I'm sorry I won't be of much help as I'm really just getting into this again after a few years. And I'm looking at things from the transportation end.
> Facilities shall take initiative to minimize total system
> obsolescence exposure.
This one has me stumped. It depends upon how they define "total system".
> A process for recording and maintaining high-point
> material authorizations shall exist for obsolescence
> claims purposes.
I'll venture this. Most automotive related companies go through the
APQP process. Once a part goes live, at least for a few years there are typically changes made in reaction to problems identified as the process continues. If you're heard the term "running change" you'll know that the part is being run and a change is being made. Sometimes there's no issue - you can run the old part out (the change is small enough that the customer will use up the previous version), make your line change and start the new part. But - in some instances the change is significant and so parts you made (if any) after a certain point are parts you cannot use or sell. For all intents and purposes, they're scrap. Now the question becomes who takes responsibility for the cost of that scrap? Did the customer require the change because of an issue on their end or did your company screw up or what? This all said, they want you to have a system to track the change-over process and that system must include parts counts, the date and time of the actual changeover and other related stuff - which should be normal procedure anyway in this day and age.
> Functional build material shall always be available in a
> timely manner for running change parts.
This just says you better have a way to get a change through and implemented 'in a timely manner'. This is going to depend upon the change required and every situation will be different - the reason for the weasel words 'in a timely manner'. Heck, the change could be so significant a new machine may be needed - maybe the change is from grind - to -> grind and then hone because the design change is for a lower surface roughness callout. These things all have to be negotiated during the request for design change process.
Just some thoughts. :thedeal:
