Text item: 

Norm,
What you say is logical, but what should the PPM(defect) reduction program look 
like? What are the obligations of supplier and customer?
Steve


     While this position of "buy back" sounds like "that's the way it should
be", in the real world of process yields and missed communications this
business position will ultimately result in supplier switching, higher
pricing and poor supplier relationships.
     No one can run an on going business selling an item for $10 that has
process yields of 78% to 98% and a "buy back" liability on each one of $100
or more for any found "defective".  We aren't buying labels and hardware
here.

     Norm Dill
     [log in to unmask]



Text item: External Message Header

The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.

***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.

Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
X-Loop: [log in to unmask]
X-Mailing-List: <[log in to unmask]> archive/latest/4957
Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
Resent-Message-ID: <"keoJ7.0.ONJ.vALsn"@ipc>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0
Encoding: 131 TEXT
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 96 12:55:00 DST
Subject: FW: Liability
To: "'IPC - Technet Input'" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Dill, Norm J" <[log in to unmask]>
Old-Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Resent-Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
     id m0ub8cG-0000D7C; Tue, 2 Jul 96 11:47 CDT
Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:13:13 -0700
Received: from ipc.org by simon.ipc.org via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI)
      id MAA21374; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:13:13 -0700
Received: from simon.ipc.org (IPC.ORG [168.113.24.64]) by ormail.intel.com (8.7.
4/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA22272 for <[log in to unmask]>; Tue, 2 Jul
 1996 10:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ormail.intel.com by relay.hf.intel.com with smtp
     (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0ub9Bq-000qDVC; Tue, 2 Jul 96 10:24 PDT