Customer Specifications - Timely review (e.g. business “days”, not weeks or months)

[Marc]

AS an FYI, I have done implementations in electronics companies where during the design phase the engineers use catalogues for component specs and such. They controlled the catalogues (!) because many times components were chosen by using the specs stated in the catalogue. This is an interesting aspect of control of documents of external origin.

[gpainter]

It is amazing how mant customers that we have that fail to give an updated print and do not put revisions on their POs. We had to pull teeth to get one company to give us a list of rev. levels for their drawings.

[JRKH]

gpainter said:

It is amazing how mant customers that we have that fail to give an updated print and do not put revisions on their POs. We had to pull teeth to get one company to give us a list of rev. levels for their drawings.

A big Ditto on that!!
We have the same problems with some of our customers. No revs on P.O.'s, No new drawings, and sometimes they will just fax a portion of a drawing to us.
Then they have the nerve to be surprised when they get the wrong parts.

Oh well, on we go.

James

[SteelMaiden]

Mike S. said:

Here's another doc. control angle that I thought I'd run by the Let's say the PO or drawing calls out ABC company's (our competitor's) material ABC100. Our company, XYZ, has an "equivalent" mateial XYZ100 but our "standard" spec's. may vary slightly from ABC's. Mike S.

Mike, I've been involved in similar situations, the order was received stating that the material needed to be "Xtra-good" Xtra being our competitor and good being the heat treating classification. We sold an equivilant with our trademark name of "Even Better". Both trade names referred to material meeting ASTM specifications. When the customer asked for "Xtra-good" we'd catch it in our contract review, and handle it that way. Therefore, there was never any reason to keep the competition's specifications (which we would never get in their entirity anyway).

Business being what it is, you always have an idea of what the competition is doing, but not necessarily all the details of how. As long as the results are the same it doesn't really matter if you heat treat with a 2 hour ramp like they do, or a 1 hour 45 minute ramp which is what your process needs. Each furnace will operate differently anyway.

Don't control anything you don't have to, but each industry is different, so yours may require extra document control from external sources. Typically you can find an ASTM or some other standard spec that covers both trade-mark names to do comparison with for the customer.

[Marc]

gpainter said:

It is amazing how mant customers that we have that fail to give an updated print and do not put revisions on their POs.

Details, details. Heck, blue is close to black and green so why specify a color? CRS is sorta like cast iron so why specify?

Companies like that just kill me. Frigging amazing how some of them stay in business.

[SteelMaiden]

Marc said:

Companies like that just kill me. Frigging amazing how some of them stay in business.

Too true to be funny, but I'm lmao anyway.

[Mike S.]

gpainter said:
It is amazing how mant customers that we have that fail to give an updated print and do not put revisions on their POs. We had to pull teeth to get one company to give us a list of rev. levels for their drawings.

_________________________
Absolutely! We have one customer, a top 5 customer no less, from overseas who not only doesn't put rev's on their PO's, they don't put them on their DRAWINGS! And, to make matters worse, the drawings are a combination of CAD and handwriting! I've written notes, had phone conversations, and even met face-to-face with their representative for half-an-hour begging, pleading, and explaining why this is important to THEM as well as us to make sure things are right but only half of the time do we get a "good" drawing with rev. status and no handwriting. Somehow, we've managed to avoid any screw-ups, but I don't know how. And they ask me why I drink!

Mike S.