Is SPC required for Production if a Customer does not ask for it?

[Cloyd]

Concur - The standard does not require SPC, it requires what is appropriate.

I would check your contract language. Did you submit the PPAP package leading the customer to believe SPC would be used for process control? If so, you may be required to notify the customer of any changes to your process control plan, and this may lead you to re-submit your PPAP package. The contract should specify when the customer needs to be alerted to these changes.

[morteza]

In Reply to Parent Post by mech2008

I have a question. Do we have to do SPC control if customer do not have ask for SPC in mass production? (We did SPC for PPAP submission)
Some experts said "no need if customers don't ask for SPC in production". Hope your answer. Thanks.

Hi all
I believe that SPC has been indirectly required by ISO/TS for mass production according to below clauses:

8.2.3.1 Monitoring and measurement of manufacturing processes
….
The organization shall maintain manufacturing process capability or performance as specified by the customer part approval process requirements. The organization shall ensure that the control plan and process flow diagram are implemented, including adherence to the specified
- measurement techniques,
- sampling plans,
- acceptance criteria, and
- reaction plans when acceptance criteria are not met.
Significant process events, such as tool change or machine repair, shall be recorded.
The organization shall initiate a reaction plan from the control plan for characteristics that are either not statistically capable or are unstable. These reaction plans shall include containment of product and 100% inspection as appropriate. A corrective action plan shall then be completed by the organization, indicating specific timing and assigned responsibilities to assure that the process becomes stable and capable. The plans shall be reviewed with and approved by the customer when so required.
For insurance of maintaining of process capability or understanding that process is not stable or capable you should do SPC.

8.5.1.2 Manufacturing process improvement
Manufacturing process improvement shall continually focus upon control and reduction of variation in product characteristics and manufacturing process parameters.
NOTE 1 Controlled characteristics are documented in the control plan.
NOTE 2 Continual improvement is implemented once manufacturing processes are capable and stable, or product characteristics are predictable and meet customer requirements.
For focusing on reduction of variation it is necessary to do SPC. See also NOTE 2 of this clause.

[Cloyd]

So, if I have an operation mass producing Spacely Sprockets, and I 100% inspect all dimensions prior to release, and I serialize my sprockets so that my customer has traceability to the 100% inspection record, I keep 100% of all inspection records, and my control of defect is to throw out any part that fails my inspection - will I be able to ship under the stamp of ISO conformance?

Smart and Compliant are not necessarily the same. If the customer accepts poor controls, who is to stop the supplier from executing them? I've seen too many certified entities operate in an "unenlightend" fashion, heck I've participated in some....

Implied versus required, should versus shall....the higher the regulation level the more important these words become.

We have many Certifying auditors on the forum. I am sure we will get the official word - as well as a "Harrumph" (If we are lucky), very quickly.....

[silentrunning]

"Smart and Compliant are not necessarily the same. If the customer accepts poor controls, who is to stop the supplier from executing them? I've seen too many certified entities operate in an "unenlightend" fashion, heck I've participated in some...." Cloyd

I have no customers that accept poor controls.

Our customers don't dictate our Quality Management System, we do. Even if the customer doesn't require tight controls we ensure that they are in place. Defective product benefits no one.

[Ninja]

In Reply to Parent Post by Golfman25

Because in the wrong hands it is a dangerous tool which causes more problems than it solves. Good luck.

Amen to that!

But all the same, SPC is a powerful and effective tool in the hands of a competent craftsman. (Powerful and effective at increasing profit).

I would have to agree, though, that it can cause a lot of damage in the hands of someone who thinks it is a solution in itself...or a meaningless task that the bosses make them do.

[Cloyd]

In Reply to Parent Post by silentrunning

"Smart and Compliant are not necessarily the same. If the customer accepts poor controls, who is to stop the supplier from executing them? I've seen too many certified entities operate in an "unenlightend" fashion, heck I've participated in some...." Cloyd

I have no customers that accept poor controls.

Our customers don't dictate our Quality Management System, we do. Even if the customer doesn't require tight controls we ensure that they are in place. Defective product benefits no one.

How can I disagree with this strong statement. Amen. I sincerely did not - and do not, mean to offend.

Please let me clarify my suggestion to the primary poster:

1. No. The standard does not require SPC, it requires what you determine to be adequate.
2. If the poster has submitted a PPAP package that uses SPC to control certain process elements and dictate outcomes and reactions, and has then since revised the requirement because top management believes it is not required as an element of ADEQUACY in control of process, my recommendation was to review the contract. If this has already been signed off, you may need to alert the customer as to your changes in process control, and you may need to explain your reasoning in greater detail.

It is in this case that we put our "fate" in the hands of the customer. I can't speak more directly, as I don't know the process or the parts. It felt like the poster was putting the control of quality in the hands of the regulatory requirement, or the contractual requirement, which "felt" to me like an immature system, or new product, or lower cost sourcing initiative. The presumptions are without DATA, so I apologize.

I felt the first question was adequately addressed, but the recommendation to circle back to the customer if you were changing your process controls was not necessarily touched. If this is just stating the obvious, I also apologize.