I am stuck in the middle of meeting customer requirements and presenting commercial arguments (one in the same I hear you all say)!

I am producing a process flow for a production operation. The part is manufactured overseas and shipped to us here in the UK. We then ship this to the customer after a quality inspection and decant operation.

One of the commercial managers at my company wants me to add this quality inspection and decant to the process flow (for commercial reasons!). We would not normally do this, but is it commonplace? Should you include this outside operation on the process flow?

How would you represent this? You should, I guess indicate that the part has left the line, is shipped and then inspected & decanted, before being shipped again.

Can anyone offer advice?

Cheers,

I am stuck in the middle of meeting customer requirements and presenting commercial arguments (one in the same I hear you all say)!

I am producing a process flow for a production operation. The part is manufactured overseas and shipped to us here in the UK. We then ship this to the customer after a quality inspection and decant operation.

One of the commercial managers at my company wants me to add this quality inspection and decant to the process flow (for commercial reasons!). We would not normally do this, but is it commonplace? Should you include this outside operation on the process flow?

How would you represent this? You should, I guess indicate that the part has left the line, is shipped and then inspected & decanted, before being shipped again.
Manix,
It's not clear from your post what's going on. In the first paragraph you say We...ship this to the customer after a quality inspection and decant operation.
Then you say,emphasis added,
Should you include this outside operation on the process flow?
If you are referring to what you do as the "outside operation" (i.e., you're not receiving the thing and then sending it out somewhere for inspection and decant) then what you're doing is part of the process flow and should be included.
What does your customer want to see? What do you mean by "commercial reasons"? What do you see as the objective or purpose of the PFD?

I have to agree. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

If you receive the parts from an "outside source" (whether your facility in another county or a completly seperate supplier) then you decant, then inspect, then ship to the final destination, they should be added to the process flow.

I am not sure who the customer is, nor does it matter, however if you are the last person to touch the product prior to the final destination then you need to have processes defined and included on the Process Flow.

For example, we manufacture parts here in Southern CA. They are boxed and shipped to an affiliate (same owner, different companies) of ours in Northern CA. They laser etch and stamp all the parts, conduct a Visual, ID, OD, Wall Thickness inspection and repackage and ship to our customer. All those processes are on our flow diagram, and there are SOPs for each operation. All dimensional and performance testing is done here in Southern CA (Burst, Adhesion, Etc.)

In my opinion you need to add them to your flow diagram and ensure that the processes are documented and audited. "Commercial Reasons" or not.

Jsut some thoughts....

Sorry, maybe I should have explained it better.

Basically our remote factory manufacturers the part. They then ship it to us and we decant and inspect. Our process flows usually only cover the manufacturing operation done remotely. They do not normally include anything done after shipping the part from the production line.

So what I am saying is, the inspections/decant that we do here, is remote from the manufacturing process and therfore not normally included on the process flow.

The commercial reasons are that we want to appear to have a hand in the process and therefore get credti for doing something before the customer sees the part!

Having a hand in the process to get credit is a poor excuse.

Who cares who gets credit? If it is for sales purposes to justify a cost increase then Ok, I understand, I disagree, but I understand.

The decanting should be a seperate process and then the packaging and shipment should be a seperate process. The process is not complete until the customer accepts the part anyways. Your remote location manufactures the part, you decant and ship. You are part of the process.

All of our process flow diagrams and processes end with "Customer Acceptance" realizing that all companies are different, you stated yours stops at shipment. The remote location is not shipping, they are transferring to you, then you are shipping. Imagine you have an off site warehouse or a 3PL and you ship them parts. They repackage and ship your orders. They are a part of the process.

Just some thoughts.....

Sorry, maybe I should have explained it better.

Basically our remote factory manufacturers the part. They then ship it to us and we decant and inspect. Our process flows usually only cover the manufacturing operation done remotely. They do not normally include anything done after shipping the part from the production line.

So what I am saying is, the inspections/decant that we do here, is remote from the manufacturing process and therfore not normally included on the process flow.

The commercial reasons are that we want to appear to have a hand in the process and therefore get credti for doing something before the customer sees the part!

I think IEGEEK's response is generally good, and I agree that what you're doing should be included. In general, the criteria I use for what should be included are:

If the process adds value to the part or product, include it.
If the process has the potential to affect product quality, include it.
The reasons for the two universal criteria are that inclusion in the PFD, (if APQP is done correctly) will assure that the processes are included in risk analysis (PFMEA) and appropriate controls will be identified and documented.

Thanks IE GEEK, I take your points.

Perhaps I was being a bit unfair in saying we are doing something just to get credit. It's a bit of a complex customer with complex issues!

Anyway, what I thnk I will do is add these operations to the process flow and subsequently the PFMEA and Control Plan.

I like your thoughts on 'Transferring' Rather than Shipping. This may now be represented in all my Process Flows.

Does anyone else feel that despite all the standards, the regulations etc, that we only end up leaving everything down to interpretation anyway! Sure they give us good guidlines from which to work, but if the customer wants it their way then thats it!

As you maybe aware I am YOUNG I will learn (or maybe I will change the way we work, challenge, explore, maybe find the ultimate system that works for everybody) Then again maybe I'll win the lottery and not have to bother! :thanx:

Well good luck and keep us posted.

:D

Hey guys,

Same process flow different dilema.

I have just reviewed the PPAP checklist of one of our customers. Under Process Flow Diagram, it asks a question:

Does any Re-work or Inspection Points match the Control Plan.

As part of our control plan, inspection is carried out at certain frequency after virtually every process step!

So do I have to include this inspection point with every step?

Let me know what you think!

The control plan is a document that binds together the various controls that you use. In a lot of cases the actual controls are implemented via work/operator instructions/specifications that are at the stations.
The inspections that you talk about should be documented, the question is are they referenced on the control plan and are the inspections part of the process or a different station, if a differnt station then the station must exist on the flow chart etc.
In a lot of cases and to prevent constant changing of the control plan the documents are just referenced to on the control plan and this then is enough

Just to complicate matters see this thread as well
Dock audits on Process FMEA, Control Plan and Process Flow Diagram (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=10807)
Check what is your situation according to this and see if it fits in.
If not please come back

If the process adds value to the part or product, include it.
If the process has the potential to affect product quality, include it.

Just to expand a bit:
A transfer or storage operation may or may not be viewed as value added or even being able to affect product quality. Whatever your view, you are trying to document your process FLOW. These two types of steps need to be included in the Process Flow Diagram and, subsequently, included in the PFMEA and Control Plan (even if you have no Potential Failure Modes identified). Regarding an inspection step - whether you view it as "value added" or not, it certainly can affect product quality and also should be included as mentioned above.

Just to expand a bit:
A transfer or storage operation may or may not be viewed as value added or even being able to affect product quality. Whatever your view, you are trying to document your process FLOW. These two types of steps need to be included in the Process Flow Diagram and, subsequently, included in the PFMEA and Control Plan (even if you have no Potential Failure Modes identified). Regarding an inspection step - whether you view it as "value added" or not, it certainly can affect product quality and also should be included as mentioned above.
I agree. I didn't mean for the two items to be exclusive. I don't agree, however, that all of the steps shown in the PFD and PFMEA always need to show up in the control plan, however. If we have operations A, B, C and D in the PFD and PFMEA, and the PFMEA indicates that no risk mitigation is necessary for C, then there's no point in including it in the control plan. If, in viewing the control plan, we see that "C" is missing, it's a simple thing to refer to the PFMEA document to find out why. Instances such as this are relatively rare, and usually the inclusion of "C" should involve control of process characteristics as opposed to inspection of part characteristics, but there shouldn't be a blanket edict that A, B, C and D are always required to appear in the control plan.

I don't agree, however, that all of the steps shown in the PFD and PFMEA always need to show up in the control plan, however
I agree with you. I'm just so used to having all three documents match, in regards to having all process steps listed, and not having to explain to an SQE who is too lazy to "look back" that it's ingrained in my methodology (plus the fact that our software "forces" each step onto the PFMEA and CP :rolleyes: ).

I agree with you. I'm just so used to having all three documents match, in regards to having all process steps listed, and not having to explain to an SQE who is too lazy to "look back" that it's ingrained in my methodology (plus the fact that our software "forces" each step onto the PFMEA and CP :rolleyes: ).
Yes, the tail does wag the dog sometimes, doesn't it?:frust:

I don't agree, however, that all of the steps shown in the PFD and PFMEA always need to show up in the control plan, however. If we have operations A, B, C and D in the PFD and PFMEA, and the PFMEA indicates that no risk mitigation is necessary for C, then there's no point in including it in the control plan. If, in viewing the control plan, we see that "C" is missing, it's a simple thing to refer to the PFMEA document to find out why. Instances such as this are relatively rare, and usually the inclusion of "C" should involve control of process characteristics as opposed to inspection of part characteristics, but there shouldn't be a blanket edict that A, B, C and D are always required to appear in the control plan.

I understand what you are saying JSW, however, personally I would prefer to have all the steps tying up in all documentation. Flicking un-necessarily from doc to doc to find out why a step is missing seems a bit, well, a waste of time in it's self. Simply include the step to start off with, just indicate that no controls are able to be put into place....etc

Anyway, i am posting this off of the back of a meeting with a Ford STA and another meeting with an TS 16949 Auditor!

HELP!

Flicking un-necessarily from doc to doc to find out why a step is missing seems a bit, well, a waste of time in it's self. Simply include the step to start off with, just indicate that no controls are able to be put into place....etc


Internally, I would not be flipping from doc to doc - I know the processes. So it wouldn't be a problem. However, you have to ask what these documents are being used for. From my experience it is to sell. You are selling your process to the customer to show you can run the products and to gain other business. In that case, put all the info in because you don't know what your competition has included.

Although 4 weeks old. I would include all the processes whether done in-house or out sourced.

And yes, the process flow diagram, process FMEA and the Control Plan should all have the same basic process steps. It's a pain to update such items working in Excel, but software packages such as MPACT seamlessly tie them all together. :yes:

We just got tuned up by our TS16949 auditor for missing processes on the control plan.

He reminded us that it is a triad (Flow/FMEA/CP)

First you map the flow, then look at the risks (FMEA), then put something in place to control the bigger risks (CP).

We had missed a lot of process steps on our process flow. We knew better but were just caught up in getting the paperwork to the customer as fast and easy as possible.

He made it real simple. Go to the work area, every time someone or some thing does something, consider it for inclusion on the flow. This makes a big flow diagram!

He was correct of course. We had left off a lot of move operations. And material handling damage does in fact occur. So if we actually try to control our risks, we will be better off.

We just got tuned up by our TS16949 auditor for missing processes on the control plan.

He reminded us that it is a triad (Flow/FMEA/CP)

First you map the flow, then look at the risks (FMEA), then put something in place to control the bigger risks (CP).

We had missed a lot of process steps on our process flow. We knew better but were just caught up in getting the paperwork to the customer as fast and easy as possible.

He made it real simple. Go to the work area, every time someone or some thing does something, consider it for inclusion on the flow. This makes a big flow diagram!

He was correct of course. We had left off a lot of move operations. And material handling damage does in fact occur. So if we actually try to control our risks, we will be better off.

I have a couple of comments.

1. Glad you brought up the point on the TS 16949 audit NC. We, too, got an minor NC for not having consistency among the PFD -- PFMEA -- CONTROL PLAN. In this case, their was a simple typo (an SC appeared in the PFMEA but it didn't show in the Control Plan). I thought it was kind of picky but it showed the auditor was thorough in the product he was auditing.

2. I disagree on including everything (infer "detail") that occurs on the floor should show up on a process flow diagram. That would be a monsterously large PFD. I would rather have the process flow diagram capture the dynamic complexity of the overall process flow diagram and the details would be pointed to in the shop floor work instruction or operation process sheets.

I think its best to start from the top and work down. That is, first define the process elements at a level that makes it applicable to the product you are producing. For example, to make a metal car or truck fender you would begin by identifying the process elements:

BLANK >>> STAMP >>> TRIM >>> PAINT

The next pass would be to "drill down" and add-in the incoming receipt of raw material and associated QC measures to receive and accept the material. Then TRANSPORT and STORAGE (if not just-in-time) and so on and so forth.

Keep specific details or works instructions separate but let the Process Flow Diagram function as router.

I disagree on including everything (infer "detail") that occurs on the floor should show up on a process flow diagram.
Caster said, "Go to the work area, every time someone or some thing does something, consider it for inclusion on the flow" (emphasis added). Caster is correct, or the auditor who gave that advice was. One has to be judicious and deliberate in deciding what to include and what to leave out, however.

I would rather have the process flow diagram capture the dynamic complexity of the overall process flow diagram and the details would be pointed to in the shop floor work instruction or operation process sheets.
I agree--the best PFDs, imo, are the simplest ones, and all I really need to see is all of the significant operations in order of execution.

I feel there is a good balance between 'simple' and 'too complex'. In order for all the documents to tie up you would need to have this correct balance.

If a step requires control (because there are failure modes related) then this would need to be in your process flow, in order to be included (and thus tie up with) your control plan.

For Example...... 'Painting' is a bit too vague to be an all encompassing step on your PFD.

There are different stages to Painting, preparation of metal, pre treatement, primer application etc. Each requireing a different level of control.

Therefore these would be different steps in your PFD.

I would welcome any comments on what is 'my' take on the PFD.