I have had 2 meetings with customers as to their attitude and demands as to APQP. One spent several hours talking about how to complete timetable forms and submit every month with out going into the philosophy behind the process. The second did not talk about timetables at all but the philosophy behind the team approach etc.
I am interested in how others have been approached by their customers on this issue and if the timetable approach is the "plugged" approach.
Does help in completing customer forms fulfill helping to develop suppliers?

Howard,
Perhaps a comment from the "other side of the fence" would interest you.
As part of our supplier development I always concentrate on the parts of APQP that I think might be useful, then waiver the rest. Personally I'd say the waivers are very important in supplier development - to ensure they aren't wasting time and effort on producing paper.
The other supplier development I'd apply is to give help, where needed, in using concepts such as fmea, control plans and reaction plans. These techniques are sometimes daunting to a supplier a bit down the tier line and some help training wise is usually appreciated.
With regard to timetables I'd say the only time to insist on this is during a new project. to make sure the Quality considerations are made up-front and not after the event.
Hope this is of interest, if not file it under "bin".

Cheers

Brian

Thank you for your comments.
I think my main problem is that I do not feel that most of the supplier development people spend enough time on the "development" side. There is I beleive a need for more cooperation in courses etc. More meetings with an educational content and development of internal and external philosophies of work.

Howard, it sounds like you're proposing more communication and engagement between you and your customer(s) and your suppliers.

Marc,
Yes as we have written many times the demands of the customers grow but the help and encouragement that suppliers get is very limited.
I am audited on my development of suppliers, I feel that the bigger you are the less that is expected of you.
I would like to here from some of the OEM's and large Tier 1 as to their views and actions.

My personal view is that supplier development is typically a joke - including the requirement. It makes sense - but when and how far? When do you reach the point that you are doing for a supplier what the supplier should be doing for its self internally?

I have seen ISO audits where supplier surveys were accepted as the only supplier development. A yearly evaluation of progress towards a 'goal' (ISO, QS, whatever) tied it together as 'development'. On the other hand I have seen companies literally 'station' someone at the supplier's facility for a certain amount of time.

me too marc......

IMHO>>>>>
... continuous improvement is a part of the QS module....so if you develop the supplier to the point in the QS quest that satisfies your needs as the customer, they should be ready to move forward using their internal CI cycle to finish the job, then you are left to support and counsel as required. You need to offer it, if they don't want it you cannot force it.. obviously. AND provide evidence of the above.

Howard and friends:

I am, as most of you, big enemy of waste paperwork. In my experience I believe that a responsible teamwork in preparing all the needed steps in order a new material or process be succesful is deeply needed. To make it posible, Do we need some time tables and papers ? ...If yes...then let us make them ¡¡, but just as a help for our human unperfect memory. THE PAPERS ARE NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, BUT THE COMPROMISE OF EACH PARTICIPANT IN ADVANCED QUALITY PLANNING.

I have seen many cases of suppliers of Automakers, working (and suffering) hard to fill out the "papers" like APQP's FMEAS or PPAP's when the related material or part is about to be produced( in a few weeks) or even cases where the parts are about to be ready for MRD's or JOB 1 . I think this is just a bureocratical (did I spelled OK ?)activity,with no value added, made "out of time" and only to fill the records of both the supplier and the customer.

It is needed a better help of Customers, in special automakers, to give the supplier base the more information possible with all the previous time possible in order to apply the prevention and planning programs. This is the only reason why they were created (PPAP,APQP,FMEA) to PREVENT not to extinguish fires.In this ideal case we will have all the time to fill the papers with information that will give us preventive actions and less probability of mistakes or "bugs" in our project.

My humble contribution

Qualiman

I agree with Qualiman, I had a visit of an OEM to day and talked about this subject.
They have no answer even though they agree it would help them as well.
I received a questionnair today from a large Tier 1 on this subject, the main basis of the questionnaire as I say it was to rank the various companies in terms of helpfullness in Supplier Development.
They have offered a 3 hour lecture on how to fill in their forms!!!!!!

This was originally about the QS supplier development requirement.
There has been a slight change in the TS.
How do you relate to the changes?
How do promote "supplier monitoring of performance of their manufacturing processes" 7.4.3.2
Do the customers help?

Any contemporary thoughts on supplier development?

Any contemporary thoughts on supplier development?


I speak from experience on both sides of the fence, having been a job shop quality manager in a number of different industries as well as being an OEM SQE. My feeling is that dealing with suppliers--especially smaller job shops, is the biggest failing of major OEMs, especially in the automotive industry. The main problem is that the OEMs hire people to deal with suppliers who have no experience and are unfamiliar with job shops' primary concern, which is to keep the machines running, and d*mn the torpedoes. Dealing with these suppliers is a little like dealing with an alcoholic or a drug addict. They will not change anything until they admit that change is needed, but they will nod their heads and agree to almost anything you say, just to get you out of the way.

Not understanding this mindset causes all kinds of consternation, fear and loathing and all the while the supplier might be producing exemplary output. We need to help suppliers to the extent that they're willing to be helped, and not force anything down their throats if they're not prepared and willing to deal with it. If a supplier is consistently producing acceptable output at an acceptable price, what's the point in "developing" them? On the other hand, if an uncooperative supplier is causing actual problems, then it's simple--go somewhere else. OEMs need to get away from the idea that they're qualified to run everyone else's business, especially when the people they hire to oversee supplier "development" have never even been inside a busy job shop.

Good Question !!