Recently I was speaking with 'my' Visteon STA with respect to a PPAP submission. One of his comments to me was "Send me dimensionals and don't fudge the numbers." Personally I was offended and p***ed that he would make such a remark. I felt I was being accused of being subject to fraud. Your comments?

Marc, you have been around long enough to know that companies routinely 'fudge' PPAP, R&R, SPC, FMEA, PPk,......
The big three know it too. This results in the perception that ALL suppliers engage in that. Some folks are lucky enough to have the same STA (or equivalent) for a number of years and build a relationship of trust. Most don't have that luxury.

I think that this is one of the biggest problems in our industry. The customer’s don’t trust their suppliers, who don’t trust their vendors (and backwards as well).

Regardless, I would be concerned if it didn’t tick you off a bit. When you start looking at incidents like this as just part of the game, you should start to worry.

One quick suggestion. Turn your STA on to the Cove. If he is worth any salt at all, he should immediately understand you are straight shooter and give you no further static! He might even become a major assest to the Cove!

Amen,

A couple I have worked with were "seasoned" and knew their jobs and how to interract with the suppliers.

On too many occasions there have been "greenhorns" that graduated from Tim Buck U and feel they know how business is supposed to run and feel that they are one of the choosen few to save the world because they know how to fill out an X-R chart.

Although they don't know how to interpret data or work with the tools at hand.

Well, to be honest I already have him on a leash now that the dust has settled. In addition, I doubt he's the Cove type. But I may clue him in just in case.

What gets to me is the defacto guilty. It comes as no surprise that many people are turned off by the attitude. One tries to start out by being friendly and communicative and this is what one gets, I suppose.

I'm not insinuating they're all bad but this one is a humdinger.

As far as 'fudging' numbers being routine - I have no problem agreeing that it probably is a problem here and there, but I hear this in the first real talk with the fellow and it blew away any respect or concern I have for the guy. That's why I got him on a short leash quick (I have some tricks up my sleeve, too). He's still being testy but has backed off and apologised twice.

I asked the question above as I really am curious if a lot of people feel trod upon by their STA and what comments or stories folks may have.

As a last comment, I included the ignorant part because it surprised me how little he knows about what's going on, particularly within his company.

STA = SQE?

If so, the SQEs and project managers I have worked with go the full spectrum. Most that I have worked with at GM have been of the Tim Buck U variety: mostly ignorant and arrogant. The turnover rate is purely unacceptable from my perspective as many new engineers fail to understand their organizations requests on the supplier.

On the other hand, I have had a number of good experiences with folks from Mazda, Volvo, Honda, Toyota, and Hummer (under the direction of GM although they have communicated to me the same issues I have experienced. Come to think of it, Saturn felt the same way too!).

Nonetheless, good or bad personalities, I am disappointed by the level of knowledge OEMs have of QS9000 (or their equivalent) System requirements many years after the release of the requirements. I blame this on high turnover experienced at these OEMs. In seven years dealing with the OEMs, I can't recall a single SQE that went beyond a year (some two dozen or so). This goes for the Project Managers, various buyers, and Supplier Management.

Imagine the cost associated with all this turnover...and the aggrivation it breeds!

Regards,

Kevin

Yeah. I think that plays a big part of it, Kevin, and may be the 'main' failure mode.

One of the things I have found with Visteon as of late is that no one communicates and no one will take responsibility by, for example, putting in writing what they want or what they agree to. The STA (SQE) is in Royal Oak, the plant is in another state and the 'home office' is in yet another state. It's the old "Right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" issue. On top of that, each wants different, contradictory things. On top of that, getting a valid print took over 8 months (that's 8 months after beginning of shipping!).

Back in college I took a course called Formal Logic. I fear it has done me harm as now when I analyze things I see how few people think logically, especially corporate and other 'top management' types (to be fair, at all levels) I get depressed when I think about how many idiots are running around. Had I not taken that course I may have been more dumb and happy. I don't know.

I will say that after watching this stuff for years what used to worry me now makes me chuckle and laugh. Being back in the trenches again for the first time in a number of years is making me laugh. Quite a lot. I used to take all the frustrations and worry home with me. I think people here must think I'm smoking something - They keep asking why I laugh all the time. I just answer "I'm thinking of a 3 ring circus and all the clowns" which is basically the truth...

The reason they feel like everyone is fudging is that many times, they don't allow the supplier enough time to do the job right. Over 20 years many times the STA (SQA,SQE) would be pushing to get his paperwork long before the process was ready so he or she could make their charts all green. The supplier is in a no-win situation. If they hold up the paperwork, the STA gets upset and makes your life miserable, if you make up the numbers, you risk long-term problems. This is the core of the problem with the auto industry. My Japanese quality counterparts had no problem extending deadlines if required to make something right. Its no coincidence Japan still leads the world in quality. :bonk:

I think Deming had a lot to say on management by numbers didnt he !

Yes he did. How did he phrase it when responding to the question, "When will we catch up to the Japanese?"

"How is it that you catch a speeding train gaining speed all the while?"

Aiming at targets outside of the system's capability only will make matters worse.

Kev

I have noticed such commments generally come from younger and/or inexperienced SQEs. I compare it to happy talk we get from newscasters.

It seems to come from a need to be cute/cool/part of the "in" group/whatever; a need to swagger verbally and to show you are in the know. When it occurs I generally nod and smile.

However, when it comes from more experienced personnel, I do not let it pass. "God Lord, have we been giving you fudged numbers?" or some such commnent usually shuts them down.

Ben

It is nice to know that others feel my pain. My Ford STA is very intelligent. Does he always respond in a timely manner to my questions or need? NO Does he expect me to be there on the spot with the answer? YES! YES! My Visteon STA sounds like he is about 13. Apparently, he more like 23. At least he admits he has no idea what he is talking about. I spend most of my time being juggled around Visteon until someone can answer for him. I have to wonder what they get paid.

Angela

Any chance of sticking on a new option, namely " I am the OEM STA".

Just a thought, seeing as I am!

Whilst going through the posts for the big move I came across this.
Any new comments?

I have read all the post and I am still trying to decipher what the heck an "STA" is? Please be so kind as to enlighten me! After all i just found out what "proud" meant! :o

...what the heck an "STA" is?

I think this is it...

STA = Supplier Technical Assistance (Assistant?)
SQE = Supplier Quality Engineer
SQA = Supplier Quality Assistance (Assistant?)
SQA = Supplier Quality Assurance (the original designation)

O.K. I have the perfect STA story. Sometime ago one of our big three suppliers decided to change our PPAP status. We complied, of course. The STA tore our FMEA apart. He made us make a bunch of changes that I knew were incorrect and would not conform with the requirements of the FMEA manual. Last month I had an audit and the auditor told me that our FMEA made us look ridiculous because of the changes the STA had insisted on. Thankfully I had saved all my documentation. If I hadn't I would have taken a nonconformance for something I couldn't fix. After I showed the auditor my back up info I told him that either way I was screwed. It was either take a nonconformance for my FMEA or failure to meet my customer requirements. The auditor saw it my way.

Angela

I think this is it...

STA = Supplier Technical Assistance (Assistant?)
SQE = Supplier Quality Engineer
SQA = Supplier Quality Assistance (Assistant?)
SQA = Supplier Quality Assurance (the original designation)


Dear All:

WDPA everyone understands. Let me know when you figure that one out.
TGIF, almost!

Charmed :)

Amen,

A couple I have worked with were "seasoned" and knew their jobs and how to interract with the suppliers.

On too many occasions there have been "greenhorns" that graduated from Tim Buck U and feel they know how business is supposed to run and feel that they are one of the choosen few to save the world because they know how to fill out an X-R chart.

Although they don't know how to interpret data or work with the tools at hand.

Couldn't agree more :agree1:

It would seem that the days of recruiting from the supplier base are long gone. Now the OEM's groom their own. It's been a while since I recieved assistance from STA. The role nowadays seems to be that of a paperwork chaser. In most cases these days I'm being told how to do my job by someone who couldn't do my job. I've dealt with some excellent STA engineers in my time but the new breed seem to be in the main about doing things by the book without understanding business needs, either for the supplier or even the OEM. Common sense just does not get a look in anymore! :mad:

I will point out that the above is only a general statement, I'm sure that some excellent STA engineers are out there.

The reason they feel like everyone is fudging is that many times, they don't allow the supplier enough time to do the job right. Over 20 years many times the STA (SQA,SQE) would be pushing to get his paperwork long before the process was ready so he or she could make their charts all green. The supplier is in a no-win situation. If they hold up the paperwork, the STA gets upset and makes your life miserable, if you make up the numbers, you risk long-term problems. This is the core of the problem with the auto industry. My Japanese quality counterparts had no problem extending deadlines if required to make something right. Its no coincidence Japan still leads the world in quality. :bonk:


One of my biggest gripes is PSW dates, as a supplier you give the date that is realistic in line with programme timing (often dictated by customer design release) you explain that until CAD etc becomes available timing may slip on PSW, (I've had issues where CAD has been late and tool maker manufacturing slots have been delayed and pushed into holidays, customer question why has leadtime for tooling gone from 12 to 14 weeks). The pressure is then applied, but not only from the customer, but in a lot of cases internally (financial reasons, 100% payment on PPAP another customer incentive to pull timing forward) to agree PSW dates.
The dates are moved and missed then the STA gets nasty escalates the slippage internally and gives the Engineer on the programme who gave original good dates a hard time. In a lot of cases it's a no win situation for the supplier, but half the problem is that the customer does not listen to and understand the suppliers reasons for the timing, they only look at dates they have to meet!
You're bang on with the Japanese, they understand what Quality is and how to engineer it into a product! :agree1: That's my moan for the day out of the way.

P.S. On the Acronym front, this file may make interesting reading. Don't know if it's been posted before but should cover most things automotive.

P.S. On the Acronym front, this file may make interesting reading. Don't know if it's been posted before but should cover most things automotive.

You call that a list!

You call that a list!

I'd classify my post as a list, yours as bordering on dictionary. You could almost write a full essay with this! :D

I particularly like ADPT, an abbreviation for Adapt, how lazy do you have to be not to write or press "A". :rolleyes:

You call that a list!
Dear Howard:

I am with you. I opened the file and it was 696 pages!

Long time ago, it appeared that NASA was guilty of using too many acronyms. Now, I think it appears that the quality business is guilty of it. Every article I read has new acronyms. Sorry, folks, if you want to communicate, you must learn to spell out the acronym whenever it is used for the first time, in any written communication. It is that simple!

Using the acronym "list" is like trying to communicate with a "foreigner" who speaks a different language, by frequently consulting your handy dictionary.

Charmed :)

I think this is it...

STA = Supplier Technical Assistance (Assistant?)
SQE = Supplier Quality Engineer
SQA = Supplier Quality Assistance (Assistant?)
SQA = Supplier Quality Assurance (the original designation)

Thanks Rob, I certainly recall the terms SQA and SQE But never seen STA before! A few years ago I performed source inspections for Allied Signal/Honeywell or it was the other way around. While working for ALLIED, I traveled to various locations in Ohio and source inspected jet engine parts for GE. What did that make me? All of the above? None of the above? :lol:

[QUOTE=Marc]
Back in college I took a course called Formal Logic. I fear it has done me harm as now when I analyze things I see how few people think logically, especially corporate and other 'top management' types (to be fair, at all levels) I get depressed when I think about how many idiots are running around. Had I not taken that course I may have been more dumb and happy. I don't know.

Marc - in all fairness I will say alot of people out there lack critical thought!

Any chance of sticking on a new option, namely " I am the OEM STA".

Just a thought, seeing as I am!
:truce:
Thank you, Stuart, as I am a 1st tier STA!
Anyone of you ever had the chance to do the STA job? I have to face OEM STA's (ignorant and arrogant, as any STA), suppliers' Quality Mgrs (that very often fudge their numbers, Marc, all STA know this...) and my company that only wants STA to be the watchdog of suppliers. And we make mistakes, as any human being (except you all?)

:truce:
And we make mistakes, as any human being (except you all?)

First of all, welcome to the Cove! :bigwave:

Secondly, you are correct....we NEVER make mistakes. :rolleyes: You will find some registrar, auditor and STA bashing going on here from time to time. A lot of it is based on frustration of the moment. Some auditor says something we think is stupid, or an STA tries to require something that is not a requirement, and we moan to the Cove (most of whom has had similar experiences). Yes, we do realize that there are many auditors, registrars and STAs that are doing the best job they can. And yes, we know that the above mentioned folks have to deal with people like us that try to cheat the system, "fudge" data, and get away with stuff. It does not mean we do no appreciate any input from you, and we really do need to hear "the other side of the story".

What we (well, me anyway) would like to hear is what things we can do, to make our relationship with you better (other than not doing the things I mentioned above)

Once again...Welcome!

Recently I was speaking with 'my' Visteon STA with respect to a PPAP submission. One of his comments to me was "Send me dimensionals and don't fudge the numbers." Personally I was offended and p***ed that he would make such a remark. I felt I was being accused of being subject to fraud. Your comments?
Dear Marc, the same have happened to me! in Nov. last year, a man from a big company, one of our customers, made absolutely negative on every things that we have strived to perfect, oh, what an awful day! :mg:

Joe

This may not be along the lines of the current conversation, but I need some help. My SQE wants a check list to accompany my PPAP with the 17 to 18 requirements for submission. The book I have has only 14. Anyone have this list available?

This may not be along the lines of the current conversation, but I need some help. My SQE wants a check list to accompany my PPAP with the 17 to 18 requirements for submission. The book I have has only 14. Anyone have this list available?
You must be using something other than the 3rd Edition of the AIAG PPAP manual. The number of elements went from 14 to 19 in the 3rd Edition, but only three new elements were added (Sample Product and Master Sample had been a single element in the 2nd Edition, as had DFMEA/PFMEA. They're separate elements now). The new ones are Records of Compliance with Customer-Specific Requirements, the Bulk Material Requirements Checklist and Qualified Laboratory Documentation.

Interesting. About 90% of the abbreviations in the list aren't acronyms.

Interesting. About 90% of the abbreviations in the list aren't acronyms.
Do you say that because you only consider an abbreviation an "acronym" if it is pronounced as a word, versus saying the individual initials?
Example:
FMEA said as "FEE MUH" is an acronym
said as "EFF EM EE AY" IS AN ABBREVIATION

Both verbalizations being a representation of the abbreviation for "Failure Mode & Effects Analysis":)

Do you say that because you only consider an abbreviation an "acronym" if it is pronounced as a word, versus saying the individual initials?
Example:
FMEA said as "FEE MUH" is an acronym
said as "EFF EM EE AY" IS AN ABBREVIATION

Both verbalizations being a representation of the abbreviation for "Failure Mode & Effects Analysis":)
Yes. All acronyms are abbreviations (to put a bit finer point on it, some are initializations) but not all abbreviations are acronyms. "Radar" is an acronym, as is "Scuba." My favorite acronym is "snafu." There are changes in the language that take place as a natural function of time and evolution, and most of them are harmless. For example, no one today refers to a single point of information as a "datum" and "data" is routinely used as singular. But when abuse of the language results in something useful being lost, we lose a little of what makes English so great--nuance.
Now I've strayed way off topic--but you asked.

To 'clear things up here.... Sorry but I haven't visited this thread in a long while. I think it was Visteon who was using STA and this long past I can't remember what it stood for, but essentially this was meant as what is more commonly called a customer 's Supplier Quality Engineer (SQE). The folks at your supplier who 'counsel' and otherwise 'maintain' your with resect to quality issues.

I've relabeled the thread and poll to better represent what this thread started out about.

Visteon currently calls them "SDE" for Supplier Development Engineer

Well, to be honest I already have him on a leash now that the dust has settled. In addition, I doubt he's the Cove type. But I may clue him in just in case.

What gets to me is the defacto guilty. It comes as no surprise that many people are turned off by the attitude. One tries to start out by being friendly and communicative and this is what one gets, I suppose.

I'm not insinuating they're all bad but this one is a humdinger.

As far as 'fudging' numbers being routine - I have no problem agreeing that it probably is a problem here and there, but I hear this in the first real talk with the fellow and it blew away any respect or concern I have for the guy. That's why I got him on a short leash quick (I have some tricks up my sleeve, too). He's still being testy but has backed off and apologised twice.

I asked the question above as I really am curious if a lot of people feel trod upon by their STA and what comments or stories folks may have.

As a last comment, I included the ignorant part because it surprised me how little he knows about what's going on, particularly within his company.

Remember the old saying that it takes a con to know a con? I think many of them are so accustomed to fudging and stretching, they just assume their hardworking suppliers are too. When you ad inexperience or ignorance to the mix, it ain't pretty. Can you say declining market share...?

I am a SQE ( previously a Production Engineer)..handling mechanical suppliers. I am seeing the other side of the coin, say for example, I came to know, that the supplier is not meeting the print in most of the dimensions because engineering asked for it/engg approved because of process constraint. I am trying to update the prints and ask for a data from supplier what all the dimensions needs to be changed. the supplier gives me a list and i go to my engg and start the process. with in a week, quality finds one dimension out of spec for which the supplier says "this has process constraint", that is exactly what i wanted to capture but the supplier has ignored, or not captured. Now I have to change gears and take up a route which makes him understand the seriousness..but if I do that I will be termed as arrogant... how do u handle these...is there any SQE in this forum...

I am a SQE ( previously a Production Engineer)..handling mechanical suppliers. I am seeing the other side of the coin, say for example, I came to know, that the supplier is not meeting the print in most of the dimensions because engineering asked for it/engg approved because of process constraint. I am trying to update the prints and ask for a data from supplier what all the dimensions needs to be changed. the supplier gives me a list and i go to my engg and start the process. with in a week, quality finds one dimension out of spec for which the supplier says "this has process constraint", that is exactly what i wanted to capture but the supplier has ignored, or not captured. Now I have to change gears and take up a route which makes him understand the seriousness..but if I do that I will be termed as arrogant... how do u handle these...is there any SQE in this forum...
Other answers may be a bit slow in coming this week - many folks in the USA are taking the entire week between Christmas and New Year's Day for a holiday.

The situation concerning the adversarial relationship between SQE and supplier has two major factors. If you can alter those factors, the relationship becomes much more friendly and open.

Bidding and selection process of suppliers. When customers force their suppliers into an "auction" for the business, ruthlessly switching suppliers based on initial cost, rather than net cost in place (after considering all the soft costs of dealing with a supplier), suppliers rightly view ANYTHING said or done by the customer's representatives with suspicion.
Attitude when nonconformance is detected. When customers play the "blame game" and ascribe ALL nonconformances as being the fault and responsibility of the supplier, suppliers are less likely to be helpful than when the emphasis is put on solving the problem and eliminating fingerpointing entirely. Sometimes, the difference can be as simple as the phrasing used by the customer.
Compare:
"You screwed up, Mr. Supplier. Fix it!"
and
"This part is screwed up. How can we help figure out why and eliminate the cause so it doesn't happen again?"

You guys are too generous. I usually give them my K** My A** smile.

Seriously, More often than not we are dealing with individuals that have very low self esteem. The resultant symptom is anger , ....

Marc,

Luckily, not all STA's are the same. Some have actually made us better, while others are flaming idiots who are simply consuming useful oxygen and exhaling CO2 when they are in a meeting room or in your office. I have thrown one out of my office and actually got into a shouting match.

Visteon currently calls them "SDE" for Supplier Development EngineerIt would help to find out if the "development" applies to the supplier or to the engineer:lol:

Just saw this thread....

So did the STA start out with...

"....if in fact that is your real name"?

Just saw this thread....

So did the STA start out with...

"....if in fact that is your real name"?


KGB STA? :notme:

Recently I was speaking with 'my' Visteon STA with respect to a PPAP submission. One of his comments to me was "Send me dimensionals and don't fudge the numbers." Personally I was offended and p***ed that he would make such a remark. I felt I was being accused of being subject to fraud. Your comments?

The Maxima I learnt in Visteon was.

If a problem Scalling the problem to his/her boss.

The STA boss must be the Qulity Manager.

In that case

It reflects that more communication need to be done. Via phone, Dinners, ...

Meet him more.

This QD Article (http://www.qualitydigest.com/currentmag/articles/01_article.shtml) talks about how the DCX quality assurance and audit teams (QAAT) help their suppliers.

This QD Article (http://www.qualitydigest.com/currentmag/articles/01_article.shtml) talks about how the DCX quality assurance and audit teams (QAAT) help their suppliers.

NOTE: The above link will 'expire' when Quality Digest publishes next month because it is a 'currentmag' link.

The option "My STA (SQE) is arrogant and ignorant to boot!" is so large percent.
Recently I usually quarreled with my customer SQE about product defects.

Not so up to speed and Arrogant:bonk:

Have 2 that really stand out,one being the *I want you to fill out all these forms for no other reason than because I said so* type and the other is *the sky is falling the sky is falling but let me get back to you when I have all the information*:frust: When suppliers of ours need a wake up call they get it but for the most part I want to help them help me and I go out of they way so they can.

My experience is much like Kevin's. The SQA's I worked with at GM and Chysler were the worst while the people I worked with from Toyota and Saturn (when they first started up) were the best. In my opinion the turnover rate although high wasn't enough to explain their inability to talk with rather than talk down to me. One of the big reasons that the "big" three are anything but today.

Tlonkey

I've run across one SQE with Chrysler, though he was a contract guy, but he was great to work with. He pretty much mocked the way most of the other SQEs deal with suppliers. He told me he wasn't about getting in people's faces and degrading them, after all we are all here for the same reason. All the while he was at our facility from 3p - 11p due to a major issue with one of our suppliers.

Unfortunately the guy we usually dealt with was an arrogant prick.

I had an opportunity to work as a SQE with Mercedes about 8 months ago but turned it down. My main concern was the turnover at OEMs in such a role.

:agree:



Yes my option is to go with the "STA (SQE) is arrogant and ignorant to boot!"


It happens when the STA changes his mode from helping the supplier to improve rather than finding the fault with the supplier.

All STA are all should inclined to improve the performance of the supplier, and if any new thought or process is found should ready to accepted and eager to learn continuously.

I have closed this poll. If you still want to comment on this question feel free.