Is a Control Plan Required for Receiving Inspection?

[Sam]

We have been having a rather heated discussion the past few days pertaining to the actions that should be described on the control plan. In particular, receiving inspection and packaging and paccking.

The Question:
Is there a requirement to show the receiving and shippng inspection requirements on the Control Plan?

Example:
I am going to produce an assembly which contains is made up of 15 components. Should each one of these items be listed on the CP for receiving inspection?
And should I also shoew tthe assembly shipping requirements?

Please provide references , if possible.

[D.Scott]

IMHO if it is part of the process, you need to cover it in the control plan.

Check page 33 of APQP - "In effect, the Control Plan describes the actions that are required at each phase of the process including receiving, in-process, out-going, and periodic requirements to assure that all process outputs will be in a state of control."

Dave

[Bill Ryan]

I agree with Dave.

Is there a requirement to show the receiving and shippng inspection requirements on the Control Plan?

IMO, you're question defines what the Control Plan is all about (how you "control" your process).

Good luck!!!
Bill

[Sam]

Thnks for your input, But i'm losing the battle. My combatants are a handful of ex big 3 people. Their claim is that the only steps required on the control plan are those that are specified as significant characteristics. They cite the examples in the APQP manual as evidence.

[Bill Ryan]

My combatants are a handful of ex big 3 people.

My sympathies!!!!!!!! (Your "signoff" says it all)

Your Control Plan(s) will be nothing more than a piece of paper and have absolutely no value to your operation. That may sound pretty strong but, IMO, it is the truth (Does that mean your PFMEA only addresses "SCs" also??).

I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone but I have witnessed the potential value of "above and beyond" as opposed to "meeting" the guidelines set forth in the AIAG manuals (it's also very nice to hear the auditor tell you they are "impressed" with the effort put forth instead of everything being shot down with findings and observations).

One thought (and I'll get off the soapbox): Could the attitude of your "combatants" be one of the reasons the B3 aren't putting much of a dent (if any) in warranty claims????????

Sorry, it seems to me I may be doing just a little venting (just got off the phone with one of my B3 SQEs). I don't mean to be directing anything at you, Sam.

Happy Holidays!!!!

Bill

[mlowden]

If your 'combatants' are already familiar with APQP, have them turn to page 79 - Appendix A-8, and reveiw the Control Plan Checklist. Item #6 pretty much answers your original question. I don't see how you could lose this one.

Good luck.

[Sam]

Bill, Iagree. I am having the same kind of day.

mlowden,
Tries that approach. The answer to the question is no , thew comment is "covered in receiving inspection instructions.
I have also read and re-read para 2.8 of the AOPQ,
"2.8 MATERIAL SPEIFICATIONS
In addition to drawings and performance specifications, material specifications shouild be reviewed for Special Characteristics relating to physical properties, performance, environmental, handling, and storage requirements. These characteristics should also be included in the control plan."
This statement seems clear to me, however I may be biased.
Others have said this only applies to SC's.

Happy Holiodays to all

[Don Wood]

Your ex-Big 3 combatants are full of #$%#, and you can quote me on that. The intent of the Control Plan is identify ALL of the controls that can impact conformance to customer requirements - that is CLEARLY identified in the APQP manual. Anything less tells me that an organization is attempting to comply with the letter of the requirements (APQP and TS2) and not the intents - in other words, "malicious compliance".

This is so basic it's never come up even ONCE in our CB auditor cert classes. Ask your "buddies" if they're aware that 70% of GM's line-downs resulted from LABELING issues?

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion. No wonder they're EX Big-3!

Don Wood
Licensed Plexus Trainer/TS 16949 Registrar Auditor Examiner