according to one of our customers this is a "growing requirement of the Semiconductor, Aerospace, and Medical Industries".

From the letter I'm reading it seems like just another usless fancy title for a good change control system.

according to one of our customers this is a "growing requirement of the Semiconductor, Aerospace, and Medical Industries".

From the letter I'm reading it seems like just another usless fancy title for a good change control system.

How is "copy exact" defined?

according to one of our customers this is a "growing requirement of the Semiconductor, Aerospace, and Medical Industries".

From the letter I'm reading it seems like just another usless fancy title for a good change control system.
I'm not familiar with this usage. Can you provide an "exact copy" ;) of the text of the letter with identifying information redacted?

How is "copy exact" defined?

"Copy Exact! reflects a committment to abide by a Process Control Plan without deviation....If changes are necessary, those changes must be communicated to CUSTOMER via the Deviation Authorization process prior to submission"

From our customer's letter.

"Copy Exact! reflects a committment to abide by a Process Control Plan without deviation....If changes are necessary, those changes must be communicated to CUSTOMER via the Deviation Authorization process prior to submission"

From our customer's letter.

Sounds to me like they've found yet another way to ask suppliers to prevaricate :cool: . I've never heard of it, but it sounds massively unrealistic to me, and seems to establish a preference for micromanagement and bureaucracy over expecting people to make reasonable decisions in the face of inevitable ambiguities. "Be careful what you ask for," in other words.

Sounds to me like they've found yet another way to ask suppliers to prevaricate :cool: . I've never heard of it, but it sounds massively unrealistic to me, and seems to establish a preference for micromanagement and bureaucracy over expecting people to make reasonable decisions in the face of inevitable ambiguities. "Be careful what you ask for," in other words.

that's exactly what I'm thinking.

then again... it comes down to contract review. If they want to pay a premium for our parts to get this service I'm perfectly OK with that. :D

"Copy Exact! reflects a committment to abide by a Process Control Plan without deviation....If changes are necessary, those changes must be communicated to CUSTOMER via the Deviation Authorization process prior to submission"

From our customer's letter.Whoa! There are definitely two ways to look at this requirement.

Number 1 is your current point of view, i.e. "meddling micromanagement"
Number 2 is merely a logical extension of PPAP (see definition in box below.) Customers are most concerned wih consistent quality of EVERY shipment and lot of products from suppliers. All this really asks of a supplier is "Hey! We have approved purchase of your product based on certain assumptions about how you will manufacture, inspect, and ship this product. If anything about the process is going to change, we want to know and we want assurance the change will not affect the product we receive. If you want to be a great supplier and introduce improvements to your process, that's fine, but be proactive and tell us what you intend to do. We will respect trade secrets and we may even be inspired to give you MORE business!"
PPAP

Production Part Approval Process:
The Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) outlines the methods used for approval of production and service commodities, including bulk materials, up to and including part submission warrant in the Advanced Quality Planning process. The purpose of the PPAP process is to ensure that suppliers of components comply with the design specification and can run consistently without affecting the customer line and improving the quality systems. PPAP ensures that you will achieve the first time quality and will lower down the cost of quality.


Posted By: B. Zeidler
Modified By:
Last Modified: Aug. 26, 2003

Number 2 is merely a logical extension of PPAP (see definition in box below.) Customers are most concerned wih consistent quality of EVERY shipment and lot of products from suppliers. All this really asks of a supplier is "Hey! We have approved purchase of your product based on certain assumptions about how you will manufacture, inspect, and ship this product. If anything about the process is going to change, we want to know and we want assurance the change will not affect the product we receive. If you want to be a great supplier and introduce improvements to your process, that's fine, but be proactive and tell us what you intend to do. We will respect trade secrets and we may even be inspired to give you MORE business!"

I don't know that PPAP a la AIAG is germane here, but the 4th Edition PPAP manual says,
The organization shall notify the authorized customer representative of any planned changes to the design, process or site.

It then goes on to list, in tabular form, examples of changes that require notification.

Be that as it may, it's simply unrealistic to believe that all control plans will be followed to the letter in all instances, and it's even more unrealistic to think that everything will come to a screeching halt while waiting for a customer to make a decision regarding an ad hoc and temporary, but carefully considered, minor process change.

I don't know that PPAP a la AIAG is germane here, but the 4th Edition PPAP manual says,


It then goes on to list, in tabular form, examples of changes that require notification.

Be that as it may, it's simply unrealistic to believe that all control plans will be followed to the letter in all instances, and it's even more unrealistic to think that everything will come to a screeching halt while waiting for a customer to make a decision regarding an ad hoc and temporary, but carefully considered, minor process change.
Therein hangs the tale. Who is to say what is minor and what is not? Simply work WITH the customer and constantly give that assurance, with samples if necessary, that changes will not affect the product quality or consistency.

I've spent an entire career trying to make the point that customers and suppliers work best as "partners" and not as "adversaries!"

I ran a lot of manufacturing lines and I don't recall any changes in the control plan which were either ad hoc or temporary without a long and hard consideration of downstream ramifications, especially anything that might affect a customer (especially of custom-made goods versus proprietary off-the-shelf products.)

It is worth considering that ISO 13485 specifically eliminates "improvements" or changes in processes. To my knowledge, this was one of the key features necessary to get acceptance as a "harmonized" approval candidate for Quality Management Systems for various government regulators.

The FAA also looks askance at "changes" to systems or products without prior approval, except specifically defined "minor" changes and those need to be given in written form after the fact along with documentation the change did not affect products in a detrimental way.

Therein hangs the tale. Who is to say what is minor and what is not? Simply work WITH the customer and constantly give that assurance, with samples if necessary, that changes will not affect the product quality or consistency.

I've spent an entire career trying to make the point that customers and suppliers work best as "partners" and not as "adversaries!"

I ran a lot of manufacturing lines and I don't recall any changes in the control plan which were either ad hoc or temporary without a long and hard consideration of downstream ramifications, especially anything that might affect a customer (especially of custom-made goods versus proprietary off-the-shelf products.)

It is worth considering that ISO 13485 specifically eliminates "improvements" or changes in processes. To my knowledge, this was one of the key features necessary to get acceptance as a "harmonized" approval candidate for Quality Management Systems for various government regulators.

The FAA also looks askance at "changes" to systems or products without prior approval, except specifically defined "minor" changes and those need to be given in written form after the fact along with documentation the change did not affect products in a detrimental way.

I've signed off on many vendor agreements as required by the FDA that are essentially a paragraph saying we, the vendor, agree to notify the customer of any change in process or material that coulf affect the form/fit/function of the item.

But this is the first time I've run across this "Copy Exact!" 'movement'.
(please not the exclaimation point!)

I ran a lot of manufacturing lines and I don't recall any changes in the control plan which were either ad hoc or temporary without a long and hard consideration of downstream ramifications, especially anything that might affect a customer (especially of custom-made goods versus proprietary off-the-shelf products.)


Well, not being omniscient, I've seen lots of situations where processes (not products, mind you) have been changed on the fly.

An example: A robotic system is used to spray adhesive on a plastic panel to which fabric is to be applied. The robot breaks down, and a shipment deadline is looming. A decision is made to take the sprayer out of the "hand" of the robot and put it into the hand of a human. The method is known to be efficacious, and was in use for years before the robot was installed, but not addressed in the control plan (an oversight, to be sure, but stuff happens).

Choices:

Do this "Copy Exact" thing and shut everything down and do the deviation paperwork, or ask for some sort of formal dispensation from the customer, which could take days.
Do what you need to do to get the customer good product, on time, and correct the control plan to allow for manual application of adhesive.

A decision is made to take the sprayer out of the "hand" of the robot and put it into the hand of a human.I know for a fact, via personal observation, that one major Japanese and one major U.S. auto manufacturer do this in their paint booths when the necessity arises due to robotic malfunction.
-Icy

I know for a fact, via personal observation, that one major Japanese and one major U.S. auto manufacturer do this in their paint booths when the necessity arises due to robotic malfunction.
-Icy

Yes, but in deference to good sense, substitution of manual processes for automated ones that break down is usually addressed in the control plan. My point was that sometimes control plans don't take into account all of the logical possibilities, and that's a failure of the APQP process, but it doesn't mean that it won't happen, or that people shouldn't be able to make reasonable decisions when it does.

Well, not being omniscient, I've seen lots of situations where processes (not products, mind you) have been changed on the fly.

An example: A robotic system is used to spray adhesive on a plastic panel to which fabric is to be applied. The robot breaks down, and a shipment deadline is looming. A decision is made to take the sprayer out of the "hand" of the robot and put it into the hand of a human. The method is known to be efficacious, and was in use for years before the robot was installed, but not addressed in the control plan (an oversight, to be sure, but stuff happens).

Choices:

Do this "Copy Exact" thing and shut everything down and do the deviation paperwork, or ask for some sort of formal dispensation from the customer, which could take days.
Do what you need to do to get the customer good product, on time, and correct the control plan to allow for manual application of adhesive.
Certainly seems more like a case for working as a "partner" with a customer than resorting to subterfuge and lying. In fact, I have had breakdowns of equipment and even "force majeure" events which necessitated conversations with customers whether to delay shipment or to trust us to provide equivalent manufacture to make shipments on time. As much as I espoused Lean, we never ran so Lean we didn't have a cushion of time for a decision to take place.

Frankly, I never bothered to predict which way a customer would react in such a situation. The reality was we made it a point to be an integral partner with each customer so we were sure to get a factual explanation of pressures affecting the customer in making his decision.

Once we had a fluke breakdown in a CNC turning center. Repair was predicted to take two weeks (42 work shifts) - our machine supplier agreed to set up his showroom display model with our tooling and we ended up producing out of his showroom for nearly three weeks (24/7) - he loved it! His salesfolk brought prospective machine tool customers at all hours of the day and night to watch our product run perfectly on the machine. My operators reported to work at the showroom (each got his own key!) (This is just an extension of the auto repair "free loaner" when getting repairs.)

It was a real WIN-WIN - I got future discounts on new machines; machine supplier got customers and I cut a deal for him to bring tool customers to us to see products run on new machines as well as the repaired one and
our customer approved the whole deal in one 15 minute phone call after I arranged the deal wth the machine tool supplier in a phone call that began, "If my customer approves, could we . . . ?

Well, not being omniscient, I've seen lots of situations where processes (not products, mind you) have been changed on the fly.

An example: A robotic system is used to spray adhesive on a plastic panel to which fabric is to be applied. The robot breaks down, and a shipment deadline is looming. A decision is made to take the sprayer out of the "hand" of the robot and put it into the hand of a human. The method is known to be efficacious, and was in use for years before the robot was installed, but not addressed in the control plan (an oversight, to be sure, but stuff happens).

Choices:

Do this "Copy Exact" thing and shut everything down and do the deviation paperwork, or ask for some sort of formal dispensation from the customer, which could take days.
Do what you need to do to get the customer good product, on time, and correct the control plan to allow for manual application of adhesive.

Apparently my customer has a training program for this Copy Exact! (please note the "!" ;) )
I am hoping that part of the training is recognizing Exact!ly what sort changes need to be communicated in the control plan.
It would be kind of silly to have to get approval to switch from a Sandvik boring tool to a Sumitomo.

Just had a situation with a customer where the 5-Why Corrective Action was to add a Poka-Yoke between Machine Op #1 and #2. The SQE decided that it required a PPAP submission. She couldn't be here as the process improvement was put in place, so I asked her if I was to stop shipping until she could find time to approve the submission. The response was "Definately not!". I then asked her what the risk to her company was. She got a little huffy and finally gave me an email deviation until she could get the thing approved (still waiting - 5 days later).

This, obviously, deals with an inspection/verification enhancement - does that make it a process change? Perhaps and I don't really want to get into that argument. We increase inspection (sample size and/or frequency) all the time when we find, and contain, a nonconformance internally or even when told about something "externally". Do I change/update my Control Plan? Of course not. It's a temporary measure until we get things back under control. If my "as PPAP'd" Cpk value falls from the original 1.67 to 1.50 for a partion of a shift, am I going to call my customer? Of course not. I'm going to take care of businees per our NCM procedure. I PPAP a machined dimension with the tool at the "upper end" of the tolerance. As it wears, changing the PPAP'd mean, am I going to call my customer? Let's get somewhat down to Earth.

From what I'm reading, the majority are saying this is unacceptable.

(Sorry for the tone :truce: )

Certainly seems more like a case for working as a "partner" with a customer than resorting to subterfuge and lying. In fact, I have had breakdowns of equipment and even "force majeure" events which necessitated conversations with customers whether to delay shipment or to trust us to provide equivalent manufacture to make shipments on time. As much as I espoused Lean, we never ran so Lean we didn't have a cushion of time for a decision to take place.

Well, we don't all live in the perfect world you seem to be lucky enough to inhabit. Some of us have experienced working with customers who either take days--sometimes weeks--to make a decision, or customer representatives who can't be contacted for days on end, and no one else is able (or willing) to make a decision.

Frankly, I never bothered to predict which way a customer would react in such a situation. The reality was we made it a point to be an integral partner with each customer so we were sure to get a factual explanation of pressures affecting the customer in making his decision.

Again, I envy you, but on the planet where I live, sometimes uncomfortable (and sometimes unpredictable) stuff happens. Partnership smartnership--I, and a lot of people like me, don't have the luxury of choosing only "good" customers. Sometimes the customer is a hopeless jackass, and we have to deal with it. It doesn't help to pontificate about lovely ideals and "integral partners" when the alligators are nipping at your behind.

Well, we don't all live in the perfect world you seem to be lucky enough to inhabit. Some of us have experienced working with customers who either take days--sometimes weeks--to make a decision, or customer representatives who can't be contacted for days on end, and no one else is able (or willing) to make a decision.



Again, I envy you, but on the planet where I live, sometimes uncomfortable (and sometimes unpredictable) stuff happens. Partnership smartnership--I, and a lot of people like me, don't have the luxury of choosing only "good" customers. Sometimes the customer is a hopeless jackass, and we have to deal with it. It doesn't help to pontificate about lovely ideals and "integral partners" when the alligators are nipping at your behind.
I didn't live in a "perfect world." Some of the folks who later became my good customers did start off as jerks. I simply dealt with all the issues in Contract Review. Just as customers can impose penalties for late delivery, suppliers can impose penalties for delayed responses, late payments, design changes in mid production, etc.

You are correct in one instance - I DID have the power and authority to select and reject customers. I didn't start with that power and authority, I had to earn it and maintain constant vigilance to keep it. I made it a point to completely understand my customer's requirements and help the customer understand that we would always be honest and proactive about any issue and that we, in turn, expected the customer to be honest and proactive in involving us when any issue arose.

A few days ago, we had a thread about "implied consent" - I consider those clauses unfair and unethical. I consider lying to a customer (for any reason) much more unethical. You may laugh and joke and make snide remarks about my "holier than thou" ethics and my style, but I really did walk the walk and I attest it was no harder and, in many cases, much easier than lying and shortcutting, hoping no one would catch me in my lie.

Many folks smirk about the Golden Rule, but I lived it. I treated my suppliers the way I wanted to be treated and I treated my customers the way I wanted to be treated. Most of all, I treated my employees the way I wanted to be treated. The best part is they all reciprocated.

If your organization thinks it's OK to lie to a customer, then they will lie to you as an employee. I really can show a boss (I was a C-level boss, so I speak their language) that it pays to deal "on the square" with customers, suppliers, and employees.

Sigh. My only point was that if there's a forest fire burning, and you come across some poor slob who got burned to a crisp because he was tied to a tree, it doesn't help to ask, "Why didn't he run?"

I am a SQE in the semiconductor environment,

Copy Exact - I have lived this for the past 7 years. It also shortned to CE!

The ! is for fear.

I am usure to quite how much I can say here - big brother and all. Please PM me and I will to assist further.

I will also post my understnading of Copy Exact to this forum later - just starting my day.

For further info until I get back I can suggest people hunt around for information from the largest CPU maufacturer - the one that used to be inside by now has lept ahead.

Sorry for being cryptic at this time.

Surely the aims of such standards as TS (sorry I know it's officially a technical specification, until such time a bunch of people sit round and table and say "TS16949 has been well received hasn't it, shall we adopt it as a standard?" is to ensure that all sources of the supply chain are setup to work to the highest possible standard and have a proven ability to continually monitor their processes for continual improvement.

Does this not fly in the face of the whole point of these standards and the people that are paid to come and audit them?

"Hey, you can prove your ability to work in the most efficient and forward thinking way possible, but we still want to make sure that any changes you make are approved and rubber stamped by our bureaucratic system that's costing us far too much money!"

With such a system as "Copy Exact!" the continuous improvement aspect of any QMS becomes another hurdle, because the customer needs to know all, before the improvement can be implemented. By which time the process that requires improvement has just churned out parts/services/documents/people etc... that are not meeting with specifications or meeting them in an inefficient manor. So this will then add to the cost of implementing the change. In conclusion, the simple formulae is like this:

Continuous Improvement = Review (cost) + Internal Approval (cost) + External APPROVAL (cost) + Implementation (usually at a cost) + Review (cost) and so on....as we move through the cycle again and again.

I accept a standard such as TS goes further than simply continuous improvement, but is this not one of the Core Principals and that such a "Big Brother" type system adds another tier of cost to the whole process.

Today my friends, COST is key and do we want to add to it unless absolutely necessary? :nope:

May be close to "Do as you have written in your procedures" - no deviation. Hence the term "Copy Exact"

Wild guess :D

Sigh. My only point was that if there's a forest fire burning, and you come across some poor slob who got burned to a crisp because he was tied to a tree, it doesn't help to ask, "Why didn't he run?"

<--Still a newbie, but I have seen this type of conflict over and over again in Internet Forums as well as in real life.

You both seem intelligent, passionate and wise defenders of all things quality. Isn't it just possible that a solution may lie between your views or that it's OK to disagree? Gentlemen, this is what caused the fall of the French Revolution - they started killing each other because some folks did not espouse their philosophy in the same way or to the same extent.

Gentlemen, this is what caused the fall of the French Revolution - they started killing each other because some folks did not espouse their philosophy in the same way or to the same extent.

is this not the premise of all wars? :confused:

<--Still a newbie, but I have seen this type of conflict over and over again in Internet Forums as well as in real life.

You both seem intelligent, passionate and wise defenders of all things quality. Isn't it just possible that a solution may lie between your views or that it's OK to disagree? Gentlemen, this is what caused the fall of the French Revolution - they started killing each other because some folks did not espouse their philosophy in the same way or to the same extent.


When two men in business together always agree, one of them is unnecessary. William Wrigley, Jr.

When two men in business together always agree, one of them is unnecessary. William Wrigley, Jr.

Jim, great quote. Btw, from where do you get these ?

Copying success at Intel using InfoPath

Updated: July 12, 2005

http://img.microsoft.com/library/gallery/templates/MNP2.Common/images/l_corner.gifhttp://img.microsoft.com/library/gallery/templates/MNP2.Common/images/r_corner.gifRelated Links

•Efficient collaborative design critical to growing high tech industry (http://www.microsoft.com/industry/manufacturing/hightechCPDreport.mspx)
http://img.microsoft.com/library/gallery/templates/MNP2.Common/images/l_b.corner.gifhttp://img.microsoft.com/library/gallery/templates/MNP2.Common/images/r_b.corner.gif
By Ann Steffora Mutschler
Contributing editor to Electronic News (http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicnews/)




"When Intel builds a new fab, they will build in a pilot location and then do what they call Copy Exact. The fab will be built in another place, copied down to the color of the walls," explains John McCallum, high tech industry manager at Microsoft.
How do they do that? McCallum explains that Intel sends out teams of engineers to document data such as what the fab looks like, what equipment is being used, and what processes are in place. The data is collected and stored in a centralized place so global access is possible.
In essence, Intel creates a knowledge-capture tool that reduces time spent tracking down all that info each time a fab is built. The tool is a repository of information for global teams to access, and is role-based and secured.
Intel used Microsoft Office InfoPath information gathering program, a form creation tool that outputs XML, as the vehicle for capturing the information and posting it.
As a result of using this tool, Intel's training time was reduced 25 percent, installation and start-up of the fab was accelerated, and plant equipment availability was increased, which translates to better time-to-money (getting the fab up and running).
The payback on the investment was about 12 months, McCallum notes. "Intel used that same concept of creating a team workspace and utilized it to improve productivity in their project management and product development process."
Based on an internal study, Intel found that 45 to 50 percent of a given team's time was unproductive as the team was spending more time searching for information, setting up meetings, and completing project status reports back to the management team than performing actual design work.
A team site was created to serve as a single area for project collaboration. The team site became the central location for knowledge capture, project management, decision support, management reporting, change management, and action tracking.
Strong linkages now connect project tasks, issues, risks, documents, and owners. Intel reaped a 10-percent productivity increase, reduced cycle time, lowered total cost of ownership, and eliminated 3 business applications and 5 user interfaces.


PS. We have a joint venture with Intel, I queried an old friend for copy exact material, we will see if he comes through, then I will post it. :bigwave: Our company does not use copy exact because of the two extra months it takes to start up the fab.

Jim, great quote. Btw, from where do you get these ?

Thank you.


I pick my favourite quotations and store them in my mind as ready armour, offensive or defensive, amid the struggle of this turbulent existence. Robert Burns

Having now had a chance to do a little research on the "Copy Exact!" thing, here's what I've learned:

It's properly called "Copy Exactly" and in the context in question was originated by Intel in the 1970's. Have a look here (http://news.com.com/Intel+to+expand+Irish+manufacturing+facilities/2100-1006_3-5216309.html), for example.
The idea as originally proposed was to be applied to replication of manufacturing facilities and processes so as to achieve standardization of methods and resources.
There was no intention, as far as I can tell, to apply it to the individual processes of suppliers.Of course, the idea is not new, and wasn't new when Intel gave it a name thirty years ago. The model for rigid standardization of individual, far-flung facilities was already in highly successful practice by McDonald's, to name but one instance.

The problem, it seems to me, lies in the fact that earnest but clueless people see the skeleton of a successful idea and think that a macro view can be universally applied in micro fashion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that standardization of efficacious processes is a good thing, but those who have had notable success with standardization invariably also realize that it's important to have people who are good at coming up with equally efficacious solutions when faced with novel adversity. In other words, the best laid plans sometimes go astray, and if you have people who aren't able to ad lib when the poop hits the fan, standardization is significantly devalued. If a deckhand is under standing orders to start bailing if the ship takes on water, he needs to be smart enough to try a different strategy when the ship is completely submerged.

I can asure you that the requirement does now flow down the the suppliers processes and the sub tier supplier processes.

'There was no intention, as far as I can tell, to apply it to the individual processes of suppliers'

The requirements (macro) do not meet with the real world (micro) as you rightly stated.

The curse of Intel is Copy Exactly - matter of fact I sure Intel Inside had a whole other meaning........

Intel are change adverse - once they have determined a process and its varriables its locked down - improvement comes with the next product - varriation of the process provides the product sub sets.

The problem, it seems to me, lies in the fact that earnest but clueless people see the skeleton of a successful idea and think that a macro view can be universally applied in micro fashion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that standardization of efficacious processes is a good thing, but those who have had notable success with standardization invariably also realize that it's important to have people who are good at coming up with equally efficacious solutions when faced with novel adversity. In other words, the best laid plans sometimes go astray, and if you have people who aren't able to ad lib when the poop hits the fan, standardization is significantly devalued. Very, very true. And in addition to that, if I might add, let's not forget that the drive for (product and process) continual improvement is accelerated daily. Organizations and their suppliers have the double challenge of making consistently within spec products and, at the same time, finding ways to produce the goods faster and cheaper. Another example of conflicting objectives that need to be adequately balanced.

:topic: According to Jay Leno's Monday night show, Headlines segment, is no longer It doesn't take a rocket scientist to.., but
It is not rocket surgery... :lmao:

I can asure you that the requirement does now flow down the the suppliers processes and the sub tier supplier processes.



We are a supplier to a manufacturer of equipment sold to semiconductor manufacturers.
It's flowed down this far.

Jim has it right. copy exactly is from Intel. back in the day when semiconductor fabrication was little understand. once a process achieved suitable yields the 'best way' (at the time) to manufacture the same product at a different facility was to copy the physical layout down to tube diameters and lengths and angles of equipment (same brand and model number or course) layouts etc. IT WORKED. Then when a process improvement eas made it was very easy to replicate across teh different facilityies because everybody was the same. No non-value add differences jsut becuase someone wanted to be 'different'. IT WORKED. IT MADE SENSE. (and yes McDonalds did it before Intel.)

Now Andy Grove is gone and the no-nothing powerpoint engineers are in charge and copy exactly has become a misunderstood and misapplied scurge. Entropy rules! The empty suits have inherited the earth.

Just a quick note on this:

I have seen this little footer on a few of my customers and suppliers documents/specifications:

"As part of our continuous improvement policy, we reserve the right to change specifications, without notice."

How does that fit into a "Copy Exact" Policy? :confused:

Copy exactly doesn't preclude continual improvement. It does require that any validated improvement is copied exactly by the other locations that are 'clones' of the process that has been improved.

copy exactly and continual improvement are not mutually exclusive. in fact - when done correctly - they are mutually supportive.

of course many suppliers and customers may not be supportive of copy exactly and the phraes you quote may be a politically correct way of saying "we don't need or want your control; we'll do whatever we want to do with our business, and you can accept it or go somewhere else!"