CAR (Corrective Action Report) with questionable Root Cause

[embedded]

Our CM built a lot of products incorrectly, that is what was built didn't match the Bill Of Materials (BOM) provided. This was the second time in a relatively short time period so we requested a CAR from them. They indicated the root cause was, we provided a sample(our CM has requested we always send a sample) that didn't match the BOM, and the operator built the product to match the sample. The corrective action was to retrain the operator to always build to the BOM. We checked our records and they show the sample provided did match the BOM. Although, to be fair there are situations where we send a sample but it doesn't match the BOM as it's the first time we're building a product or we just don't have an exact sample on hand...

I plan to have a visit with our CM to discuss, but I'm a bit unsure the best tact to take build a stronger relationship without making them defensive. We've been trying to do a better job at capturing issues, and providing feedback. Historically we only captured major issues(a couple a year) and rarely provided feedback to our CM when we had issues, we'd just fix the issues.

Unfortunately it seems like this is making our CM defensive. They are key to our business and I want to create an open line of discussion where we're helping one another improve and not one of poking each other in the eye, which I think they perceive this to be. Suggestions, on how to discuss the questionable root cause they provided?

 

[Marc]

CM = ???

 

[CreativeQC]

Contract Manufacturer?

 

[Marc]

Probably - Just wanting to get a clarification.

 

[Ronen E]

I think that regardless of what they say you should check yourself and make sure that your affairs are fully sorted.
I think that you should raise a CAPA in your own system, to sort out the matter of issuing samples that are not aligned with the BOM being issued. I think that this is a bad practice.
I suggest meeting with your CM and discussing the subject, highlighting that sometimes an accurate sample is impossible to provide and that maybe in those situations it's better to go with no sample. Alternatively discuss ways (maybe fail safe) to highlight the differences between the sample and BOM and ensure that the BOM takes precedence, other than operator vigilance / compliance / awareness etc.
Training or re-training is not a robust measure of eliminating root causes, and should be applied only as a reinforcement / as a last resort.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Suggestions, on how to discuss the questionable root cause they provided?

The best way to stop defensiveness on their side is by stating upfront, as clearly and objectively as you can that the business relationship is not at risk due to the past escapes. Make it abundantly clear that you want to work with them, in a collaborative way and not the typical customer-supplier adversarial relationship.

But do insist on better root cause analysis.

 

[Mikey324]

Training or re-training is not a robust measure of eliminating root causes, and should be applied only as a reinforcement / as a last resort.

I agree, retraining is hardly ever an effective countermeasure, because the need for retraining is rarely the true root cause. If they list root cause as "Sample didn't match BOM", then this is a symptom of the failure, not the root cause. Even using the 5 why method, there are probably a few more why's to go through in my opinion.

 

[Eredhel]

What are the requirements you have given them for making things? Is it something that can have a blueprint, CAD model, something else?

 

[Golfman25]

It sounds like it's as much on you as it is on them. It's the age old problem -- make the part to the sample provided or the print. The true corrective action is to ensure any questions are answered before you start production.

 

[Randy]

If a root cause creates questions you haven't found root cause