Customer not willing to reveal the usage or function of the part to the supplier

[Andrews]

Fitness for use

Deming says "Quality is fitness for use " and not " meeting customer expectations".If a customer is not willing to share the usage / function of the part with the supplier ,then what should the supplier do?

 

[Mike S.]

You do what you can - make the product/service meet the customers expectations and if you can exceed them, great. Even if you knew the application it is doubtful you would be able to tell as well as the customer can how "fit for use" your product is. Perhaps Deming's contest was from an internal perspective.

 

[M Greenaway]

If the customer doesnt want it it aint fit for use is it ?

 

[Mike S.]

Martin,

That was sort of a curt answer, wasn't it? And I'd have to say I can recall some cases where that was not true.

 

[M Greenaway]

Andrews

Could you tell us where that quote came from ?

Mike

My response was based on the principal that we need to listen to the voice of the customer. He decides what is fit for his use. If we ignore this we may well find ourselves making product that to our minds is fit for use, yet we have no customers that want it.

'Fit for use' is a very subjective and whooly concept.

 

[energy]

Another one!

M Greenaway said:

Mike

My response was based on the principal that we need to listen to the voice of the customer. He decides what is fit for his use. If we ignore this we may well find ourselves making product that to our minds is fit for use, yet we have no customers that want it.

'Fit for use' is a very subjective and whooly concept.

When we do our "Contract Review" or "Product Realization", we determine and guarantee that our product is fit for use. No? The customer defines the crititeria and you meet the criteria and supply your product. No? Just think of it as fit for the Customer's use.
I agree, M. Who would make anything without customers? Am I missing something?
Does anyone think that the Customer has to tell you what he is going to use your product for? I guess you can always make that a pre-condition before the sale. You better have something good.
You won't be in business very long.
Most product warranty is voided if it is used in a manner not designed or intended for. No? What's this all about, Alfie?

 

[D.Scott]

What's this all about, Alfie?

Not really sure Energy, but there are some great thoughts here.

I agree that fitness for use comes down to the customer but is the customer always fair in making the judgement or just waving the "customer is always right" flag?

With the latest trend to "Zero Defects", a lot of customers will intertwine the definition Zero Defects with Zero Nonconformance. There is an obvious distinction between the two and Martin and Mike have hit on it. Every nonconcormance does not in itself create a defect.

I would like to hear from others on how you plan to address the "Zero Defects" mandate and are your customers allowing the distinction between defects and a nonconformance.

Great topic - hope it goes somewhere.

Dave

 

[energy]

Still miss your special "Day" reports

D.Scott said:

With the latest trend to "Zero Defects", a lot of customers will intertwine the definition Zero Defects with Zero Nonconformance. There is an obvious distinction between the two and Martin and Mike have hit on it. Every nonconcormance does not in itself create a defect.

I would like to hear from others on how you plan to address the "Zero Defects" mandate and are your customers allowing the distinction between defects and a nonconformance.

Great topic - hope it goes somewhere.

Dave

Dave,

Are we talking about a Customer who may declare our equipment not fit for use, even though we have a Purchase Order with all the requirements, terms and conditions spelled out? Or are we talking about something wrong with the equipment? The original post was, I thought, about a Supplier not having access to the use of his product, which I feel is irrelevant. I'm not sure what we are talking about, now, and I sure as he** do not know the difference between a defect and a nonconformance. I'm sure I'm about to find out. Just like the difference between continuous and continually, I hope not!

 

[Kevin Mader]

I think that the phrase - fitness for use - is a phrase coined by Dr. Juran and not Dr. Deming. However, Dr. Deming said that Quality is defined by the producer through knowledge of the Customer. What this means is this: you must determine what it is your customer is after. In your case, this might be difficult, but it will be necessary. The benefit of having standards, criteria or tolerances defined by the customer is that it reduces the effort to do research (by the organization). Look to see if any of these are available through drawing specifications or contractual requirements.

Dr. Deming cited this example: the customer didn't know that they wanted a pneumatic tire. What he wanted was a wheel and got what he expected, only better. Quality was created by the organization through innovation. Another example is Sony's Camera Manufacturing division. They had already achieved high quality cameras, perhaps the best in the industry but had not fulfilled the need of the customer. When they thought about it, they determined that the need was the ability for owners to take good pictures. Despite the camera being of high quality, the ingredient that neutralized the effect of the camera were the owners ability to take good pictures. Many did not set the exposure and distance properly, thus creating fuzzy or under/over exposed pictures. Once they determined that folks wanted 'good' pictures, they set out to recreate quality in the form of auto-focusing and light sensors to determine exposure. They revolutionized the camera industry in the process.

Quality is determined by organization, through your efforts to understand the customer needs and working to fulfill and exceed these expectations (known and unknown).

Without my OOTC being handy, I seem to recall that Dr. Deming said that Quality was an outcome that gives the Customer a benefit. Can anyone correct me on this??

As for Zero Defects, we can thank Philip Crosby for starting us on the Twelve Sigma kick some years back. As it was once stated here by a Cove Member, "It is a noble concept, but not really practical."

Regards,

Kevin

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Re: Fitness for use

Andrews said:

Deming says "Quality is fitness for use " and not " meeting customer expectations".If a customer is not willing to share the usage / function of the part with the supplier ,then what should the supplier do?

Hmmm... That can't be very unusual... Ok, in that case I guess the supplier has to ask for specifications as necessary to produce the product.

/Claes