Customer wants PPAP on Old Parts to New Standards

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#1
How do you handle the situation where you have parts, designed, tooled and run for years prior to today's standards? We have several old parts, started up prior to QS, PPAP, AIAG and all the fancy measuring equipment we have these days. Now we are being asked to PPAP these parts and by today's standards we don't have a prayer.

For example, tooling built back in the day and the part was checked on an old style optical comparator. Picture some old guy, behind the curtain, eyeballing the part, saying good/bad. Today, the part is checked on a super fancy automated 3D computerized electron machine (which cost more than the original tooling did). Of course, the numbers don't quite match and the part is "no good."

Then there are the old gages, calipers and what not that can't "pass" an MSA. They seemed ok for years, but by todays standards, no go.

It just seems like a big can of worms to me.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
#2
Re: Old Parts, New Standards

Can of worms and pi$$ing matches are forecast for your future.
 

Stijloor

Leader
Super Moderator
#3
How do you handle the situation where you have parts, designed, tooled and run for years prior to today's standards? We have several old parts, started up prior to QS, PPAP, AIAG and all the fancy measuring equipment we have these days. Now we are being asked to PPAP these parts and by today's standards we don't have a prayer.

For example, tooling built back in the day and the part was checked on an old style optical comparator. Picture some old guy, behind the curtain, eyeballing the part, saying good/bad. Today, the part is checked on a super fancy automated 3D computerized electron machine (which cost more than the original tooling did). Of course, the numbers don't quite match and the part is "no good."

Then there are the old gages, calipers and what not that can't "pass" an MSA. They seemed ok for years, but by todays standards, no go.

It just seems like a big can of worms to me.
In the spirit of continuous improvement, aren't you interested in the capability of your measurement systems and manufacturing processes?
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#4
No, not on an older part. We show the part good by measurement systems used for years. To bring it in to there new fangled measurements it would require rebuilding the tools at several thousand dollars. And then buying measuring devices to boot. There is no point. Context is important.
 

1010011010

Starting to get Involved
#5
Hello Golfman25,

I'm with you on the context. However, if you say the parts are measured "not good" on new measuring equipment, but are measured "good" and old measuring equipment and I assume, that they are also functionally "good", I would ask a different question - Are the defined tolerances really necessary/adequate?

That's a question I often ask our Engineering.

There is a lot I could speculate about wear of tooling and capability of measuring equipment, but the tolerances, from what you told us, would be the first thing to question.

If there's nothing to change tolerance wise, you probably have to go with the current state of the art, that shows you, that your parts are out of spec and change the process accordingly. Going to less capable measuring equipment wouldn't fix the cause, but only disguise it.

Also, if anything happens, where this part is involved and the parts are measured on state of the art equipment, you'll be most likely not on the better side of this...
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
#6
Hello Golfman25,

I'm with you on the context. However, if you say the parts are measured "not good" on new measuring equipment, but are measured "good" and old measuring equipment and I assume, that they are also functionally "good", I would ask a different question - Are the defined tolerances really necessary/adequate?

That's a question I often ask our Engineering.

There is a lot I could speculate about wear of tooling and capability of measuring equipment, but the tolerances, from what you told us, would be the first thing to question.

If there's nothing to change tolerance wise, you probably have to go with the current state of the art, that shows you, that your parts are out of spec and change the process accordingly. Going to less capable measuring equipment wouldn't fix the cause, but only disguise it.

Also, if anything happens, where this part is involved and the parts are measured on state of the art equipment, you'll be most likely not on the better side of this...
Sounds good but not practical at all. The tolerance are just the plain old "box" tolerances applicable to everything. In other words, little to no thought was put into them and their applicability. These days, we always ask "how are you going to measure it. We usually get blank stares from Engineering, who passes the buck to quality -- and they are on different planets. Bottom line, I agree. Ideally the tolerances would be wide enough to account for different measuring systems at different companies.

The problem is "changing" the process isn't that easy. Several thousands of dollars and several weeks at least to build new tool. To move something .005. Because some fancy machine says it's "no good." Doesn't make sense.
 

Ron Rompen

Trusted Information Resource
#7
If I understand correctly, they are asking you to PPAP to the 'new' standard, and not asking you to change anything (including your method of measurement, tooling, or anything else that has been developed over the years). I recommend you involve your customers SQA right away.....get him on board to support you in submitting things 'as they are' and (where necessary) include a deviation request/change request.
 
N

ncwalker

#8
Yeek.

This is going to depend on the reasonableness of your customer. I would approach it this way ....

1) Get as many historical parts that "worked" as you can.
2) Measure them on the new system, I assume they will be "bad".
3) Measure current parts on the new system as well, and overlay them. Student's t-test for means and an F-test for variances would be good tools.

Your mission is to demonstrate that the new measurement system is only highlighting the lack of understanding of the part. Hey, it happens, and you're right.

But, if you do this A/B type comparison where A is a representation of what you've always shipped and B is what you are making right now that your new gages say is "bad" and the result is that the OLD parts show "bad" too, that should allay your customers fears about the situation.

Then - you just write a deviation and shift the tolerances around.
 
D

DRAMMAN

#9
I agree with Rompen
Try to talk to your SQE. This sounds like a very negotiable situation. Try to get your customer to explain WHY they want this. Are they having quality issues (maybe you should do a PPAP)? Are you showing up on some list of "Never PPAPed" parts? Try to understand their motivation and get them to understand your situation.

I have worked at companies that had these types of initiatives for older legacy parts. Usually, we just wanted to gain assurance we are receiving good quality and confidence in the supplier processes. Suppliers who resisted were rarely dropped. So one tactic is to ignore them and see how persistent they are.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Signed PSW directly to End customer, Tier 1 wants their own PPAP IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
P Customer wants a Part Material Change - New PPAP required? APQP and PPAP 3
N Customer wants a PPAP/PSW on some Prototype Parts APQP and PPAP 6
I Repair and Service Facility - Customer wants PPAP for Refurbished Equipment APQP and PPAP 3
Nicole Desouza Sampling plan for a customer who wants AQL 1.0 (per ANSI Z1.4) AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
Genofear Customer wants to audit our supplier audits - seems inappropriate General Auditing Discussions 15
S Boss wants customer delivery signature specimen form Customer and Company Specific Requirements 16
T Customer wants customized Software for Medical Device EU Medical Device Regulations 5
M Customer wants a Containment Plan Nonconformance and Corrective Action 8
J C of C - Customer wants their internal procedures and standards indicated with rev AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 23
J Customer wants a P-value with our initial Process Studies Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
Fender1 Management Wants to Exclude a Customer Product Line from Registration Scope ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
C Charging a customer who wants to audit our QMS? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 16
V Customer wants to know what CC and SC's are on supplier prints. APQP and PPAP 2
M Customer wants each dimension, including reference, in PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 6
W Customer wants 'Risk Based Compliance' for our Plastic Component Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 3
J Choice of Control Limits - Customer wants to control at 4.5 sigma Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 23
J Customer wants to Reduce GD&T Tolerances on Sheet Metal Subassemblies Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
J RoHS Compliance - Steel - Customer wants additional samples tested RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 32
A Customer wants to invoke AS9103 on one time buy of 25 piece order. AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 4
A Customer wants AS9103 applied to 30 piece order. Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 2
J SPC on Multiple Cavities - Customer wants SPC done on each notch - Cylindrical part Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 16
T Who's responsible for verification of customer specifications? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
D Is IATF certification required when customer doesn't require it? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 19
G Customer specific characteristics symbols Customer and Company Specific Requirements 2
S Defining special characteristics beyond customer drawing FMEA and Control Plans 11
M Customer PPm (CPPM) on Pass-Thru Items Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 0
V Would the customer drawing change necessitate re-PPAP of the Product? APQP and PPAP 3
S Do we have to create a new PPAP to our customer if our Sub Contractor had to change? APQP and PPAP 10
FuzzyD ISO 13485:2016 Customer Assessment OFI ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
I Restricting scope to one part number for one customer IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
R Customer Listed on Approved Supplier List (ASL) AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
N 8.3.3.3 Special characteristics - Auditor said we are required to create our own, if no customer char. exist. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
R Audit from Customer - concerned with IP protection ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
L Documenting internal audit of customer specific requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
L Supplier Performance when your supplier is also the customer ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 17
I Customer Feedback Medical Devices ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
JoeRandom11 Question about Customer Supplied Equipment AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
Moncia Customer satisfaction monitoring - ISO 9001 and 14001 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 24
D Customer Survey Example - ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
R Customer feedbacks sampling size EU Medical Device Regulations 4
G ISO 9001 - when implementing customer requirement ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
P Customer Specific Requirements (Costco Wholesale) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
S Customer audit report review and approval ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
A Report on handling customer property ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
L Customer Complaint Internal Auditing 3
M Corrective action for a defect from customer's mistaken Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
T Customer Rejecting Part for Basic Dimension Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 16
P Customer 8D IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 8
M Customer Dimensions on Internal Drawing, all of them? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom