J
jperez25
Hi there. I have a question that I know does not have a black or white answer, but I'm basically looking for any interesting insights.
One of the metrics we use to measure supplier performance is supplier PPM, calculated in the conventional way or reject rate per million.
Now our systems are similar to B3, where we require our suppliers to submit a PPAP before starting production and then we have a further Job#1 date of the new product, which usually happens 3-4 months after our suppliers submit their PSWs. In this period of time we run our pre-production, which are saleable units to the customer.
Our current process is that anything that is rejected in the plant (IQ or in process) is considered in the supplier PPM calculation.
However, there is a question to whether we should only consider rejected parts after the Job1, since the first pre-production lots have a greater risk of quality issues (though supplier PSW should have been signed at this point of time).
Then the question is, considering the following two alternatives, which one is the one that represents more the supplier quality:
1) A metric that includes every rejected part when calculating the reject rate (this could include pre-series, prototypes, etc)?
2) A metric that include rejected parts after a 'stabilization period' of 3-4 months after supplier PSW?
The two options actually measure different things, Any of you see any particular benefit of using either one of the methods?
Javier
One of the metrics we use to measure supplier performance is supplier PPM, calculated in the conventional way or reject rate per million.
Now our systems are similar to B3, where we require our suppliers to submit a PPAP before starting production and then we have a further Job#1 date of the new product, which usually happens 3-4 months after our suppliers submit their PSWs. In this period of time we run our pre-production, which are saleable units to the customer.
Our current process is that anything that is rejected in the plant (IQ or in process) is considered in the supplier PPM calculation.
However, there is a question to whether we should only consider rejected parts after the Job1, since the first pre-production lots have a greater risk of quality issues (though supplier PSW should have been signed at this point of time).
Then the question is, considering the following two alternatives, which one is the one that represents more the supplier quality:
1) A metric that includes every rejected part when calculating the reject rate (this could include pre-series, prototypes, etc)?
2) A metric that include rejected parts after a 'stabilization period' of 3-4 months after supplier PSW?
The two options actually measure different things, Any of you see any particular benefit of using either one of the methods?
Javier