Feasibility Review - How are you meeting 7.2.2 and 7.2.2.2 requirements?

[Jim Wynne]

Stew, yes were are quoting dies as well. Part of the reason I posed the question originally is because we got dinged in an ISO/TS certification audit. We had recently PPAP'ed a part and while measuring every dimension 100%, we determined that we did not have a measurement method accurate to 10% of the total tolerance for an angle check. I.E. a pulley had a groove angle of 3 degrees and the customer wanted 1.67+ capability. We make pulleys all of the time and we are great at it but we never had a customer request 1.67+ Cpk on a groove angle. We measured the angle with attribute gages but took an written exception on the PPAP by not giving the customer Cpk values because we do not have a gage accurate to 18 minutes. Thus the auditor wrote us up for not specifying on our feasibility review that we weren't able to meet the requirements set forth by the customer (i.e. Cpk on 3 deg. tolerance). Honestly I think they couldn't find anything else so they wrote us up for that but it did raise bigger questions about the "feasibility" of our feasibility.

I don't know what you mean when you say you "took a written exception on the PPAP," but it sounds like a good call on the part of the auditor. That's exactly the sort of thing that's supposed to reconciled as a result of feasibility review. From the auditor's perspective, you quoted a job knowing that there was a feature important to the customer that you weren't able to measure within the accepted standards. Sounds like a textbook case of APQP failure to me.

I often wonder what the auditors would do if they were dealing with the issues that the QC managers do everyday.

The auditor has to work under the assumption that your company has the resources to fulfill the contract. Believe me, I've been in your shoes and I understand the challenges and frustrations, but if you don't have enough time and resources to get the job done according to the contract, then your company has a management problem, which is another thing that a registration audit should be looking for.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Totumfrog,

Did your customer agree to the exception? If so, I would contest the NC. You won't win of course but I would let them know you didn't agree with it.
All to often customer copy what another company spec'd out and never give it a thought. At one time the angle may have been important but that dimension doesn't carry the same importance. You never know.
IMHO I would look at this issue as a contract review miss rather than a feasibility review problem. I may be splitting hairs but more so than not a company knows what they can and can't make. This example is your core business and you gave a written exception on the PPAP (you see that a lot on Appearance Approval on roofs).
I once worked for a company that made pins and bushings for the locomotive industry and some of our prints were from the 1940's. When they updated the prints they just copied most of the call outs but some they made requirements fit newer technology. What was once a +/- 3 degrees on a chamfer now now became a +/- .5 degree. May not be an issue for a CNC machine but the equipment we had couldn't do it. We had to get an exception.

I often wonder what the auditors would do if they were dealing with the issues that the QC managers do everyday.

I feel a lot of the times they get too far removed from reality and live in that textbook standard world. Just like the B3 demanding zero defects from the suppliers but won't back it up on their vehicles.
If it was my system I wouldn't change how I did business because of 1 instance. We're all in the work place to help the company make money and it doesn't sound to me like this happens all the time. Do what you have to do to clear the NC and move on. Review your procedure and ensure it is a sound business practice. Chalk this up as a lesson learned and make it a possitive finding.
You don't get TS points for being a well liked, good quality, profitable company. They have to document findings like yours to show that suppliers really don't know what their doing. How dare you be great at making pulleys for years and miss that 1 dimension. Shame on you.
I'm working on a 5-Why today for a GM plant that found 1 defective piece out of a 156,000 piece order. I'm being debited for an in-plant sort that resulted in any no further findings and my customer was put on CS II. I have to supply 100% certified stock over the next 10 shipments (over 2 million parts) all because of 1 questionable part. And we wonder why the auto industry is in bad shape?
Yes, I'm a bit jaded this morning, I'll get over it.

 

[Jim Wynne]

You don't get TS points for being a well liked, good quality, profitable company. They have to document findings like yours to show that suppliers really don't know what their doing. How dare you be great at making pulleys for years and miss that 1 dimension. Shame on you.

I still disagree and think it was probably a good call. Suppliers can't be guessiong at what is and isn't important to a customer; we have to take them at their word and assume the drawing reflects the real requirement, or as Phil Crosby says, have the requirement changed to what's really needed. God knows that's easier said than done with automotive OEMs, but they were the ones who imposed the TS rules. It's simple: either something gets corrected or clarified officially, or parts don't ship.
At the same time, I feel the OP's pain, and yours. In in the end this is a leadership issue that happens due to lack of resources or failure on the part of leadership to draw a line in the sand and demand that customers live up to their own requirements. BTW, contract review and feasibility review are conjoined twins, not separate processes.

I'm working on a 5-Why today for a GM plant that found 1 defective piece out of a 156,000 piece order. I'm being debited for an in-plant sort that resulted in any no further findings and my customer was put on CS II. I have to supply 100% certified stock over the next 10 shipments (over 2 million parts) all because of 1 questionable part. And we wonder why the auto industry is in bad shape?
Yes, I'm a bit jaded this morning, I'll get over it.

Someone in your company signed a contract agreeing to this sort of thing. Of course it's ridiculous, but we know that automotive OEM SQEs (or whatever they're called these days) aren't allowed to apply logic, and when one of them breaks the mold and does apply logic, it's a twisted, pretzelly kind of logic that doesn't make sense to anyone but the SQE. I got out of the automotive supply thing just because of things like this. Ironically, I'm on the other side now (not with a Big 3 company though) and make a point of not hitting suppliers over the head when the problem originated in my cranium .

 

[Randy Stewart]

I know they are conjoined and not separate. This goes back to how I (and the company) look at this process. Contract Review happens on all quotes, Feasibility Review happens only on the quotes that pertains to jobs outside our core business. So in a sense we do separate them and we do have separate legs of our process flow showing new business and repeat business. They are handled differently.
Not knowing the system Totoum uses it's difficult to say. I understand your point and I agree with the technicality of it. However, I see it as more of an subjective/objective issue. Yes it should be resolved with the customer, but what is the impact of that dimension? The company is an expert in what they do, they are making money with a quality product and the customers are happy. And isn't that what this is all about?
Proportionally and dimensionally a bee shouldn't fly and many an auditor want the bee to stop flying because it doesn't meet all the requirments!

It looks like we went opposite ways, I left one of the B3 Supplier Development/System Manager division for my current job. We are about 70% automotive but after this summer we should be down to less than half. We are picking up more an more nonautomotive ventures. It's written on the wall around here - american automotive industry is not coming back.

:truce:

 

[anandqgp]

Feasibility Review 7.2.2

Dear Totumfrog

Though I am late in the forum. I dont see any dispute of carrying out the feasibility review. All anyone should be interested is that we dont get into problems later on. And for this order, if we can call a small online or offline meeting of the personnel responsible and get their view on acceptance of the order, it will be in favour of assured delivery, if we commit so.

The recording could be an on-line acceptance or hard copy recording. Please appreciate that non acceptance of the order could be because of many reasons such as no capacity we being full of orders, temporary shut down to market, absence of a key person etc

So let us be clear to answer all queries on the us and relax in the times to come.

HS Anand
MD
Quality Growth Professionals
Mohali (Pb) India

 

[Totumfrog]

Everyone, I hadn't visited this thread lately. I have to say I REALLY like the bit about the bee...........functional but not dimensionally acceptable. What a hoot. Anyway, after discussion internally, we have determined that our best improvement to our feasibility review is to have a "2 stage" system. The sales and engineering guys who quote the 100 quotes a week will fill out a basic feasibility review. I.E. does this job fit, would we need capacity, can we make money at it. THEN upon customer awarding the contract and BEFORE we accept the contract, we will review as a cross-functional team. My question now is does anyone else do something similiar? If so, how in-depth is your "first stage feasibility"? Do you use the AIAG format for the 1st. stage or the 2nd. stage? Do you have examples that you could provide?

Thanks again for the Bee anocdote. That one made me laugh...........

Totumfrog

 

[zzz123]

7.2.2.2

7.2.2.2 also states "including risk analysis" How would this be audited?

 

[ralphsulser]

7.2.2.2 also states "including risk analysis" How would this be audited?

Do DFMEA and PFMEA qualify for the risk analysis?

 

[Howard Atkins]

I believe so but typically this is done a lot after the approval.
I have seen companies performing a preliminary FMEA and submitting it with the RFQ package.
IMO a check-list of choices between different options is enough such as decsion on raw material supplier, production capability, technological changes etc.