Defining Process Changes and Customer Notification Requirements

G

GoKats78

#1
#1
Help determining "Process Changes" and "Customer Notification"

We are at loggerheads as to what exactly constitutes a "Process Change" and "Customer Notification" requirements.

Here is the scenario:
We are a tube maker supplying tube to the automotive industry. We have an approved PPAP for a product. Our PPAP was submitted with a 0.250 wall. We are looking to "down-gauge" to a 0.242 wall.
Both of the walls are within the customer specification.

The team is split:
- This is a process change therefore requires notification.
- We are still within specification therefore this is not a change and no notification is required.

Opinions Please!
 
GAGEpack - Gage & Calibration Management
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
SteelMaiden

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
#2
#2
GoKats78 said:
Our PPAP was submitted with a 0.250 wall. We are looking to "down-gauge" to a 0.242 wall.
Both of the walls are within the customer specification.

The team is split:
- This is a process change therefore requires notification.
- We are still within specification therefore this is not a change and no notification is required.

Opinions Please!
Click to expand...
Greetings GoKats,

We might not have enough info to truely give you a right answer, but heck, the lack of information has never stopped me from opening my mouth!:biglaugh:

First issue (as I see it):
You say you want to reduce the gauge by .008 inches and it is still within spec. That is fine, but will this change your capability indices? I've never worked with tube, but in bar product an 8 thou drop in dimension was significant. Is this going to put you near the spec limits? If so, it is very likely to make a big change in capability. Therefore, you need to run some studies on capability, no?

Second issue (again from my viewpoint)
What is the customer doing with the tubing? If they are fitting something into it, or over it, and all of a sudden they end up with a hole that is .016" larger in diameter (or a tube that is .016" smaller OD) will it cause a problem for them because they are expecting a .250" gauge tube wall?

I would be concerned mostly with the capability indices, as automotive customers will probably expect you to repoert those numbers with some frequency and will wonder why the shift.
 
G

GoKats78

#3
#3
Our product is made to an OD specification - the change in wall thickness will not effect the finished product in from, fit or function.
The capability indices are not affected by the change.
The end use will not be effected by the change in gauge either.
The 0.250 wall is near the top specification, the 0.242 wall is closer to the minimum - but both are within spec.
Hence - the dilemma!
 
SteelMaiden

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Trusted Information Resource
#4
#4
Kats, if you can change the gauge and keep your capability indices at or above your current approved status, you should be fine if there is no effect in form, fit or function? (just remember that this "advice" comes from someone no longer in the automotive world and should be weighed carefully before taking it!:eek:)
 
P

p_tww

#5
#5
GoKats78 said:
We are at loggerheads as to what exactly constitutes a "Process Change" and "Customer Notification" requirements.

Here is the scenario:
We are a tube maker supplying tube to the automotive industry. We have an approved PPAP for a product. Our PPAP was submitted with a 0.250 wall. We are looking to "down-gauge" to a 0.242 wall.
Both of the walls are within the customer specification.

The team is split:
- This is a process change therefore requires notification.
- We are still within specification therefore this is not a change and no notification is required.

Opinions Please!
Click to expand...
Not sure whether you had PPAP manual (3rd edition), it difined various situations for customer notification/PPAP submission.
 
R

Randy Stewart

#6
#6
GoKats78,
A word of caution. With what has happened in the auto industry lately (gas tanks exploding, tires, etc.) I would be cautious not to notify the customer of the changes. Reason being, passing the buck to avoid a lawsuit.
That would be my only reason for not just going ahead and doing it. It would probably take you 3 months to get the okay and then they would ask for a price decrease because the part has less material, or something. :vfunny:

Proceed with caution.
 
howste

howste

Thaumaturge
Trusted Information Resource
#7
#7
To me it's pretty cut and dried, based on my past experience and the TS 16949 requirements. If you're making a conscious decision to change from what was approved in the PPAP, you need to notify the customer. I've been an automotive customer receiving tubes (suspension struts), and I would have been very concerned if a supplier changed the target wall thickness without notifying me. Here's a quote from TS 16949 7.1.4:
The effects of any change, including those changes caused by any supplier, shall be assessed, and verification and validation activities shall be defined, to ensure compliance with customer requirements. Changes shall be validated before implementation. For proprietary designs, impact on form, fit and function (including performance and/or durability) shall be reviewed with the customer so that all effects can be properly evaluated.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you have evaluated the impact on form, fit and function, but the requirement says the impact shall be reviewed with the customer.
 
P

p_tww

#8
#8
howste said:
To me it's pretty cut and dried, based on my past experience and the TS 16949 requirements. If you're making a conscious decision to change from what was approved in the PPAP, you need to notify the customer. I've been an automotive customer receiving tubes (suspension struts), and I would have been very concerned if a supplier changed the target wall thickness without notifying me. Here's a quote from TS 16949 7.1.4:

It sounds like you have evaluated the impact on form, fit and function, but the requirement says the impact shall be reviewed with the customer.
Click to expand...
Impact review with customer was only for proprietary design.
 
R

richard b. thomas

#9
#9
I agree with p_tww, it has been my experience in the automotive industry that changes to specification require supplier notification to the customer. The customer will most likely require capability data to ensure that you can produce the component within the new specification over time and they will determine whether you will have to re-submit PPAP.
It is in your organizations best interest to notify the customer prior to implementing changes. Sub-clause 7.1.4 Change control addresses what your organization is proposing to do.

Good Luck
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#10
#10
Don't know if this will have any bearing on your decision or not, GoKats78 .

We are a die caster and, as such, we, typically, make cores (for example) at the high end of the specification. If, for some reason, they don't wear at the rate we expect, we may turn them down to nominal (or close to). Will I notify my customer? NO WAY!!!!! Granted, we don't normally have "as cast" holes as KPCs so we don't normally collect variable data on them.

I agree with Steel's mentioning of capability indices and making sure that they haven't changed much (but if you're changing from a Cpk of 5.0 to 2.0 you're customer won't even be aware of it, will they?).

I think I could argue that it isn't a change to the process, merely a change to a target. I'm not saying you shouldn't let your customer know, and, in fact, I'm a strong proponent of letting my customers know what we're doing - within reason. If you're truly sure it doesn't affect fit/function/reliability, I don't see any value in bringing the customer on board (in fact it would probably add cost).

I agree fully with Stew's word of caution. The point I'm trying to make is that you have a specification from your customer to hold an OD within .238/.252" diameter (just for agument). The customer's requirements have not changed . If you are capable, anywhere within that specification, you are good to go, whether you're mean has changed from the PPAP submission or not.

Now that I've dug myself a hole (and yes I'm waiting for the barrage), let me say that my "true answer" would be "It depends". Lots of help, huh?

BTW, Welcome to the Cove :bigwave:

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Question regarding ECO process, specifically for Life Science products and defining form fit and function ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
C AS9100 rev D 8.5.1 c 2 - Defining the Machine in-process frequency per ANSI/ASQ Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 8
S Process Map and defining KPIs Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
A Testing Process Audit - Defining a Process Compliance Mechanism Software Quality Assurance 2
V Defining Quality Assurance's Role in R&D (Product and Process Development) Design and Development of Products and Processes 11
V Defining Subgroups and Importance of Subgroups in SPC and Process Capability Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
T Defining (Identifiying) Key Processes in a Company - "Key Process Master List" Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 45
G Defining a Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) for a New Chemical Process Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 2
K Defining Internal Audit Process Goals & Objectives Internal Auditing 49
Raffy Sulfuric Acid - Defining a Manufacturing Process - What is needed? Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
B Defining Top Management for Layered Process Audits Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 9
L Defining Pre-Control Zones - Statistical Process Control (SPC) Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 1
E Difficulties with Process Approach - Defining 'Effectiveness' ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 59
PQ Systems Defining Quality with Specifications Using SQCpack Software 0
K Defining risk control measures IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 14
A Defining a lower ESD test level in IEC 60601 safety test IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
J Defining staff competence - Small mechanical workshop Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 20
T Defining sampling plan for different AQL AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 3
M Defining frequency of measurement tools callibration Calibration and Metrology Software and Hardware 3
M Defining and Documenting Record Retention CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
G Defining performance metrics for DFMA implementation Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
S Defining a Quality System from scratch - Preferred system and documentation names Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
A Defining Expected Service Life in Risk Management File Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 5
C Defining Approvals Required for Design Control Documents ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
K Defining Acceptance Quality Level, I need clarity on AQL 1.5, 2.5, 4.0 AQL - Acceptable Quality Level 5
M Defining the lifetime of orthopedic implants joints Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 2
V Defining Safety Precautions for Category 4,5 Molecules Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 2
E European Regulations defining the terms Repair and Refurbish EU Medical Device Regulations 5
T Defining Major vs. Minor Changes to Procedures ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
GStough Adequately Defining Which Suppliers to Audit and Frequency Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 8
E Quality Techucuan (Technician) in Electronics - Defining Postion Requirements Career and Occupation Discussions 4
moritz Defining a good Scope for Critical SOPs ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 7
T Standards for defining audible alarms/warnings for OR instruments IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
M Defining Critical Vs. Non-Critical Suppliers/Service Providers (API Q1, 9th. Ed.) Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 2
B IEC 60601-2-24 - Defining Storage Volume IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
E Defining Sub-Disciplines for Chemical Testing Laboratory Employee Proficiency Testing General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
T Defining Nonconformances in a Service Organization ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
M Defining Reliability and Confidence Levels Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 8
J Defining Martial Arts and Gymnastics Statistical Techniques Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
V Defining the criteria for equipment to be qualified or requalified Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2
R Need help on defining scope for Design Verification File for Class III IVD 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
J Defining CCP (Critical Control Points) in a Rice Mill Plant Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 9
5 Major Nonconformance for not "clearly" defining the "device lifetime" ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
E Defining the lifetime of an Implantable Medical Device Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 5
B Defining Expected Oxygen Leakage for Safety Testing IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 2
G Defining Post Mold Cure Ramp-Down Temperature Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
K Audit Nonconformity on Defining 'Outsourced' Infrastructure Maintenance Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 21
G Points to consider while defining the Quality Policy AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
G Defining Quality Objectives for Product Realization and Design and Development AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
S Developing Documentation and Defining Processes as Subcontractor IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6

Similar threads

Top Bottom