The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page
Miner's MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) Blog 
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Nonconformance and Corrective Action
Forum Username

Wooden Line

Level 2 Containment requirements - Appearance issues

Wooden Line
Search the Elsmar Cove
Search Elsmar
Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Follow Marc & Elsmar
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed  Marc Smith's Google+ Page  Marc Smith's Linked In Page   Marc Smith's Elsmar Cove YouTube Page  Marc Smith's Facebook Page  Elsmar Cove Twitter Feed
Elsmar Cove Groups
Elsmar Cove Google+ Group  Elsmar Cove LinkedIn Group  Elsmar Cove Facebook Group
Donate and $ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

Howard's
International Quality Services
Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting
Bob Doering's
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook
IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
Quality Digest Portal
IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
ASQ - American Society for Quality

Related Topic Tags
containment (related to nonconformances), corrective action (ca), nonconforming material product or service
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  #1  
Old 9th May 2005, 10:14 AM
leet222

 
 
Posts: 4
Cool Level 2 Containment requirements - Appearance issues

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,

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 9th May 2005, 10:34 AM
Jim Wynne's Avatar
Jim Wynne

 
 
Posts: 14,077
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by 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,
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?
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 9th May 2005, 11:44 AM
leet222

 
 
Posts: 4
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
  #4  
Old 9th May 2005, 12:22 PM
Jim Wynne's Avatar
Jim Wynne

 
 
Posts: 14,077
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by leet222

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.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by leet222

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.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by leet222

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.
  #5  
Old 9th May 2005, 12:48 PM
Bev D's Avatar
Bev D

 
 
Posts: 2,979
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
  #6  
Old 9th May 2005, 01:37 PM
Jim Wynne's Avatar
Jim Wynne

 
 
Posts: 14,077
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Bev D

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.
  #7  
Old 10th May 2005, 08:00 AM
Randy Stewart's Avatar
Randy Stewart

 
 
Posts: 1,153
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.
  #8  
Old 10th May 2005, 01:00 PM
Bev D's Avatar
Bev D

 
 
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by JSW05

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?
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Nonconformance and Corrective Action

Do you find this discussion thread helpful and informational?


Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Level II Containment or CS2 Controlled Shipping Level 2 Amy Nonconformance and Corrective Action 3 6th August 2012 07:38 AM
ISO 9001 Containment Requirements GregRus ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 - Questions and Discussions 9 16th October 2011 12:17 AM
What are the Requirements for Secondary Containment? elkel ISO 14001 and Environmental Related Standards 16 19th August 2007 10:23 PM
Containment FMEA and GP-12 (GM procedure for early production containment) Marc FMEA and Control Plans 9 17th November 2006 01:06 PM
Applying FMEA to National-Level Issues Tim Folkerts FMEA and Control Plans 10 2nd September 2005 06:04 PM



The time now is 05:39 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


   


Marc Timothy Smith - Elsmar.com
8466 LeSourdsville-West Chester Road, Olde West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929
513 341-6272
NOTE: This forum uses "cookies".