ISO/TS 16949:2002 - 6.2.2.1 Product Design Skills - Tools and techniques needed

  • Thread starter GaneshKumar.Vatturi
  • Start date
G

GaneshKumar.Vatturi

Dear Sir
As per ISO/TS 16949:2002-6.2.2.1 indicates personnel with product design responsibility are competent to achieve design requirements and are skilled in applicable tools and techniques.Can you help us & thro some light on what are the tools and techniques a designer should have
 
R

Rob Nix

You are right, ISO/TS does not enumerate the skills, but QS-9000 does/did. The skills listed are:

Geometric Dimenstioning and Tolerancing (GD&T)
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFM/DFA)
Value Engineering (& Analysis)
Design of Experiments (DOE)
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Solid Modeling and CAD/CAM (a given now)
Simulation techniques
Reliability engineering (to which QS/TE adds: MTTR/MTBF, Fault Tree, Life Cycle Analysis, and environmental characterization.

Ford's customer specific requirements add that "training shall include appropriate Ford systems, and directs you to: https://web.fsli.ford.com.

I hope this helps a little.
 
G

GaneshKumar.Vatturi

Control Plan A.2.e) Corrective action point

Sir

1)As per ISO/TS 16949:2002 Annex A.2e) specifies about corrective action column.What exactly we have to address against each process name/operation description in corrective action column.

2)As per 8.2.3.1 indiactes "A corrective action plan shall then be completed by the organisation, indicating specific timing and assigned responsibilities to assure that the process becomes stable and capable.

Does both elements speeks about the same subject, please clarify
 
G

GaneshKumar.Vatturi

ISO/TS 16949:2002 - 8.2.4.1Layout inspection and functional testing

Sir

ISO/TS 16949:2002 8.2.4.1 indicates "A layout inspection & functional verification shall be performed for each product as specified in the control plan" and 8.2.4.1 Note indicates "Layout inspection is the complete product dimenstions shown on the design records"

1)Product Control plan Dim 10±0.2 is addressed and Design record ie., Drawing also same 10±0.2 is addressed.(Taking Design record as Drawing)

2)Product Control Plan Dim 12±0.5 is the process dimension and actual Dim to be achieved is 12±0.1; In drawing also same dimension is addressed ie.,12±0.1

3)Product control plan now specific dim is addressed but the drawing there is a over all reference dimension 105±1 which is not addressed in the control plan

so in this above three situations how we have to demonstrate this clause do we have to follow as per product control plan or as per design records

and also what are examples of Design records

please clarify
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
I'm going to answer your last question first:

GaneshKumar.Vatturi said:
what are examples of Design records
In common parlance, "design record" is synonymous with "engineering drawing" although the term is also inclusive of specifications and requirements that might be only referenced on the drawing, or even requirements expressed in a purchase order. The design record is all of the specifications and requirements required to produce the product in question.


GaneshKumar.Vatturi said:
2)Product Control Plan Dim 12±0.5 is the process dimension and actual Dim to be achieved is 12±0.1;

I don't understand the distinction you're making--what's the difference between "process dimension" and "actual Dim to be achieved"?

GaneshKumar.Vatturi said:
In drawing also same dimension is addressed ie.,12±0.1

The specification on the control plan should match the one on the drawing, unless you're deliberately making the tolerance tighter, or there's a subsequent operation that achieves the final (drawing) dimension, as in the case of a turning operation that's followed by grinding. It's OK to have process dimensions that are different from the drawing dimensions when it's necessary in a multi-operation process.

GaneshKumar.Vatturi said:
3)Product control plan now specific dim is addressed but the drawing there is a over all reference dimension 105±1 which is not addressed in the control plan

Whether or not reference dimensions are included in layout is a subject of minor controversy. The AIAG PPAP manual, 3rd Edition, states in a note ("...for guidance in understanding or clarifying the associated requirement") that,

All dimensions (except reference dimensions) characteristics, and specifications as noted on the design record and Control Plan should be listed in a convenient format with the actual results recorded.

Some customers expect reference dimensions to be included in dimensional reports, however.

GaneshKumar.Vatturi said:
so in this above three situations how we have to demonstrate this clause do we have to follow as per product control plan or as per design records

Yes. If there are control plan requirements that are not on the drawing, they should be included in dimensional reports, as should all drawing specifications and requirements, with the possible exception of reference dimensions.
 
Top Bottom