Level 2 Containment requirements - Appearance issues

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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]

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.

[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]

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?