What, if any, customer notification is required?

Adriane

Involved - Posts
Hello,
I feel like I already know a lot of you as I've been lurking for awhile now. Haven't had to post yet because I always find what I need, thank you all very very much.

Sooo, here goes. I'm the QM/MR for a job-shop type ISO 9001:2000 certified powder coater. Sales would like to change a particular powder to a cheaper powder - without informing any of our customers. I'm new to ISO (only have 6 months under my belt here). I've always been a QS girl. So tell me please - "where's the shall?" - within the ISO standard? I'm not seeing it if it's there - I just want to be sure that I'm remaining compliant to the standard. I'll hand it over to you folks now...
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
If it's not PPAP'd and nothing in the Customer's purchase order specifying that you use the more expensive coating, there is no shall. I would hope that you would do some trialing on a change like this though just to ensure that there is no change that affects the key characteristics of the product adversely. (That would fall under process/product control)
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
SteelMaiden said:
If it's not PPAP'd and nothing in the Customer's purchase order specifying that you use the more expensive coating, there is no shall. I would hope that you would do some trialing on a change like this though just to ensure that there is no change that affects the key characteristics of the product adversely. (That would fall under process/product control)
I agree. If there's no customer specification that requires use of a particular material, then what's left is compliance with functional/performance/cosmetic characteristics.
 
J

Joe Cruse

Hi Adriane, welcome and nice first post topic.

Firstly, does the customer's PO/contract stipulate that you tell them of any changes made to the product? If so, then legally (then, as per standard requirements) you must tell them.

Secondly, has the product they receive from you been tested and verified to give the customer the product as originally agreed to? If not, customer needs to be notified. Look at 7.2 of the standard for more on this.

As an example, we make one of our alloys with one of two different Mn raw material additions. Neither one affects alloy quality adversely in their use, it's just 2 different raw materials that can be used for additions to get the same alloy chemistry. If one caused a fundamental change in the alloy, we would have to notify customers of this before selling it to them.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
If I were a customer, I would be upset to learn that a product I had bought (and presumably tested for suitability to my use) was being substituted with a less expensive product without notice.

You don't say or explain WHY this product is less expensive than the original. Is it a case of "generic" versus brand name with the chemical qualitative and chemical analyses being the same? Has the product been run through a rigorous set of tests (salt spray, flex, etc.) with at least as good a result as the original?

If so, why not tell the customers and share the cost savings?

If not, why not? Substitution of product or component without verification of fitness for purpose borders on fraud in my estimation.

If I were the end user of powder coated product (for example, a "patio set"), I would be absolutely incensed if I bought the same brand as my neighbor did two years ago and mine started to rust before his. I would be all over the patio set manufacturer demanding monetary redress. You can bet your sweet bippy he, in turn, would be all over your organization for HIS "monetary redress."

The way of the world is that folks are becoming more and more litiginous. The surest defense is avoiding "secrets" which can come back and bite you. In another thread, I expressed my own overweaning philosophy: "The truth shall set you free!"
 

Adriane

Involved - Posts
Still struggling..

All of these things, I've thought of and brought up to the powers that be. Shouldn't it be, at the very least, an ethical question?? Yes, I get it. I am just having a hard time wrapping my mind around it all :( .

The less expensive powder is at least at good as the current powder. I have run initial testing - with great results. I expect no problems with salt spray (only other required test) results either.

The customer's PO calls out their spec as well as an ASTM or two. At prior PPAP, we just referenced their spec/ASTMs and the fact that we did comply. There are appropriate test results in each PPAP file. But....not even in one PPAP file is there a powder cert. Doesn't this seem a little odd? I have never sent a PPAP to a Customer without material certs. Am I just being paranoid? :bonk:

I knew there was a reason that I had to take a couple of years off (No, really I did - only been back these past 6 months)

Just to throw in another piece of dirt for ya'all - There's also the problem with the Sales rep/rat. No offense to any Covers who are in sales but this guy is really a rat.
 
Last edited:

Adriane

Involved - Posts
$$$

Wes,
Per my superiors, the cost difference is not enough to merit passing it along to the Customer.
Adriane
 
D

db

My main concern is if by going to a cheaper material, are you still able to meet customer requirements? Look over 7.2.1 and 7.2.2. If you defined the product as the more expensive material, and told that to the customer, and then switched to a lesser product, I would argue that you are not being consistent with the standard.
 

Adriane

Involved - Posts
Fundamental change

Hi Joe,
So, in your opinion, is this a fundamental change? The parts will still be black, still meet all of the requirements, still withstand "the test of time". Is a different powder vendor a fundamental change? In essence, that is all this really is, a vendor change (yes, this is an approved vendor). Or am I losing sight of what Wes was saying in his post? Being in Quality, I always seem to be the only one standing up for the moral high ground. But in this case is there really reason the fight the good fight? :confused:
 
Top Bottom