Hi Guys,

We have just been asked by one of our customers to supply them with all this years capability data for the relevant jobs that we have run for them. They have requested this as they are currently having a TS audit. Our issue is that as these are existing jobs and have not changed or have been modified since we aquired TS status this year, we feel we had no obligation to generate PPAP documation. As we et we had no requirement to supply this data and hence do not have any capability data to supply, are we in contravening the standard and basically in trouble with our customer. Prior to this our customer has not requested we supply the capability studies for these jobs.
I would appreciate any feedback, thanks

shallowmike

To clarify the start point, do any of the design drawings for these "old" jobs have Key Characteristics or simular noted.

Be sure to read your Purchase Order / Contract carefully. It may answer your question in the fine print.

Doug

Hi Martin,

Yes their component drawings state special characteristics where applicable, they are an automotive supplier. Our standpoint is that as these jobs were existing and then we believe not subject to have a PPAP raised against them unless a change to the job was carried out.Plus capability studies were not previously asked for by our customer.

I almost forgot- check your customer's Quality Requirements Manual. There may be something in there.

Doug

Hi Martin,

Yes their component drawings state special characteristics where applicable, they are an automotive supplier. Our standpoint is that as these jobs were existing and then we believe not subject to have a PPAP raised against them unless a change to the job was carried out.Plus capability studies were not previously asked for by our customer.

Check your Customer Specific requirements and original quotations.

But IMHO Capability studies are a seperate issue to asking for a PPAP on ongoing production.

If there is a Key Feature indicated it implies you need controls above and beyond normal, i.e. SPC, Poki Yoki or even 100% inspection.

Again only my opinion but whichever method you have used to control such features should be auditable.

Just because they did not call for them does not (CSR or contract agreements not withstanding) mean they should not have been done.

Hi Guys,

We have just been asked by one of our customers to supply them with all this years capability data for the relevant jobs that we have run for them. They have requested this as they are currently having a TS audit. Our issue is that as these are existing jobs and have not changed or have been modified since we aquired TS status this year, we feel we had no obligation to generate PPAP documation.

Are you saying that no PPAPs were ever submitted for the parts in question? If not, why not? Were they somehow "grandfathered," and if so, do you have waivers of PPAP submission from the customer?

As we et we had no requirement to supply this data and hence do not have any capability data to supply, are we in contravening the standard and basically in trouble with our customer. Prior to this our customer has not requested we supply the capability studies for these jobs.


It seems to me that the question is not whether the customer ever asked you to send them capability data, but whether the customer was correct in assuming that you were compiling it on an ongoing basis. If there are special characteristics, and if you have no written waiver from your customer, you are probably indeed in trouble.

Without further information, it seems that this might be a case of failure of the contract review process on your company's part.

Not sure if I am reading this right but it sounds to me (and I have been known to be wrong before), that the customer is asking for evidence that the process capabilities given on the original PPAP for the approved processes has been maintained or improved as per 8.2.3.1 "The organization shall maintain manufacturing process capability or performance as specified by the customer part approval process". If this is the case they are perfectly entitled to request this information (imho),

Not sure if I am reading this right but it sounds to me (and I have been known to be wrong before), that the customer is asking for evidence that the process capabilities given on the original PPAP for the approved processes has been maintained or improved as per 8.2.3.1 "The organization shall maintain manufacturing process capability or performance as specified by the customer part approval process". If this is the case they are perfectly entitled to request this information (imho),
This is generally true, but may be ameliorated by circumstances, such as "Was this customer a TS 16949 registered company when the order was placed?" If not, there may have been no requirement to maintain PPAP records and (in my experience with non-ISO and non-TS customers) may have been as "loosey goosey" in the purchase order as a simple First Article requirement for the product with no requirement about the process.

Hi Guys,

We have just been asked by one of our customers to supply them with all this years capability data for the relevant jobs that we have run for them. They have requested this as they are currently having a TS audit. Our issue is that as these are existing jobs and have not changed or have been modified since we aquired TS status this year, we feel we had no obligation to generate PPAP documation. As we et we had no requirement to supply this data and hence do not have any capability data to supply, are we in contravening the standard and basically in trouble with our customer. Prior to this our customer has not requested we supply the capability studies for these jobs.
I would appreciate any feedback, thanks

shallowmike
If you have been doing SPC to control your process while making these parts, you should have all the data required to reconstruct the capability analyses for any period you desire.

This is generally true, but may be ameliorated by circumstances, such as "Was this customer a TS 16949 registered company when the order was placed?" If not, there may have been no requirement to maintain PPAP records and (in my experience with non-ISO and non-TS customers) may have been as "loosey goosey" in the purchase order as a simple First Article requirement for the product with no requirement about the process.


I disagree. Even ISO suppliers have to meet customer requirements. And, TS requires that suppliers be certified to ISO AND COMPLIANT TO TS... (cl 7.4)

When a supplier is providing PPAP data per a customer request, they have to comply with the customer's PPAP requirements, one of which is to maintain PPAP records.

We have produced a new job for this customer and of course we have supplied PPAP and the relevant study data. This is the only job that has required one. It is our understanding that if existing customer jobs have not been subjected to modification or major refurbishment that have changed the piece part, then no PPAP generation is required. Of course we check these features at the work stations and paper records exist, but to process this into capabilty study takes time and resources which = cost. We have a charge to our customers if they require this option. Normally when we run jobs that SPC is required then we have terminals that take data and start the compilation into SPC In this instance we feel that at the time of running the existing jobs the customer had not requested this data in SPC format then we have the right to make our objections.The customer must have known in advance of their audit and should have made their enquiries to us some time ago instead of pushing the panic button at audit time.

We have produced a new job for this customer and of course we have supplied PPAP and the relevant study data. This is the only job that has required one. It is our understanding that if existing customer jobs have not been subjected to modification or major refurbishment that have changed the piece part, then no PPAP generation is required. Of course we check these features at the work stations and paper records exist, but to process this into capabilty study takes time and resources which = cost. We have a charge to our customers if they require this option. Normally when we run jobs that SPC is required then we have terminals that take data and start the compilation into SPC In this instance we feel that at the time of running the existing jobs the customer had not requested this data in SPC format then we have the right to make our objections.The customer must have known in advance of their audit and should have made their enquiries to us some time ago instead of pushing the panic button at audit time.I relate this anecdote only as substantiation that someone has implemented the following as a policy and managed to make it stick.

One of our specialty steel and exotic metal suppliers had an upfront policy: a complete certificate of analysis for an order of material (chemical analysis and physical properties) could be ordered for a $25 surcharge at time of the initial order. (This was separate and apart from a statement "this material meets requirements in the order" which is essentially meaningless.) If a customer wanted the analysis later, the fee was $100.

I have no idea whether the company produced the analysis for EVERY lot of material in their inventory and merely charged a "convenience fee" of varying amounts for supplying a copy or whether they used some other method, but I only paid the $100 fee once before I automaticaly ordered and paid for the $25 version on EVERY subsequent order.

My suggestion: Charge a BIG fee for what the customer asks as an afterthought.