In Reply to Parent Post by JaneB
Don't suggest it, even in jest. They might think it's a brilliant idea.
IN some ways, I'd not mind too much if their system and its documents were models of clarity, currency and good information. That they're not is an indictment of the system, though not necessarily of the checklist approach.
A non conformity was issued by this customer for the following observation:
The first check list's heading stated:
Engineering Checklist: SDP
The second check list's heading stated:
Engineering checklist for CMP
Rational: Checklists should follow a uniform naming and convention.
Wouldn't you say this customer is an idiot? No customer's are not always right. This is the first customer I have dealt with who act like this. What ever happened to mutually beneficial relationship with the supplier. What happened to function per cost ratio? The book of shall was not written for this purpose. It was written for "Best Management Practices" and not perfect documents by the suppliers only.
You can see why I was saying we may need a checklist for a checklist.