|
|
 |
|

28th August 1998, 04:25 PM
|
|
|
4.9.2 Maintaining Process Control - Maintaining ongoing process capability
If one reads this element literally, and I do mean literally, it borders on the absurd. "The supplier shall maintain(or exceed) process capability or performance as approved via PPAP. Should one interpret this to mean if a PPAP is submitted showing a short term capability of 2.0, that a 2.0 would have to be maintained ongoing? This contridicts the PPAP Manual page 8 which talks about a lower Ppk of 1.33 ongoing as opposed to a 1.67 which is required for ppap submission. Our registrar is hanging on the literal and I have a feeling we are being hung period. I would like someone elses intrepretation. Thanks, Mike
|

28th August 1998, 07:32 PM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
The PPAP manual is a guide and as such is not auditable so you have to stick with the QS9000 book as the focus of your compliance
I'm not savvy on how they are interpreting the capability aspect of your question. I'll take a looksie if I get a few minutes this weekend and see what the books say.
Anyone else want to field an opinion on this issue?
|

2nd September 1998, 08:17 AM
|
|
|
I flip through the manual but could not locate that statement. Where exactly does that statement come from?
|

2nd September 1998, 08:42 AM
|
|
|
Disregard my previous message. I found that statement in the Third Ed. I think Cpk is just one of the indicator of process capability.
If your Cpk is 2 as approved via PPAP, which exceeds 1.33. During production your Cpk is 1.7 which also exceeds 1.33. Therefore you are maintaining the Cpk exceeding 1.33 as approved via PPAP.
Does this sound logical?
|

4th September 1998, 05:45 AM
|
 |
Your Elsmar Cove Host
Registration Date: Jan 1996
Location: West Chester, Ohio - USA
Age: 59
|
|
Posts: 15,857
Thanks Given to Others: 1,895
Thanked 1,566 Times in 1,018 Posts
Karma Power: 605
|
|
MSHELLY,
Please cite where in the new QS the statement is that contradicts the PPAP manual. I'll look closer at it and give you my read. I think what you are asking is this: "If I submit PPAP with a capability Ppk of 2.0 is that my minimum Ppk through out the life of production?"
|

15th September 1998, 04:38 PM
|
|
|
I'll agree with Chad on this one. If there was one thing that was reiterated time and time again while I was becoming a QS certified auditor, it's that there are 3 documents that make QS-9000: The QSR manual, PPAP, and the QSA. These three document are mandatory. FMEA, APQP, MSA, and SPC are "optional". The way the QSR reads they are mandatory options if there is such a thing.
|

16th September 1998, 01:02 AM
|
|
|
A slight correction to what was stated earlier. Since 4.2.4.1 indicates "The supplier shall fully comply with all requirements set forth in the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) manual," I believe this means that the PPAP manual is auditable.
|

15th December 1998, 04:17 AM
|
|
|
1) Am I right to say that full PPAP requirements are applicable to suppliers to Ford, GM and Chrysler, but partially (with modification) applicable to party seeking third party registration?
2) Could someone response to MSHELLEY's question? If that (4.9.2)is taken literally, I need to list all Ppk values for different products submitted and and compare them against current values. This is a lot of work. I prefer a fixed value e.g. > 1.33.
|
Lower Navigation Bar
|
|
|
|
Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors and 1 Unregistered Guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Rate Thread Content |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Settings
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|