FWIW:
I always found a straightforward approach to be the most efficient.
If it were my supplier, I'd just say, "This chart looks like it was generated by a random number program. Do you have some samples we can examine to see if we can come close to replicating your results? The ideal, of course, would be if you had retained marked samples from your original data measurements."
Four years ago, I wrote (in http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=105469&postcount=18)
Our measurements were with instruments hard-wired (today I'd use wireless) directly to the computers where the measurements were entered into the software. They could have been fudged, but fudging was more difficult than just doing it legitimately.
We made a big deal out of having customers approve our production and inspection process as part of their contract review process. If you had done a thorough approval process of the supplier BEFORE granting a contract, you'd have more confidence in the quality data supplied with your products.
Under no circumstance would I fire the supplier without more proof of top management at the supplier instigating and approving data falsification.
I always found a straightforward approach to be the most efficient.
If it were my supplier, I'd just say, "This chart looks like it was generated by a random number program. Do you have some samples we can examine to see if we can come close to replicating your results? The ideal, of course, would be if you had retained marked samples from your original data measurements."
Four years ago, I wrote (in http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=105469&postcount=18)
We had no quality inspectors (we did have quality trainers and guys who acted as "court of last resort" when a question would arise.) Operators did own first article inspections, based on control plan/inspection plan agreed with customer as part of contract review. Another operator would perform a redundant first article inspection with different inspection instruments. Marked sample with BOTH inspection reports was sent to customer for confirmation before production began.
In-process inspection, SPC, etc. was performed by operator in real time. If nonconformance was discovered, production would halt - all operators would collaborate on finding and curing cause, only calling in outside help if solution eluded them. Inspection records, charts, etc. went right to computer where they were available in real time to in-house folk and customers.
In-process inspection, SPC, etc. was performed by operator in real time. If nonconformance was discovered, production would halt - all operators would collaborate on finding and curing cause, only calling in outside help if solution eluded them. Inspection records, charts, etc. went right to computer where they were available in real time to in-house folk and customers.
We made a big deal out of having customers approve our production and inspection process as part of their contract review process. If you had done a thorough approval process of the supplier BEFORE granting a contract, you'd have more confidence in the quality data supplied with your products.
Under no circumstance would I fire the supplier without more proof of top management at the supplier instigating and approving data falsification.