Kronos147
Trusted Information Resource
AS9100 Rev. C 8.5.2 Corrective Action: A documented procedures shall be established... b) determining the cause of nonconformities, and g) flowing down corrective action requirements to a supplier when it is determined that the supplier is responsible...
I have seen a trend where the customer sends out a SCAR (often with incomplete or erroneous information), and during the process of root cause analysis, I find the root cause to be the customer's fault.
Example: Customer orders a part with the part designation 'XX' on their PO (no Revision). 'XX' only exists on rev. A, for on rev. B they obsoleted that configuration. Our acknowledgement states order for Rev. A.
Customer receives the part and inspects to Rev. B. Finds the shipment nonconforming. Sends a SCAR before doing any sort of internal investigation.
I read the requirements of AS9100 (or at least the intent), as the NCR originating party must b) determine the cause, THEN g) IF the supplier is part of the root cause, SCAR the supplier.
The trend seems to be to send the SCAR first. I have often determined the root cause to be a customer error, then have to fight to get the NCR voided (and our supplier rating revised).
It would be really nice if the CB's out there would recognize and correct this behavior!
To add to this, again I mentioned the SCAR's with incomplete information. I notice that once we send our product out to the Aerospace world (distributors and primes), lot containment is often lost. Again, CB's, look at the NCR reports being sent to the suppliers. If they do not have traceability information, please issue an NCR!
Too much time is being wasted chasing phantoms that should have been found by the complaining party!
I would love to hear some input on this.
Thanks,
Eric
I have seen a trend where the customer sends out a SCAR (often with incomplete or erroneous information), and during the process of root cause analysis, I find the root cause to be the customer's fault.
Example: Customer orders a part with the part designation 'XX' on their PO (no Revision). 'XX' only exists on rev. A, for on rev. B they obsoleted that configuration. Our acknowledgement states order for Rev. A.
Customer receives the part and inspects to Rev. B. Finds the shipment nonconforming. Sends a SCAR before doing any sort of internal investigation.
I read the requirements of AS9100 (or at least the intent), as the NCR originating party must b) determine the cause, THEN g) IF the supplier is part of the root cause, SCAR the supplier.
The trend seems to be to send the SCAR first. I have often determined the root cause to be a customer error, then have to fight to get the NCR voided (and our supplier rating revised).
It would be really nice if the CB's out there would recognize and correct this behavior!
To add to this, again I mentioned the SCAR's with incomplete information. I notice that once we send our product out to the Aerospace world (distributors and primes), lot containment is often lost. Again, CB's, look at the NCR reports being sent to the suppliers. If they do not have traceability information, please issue an NCR!
Too much time is being wasted chasing phantoms that should have been found by the complaining party!
I would love to hear some input on this.
Thanks,
Eric