Can some of you review the attached Process Flow Diagram, FMEA and Control Plan and provide feedback/input. For some reason my customer Supplier Development Engineer will not accept these. His comments were that it does not follow the format or intent of the AIAG/PPAP manuals and does not feel that this plan can be driven to the shop floor level. The fact of the matter is that it is a mirror image of what actually happens on our floor based on current policies and procedures. Where am I going wrong?

Thanks

For some reason my customer Supplier Development Engineer will not accept these. His comments were that it does not follow the format or intent of the AIAG/PPAP manuals and does not feel that this plan can be driven to the shop floor level. The fact of the matter is that it is a mirror image of what actually happens on our floor based on current policies and procedures. Where am I going wrong?


You need to talk to the person who doesn't like the documentation, and get some specifics. How do the documents fail to meet the AIAG format and intent?

I see a lot of supplier APQP documentation, and I can tell you that yours is better than a lot of what I see. I think the PFD is excellent. The PFMEA has room for improvement, but I don't see anything "drop dead" in it. I would definitely question the lack of identification of process characteristics in the control plan, however. Your document is an inspection plan, not a process control plan. You need to show process characteristics and how they're controlled.

I tend to agree with Jim. However, your PFMEA is way off, when you specify operator error/supplier error as failure modes. Too many people think like this! Did you actually do the PFMEA with the people who are supposed to be following this process? If you did, they wouldn't sign up for that failure mode. I'd suggest that it was done in isolation of a true 'core team' - which might be at the bottom of the SQA's gripe. I would, if it was presented to me (er, I am griping, aren't I?):rolleyes:

As a result, your Control Plan will be hosed too.....:notme:

Give me some time, I'll take a look at the PFMEA and get back to you with a pm....:cool:

Andy

I tend to agree with Jim. However, your PFMEA is way off, when you specify operator error/supplier error as failure modes. Too many people think like this! Did you actually do the PFMEA with the people who are supposed to be following this process? If you did, they wouldn't sign up for that failure mode. I'd suggest that it was done in isolation of a true 'core team' - which might be at the bottom of the SQA's gripe. I would, if it was presented to me (er, I am griping, aren't I?):rolleyes:

As a result, your Control Plan will be hosed too.....:notme:

Give me some time, I'll take a look at the PFMEA and get back to you with a pm....:cool:

Andy

Althought there's nothing inherently wrong with ascribing potential errors to operators (humans don't make mistakes?) I agree that it's carried a bit too far here, which was one of the potential improvements I alluded to. Also, as long as we're at it, the receiving inspection section doesn't tell us anything about how the receiving inspection process itself might fail, which is the important information. PFMEAs shouldn't deal with potential failure modes that can't be locally controlled.

At first look in my mind the detection ranks are far to low and not in line with FMEA 3rd edition.
In 05.3 you have given a severity of 10 with no critical characteristic and no real control.
As Jim said there is no reference to process control. In line 05.4 in the FMEA there is a reference to "tool wear". The control is dimensional at set up only!!
Change according to need means change to late.
This is exactly the place for predictive maintenance on the tooling

thanx! it was informative