The Elsmar Cove Forum and Site Map 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

Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard > QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard


The Elsmar Cove Forum SideBar!
Monitor the Forum
Monitor New Forum Posts
New Threads Feeds
RSS FeedRSS Feed
Sponsor Link










$ Contributor Forum Access
Courtesy Quick Links

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


Howard's International Quality Services

Atul's Symphony Technologies

Dave Scott's Scott Quality Solutions

Praxiom Research Group


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


All the Important Standards and Related Web Sites in the World
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  #1  
Old 28th August 1998, 04:25 PM
MSHELLEY
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Question 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
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 28th August 1998, 07:32 PM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is offline
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
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 605
Karma: 11559
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via AIM to Marc Send a message via Skype™ to Marc
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 2nd September 1998, 08:17 AM
Lyndon Diong
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

I flip through the manual but could not locate that statement. Where exactly does that statement come from?

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2nd September 1998, 08:42 AM
Lyndon Diong
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 4th September 1998, 05:45 AM
Marc's Avatar
Marc Marc is offline
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
Blog Entries: 4
Karma Power: 605
Karma: 11559
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Marc is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via AIM to Marc Send a message via Skype™ to Marc
Default

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?"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15th September 1998, 04:38 PM
Christian Lupo
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 16th September 1998, 01:02 AM
Chad Nunnery
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15th December 1998, 04:17 AM
Lyndon Diong
Unregistered Guest

 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > ISO (International Organization for Standardization) Standards > ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard > QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard

Bookmarks


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

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

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

Forum Jump

Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Maintaining traceability through our manufacturing process - Protective suits - 110 atreyu915 Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 1 12th November 2005 03:26 PM
How is everyone handling TS2 Clause 8.2.3.1 - Maintaining Process Capability GoKats78 ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2 8th June 2005 07:06 AM
TS 16949 Clause 8.2.3.1 - Maintaining Process Capability p_tww ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9 11th September 2003 01:09 PM
Maintaining manufactoring process capability rui12524 ISO/TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6 23rd January 2002 05:11 PM
Maintaining Process Control Tom Goetzinger QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 1 7th March 2000 01:33 AM



The time now is 11:35 AM. All times are GMT -4.
The time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



   

All Y'All Come Back Now, Y' Hear?

Made With A Mac! FreeBSD OS Powered by Apache!
Using php4 Forums provided and maintained by Marc Smith Database by MySQL

FAIR USE and CORRECTNESS NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe herein constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In addition, I do not guarantee the correctness of the content. The risk of using content from the Elsmar Cove web site and forums remains with the user/visitor.

Responsibility Statement: Each person is responsible for anything they post in the Elsmar Cove forum. Neither I, Marc Timothy Smith, nor any of the forum Moderators, are responsible for the content of posts people make. Liability for post content resides with the poster as does interpretation and/or acceptance and/or use of advice by the reader.

Complaints: If you have a complaint with a post in a forum discussion thread, including Content in general, fighting, flaming, copyright infringement, defamation and/or 'slander', please use the 'Report This Post Report This Post Button button which appears at the top of every post in every thread.

Site courtesy of:
Marc Timothy Smith - Cayman Business Systems, 8466 Lesourdsville-West Chester Road, West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929 - USA
(513) 341-6272

To contact me, click the Google Voice link below, enter Your Name and Your Phone Number and Google will ring your phone and connect you for free!

The Elsmar Cove Web Site is *CopyFree*
no new posts