We are embarking on a Gap analysis to the ISO/TS16949:2002 and Semiconductor commodity standard. Between the internal auditors and Quality manager there are two different interpretations of Special Characteristics.
The first is that special characteristics are defined by the customer, since we are a commodity supplier there are no special characteristics unless a customer identifies them. Once they are identified, align them with the “core” documentation (design record, process flow diagrams, FMEA, control plan, work instructions etc.)
The second is that anything critical to the operation/function and safety of the product (not a concern as the product is a chip), is a special characteristic and needs to have alignment with the “core” documentation.

So the question is do we need to document special characteristics only if the customer defines them or do we need to document in the core documentation any/all characteristics of the product that affects its function/performance:confused:

Special characteristics can be tricky in some cases. The discussions in the PPAP manual and the APQP manual seem pretty good.

I think the first interpretation misses the responsibility of the supplier (you) to determine special characteristics inherent in your process at the time of APQP. Just because the customer doesn't specifically identify a special characteristic doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

The second interpretation is true as far as it goes and these "critical" characteristics would normally be identified on the print with a customer specific "mark". This statement leaves out "key" characteristics which may be required for process control. These "key" characteristics should be identified by both customer and supplier based on their knowledge of the part or process.

It is nice and easy when the customer identifies these special characteristics but we can't lose sight of the responsibility we, as suppliers, have to identify the process characteristics. This is especially true when the customer has no or limited knowledge of our process.

Dave

After reading through the posts concering SC's the best thing I learned was this:
You only have to use the symbols if the customer requires you to, but then you can also charge the customer more for that, hence many customers no longer are requiring it!
There is no requirement to document special characteristics literally using the words "special characteristics" you can use terms like "key product parameters" or "critical product performance characteristics".
These need to be in the core documentation. We actually have all this in the core documentation but use words like "critical specifications". The wording of the standard threw me for a loop. The magic is knowing that special characteristics is really nothing special at all. It most likely is something you have in your design record anyway, and monitor, measure and control it because it is a critical element to the product. Let me know if I am incorrect in this interpretation because what I would show the 3rd party auditor is our core docs and point to the critical product specs, and the aligning FMEA and other core docs.
:biglaugh: Isn't life wonderful?

In our efforts to get 3rd party certified to the Semiconductor Commodity, Jan. 12, 2004 release, we defined special characterisitcs as those characterisitics identified by the customer.

We defiend critical characteristics as characteristics identified by ourselves.

We design our own parts. Generally we do not design to customer requirements. Therefore, we have no special characterisitcs but we do have critical characterisitcs that we identify, monitor, measure, control, etc.

Our method aligns directly with your first interpretation.

Regards,

Dirk