Steel enterprise supplier two-party auditing and evaluating method

Abstract

The invention discloses a steel enterprise supplier two-party auditing evaluation method, and relates to the technical field of qualification auditing, and the method comprises the steps: determining the category of supplied products of a supplier, and determining a qualified evaluation score based on the category of the supplied products; supplier evaluation items are determined, and the item score corresponding to each evaluation item is calculated; calculating a total two-party audit evaluation score of the corresponding supplier based on all project scores; and determining the final evaluation score of the second-party audit of the annual performance evaluation of the corresponding supplier based on the total evaluation score of the second-party audit of the supplier and the qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of the corresponding supplied product. According to the method, the quality management level of suppliers is effectively promoted to be improved, the quality stability of products purchased by enterprises is improved, and the acceptance qualified rate of parts of iron-making auxiliary materials, steel-making alloy, steel-making auxiliary materials and other products is greatly improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of qualification review, and particularly to a method for second-party review and evaluation of suppliers in iron and steel enterprises. Background Art

[0002] The procurement product scope of raw fuels and auxiliary materials (mainly referring to coal, coke, iron ore, alloy, auxiliary materials, refractory materials, scrap steel, etc.), equipment, spare parts, monitoring and measuring equipment, etc. used in ironmaking, steelmaking, and rolling of iron and steel enterprises is wide and the categories are numerous. In principle, the procurement activities of most enterprises require procurement through bidding within the list of qualified suppliers. There are up to thousands of suppliers at different levels such as qualified suppliers, alternative suppliers, and potential suppliers. There are corresponding management processes for the access of potential suppliers, the upgrading of alternative suppliers to qualified suppliers, and the re-evaluation of qualified suppliers.

[0003] With the rapid development of iron and steel enterprises, iron and steel enterprises producing high-precision and special steel products such as high-temperature alloy steel, high-strength steel, high-grade wear-resistant steel, high-standard bearing steel, and high-level corrosion-resistant steel have higher and higher requirements for the quality of procurement products. Due to the wide procurement product scope and numerous categories, the weights of technical bids and commercial bids for various products are relatively fixed and the adjustment range is limited. The weight of the technical bid for most products is generally lower than that of the commercial bid, and there will be large fluctuations in the market conditions. Therefore, when formulating the procurement demand plans for various products, enterprises will make adaptive adjustments according to the actual production and operation needs of the enterprises. Most procurement products have corresponding national standards and industry standards. When formulating procurement standards or technical agreements, enterprises will make adaptive adjustments based on the characteristics of procurement products on the basis of national standards and industry standards. Gradually improving the supplier quality management level, screening out high-quality suppliers with stable supply quality, high cost performance, and timely delivery, and eliminating a certain proportion of unqualified suppliers are problems that every iron and steel enterprise will face. How to evaluate suppliers efficiently and reasonably is an ideal method to solve this problem. Therefore, it is of great significance to formulate practical evaluation indicators for the second-party review of suppliers. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to overcome the shortcomings of the prior art and provide a method for second-party review and evaluation of suppliers in iron and steel enterprises.

[0005] To solve the above technical problems, the technical solution of the present invention is as follows: A method for second-party review and evaluation of suppliers in iron and steel enterprises, comprising: Determining the supply product category of the supplier and determining the qualified evaluation score based on the supply product category; Determining the supplier evaluation items and calculating the item score corresponding to each evaluation item; Calculating the total score of the second-party review and evaluation of the corresponding supplier based on all item scores; Determine the final second-party audit score of the annual performance evaluation of the corresponding supplier based on the total score of the second-party audit of the supplier and the qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of the corresponding supplied product.

[0006] As a preferred embodiment of the second-party audit evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers of the present invention, wherein: the supplier evaluation items include human resources, equipment management, process operation environment, identification and traceability, and product protection, procurement and supplier control, production and service provision, monitoring and measurement resources, quality status of products, non-conformance control and improvement.

[0007] As a preferred embodiment of the second-party audit evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers of the present invention, wherein: the calculation of the project score corresponding to each evaluation item includes: Determine the sub-evaluation items of each evaluation item and score each sub-evaluation item; Calculate the project score corresponding to each evaluation item according to Formula 1, and Formula 1 is: 100×cumulative score of sub-evaluation items / (5×number of sub-evaluation items).

[0008] As a preferred embodiment of the second-party audit evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers of the present invention, wherein: the calculation of the total second-party audit evaluation score of the corresponding supplier based on all project scores includes: Determine the weight coefficient of each evaluation item; Calculate the total second-party audit evaluation score of the corresponding supplier according to Formula 2, and Formula 2 is: total second-party audit evaluation score = (project score one × corresponding weight coefficient + project score two × corresponding weight coefficient + ··· + project score N × corresponding weight coefficient) ÷ total number of evaluation items.

[0009] As a preferred embodiment of the second-party audit evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers of the present invention, wherein: the weight coefficient of the human resources evaluation item is 0.5, the weight coefficient of the equipment management evaluation item is 0.6, the weight coefficient of the process operation environment evaluation item is 0.4, the weight coefficient of the identification and traceability and product protection evaluation item is 0.5, the weight coefficient of the procurement and supplier control evaluation item is 1.4, the weight coefficient of the production and service provision evaluation item is 1.6, the weight coefficient of the monitoring and measurement resources evaluation is 1.2, the weight coefficient of the quality status of products evaluation item is 1.6, and the weight coefficient of the non-conformance control and improvement evaluation item is 1.2.

[0010] As a preferred embodiment of the second-party audit evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers of the present invention, wherein: determining the category of the supplied products of the supplier and determining the qualified evaluation score based on the category of the supplied products includes: The supplier's supply product categories include Category I supply products, Category II supply products, and Category III supply products. The Category I supply products include key refractories in direct contact with hot metal and molten steel, as well as first-class industrial equipment spare parts, and their qualified evaluation score is 80; the Category II supply products include alloys, cored wires, slag agents, non-key refractories, second-class industrial equipment spare parts, other auxiliary materials other than stone materials, and processing outsourcing, and their qualified evaluation score is 70; the Category III supply products include stone materials, and their qualified evaluation score is 60.

[0011] As a preferred solution of the second-party audit and evaluation method for suppliers in the steel enterprise of the present invention, among them: calculating the final second-party audit evaluation score of the annual performance evaluation of the corresponding supplier based on the total second-party audit evaluation score of the supplier and the qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of the corresponding supply product includes: Calculate the final second-party audit score of the annual performance evaluation of the corresponding supplier according to Formula III. The Formula III is: The final second-party audit score of the supplier's annual performance evaluation = (Total second-party audit evaluation score - Qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of this product category) ÷ (100 - Qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of this product category) x 10.

[0012] The beneficial effects of the present invention are: The present invention effectively promotes the improvement of the supplier's quality management level, improves the quality stability of the enterprise's purchased products, and the acceptance pass rates of some products such as auxiliary materials for ironmaking, alloys for steelmaking, and auxiliary materials for steelmaking have been greatly improved. Among them, the acceptance pass rate of high-silicon silicomanganese for steelmaking alloys has increased from an average of 65.38% in the first quarter of 2024 to 100% since October 2024, the acceptance pass rate of slag regulators for steelmaking auxiliary materials has increased from an average of 93.43% in the first quarter of 2024 to 100% since October 2024, and the acceptance pass rate of quicklime powder for ironmaking auxiliary materials has increased from an average of 96.15% in the first quarter of 2024 to 98.93% since October 2024. Description of the Drawings

[0013] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, the drawings required for the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings in the following description are only some embodiments of the present invention. For those of ordinary skill in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative efforts.

[0014] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of the second-party audit and evaluation method for suppliers in the steel enterprise provided by the present invention. Detailed Embodiments

[0015] To make the content of the present invention easier to be clearly understood, the present invention will be further described in detail below according to the detailed embodiments and in combination with the drawings.

[0016] Figure 1 It is a schematic flow chart of the method for the second - party audit and evaluation of suppliers in iron and steel enterprises provided by this application. This method specifically includes the following steps: Step S101: Determine the supply product categories of the supplier, and determine the passing evaluation scores based on the supply product categories.

[0017] Specifically, the evaluation criteria are subdivided into three major categories according to the supply product categories, namely, Category I supply products, Category II supply products, and Category III supply products.

[0018] Among them, Category I supply products include key refractory materials (ladle, converter, electric furnace, tundish, RH, tundish refractory materials and three major continuous casting parts) in direct contact with hot metal and molten steel, as well as first - level industrial equipment parts (rolls, roll rings, mold, copper plates / tubes, nozzles, etc.). If the total score of the products is < 80 points, the on - site audit is unqualified and the evaluation grade is poor; if 80 points ≤ total score < 85 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is medium; if 85 points ≤ total score < 90 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is good; if the total score ≥ 90 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is excellent.

[0019] Category II supply products include alloys, cored wires, slag agents, non - key refractory materials, second - level industrial equipment parts, other auxiliary materials except stone materials, and processing outsourcing. If the total score of the products is < 70 points, the on - site audit is unqualified and the evaluation grade is poor; if 70 points ≤ total score < 80 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is medium; if 80 points ≤ total score < 90 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is good; if the total score ≥ 90 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is excellent.

[0020] Category III supply products include stone materials (limestone blocks / powders, dolomite blocks / powders, fluorite, etc. which only require physical processing). If the total score is < 60 points, the on - site audit is unqualified and the evaluation grade is poor; if 60 points ≤ total score < 75 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is medium; if 75 points ≤ total score < 90 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is good; if the total score ≥ 90 points, the on - site audit is qualified and the evaluation grade is excellent.

[0021] Step S102: Determine the supplier evaluation items and calculate the item scores corresponding to each evaluation item.

[0022] Specifically, conduct a second - party audit of the supplier according to ISO 9001 standard, the supplier's quality management system documents, the requirements of the procurement product contract, and laws, regulations and other regulatory documents. The supplier evaluation items include nine aspects: human resources, equipment management, process operation environment, identification and traceability, and product protection, procurement and supplier control, production and service provision (including control of special processes), monitoring and measurement resources, quality status of products, non - conformity control and improvement.

[0023] There are corresponding sub-evaluation items under each evaluation item. In this embodiment, there are a total of 29 sub-evaluation items for the nine evaluation items, and the evaluation and scoring are carried out according to the sub-evaluation items. The scoring mechanism for the innovation sub-evaluation items is evaluated according to five fixed levels of 5 points, 4 points, 3 points, 2 points, and 1 point. The intermediate value of two levels can be taken, and it is not allowed to give other fractional scores to avoid the influence on the total score caused by being too high or too low within the same scoring level. The auditor only needs to score the sub-evaluation items of each evaluation item in the evaluation form, and calculate the project score corresponding to each evaluation item according to Formula 1. Specifically, Formula 1 is: Project score = 100×Cumulative score of sub-evaluation items / (5×Number of sub-evaluation items).

[0024] Step S103: Calculate the second-party audit evaluation total score corresponding to the supplier based on all project scores.

[0025] Specifically, different weight coefficients are set for the nine evaluation items according to the influence degree on the production process control ability and quality assurance ability of the supplied products.

[0026] It should be noted that the cumulative weight coefficient of the four evaluation items directly related to the quality of the supplied products, namely procurement and supplier control, production and service provision (including the control of special processes), product quality status, non-conformance control and improvement, is 64%.

[0027] In this embodiment, the weight coefficient of the human resources evaluation item is 0.5, the weight coefficient of the equipment management evaluation item is 0.6, the weight coefficient of the process operation environment evaluation item is 0.4, the weight coefficient of the identification and traceability and product protection evaluation item is 0.5, the weight coefficient of the procurement and supplier control evaluation item is 1.4, the weight coefficient of the production and service provision evaluation item is 1.6, the weight coefficient of the monitoring and measurement resources evaluation is 1.2, the weight coefficient of the product quality status evaluation item is 1.6, and the weight coefficient of the non-conformance control and improvement evaluation item is 1.2.

[0028] Calculate the second-party audit evaluation total score corresponding to the supplier according to Formula 2. Formula 2 is: Second-party audit evaluation total score = (Project score one×Corresponding weight coefficient + Project score two×Corresponding weight coefficient + ··· + Project score N×Corresponding weight coefficient)÷Total number of evaluation items.

[0029] Step S104: Calculate the final second-party audit evaluation score of the annual performance evaluation corresponding to the supplier based on the evaluation total score of the second-party audit of the supplier and the qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of the corresponding supplied products.

[0030] Specifically, calculate the final score of the second-party audit of the annual performance evaluation of the corresponding supplier according to Formula 3, and Formula 3 is: the final score of the second-party audit of the annual performance evaluation of the supplier = (the total score of the second-party audit evaluation - the qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of this product category) ÷ (100 - the qualified evaluation score of the second-party audit of this product category) x 10.

[0031] In addition, clarify the following measures for the extension of the supplier's rectification: deduct 2 points from the comprehensive score of the second-party audit evaluation of the supplier for each month of extension (if the extension is less than one month, deduct 1 point if it is ≤ 15 days, and deduct 2 points if it is > 15 days).

[0032] The following is further illustrated through specific embodiments.

[0033] Example 1: The 7# supplier audited in 2024 is within the annual audit plan. The products audited are tundish nozzles and stopper rods, which belong to refractories for steelmaking in critical procurement. The members of the audit team conducted a second-party audit of the 7# supplier based on the ISO 9001 standard, the quality management system documents of the 7# supplier, the requirements of the procurement product contract of iron and steel enterprises, and laws, regulations, and other regulatory documents. The evaluation items include nine major clauses: human resources, equipment management, process operation environment, identification and traceability, and product protection, procurement and supplier control, production and service provision (including control of special processes), monitoring and measurement resources, quality status of products, nonconformance control, and improvement. Among them, the human resources clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 5 points, and 5 points respectively. The score of the human resources clause is 100×(4 + 5 + 5) / (5×3) = 93.33 points. Rounding down without retaining decimal places, the rounded score is 93 points; the equipment management clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 5 points, 4 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the equipment management clause is 100×(5 + 4 + 4) / (5×3) = 86.67 points. Rounding down without retaining decimal places, the rounded score is 87 points; the process operation environment clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 4 points, and 5 points respectively. The score of the process operation environment clause is 100×(4 + 4 + 5) / (5×3) = 86.67 points. Rounding down without retaining decimal places, the rounded score is 87 points; the identification and traceability, and product protection clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 5 points, and 5 points respectively. The score of the identification and traceability, and product protection clause is 100×(4.5 + 4 + 4) / (5×3) = 83.33 points. Rounding down without retaining decimal places, the rounded score is 83 points; the procurement and supplier control clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 5 points, and 5 points respectively. The score of the procurement and supplier control clause is 100×(4.5 + 4.5 + 4) / (5×3) = 86.67 points. Rounding down without retaining decimal places, the rounded score is 87 points; the production and service provision (including control of special processes) clause has a total of 5 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 4 points, 2.5 points, 4 points, and 4.5 points respectively. The score of the production and service provision (including control of special processes) clause is 100×(4 + 4 + 2.5 + 4 + 4.5) / (5×5) = 76 points; the monitoring and measurement resources clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4.5 points, 4.5 points, and 4.5 points respectively. The score of the monitoring and measurement resources clause is 100×(4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5) / (5×3) = 90 points; the quality status of products clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4.5 points, 3 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the quality status of products clause is 100×(4.5 + 3 + 4) / (5×3) = 76.67 points. Rounding down without retaining decimal places, the rounded score is 77 points; nonconformance control and improvement have a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 4 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the nonconformance control and improvement clause is 100×(4 + 4 + 4) / (5×3) = 80 points.The total evaluation score is the weighted average of the scores of the nine clauses multiplied by the coefficient: (93×0.5+87×0.6+87×0.4+83×0.5+87×1.4+76×1.6+90×1.2+77×1.6+80×1.2)÷9=82.84, 83 points without retaining decimal places. During the audit, 2 non-conformities were issued in the two clauses of production and service provision (including control of special processes) and product quality status, both of which are general non-conformities. The audit score of 7# supplier is 83 points. The audited product belongs to the refractory category. 80 points or more is qualified, and <85 points is medium. The second-party audit score of the 7# supplier participates in the annual evaluation of the 7# supplier, and its share of the score in the annual evaluation score of the 7# supplier = (final score of the second-party audit - the passing value of the second-party audit of the variety) ÷ (100 - the passing value of the second-party audit of the variety) x10 = (83-80) ÷ (100-80) x10 = 1.5 points.

[0034] Example 2: The 20# supplier audited in 2024 is within the annual audit plan. The product audited is high-purity graphite carbon material, which belongs to the auxiliary materials for steelmaking in key procurement. The members of the audit team conducted a second-party audit of the 20# supplier based on the ISO 9001 standard, the quality management system documents of the 20# supplier, the requirements of the procurement product contract of iron and steel enterprises, and laws, regulations and other regulatory documents. The evaluation items include nine major clauses: human resources, equipment management, process operation environment, identification and traceability, and product protection, procurement and supplier control, production and service provision (including the control of special processes), monitoring and measurement resources, the quality status of products, nonconformance control and improvement. Among them, the human resources clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 3.5 points, and 5 points respectively. The score of the human resources clause is 100×(4 + 3.5 + 5) / (5×3) = 83.33 points. Rounding down without keeping decimal places, the rounded score is 83 points; the equipment management clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 3 points, and 3 points respectively. The score of the equipment management clause is 100×(3 + 3 + 3) / (5×3) = 60 points; the process operation environment clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 3.5 points, and 4.5 points respectively. The score of the process operation environment clause is 100×(3 + 3.5 + 4.5) / (5×3) = 73.33 points. Rounding down without keeping decimal places, the rounded score is 73 points; the identification and traceability, and product protection clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 3 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the identification and traceability, and product protection clause is 100×(3 + 3 + 4) / (5×3) = 66.67 points. Rounding down without keeping decimal places, the rounded score is 67 points; the procurement and supplier control clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 3 points, and 3.5 points respectively. The score of the procurement and supplier control clause is 100×(3 + 3 + 3.5) / (5×3) = 63.33 points. Rounding down without keeping decimal places, the rounded score is 63 points; the production and service provision (including the control of special processes) clause has a total of 5 sub-items with scores of 2.5 points, 3.5 points, 3 points, 3 points, and 3 points respectively. The score of the production and service provision (including the control of special processes) clause is 100×(2.5 + 3.5 + 3 + 3 + 3) / (5×5) = 60 points; the monitoring and measurement resources clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 4 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the monitoring and measurement resources clause is 100×(4 + 4 + 4) / (5×3) = 80 points; the quality status of products clause has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 2 points, 2 points, and 2 points respectively. The score of the quality status of products clause is 100×(2 + 2 + 2) / (5×3) = 40 points; the nonconformance control and improvement has a total of 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 2 points, and 3 points respectively. The score of the nonconformance control and improvement clause is 100×(3 + 2 + 3) / (5×3) = 53.33 points. Rounding down without keeping decimal places, the rounded score is 53 points.The total evaluation score is the weighted average of the scores of nine clauses multiplied by the coefficients: (83×0.5 + 60×0.6 + 73×0.4 + 67×0.5 + 63×1.4 + 60×1.6 + 80×1.2 + 40×1.6 + 53×1.2)÷9 = 60.89. Rounding off without keeping decimal places, the score is 61 points. During the audit process, 4 non-conformances were issued in the four clauses of procurement and supplier control, production and service provision (including control of special processes), product quality status, non-conformance control and improvement, all of which are general non-conformances. The initial score of Supplier 20# in the audit is 61 points. For the audited products belonging to steelmaking auxiliary materials, a score of 70 or above is considered qualified, and a score <70 is rated as poor. Initiate the penalty process for suspending the supplier qualification and submit it to the supplier management department for handling. The rectification of Supplier 20# was overdue for one and a half months, and 3 points were deducted from the final audit score. Supplier 20# participated in the annual evaluation with an audit score of 58 points. The score value of Supplier 20# in the annual evaluation score = (the final score of the second-party audit - the passing value of the second-party audit for this variety)÷(100 - the passing value of the second-party audit for this variety) x 10 = (58 - 70)÷(100 - 70) x 10 = -4 points.

[0035] Example 3: The 34# supplier audited in 2024 was a dynamically added audit outside the annual audit plan. The product audited was high-silicon silicomanganese, which belongs to the alloy for steelmaking in key procurement. The members of the audit team conducted a second-party audit of the 34# supplier based on the ISO 9001 standard, the quality management system documents of the 34# supplier, the requirements of the procurement product contract, and laws, regulations, and other regulatory documents. The evaluation items included nine major clauses: human resources, equipment management, process operation environment, identification and traceability, and product protection, procurement and supplier control, production and service provision (including the control of special processes), monitoring and measurement resources, the quality status of products, nonconformance control and improvement. Among them, the human resources clause had 3 sub-items with scores of 4.5 points, 4.5 points, and 4.5 points respectively. The score of the human resources clause was 100×(4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5) / (5×3) = 90 points; the equipment management clause had 3 sub-items with scores of 4 points, 3 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the equipment management clause was 100×(4 + 3 + 4) / (5×3) = 73.33 points, rounded to the nearest whole number is 73 points; the process operation environment clause had 3 sub-items with scores of 3.5 points, 4 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the process operation environment clause was 100×(3.5 + 4 + 4) / (5×3) = 76.67 points, rounded to the nearest whole number is 77 points; the identification and traceability, and product protection clause had 3 sub-items with scores of 3.5 points, 3 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the identification and traceability, and product protection clause was 100×(3.5 + 3 + 4) / (5×3) = 70 points; the procurement and supplier control clause had 3 sub-items with scores of 3.5 points, 3 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the procurement and supplier control clause was 100×(3.5 + 3 + 4) / (5×3) = 70 points; the production and service provision (including the control of special processes) clause had 5 sub-items with scores of 5 points, 4 points, 4 points, 4 points, and 4 points respectively. The score of the production and service provision (including the control of special processes) clause was 100×(5 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4) / (5×5) = 84 points; the monitoring and measurement resources clause had 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 3 points, and 5 points respectively. The score of the monitoring and measurement resources clause was 100×(3 + 3 + 5) / (5×3) = 73.33 points, rounded to the nearest whole number is 73 points; the quality status of products clause had 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 4.5 points, and 3 points respectively. The score of the quality status of products clause was 100×(3 + 4.5 + 3) / (5×3) = 70 points; the nonconformance control and improvement had 3 sub-items with scores of 3 points, 4 points, and 3 points respectively. The score of the nonconformance control and improvement clause was 100×(3 + 4 + 3) / (5×3) = 66.67 points, rounded to the nearest whole number is 67 points. The total evaluation score was weighted and averaged by multiplying the scores of the nine clauses by the coefficients: (90×0.5 + 73×0.6 + 77×0.4 + 70×0.5 + 70×1.4 + 84×1.6 + 73×1.2 + 70×1.6 + 67×1.2)÷9 = 74.11, rounded to the nearest whole number is 74 points.During the audit process, 4 non-conformities were issued in the four clauses of identification and traceability, product protection, production and service provision (including the control of special processes), and monitoring and measuring resources, all of which were minor non-conformities. The initial score of the 34# supplier audit was 74 points. For the audited products belonging to the steelmaking alloy category, a score of 70 or above is considered qualified, and a score <80 is rated as medium. The score of the second-party audit of the 34# supplier is included in the annual evaluation of the 34# supplier. The score value in the annual evaluation score of the supplier = (the final score of the second-party audit - the passing value of the second-party audit for this variety) ÷ (100 - the passing value of the second-party audit for this variety) x 10 = (74 - 70) ÷ (100 - 70) x 10 = 1.33 points.

[0036] In addition to the above embodiments, the present invention may have other embodiments; all technical solutions formed by equivalent substitution or equivalent transformation fall within the protection scope required by the present invention.

Claims

1. A two-party audit and evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers, characterized by: include: Determine the supplier's supply product category and determine the qualification evaluation score based on the supply product category; Determine the supplier evaluation items and calculate the corresponding project score for each evaluation item; Calculate the total score of the corresponding supplier's second-party audit evaluation based on all project scores; The final evaluation score of the two-party audit of the corresponding supplier's annual performance evaluation is determined based on the total evaluation score of the supplier's two-party audit and the qualified evaluation score of the corresponding supplied products' two-party audit.

2. The two-party audit and evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers according to claim 1 is characterized by: The supplier evaluation items include human resources, equipment management, process operating environment, identification and traceability and product protection, procurement and supplier control, production and service provision, monitoring and measurement resources, product quality status, non-conformity control and improvement.

3. The two-party audit and evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers according to claim 2 is characterized by: Calculating the project score corresponding to each evaluation project includes: Determine the sub-evaluation items for each evaluation item and score each sub-evaluation item; The project score corresponding to each evaluation item is calculated according to Formula 1, and the formula 1 is: 100×the cumulative score of the sub-evaluation items / (5×the number of sub-evaluation items).

4. The two-party audit and evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers according to claim 3 is characterized by: The total score of the second-party audit evaluation of the corresponding supplier calculated based on the scores of all items includes: Determine the weight coefficient of each evaluation item; The total score of the second-party audit evaluation of the corresponding supplier is calculated according to Formula 2, and the formula 2 is: Total score of the second-party audit evaluation = (project score one × corresponding weight coefficient + project score two × corresponding weight coefficient + ··· + project score N × corresponding weight coefficient) ÷ total number of evaluation items.

5. The two-party audit and evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers according to claim 4 is characterized by: The weight coefficient of the human resources evaluation project is 0.5, the weight coefficient of the equipment management evaluation project is 0.6, the weight coefficient of the process operating environment evaluation project is 0.4, the weight coefficient of the identification and traceability and product protection evaluation project is 0.5, the weight coefficient of the procurement and supplier control evaluation project is 1.4, the weight coefficient of the production and service provision evaluation project is 1.6, the weight coefficient of the monitoring and measurement resource evaluation is 1.2, the weight coefficient of the product quality status evaluation project is 1.6, and the weight coefficient of the non-conformity control and improvement evaluation project is 1.

2.

6. The two-party audit and evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers according to claim 5 is characterized by: Determining the supplier's supply product category and determining the qualified evaluation score based on the supply product category includes: The supplier's supply product categories include Class I supply products, Class II supply products and Class III supply products. The Class I supply products include key refractory materials and first-level tooling and equipment parts that are in direct contact with molten iron and molten steel, and their qualified evaluation score is 80; the Class II supply products include alloys, cored wires, slag agents, non-key refractory materials, second-level tooling and equipment parts, other auxiliary materials except stone, and processing outsourcing, and their qualified evaluation score is 70; the Class III supply products include stone, and their qualified evaluation score is 60.

7. The two-party audit and evaluation method for steel enterprise suppliers according to claim 6 is characterized by: The final evaluation score of the two-party audit of the corresponding supplier's annual performance evaluation is calculated based on the total evaluation score of the two-party audit of the supplier and the qualified evaluation score of the two-party audit of the corresponding supplied products, including: The final score of the two-party audit of the corresponding supplier's annual performance evaluation is calculated according to Formula 3, which is: The final score of the two-party audit of the supplier's annual performance evaluation = (total score of the two-party audit - the qualified evaluation score of the two-party audit of the product category) ÷ (100 - the qualified evaluation score of the two-party audit of the product category) x 10.

Images