Customer Requirement for Sorting - Visual Defect on Plastic Part

[tongxiaozhi]

We are a automotive tier 2 and we supply hundreds of thousands plastic parts to one tier customer. Recently, they just found one part with minor visual defect and asked us to sort all their stock. Would you agree to the sorting requirement?

thanks

 

[QualitySpirit]

100% inspection is very normal in the automotive industry. It is a reaction when nonconforming products escape your plant to the customer.

 

[Golfman25]

We are a automotive tier 2 and we supply hundreds of thousands plastic parts to one tier customer. Recently, they just found one part with minor visual defect and asked us to sort all their stock. Would you agree to the sorting requirement?

thanks

While I wouldn't agree, it's a fact of life in automotive. They freak out. The buy on price, use imperfect processes and require "defect free" parts. It's a tough job.

 

[Ron Rompen]

What does your contract with the customer say? Most (in automotive especially) have a supplier quality manual which goes to all suppliers, and which details what recourse they have in the case of defective product.
Yes, just one part with a minor visual defect - but if one has been found, are there more? And will the OEM or the final customer (the buying public) agree that it is a 'minor' defect? That is what frequently drives things like this.

 

[tongxiaozhi]

What does your contract with the customer say? Most (in automotive especially) have a supplier quality manual which goes to all suppliers, and which details what recourse they have in the case of defective product.
Yes, just one part with a minor visual defect - but if one has been found, are there more? And will the OEM or the final customer (the buying public) agree that it is a 'minor' defect? That is what frequently drives things like this.

Thanks for your reply. Actually, this is not defined either in the contract or the supplier quality mannual.

If is a small defect that is only visible to our customer not visible to OEM. Also, the defect is not in the functional area.

I agree with you that we made a mistake first and it is difficult to argue with the customer

 

[tongxiaozhi]

While I wouldn't agree, it's a fact of life in automotive. They freak out. The buy on price, use imperfect processes and require "defect free" parts. It's a tough job.

I agree with you that life in automotive tier 2 is not easy. Customers are too demanding. If we agree to sort their stock, it is very costly for us; if not, it will create tensions with the customer, and more problems may ensue

 

[Rich Shippy]

It will get worse if you are a tier one and miss some of those parts on your inspection. In some cases they will require a 3rd party to certify the parts at your expense. In this business you may not be able to produce 100% defect free product, but you best have a way to ship 100% defect free product. End of line 100% inspection, vision systems etc. are quite the norm.

 

[normzone]

In this business you may not be able to produce 100% defect free product, but you best have a way to ship 100% defect free product. End of line 100% inspection, vision systems etc. are quite the norm.

I've always found everything I do to be quite the norm.

 

[BoardGuy]

Thanks for your reply. Actually, this is not defined either in the contract or the supplier quality mannual.

If is a small defect that is only visible to our customer not visible to OEM. Also, the defect is not in the functional area.

I agree with you that we made a mistake first and it is difficult to argue with the customer

First I would not say it was your mistake as all sampling plans are either at consumer or producer risk based on the selected plan and the defined AQL (1.0, 1.5, 2.0 etc). Even C = 0 plans acknowledge that some product supplied within a lot has the possibility of being nonconforming. No process is perfect.

I would negotiate the re-inspection of the product with the customer in the areas of what will be inspected. In addition, since the customer agreed to sampling, you should negotiate the need for formal written correct action response. If the re-inspection does not identify more defectives than allowed by sampling plan and AQL, then no formal corrective actions should be required. If the defectives are higher than one should be performed. [FONT=&quot]Of course you still need to correct the process (if possible) to prevent further defectives.[/FONT]

 

[qcman]

As a tier 2 to the automotive sector I have sorted to many times. A few things I learned early on is.

1. Just because the customer says its a defect doesn't mean you are not meeting the print specifications previously agreed to. Too many SQE's are quick to judgement when their customer complains.

2. Always establish boundary samples early on and get them signed off by the customer. People come and go so plan on revisiting the boundaries with them from time to time.

3. Some come on like bulls threatening you with this or that but don't be afraid to respectfully push back. Most everything can be negotiated even sort charges.