Level 2 Containment requirements - Appearance issues

L

leet222

I recently joined an automotive Tier 2 company as a Supplier Development guy. We have a supplier that has been on level 2 containment for appearance issues that they are struggling to control. We did not do a good job setting targets for getting off of containment...and now they are understandably bent. We are setting the standard at "30 defect-free days on all (4) part numbers (specific or combined) from three separate production runs".

Looking for comments and input.

Thanks,
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
leet222 said:
I recently joined an automotive Tier 2 company as a Supplier Development guy. We have a supplier that has been on level 2 containment for appearance issues that they are struggling to control. We did not do a good job setting targets for getting off of containment...and now they are understandably bent. We are setting the standard at "30 defect-free days on all (4) part numbers (specific or combined) from three separate production runs".

Looking for comments and input.

Thanks,

Some things to consider:
  • Have you verified that the problems don't originate with the design? In other words, is the supplier being asked to fix something he has no control over?
  • Are the appearance criteria clear, unambigous and as objective as possible? Have boundary samples been developed?
  • Has the supplier identified the source(s) of the problem and communicated a plan for improvement?
  • Does your plan for Level 2 exit include criteria that reflect the supplier's having identified the cause(s) and a reasonable expectation that the cause is extinct?
 
L

leet222

Thanks for your response...

A little additional info...this is a dictated supplier for a plating process.

Yes, we have verified that the issues are process related...plating issue on an interior show surface.

Appearance criteria were developed by this supplier and end customer and all three of us agreed to them.

Supplier has stated that the problems are "inherent" to the process and "we are asking too much", even though they set the standard with our end customer...Customer expectations are very high ! (as always of course)

At this time the exit does not include those items...we have simply asked them to protect us and our OEM customer from their "inherent" issues. (scuffs, scratches, pitting, etc.)

Thanks again,

leet
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
leet222 said:
Yes, we have verified that the issues are process related...plating issue on an interior show surface.
It's possible for the issues to be both process and design related if the design didn't take into account the capabilities of the process.

leet222 said:
Appearance criteria were developed by this supplier and end customer and all three of us agreed to them.
I feel your pain. I have seen innumerable cases of job shops exaggerating their capabilities in order to get the business. This becomes all the more difficult when the OEM has directed the purchase.

leet222 said:
Supplier has stated that the problems are "inherent" to the process and "we are asking too much"
Is this true? It doesn't matter at this point whether the plater prevaricated in the beginning; if the expectations exceed the state of the art, the state of the art isn't going to change because of customer demands.

My suggestion is that you need a sit-down with the end customer and the plater so that the requirements can be revisited. If the plater agreed to the requirements and is now reneging on the agreement, it's a problem your customer needs to be involved in if you don't have the leeway to resource the business. You won't be able to solve this problem without your customer's active participation.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
As for the "inherent in the process" comment - if they can make one good part, they can make them all good. It's just a matter of physics/chemistry/metallurgy.

But that wasn't your question. I'm assuming from your last post that theircurrent corrective actio involves better inspection screening to catch and contain the defective parts. So the question I see is: Is the sample size of 3 consecutive lots sufficient to validate the effectiveness of the screen?

To assess this properly we would need to know the defect rate prior to the improved screen adn the lot size. This would enable us to determine the appropriate 'sample' size or number of consecutive lots
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Bev D said:
As for the "inherent in the process" comment - if they can make one good part, they can make them all good. It's just a matter of physics/chemistry/metallurgy.
It ain't necessarily so. There's a big difference between one-off and mass production. The variables you mention start to have lots of babies as soon as the flood gates open.
 
R

Randy Stewart

leet,

Have you visited your supplier and looked at their process? There are a great deal of issues caused by "process limitations" in the plating industries. And as JSW has pointed out, bulk processing is an animal that most OEMs do not seem to understand. I have found that most issues can be minimized by educating the end customer and you the direct customer.
Develop some boundry samples with your supplier, get to know what they are inspecting and how often. You're an outside set of eyes that may be able to see something that they have over looked.
If all else fails, show your customer what the cost is of the spray application. It is currently around 10 times the cost of bulk application! But it does have a nice uniform finish.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
JSW05 said:
It ain't necessarily so. There's a big difference between one-off and mass production. The variables you mention start to have lots of babies as soon as the flood gates open.

True there is a difference between the first prototype and mass production, but in my experience the statement still applies. Since even with a first proto type it isn't random luck of the gods - it's physics. It may not be easy or quick - but there is a set of parameters and settings that will create a good part.

BUT in this particular case it doesnt' sound like a n 'occassional' good part is made - they are after all making some acceptable shipments from which I infer that tehy are making many good parts.

In my experience the use of the phrase "inherent to the process" is an excuse for not doing the (admittedly) hard work of root cause and corrective action. After all - isn't this why we get our CQE and other quality engineering training?
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Bev D said:
True there is a difference between the first prototype and mass production, but in my experience the statement still applies. Since even with a first proto type it isn't random luck of the gods - it's physics. It may not be easy or quick - but there is a set of parameters and settings that will create a good part
There is a set of parameters that will make a good part. Singular. Beyond "physics" there are matters of time and scale which conspire against the idea that making one equals making many. It's a lovely hypothesis, but it won't stand up outside of the lab in many--perhaps most--cases.

Bev D said:
In my experience the use of the phrase "inherent to the process" is an excuse for not doing the (admittedly) hard work of root cause and corrective action. After all - isn't this why we get our CQE and other quality engineering training.
I think we get our training to be able to knowledgeably discern when a problem is inherent to the process or not. And don't forget--just because a problem is inherent to the process doesn't mean the process can't be improved. I've dealt with far too many OEM SQEs who won't listen when told that their design won't work, and then want to blame the supplier when it doesn't. We need to listen and objectively evaluate the circumstances rather than assuming that the supplier is making excuses.
 
L

lday38

lack of contianment due root cause of external reject

I desperately need help. This is an autmotive stamping facility. They have always scrapped the parts when a defect occured that were in the catch pan; sometimes they even flag the 4 x 4 steel bin with a reject ticket.

The ctach pan is a term they use for where the parts are held until the lever is pulled and these parts go into the 4 x 4 bin.
However, what actually happens is the toolmaker and i beleive with the production manager;s knowledge makes the decsion on whether to contain the 4 x 4 bin. Sometimes , a good decison is made and some times it is not.
My responsibility is to notify the customer but much of the tiem I dont know that it occured becaue the decison was made on the floor and no record exists. I am looking for a way that shows the reason,etc. for the catch pan scraps, the sampling and decision of the 4x4 bins are considered suspect) and a record that the Production Manager has notify me of the incident as necessary. Also, how can sample size be determined when we really dont know how many pieces in the bin. It varies due to how many hours ,etc the bin was under the machien. Mind you we're running lean.
 
Top Bottom