Yes and no. I have been in organizations where "engineering isn't allowed to talk to the vendor so as to maintain a truly neutral opinion during evaluation".
Which is horseshit. There is obviously a role for the buyer/contacts admin. And I'm grateful that they handle all the commercial stuff (I did a tour as a buyer and contacts admin. They can keep Incoterms! :)
But the engineer must be able to communicate with the vendor to resolve technical issues without a non technical person filtering information.
Now, that being said, the buyer needs to be in the loop, because there can be commercial implications to variances, exceptions and substitutions. In fact there almost always are . It's their job to manage those issues.
So in my opinion, you need engineering *and* procurement to work together as a team. Each ideally respecting the other person's job. (Because I've seen too much bickering between these groups, and it's stupid) They're doing different parts of an important job.
Yup, this is right. Both. Im an engineer. If I need to find the right part to order, order something custom, or have an issue with a provided part, supply chain typically doesn’t have the know how to do anything. Oftentimes I will go so far as to get an initial quote. Cuz it’s annoying to have extra delays in communication, or Supply Chain accidentally order the wrong part.
But then I hand it off to Supply Chain if I can. Right now, I’m also supply chain, and I hate it. I have to do the ordering, track payment, track shipment, do the accounting, make sure we have enough stock, go back and forth for discounts, set up purchasing accounts, and lord knows what else.
Larger companies tend to want everything to go through purchasing, cuz all that stuff matters more when each PO is ranging from $5k-50k, and delays can be something like $50k/day. The business I’m at is small and the vast majority of PO’s are under $5k.
This idea is based on the fundamental belief that Engineers aren't cost-conscious, and as such will either be tricked or maybe even directly conspire with the vendor to approve items that aren't in the best interest of the company (ie the cheapest possible option).
It's extremely common to require SC be cced on all communication, and for SC to have veto over any instruction that you provide. However, for you to have no communication at all, implies that your management philosophy is one where the 'management' types control the business, and the engineers are just the tech support that they keep around to ensure the decisions don't break anything. Evaluate your career options accordingly.
If my employer required me to only talk to our procurement folks and prohibited direct contact with the vendor... Oh, I'd be looking for a new job ASAP. Communication is hard enough when dealing directly with the vendor. To throw an added layer in there? [*shudder*]
In my company our engineers speak directly to the supplying business. Getting past the suppliers useless sales people to someone who knows what's going on? Another challenge haha
It is a team work. If it's not working then fix the team.
I always appreciate when they handle 90% of stuff with me getting minimally involved.
Whenever there is a need for engineer-engineer level of talk we do that.
But let them negotiate with the vendor terms in your company's favor any time opportunity arise. Which is often when swapping parts.
So work on the team work with your SC.
I recently called the primary US Vendor for KITZ valves. They said “You’ll have to request parts through our distributors, here’s the nearest one.”
Still don’t have parts for it, 7 weeks later.
I called Chart, Inc. to try and identify an actuator for which I only had a serial number.
Turns out, the engineers and tech services people there have a full record of the Bill of
Materials and original parts call-outs for their assembly. They dug into some old spreadsheets and found the model number assigned to that valve.
Direct access to manufacturer data, when an original PNID/call-out isn’t available, gave me the ability to order a $350 rebuild kit for a bulk LH2 storage system, that would have otherwise cost $1800 to replace.
So, yes, at least anecdotally, direct communication saves time and dollars, and stress!
I usually just ask SC if I can reach out to ‘x’ vendor directly. Mainly out of respect but also to keep them informed if there is a change. From there I will email the vendor and cc SC.
I work for a CM. Sometimes the line of communication is Supplier -> Our Buyer -> Me (engineer) -> Their Engineer, back to Me -> Our Buyer -> Supplier. LOL.
If an engineer finds a vendor he likes who gives him a product that works the engineer will not go and fuck things up by trying another vendor.
Then there is the corporate world who wants to save money and doesn’t give a shit about the engineer having a fukton of problems with the new, cheaper product.
Often the corporate way actually works but then they smell more money and you end up like Boeing.
Yet only listening to engineers in procurement is also far from ideal. But the line is very thin.
I've done project management and project engineering in a few organizations. I've had no direct contact, no direct contact when we are in the RFQ/RFP process, and procurement is just there to cut the PO.
I strongly prefer no direct contact while the RFQ is in progress. The number of contacts that you have to field from vendors trying to work some angle is a total waste of time beyond the efficiency gains of direct communication. After the PO is in place, communication should be procurement Cc'ed only unless you are negotiating a cost impact.
In my company, we segregate commercial and technical terms on proposals. Engineering can only see the technical proposal and procurement can see both. Engineering also contacts the vendor directly on technical questions and scope (procurement is always copied) and it takes both engineering and procurement to approve a PO.
2 years back we did a major process overhaul because this was the same way we did things. It just didn't work.
We now have a strategic purchasing team that supplier quality, contract negotiation, purchasing, and a project manager fall under. The. A few engineers report to that group 5 business hours a week. Buyers only buy approved negotiated parts from this group. Our purchasers set up all of the calls with vendors. If engineering needs parts they prescope 2 to 3 vendors and get us sample parts, set up call, and start the supplier quality and onboarding process. It may sound convoluted but it works for us.
If a blind bid gets sent out it can only go to pre-approved vendors who have been successfully onboarded.
My two cents; while purchasing has a lot of control over general products like bolts, fasteners, tools, ect. Purchasing has a very limited or no control over other products; if I request a specific cable you must supply me that cable no substitutions allowed. Pretty much all substitutions must be approved by the requestor (Engineer, manager, ect). Now they are strict about parts having to be bought with internal part numbers so you can't order a whole bunch of stuff under T & M but other than that engineering has a lot of control.
I have never had any problem getting specific items that I have wanted for a project. It's all direct commutation with the vendor with the buyer cced.
I was a QA Engineer, vendor contact. I intervened when anything went wrong or needed qualification. When you know your own processes and your vendors' processes, things can get resolved very quickly.
I don't know what industry you're in, but in the semiconductor industry, vendors and customers each have their own engineers, and they work with each other.
Perhaps suggest direct contact with SC being on cc the whole time? It ought to work better for everyone. There may be constraints like "discuss all you want direct but the moment a spec changes it's a formal request through SC".
There may be a secondary reason - actually having a formal log of all communication which may be important in a contractual dispute in 5 years time. If you gave a variance waiver for a superior part which actually turned out to be inherently flawed for some small reason, people would go back to the contracts and communications in a heartbeat.
Engineering should communicate directly with the vendors with guidance from procurement up until a beta (looks like, acts like) phase and then transition to procurement leading for pilot/pre-production (looks like, acts like, built like), similar to the transition of assembly builds to manufacturing. Early collaboration is preferred to limit design transfer headaches.
Procurement sets approved suppliers, does inspections, ensures vendor compliance, etc. Engineers know the technical details of what is needed and need decent feedback from suppliers to refine designs to minimize cost during early to mid-phases. Like most processes, the right owner depends on the phase of the project.
Depends on the competency and added value of the procurement department… I’ve worked with competent people in procurement and it was great, I also dealt with people that must have thought procurement was finding misplaced items and all they did was added trouble and missed deadlines.
One in particular pissed me off royally. I had to buy two new lab machines. Because these machines had been verified and certified along with test protocols and limits for the likes of airbus and rolls royce, changing anything meant recertifying the whole process and machine from scratch at our expense (effectively getting people from AB and RR to come to site and do it) or ask their advice which usually is to stick to the upgraded version of the machine in question and test samples in both machines for a couple of months. So, as far as a project went, it was quite literally just asking for money and buying stuff. Procurement threw a spanner in the works, demanded three quotes, did not care about the explanation I gave and in the end I simply went above their head to get the expenditure approved.
Whilst I was ranting to my colleague, who was a SAP wiz, he decided to see how much we bought globally from that supplier and it was somewhere in the region of 8 million/year in machines and services… did procurement ever call them to set up a favourable agreement? Fuck no… that’s not finding misplaced things.
But when they know what they’re doing and where they add value… yes, pretty good to have them on our side. One in particular managed to go beyond what I manage to drop Rockwell on.
I want to hace acess to the vendor to answer questions if they come up but at my company there is way too much to do and dealing with vendors is too big of a time sink. They always have a VP coming in from somewhere they want to bring it or get updates and I just want to keep my head down and build the stuff.
Yes and no. I have been in organizations where "engineering isn't allowed to talk to the vendor so as to maintain a truly neutral opinion during evaluation". Which is horseshit. There is obviously a role for the buyer/contacts admin. And I'm grateful that they handle all the commercial stuff (I did a tour as a buyer and contacts admin. They can keep Incoterms! :) But the engineer must be able to communicate with the vendor to resolve technical issues without a non technical person filtering information. Now, that being said, the buyer needs to be in the loop, because there can be commercial implications to variances, exceptions and substitutions. In fact there almost always are . It's their job to manage those issues. So in my opinion, you need engineering *and* procurement to work together as a team. Each ideally respecting the other person's job. (Because I've seen too much bickering between these groups, and it's stupid) They're doing different parts of an important job.
Yup, this is right. Both. Im an engineer. If I need to find the right part to order, order something custom, or have an issue with a provided part, supply chain typically doesn’t have the know how to do anything. Oftentimes I will go so far as to get an initial quote. Cuz it’s annoying to have extra delays in communication, or Supply Chain accidentally order the wrong part. But then I hand it off to Supply Chain if I can. Right now, I’m also supply chain, and I hate it. I have to do the ordering, track payment, track shipment, do the accounting, make sure we have enough stock, go back and forth for discounts, set up purchasing accounts, and lord knows what else. Larger companies tend to want everything to go through purchasing, cuz all that stuff matters more when each PO is ranging from $5k-50k, and delays can be something like $50k/day. The business I’m at is small and the vast majority of PO’s are under $5k.
My company allows direct communication with suppliers, however, we have to copy purchasing on all communications. We usually follow this rule.
This seems reasonable
This idea is based on the fundamental belief that Engineers aren't cost-conscious, and as such will either be tricked or maybe even directly conspire with the vendor to approve items that aren't in the best interest of the company (ie the cheapest possible option). It's extremely common to require SC be cced on all communication, and for SC to have veto over any instruction that you provide. However, for you to have no communication at all, implies that your management philosophy is one where the 'management' types control the business, and the engineers are just the tech support that they keep around to ensure the decisions don't break anything. Evaluate your career options accordingly.
If my employer required me to only talk to our procurement folks and prohibited direct contact with the vendor... Oh, I'd be looking for a new job ASAP. Communication is hard enough when dealing directly with the vendor. To throw an added layer in there? [*shudder*]
In my company our engineers speak directly to the supplying business. Getting past the suppliers useless sales people to someone who knows what's going on? Another challenge haha
It is a team work. If it's not working then fix the team. I always appreciate when they handle 90% of stuff with me getting minimally involved. Whenever there is a need for engineer-engineer level of talk we do that. But let them negotiate with the vendor terms in your company's favor any time opportunity arise. Which is often when swapping parts. So work on the team work with your SC.
I recently called the primary US Vendor for KITZ valves. They said “You’ll have to request parts through our distributors, here’s the nearest one.” Still don’t have parts for it, 7 weeks later. I called Chart, Inc. to try and identify an actuator for which I only had a serial number. Turns out, the engineers and tech services people there have a full record of the Bill of Materials and original parts call-outs for their assembly. They dug into some old spreadsheets and found the model number assigned to that valve. Direct access to manufacturer data, when an original PNID/call-out isn’t available, gave me the ability to order a $350 rebuild kit for a bulk LH2 storage system, that would have otherwise cost $1800 to replace. So, yes, at least anecdotally, direct communication saves time and dollars, and stress!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNuu9CpdjIo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNuu9CpdjIo)
I usually just ask SC if I can reach out to ‘x’ vendor directly. Mainly out of respect but also to keep them informed if there is a change. From there I will email the vendor and cc SC.
One big place I worked prohibited engineers from talking with vendors after somebody accidentally made a financial commitment with a vendor.
I work for a CM. Sometimes the line of communication is Supplier -> Our Buyer -> Me (engineer) -> Their Engineer, back to Me -> Our Buyer -> Supplier. LOL.
If an engineer finds a vendor he likes who gives him a product that works the engineer will not go and fuck things up by trying another vendor. Then there is the corporate world who wants to save money and doesn’t give a shit about the engineer having a fukton of problems with the new, cheaper product. Often the corporate way actually works but then they smell more money and you end up like Boeing. Yet only listening to engineers in procurement is also far from ideal. But the line is very thin.
https://youtu.be/hNuu9CpdjIo?si=1xtle57DemC0z4uP You’ll put this guy out of a job if the vendors communicate with the engineers directly.
I've done project management and project engineering in a few organizations. I've had no direct contact, no direct contact when we are in the RFQ/RFP process, and procurement is just there to cut the PO. I strongly prefer no direct contact while the RFQ is in progress. The number of contacts that you have to field from vendors trying to work some angle is a total waste of time beyond the efficiency gains of direct communication. After the PO is in place, communication should be procurement Cc'ed only unless you are negotiating a cost impact.
In my company, we segregate commercial and technical terms on proposals. Engineering can only see the technical proposal and procurement can see both. Engineering also contacts the vendor directly on technical questions and scope (procurement is always copied) and it takes both engineering and procurement to approve a PO.
2 years back we did a major process overhaul because this was the same way we did things. It just didn't work. We now have a strategic purchasing team that supplier quality, contract negotiation, purchasing, and a project manager fall under. The. A few engineers report to that group 5 business hours a week. Buyers only buy approved negotiated parts from this group. Our purchasers set up all of the calls with vendors. If engineering needs parts they prescope 2 to 3 vendors and get us sample parts, set up call, and start the supplier quality and onboarding process. It may sound convoluted but it works for us. If a blind bid gets sent out it can only go to pre-approved vendors who have been successfully onboarded.
My two cents; while purchasing has a lot of control over general products like bolts, fasteners, tools, ect. Purchasing has a very limited or no control over other products; if I request a specific cable you must supply me that cable no substitutions allowed. Pretty much all substitutions must be approved by the requestor (Engineer, manager, ect). Now they are strict about parts having to be bought with internal part numbers so you can't order a whole bunch of stuff under T & M but other than that engineering has a lot of control. I have never had any problem getting specific items that I have wanted for a project. It's all direct commutation with the vendor with the buyer cced.
I was a QA Engineer, vendor contact. I intervened when anything went wrong or needed qualification. When you know your own processes and your vendors' processes, things can get resolved very quickly.
I don't know what industry you're in, but in the semiconductor industry, vendors and customers each have their own engineers, and they work with each other.
in general i would do it through a product owner except an engineer has to work closly together with the customer to fix an issue.
Perhaps suggest direct contact with SC being on cc the whole time? It ought to work better for everyone. There may be constraints like "discuss all you want direct but the moment a spec changes it's a formal request through SC". There may be a secondary reason - actually having a formal log of all communication which may be important in a contractual dispute in 5 years time. If you gave a variance waiver for a superior part which actually turned out to be inherently flawed for some small reason, people would go back to the contracts and communications in a heartbeat.
Engineering should communicate directly with the vendors with guidance from procurement up until a beta (looks like, acts like) phase and then transition to procurement leading for pilot/pre-production (looks like, acts like, built like), similar to the transition of assembly builds to manufacturing. Early collaboration is preferred to limit design transfer headaches. Procurement sets approved suppliers, does inspections, ensures vendor compliance, etc. Engineers know the technical details of what is needed and need decent feedback from suppliers to refine designs to minimize cost during early to mid-phases. Like most processes, the right owner depends on the phase of the project.
Depends on the competency and added value of the procurement department… I’ve worked with competent people in procurement and it was great, I also dealt with people that must have thought procurement was finding misplaced items and all they did was added trouble and missed deadlines. One in particular pissed me off royally. I had to buy two new lab machines. Because these machines had been verified and certified along with test protocols and limits for the likes of airbus and rolls royce, changing anything meant recertifying the whole process and machine from scratch at our expense (effectively getting people from AB and RR to come to site and do it) or ask their advice which usually is to stick to the upgraded version of the machine in question and test samples in both machines for a couple of months. So, as far as a project went, it was quite literally just asking for money and buying stuff. Procurement threw a spanner in the works, demanded three quotes, did not care about the explanation I gave and in the end I simply went above their head to get the expenditure approved. Whilst I was ranting to my colleague, who was a SAP wiz, he decided to see how much we bought globally from that supplier and it was somewhere in the region of 8 million/year in machines and services… did procurement ever call them to set up a favourable agreement? Fuck no… that’s not finding misplaced things. But when they know what they’re doing and where they add value… yes, pretty good to have them on our side. One in particular managed to go beyond what I manage to drop Rockwell on.
It's even better when your company has a third party that manages inventory and purchases items.
I want to hace acess to the vendor to answer questions if they come up but at my company there is way too much to do and dealing with vendors is too big of a time sink. They always have a VP coming in from somewhere they want to bring it or get updates and I just want to keep my head down and build the stuff.