Electronics contract manufacturer supplier evaluation

Contract manufacturers are numerous in number as there are easily a few thousand located on the face of the planet. And, while it's not always clear whether its best to select a contract manufacturing destination in a low-cost region, it can still be overwhelming to isolate a few, qualified contract manufacturers on a short list for OEM executives to consider further.

Below are numerous qualifications / capabilities executives might want to consider when in discussions with, and developing a criteria 'checklist' for, evaluating electronics contract manufacturing partners. While this list is fairly adequate, it certainly is not comprehensive.

A ranking, or 'weighted value', can be assigned to the level of compliance, for each degree of compliance, in each sub-category, to help executives qualify the overall degree to which a contract manufacturer meets either that specific criteria or, whether or not the contract manufacturer meets the executive's criteria considerations, overall.

As executives wade through the detail that follows, keep in mind, it's in everyone's best interest to prevent the contract manufacturing relationship from failing.

Quality system

A. ISO9001 and other product-specific regulations

1. Has no plans, no accreditation
2. Working towards approval
3. Evaluation date confirmed and registrar identified
4. Approved or meets the requirements of ISO9001, etc...and has been accredited for less than 3 years
5. Approved or meets the requirements of ISO9001, etc...and has been accredited for 3 or more years

B. Product and production document control

1. No evidence of document control
2. Formal, controlled, documentation exists, non-conformances observed
3. Formal, controlled documentation exists, NO non-conformances were observed

C. Quality system software tools

1. No quality system software in use
2. Quality system software which records defect traceability and trends in use for some areas (data available for review within 24 hours)
3. Quality system software which contains defect traceability and trends in use for all areas (data available on-line, real-time)

D. Benchmarking improvement results

1. No evidence of benchmarking
2. Pro-actively participates benchmarking industry best practices
3. Pro-actively participates benchmarking industry best practices and has records on file by production area/technology of industry best practices

E. Customer field return rate

1. Does not measure
2. Measures return rate and has established improvement goals
3. Measures return rate, has established improvement goals, and improvement plans with demonstrated results

F. Failure analysis capability (root cause analysis)

1. None
2. Contracted out
3. In-house facility

G. Quality management

1. No reviews with management occur
2. Irregular reviews of quality metrics (includes field returns) with management occur with some coverage of cycle time and on time deliveries
3. Regular reviews of quality metrics including field returns with management occur with coverage of metrics and actions plans for improvement of cycle time, on time delivery, and internal assessments

H. Management responsibilities

1. No documentation exists for responsibility, authority
2. There is an organizational chart outlining responsibilities communicated to all employees
3. There is an organizational chart outlining responsibilities included in the company quality manual
4. Responsibilities, authority of all departments/functions clearly defined (especially quality function)
5. Responsibilities, authority of all departments/functions clearly defined and mapped

    

Average rating           (1 vote) Rate this: ---Excellent!Great!GoodQuite goodNot so great