Carl O. Hilgarth's Commentary on "US Parts"
Author(s):
Carl O. Hilgarth
I
Since John Budinski is aware of the contract specifications
with USAWAY, he must bring the supplier's bolt problem to the
attention of his supervisor, as Clarke Engineering is
responsible to meet the requirement that all parts in the
product they supply USAWAY are made in the United States. I see
the following as alternatives for him to present to
management:
- Do not notify USAWAY about the supplier bolt problem.
Accept the parts as manufactured by the supplier. Meet the
delivery deadline. Swap the bolts for those of domestic
manufacture when they are available and when Clarke
Engineering services or repairs the equipment.
- Notify USAWAY of the supplier problem. Propose to meet
the delivery deadline by accepting the parts as manufactured
by the supplier and swap the bolts for those of domestic
manufacture as a special field retrofit or when Clarke
services or repairs the equipment.
- Notify USAWAY of the supplier problem. Propose delaying
delivery until replacement bolts of domestic manufacture are
available. Have cost and schedule impact data for discussion
with USAWAY.
- Notify USAWAY of the supplier problem. Propose
redesigning the part to avoid using the bolts of foreign
manufacture. Have cost and schedule impact data for
discussion with USAWAY.
- Put the heat on the supplier. Tell him to fix the problem
or you'll find another supplier of the part who can meet the
original schedule using all domestically manufactured
components. He knew the specifications. It's his oversight.
He has to fix it.
- Work with the supplier. Obtain the mechanical properties
and dimensions of the bolts. Determine if there is an
appropriate American made substitute, and use it. If there is
any impact on the performance of the part, notify USAWAY and
propose the domestic manufacture of the replacement bolts and
a special field retrofit. Have cost and schedule impact data
for discussion with USAWAY.
Alternative (a) is unethical and violates the negotiated
contract. Alternative (b) is politically unfeasible from
USAWAY's point of view. Alternatives (c) and (d) will affect
Clarke's ability to meet the deadline. (e) means the supplier
will tell you to "take a hike", causing you to start the
supplier search all over and affect Clarke's ability to meet
the delivery deadline.
Alternative (f) seems to be the most practical approach.
USAWAY will have a product that meets their business and
supplier philosophy--all parts are manufactured in the United
States. Clarke can meet the schedule although it might dig into
their profit if a retrofit is needed. However, Clarke may be
able to do the retrofit as field service under their repair
contract. As a quality engineer, John Budinski should be able
to make this recommendation to his supervision who should then
forward it to USAWAY for review and approval.
II
Well, John kept the problem to himself. Now USAWAY
officials, having heard second hand about what Clarke
Engineering did, and without examining the products Clarke has
supplied, confront Clarke. Were I the Clarke representative, I
would ask the USAWAY officials for the basis and evidence of
their allegation, citing the need for this to be able to
conduct any meaningful investigation. If this is forthcoming,
I'll begin a formal inquiry. If not, I'll check informally,
just to make sure. Either way, I'll find out what happened. The
tough part will be what to do about it.
Any action taken internally with respect to John Budinski
will certainly find its way through the grapevine to USAWAY who
will then assume a cover-up, and really become suspect of us
not having met their contractual requirements. So, whatever I
find out, I'll have to check further than just this contract.
I'll have to check every contract with USAWAY to verify,
hopefully, that this was the first and last incident, assuming
that USAWAY will also review all our contracts and inspect our
parts. My objective would be to treat all parties fairly and
remove any suspicion from USAWAY that Clarke engaged in a
cover-up. John Budinski would probably receive a reprimand,
USAWAY would be told what happened and offered replacement of
all the affected bolts in the parts we delivered at our
cost.
III
If John's immediate superior tells him to let the product go
out as is, he should at least request a meeting with the two of
them and the chief quality engineer to discuss the issue and
options at a management level. His leverage is the long term
potential of defaulting on this contract if USAWAY finds out
about the bolts to make this a decision for more than just an
engineer and a supervisor. At the meeting, the options should
be reviewed, and a decision made, hopefully alternative (6).
While this seems like it is passing the buck, the resulting
decision is nonetheless informed and hopefully responsible.
And, this decision must be documented in the part supplier's
dossier and communicated to USAWAY. If the situation is
addressed straight up, and the former employee tells the story,
there is at least a record at Clarke and maybe at USAWAY of
what happened with respect to the bolts and how Clarke resolved
it.
Alternatively, if there is no meeting and the product goes
out as is, hopefully John's supervisor took the appropriate
action (alternative (2)), documented it, and communicated it to
USAWAY). In any event, John must document the use of the
foreign bolts during the part's receiving inspection as
conformance to the supplier's design. Should there be an
investigation regarding Clarke's fulfillment of USAWAY's
contract, the inspection report may not be nice reading if the
product was sent out as is without USAWAY's knowledge. Better
to do this than falsify the record. Better yet, be straight-up
with the customer and be a proactive problem solver for
him.