Annotated Bibliography On Juvenile Crimes Essay - 1353 Words

Attention Step Attention Pathos TIA/Relevancy Credibility Thesis Statement/ Preview of main points INTRODUCTION I. How would you feel if your sister, brother, mom, dad, or anyone close to you were harmed in anyway? How would you feel if you knew the person who committed the crime was a juvenile? II. From an online article published by KARE11 News station, in October in 2016, a 17-year-old boy decided to commit murder to a man and a harmless 7-month-old baby without even thinking. III. We all know there is crime happening among us. Did you ever think that the ones committing the crimes were as young as 10 years old? IV. Over the past few weeks, I have extensively researched juvenile crimes committed in the United States and those crimes committed closer to home, such as here in Indianapolis Indiana. By the end of my speech, I will ask you to come up and take a brochure on juvenile reform. V. Today I will persuade you to take action on the issue of juvenile crimes by explaining why it is a problem, that there is a solution, and the benefits of adopting this solution. Title slide Eye contact Loud voice Calm Pause Main Point 1- Need Step Casual Reasoning Support: Br. Ex. Support: Stats Support: Visual BODY I. Many risk factors tie into juveniles committing crimes and these crimes contribute to the national statistics in the UnitedShow MoreRelatedAnnotated Bibliography On Juvenile Crime And Sentencing1510 Words   |  7 Pages Skip Hollandsworth candidly explores the subjects of juvenile crime and sentencing in the electronic long form newspaper article, â€Å"The Prisoner†. The purpose of the essay is to inform the reader about juvenile sentencing and to persuade the audience that there are clear problems with aspects of the U.S. prison system. The article is easily accessible to a large audience because it is online. Hollandsworth takes into account that his audience, mostly consisting of Texas Monthly readers, may alreadyRead MoreAnnotated Bibliography On Juvenile Offenders950 Words   |  4 PagesAnnotated Bibliography 1. JUVENILE TRANSFER TO ADULT COURTS A Look at the Prototypes for Dangerousness, Sophistication-Maturity, and Amenability to Treatment Through A Legal Lens http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/journals/law/8/4/373.html In transferring, a juvenile to adult court there is a certain amount of criteria that needs to be followed. The first criteria is if the juvenile is dangerous to the community, the maturity of the offender, and the psychology findings of the offenderRead MoreIs the Death Penalty an Effective Deterrent?1677 Words   |  7 PagesIs the Death Penalty an Effective Deterrent? Annotated Bibliography PS 223 Forensic Psychology I Research Question: Is the Death Penalty an Effective Deterrent? Honeyman, J. C., Ogloff, J. P. (1996). Capital punishment: Arguments for life and death. Canadian Journal Of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 28(1), 27-35. The main purpose of this article was to investigate the effects of the death penalty and theRead MoreEssay about Juveniles Must Accept Responsibility2061 Words   |  9 PagesJuveniles Must Accept Responsibility Are juveniles as under control today as they were in the past? Crime plays a major role in today’s society. The government follows the policy and has always followed the policy that no crime goes unpunished. The controversy that surrounds the United States courtrooms today is whether or not a minor needs to stand trial as an adult for committing a serious offense. These decisions made by the judge or jury in the preliminary hearing affect the rest of theRead MoreAnnotated Bibliography On Crime And Justice1538 Words   |  7 PagesAnnotated Bibliography on Crime and Justice Crime may simply be referred to as an offense against the state or against morality and is punishable by law, while justice is the fairness practiced during judgment of cases usually in instances where crime has taken place. Crime and justice go hand in hand as commonly evident in a case whereby a criminal is apprehended and taken to a court of law, then a ruling of justice practiced on the case and fairness used in passing of judgments. In most governmentsRead MoreEssay on Recidivism: Prison and Correctional Education1812 Words   |  8 PagesABSTRACT As a result of tough on crime policies and the subsequent war on drugs, the number of individuals involved with criminal justice system continues to rise at alarming rates. Since 1980, the incarceration rate has tripled. 1 in 20 Americans will spend time in prison during their lifespan. The numbers speaks for themselves. Currently there are an estimated 2 million people in U.S. federal and state prisons. Given the unprecedented rise of individuals now involved with the American criminalRead MoreChild Shift1748 Words   |  7 Pagesdevelopment of Jamaican children? Tentative Thesis Child shifting strongly impairs the psycho-social development of Jamaican children which causes their inability to function normally during daily social and psychological situations. â€Æ' Annotated Bibliography Braver, S. L., Ellman, I. M., Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Relocation of children after divorce and children’s best interests: New evidence and legal considerations. 17 (2), 206-219. Arizona State University University of California. The articleRead MoreSpanking Your Children Is Wrong !1554 Words   |  7 Pagestemper or their reactions to children doing things children do. In statistics gathered by the Ark of Hope for Children, â€Å"8% increase arrest rate for violent crimes, 84% of all prison inmates had been abused as a child, 59% more likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 28% more likely to be arrested as an adult, 30% more likely to commit violent crime, 65%+ of people in treatment for drug abuse have been maltreated as a child, 25% less likely to practice safe sex, putting them at a greater risk for STD sRead MoreThe Rock And Roll And Juvenile Delinquency3326 Words   |  14 Pages 1950’s Rock and Roll and Juvenile Delinquency Zachary B. Sandefur Texas State University â€Æ' The 1950’s, a time of growth, a time of a technological advancement, a time of a new culture, this was America. Post WWII America was full of joy, full of ambition and overflowing talent that helped develop an amazing period in American history. One important outcome of this decade was the birth of Rock and Roll. Rock and Roll was new, it was hip, but it was also frowned upon by many of the adultRead MoreInvestigation Of Criminal Justice And Corrections1539 Words   |  7 Pagesresearch criminal justice for days as there are so many articles that range from juvenile criminal justice to the flaws that the criminal justice system has. While doing research for this paper I used the university library to search for articles about my career field of criminal justice. There were numerous articles to choose from but I was able to narrow it down to ten articles that were needed for my annotated bibliography. While researching articles, I was able to look at peer reviewed articles

Book Review Indians in American History by Harlan...

Running Head: Indians in American History Indians in American History Introduction We often wonder that how exactly a country becomes a super power but when we go back in time and go through our history we see that how the super power like America has broken the rights of the people and suppress them to come this far where now it is trying to promote peace by solving problems and disputes between countries all across the globe. Harlan Davidson published the book Indian in American History second edition by Frederick Hoxie and Peter Iverson in March 1998. This book speaks the language of American Indians and is a historical guide about the Indian Americans. It is not just an ordinary textbook published to be taught in regular history classes but it is something more than that as it is on of those books that rarely speaks about the ground realities suffering and pain that Indian Americans had to face inside their own native soil. This book tell us that how the Native Indians were driven out in a most irritating manner from a multi point of view and how they were trie d to be limited by the Americans and then later wiped off. Purpose of the book Indians in American History, an introduction takes us back into the lives of Native American Indians in form of fourteen different short essays. The book contains theoretical and artistic bits of work from well-known authors who also tell and share their point of view as to how they felt about the whole process through which theShow MoreRelatedOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 PagesBrier, and Roy Rosenzweig Also in this series: Paula Hamilton and Linda Shopes, eds., Oral History and Public Memories Tiffany Ruby Patterson, Zora Neale Hurston and a History of Southern Life Lisa M. Fine, The Story of Reo Joe: Work, Kin, and Community in Autotown, U.S.A. Van Gosse and Richard Moser, eds., The World the Sixties Made: Politics and Culture in Recent America Joanne Meyerowitz, ed., History and September 11th John McMillian and Paul Buhle, eds., The New Left Revisited David M

An Effective Tool for Better Management

Questions: Define manufacturing overhead, and: Cite three examples of typical costs that would be included in manufacturing overhead. Explain why companies develop predetermined overhead rates. Explain why the increase in the overhead rate should not have a negative financial impact on Borealis Manufacturing. Explain how Borealis Manufacturing could change its overhead application system to eliminate confusion over product costs. Describe how an activity-based costing system might benefit Borealis Manufacturing.? Answers: Borealis Manufacturing was previously using QC inspectors for quality control process. The QC inspectors were appointed at each major process and there were a total of 10 inspectors. The salary being paid to the inspectors was charged to the operation as direct labour. However, in order to increase efficiency and quality, the company introduced a computerized video QC system at a cost of $250000. There were 2 QC engineer appointed to operate the cameras. The operating costs of the new QC system and the salary of the two QC engineers is included in the factory overhead in order to calculate the companys manufacturing overhead rate which is based on direct labour. The Vice President of production is worried as the overhead rate has increased after the execution of new QC system. The manufacturing overhead and the overhead rate before and after are as below: Before After Budgeted Manufacturing Overhead 1900000 2100000 Budgeted Direct Labour Cost 1000000 700000 Budgeted Overhead rate 190% 300% Manufacturing Overhead also known as Factory Overhead can be defined as the indirect costs which are incurred in the production of a product along with direct material and direct labour. The manufacturing overhead costs should be assigned to each unit produced so that the cost of goods sold and the inventory can be valued and reported as per the generally accepted principles (GAAP). There are also non manufacturing costs like selling and administrative expenses which are incurred during the course of the business, but these costs are presented in the Income Statement as expenses represent a part of the total cost. They are not assigned to the product for inventory and COGS purposes. There are many costs which form a part of the manufacturing overhead, however three types of costs that will typically be included in production include: Salaries and wages of people involved in inspection of the product, maintenance of the equipment, cleanliness of the manufacturing area, material handling, setting up the manufacturing equipment and the factory management team. Depreciation on the plants and equipments and the facilities used in production Electricity, water, natural gas costs incurred in the production facilities and equipment. A pre- determined overhead rate is the allocation rate which is used by the company to allocate the estimated manufacturing overhead costs to each unit of product for a specified reporting period. The rate is used so that the accounting books can be closed quickly since a lot of time will be wasted in compiling the actual manufacturing overhead and allocating the same. The predetermined rate can be computed as follows: Estimated amount of manufacturing overhead for the period Estimated allocation base for the period There are two bases which can be used for determining the pre determined overhead rate which are Machine Hours and Labour Hours. Machine and labours are directly involved in production of goods and hence it can be identified as to how many hours are required by the machine to produce a part or the time taken by the labour to assemble a part of the machinery. The pre determined overhead rate can be used to allocate the resources available to a company and therefore help in setting of the prices of the product. The overhead rate helps in allocating manufacturing overheads to a particular product. The total manufacturing overhead will be allocated to all the products on basis of overhead rate. No matter how much cost is allocated to which product, the total manufacturing overhead will remain the same and will be reported as the inventory and the cost of goods sold in the financial statements. These amounts will be reasonably correct. Moreover, as long as the factory overhead appears in the financial statements as the cost of goods sold, the financial statements will be accurate and will receive a clean audit report. E.g. in the above case, the total manufacturing costs before the installation of the new system is $1900000 allocated to the products produced by Borealis on the basis of direct labour cost. Even when the manufacturing overhead has increased to $2100000, the same will be allocated on the basis of labour cost. Since the overhead rate is higher in the new system, a product requirin g more labour will be allocated higher manufacturing overhead. However, the total manufacturing overhead as reported in the financial statements in the form of cost of goods sold will remain $2100000, thereby not affecting the financial statements. In order to avoid confusion over the apportionment of indirect costs to the products, Borealis Manufacturing can look at changing its costing system to make it more efficient and appropriate. Currently, the direct labour cost is the allocation base for manufacturing overhead allocation. After installation of the new system, the direct labour cost has gone down from $1000000 to $700000, and the manufacturing overhead as increased from $190000 to $2100000, thus increasing the overhead absorption rate to 300% from 190%. Hence, a product/process requiring more labour will be allocated higher manufacturing overhead even if the product/process does not form a major part of the total production or process of the company. Thus, the allocation might be inappropriate. In order, to remove the inefficiency in resource allocation, Borealis should adopt a costing method which allocates the overhead costs in a more logical manner and not purely on the basis of direct labour cost. Currently there may be products which require higher machine hours and the machine hour rate may be more than the direct labour cost rate. So the products with more machine hours and less labour hours will be allocated lower overhead cost since the overhead rate is based on direct labour cost. Whereas, in terms of costs, more costs are being incurred for the said product. Hence, in order to eliminate this flaw of assigning manufacturing overhead costs on the basis of only one particular basis like machine hours or labour hours/cost is incorrect, a better way of cost apportionment would be through Activity Based Costing (ABC) which takes into consideration the reason for the incurring of the manufacturing overhead i.e. which activity is causing the overhead to incur and then it assigns the costs to the products which demand the most of those activities, thus making the allocation more logical. Activity Based Costing is a two process system where the overhead costs are assigned to the activities in the first stage and then the costs are allocated from these activities to the products in the second stage. The basic assumption in ABC costing is that the overhead costs are incurred due to a number of activities and the different products use these activities in a non- homogenous manner. Thus there may be some activities which are more expensive than the other. A product which uses most of the expensive activity will be assigned higher overhead costs. The various steps involved in Activity Based Costing are as follows: Identification of all activities involved in the process of production Classification of the activity on the basis of cost hierarchy Identification of the total costs for every activity identified Identification of the cost drivers for each activity Estimation of the total units of the cost drivers relevant for each activity Calculation of the activity usage rate by dividing the activity cost per unit by the relevant cost driver Apportionment of the cost of each activity to the product based on the activity rate. In the above case of Borealis, the various activities and the relevant cost drivers to that activity could include: Activity Relevant Cost Driver Production of parts Number of machine hours Assembly of parts Number of labour hours Set up costs Number of set ups Product testing Number of testing hours Designing Number of designer hours Differences in the units Number of differences Packaging Number of units Shipping Number of units Rent Labour cost Many organisations have adopted the ABC costing method of resource allocation as it is more appropriate and logical; however, the system has its own limitations which may hold the company from implementing the system: Expensive implementation the implementation of ABC costing is very expensive and time consuming as it involves breaking down the process into various activities. It can lead to using of company resources as data is collected and entered in the system. Use of software for ABC, appointment of a specialised consultant and training of the employees are other costs of introducing ABC costing. Misinterpretation of Data the accounting standards accept the traditional costing and not the activity based costing. Hence, interpreting the ABC cost allocation with the regular accounting information can lead to misleading and bad decision making. However, the benefits of ABC costing are more as compared to the limitations and a company should use software to integrate its information with the regular cost accounting information. References Mahal, I., Hossain, A., (2015), Activity Based Costing (ABC) An Effective Tool for Better Management, Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, Vol. 6, No.4 Anderson, R., Steven, and Kalpan, (2003), Time Driven Activity Based Costing Joan, M., (2009), Traditional Versus Activity-Based Product Costing Methods: a field study in a Defense Electronics Manufacturing Company, Proceedings from ASBBS Annual Conference Roztocki, N., Schultz, S.M., (2003), Adoption and Implementation of Activtiy- Based Costing: A Web Based Survey, State University of New York at New Paltz School of business

Supplier Rating System Essay Example

Supplier Rating System Essay Supplier Rating System Supplier Rating System Supplier Manual Presented by Admiral Tool Manufacturing Purchasing and Quality WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 1 Supplier Rating System Table of Contents Introduction Scoring Criteria Rejected Parts Per Million Scoring Criteria Quality Notices / Written Complaints Scoring Criteria Delivery Scoring Criteria Service / Responsiveness Minimum Expectations Corrective Action Process Scorecard Example Trend, Pareto, and Paynter Charts example 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 15 WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 2 Supplier Rating System Introduction Admiral Tool Manufacturing has become an independent supplier of automotive steering column systems by dedication to customer satisfaction through continuous improvement as well as the exceptional support and ingenuity from our valued suppliers. The supplier relationship is our key to success, and continued success will rely on effective communication with suppliers to meet and exceed our customer’s expectations. To improve our communication and performance with suppliers, Admiral Tool Manufacturing has established the Supplier Rating System using the Report ard as a vehicle to provide feedback to our suppliers on their performance. This feedback will focus on quality (rejected parts per million), delivery, service, and quality notices/written complaints. Supplier performance will be evaluated each quarter with a maximum of 100 points available. The distribution and calculations of these points are explained in detail in the pages to follo w. The Report cards will be distributed the 2nd week of each quarter evaluating the prior three month’s performance. We will write a custom essay sample on Supplier Rating System specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Supplier Rating System specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Supplier Rating System specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The Report cards will be printed and distributed from our manufacturing facility located in Livonia, MI. As a current supplier to the automotive industry, Admiral Tool Manufacturing believes you are well aware of the efforts to improve supplier performance in these areas and reduce the cost of developing and supplying parts/systems to our customers. We hope that the information provided to you will be beneficial and communicate our expectations for continuous improvements. WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 3 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Rejected Parts Per Million (RPPM) The RPPM category accounts for 30 points of the overall Scorecard rating. Supplier RPPM (rejected parts per million) is calculated on the basis of the amount of non-conforming materials versus the total amount of materials received in a given fiscal month. This calculation is then normalized to reflect a constant basis of one million units received. Example: A Supplier ships 100,000 parts to a plant, of those 7 are found to be nonconforming. The Scorecard calculation will be (7/100,000) x 1,000,000 = 70 RPPM’s. The Supplier’s score for this example will be 12 points. The following table outlines parts per million ranges and their respective scores: RPPM Rating 0 – 25 26 – 30 31 – 35 36 – 40 41 – 45 46 – 50 51 – 55 56 – 60 61 – 65 66 – 70 71 – 75 76 – 80 81 – 85 86 – 90 91 – 95 96 100 Score 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 4 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Quality Notices/Written Complaints The Quality Notices/Written Complaint category accounts for 20 points of the overall Scorecard. The system rates Suppliers on the number of formal rejection notices or written complaints and the severity of each complaint with the following formula. The number of occurrences per classification code) x (severity index) Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Engineering issues Minor issues Repeat Minor issues Major issues Severe issues 0. 00 0. 10 0. 25 0. 50 1. 00 points per occurrence point s per occurrence points per occurrence points per occurrence points per occurrence Example: A Supplier receives one written complaint in Level 1, two written complaints in level 2. The total number of points will be calculated as (1 x 0. 1) + (2 x 0. 25) = 0. 60 total. The Supplier’s score in this example will be 9 points (see table on next page). The following table outlines the quality notice rating ranges and their respective scores: WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 5 Supplier Rating System Total Quality Notice Rating Points 0. 00 0. 05 0. 06 0. 10 0. 11 0. 15 0. 16 0. 20 0. 21 0. 25 0. 26 0. 30 0. 31 0. 35 0. 36 0. 40 0. 41 0. 45 0. 46 0. 50 0. 51 0. 55 0. 56 0. 60 0. 61 0. 65 0. 66 0. 70 0. 71 0. 75 0. 76 0. 80 0. 81 0. 85 0. 86 0. 90 0. 91 0. 95 0. 96 1. 00 1. 01 1. 05 Score 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 6 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Delivery The Delivery category accounts for 30 points of the overall Scorecard. Delivery ratings are calculated on the basis of the amount of shipments that have errors versus the total amount of shipments in a given fiscal month. This information is then calculated into a percentage. Delivery ratings are determined on the occurrence of the following criteria only when it is determined to be the Supplier’s responsibility: †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Late deliveries Premium freight occurrences Damaged parts Over shipment of the quantity ordered Early deliveries Short shipment of the quantity ordered The potential for more than one occurrence per shipment does exist. If no shipments are received in the given month, a notation will appear on your Scorecard in the comment section. The system automatically calculates the delivery percentage and associated points based on the following formula: Delivery % = [(total shipments number of occurrences) / total shipments] x 100 Example: A Supplier sends 36 shipments for the month, of those 36 shipments, 1 shipment is late, and 1 shipment is short of the quantity ordered. This counts as 2 occurrences. The delivery percentage calculation will be [(36-2) / 36] x 100 = 94. 4 %. The Supplier’s score for this example will be 18 points. WI-PU-06-002 7 Supplier Rating System The following table outlines the delivery percentages and their respective scores: Delivery Occurrence Percentage 100 99. 6 – 99. 9 98. 6 – 99. 5 97. 6 – 98. 5 96. 6 – 97. 5 95. 6 – 96. 5 94. 6 – 95. 5 93. 6 – 94. 4 92. 6 – 93. 5 91. 6 – 92. 5 90. 6 – 91. 5 89. 6 – 90. 5 88. 6 – 89. 5 87. 6 – 88. 5 86. 6 – 87. 5 85. 6 – 86. 5 85. 5 Or less Score 30 29 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WI-PU-06-002 8 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Service/Responsiveness The Service/Responsiveness category accounts for 20 points of the overall Scorecard. Service ratings are determined on the basis of the following criteria: †¢ †¢ †¢ On time and accurate Production Part Approval Process (PPAP), as required On time and accurate response to quality issues, including corrective action reports (8D) On time and accurate documentation, as required by each location. (Including, but not limited to; SPC, certifications, invoices, packing slips, etc. Example: A Supplier fails to submit on time for the latest engineering level in the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP). The Supplier’s score for this example is 16 points. The following table outlines the service/responsiveness occurrences and their respective scores: Service Incidences 0 1 2 3 4 5 or greater Score 20 16 12 8 4 0 Note: This category can be used at the discretion of the manufacturing facility to cover situations of severe nature. (i. e. shutting the manufacturing or customer plant down). WI-PU-06-002 9 Supplier Rating System Minimum Expectations In the Delivery category: The minimum expectation is 98 % (26 points out of the 30 possible. ) In the combined categories of Delivery and RPPM’s: The minimum expectation is 85 %, (combined total of 51 points out of 60 possible). Corrective Actions The following will apply to Suppliers who do not meet these minimum expectations. First month Notification letters will be sent to Suppliers stating the minimum score has not been met and why. A corrective action plan may be required. Second consecutive month A second notification letter will be sent stating that the minimum score has not been met and why. A corrective action plan will be required. You will receive a follow up phone call from STA to obtain the corrective action plan. Third consecutive month The Supplier’s Senior Management will either be visited or called to Admiral Tool for a meeting regarding their performance. STA may perform an on site Quality Systems Assessment. The Supplier may be placed on probation at this time. Corrective Action plans will require the following charts: Trend, Pareto, Painter, 8-D’s and an action plan matrix. (See The Corrective Action Process on the following page. In the Competitiveness Category: Due to the uniqueness of our supply base and the products they manufacture, Admiral Tools Purchasing Manager and Quality Manager will handle each Supplier falling below the minimum expectation on a case-by-case basis. Falling below the minimum requirements may lead to the following actions: Letters indicating you are below our Competitiveness requirements Attendance at a Purchasing m eeting with upper management to discuss steps to be taken Not being awarded any future or replacement business Current work being resourced WI-PU-06-002 10 Supplier Rating System Corrective Action Process Anytime a supplier falls below the Minimum Performance levels or has trended toward performance degradation of a particular concern to Admiral Tool, the Supplier Corrective Action Process will be implemented. 1) The Supplier’s management will be contacted by either Admiral Tool’s Quality Manager or STA. 2) The Supplier will be expected to identify the nature of the failing performance verbally when contacted. This verbal response should be formally answered with a Disciplined Problem Solving Methods (i. e. 8-D), Open Issues Matrix and a Supplier letter of explanation. In the letter of explanation he supplier will be expected to clarify any discrepancies between the Problem Solving Form and the Open Issues Matrix and establish a level of commitment to resolving the poor performance. 3) The supplier will be expected to establish and maintain Management Operating System (MOS) measurable. The reporting format will consist of Trend, Pareto and Paynt er charts. These charts should be maintained weekly to record positive trends from corrective or continuous improvement activity. It will be mandatory to maintain the charts covering a minimum performance history of six months to facilitate discussion with Admiral Tool. All three charts need to be placed on a single page, as in the example attached. Formatted disks are also available from Admiral Tool STA. 4) Trend, Pareto, and Paynter charts are expected to be kept on various levels of data as described below: Internal Indicators Supplier data collected at: a) End of line inspection b) Containment inspection when applicable External Indicators Supplier data collected from the Customer: a) Rejects and defects from the Admiral facility receiving product b) Rejects and defects by a third party containment activity Data must not be mixed or combined from these different levels. Reject and defect data collection must exist on its own separate sheet, used for comparisons, analysis, and decisionmaking. 5) Suppliers will be expected to establish, maintain and provide a Systematic Problem Solving Form and Open Issues Matrices in addition to the Trend, Pareto, and Paynter charts to support and expedite any discussion with Admiral Tool. WI-PU-06-002 11 Supplier Rating System 6) In early stages of the Corrective Actions Process, the supplier must support the immediate resolution and closure of concerns with informed middle management who is empowered to make decisions. In the event of issues requiring further attention, Senior Supplier Management will be invited to meet with Purchasing and Quality to present and address all concerns. 7) Failure to meet Minimum Performance levels, or when performance trends have shown serious degradation, the supplier may be placed on probation. While on probation, restricted sourcing may apply and the need to re-source considered. 8) Data collected from the Supplier Rating System and the Corrective Action Process will be shared with Senior Management across Admiral Tool via our Worst Supplier Report, published monthly. Supplier Recognition It is the intent of Admiral Tool Manufacturing to recognize and reward our very best Suppliers. The Supplier Rating System and the Best Supplier Report provides the means to analyze and identify our very best performers within a system driven by data. Currently several recognition proposals are under review, though not available at this time of publishing. A separate addendum will follow describing in detail the Admiral Too Manufacturing Performance Recognition Program. Supplier Rating System Essay Example Supplier Rating System Essay Supplier Rating System Supplier Rating System Supplier Manual Presented by Admiral Tool Manufacturing Purchasing and Quality WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 1 Supplier Rating System Table of Contents Introduction Scoring Criteria Rejected Parts Per Million Scoring Criteria Quality Notices / Written Complaints Scoring Criteria Delivery Scoring Criteria Service / Responsiveness Minimum Expectations Corrective Action Process Scorecard Example Trend, Pareto, and Paynter Charts example 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 15 WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 2 Supplier Rating System Introduction Admiral Tool Manufacturing has become an independent supplier of automotive steering column systems by dedication to customer satisfaction through continuous improvement as well as the exceptional support and ingenuity from our valued suppliers. The supplier relationship is our key to success, and continued success will rely on effective communication with suppliers to meet and exceed our customer’s expectations. To improve our communication and performance with suppliers, Admiral Tool Manufacturing has established the Supplier Rating System using the Report ard as a vehicle to provide feedback to our suppliers on their performance. This feedback will focus on quality (rejected parts per million), delivery, service, and quality notices/written complaints. Supplier performance will be evaluated each quarter with a maximum of 100 points available. The distribution and calculations of these points are explained in detail in the pages to follo w. The Report cards will be distributed the 2nd week of each quarter evaluating the prior three month’s performance. We will write a custom essay sample on Supplier Rating System specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Supplier Rating System specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Supplier Rating System specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The Report cards will be printed and distributed from our manufacturing facility located in Livonia, MI. As a current supplier to the automotive industry, Admiral Tool Manufacturing believes you are well aware of the efforts to improve supplier performance in these areas and reduce the cost of developing and supplying parts/systems to our customers. We hope that the information provided to you will be beneficial and communicate our expectations for continuous improvements. WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 3 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Rejected Parts Per Million (RPPM) The RPPM category accounts for 30 points of the overall Scorecard rating. Supplier RPPM (rejected parts per million) is calculated on the basis of the amount of non-conforming materials versus the total amount of materials received in a given fiscal month. This calculation is then normalized to reflect a constant basis of one million units received. Example: A Supplier ships 100,000 parts to a plant, of those 7 are found to be nonconforming. The Scorecard calculation will be (7/100,000) x 1,000,000 = 70 RPPM’s. The Supplier’s score for this example will be 12 points. The following table outlines parts per million ranges and their respective scores: RPPM Rating 0 – 25 26 – 30 31 – 35 36 – 40 41 – 45 46 – 50 51 – 55 56 – 60 61 – 65 66 – 70 71 – 75 76 – 80 81 – 85 86 – 90 91 – 95 96 100 Score 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 4 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Quality Notices/Written Complaints The Quality Notices/Written Complaint category accounts for 20 points of the overall Scorecard. The system rates Suppliers on the number of formal rejection notices or written complaints and the severity of each complaint with the following formula. The number of occurrences per classification code) x (severity index) Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Engineering issues Minor issues Repeat Minor issues Major issues Severe issues 0. 00 0. 10 0. 25 0. 50 1. 00 points per occurrence point s per occurrence points per occurrence points per occurrence points per occurrence Example: A Supplier receives one written complaint in Level 1, two written complaints in level 2. The total number of points will be calculated as (1 x 0. 1) + (2 x 0. 25) = 0. 60 total. The Supplier’s score in this example will be 9 points (see table on next page). The following table outlines the quality notice rating ranges and their respective scores: WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 5 Supplier Rating System Total Quality Notice Rating Points 0. 00 0. 05 0. 06 0. 10 0. 11 0. 15 0. 16 0. 20 0. 21 0. 25 0. 26 0. 30 0. 31 0. 35 0. 36 0. 40 0. 41 0. 45 0. 46 0. 50 0. 51 0. 55 0. 56 0. 60 0. 61 0. 65 0. 66 0. 70 0. 71 0. 75 0. 76 0. 80 0. 81 0. 85 0. 86 0. 90 0. 91 0. 95 0. 96 1. 00 1. 01 1. 05 Score 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 WI-PU-06-002 Rev. Lev. 003 Rev. Date 02/06/2003 6 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Delivery The Delivery category accounts for 30 points of the overall Scorecard. Delivery ratings are calculated on the basis of the amount of shipments that have errors versus the total amount of shipments in a given fiscal month. This information is then calculated into a percentage. Delivery ratings are determined on the occurrence of the following criteria only when it is determined to be the Supplier’s responsibility: †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Late deliveries Premium freight occurrences Damaged parts Over shipment of the quantity ordered Early deliveries Short shipment of the quantity ordered The potential for more than one occurrence per shipment does exist. If no shipments are received in the given month, a notation will appear on your Scorecard in the comment section. The system automatically calculates the delivery percentage and associated points based on the following formula: Delivery % = [(total shipments number of occurrences) / total shipments] x 100 Example: A Supplier sends 36 shipments for the month, of those 36 shipments, 1 shipment is late, and 1 shipment is short of the quantity ordered. This counts as 2 occurrences. The delivery percentage calculation will be [(36-2) / 36] x 100 = 94. 4 %. The Supplier’s score for this example will be 18 points. WI-PU-06-002 7 Supplier Rating System The following table outlines the delivery percentages and their respective scores: Delivery Occurrence Percentage 100 99. 6 – 99. 9 98. 6 – 99. 5 97. 6 – 98. 5 96. 6 – 97. 5 95. 6 – 96. 5 94. 6 – 95. 5 93. 6 – 94. 4 92. 6 – 93. 5 91. 6 – 92. 5 90. 6 – 91. 5 89. 6 – 90. 5 88. 6 – 89. 5 87. 6 – 88. 5 86. 6 – 87. 5 85. 6 – 86. 5 85. 5 Or less Score 30 29 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 WI-PU-06-002 8 Supplier Rating System Scoring Criteria Service/Responsiveness The Service/Responsiveness category accounts for 20 points of the overall Scorecard. Service ratings are determined on the basis of the following criteria: †¢ †¢ †¢ On time and accurate Production Part Approval Process (PPAP), as required On time and accurate response to quality issues, including corrective action reports (8D) On time and accurate documentation, as required by each location. (Including, but not limited to; SPC, certifications, invoices, packing slips, etc. Example: A Supplier fails to submit on time for the latest engineering level in the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP). The Supplier’s score for this example is 16 points. The following table outlines the service/responsiveness occurrences and their respective scores: Service Incidences 0 1 2 3 4 5 or greater Score 20 16 12 8 4 0 Note: This category can be used at the discretion of the manufacturing facility to cover situations of severe nature. (i. e. shutting the manufacturing or customer plant down). WI-PU-06-002 9 Supplier Rating System Minimum Expectations In the Delivery category: The minimum expectation is 98 % (26 points out of the 30 possible. ) In the combined categories of Delivery and RPPM’s: The minimum expectation is 85 %, (combined total of 51 points out of 60 possible). Corrective Actions The following will apply to Suppliers who do not meet these minimum expectations. First month Notification letters will be sent to Suppliers stating the minimum score has not been met and why. A corrective action plan may be required. Second consecutive month A second notification letter will be sent stating that the minimum score has not been met and why. A corrective action plan will be required. You will receive a follow up phone call from STA to obtain the corrective action plan. Third consecutive month The Supplier’s Senior Management will either be visited or called to Admiral Tool for a meeting regarding their performance. STA may perform an on site Quality Systems Assessment. The Supplier may be placed on probation at this time. Corrective Action plans will require the following charts: Trend, Pareto, Painter, 8-D’s and an action plan matrix. (See The Corrective Action Process on the following page. In the Competitiveness Category: Due to the uniqueness of our supply base and the products they manufacture, Admiral Tools Purchasing Manager and Quality Manager will handle each Supplier falling below the minimum expectation on a case-by-case basis. Falling below the minimum requirements may lead to the following actions: Letters indicating you are below our Competitiveness requirements Attendance at a Purchasing m eeting with upper management to discuss steps to be taken Not being awarded any future or replacement business Current work being resourced WI-PU-06-002 10 Supplier Rating System Corrective Action Process Anytime a supplier falls below the Minimum Performance levels or has trended toward performance degradation of a particular concern to Admiral Tool, the Supplier Corrective Action Process will be implemented. 1) The Supplier’s management will be contacted by either Admiral Tool’s Quality Manager or STA. 2) The Supplier will be expected to identify the nature of the failing performance verbally when contacted. This verbal response should be formally answered with a Disciplined Problem Solving Methods (i. e. 8-D), Open Issues Matrix and a Supplier letter of explanation. In the letter of explanation he supplier will be expected to clarify any discrepancies between the Problem Solving Form and the Open Issues Matrix and establish a level of commitment to resolving the poor performance. 3) The supplier will be expected to establish and maintain Management Operating System (MOS) measurable. The reporting format will consist of Trend, Pareto and Paynt er charts. These charts should be maintained weekly to record positive trends from corrective or continuous improvement activity. It will be mandatory to maintain the charts covering a minimum performance history of six months to facilitate discussion with Admiral Tool. All three charts need to be placed on a single page, as in the example attached. Formatted disks are also available from Admiral Tool STA. 4) Trend, Pareto, and Paynter charts are expected to be kept on various levels of data as described below: Internal Indicators Supplier data collected at: a) End of line inspection b) Containment inspection when applicable External Indicators Supplier data collected from the Customer: a) Rejects and defects from the Admiral facility receiving product b) Rejects and defects by a third party containment activity Data must not be mixed or combined from these different levels. Reject and defect data collection must exist on its own separate sheet, used for comparisons, analysis, and decisionmaking. 5) Suppliers will be expected to establish, maintain and provide a Systematic Problem Solving Form and Open Issues Matrices in addition to the Trend, Pareto, and Paynter charts to support and expedite any discussion with Admiral Tool. WI-PU-06-002 11 Supplier Rating System 6) In early stages of the Corrective Actions Process, the supplier must support the immediate resolution and closure of concerns with informed middle management who is empowered to make decisions. In the event of issues requiring further attention, Senior Supplier Management will be invited to meet with Purchasing and Quality to present and address all concerns. 7) Failure to meet Minimum Performance levels, or when performance trends have shown serious degradation, the supplier may be placed on probation. While on probation, restricted sourcing may apply and the need to re-source considered. 8) Data collected from the Supplier Rating System and the Corrective Action Process will be shared with Senior Management across Admiral Tool via our Worst Supplier Report, published monthly. Supplier Recognition It is the intent of Admiral Tool Manufacturing to recognize and reward our very best Suppliers. The Supplier Rating System and the Best Supplier Report provides the means to analyze and identify our very best performers within a system driven by data. Currently several recognition proposals are under review, though not available at this time of publishing. A separate addendum will follow describing in detail the Admiral Too Manufacturing Performance Recognition Program.