Feasibility Review - How are you meeting 7.2.2 and 7.2.2.2 requirements?

[Totumfrog]

I've got a question. I.E. 7.2.2. Review of requirements related to the product and 7.2.2.2 Organization manufacturing feasibility. 7.2.2 states that "the organization SHALL review the requirements"...and..."Ttis review SHALL be conducted prior to the organizations' commitment to supply a product to the customer". Futhermore, 7.2.2.2 states the "organization SHALL investigate, confirm and document the manufacturing feasibility of the proposed products in the contract review process...".

We currently complete a feasibility form for EVERY job we quote. We are awarded about 10% of those quoted jobs. Is it required to complete a feasibility form for every job or as defined "prior to the organization's commitment to supply a product to the customer". One side of me says we should perform a feasibility on every job quoted but unfortunately it is a lot of work and it typically gets "rubber stamped" through the process. The other side of me says that once we have been awarded a contract and BEFORE we commit to supply it (e.g. submission of tender, acceptance of contracts of orders.....) then we should complete a thorough feasibility form that will truly add value to the process.

What are your companies doing and what do the auditors say about it?

Thanks again in advance for all of your help....

Collin "totumfrog" Johnson

 

[The Moose]

Hi Colin, I asked a similar question in the thread below;

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11114&highlight=Contract+review

What we do now is we have our sales guys "filter" all RFQ's when they arrive to ensure we only quote on business which suits us. These RFQ's are then assessed by our estimator who has a simple checklist type feasability review (i don't have a copy here but I will post it up later) which he completes along with the quote. The sales person then reviews the study along with the quote before deciding wether or not to progress.

Upon winning an order a full "Contract Review" is carried out by the project team who will manage the project.

We are only going for TS as we speak so so far our auditor hasn't seen the system but I know it is similar to what a lot of companies in the injection moulding business do and is readily accepted

 

[Randy Stewart]

Most requirements for a "Feasibility Review" are carried out during an estimate. Especially if you are estimating a product that fits your core business. As long as it is documented by the estimator it usually isn't a problem. They will normally look into capacity, how to inspect, etc. There is the cross functional approach based upon the interaction of processes.

How we structured our procedure is that we will have a sit down meeting with all parties involved when the job requires new technology or isn't part of our core business.

 

[Totumfrog]

Thanks for the replys. I read the above thread as well. I see some similarities with our quoting process. We are a metal stamper and most of the RFQ's that come our way are for legitimate business opportunities that are not current existing products or designs. The metal stamping business is very competitive and as I mentioned initially, we are lucky to get 10% of the quoted business. Of course some of that is our own decision because we high ball quote the stuff we don't want and low ball quote the stuff we do. We are obligated to quote everything though because our number of customers are few but their number of part numbers are high (automotive, lawn and garden). I'm leaning toward having sales include the AIAG format feasibility study with every quotation but if we are awarded the job, then we will review that feasibility as a cross functional team to better review our contract commitment that we are about to pursue / sign on to. Thanks everyone for the brainstorming session. Sometimes the answer is already apparent, you just need someone to show you the direction.

Totumfrog

 

[Jim Wynne]

I'm a little late to the thread, but I think it's important to consider the reason that the standard requires feasibility analysis: to protect the organization from its own sales people. Sales people are in the business of selling things, and their compensation is often tied to the value of the the things they sell. This practice has resulted in the phenomenon of things being sold that do not exist, and in some cases, things that will only exist if there is a sudden change in the laws of physics. For this reason, it's important that feasibility analysis is not done by a single person who might be making educated guesses rather than actually talking to people. The AIAG model is called Team Feasibility Commitment, in a rare case of prudent insight on the part of AIAG (although it might have been a fortuitous accident). Everyone who will be affected by the contract should have a chance to review the requirements before a commitment is made, with a goal of minimizing downstream surprises that might affect the ability to produce and/or deliver as promised.

 

[Caster]

Escape clauses in your quote

.....most of the RFQ's that come our way are for legitimate business opportunities that are not current existing products or designs. The metal stamping business is very competitive and as I mentioned initially, we are lucky to get 10% of the quoted business. ......We are obligated to quote everything though because our number of customers are few but their number of part numbers are high (automotive, lawn and garden).......Totumfrog

Sounds all too familiar - the same in the foundry World. We would have killed for 10%, we were way less than 1%!

They are trolling for the lowest bidder - with no real chance of ever awarding the work. Or they need 3 bidders to satisfy their systems.

I also bet a big bid package spits out of the FAX Friday night around 5:00 PM...with a note that it closes that day.

We got around this by sending in "market quotes".

These had several pages of Terms and Conditions attached which basically reserved the right for us to re-quote and change prices and delivery as more information became avaiable.

It pretty much said we could re quote at any time, for any reason! Amazingly it worked - probably because no one ever reads the Terms and Conditions.

Remember - the last piece of paper on top wins! You make money on change requests from customers. Alway leave a door open in your Terms and Conditions.

When a job became likely to result in new business then we tried to do the full feasibility review (and re quote).

For good examples, look at any big 3 purchase order. We just copied some of the good weasel clauses from them and used it against them.

Good luck.

 

[Randy Stewart]

JSW,

I agree when it comes to the sales people or the sales department. However, when you are given an RFQ and your estimator is reviewing the product, I don't feel a true Team Feasibility Review is warranted. If your estimator (especially int he stamping industries) doesn't know if a job will fit in a press, or if you have the tonnage required and doesn't bother to ask, then he doesn't need to be estimating. Let him go out and sell that rubberized aluminum siding for archways !
I have never had an issue raised because we only perform the true blue review if the job or product calls for new technology or isn't our core business.
We end up with parts on our loading dock that we have never seen before or even been contacted about. Operations and I go over configuration, review the spec call out and develop a load size. Then we process it.

Totumfrog,
I worked for a prototype stamping operation who made automotive doors, hoods, roofs, etc. so I have an idea what you are going through. Is tooling something that you quote also or is it customer owned? If you are looking at die design your opening up another can of worms. :thedeal:

 

[Jim Wynne]

JSW,

I agree when it comes to the sales people or the sales department. However, when you are given an RFQ and your estimator is reviewing the product, I don't feel a true Team Feasibility Review is warranted. If your estimator (especially int he stamping industries) doesn't know if a job will fit in a press, or if you have the tonnage required and doesn't bother to ask, then he doesn't need to be estimating. Let him go out and sell that rubberized aluminum siding for archways !

I agree. It's always best to use Occam's Razor in such cases--"Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily," which is another way of saying that if all else is equal, the simplest answer is usually the best answer.

 

[Totumfrog]

Stew, yes were are quoting dies as well. Part of the reason I posed the question originally is because we got dinged in an ISO/TS certification audit. We had recently PPAP'ed a part and while measuring every dimension 100%, we determined that we did not have a measurement method accurate to 10% of the total tolerance for an angle check. I.E. a pulley had a groove angle of 3 degrees and the customer wanted 1.67+ capability. We make pulleys all of the time and we are great at it but we never had a customer request 1.67+ Cpk on a groove angle. We measured the angle with attribute gages but took an written exception on the PPAP by not giving the customer Cpk values because we do not have a gage accurate to 18 minutes. Thus the auditor wrote us up for not specifying on our feasibility review that we weren't able to meet the requirements set forth by the customer (i.e. Cpk on 3 deg. tolerance). Honestly I think they couldn't find anything else so they wrote us up for that but it did raise bigger questions about the "feasibility" of our feasibility. I often wonder what the auditors would do if they were dealing with the issues that the QC managers do everyday.

 

[jawatts - 2009]

auditors QC Mgrs

Many of he auditors have dealt with those issues......that's why they became auditors!