APQP Process Review and the Purpose of PPAP

[Jim Wynne]

We submitted PPAP that met every spec on the drawing and was within all tolerances and call outs.

The remaining question is, what did you know, and when did you know it? It appears that at the time PPAP was submitted, you offered evidence (the PPAP submission) that

...all customer engineering design record and specification requirements [were] properly understood...and...the manufacturing process [had]the potential to produce product consistently meeting these requirements...

in accordance with the AIAG's quoted definition of the purpose of PPAP.

But--if you knew there was a potential problem and didn't inform the customer, depending instead on falling back on having met contractual requirements if the poop did hit the fan, then the customer might say, "Yes, you met the requirements, but why should we do business with you if you're not going to share what you know?"

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I have experience with automotive OEMs and their attempts to blame their design problems on suppliers. Nonetheless, at some point you might have to make a decision as to whether to just swallow the bitter pill, or hold your ground and lose the business. Sometimes, unfortunately, it's not a matter of whether or not you meet the specifications.

 

[IEGeek - 2006]

Oh we have already chosen to swallow the bitter pill you speak of, cost of doing business I guess....

I am just trying to see if I have failed somewhere in the process and learn from my mistakes and not make them again.

The hardest part of this whole thing for me to swallow is it states right on the PO, "PPAP Date = 10/18/06" Then further on down the comments it states, "5 Samples of each part with complete data submittal package as defined by XXXX due on or before September 15. Note: September 15, 2006 is XXXX need for PPAP approved parts. XXXX (that is us) lead time is 8 weeks from PO date giving PPAP date of 10/19/06. XXXX (us again) will try to meet XXXX dates. If not possible it needs to be confirmed with a timeline."

The next kick in the shorts is that we discovered the issue after running the PSW parts in a HVPT. We notified them (with a fix by the way) within 24 hours of that HVPT.

Like I said, we are going to bite our tongues here to keep the business, but I am trying to make sure I did not royally fail.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Like I said, we are going to bite our tongues here to keep the business, but I am trying to make sure I did not royally fail.

If I were you, I'd get the he11 out and go to China. It sounds to me like you just have to try not to choke on the pill. Beer helps. Best of luck to you.

 

[chaosweary]

I agree on the failure to communicate -- however are we not supposed to be design partners with our customers? If we find a spec / dimension or call out that does not meet the design intent or is non-existent on the print and we develop a more robust / stable part and engineer a fix to the problem, should that not be shared with the customer? Or do we just make parts to the print even though it would have created a potential installation problem at the line of their customer?

Their print was missing some crucial and vital information relating to this part. We noticed it upon completing the 30 part PSW and notified them immediately. Up until that time, no one (and I mean no one) thought this specific issue would happen (one in a million chance) but it did. We created and designed a fix by altering some geometry and submitted as soon as possible.

This is going to be an ongoing thing for a few weeks, but I am curious what all you experts think on this.

Just some thoughts....

I am not an expert, but a have scars from situations like the one you just went through. Just make sure you have a instituted a detection mechanism for situations like this. If you stay in quality I guarantee you will see this again in one form or another. The lesson I learned is to use the phone for those grey area situations. Never put anything down in documentation when it could potentially be used against you.
ISO 9000:2001 puts ideas in peoples heads about developing supplier customer relationships, sounds good on paper...but you trusted a company in good faith to be receptive to your PPAP. A supplier - customer relationship is built on trust, but it's a process that we usually don't measure empirically. So, I ask you what have you learned from this experience?