Control plan for "highly automated processes"

[Sebastian]

SI 24 from https://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/IATF-16949-SIs-May-2022.pdf
NOTE 3 For highly automated processes (e.g., semiconductors, machining, welding) where the control method (i.e., specification/tolerances, sample size, frequency) is controlled by a system (e.g., MES - Manufacturing Execution System or similar), summary control information is acceptable with direct references or linkage to the system that manages the detailed process control information.

So for welding we have:
1. Process Characteristic - Voltage, Wire feed speed, Amperage, Travel Angle, Torch work angle
2. Process Specification - per Program #13456A
3. Measurement Technique - per Program #13456A
4. Sample Size - per Program #13456A
5. Frequency - per Program #13456A
6. Control Method - per Program #13456A
7. Reaction plan - no reaction is possible, because:
a) parameter settings have only target values, but range could not be set, so any real value is good
b) robot is not equipped with control system to detect real value has exceeded parameter setting range
c) robot does not display any alarms

???

Does your control plan look like this?
Are you going to revise control plan to match this?

So, customer is buying cat in the sack, because won't get this program as part of PPAP package, because supplier is protecting own know how.
The only one supplier in the world who can weld. Interesting.

Only because "control plan" could be "too huge".
Yes, 5 parameters requires 5 lines, so maybe it's better to put "1. Welding parameters"
Of course brake disc control plan deserves one page only.
Casting per software, machining per software and that's it.

What are they doing there?

 

[John C. Abnet]

SI 24 from https://www.iatfglobaloversight.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/IATF-16949-SIs-May-2022.pdf
NOTE 3 For highly automated processes (e.g., semiconductors, machining, welding) where the control method (i.e., specification/tolerances, sample size, frequency) is controlled by a system (e.g., MES - Manufacturing Execution System or similar), summary control information is acceptable with direct references or linkage to the system that manages the detailed process control information.

What are they doing there?

Good day @Sebastian ;
Is it safe to assume by "...THEY are doing", you are referring to the IATF ? (in regard to the subject SI ?)

 

[Sebastian]

Answer is "Yes".

 

[John C. Abnet]

So, @Sebastian the term "highly automated processes" is (in my professional opinion) what causes this to be misleading.

What the authors appear to be saying is really nothing new...been done in industry for decades.
The example I will provide is as follows....

Heat treating process:
Austenizing zone temperatures, quench agitation, draw temperature, times, etc... are generally considered proprietary (and each is part of a continuous flow automated process [in the example I am using] ).

On the control plan, each of these process characteristics would be individually called out but the "specification" would simply state...
"Work Instruction # 123456" . That "work instruction" (in this example) would contain all the details for time, temp, etc.. and those would NOT be stated directly on the control plan nor shared with the customer.

The above is an actual example that I dealt with when I was still in industry .

Hope this helps.
Be well.