JSW05 said:
Being an OEM QE My mantra for suppliers is: Use the default requirements unless you have a better idea. I'm always open to suggestions, and more than once a supplier has protested the basic requirements and suggested what was (for that particular supplier at least) a different method that made good sense.
You realize how rare that attitude is, don't you?
On the flip side, I've also heard lots of whining from people who were obviously just being lazy.
I never think of it as "lazy" - merely frustration at extra labor which is uncompensated. The fact remains many nonconformances have instantly recognizable causes (even down to the "root" level) and the formal investigation is a redundant effort. It is frustrating to be "commanded" to perform "busy work" as seen in the eyes of the supplier.
I think, as buyers, we tread on dangerous ground when we prescribe "how" a business operation of a supplier should proceed, rather than focusing on getting a conforming product or service. We buyers become "lazy" ourselves when we demand the "proof" of finding the root cause of a nonconformance be presented to us
only in a manner which fits our own neat little checklists. It may seem like only a short step from demanding shipping labels fit a template to demanding the internal processes of a supplier be reported to us in a prescribed format.
If we need some sort of assurance that a supplier has cured a glitch in his process, why does it have to be on our form? There is a big difference between:
- "Here's a suggested process which has been helpful for others."
TO
- "You must use this process and form or suffer any of a variety of penalties, up to, and including, cancelation of the order!"
I don't have any idea, what is this really? 
