[转帖]业体访问的5分钟法则(2)
On the subject of putting them at ease: You will get little accomplished if the supplier feels that you are the lead representative for the Inquisition. From the first moment try to develop a rapport and a positive, goal directed relationship. Most people at your suppliers feel comfortable in this role. After all isn’t that why they are your supplier, they are solving a ‘problem’ (providing product, service, expertise, etc.) that you cannot solve yourself? Make the most of their expertise by developing a positive win-win attitude with them.
If there is a problem to be discussed, I typically ask to have an operator and their supervisor at the opening meeting (depending on the problem). If I sense opposition to this it implies that management may be trying to filter information to and from employees. Makes me wonder why. (X theory management style, incompetent operator?) If the hourly employee (operator, tool & die maker, etc., i.e. process ‘owner’) is at the meeting, but edgy, then they may not be comfortable in the same room with management, again I wonder why. If they are there, appear at ease, attentive and can contribute easily, it says volumes for the participative style of management, their training methods, and willingness to share leadership. I often ask directed (and direct) questions; politically correct questions are not part of my forte. If a defensive attitude comes up I may be pushing too hard or it may be a warning of something else going on. An example of this in a meeting format, especially when something doesn’t seem to ring true is to start the why questioning method (Poka-Yoke). This can make some management very uncomfortable as you near a root cause, especially if the root cause may be their lack of follow-up. Any well-versed quality professional tends to keep their mouths shut since they may have already asked the questions and they likely already know where the questions are headed. Recognizing this, I try to direct the ‘why’ questions to management.
Time spent observing the process and talking to operators is often the most valuable time that can be spent while in the facility working a specific problem or performing an audit. If the purpose of the visit is a first time quality system audit, I may take a little more time in the opening (and closing) meeting so that they have a clear understanding the scope and results of the audit.
The supplier has already given me a strong impression of their management style, commitment and value that they place on customers (and employees) in the first 5 minutes on their grounds. This initial impression is seldom wrong when you know what to look for and keep an open mind in interpretation. Don’t misunderstand, I do not base my entire evaluation on the first 5-minute impression and then work to try to support this ‘feeling’, but experience has taught me that this first impression is seldom wrong (Adam was right!). There have been only a few occasions where the first impression was not a good indicator of the strength of the suppliers’ commitment to quality (seldom, but often enough to cause one to keep an open mind).
The sum total of the visit should be to provide my company with an evaluation of the strength of the suppliers’ current quality system, commitment to quality, and most importantly a prediction of the ability of the company to constantly improve. The rote part of assigning numbers to indicate compliance to specific requirements really is a minor part of the audit and these numbers can be highly misleading to management. A high number in this case means only that they have satisfactory documentation and that they follow it well. I can teach most any 5th grader to perform this type of fill-in-the-number audit. If this is all that the auditor does then they are doing both the supplier and their host company a disservice.
The management attitude of the supplier is most important, but it is also the most difficult to report in objective terms, especially to the suppliers management. Trip reports to your company should always include this information. Your own management may need to be briefed on the meaning of the report since it is often not presented in a way that lends itself to a quick glance. To make it as easy as possible for my management to understand the trip, the beginning of the report, of course, states the intent of the supplier visit. The next heading will usually be RECOMMENDATIONS (or SUMMATION) which gives a quick distillation of the results. If I am recommending that we not do business with the supplier, I say so straight out. Do not be afraid to state this if you feel strongly. I have felt that way a few times, said so and the supplier was used anyhow due to other issues (sole source, best price, etc.). In every case the supplier ended up causing many problems and we eventually got out after spending much to correct the problems. Your company is paying you to tell the truth and to use your head. After a couple of episodes where your recommendations are overridden or ignored your management may start paying attention. If you don’t relate what you have seen and felt, then you are partly to blame for use of a substandard supplier and later others have someone to pin blame on. I hope that your company has moved beyond this but everyone relapses to finger pointing behavior at times.
The next and largest section is DETAIL where I go into the objective data supporting how the recommendations were formed. The objective data is support for the things that have been noted whether they be attitude and/or the specifics noted. Ex: quantity sampled, number of defects (if any), areas sampled, people met, and any other pertinent observations. The main purpose of this area is as background and an accurate appraisal of where the supplier is and possible recommendations for improvement. Seldom does management read this section since it could possibly be several pages, but it is necessary to keep as part of the suppliers file for subsequent trips by yourself and others. Also, if a numerical rating is taken from a ‘canned’ audit sheet, this is the area that I describe the rating.
I typically send the supplier a copy of the trip report unless there is a strong recommendation for not doing business with them. Then I will simply send a ‘thank you for your time’ note.
If there is a problem to be discussed, I typically ask to have an operator and their supervisor at the opening meeting (depending on the problem). If I sense opposition to this it implies that management may be trying to filter information to and from employees. Makes me wonder why. (X theory management style, incompetent operator?) If the hourly employee (operator, tool & die maker, etc., i.e. process ‘owner’) is at the meeting, but edgy, then they may not be comfortable in the same room with management, again I wonder why. If they are there, appear at ease, attentive and can contribute easily, it says volumes for the participative style of management, their training methods, and willingness to share leadership. I often ask directed (and direct) questions; politically correct questions are not part of my forte. If a defensive attitude comes up I may be pushing too hard or it may be a warning of something else going on. An example of this in a meeting format, especially when something doesn’t seem to ring true is to start the why questioning method (Poka-Yoke). This can make some management very uncomfortable as you near a root cause, especially if the root cause may be their lack of follow-up. Any well-versed quality professional tends to keep their mouths shut since they may have already asked the questions and they likely already know where the questions are headed. Recognizing this, I try to direct the ‘why’ questions to management.
Time spent observing the process and talking to operators is often the most valuable time that can be spent while in the facility working a specific problem or performing an audit. If the purpose of the visit is a first time quality system audit, I may take a little more time in the opening (and closing) meeting so that they have a clear understanding the scope and results of the audit.
The supplier has already given me a strong impression of their management style, commitment and value that they place on customers (and employees) in the first 5 minutes on their grounds. This initial impression is seldom wrong when you know what to look for and keep an open mind in interpretation. Don’t misunderstand, I do not base my entire evaluation on the first 5-minute impression and then work to try to support this ‘feeling’, but experience has taught me that this first impression is seldom wrong (Adam was right!). There have been only a few occasions where the first impression was not a good indicator of the strength of the suppliers’ commitment to quality (seldom, but often enough to cause one to keep an open mind).
The sum total of the visit should be to provide my company with an evaluation of the strength of the suppliers’ current quality system, commitment to quality, and most importantly a prediction of the ability of the company to constantly improve. The rote part of assigning numbers to indicate compliance to specific requirements really is a minor part of the audit and these numbers can be highly misleading to management. A high number in this case means only that they have satisfactory documentation and that they follow it well. I can teach most any 5th grader to perform this type of fill-in-the-number audit. If this is all that the auditor does then they are doing both the supplier and their host company a disservice.
The management attitude of the supplier is most important, but it is also the most difficult to report in objective terms, especially to the suppliers management. Trip reports to your company should always include this information. Your own management may need to be briefed on the meaning of the report since it is often not presented in a way that lends itself to a quick glance. To make it as easy as possible for my management to understand the trip, the beginning of the report, of course, states the intent of the supplier visit. The next heading will usually be RECOMMENDATIONS (or SUMMATION) which gives a quick distillation of the results. If I am recommending that we not do business with the supplier, I say so straight out. Do not be afraid to state this if you feel strongly. I have felt that way a few times, said so and the supplier was used anyhow due to other issues (sole source, best price, etc.). In every case the supplier ended up causing many problems and we eventually got out after spending much to correct the problems. Your company is paying you to tell the truth and to use your head. After a couple of episodes where your recommendations are overridden or ignored your management may start paying attention. If you don’t relate what you have seen and felt, then you are partly to blame for use of a substandard supplier and later others have someone to pin blame on. I hope that your company has moved beyond this but everyone relapses to finger pointing behavior at times.
The next and largest section is DETAIL where I go into the objective data supporting how the recommendations were formed. The objective data is support for the things that have been noted whether they be attitude and/or the specifics noted. Ex: quantity sampled, number of defects (if any), areas sampled, people met, and any other pertinent observations. The main purpose of this area is as background and an accurate appraisal of where the supplier is and possible recommendations for improvement. Seldom does management read this section since it could possibly be several pages, but it is necessary to keep as part of the suppliers file for subsequent trips by yourself and others. Also, if a numerical rating is taken from a ‘canned’ audit sheet, this is the area that I describe the rating.
I typically send the supplier a copy of the trip report unless there is a strong recommendation for not doing business with them. Then I will simply send a ‘thank you for your time’ note.
没有找到相关结果
已邀请:
RSS Feed
0 个回复