer and supplier/dealer’s capability (Gunal, 2000, 28-35).
For contemporary products, Quality-planning starts before an agreement is decided on. Such development must be familiar with 2 issues.
The purchaser must transmit to the supplier/dealer a whole understanding of the implementation to advantage from using the product. Communicating usage supplies may be tedious even for a simple product.
The purchaser must look for information to be sure that the dealer has the ability to meets all fitness-for-use prerequisites. When there are intricate goods, in view of the exact domestic environments nearby a certain component, it is essential to assign distinct development and production contracts that help to determine how to conclude prerequisites (Yadin, 2001, 16-20).
Different circumstances may beg for two types of specifications:
* Specifications that describe the product prerequisites.
* Specifications that describe what value-related activities are expected of the supplier/dealer, i.e., the dealer’s quality/standard system (Yadin, 2001, 16-20).
Assessing supplier/dealer quality encompasses one or both actions:
* Approving the supplier/dealer’s design via the assessment of product samples.
* Approving the supplier/dealer’s ability to fulfil quality prerequisites on production consignments
-Qualifying the Supplier’s Design:
Qualification assessments are mandatory to measure a manufactured goods and it is not irregular for qualification test outcomes to be refused. 2 reasons are common:
-The test outcomes demonstrate that the plan does not meet the product functions needed.
-The examination process is not sufficient to gauge the performance of the product (Gunal, 2000, 28-35).
-Ability of Supplier’s manufacturing procedure:
Evaluation of the supplier/dealer’s developing ability may be carried out via three approaches:
* prior data on similar products,
* procedural capability analysis, or
* An assessment of the supplier/dealer’s quality system via a quality survey.
A supplier/dealer quality assessment is an assessment of a supplier/dealer’s capacity to meet quality/standard prerequisites on production shipments. The result of the review are used in the supplier/dealer selection procedure. It is also made use of if the supplier/dealer has already been selected, in that case, the review informs the buyer about area where the supplier/dealer may require help in fulfilling prerequisites. The survey can be a collection from a simple questionnaire that is mail to the dealer to a personal visit to the supplier/dealer’s facility.
Example of dealer quality/standard survey (this highlights product conformance linked factors):
The questionnaire present clear questions such as the ones underneath that are accessible to supplier/dealers of a producer of medical devices:
* Has your business received the quality prerequisites on the product and agreed that they may be completely met?
* Are your ultimate examination grades known?
* Do you be in agreement to provide the buyer with advance note of any change in your manufactured goods design?
* What protective clothes do your workers wear to decrease manufactured good contamination?
* Describe the system of air-filtration in your industrialized areas (Benito & Dale, 2001, 189-195).
The assessment of the supplier/dealer manufactured goods (according to Juran) must be base on the methodology below.
Under a variety of circumstances, it is important that the supplier/dealer send in experiment results of a small early sample prepared from produce tooling. They must also send in a model from the primary production consignment earlier to the full delivery being made. The final assessment may be completed when a purchaser’s representative visits the supplier/dealer’s plant and overviews the examination of a casual sample chosen from the first manufacture lot. A check can also be formed from procedure capability or procedure management kind data from that lot (Benito & Dale, 2001, 189-195).
Quality examination is the ongoing monitoring and confirmation of circumstances, procedures, products, procedural actions, methods, services, and analysis of records. These are all related to stated references. This certifies that specified prerequisites for quality are being met.
In the ancient times, inward examination frequently took up a great segment of time and attempt. With the opening of modern intricate products, there were quite a lot of companies that exposed that they do not have the wanted examination skills or tools. This led them to rely more on the supplier/dealer’s quality/standard system or examination and test data (Aaker, 2004, 138-139).
Dobler and Burt  speaks about four major factors that validate the quality assurance stage of a firm’s bought products;
1. Formation of total and suitable specifications for quality/standard prerequisites.
2. Option for supplier/dealers with technical and production ability to carryout the needed excellence/cost job.
3. Expansion of a realistic insight with supplier/dealers of quality prerequisites, and establishment of the incentive to perform accordingly.
4. Overseeing of supplier/dealers’ quality/cost performance, and use of suitable control.
In accordance with Dobler and Burt, a solid manufactured goods specification stand for a combination of the four considerations below:
1. Design prerequisites.
2. Production features.
3. Commercial buying considerations.
4. Sales and marketing features.
While handling commercial purchasing considerations, purchasing employees need to carry out the following examinations with regard to quality/standard:
* Examine the quality prerequisites.
* Assure that quality prerequisites are completely and plainly stated in the specifications.
* Assess their rationality, relative to cost.
* Assure that specifications are printed in a method that allows competition among potential supplier/dealers.
* Determine whether or not present supplier/dealers can develop the wanted quality into the objects.
* Assure the viability of the examinations and tests required to guarantee quality (Evans and Dean, 2000, 53-72).
They also declare the need for more generalised specifications that are appropriate to the broad industrial condition. They assert: “When preparing its own condition, a corporation should aim at making them as close as probable to industry standards”. If certain dimensions, tolerances, or description are required, every go must be made to attain these “specials”. This must be done by scheming them as added extras or alteration to framework components, and it shall save time and money (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Dobler and Burt express the use of specification growth procedure as follows. They say: “Many firms now make use of a cross-functional manufactured good growth team in the overall plan process. The approach is perfect for integrate the view of purchase, as well as the other appropriate function, in the specification development procedure. In some cases it is desirable to include appropriate designers or use engineers from the supplier/dealer’s company in the specification development procedure before the specs are done”.
They discuss about various types of condition growth system as well as their implementations.
Drawings are perhaps the most exact method of detailing what is necessary, particularly when one needs exact shapes, measurements, and spatial relationships. Engineering drawing are ready to use of significantly when there is need to detail quality/standard for construction projects, particularly in foundry and machine shop work to manufacture a variety of particular mechanical components and components.
There are four fundamental rewards in using drawing for description:
* They are exact and precise.
* They are the most practical way of detail mechanical items requiring very close tolerance.
* They encourage wide competition.
* They clearly establish the standards for examination (Aaker, 2004, 138-139).
When this procedure is used, potential supplier/dealers are instructing accurately as to the supplies to be used and how they are to be implement. The buyer assumes full legal responsibility for product performance.
A performance condition for wire may need it to tolerate a given temperature, have a certain resistance to scratch, and have particular conductivity capability. No mention is rendered in the specifications with consider to what resources are to be implement or how the wire is to be equipped or encapsulate to construct the desired character. (Aaker, 2004, 138-139).
Some organisations produce brands to attain their objectives that comprise quality/standard assurance (de Chernatony, 2001, 3 & 4).
Samples are recognized as the lazy person’s method of describing prerequisites. When samples are implemented, the buyer doesn’t have to look for for an identical brand, choose a standard requirement, or exemplify the presentation wanted. Sample is not the most cost experienced or the most suitable means of buying. Generally, the cash used for examination costs significantly goes further than the cash cut via description costs. It often is tough to resolve by examination that the product manufactured is, in fact, the identical as the model. Superiority of equipment and workmanship are frequently quite tricky to decide via routine assessment. Therefore, in a number of cases, approval or rejection becomes quite a personal decision (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Samples are generally used only in the case if other methods of explanation not succeed. Darkness and touch, printing, and grading are three broad areas in that other methods of description are not feasible. A specific shade of blue, for example, is not easy to explain without a taster. Planned lithographic workmanship is best described by the supplier/dealer’s proof. Setting grades for commodities such as wheat, corn, and cotton by samples has apparently been the most appropriate method of describing these products (Cram, 2001, 22-30).
This literature review is not in the last state but has some ideas about methodological features of Supplier/dealer Quality Evaluation/assessment. Different companies and in fact greater names in market or what we must call them world-class organizations have considered Supplier/dealer Quality Evaluation an essential part of their Procurement and up to some degree, their Quality Assurance purpose. Suzuki (Pakistan) model/framework of supplier/dealer quality assurance assessment is a good implement in this regard and it is a progressive methodology deals with the supplier/dealer assortment and over all quality assurance enhancement of the products and components and also founded on cost effectiveness (Cram, 2001, 22-30).
Suzuki (Pakistan) assesses its supplier/dealers on the basis of advancement they made concerning manufactured goods growth, if it’s a fresh creation (this means Suzuki includes supplier/dealers in the early phases of production), Suzuki also examines their supplier/dealers assesses planning for quality/standard assurance. Below is a brief step-wise description of Suzuki Supplier/dealer Quality Assurance Exercise in connection with Product Conformance (Fankel, 2002, 24-29).
It is imperative to discuss the Suzuki policy of applying its own efforts in execution of rules at its own side, in its part dealing with the vendors. Suzuki starts Supplier/dealer Evaluation/assessment Procedure along with the assortment and therefore it is mainly apply during the product development procedure or when a new modern set up is established. Formulation of SQAE procedure generally consists of following step-wise methodologies.
– Supplier/dealer Involvement in product development procedure. The supplier/dealer requested the provision of a planning schedule for production of fixtures, jigs and many more experiment equipments for individual product (de Chernatony, 2001, 3 & 4).
– Plan for assessments that shall be apply to absolute part under supply. Particulars of necessary evaluation/assessment must be precise on the part evaluation/assessment plan.
– There should be evaluations for material, measurements, appearance, performance and operations.
– Planning must be done for the Internal Quality system growth at the dealer/supplier/dealer. It includes:
* Standard work.
* Maintaining Logs.
* Receiving assessment check sheets. (For components of sub contractors or supplier/dealers of secondary level)
* Daily/routine check Sheets.
* Systems (Cram, 2001, 22-30).
-Information in connection with the following items should be present and given to Suzuki.
* Sample Data sheets
* Investigative standards.
* Procedure FMEA.
* Material Documentation.
* Engineering modification (if any) Implementation and its assessment.
* Approval based on Part assessment.
Suzuki involves supplier/dealers in establishing condition and standard so there is no accident with regard to these matters and contribution of information is not a problem.
-Suzuki demands for the planned and system explanation of all developed and quality/standard control performance necessary to guarantee the quality of components for Mass Production. (Holt, 2004, 133-136).
-Manufacturing Quality Chart, Procedure Flow, Procedure Format and Procedure FMEA must be developed at the supplier/dealer’s position and these are standardized products and checked during SQAE.
-A supplier/dealer should have on-line quality/standard checking method, not just the last examination and correct certification should have been completed to teach employees in standard work procedures and quality standards.
-Definition of essential characteristics of supplied components (or part under development) in conditions of dimension, look and purpose and the process should be confirmed along with the rate by that the components must be checked.
-As lots of automobile components require examination via inspecting fixture due to their character of fitment and use in assembly, so examining fixtures must be developed and tested.
-Boundary Exhibits (limit samples) for those features related to emergence of any manufactured goods must be prepared.
-Each product complete, should be checked and tested against Suzuki Standards before mass production and appropriate evaluation/assessment of each part must be done.
-Supplier/dealer must also have needs (if any) for obtaining assistance from Suzuki and this must be discussed formally (de Chernatony, 2001, 3 & 4).
Minimum Quality/standard Standards concerning specific product conformation are as follows;
* Part Examination Standard.
* Checking fixtures/Gauges.
* Boundary exhibits.
* Producing Quality Chart.
* Countermeasure Activity description for any Issue occurred regarding part quality (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
All points describe on top are related to manufactured goods development stage; however, Suzuki founded its SQAE methodology on the same basis and has put up the above described aspects in their Supplier/dealer Assessment criteria. Suzuki in fact looks for the supplier/dealers to know whether they are capable of executing and incorporating these methodologies into their quality/standard assurance system.
Suzuki set up its Vendor Assessment Criteria on monthly and annual base, analyse the product conformance potential of the dealer/supplier/dealer. Results of this SQAE scrutiny used to give Quality award to the supplier/dealers and these outcomes tabulate in the form of point, these point given in accordance to vendor rating.
Monthly Assessment factors and their standards are
-Investigation data (Suzuki Receiving Examination). Rating system is established (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
“A” for less than 600 defected components per million.
-Resolving any problem occurred in components concerning excellence.
“A” for denial (no problem). “D” for frequent trouble and no timely reply over it.
-Submission of Merchant Quality report.
Annual monitor base on
-Re-occurrence of defect.
-Buyer advice/complaints about any precise part.
-Vendor Excellence System assessment.
Vendor Excellence System assessment (based on product conformance) consist of following items.
* Presence of Border Samples.
* Identification of issues and defects. Defects definition and recognition criteria, in the form of check list.
* Examination Gear Calibration.
* Accessibility of appropriate Examination tools.
* Accessibility of Examination Procedures.
* Fault feedback and monitoring system.
* In-procedure defect control system.
* Use of examination records for quality/standard enhancement activity.
* Receiving Examination of bought material.
* Control and direction of sub-supplier/dealers.
* Preparation of examination standards
* Maintenance of standards.
* Assessment facilities and technology at supplier/dealer end.
* Skilled staff for assessment.
* Maintenance of measuring tools, examining fixtures, gages and other examination equipment.
* Quality Audit set up for products and their frequency.
Considering the feature of modern developed struggle and surroundings, one comes to the end that though Suzuki (Pakistan) has described well the Supplier/dealer Assessment Criteria and has come up with its SQAE policy in a concealed manner it doesn’t emphasize some vital factors like usage of technology at the dealer/supplier/dealer end (for any specific product or component) (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Suzuki Pakistan is a joint undertaking among the Suzuki Motor Corporation Japan, House of Habib (one of the largest industrial groups of Pakistan), as well as Suzuki Tsusho Corporation Japan (TTC) for setting up, producing and marketing Suzuki vehicles in Pakistan (Govt attaches high importance to auto industry: PM, daily Times, 2007).
Few specifics in sight of industrialized, HR and plant operation are specified below:
Production Size: 58,000 (December 2005).
Workforce Strength: 1,600 (2 shifts/ day)
Plant Capability: 235 vehicles (2 shifts/day)
Number of contractor/dealers: 121
Products: Suzuki Alto, Baleno, Liana and Suzuki APV (All Purpose Van).
Percentage of Supply machinery (Localised Components): Collective % for all models: 65%
The opening questions of the survey are about the company and how many supplier are working with the Suzuki. The answer that I get from the manager is that the company come on the group of “manufacturing and assembling” and “around 123” number of service provider are trading with Suzuki (Pakistan) (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Localisation of automobile assemblage components has been implementing in Pakistan, as the government wants to increase the manufacture sector. Pakistan Government has set up a capability for this, EDB, for that it has determined a sure criterion for the required percentage of machinery/parts need to be produced near by restricted (produced by local/domestic supplier/dealers). They established a diversity of targets for the localisation of various groups of automobile. These were mainly averaging approximate 50-60% of the ISDP points (Total 100%). ISDP points are calculated by a particular formula that is evaluated on the centre of the nature of the module, technology and price participation, accessibility of rare supply of substances and a number of other factors. Each industry/producer has to adhere to the ISDP points for that there is a sure system of ISDP audit and liability (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
The construction or modern segment in Pakistan has blossomed considerably since its commencement; it largely rotates around Automobiles that is one of the major Modern industries in Pakistan. Firmly based on Japanese technologies and information of Modern, the assembly segment tends to hold up the supplier/dealer in the most suitable method. The supply chain is complex due to definite political, geographical and industrial fronts, although the management method is quite similar to the other countries (PAMA (Pakistan Automotive Producers Association) 2007).
Supplier/dealer Quality has always stayed as a significant issue, while considering Localisation that is a peak prerequisite (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2-16). Supplier/dealer relations also have a massive role in assessing and development of supplier/dealer quality; the improved the relations, the superior the final quality of supply components shall be (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Suzuki has a massive web of supplier/dealers, supplying consumables, tools and a wide range of automobile components, ranging up to 2000 components/vehicle, including a variety of sub-assemblies (produced by one or more supplier/dealer), electronic machinery, metallic, synthetic and rubber goods.
As localisation is a mandatory part of their modern operation and Suzuki has to begin arrangement for localisation. This is because it is the beginning of product development, and they have to connect with supplier/dealers in the manufactured goods growth procedure.
An important and most significant part of creation is the act of Suzuki-Japan that is the main organisation. The product is conceptualized and planned in Japan. All sketches and specifications have been developed by Suzuki Japan. Also, the body end
engine mechanism are complete by Suzuki Japan, so as to rate as CKD (Completely Knock Down) components (Graham, 2001, 24-29).
Suzuki also holds up assessment in terms of manufactured goods growth, bearing in mind different factors that compact with the automobile marketplace in Pakistan. A variety of car accessories and additional components have been used in view of unlike road, surroundings and market circumstances for automobiles (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Localisation process in Suzuki works out as follows;
The system verified above, generally takes more than a year to get done. Every action holds its own precise information about functioning methodology. Suzuki, under the Suzuki Management Style, process Quality Assurance as one of the most important product’s features. Particulars of its terms and Evaluation/assessment of Product Conformance are basically furnished in the Prescribed Localisation Proposals (Dando, 2005).
Supplier/dealer Quality Assessment, in Suzuki is an important facet of Localisation of goods and the suitable SQAE procedure begins at the 8th phase of localisation cycle prior to the finalisation of the trader for the supply.
There are two parts for revealing the Supplier/dealer Evaluation results VIR and VER (Vendor Information and Vendor Assessment Reports correspondingly). These reporting measures are prepared use of at the product development phase, and so, research aspects of supplier/dealer value are completely put under measurement.
Product Development section implements, both VIR and VER, when handling the surveys at this stage. VIR just gives evidence the presence of sound QA/QC section in the modern process and marks the situation of the supplier/dealers’ quality/standard organization process.
VER caters to the Vendor capabilities largely, and so vendor’s superiority control capabilities are monitiored. VER has got a whole section for excellence and it evaluates the product conformance related description in every segment of vendor’s developed structure (Dando, 2005).
-Supplier/dealer contribution in Product Development procedure:
Supplier/dealer is asked to supply the development timetable for development of jigs, fixtures and other test gear for individual product (Balakrishnan, 1997, 754-753).
VER-Vendor ability review report is a comprehensive instrument for Vendor Evaluation/assessment. PD also charges the different objects in accordance with their comparative significance but the Quality/standard department must measure matters concerning quality control and product conformance. Development Engineers always gives the benefit of doubt to the vendors as their hard work are focussed on serving vendors for speedy progress of product progress, especially bearing in mind the number of restricted components involved in the manufacturing. There is a possible drawback of this method and this often results in confusing quality/standard assurance judgment of the supplier/dealers and subsequently it affects both quality and growth of the localisation, as it become more tedious to get better the quality in the final phase.
The second major thing is the understanding of general results, to classify the result into three classes: Good, Fair and Poor. This might also misinform both supplier/dealer and buyer companies to whether allow or refuse the supplier/dealer ability level. This uncertainty has always been a member of the supply chain function of Suzuki, with further classification of Conditionally Acceptable supplier/dealers into (+) and (-), its not easy to make a decision whether supplier/dealer is able or not to maintain the desired quality/standard level and to what extent supplier/dealer must go forward its quality control activities. These results must be summarised in terms of Acceptable and Non-Acceptable place and improvement points must be highlighted with particular objectivity (Holt, 2004, 133-136).
This interpretation methodology shall be in addition analysed in the critical analysis (analysing different products from the information attained: end of this chapter) related to the quality/standard evaluation of different products belonging to the SC of Suzuki.
The direct involvement of Suzuki-PD in supplier/dealer judgment ends up here, however, its Suzuki-PD’s accountability to protect coordination among supplier/dealers and Suzuki QA regarding value matters. Suzuki QA has not got a straight message system with the supplier/dealers and so Suzuki PD practices a great demand on quality evaluation/assessment and progress of Suzuki QA Supplier/dealer Quality monitoring for the period of and after product improvement. The working procedure of Suzuki QA regarding supplier/dealer quality assurance assessment is described in the following section (Balakrishnan, 1997, 754-753).
QA, possibly carry out buyer quality evaluation in a complete manner, however, QA starts to be involved in Vendor evaluation only after when Suzuki PD finalises VER-VIR and verify the vendor as the permitted supplier/dealer. This arrangement is more complete and methodically defines the criterion to found vendors’ routine location on certain items, considerable regarding quality/standard and consequently product conformance.
Following is the management of the Vendor excellence study report, conducted by QA. This is a superior elaborative arrangement and weighting system is totally defined according to the grade of the standards set by supplier/dealer in terms of different items in association with quality/standard assurance. This format analyses quality circumstances in a better way with the full understanding and user facilitation of Quality division in Suzuki. It could perform as the Basic Supplier/dealer Quality System Evaluation tool (Balakrishnan, 1997).
Insight of the points described above, it’s appropriate to present this report. It’s quite sufficient to apply in any production environment or more specifically in automotive assembly environment. Ratings are well described and action plans along with comments are included for each assessment item. Everyday jobs related to different activities are also clear in this approach. Some points are well incorporated like In-procedure defect control system, Control and supervision of sub-supplier/dealers and assessment of shipping quality/standard. These standards in fact follow supplier/dealers to apply in-procedure quality management checks and not only buyer organisation gets the advantage but supplier/dealers also get the manufacturing advantage. So, this reporting format, also with certain improvement points related to ever changing and advanced production concepts (Cram, 2001).
– Boundary samples demonstrated at each job site and at shipping examination site to enable rectify judgement.
– Boundary samples prepared, and criteria set up to enable
– Photos and illustrations permitted by Suzuki are used. Quality
Required by Suzuki may be ensured, but some necessary items are missing and must be included.
– No boundary samples produced.
– In addition to 3, boundary sample created.
– Definition and detection of defects established. Definition
Of no faults are distinguished by photos or sketch.
– Definition and detection of defects has problems. Separation
Of faults is incomplete.
– No proper detection of defects
– Check list are prepared, permitted & sent by person who record them. Measured outcomes are recorded & stored and used quality Assurance activities on checklist, that is approved by persons who recorded them.
– Rules and circumstances established. All necessary condition items included.
– Inadequate rules for calibration exist.
– No rules or circumstances established for calibration
– examination system is fully operational and data is totally maintained.
– Measurement tools, inspecting fixture and standard are available, but examination check sheets are not available.
– Gauging tools and checking fixtures are available but examination standards are not available.
– Gauging tools, checking fixtures & examination standard are not available.
– examination items and criteria determined based on procedure capability and permitted by manager and control department.
– Examination procedure used illustrations and photographs for easy understanding, and is shown at assessment site.
– Examination procedure prepared. Items and content have issues.
– No assessment procedure prepared.
– Sampling frequency is set based on procedure capability, and defect do not flow to subsequent procedure.
– Procedure competence is not grasped, but sampling frequency is set properly so that defects do not flow outside the company.
– Sampling rules have been recognized, but have problems and not successful in preventing outflow of defects.
– No rules agreed on.
– Status grasped and controlled by the best management. Meeting held periodically to follow up issues.
– Rules of communicating issues to other departments and procedure are set up and followed.
– Either no rules set up or rules established but not followed.
– Control Boards are accessible at each job site and monitored on daily
basis by management.
– Control Boards are obtainable but monitoring frequency is no set.
– Monitoring is done via meeting on requirement basis.
– No monitoring mechanism.
(C-1.9) INSPECTON RECORD
– Use examination result for quality/standard enhancement activity. actual numerical.
– Actual mathematical value has been recorded.
– Has record of fault or non-defect. Tractability may be done.
– Not inspected.
(C-1.10)RECEIVING EXAMINATION OF BOUGHT MATERIALS
– Examination item decided, taking into account the quality/standard
Characteristics of materials bought.
– examination conducted in accordance with rules. Visual examination
conducted on 100% materials and dimensional assessment on
Sample.(Quality characteristics of bought material are not clear)
– Rules established, but examination method insufficient
– No rule set up.(No Examination and quality/standard and assured)
(C-1.11)CONTROL & GUIDANCE OF SUB-SUILIERS
– Guidance planned. System for frequent guidance established and
– No particular guidance system established. Staff visits each sub
Dealer/supplier/dealer for guidance, and check its production procedure,
– Guidance provided only from time-to-time, but quality/standard status grasped to
the same extent as when leadership is provided periodically.
– No leadership activities performed. No selection criteria.
(C-2.1)CONTROL OF DRAWINGS
– Update record is correctly maintained and stored.
– Rules established, and updated edition available. Old version is
replaced with updated version, with no revision recorded.
– Rules established, but updated editions not available. Quality/standard
Assurance has issue.
– No rules set up. Drawings not found
(C-2.2) PREPRATION OF TIS
– Examination standards ready, taking procedure capability into account.
– Items exceeding Suzuki prerequisites are encompassed. Agreement done
with sub supplier/dealer.
– assessment standards not exchanged with sub supplier/dealer.
– Items needed by Suzuki are missing or have problems.
(C-2.3) MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS
– Updated versions are properly maintained using maintenance column.
– There is no preservation column. Updated versions are properly
Maintained by substitute.
– Standards not handled, but there are no quality assurance issues.
Control is essential in the future.
– No standards ready & maintained.
C-3 EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT FACILITIES
(C-3.1) MAINTAINENCE OF MEASURING TOOL AND C/F
– Calibration item list is obtainable and record is properly maintained.
– Calibration procedures are obtainable but records are not available.
– Calibration procedures are not obtainable.
– Keeping place and responsible individual is not clear.
(C-3.2) EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT FACILITIES
– Special/conventional assessment facility with high skilled staff.
– High skilled staff with conventional assessment facility.
– Only conventional / simple kind of assessment tools / facility available with less skilled staff.
– No facility and skill for assessment.
C-4 OTS EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT
– assessment items, share of work, schedule, quantities etc. have all been decided and agreed upon with IMC relevant determined.
– For each subject part, assessment items and share of work have been 2Agreed upon with IMC.
– It has not yet set up or is being set up
– OTS result completely matched with IMC reports.
– Results of assessment by supplier/dealer are satisfactory. Samples passed
Testing for all items needed by IMC with minor enhancement.
– Samples does not work for some items, but countermeasure is easy.
– Samples does not work for many items, mismatch with IMC report and there are no measures to be taken.
– Rules established, standardized and properly executed.
– assessment conducted on shipping quality/standard, as well as on ma
– Manufacturing quality/standard, taking into account preservation time and delivery form.
– Some assessment items missing
2- Unaware of need for shipping quality evaluation/assessment.
The above supplier/dealer evaluation description is a complete tool to control the supplier/dealers’ quality assurance assessment. Product Conformance issues have been considerably addressed and assessment criterion are clearly defined in terms of assessable items. This format also realizes the current developed capability of domestic supplier/dealers in Pakistan and both worst and best possible conditions put under examination. This arrangement could be used as the key tool for the supplier/dealer quality system evaluation/assessment in Suzuki and with a single-page summary; this coverage document can provide as the sole SQAE tool. However, it is vital to acknowledge the need of acknowledging the constant enhancement concepts and a structure of annual/half-yearly review must be introduced to include the advanced manufacturing theories. A very important issue to be realised is that this tool is more related to casual supplier/dealer quality audits performed by QA during the delivery and just used as a development tool, not as the formal exercise for SQAE that reduces the efficiency of this tool (de Chernatony, 2001, 3).
QA starts supplier/dealers’ product evaluation at the OTS-Off Tool Sample phase. After the support of vendor, Suzuki PD issues tooling orders and product development process starts (refer 4.2.1 -Localisation procedure). This is the central point for the excellence conformance of the supply product and QA carryout a in depth evaluation for this purpose as OTS review feedback acts as the backbone of the quality/standard presentation of the product in mass supplies (Yadin, 2001, 15-22).
QA conducts OTS Evaluation/assessment in their location largely, tough supplier/dealers to submit information related to raw material, machinery, their quality evaluation/assessment report, charts, etc. For this purpose, QA has developed a guiding principle booklet “SQAM-Supplier/dealer Quality Assurance Manual”, dealing with the requirements related to OTS submission, pre-production quality procedures to be implemented by supplier/dealers and mass supplies quality control. SQAM also provides guidelines to the supplier/dealers with regard to use of MQC, PFMEA and other tools in modern function. It also defines the model way of certification and sequential flow of QC behavior regarding product design, development and production (Hair et al, 2000, 35-38).
OTS Evaluation is based on a range of factors like dimensional, objects, presentation, stability and workability assessment etc. The arrangement used in OTS evaluation is the major arrangement worn to carry out audits of the supply mechanism and also used to evaluate the pilot masses and bulk supplies. It also defines the principles for evaluation and also mentions whether principles are available or not. The main standards for evaluation are TIS (Suzuki Examination Standard), TES (Suzuki assessment standard), Component Drawings, SQA (Shipping Quality/standard Audit) Manuals and other handy standards. Judgement on the class/standard height of deliver products are mainly depends on three criterions: Acceptable, Conditionally Acceptable and Not-Acceptable, the predictable way of Suzuki to analyse the quality. Following is an explanatory example of OTS evaluation methodology of QA. Formal OTS assessment information is drafted in the similar manner. [See Appendix: Illustrations 1-4]
The OTS report is the central part of product conformity methodology in Suzuki. Significant analysis of OTS evaluation methodology shall be obtainable in context of analysis of generally QA Supplier/dealer Quality assessment system. Its not as simple as it looks in first glimpse, OTS evaluation, in sight of the nature of manufacture operations useful to manufacture an automobile, is a complex activity.
In many situations, when Suzuki needs to construct some new mechanism, different from what considered for creative Suzuki model/frameworks in Japan, assessment standards are recognized by QA on the guiding principle provided by general assessment criterion.
It has been experimental that OTS of several supply machinery has been submitted for more than three-four times, sometimes showing no symbol of growth, or indeed very little improvement (Balakrishnan, 1997, 752-753).
In the questionnaire, the Manager gives particulars that the evaluation of the supplier/dealer is completed by the different methods that discussed above like the VIR-VER, perform test on the supplier/dealer products, and rated the supplier/dealer as described above in the evaluation/assessment form. After the basic assessment of the supplier/dealer than the next level for the agreement of supplier/dealer is the product consistency. For the product consistency assessment of the supplier/dealer or the assessments of the supplier/dealer the major methods are use by Suzuki (Pakistan) are OTS-Off Tool Sample, auditing of dealer/supplier/dealer and done the PPM test. After these assessments Suzuki knows the ability of the supplier/dealer. This helps the Suzuki to make a assessment (de Chernatony, 2001, 3).
As explained above, QA uses the similar configure and formula to examine pilot lots or bulk amounts of supplier/dealer goods.
This practical reporting practice is also followed throughout supplier/dealer surveys and product measurement at the supplier/dealers end. However, this coverage design has been the similar for last many years, not many changes have been prepared to it. However, bearing in mind the difficulty of automobile developed, huge number of different machinery occupied and dependability of localization of machinery, Supplier/dealer Quality (in Suzuki) tends to be the area under discussion needs large efforts in its use. So it’s crucial to do significant analysis of SQAE practice (Suzuki QA). Former changes must be brought in advance regarding SQAE system use to maintain its efficiency (Hair et al, 2000, 35-38).
In a given survey, the Manager answers yes, that means that the Suzuki does the assessment when the dealer/supplier/dealer products are delivered to Suzuki. It is because Suzuki wants to make sure that the produce machinery that is sent from supplier/dealer must be according to their principles.
Following is an effort to examine the crucial points regarding SQAE in Suzuki. Not only technical factors must be examined but also the managerial and methodological issues must also be inspected as they evenly (sometimes more strongly) influence the quality/standard of the manufactured goods (Hair et al, 2000, 35-38).
Questionnaire examination has been concluded in order to crucially assess the Suzuki SQAE methodology. Information with view to local components quality/standard performances, technical assessment of supply goods and their outcome on overall manufacturing performance of Suzuki has been analysed in the way to be familiar with the competencies and development points. This information has been summarised and graphically displayed to highlight points of consequence.
These analyses have also been contrasted with the methodologies illustrated above in the literature review.
-Both PD and QA in Suzuki got comprehensive tools to assess supplier/dealers’ quality related to Elementary product development practice. And now in Suzuki the supply chain quality concepts have been included in a broad manner into VIR, VER and Suzuki QA’s vendor quality assessment.
-Suzuki’s world-renowned ideas of Kaizen-Continuous Enhancement, TPS and technical quality/standard standards are also included with success. These concepts have gained fame and appreciation all around the world regarding modern and so supplier/dealers also recognised the significance of these concepts and so supplier/dealers accept the use of this excellence assessment (Balakrishnan, 1997, 754-753).
-Existence of Suzuki Examination and assessment standards (TES and TIS) always proves to be the backbone of technological assessment.
These principles, as one would be expecting, reveal accomplishment in terms of examination and testing methodologies and cover each feature of assessment like details of testing tools, testing circumstances and qualifications etc.
-Rating criterion for different evaluation items. QA reporting format (shown in section 4.3.2) shows some vast examples of defining rating standards in terms of simple numbers. Suzuki also uses the like report layout for rating supplier/dealers’ evaluation or quality assurance (Schuurman, 1984, 96-98).
-Suzuki has a complete structure for OTS assessment that is use for the supplier/dealers. The reporting methodology of OTS assessment is complete in terms of different testing items. It covers dimension, material; fitment, appearance and workability related testing items. (See 4.3.3).
-Participation of skilled staff in examination and evaluation/assessment. All squad members answerable for the technical assessment of supply products are well trained regarding use of assessment equipments.
Suzuki believes in on condition that thorough knowledge of all subjects regarding the science of production and so all QA employees has been trained in a sound way to accomplish quality evaluation/assessment, assessment and all connected functions (Hair et al, 2000, 35-39).
-To protect the standard Suzuki also, Uses ISO 9000 standards and principle in establishment of SQAE systems. Suzuki covering methodology related to quality/standard assessment is indeed well-matched to ISO standards and therefore it helps to build up a certain level of understanding with regard to quality assurance with the supplier/dealers (Hair et al, 2000, 35-38)..
-In Suzuki, there is a well-built Data Analysis and Communication linking Suzuki and vendors. Suzuki PD achieves the duty of maintaining well-built communication with the supplier/dealers. Computerised arrangement (SAP) for recording receiving examination data is also under use and accelerates the course of action of data analysis and message to the supplier/dealers. SAP can differentiate among thousands of variables regarding element categories and their faults (Schuurman, 1984, 96-99).
This examination demonstrates that both managerial and technical sides of SQAE need a lot of concentration, mostly in organisations like Suzuki-Pak. However, literary explore encompasses the technical and statistical sides of SQAE in detail, but there is nothing much available with regard to SQAE management and small details like some of the weaknesses in SQAE operations that are the followings.
* Product Development obviously facilitates supplier/dealers and cannot examine the matters where strict investigation is mandatory. Time line plays a significant role and Suzuki PD, as it handles large volume of restricted products, favours supplier/dealers and tends to ignore quality/standard issues to save time and reach the localisation targets on time. Considering tight growth and production schedules, it’s no shock that progress department cannot stick to the critical accountability of SQAE and taking the final conclusion in this regard. Any unnecessary favour to supplier/dealers could wrong the quality performance and it has been proved in Suzuki in recent times (Schuurman, 1984, 96-99).
* Weaker influence of Suzuki QA in the practice. QA possesses good tools (as discussed above) to consider the supplier/dealers’ quality system and product conformance systems but it cannot take the reserved choice to certify the supplier/dealers’ quality. Mishaps, improbability and misunderstanding regarding execution of SQAE principles on supplier/dealer side come into action because Suzuki PD deals with the finding regarding acceptance of supplier/dealer value and QA later takes the duty to control the supplier/dealers’ quality. Rules and policy are not followed continuously in this circumstances and issues observed many times during the product conformity and their quality/standard analysis. Suzuki QA doesn’t hold the power it must have and eventually has to give up on certain grounds related to quality (Schuurman, 1984, 96-99).
* Suzuki QA doesn’t assess the product accessories, and sometimes supplier/dealers don’t surrender them with the OTS or Pilot Lots either. These small accessories like wires; nuts, bolts etc. result in many quality issues later on during the bulk supply and using up of supply components on production lines. Similarly, part recognition is also neglected in evaluation/assessment. There are many body components that look similar but are different regarding fixture on the vehicle and it’s a normal practice in Suzuki that components are installed and fitted on the wrong side or location, causing issues (Dando, 2005).
It’s quite obvious that industrial implementation principles or methodologies are relatively complete and looks valuable in nature (especially in organisations like Suzuki, Siemens and Nokia etc.), but the real examination matter is the performance of such principles. Researchers invent methodologies and invent the methods for examination, assessment, sampling and analysis though, but the immediate industrial issues are not discussed sometimes (Hair et al, 2000, 36-39). With the growing volume of supply chain in production industry and the emergence of global supply chain idea, it is fundamental to take supply chain and supplier/dealer quality as fundamental as the manufacturing function itself (Schuurman, 1984, 96-99).
The proposed methodology formulated in this thesis focuses on the IMC-SQAE system analysis and all the value adding works including enhancement points are derived from the analysis of SQAE advantages and disadvantages. This proposal is not just a model or framework or reporting format for SQAE but is an effort to establish a comprehensive methodology. Both industrial and scholastic practices have demonstrated good methodologies and their implementations but there is a room for enhancement regarding minor and complex details, which are indeed similar to those of manufacturing function itself (Schuurman, 1984, 96-99).
Some of these finer details have been demonstrated in terms of SQAE weaknesses analysis. In this chapter, the suggestion for the establishment of SQAE methodology shall cover all these features of Product Conformance and manufacturing function and try to correlate supplier/dealer quality assessment with the manufacturing and quality of the purchaser organisation. Relationship plan with the supplier/dealers regarding guaranteeing quality shall also be formulated. Supplier/dealer Quality must be treated on strategic grounds rather then on routine-work and that’s what is taken into reflection in this proposed methodology.
It is essential to strategically formulate the SQAE methodology in form of sections related to different phases of supplier/dealer participation in the manufacturing procedure. Clearly it starts with the product development phase, taking account of mass supplies later on. In this proposed Methodology, SQAE procedure is divided into three phases,
a) Supplier/dealer choice Phase
b) Supplier/dealer Quality assessment during Product Development Phase
c) Supplier/dealer Performance assessment (Bulk Supplies) (Benito & Dale, 2001, 189-195)
The level of strictness with regard to quality/standard assurance standards and evaluation of supplier/dealer quality assurance performance turns softer with the phases. Its essential to take this matter into consideration, supplier/dealers must be chosen via vigorous selection procedure as once they are certified and start supplying products then its not easy to enhance or attain the better quality of the products. So it’s essential to start strict and soften it up with the time, as sometimes, due to greater production volumes and to deliver the products on time, purchasers have to be relaxed regarding quality/standard checks in order to fulfil the demands. Cost is another feature that could affect the concern for the quality; costs of examination and repair are quite high, so it’s feasible to check quality strictly in the choice and development phase rather than rejecting supply components in bulk supplies.
Similarly, time frame for the initial phase i.e. Supplier/dealer Selection must be bigger than that for the second one and same rules applies for the advanced phase. The aim is to concentrate on the bottlenecks and the enhancement points in the first phase to inimise the likelihood of appearance of disadvantage later on when supply chain is set up full procedure and needs even running. Time frame is also dependent on the nature of the product and function associated with the dealer.
Suzuki-SQAE methodology is founded on weighted points system, giving weight to certain essential aspects of supplier/dealer choice. A category system could also be implemented that rates quality system group wise but the most advantageous way is Cost Based Rating system.
In this proposed methodology, a variety of aspects of SQAE are described stepwise and a methodological format is discussed, targeting the significant issues. However, some imperative points like rework and repairs at the purchaser’s end due to bad supplier/dealer quality have been put up, that are not there in literature or in industrial (Suzuki) practice with the weight they must be given. On the other hand, it’s avoided to show the survey kind rating system, giving weighted points to heights of the performance, because different industries devise these levels on varying standards, compatible to their purposes and management styles (Dando, 2005).
In supplier/dealer selection procedure, price and dependability hold great importance regarding the selection criteria. However, quality/standard, in some cases comes after or just side by side with the price. So some purchasers tend to choose a cheaper supplier/dealer with an average quality performance but this approach can harm the business function to a great extent. Bad quality can cost hundred times greater than one would expect it doesn’t only affect manufacturing excellence but also makes customers to lose confidence regarding business progress.
So, Quality/standard Assurance must top the list of assessment items regarding Supplier/dealer Selection. Same weight as price, in some cases greater than price or anything else where high precision is the main factor regarding product quality must be given to the quality related factors.
The most significant thing in this regard is the involvement of QA department in supplier/dealer selection procedure itself. All matters related to supplier/dealer quality must be assessed and judged by QA only; Product Development must only coordinate the activities.
Different aspects of SQAE with regard to Supplier/dealer Selection are described in following table in steps describing the assessment items and tools, highlighting debateable and critically essential points related to the setting up of Supplier/dealer Quality Evaluation/assessment methodology. However, the mode of assessment, weight given to different points and ranking could alter for different kinds of production functions and companies.
Following is the table with the details a purchaser must take into account while establishing or executing a methodology for supplier/dealer quality evaluation regarding supplier/dealer selection. As discussed above, it must cover all factors in a sequential manner. However, this is just a methodological format; reporting or assessing formats could be designed up to suitable levels. Most essential is to determine the items need to be evaluated the assessment tools and judgement criterion.
m- C/F assessment.
n- Shipping Quality/standard Audits.
o- Customer feedback analysis.
p- Corrective movement responsiveness.
q- Implementation of SPC.
r- Sub-Supplier/dealer assessment System.
8- Management and HR.
a- Quality Policy and purposes.
b- Training of Inspectors and QA staff.
In the above table:
– Assessment Items: Different aspects of supplier/dealer quality.
– Assessment Tool: Method/tool/technique of performing evaluation/assessment.
– Awareness Level: Level of Supplier/dealer Understanding of the method and awareness of the significance and implementation of the tool.
– Current Perf: present level of performance analysed in surveys/audits and data reports.
– Prerequisites: Purchaser’s /standardised needed level of performance.
– Remarks/feedback: feedback to the supplier/dealer regarding enhancement points or future plan regarding the assessment
Each of the above assessment items may be further categorised to define different levels of performance. It could be numbers, circles demonstrating quarter, or any other way of elucidating the grades of performance. However, it’s essential to check the awareness of supplier/dealer with regard to these items because it sets the course for future supply chain value and its just objectives, that could demonstrate any organisation’s honesty to the cause of quality/standard.
Example of further break-up of the evaluation criterion is as follows:
Awareness Level: May be rated by weighted numbers.
0: No awareness/understanding.
1: Just simple level knowledge.
2: Mediocre Knowledge but unaware of the necessity.
3: Applicable knowledge.
4: Updated Knowledge and completely aware of the necessity regarding implementation.
0: No implementation.
1: Insufficient implementation.
2: Procedures are available but no records.
3: Intermediate stage of implementation.
4: Proper implementation and all records are obvious.
The foundation of allocating these numbers may be given via any questionnaire with check marks.
Ideally, Prerequisites must be set up at the optimised maximum level, but it depends upon the purchaser’s demands and assessment of specific items related to its manufacturing objectives (Dando, 2005).
Current Performance again may be determined against some standards; these standards must be suitably established, considering the nature of business, operations and market conditions. Similarly, purchaser’s prerequisites may be established in terms of numbers and levels. Development points may be declared in feedback and remarks section.
Some items are pretty important regarding modern business effectiveness like advanced developing items; PQC (Product Quality chart, showing all the aspects of any producing procedure; showing the nomenclature of products, procedure flow, tooling/machine format, manpower, checking points, examination and final production procedure). It is essential to decide on the No. of products approved on first time examination, JIT awareness and competence because it helps producing goods OK first time.
Product Quality chart or anything one can call it, is an attempt to combine all the necessary details regarding procedure and product plan, the examination procedure and points. It could be formatted, procedures in any way; the main aim is to evaluate procedure-product formats, examination format and procedure, identification of each and every step in action. It is one of the most significant tools regarding quality/standard analysis of the product, can mark out the root cause (Benito & Dale, 2001, 189-195).
Supplier/dealer must be encouraged to use these implements and may be supported before pre-selection audits. Examples of PQC, Procedure and Product Plan are given in the end of this chapter.
All these items may be jointly judged to formulate last judgement and results, and also may be rated separately and allocated some weight or points to demonstrate their significance. It’s up to the conditions; under that supplier/dealer selection takes place, and the objectives of supply chain. It also relies on a lot on the organisation’s management style and the business objective and clearly on the nature of the produced product and its market, but no recognition with any sort of conditions must be made.
In view of the proposed SQAE methodology, that supplier/dealer must be given support before and after selection audits. They must be given appropriate time frame and support from the purchaser to make enhancements. However this also depends on the first assessment results done by purchaser. Clearly, supplier/dealer with the better results would be given preference (Cunningham, 2003, 202-214).
In this phase, the most essential thing is to assess supplier/dealer’s products that are under development. The purchaser needs to take following points into consideration and assess supplier/dealer performance regarding product development using following points:
– Product’s detailed assessment during NPI procedure.
– Complete paperwork regarding product format, procedure format, and product quality chart and assessment report by supplier/dealer must be submitted and analysed.
– Evaluation/assessment of checking fixtures and measurement instruments provided by supplier/dealer in order to verify the fitment and dimensional quality of the product.
– Submission of Sampling Plan, Examination Criterion (based on the standards furnished by the purchaser) by supplier/dealer. However, Purchaser’s Product Development Department must assist supplier/dealers to establish these items.
– Assessment of the supplier/dealer premises to estimate and audit the production procedure at their end.
– Cross checking to ensure the uniformity of specifications, examination standards and judgement criterion during the supply chain procedure.
– To assess the samples submitted by supplier/dealers in both on and off line production trials, using various operating conditions just not to examine all samples at the same time.
– Submission of all type of test reports, founded on material, workability, toughness and chemical tests along with the sample.
– Supplier/dealer must supply the certification status of the third party who is involved in product testing for the endorsement of the purchaser.
– Strict status on No Conditional Acceptance. Samples must be rejected straight away if they don’t fulfil the specifications.
– Complete acceptance criterion must be set up for each assessment item, even minor ones like outlook, it should not be left on the shall of inspectors, and there must be a concise standard (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
First Samples, or OTS (Off Tool Sample) must be evaluated comprehensively, and separate check sheets/reporting formats must be used to evaluate different attributes for the product. Each and every quality/standard has its own specific standards showing the tool used for examination and the other testing conditions as well.
The assessment items, in general, must include the following attributes, although it relies on the nature of the product to choose what attributes must be tested or not, for instance, plastic or resin based components cannot be tested for welding performance. So, it’s essential to choose appropriate assessment items for supply products.
1. Appearance: For exterior body components particularly; paint, colour, rust or decomposition and texture checking etc.
2. Dimensions: Distances, Pitches, and measurements such as diameters, radii, surface profiles, Angles. Clearances and Level ness etc.
3. Material: Basic material characteristics, tensile strength, flexural strength, yield strength, exterior treatment tests, chemical and physical properties etc.
4. Performance: strength tests and practical analysis of functional components like engine, switches, air-conditioners, steering assemblage and exhaust assembly etc.
5. Fitment: (for Assembly products) Fitment with the mating components, fitment scrutiny on assembly lines to check whether it’s easy for an operative to install part under the model work instructions. Fitment on checking fixtures as well must be evaluated.
6. Workability: Workability investigation of the product. Operational performance after fitment.
7. Checking Fixture Evaluation/assessment: Checking fixtures and measurements also need to be evaluated and assessed against specific standards.
8. Product Nomenclature: As discussed above, a car comprises of hundreds of components, look similar to each other, but are quite different. So it’s vital to make sure that the component identification is feasible for the fast paced manufacturing. Product accessories such as nuts, bolts and wires etc. must also be checked against the specifications (Cunningham, 2003, 202-214).
It is significant to first establish a grade system of the components assigned to supplier/dealers, and in fact for all products. This ranking must be based on the nature of their function, nature of manufacturing procedure, cost of production and criticality of their performance. Product assessment, and in some cases, Supplier/dealer Selection criterion must be established on the grounds of these ranking and obviously , the quality assurance standards must be more stringent for the high ranking products and could be a bit lenient for the lower grading non functional products (Cunningham, 2003, 202-214).
The assessment items described above, must be put up under practice in a sequential manner, step by step assessment, this means if some product fails to satisfy the dimensional and material assessment standards then it mustn’t be evaluated for Performance and Fitment. Even if it doesn’t look faulty (regarding performance) in first place, but there is a strong likelihood that it would fail to get along with the quality/standard needs in later phases and that could create a bigger problem (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Buying organisation’s responsibilities comprises following aspects;
– To support supplier/dealer with regard to tooling and technology transfer related to design and assuring quality of the products.
– To timetable the quality/standard audit and survey activities with the consent and confidence of the supplier/dealer.
– To provide supplier/dealer all the essential documents, drawings, standards and specifications prior to product development.
– To make sure that all activities with regard to quality assurance and product conformity are well planned and adequately implemented.
– To design or to facilitate supplier/dealer with all the necessary details regarding patience related to products and procedures.
– To maintain a successful level of communication with the supplier/dealers during product development phase.
Tolerance for critical assessment items must be followed very strictly after being set up and there must only be complete Acceptance or Rejection regarding judgement. Supplier/dealer must also be asked to supply Sampling plans for Bulk supplies. Product evaluation/assessment at this phase must also incorporate the Shipping Quality/standard Audit standards and also the complete standard quality check of the final assembled product, to fulfil the prerequisite of complete quality assessment of the new product. However, Conditional Acceptance must only be applied where assessment item doesn’t seem to be critical.
During the Product Development phase, after getting samples, supplier/dealers must be asked to submit pilot lots, so as their production stream quality can also be checked. Same Evaluation criteria must be used to evaluate samples from the pilot lot and after the whole trial of pilot lot, if product judged as accepted, supplier/dealer must be asked to start regular supplies (Cateora & Graham, 2002, 45-61).
It’s not an easy job to establish the supplier/dealer quality status based on the quality of the products under bulk supplies. Conventional methods for these purposes are based on incoming examination results; usually established on the basis of sampling, sometime just can’t be effectual to raise the quality/standard standards. However, Sampling is indeed necessary in order to manage the examination of thousands of supply components in short period of time but it must be realised that overall vendor performance must not be judged on the basis of Sampling Examination. Proper Supply components audits must be done from time to time, results must be taken into account regarding appreciation of supplier/dealer quality.
A weekly/monthly report must be formulated for each supplier/dealer to convey the quality performance and so as a rating system must also be maintained. This sets up the sense of competition among supplier/dealers, and if possible, rate the supplier/dealers in different categories, for example, one group could be the nature of product, rate the supplier/dealers who supply same type of product in the same category and a joint supplier/dealer performance may be rendered to all of supplier/dealers in that category. For instance, supplier/dealers of rubber products could be ranked in a same category, analysing the quality of their products that are clearly classified in the same category as rubber and have similar performance requirement (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Supplier/dealer responsiveness and its efficiency related to take preventive action must also be analysed and included into these performance reports. Supplier/dealer must also be made conscious of the final consumer complaints. However, quality/standard measuring and enhancement techniques for mass supplies are well described in both academic and industrial practices and presented in different appearances. Components per million (PPM), used to analyse the ratio of faulty components is one of the most advanced method to show the quality performance of products. AQL, LTPD and various other sampling methods are obvious in literature as well (Cateora & Graham, 2002, 45-61).
The proposed SQAE methodology, recognizes the significance of Advanced Manufacturing concepts. The first section, Supplier/dealer Quality assessment regarding Supplier/dealer Selection includes the evaluation/assessment items related to advanced manufacturing concepts like JIT, Lean and Agile production. The item addressing the assessment related to the supplier/dealer’s capacity to manufacture goods acceptable first time is fundamentally the mainframe of Lean Manufacturing Principles (Jones & Shaw, 2002, 40-65).
There are some additional clauses related to JIT technique and quality/standard demands presented in the proposed framework. Evaluation items related to Product and Procedure Formats, Examination procedure and Product Quality charts have been put up in the proposed framework. Similarly, there is a question for six-sigma awareness for the supplier/dealer and its compatibility with the purchaser’s prerequisites (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
Use of Ishikawa- Cause and Effect illustrations have also been put up as one of the features regarding supplier/dealer quality evaluation/assessment. These tools aid in establishing the source of defect production and getting rid of the cause of defects. It also helps in analysing the supplier/dealer ability to avoid the defects passing on to another phase without being wiped out or detected.
Shipping Quality/standard audit is another methodological feature of advanced quality tools used to evaluate the quality of any kind of product, but largely associated to the assembled products like cars and aeroplanes etc (Cateora & Graham, 2002, 45-61).
Assessment of CAD/CAM activities has also been made. CA/CAM has now been considered to be a vital element of manufacturing function, especially where high precision is required. Similarly, Reverse Engineering is also a basic phenomenon associated to Design and Manufacturing where huge numbers of components are included in building up of a product, like automobile. Most of the purchasers dispatch samples to supplier/dealers in order for them to follow the design and apply reverse engineering principles to produce the product, so it’s very essential to evaluate the reverse engineering capacity of the supplier/dealer (Wolfe, 2002, 137-146).
The proposed methodology shall help both supplier/dealer and purchaser quality assurance systems in terms of maintaining good quality levels. As a purchaser is applying SQAE as one of the main functions with regard to manufacturing, a supplier/dealer could also realise the intensified importance of achieving good results in terms of quality/standard. Overall outcome is the better and ever-improving quality of the final product.
Proposed SQAE stringently evaluates all aspects of Supplier/dealer manufacturing function that could affect the quality of the product for supplier/dealer assortment and if a supplier/dealer fulfils such rigorous demands then it can give an enormous boast to its confidence and can help to earn more business. However, at the same time, this methodology also compels a purchaser to make its quality/standard performance suitable to the standards and also to put up accurate work regarding design and manufacturing.
The second phase of proposed SQAE methodology stressfully reckons that product must be evaluated or inspected step-by-step, if it fails to be approved against standards in the first step (dimensional assessment) then it must not be assessed for the items related to the next level (performance and workability evaluation) . This cuts the amount of unnecessary work done regarding examination and cuts man-hours plus costs associated to examination (Robinson & Malhotra, 2005, 35-43).
However, it is essential to apply this SQAE methodology in the proper context, with the clear intention ameliorate overall quality. If purchaser’s quality performance is full with faults, then supplier/dealer would not follow the quality expectations willingly. So, purchasers must set up the SQAE methodology taking account of its own quality/standard performance and standards and must make it compatible with the nature of their work and results.
This proposed methodology is well tailored to SCM principles. Cost based Assessment of supplier/dealer quality performance additionally favours buying organisation to scrutinize the losses and profits associated with its manufacturing. So no further cost analysis and calculations are needed for later phases. Many companies (just like IMC) allocated more than 50 percent of the parts/components to supplier/dealers and so cost analysis related to supplier/dealer quality assessment helps them in analysing their financial outcomes (Robinson & Malhotra, 2005, 35-43).
There are few obstacles a purchaser could face regarding the implementation of the planned methodology. Some of them are as follows,
* Overall technology level of production in the market: If the technology level of general manufacturing industry in the market is not sufficient then purchaser nor supplier/dealer can execute the proposed SQAE methodology. It also relies on the level of the products under use in the market.
* Location of Supplier/dealers: Physical space matters a lot regarding communication and execution of business strategies. If supplier/dealer is remotely distanced then it’s not simple to do all surveys and audits related to SQAE. One has to rely on the data and reports that could be presented in any shape and any state by supplier/dealers.
* Small Sized Manufacturing Organisations: The proposed SQAE methodology requires long period of time, big effort and sufficient manpower to be applied and is not feasible for small sized companies who cannot manage to put up efforts to analyse quality/standard. Such companies must utilise third party assessors or simpler methods to assess Supplier/dealer Quality (Cateora & Graham, 2002, 45-61).
* This proposed SQAE methodology is most suitable for the Assemblers and automotive production companies. Such organisations deal with a huge number of components to produce the final product and their supplier/dealer foundation is immense as well. They relies a lot on their supplier/dealer to basically maintain the good level of quality and so needs to assess supplier/dealer with rigour and concern (Robinson & Malhotra, 2005, 35-43).
The research completed for this thesis fundamentally encompasses around automotive industry, considered as one of the chief branches of manufacturing. However, it is applicable for other industries like aerospace most significantly that has greater depth of supply chain and where performance with regard to quality/standard is more than essential to survive. Data rendered by the pilot organisation (Suzuki) basically consists of quality reports and different layouts, not in the shape of proper documentation that means that Suzuki has not gotten a appropriate team for evaluating Supplier/dealer Quality and not a lasting department/section performs SQAE but what reflects is that Suzuki considers SQAE a secondary operation of Supplier/dealer Evaluation/assessment as Quality department just involves in examination and not in the detailed assessment of supplier/dealer capability with regard to quality/standard (Cateora & Graham, 2002, 45-61).
However, literary practices are very sturdy in terms of conventional quality evaluation tools and methodologies but if one explicitly analyse the Suzuki_SQAE system then he/she would conclude that Suzuki is still following every bit of authentic methods and principles to assess supply product quality but yet does lack in setting up a proper methodology, planning and execution system. This research fundamentally capitalises on this weakness of the SQAE system and tries to deal with small issues related to planning-management of SQAE and its harmonization with the technical quality issues.
Any methodology, when implemented, requirements to be worked with unadulterated purposes to attain the purposes associated with it. Ideas like Conditional Acceptance looks appropriate to contain any problem that it seems it cannot be resolved but open the gate for many disagreements, misunderstandings and issues concerning quality/standard, that is certainly an inflexible phenomena and must be regarded with entire grip, not to be left with disadvantages or gaps, that is what the proposed Methodology addresses in this dissertation.
Analysis done in this research based on the reports and data based on total manufacturing and value progress reports. One would smoothly examine that Suzuki has been facing lot of troublesome issues related to trader quality yet they seem applying a particular method but without any proper practical managerial approach. This is what given value in setting up the prospective methodology in this dissertation (Robinson & Malhotra, 2005, 35-43).
Supplier/dealer Quality Assurance seems to be more of a secondary activity, in view of the elevating competition both in international and domestic markets. Thorough research work has been put up recently and its one of the major topics in view of manufacturing studies (Robinson & Malhotra, 2005, 35-43).
Further investigation may be done in view of this dissertation, based on following aspects of SQAE.
– Quality/standard Planning to support Supplier/dealer Quality Development.
– Examination techniques and reporting related to supply components.
– Supplier/dealer-Purchaser relationship- Role in Managing Quality of the resulting product.
– Supplier/dealer Quality Audit methodology.
– SQAE for procedure and retail industry.
– Setting of Standards and needs for Supply Products Evaluation/assessment.
– Statistical ways for SQAE etc.
Aaker, D. A. (2004). Brand Portfolio Strategy: Creating Relevance, Differentiation, Energy, Leverage, and Clarity. pp 137-140.
2. Bailey & Jones. (2005). Purchasing Principles and Management, 9th edition. Pp 22-35.
3. Balakrishnan, N.T. (1997). Simple system for evaluation of sub-contractor performancem, Paper: National Electronic Packaging and Production Conference-Proceedings of the Technical Program (West and East), volume 2, 1997, Pages. 754-753.
4. Balakrishnan, N.T. (1997). Simple system for evaluation of sub-contractor performancem, Paper: National Electronic Packaging and Production Conference-Proceedings of the Technical Program (West and East), volume 2, 1997, pp. 754-753.
5. Benito, J. &Dale, B. (2001). Supplier quality and reliability assurance practices in the Spanish auto components industry: a study of implementation issues. University of Salamanca, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Journal: European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, issue, 7 (2001), pp. 189-195.
6. Bhote, K. R. (1992). Most vendor certification methods are trivial, (Motorola, Inc) Paper: Annual Quality Congress Transactions, volume forty six, pp. 231-235.
Cateora, Philip R. and Graham, John L. (2002) International Marketing, Eleventh Edition. London, McGraw-Hill. Pp 45-61.
8. Chisnall, M. (1997) Marketing Research .5th ed. UK Mc-Graw hill publishing company.
9. Churchill,G. Iacobucci D (2002) Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. 8th ed. USA: South Western. p.199
Cram, T. (2001). Customers That Count: How to Build Living Relationships with Your Most Valuable Customers, The Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Cunningham, P. (2003) ‘The Textbooks of Philip Kotler: Their Role in Defining Marketing Thought and Practice’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31(2): 202-214.
Dando, Yasuharu. The Japanese Automobile Industry Does Not Bring the World Happiness (June 2005) (Japanese edition:April 2005). https://dandoweb.com/e/auto2nd.html
de Chernatony, Leslie. (2001). From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: Strategically Building and Sustaining Brands. Pp 3 & 4
de Chernatony, Leslie. (2001). From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: Strategically Building and Sustaining Brands. Pp 3 & 4
15. Dobler, D. W. & Burt, D. N. (1990). Purchasing and Supply Management, text and cases, Fifth ed., 22-35.
Dorgan, S., & Dowdy, J. 2002, How good management raises productivity. The McKinsey Quarterly, 14. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from Infotrac database.
Dorgan, S., & Dowdy, J. 2002, How good management raises productivity. The McKinsey Quarterly, 14. Retrieved October 25, 2002, from Infotrac database.
Egan, J. (2002) Relationship marketing: Exploring relational strategies in marketing, 2nd edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Pp 45-49.
19. ElMaraghy, H. A. (2004). Integrated examination and machining for maximum conformance to design tolerances, (Industrial. /Mfg. Systems Engineering, University of Windsor); Barari, A.; Knopf, G.K. Source: CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, volume fifty three, number-one, Pages. 412-415.
Fankel, R. (2002) Fresh ways to connect with consumers, Brandweek, Vol. 44 Issue 2, pp.24-29.
21. Feigenbaum, A. Total Quality Control, 3rd ed., 22-33.
22. Flynn, B.B. & Flynn, E.J. (2005). Synergies between supply chain management and quality management emerging implications, International Jorunal of Production Research, August 2005. pp 23-28.
23. Ghauri, P. and Cromhaug, K. (2002) Research methods in business studies – A Practical Guide, 2nd Edition, London: Pearson Education Limited. 34-40.
24. Golder, P. (2000) ‘Historical Method in Marketing Research with New Evidence on Long-term Market Share Stability’, Journal of Marketing Research 37 (May): 157-171.
Govt attaches high importance to auto industry: PM, daily Times (Wednesday, February 07, 2007). https://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C02%5C07%5Cstory_7-2-2007_pg5_3
Graham, J. (2001) If there’s no brand, there’s no business, Canadian Manager, Vol. 26 Issue 1, pp. 24-29.
27. Gunal, K. (2000). Supply-Chain Analysis at Volkswagen of America, Interfaces 30; July-August. Pp 28-35.
28. Hahn, C., Watts, C. and Kim, K. (1990). The Supplier development Program: A Conceptual Model. Journal: Journal of purchasing materials Management, (1990) Vol. twenty six. No.two, spring, pages. 3-7.
Hair, J. F., Bush, R.P. and Ortinau, D. J. (2000). Marketing Research: A Practical Approach for the New Millennium. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Pp 34-37.
Hair, J. F., Bush, R.P. and Ortinau, D. J. (2000). Marketing Research: A Practical Approach for the New Millennium. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Pp 36-39.
Holt, D. (2004). How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding, Harvard Business School Press pp 132-135.
32. Howe, R., Gaeddert, D. & Howe, M. (1995). Quality on Trial: Bringing Bottom Line Accountability to the Quality Effort. Second edition, 1995, McGraw Hill, Inc.
Jones, D.G.B. and Shaw, E.H. (2002) ‘A History of Marketing Thought’, in B.A. Weitz and R. Wensley (eds) Handbook of Marketing, pp. 40-67. London: Sage. Pp 35-45.
Jones, D.G.B. and Shaw, E.H. (2002) ‘A History of Marketing Thought’, in B.A. Weitz and R. Wensley (eds) Handbook of Marketing, pp. 40-65. London: Sage.
35. Juran, J.M. & Frank M. Gryna, F.M. (1993). Quality Planning and Analysis, 3rd ed., 1993, McGraw Hill. Pp 45-93.
Kotler, P. et al. (1999) Principles of Marketing, 2nd Edition, Europe: Prentice Hall.p.326
Kotler. 1979. “A Critical Assessment of Marketing Theory and Practice.” In Diffusing Marketing Theory and Research: The Contributions of Bauer,Green, Kotler, and Levitt. Eds. Alan R. Andreasen and David M. Gardner. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1-15.
38. Lewis, P .Saunders, M. Thornhill.A 2003 Research Methods For Business Students: deciding on the research approach and choosing a research strategy. 3rd ed, 4th ed. London: Prentice Hall International
39. Lloyd, N. (1984). Quality, Reliability and Process Improvement, Enrick, 7th ed. Pp 45-73.
40. Malhotra ,N (2004) Marketing research: introduction to marketing research, research design, causal research design, 4th ed . New Jersey: Pearson Education Limited.
41. Motwani, J., Youssef, M., Kathawala, Y. & Futch, E. (1999). Grand Valley State, Eastern Illinois University and Norfolk State University, USA. Journal: Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 10/3, (1999), MCB University Press. pages. 155-160.
42. Naresh K. Malhotra, David F. Birks (2003) Marketing Research ‘An Applied Approach’ Second edition, Prentice Hall, UK.
PAMA (Pakistan Automotive Manufacturers Association) 2007. https://www.pama.org.pk/investmentnemployement.htm
44. Proctor T. (2003) Essential of marketing research: the nature of marketing research, sampling, questionnaires .3rded. London: Prentice Hall International.
45. Robinson, C. & Malhotra, M. (2005). Defining the concept of supply chain quality management and its relevance to academic and industrial practice, International Journal of Production and Economics, 96, 2005. 35-43.
46. Russell, J.P., Quality management benchmark assessment. Columbia Quality, Journal: Quality Progress, volume 28, number 5-May 1995, and pp. 58-60. Published by ASQC
47. Schuurman. F. (1984). Selection of Supplier, Journal: Quality Assurance, volume ten, number 4- Dec 1984, pages. 96-99. Conference: World Quality Congress, June 19-21.
48. Schuurman. F. (1984). Selection of Supplier, Journal: Quality Assurance, volume 10, number 4- Dec 1984, pp. 96-99. Conference: World Quality Congress.
49. Springer, K. J. (1994). Purchasing partnership: essential to continuous quality improvement, (Southwest Research Inst) Paper: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 94-ICE-9, 1994, pp. 2-5.
50. Swift, K. & J.D. Booker, J. (1996). Engineering for Conformance, University of Hull. Journal: the TQM Magazine Volume 8-Number 3-1996 pages 55-59. MCB University Press.
51. Swift, K.G. & Booker, J.D. (1996). Engineering for Conformance, University of Hull. Journal: the TQM Magazine Volume 8-Number 3-1996-pp 54-60. MCB University Press.
Terpstra, V. and Sarathy, R. (2000). International Marketing, Eight Edition. U.S.A. The Dryden press. Pp 22-28.
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 68(1): 2-16.
54. Wolfe, J. (2002). Steel supplier evaluation techniques to assure bearing performance, (Bearing Materials and Metallurgy, Timken Company, Timken Research) Journal: ASTM Special Technical Publication, number 1419- 2002, pp. 139-146. Pub: American Society for testing and Materials.
55. Wolfe, J. (2002). Steel supplier evaluation techniques to assure bearing performance, (Bearing Materials and Metallurgy, Timken Company, Timken Research) Journal: ASTM Special Technical Publication, number 1419- 2002, pp. 137-146. Pub: American Society for testing and Materials.
Yadin, D. (2001). Creative Marketing Communications, 3rd edition, Kogan Page, 15-21.
Yadin, D. 2001, Creative Marketing Communications, 3rd edition, Kogan Page, 16-20.
A professional writer will make a clear, mistake-free paper for you!Get help with your assigment
Please check your inbox
I'm Chatbot Amy :)
I can help you save hours on your homework. Let's start by finding a writer.Find Writer