I
IEGeek - 2006
We received an interesting email from our customer. They shall remain nameless. The first part in italics was my email to him the second part is his response. My head is spinning...
I have been reviewing all the documents and processes associated with our APQP Process as we discussed in our call yesterday.
After reviewing the process and interviewing key stake holders I have determined that this is a robust process. The controls are in place, the documents are being fully utilized and the relevant team members are all well aware of the process and the importance of the process. While there is always room for continuous improvement in every aspect of our business, including transactional processes, this system at this stage is has been determined to be good.
In reviewing the latest submission to XXX in regards to P/N XXXX and the rejected PPAP from you, I can not determine a failure or root cause systemic breakdown. Our normal APQP and PPAP process is not a short term project. We commit resources (both personnel and financial) to ensure project success and timely completion. The only failure I see is that XXX requested (us) to “up” our normal timeline for completion from an average of six (6) weeks to two (2) weeks and we accepted. Executive, Engineering, Quality, Manufacturing and Supply Chain were all involved from inception to completion. I have also reviewed the PPAP submitted and utilized the TS16949 “rules of engagement” and in our DVP & R we state that “All assemblies shall be free of burrs and sharp edges which may be detrimental to assembly, safe handling, or functioning per GM1007C 3.2.2” while we at (here) realize that any overhang of the XXXX could constitute a sharp edge not safe for assembly or handling, it does not specify that on the most current revision drawing (XXXXXXX Rev. A).
In reference to the rejected PPAP—my understanding from your email was that the PPAP was rejected due to a false submission. I would request that you clarify that for me at your convenience. For elucidation purposes and for your own knowledge, there were no “hand picked” samples as you describe. We ran the thirty (30) piece PSW as requested XXXX to meet a PPAP date of XXXX During this production run we discovered that the design had errors. The XXXX to which we are all aware of, has no call out, any dimension or tolerance listed on the print we were provided. There is only a reference dimension of the unit itself, not the XXXX. As a supplier / partner we immediately notified you that there was a design flaw in regards to this top plate and recommended a change to the geometry to eliminate or reduce the XXXX shift. In my experience that is exactly what the PPAP and APQP processes were designed to find and fix. (Our) engineering and quality were and are well aware that this XXXX shift does not meet the design intent of the part, however if that XXXX does in fact shift, what is an acceptable level or tolerance of shift?
Can there be no “overhang”?
Can there be overhang +/- .25mm?
Can the XXXX line up to the edge of the XXXX (knowing this causes a gap on the opposite side)?
Does the XXXX have to be centered longitudinally and horizontally? If so, what are the reference points?
I would suggest that the PPAP and APQP Process worked as designed. We noticed a dimension and sub-component part that was not part of the design intent and notified XXXX immediately. We also quickly developed an engineering drawing change request to compensate and / or correct this XXXX shift and submitted a drawing on XXXX.
I would be more than happy to complete the (your document) as you originally requested, however I am not sure of the validity of the concern in regards to a systemic failure of our PPAP and APQP process at this time.
I look forward to speaking with more in depth next week and I look forward to your comments.
OK HERE IS HIS RESPONSE (not yelling,just trying to set apart)
Project Success is in jeopardy and timely completion was not achieved.
I was not advised of the process/design problem until after PPAP submission and approval. (You) must have known about the process/design issues upon submission (As indicated below) but, submitted a control plan and PFMEA that did not reflect any issue at all. When I asked, "how did you obtain the 5 Submission samples", (you) replied. "we visually inspected and picked the good ones".
If there was not print violation, why did you throw up a red flag and say you could not run more parts? Again, this is your design and your process. Besides, your drawing does indicate the reference envelope dimension for the XXXX. I figured it was this dimension that was violated.
Who did you notify and when, and, why did you submit PPAP that did not mention or reflect a problem? If this is an oversight, you need to update your APQP process and/or train your people to the procedures.
These questions should have been asked and answered during Design Phase and DFMEA. This is your design. Please investigate and establish "Lesson Learned" for ineffective Design Review and utilization of DFMEA.
There is one additional point I need to clarify regarding meeting the requirements of ISO/TS16949; Para 7.3.6.3;
The organization shall conform to a product and manufacturing process approval procedure recognized by the customer. Note: Product approval should be subsequent to the verification of the manufacturing process."
To these two points:
Please review the attached copy of our Supplier Quality Manual; with particular attention to XXXX.
It was my mistake for authorizing the submission and approval of PPAP samples prior to verification of your manufacturing process. I had assumed (you) validated the design and process prior to submission. Which brings up another nonconformance within your APQP process. Do your procedures call for pre-production validation - before PPAP? And, was this done before submission.
We differ from your comments above with respect to the purpose of PPAP. XXXX does not use the audit and PPAP submission for the purpose of validating your process. That's your job. We use XXXX and PPAP as prescribed in ISO/TS and XXXX SQA Manual to verify compliance to print and other XXXX requirements. This is the idea of "First Time Quality" to your customers. There should be nothing wrong with a well planned and validated design as a well planned and validated process. You need to insure the design and process are validated before PPAP submission.
Did I miss something?
HELP?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I have been reviewing all the documents and processes associated with our APQP Process as we discussed in our call yesterday.
After reviewing the process and interviewing key stake holders I have determined that this is a robust process. The controls are in place, the documents are being fully utilized and the relevant team members are all well aware of the process and the importance of the process. While there is always room for continuous improvement in every aspect of our business, including transactional processes, this system at this stage is has been determined to be good.
In reviewing the latest submission to XXX in regards to P/N XXXX and the rejected PPAP from you, I can not determine a failure or root cause systemic breakdown. Our normal APQP and PPAP process is not a short term project. We commit resources (both personnel and financial) to ensure project success and timely completion. The only failure I see is that XXX requested (us) to “up” our normal timeline for completion from an average of six (6) weeks to two (2) weeks and we accepted. Executive, Engineering, Quality, Manufacturing and Supply Chain were all involved from inception to completion. I have also reviewed the PPAP submitted and utilized the TS16949 “rules of engagement” and in our DVP & R we state that “All assemblies shall be free of burrs and sharp edges which may be detrimental to assembly, safe handling, or functioning per GM1007C 3.2.2” while we at (here) realize that any overhang of the XXXX could constitute a sharp edge not safe for assembly or handling, it does not specify that on the most current revision drawing (XXXXXXX Rev. A).
In reference to the rejected PPAP—my understanding from your email was that the PPAP was rejected due to a false submission. I would request that you clarify that for me at your convenience. For elucidation purposes and for your own knowledge, there were no “hand picked” samples as you describe. We ran the thirty (30) piece PSW as requested XXXX to meet a PPAP date of XXXX During this production run we discovered that the design had errors. The XXXX to which we are all aware of, has no call out, any dimension or tolerance listed on the print we were provided. There is only a reference dimension of the unit itself, not the XXXX. As a supplier / partner we immediately notified you that there was a design flaw in regards to this top plate and recommended a change to the geometry to eliminate or reduce the XXXX shift. In my experience that is exactly what the PPAP and APQP processes were designed to find and fix. (Our) engineering and quality were and are well aware that this XXXX shift does not meet the design intent of the part, however if that XXXX does in fact shift, what is an acceptable level or tolerance of shift?
Can there be no “overhang”?
Can there be overhang +/- .25mm?
Can the XXXX line up to the edge of the XXXX (knowing this causes a gap on the opposite side)?
Does the XXXX have to be centered longitudinally and horizontally? If so, what are the reference points?
I would suggest that the PPAP and APQP Process worked as designed. We noticed a dimension and sub-component part that was not part of the design intent and notified XXXX immediately. We also quickly developed an engineering drawing change request to compensate and / or correct this XXXX shift and submitted a drawing on XXXX.
I would be more than happy to complete the (your document) as you originally requested, however I am not sure of the validity of the concern in regards to a systemic failure of our PPAP and APQP process at this time.
I look forward to speaking with more in depth next week and I look forward to your comments.
OK HERE IS HIS RESPONSE (not yelling,just trying to set apart)
Project Success is in jeopardy and timely completion was not achieved.
I was not advised of the process/design problem until after PPAP submission and approval. (You) must have known about the process/design issues upon submission (As indicated below) but, submitted a control plan and PFMEA that did not reflect any issue at all. When I asked, "how did you obtain the 5 Submission samples", (you) replied. "we visually inspected and picked the good ones".
If there was not print violation, why did you throw up a red flag and say you could not run more parts? Again, this is your design and your process. Besides, your drawing does indicate the reference envelope dimension for the XXXX. I figured it was this dimension that was violated.
Who did you notify and when, and, why did you submit PPAP that did not mention or reflect a problem? If this is an oversight, you need to update your APQP process and/or train your people to the procedures.
These questions should have been asked and answered during Design Phase and DFMEA. This is your design. Please investigate and establish "Lesson Learned" for ineffective Design Review and utilization of DFMEA.
There is one additional point I need to clarify regarding meeting the requirements of ISO/TS16949; Para 7.3.6.3;
The organization shall conform to a product and manufacturing process approval procedure recognized by the customer. Note: Product approval should be subsequent to the verification of the manufacturing process."
To these two points:
Please review the attached copy of our Supplier Quality Manual; with particular attention to XXXX.
It was my mistake for authorizing the submission and approval of PPAP samples prior to verification of your manufacturing process. I had assumed (you) validated the design and process prior to submission. Which brings up another nonconformance within your APQP process. Do your procedures call for pre-production validation - before PPAP? And, was this done before submission.
We differ from your comments above with respect to the purpose of PPAP. XXXX does not use the audit and PPAP submission for the purpose of validating your process. That's your job. We use XXXX and PPAP as prescribed in ISO/TS and XXXX SQA Manual to verify compliance to print and other XXXX requirements. This is the idea of "First Time Quality" to your customers. There should be nothing wrong with a well planned and validated design as a well planned and validated process. You need to insure the design and process are validated before PPAP submission.
Did I miss something?
HELP?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I call this consumating the supplier and seller relationship! 
Good luck in China!
