Customer STA (SQE) Ignorance and Arrogance

Is Your Customer STA (SQE) Arrogant?

  • NA - but want to see the poll results.

    Votes: 11 40.7%
  • My STA (SQE) is a sweety.

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • My STA (SQE) is OK.

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • My STA (SQE) is tough, but fair.

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • My STA (SQE) is arrogant.

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • My STA (SQE) is arrogant and ignorant to boot!

    Votes: 7 25.9%

  • Total voters
    27

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
#1
Recently I was speaking with 'my' Visteon STA with respect to a PPAP submission. One of his comments to me was "Send me dimensionals and don't fudge the numbers." Personally I was offended and p***ed that he would make such a remark. I felt I was being accused of being subject to fraud. Your comments?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
#2
Fudging numbers?

Marc, you have been around long enough to know that companies routinely 'fudge' PPAP, R&R, SPC, FMEA, PPk,......
The big three know it too. This results in the perception that ALL suppliers engage in that. Some folks are lucky enough to have the same STA (or equivalent) for a number of years and build a relationship of trust. Most don't have that luxury.

I think that this is one of the biggest problems in our industry. The customer’s don’t trust their suppliers, who don’t trust their vendors (and backwards as well).

Regardless, I would be concerned if it didn’t tick you off a bit. When you start looking at incidents like this as just part of the game, you should start to worry.

One quick suggestion. Turn your STA on to the Cove. If he is worth any salt at all, he should immediately understand you are straight shooter and give you no further static! He might even become a major assest to the Cove!
 
A

Al Dyer

#3
Amen,

A couple I have worked with were "seasoned" and knew their jobs and how to interract with the suppliers.

On too many occasions there have been "greenhorns" that graduated from Tim Buck U and feel they know how business is supposed to run and feel that they are one of the choosen few to save the world because they know how to fill out an X-R chart.

Although they don't know how to interpret data or work with the tools at hand.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
#4
Well, to be honest I already have him on a leash now that the dust has settled. In addition, I doubt he's the Cove type. But I may clue him in just in case.

What gets to me is the defacto guilty. It comes as no surprise that many people are turned off by the attitude. One tries to start out by being friendly and communicative and this is what one gets, I suppose.

I'm not insinuating they're all bad but this one is a humdinger.

As far as 'fudging' numbers being routine - I have no problem agreeing that it probably is a problem here and there, but I hear this in the first real talk with the fellow and it blew away any respect or concern I have for the guy. That's why I got him on a short leash quick (I have some tricks up my sleeve, too). He's still being testy but has backed off and apologised twice.

I asked the question above as I really am curious if a lot of people feel trod upon by their STA and what comments or stories folks may have.

As a last comment, I included the ignorant part because it surprised me how little he knows about what's going on, particularly within his company.
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
#5
STA = SQE?

If so, the SQEs and project managers I have worked with go the full spectrum. Most that I have worked with at GM have been of the Tim Buck U variety: mostly ignorant and arrogant. The turnover rate is purely unacceptable from my perspective as many new engineers fail to understand their organizations requests on the supplier.

On the other hand, I have had a number of good experiences with folks from Mazda, Volvo, Honda, Toyota, and Hummer (under the direction of GM although they have communicated to me the same issues I have experienced. Come to think of it, Saturn felt the same way too!).

Nonetheless, good or bad personalities, I am disappointed by the level of knowledge OEMs have of QS9000 (or their equivalent) System requirements many years after the release of the requirements. I blame this on high turnover experienced at these OEMs. In seven years dealing with the OEMs, I can't recall a single SQE that went beyond a year (some two dozen or so). This goes for the Project Managers, various buyers, and Supplier Management.

Imagine the cost associated with all this turnover...and the aggrivation it breeds!

Regards,

Kevin
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
#6
Yeah. I think that plays a big part of it, Kevin, and may be the 'main' failure mode.

One of the things I have found with Visteon as of late is that no one communicates and no one will take responsibility by, for example, putting in writing what they want or what they agree to. The STA (SQE) is in Royal Oak, the plant is in another state and the 'home office' is in yet another state. It's the old "Right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" issue. On top of that, each wants different, contradictory things. On top of that, getting a valid print took over 8 months (that's 8 months after beginning of shipping!).

Back in college I took a course called Formal Logic. I fear it has done me harm as now when I analyze things I see how few people think logically, especially corporate and other 'top management' types (to be fair, at all levels) I get depressed when I think about how many idiots are running around. Had I not taken that course I may have been more dumb and happy. I don't know.

I will say that after watching this stuff for years what used to worry me now makes me chuckle and laugh. Being back in the trenches again for the first time in a number of years is making me laugh. Quite a lot. I used to take all the frustrations and worry home with me. I think people here must think I'm smoking something - They keep asking why I laugh all the time. I just answer "I'm thinking of a 3 ring circus and all the clowns" which is basically the truth...
 
T

tarheel

#7
STA

The reason they feel like everyone is fudging is that many times, they don't allow the supplier enough time to do the job right. Over 20 years many times the STA (SQA,SQE) would be pushing to get his paperwork long before the process was ready so he or she could make their charts all green. The supplier is in a no-win situation. If they hold up the paperwork, the STA gets upset and makes your life miserable, if you make up the numbers, you risk long-term problems. This is the core of the problem with the auto industry. My Japanese quality counterparts had no problem extending deadlines if required to make something right. Its no coincidence Japan still leads the world in quality. :bonk:
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
#9
Yes he did. How did he phrase it when responding to the question, "When will we catch up to the Japanese?"

"How is it that you catch a speeding train gaining speed all the while?"

Aiming at targets outside of the system's capability only will make matters worse.

Kev
 
#10
I have noticed such commments generally come from younger and/or inexperienced SQEs. I compare it to happy talk we get from newscasters.

It seems to come from a need to be cute/cool/part of the "in" group/whatever; a need to swagger verbally and to show you are in the know. When it occurs I generally nod and smile.

However, when it comes from more experienced personnel, I do not let it pass. "God Lord, have we been giving you fudged numbers?" or some such commnent usually shuts them down.

Ben
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
FuzzyD ISO 13485:2016 Customer Assessment OFI ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
I Restricting scope to one part number for one customer IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
R Customer Listed on Approved Supplier List (ASL) AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
N 8.3.3.3 Special characteristics - Auditor said we are required to create our own, if no customer char. exist. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
R Audit from Customer - concerned with IP protection ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
L Documenting internal audit of customer specific requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
L Supplier Performance when your supplier is also the customer ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
I Customer Feedback Medical Devices ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
JoeRandom11 Question about Customer Supplied Equipment AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
Moncia Customer satisfaction monitoring - ISO 9001 and 14001 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 24
D Customer Survey Example - ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
R Customer feedbacks sampling size EU Medical Device Regulations 4
G ISO 9001 - when implementing customer requirement ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
P Customer Specific Requirements (Costco Wholesale) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
S Customer audit report review and approval ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A Report on handling customer property ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
L Customer Complaint Internal Auditing 3
M Corrective action for a defect from customer's mistaken Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
T Customer Rejecting Part for Basic Dimension Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 16
P Customer 8D IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
M Customer Dimensions on Internal Drawing, all of them? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
Robinson A Improving Customer Satisfaction Service Industry Specific Topics 5
M How to show the effect of the failure mode on the manufacturing process as a customer of product design process? FMEA and Control Plans 3
K SaMD and Customer Integrations Medical Information Technology, Medical Software and Health Informatics 3
JoCam Non CE marked device for customer review Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
L Question regarding "Customer Property" AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
Sortinghat Locating Customer Supplier Manuals Customer and Company Specific Requirements 5
S Rude Customer Auditor General Auditing Discussions 18
M Customer Specific Requirements - Packaging Spec IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
D Automotive Customer asking for ISO 14001 Certification from suppliers ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 3
M Signed PSW directly to End customer, Tier 1 wants their own PPAP IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
D Customer requirements on specific standards Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 6
Crimpshrine13 Customer Scorecards - Missing Scorecard from one Customer IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 27
B Customer Preference Testing Customer and Company Specific Requirements 2
T No Customer Response to an SCR Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
D Customer Specific Requirements / Customer Requirements for Indirect Customers IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
H Customer Specific Change in a SaaS SAMD IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
B Put on escalation by customer? is there a requirement to notify registrar? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
P 7.5.10 Customer property - applies to leased/rented equipment? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
M Customer Property - ISO 13485:2016 Clause 7.5.10 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
R Cpk demands from automotive customer Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 8
briteme4 Customer Requests FAI on Tooling Fixture AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
D Suggestions for Ishikawa for hyperdetailed customer - plastic molding automotive parts Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
J WAIVED ON Q1 - We Don't have to comply with FORDS customer specific requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
A Customer Approval (Medical Devices) Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
M Reduce occurrence rating based on the PMS data and customer complaint data ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 2
M IATF16949 Clause 9.1.2.1e - Customer notification related IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
G Too many customer complaints Customer Complaints 16
lanley liao Does the customer`s trademark belong to customer-supplied property? Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 2
J Customer Complaint & SCAR, false data Nonconformance and Corrective Action 14

Similar threads

Top Bottom