Cpk demands from automotive customer

[RaiZ-]

Hey, everyone!
I apologize ahead of time, I checked forum for similar topics, but my time is limited, so I didn't check everything.

I have automotive customer, who came on site (short notice) and his demand is that we show that we are capable on characteristics that are not defined as special characteristics on drawing or other specifications. Their standard states that only special characteristics must have Cpk of 1.67 and Ppk of 1.33. This was PPAPed and signed some time ago.
This customer brought with him some black belt, that I can't really speak with as I'm not as proficient in six sigma. This person says that even if we have good trend there is possibility that we are out of tolerance limits for some parts due to spread.

My questions are:
1. Is there demand that all measurements must have capability of 1.67 or 1.33?
2. How to continue this discussion with customer and black belt? We have meeting in 3 hours.

I really hope for some feedback and thanks everyone ahead of time!
I haven't posted for really long time, but this forum was my escape pod few years ago when I was burned out due to transition of ISO/TS to IATF.
This customer is giving me similar feeling, so this forum is first thing I tough off.

Take care!


Best regards,
Ray

 

[Johnny Quality]

Ray,

1: Your customer will define what capability their require. Most of our automotive customers require something similar; only SC's have capability requirements

2: If these requirements are new then I'd gather a cost for these new requirements. I'd also ask why these requirements are being pushed, have you not been performing to your customers needs? Rejects? Warranty issues? New business hold?

 

[RaiZ-]

Ray,

1: Your customer will define what capability their require. Most of our automotive customers require something similar; only SC's have capability requirements

2: If these requirements are new then I'd gather a cost for these new requirements. I'd also ask why these requirements are being pushed, have you not been performing to your customers needs? Rejects? Warranty issues? New business hold?

Hey, Jonny!
Thanks for quick answer!

I cleared my doubts, at least for now and will proceed with statements that I prepared.
I already updated my team and I'm quite sure this will be messy. Unfortunately, this is tied to commercial discussions happening next week.

Take care!

 

[optomist1]

Amplifying Johnny Q's input...in the automotive arena..."usually" (quotes because technically a customer can request anything so long as it is legal), these dimensions are drivers for ex.
1) Safety
2) Regulatory
These two (some call them SCs) Top the list of drivers for 1.33/1.67 and higher Capability indices

And give the statement..."this was PPAP'd some time ago, the warranty, filed performance, a filed action or recall may be impacting this matter

 

[RaiZ-]

Hey, everyone!

As update, meeting went well.
We stood by our data on current SC values and stated that other measurements are followed and analyzed/improved but no demand of 1,33 exist.
Two guys from R&D were bit surprised but I included in presentation snippet of their standard and asked to read it and see how they interpret it. No questions were risen.
We agreed to have face-to-face meeting to discuss other questions before vacation.

Thanks for Your comments!


Best regards,
Ray

 

[Johnny Quality]

Glad it went productive Ray.

Customers who don't know their own requirements...

 

[Mike S.]

Good job, Ray!

One of my old bosses told me when I was hired that he wanted me to know my customer's requirements and specifications better than they did. At first I thought that was odd, but in the end I did end-up knowing their requirements better than they did in most areas, and it saved us a lot of grief over the years and helped build a culture of trust.

 

[bobdoering]

These people are stoned. They don't even read the automotive requirements. Capability indices do NOT apply to all processes. They NEVER read the NOTE under 2.2.11.5 in AIAG PPAP Fourth edition...ever...

 

[Ninja]

Glad it worked out for you.
I second Mike's boss's approach... none of my auto customers beyond the SQE ever looked at the mutually agreed spec because throwing around "We are Auto, you need our business" was an easier way to get their way that day.

Keep in mind as you reflect and move forward...the whole encounter may not have been about what you make at all. It could just as easily have been an internal customer power play for position, power or promotion. Beating on vendors is a time-worn way to make employees look better to their superiors...especially in auto.
Having the provable facts and rolling them out in a professional manner is a good way to defend yourself and to make them look for a different vendor to intimidate.