PPAP and Part Sample Warrant (PSW) Requirements if a Machine is Moved

We are planning to move several molding machines from one side of the plant to the other side of the plant and the question of "do we need to re-submit for PSW approval has
come up. The PPAP manual requires that we
contact our "Part approval Authority" and if they do not require a PSW we would need a part number specific waiver.

OK that's easy, now the problem is that we have never PSW'd to a specific machine only to a specific tonnage of machine and the result is that we have almost 500 part numbers that would require a specific waiver.

And we all know the "The Customer" is not going to issue 500 waivers for this.

So how can we meet the intent of the standard without killing ourselves in the process ??

Thanks in advance

Bill Smith

------------------

[Howard Atkins]

According to the PPAP manual "When PPAP submission is reguired" clause 8 "Production from tooling and equipment transfered to a different plant location....."
I understand this as meaning a different plant and not a change of location in the same plant. The reason INHO is that a different plant might work in a different manner etc, whereas if the machine is moved inside the same plant the overall system is the same.
"OK that's easy, now the problem is that we have never PSW'd to a specific machine only to a specific tonnage of machine and the result is that we have almost 500 part numbers that would require a specific waiver."
I have never been sure that the PPAP approval aplies to a specific molding machine. This is a problem as it means that according to this thinking you should supply PPAP for all machines in your plant to enable you the flexibility of production. This INHO is madness.


------------------

[Howard Atkins]

I missed clause 6 sorry.
I dont know. We have not related to this maybe we are wrong.
Can any one else help us.
I have a feeling that no one really knows.
You could always ask your registrar but this is dangerous.

Thanks for the help Howard.I aggree that clause # 8 does not apply here

We feel that clause # 6 is where we might run into a problem. It refers to the rearrangement of existing tooling or equipment.

Would molding machines fall into this category as "equipment" ? That is the question we are worried about.


Bill

[Marc]

Moving equipment *can* require you to re-PPAP. But as to the waiver, ask for one waiver for a range of part numbers.

I doubt moving injection molding equipment will be a big deal. A big press, like a metal press, is more sensitive (differences in plant floor foundation / vibration / tool chatter issues, to name a few).

Does this help?

I have a real life story regarding moving equipment. We rearranged a portion of our injection molding department into a cell. Maintenance moved two 60 ton presses. One was "dropped" when a chain broke. It didn't hit the floor, but snapped tight against another chain. One of the operators nearby happened to see it. Nothing was said, and the machine started up fine, and parts were manufactured. Unfortunately, due to one of the ways (guides) being knocked out of alignment, a little flash had developed that broke off during shipping, causing a "chip" on a significant surface. We had a return. My investigation luckily found this operator. Now, when we move equipment, we do a layout and capability study, as a minimum. As good suppliers in the automotive world, we also now tell our customer we are moving a piece of equipment, and request a PPAP submission level.

Here's my take. After moving equipment, aren't you interested to see if anything changed? You may miss something that may influence the customer, but at least make the attempt. Knowing you are going to do this, you will already have information for the customer showing nothing changed. We have never been granted a waiver without some evidence - layout, PPAP data, etc. - that the parts did not change.

Obviously this is easier if you have 500 parts for one customer on that machine. If you make 500 parts for 500 customers, it could get a little more difficult qualifying. Perhaps a couple of capability studies for a couple of parts sent to all those customers would suffice. At the very least, you should generate some information on the parts from their first run to satisfy yourself.

Marc, how can you use the term "common sense" in any way related to QS-9000 without blushing? Of course, you might be, we just can't see that on the net.
As much as I hate to admit it, it does make good business and quality assurance sense to re-layout after the move of a major piece of equipment. The horror stories above are ample illustration. But, you might be pleasantly surprised at your customer(s). Once you've done your layout and you've determined all is well (or not and you fix it), let the customer know. If you can report what you've done and that all is well, you probably won't be asked to resubmit. Waivers no doubt will be granted. But, if you don't ask, you can bet your registrar will challenge you.

[dewie]

I had an experience in electrical world. Once the operator bumped with one of the machine, the final characteristics were failed since the bending leg of capacitor was slightly shifted. All of the lot was rejected. Good luck that it was not sent to the customers.