TS 16949 Clause 7.3.2.3 when the Customer has no Special Characteristics

[basselope]

In Reply to Parent Post by Andrews

If customer does not identify any special characteristics, the organisation is expected to identify special characteristics based on tightest tolerance available or based on rejections.

This may be a good approach for certain products and/or a requirement of certain customers, however I can not find any requirement in the AIAG/TS rules that support this statement.

May be I am wrong, but I find lot of subjectivity in these statements. What is appropriate control is for anybodys guess. It appears the Customer specifics quoted from Ford is not any different from the PPAP's.

I don't disagree that there is still room for interpretation in the statement from the Ford manual, but I do believe it goes a step further in clarifying that suppliers are not automatically required to pick a characteristic and designate it as SC.

[basselope]

A slight update to my most recent response (see text in blue):

In Reply to Parent Post by basselope

2nd reply received.Customer specific requirements are requirements. It appears to me to be an academic question as to whether a base document requires something when the Customer specifies it quite clearly.

The Ford Customer Specifics state:

11 Initial Process Studies (General) (PPAP section 2.2.11.1)
Designation of characteristics for demonstration of process capability
Where the part does not have any Ford-designated special characteristics, the organization shall control part quality through the designation of appropriate control characteristics, including them in the Control Plan and demonstrating process capability on those organization-designated control characteristics.

This says to me that where Ford does not specify special characteristics, then the organization (the supplier) must designate appropriate characteristics for appropriate identified controls. All parts are required to meet all characteristic requirements all the time, so designating these “control” characteristics should not be a burden. The controls should be no more than what was already planned for the characteristics.

Yes, initial process capability demonstration is required for those characteristics and ongoing control (whatever is appropriate) is required, since they are required to be on the control plan, per the customer specifics.

If SPC is not the best appropriate control on-going then SPC is not the best control, however, an appropriate method of control is required.

Update: the tier 1 supplier must meet the requirements of its customer(s). It is the responsibility of the tier 1 supplier to cascade those requirements to the sub-tier. I do not know how an auditor can specify (if I understand correctly) that a tier 4 supplier must meet a requirement that is not specified to it and the supplier is not aware of. The issues lay with the tier 1/2/3 apparently for not cascading the requirements.