Has anyone had any dealings with Toyota North America where the issue of using the AIAG format for Control Plans instead of the Totota format has come up? If so what was the resolution? We are about to argue this and I was hoping for some additional ammo.
There is no specific requirement for AIAG format as far as I know. For example at Motorola they use a combined Control Plan and Process Flow Diagram - 1 document to meet the requirements of both documents. LRQA is the registrar and they required content, not format. That is to say as long as your document contains the info on the AIAG document, layout and extra information are not an issue.
Have you looked at the APQP and FMEA documents in the pdf_files directory here?
There is very little if any differences in content, It seems to be that they want their CP on the line.
We are going to propose that they issue a controlled copy their CP and that we maintain it and use it as a master then transfer all the appropriate info onto the AIAG CP.
That is the point we are trying to make to Toyota, the use of the AIAG CP format is our choice, our operators and inspectors are comfortable with this format and we have conducted quite a bit of training on how to read it, also the software we use is set up for that format.
We are fighting the issue on the grounds that it is much more condusive to a controlled process to use a CP that the operators and inspectors are familiar with than to have them switching back and forth between CP's simply to satisfy Toyota's need to see their format on our molding floor.
Besides how can the spirit of HARMONIZATION fostered under QS9000 be maintained if we allow this to happen?????
Toyota & QS9000
Linear Mode
