We are a producer of bulk materials and have some doubt if we need to do a PPAP re submission in the following case.
We will move the production from an existing production line to a new (larger one). Process technology stays the same, same site, same operators, same in-process control and final material QC-check. No raw material changes.

according to section 3.1. Customer notification, we shall notify the customer in case of any change. According 3.2 Submission to Customer table 3.2, a submission is only needed if the process technology used for the organization is new.

So I am puzzled.

Has somebody an answer

Thanks

If it is a new line with new process equipment, I would expect customer notification and a new PPAP.

Marc,

Thanks for your feedback. This is my expectation also, although also some of the customers have doubt (Tier 1)

We are a producer of bulk materials and have some doubt if we need to do a PPAP re submission in the following case.
We will move the production from an existing production line to a new (larger one). Process technology stays the same, same site, same operators, same in-process control and final material QC-check. No raw material changes.

according to section 3.1. Customer notification, we shall notify the customer in case of any change. According 3.2 Submission to Customer table 3.2, a submission is only needed if the process technology used for the organization is new.

So I am puzzled.

Has somebody an answer

Thanks

The closest the PPAP manual (4th Edition) comes to this situation is in 3.1 on page 13, #3, "Production following upgrade or rearrangement of existing tooling or equipment." Under "Clarification," "rearrangement" is defined as "...activity that changes the sequence of product/process flow from that documented in the process flow diagram (including the addition of a new process). Unfortunately, "new process" isn't defined.

When unsure, it's best to err on the side of notification.

If you qualify and PPAP a die in a press unless the customer specifically states they do not need a new qualification run and/or PPAP you can't even move the die to a new press without a qualification run and PPAP for that die in the new press.

If I understand the original poster, it is entirely new equipment ("a new, larger line"). This doesn't sound like rearangement of the same equipment. That's a whole different story.

If you move a press, because everything from foundation resonance on can significantly change so the press and die have to be, or should be, requalified. If you're familiar with the V Rod that was (still is???) assembled at KC back around 2001-03, Harley required that of press changes and/or when presses were moved. I was a trouble shooter for several parts for that bike that were formed metal pieces including the 66067-01 air box cover. If a supplier moved a die to a new press, Harley wanted a new qualification & PPAP.

If you qualify and PPAP a die in a press unless the customer specifically states they do not need a new qualification run and/or PPAP you can't even move the die to a new press without a qualification run and PPAP for that die in the new press.

If I understand the original poster, it is entirely new equipment ("a new, larger line"). This doesn't sound like rearangement of the same equipment. That's a whole different story.

If you move a press, because everything from foundation resonance on can significantly change so the press and die have to be, or should be, requalified. If you're familiar with the V Rod that was (still is???) assembled at KC back around 2001-03, Harley required that of press changes and/or when presses were moved. I was a trouble shooter for several parts for that bike that were formed metal pieces including the 66067-01 air box cover. If a supplier moved a die to a new press, Harley wanted a new qualification & PPAP.

This is about bulk materials, and apparently not hard tooling as in the case of dies or molds. The customer should be notified of the change and make the decision as to whether PPAP is required or not.

BTW, during the time period in question and V-Rod production, there was an SQE in KC who took great delight in complicating everything (and was very good at it) and their PPAP process was a mess. I only dealt with new parts and initial PPAP submissions; 30 days after PPAP approval the responsibility shifted to the plants, so I had no sway over what went on after parts went into regular production.

This is about bulk materials, and apparently not hard tooling as in the case of dies or molds. I realize that. I used it as an analogy. If it's new process equipment it's the same issue: It is a process change. The process may stay exactly the same other than using different equipment (new or used), but if the equipment is changed it's a new ball game.

I only dealt with new parts and initial PPAP submissions; 30 days after PPAP approval the responsibility shifted to the plants, so I had no sway over what went on after parts went into regular production. I worked with that issue as well. Harley harangued one client of mine (dealing with all the Harley issues was one reason I was called in) about original PPAPs not having been submitted. After 7 or 8 months of back and forth bitching Harley finally admitted that they found the original submissions in the bottom drawer of the desk of a contract worker who was let go. I give them credit for telling us they did find them. They could have just kept their mouth shut. None the less, had Harley been up to speed someone in Milwaukee would have followed up on what the person they let go was doing and such. That said, my client at the time was negligent as all get out because their engineer who did the original PPAPs and kept the approvals was an idiot who was promoted out of the position. He had records scattered everywhere. Instead of having things filed and indexed, he had no system and couldn't 'remember' where he put anything. That was DEFINITELY a Peter Principle promotion. The guy was an idiot.

Personally I was a happy camper. What companies pay me to clean up messes is very nice pay. I like those types of consulting jobs.

I worked with that issue as well. Harley harangued one client of mine (dealing with all the Harley issues was one reason I was called in) about original PPAPs not having been submitted. After 7 or 8 months of back and forth bitching Harley finally admitted that they found the original submissions in the bottom drawer of the desk of a contract worker who was let go. I give them credit for telling us they did find them. They could have just kept their mouth shut. None the less, had Harley been up to speed someone in Milwaukee would have followed up on what the person they let go was doing and such. That said, my client at the time was negligent as all get out because their engineer who did the original PPAPs and kept the approvals was an idiot who was promoted out of the position. He had records scattered everywhere. Instead of having things filed and indexed, he had no system and couldn't 'remember' where he put anything. That was DEFINITELY a Peter Principle promotion. The guy was an idiot.

Personally I was a happy camper. What companies pay me to clean up messes is very nice pay. I like those types of consulting jobs.

I vaguely remember something like this going on, and it happened more than once. It was partially dealt with by going to electronic submissions, but there were still a few times when e-files didn't get loaded into the system promptly.

Indeed my doubt comes from the fact that the original PPAP system seems to be written around parts production. my guess is that bulk materials is added in a later phase.
Secondly (in our case) all produced batches are checked if the properties are within the agreed specification. (according to Note 2: on the bottom of page 9 of the 5th edition, this is considered a 100 %inspection). This is different compared to part supply, where more often is looked to process capabilities instead of a 100% testing of parts.
So, if there is no statistical diffference in properties between the 2 production lines I could defend that a PPAP re submission is not worthwhile the trouble.
Anyhow in this case, critical customers are aware of the situation, are informed and are testing material. My goal is to be able to control the discussion on the PPAP re submission issues.

<snip> critical customers are aware of the situation, are informed and are testing material. My goal is to be able to control the discussion on the PPAP re submission issues. You are correct that it is at the stage of customer notification that the customer's PPAP requirements must be determined by the supplier.