S
I recently submitted a change to our system and procedure regarding QS9000 4.15.6.1 which mandates 100% on-time delivery and corrective action taken if less than 100%.
I added that the 100% reqirement will apply to automotive and QS9000 compliant customers only.
Our business is QS9000 registered with no exclusions even though our business is only 50% automotive work. I know that I can count on the automotive customers to hold their end of deal by complying with 4.6.2.2 which "shalls" the customers scheduling end.
So for my automotive customers, I can work effectively to the stated requirements.
Where my dilemma begins is with my non-automotive customers. Not being bound by a standard such as QS9000, they can (and regularly do) change due dates in mid production making it virtually impossible to make 100% on-time deliveries. I could forecast their requirements and warehouse parts but that is not a cost effective option given the volume of product we manufacture.
Has anyone encountered this scenario before and if so, what was your solution?
Does anyone see a problem with the approach of having the 4.15.6.1 requirement apply to automotive customers only?
Thanks for any input
Steve
I added that the 100% reqirement will apply to automotive and QS9000 compliant customers only.
Our business is QS9000 registered with no exclusions even though our business is only 50% automotive work. I know that I can count on the automotive customers to hold their end of deal by complying with 4.6.2.2 which "shalls" the customers scheduling end.
So for my automotive customers, I can work effectively to the stated requirements.
Where my dilemma begins is with my non-automotive customers. Not being bound by a standard such as QS9000, they can (and regularly do) change due dates in mid production making it virtually impossible to make 100% on-time deliveries. I could forecast their requirements and warehouse parts but that is not a cost effective option given the volume of product we manufacture.
Has anyone encountered this scenario before and if so, what was your solution?
Does anyone see a problem with the approach of having the 4.15.6.1 requirement apply to automotive customers only?
Thanks for any input
Steve