Decision-making – Supplier quality crisis (valves rejected for poor material/craftsmanship) Statement: Company X has rejected the first lot of valves supplied by Company A and cancelled its entire large order, citing inferior material and poor workmanship. Courses of Action: I. Company A should investigate its purchase, production, and quality-control functions. II. Company A should thoroughly inspect all the valves rejected by Company X. III. Company A should inform Company X of corrective steps taken and renegotiate the supply schedule.
-
AOnly I and II follow
-
BOnly II follows
-
CII, and either I or III follow
-
DAll I, II and III follow
-
ENone of these
Answer
Correct Answer: All I, II and III follow
Explanation
Introduction / Context:A major customer has rejected an initial lot and cancelled a large order, citing material and craftsmanship defects. We must select actions that address root cause, verify findings, and recover the relationship if possible.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Faults alleged: inferior material and poor workmanship.
- Consequences: lot rejection and total order cancellation.
- Supplier (Company A) aims to correct and retain business.
Concept / Approach:Quality crises require triad action: internal root-cause analysis, product verification, and customer communication/renegotiation after corrective measures.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Auditing purchasing (material specs), production (process capability), and QC (incoming/in-process/final checks) is essential. This follows.II: Joint/independent inspection of rejected units validates the problem, separates defect types, and quantifies nonconformities. This follows.III: After corrective and preventive actions (CAPA), communicating improvements and seeking schedule renegotiation is appropriate. This follows.Verification / Alternative check:Standard quality frameworks (8D, CAPA, PDCA) reflect the same sequence: contain, analyze, correct, prevent, and restore customer confidence.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Only subsets miss critical elements (e.g., CAPA communication).
- “Either I or III” misstates the need for both internal fixes and customer engagement.
Common Pitfalls:Jumping to renegotiation without analysis; disputing rejection without data.
Final Answer:All I, II and III follow