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?
1) Can the sample vs. BOM discrepancy be confirmed? As you state, your org sometimes does not provide a sample that matches the BOM, although in this case it should have. Is it possible for they and you to simply examine the sample to verify that it does or does not match the BOM?
2) In either case, it seems that one area of potential issue was that for the CM there were two "sources of truth": a) the BOM and b) the sample. Their corrective action was essentially to make the BOM the "single source of truth", which seems a good thing.
3) I'd still have a question about their verification (Q/C) methods to ensure the correct result, but that may be an area you feel is ok, as you didn't mention it.
4) The approach I'd take to relations is: you consider them a valuable partner and this is precisely why you want to invest time and energy into making the processes and interactions stronger and smoother; not because you want to chew them out. (That is, if they weren't a valuable partner, you wouldn't even spend this time - you'd find an alternate supplier instead.) I'd also spend a good part of that discussion asking them what your org can do to make life better for them. (How many times have we wrung our hands at customers who provide requirements piecemeal, or poorly documented, or have multiple voices saying different things to you as a supplier, leaving you confused and making mistakes? It seems reasonable we should ask if we are doing these kinds of things to our own suppliers.) That kind of "two-way street" to improvement hopefully will ease their minds.
