Generic control plan - Check Part to Print

[Fire Girl]

Hi

It's been a long time since I have been in here....

Anyway, I am looking for a generic control plan. My auditor feels it is too difficult to maintain hundreds of different control plans. Since most of our parts are simply check to print... we should be able to have a generic control plan.

But we don't check all dimensions on all prints. And some of our parts are form/fit/function. Does anyone have any ideas for me on how we could do a generic control plan?

Thanks!!

FG

 

[noboxwine]

FG....

WAZZZUUUPPP ! I thought the love was gone !

Hey, been in the same situation with generic control plans and here is what I did. Let's face it. There is not a company in the world where the operators referecne a Control Plan, period. ****, most QA's can't understand 'em anyway. Inspection characteristics, quality requirements, etc. are job specific on other documents--like in the job packet--or on the print. So, my generic control plans simply referenced the appropriate materials---"see job packet", "reference specific QA form","see drawing for....",,,,you catch my drift. Saved myself a lot of time and never had a problem with an auditor (like I ever pay attention to those clowns anyway). Draw one up and walk through it. Piece of cake ! Let me know whatcha come up with and Have A Day !

 

[howste]

I like the simple approach when I can do it, but I have to ask - what requirements do you have to live with? If it's ISO/TS 16949, there's this little statement that might cause some grief with noboxwine's approach: "Each part shall have a control plan but, in many cases, family control plans may cover a number of similar parts produced using a common process." Am I reading more into this statement than it really says?

 

[Bob_M]

Noboxwine seems to have taken the "generic" control plan to the extreme (why do you even have them unless you are QS-9000?).

But noboxwine and howste both have good views in MY opinion.

We are not QS-9000 but we have customers who are, so the last QA decided we should have a control plan for every possible part (in certain departments). We currently have just under 300.

Although maintaining them is not always easy, its not impossible. But group or family plans are the way to go! And this is one thing I'm starting to use.

If you have several products or processes that are similar by all means make a generic control plan or two or two dozen, but don't try to make just one. (Unless you only have one type of process and all products are similar).

Then use in-process type of documents to provide and record detailed information.

It seems to work for us. I look forward to MORE family control plans. I just need to take care that enough detail is present in our in-process inspection forms (part specific).

 

[noboxwine]

Originally posted by Bob_M
Noboxwine seems to have taken the "generic" control plan to the extreme (why do you even have them unless you are QS-9000?).

Bob_M: Eliminating useless busywork and paper to focus on value-added is, IMHO, is sound business, not extreme ! (Point well taken though, sir !)

I have done your family CP idea too, Bob, and agree that is indeed a good way to go as well.

Have a day

 

[Marc]

Re: FG....

Originally posted by noboxwine
Let's face it. There is not a company in the world where the operators reference a Control Plan, period.

Ummm, well, not true. I have been in a number of companies where the operators had copies of the control plan at their station and had to use them. Ford's Sharonville transmission plant is one of many.

I'm not saying it's the way to go - generally its an unnecessary complexity - but there are companies that require operators to understand and use them. In my opinion, the need for a control plan or other document which accomplishes the same task is dependent upon the complexity of the operator's job and the product requirements (auto fender vs. heart pacemaker).

:truce:

As for 'generic' control plans, there are two main routes. Process or machine specific vs. Product specific. There are some slides around http://Elsmar.com/APQP/sld092.htm which address the issue to some degree.

The bottom line is you can have a control plan for a process or machine which does the same thing if you do it right. You use a cross reference where specifics differ. An example would be a pick-and-place machine. For all intents and purposes it doesn't matter what component or components it places - it's mainly a matter of location and sub-processes such as soldering the leads if the machine does that.

The key is how you address product specific requirements in the framework.

 

[noboxwine]

Re: Re: FG....

Originally posted by Marc
Ummm, well, not true. I have been in a number of companies where the operators had copies of the control plan at their station and had to use them. Ford's Sharonville transmission plant is one of many.

Darn it, Marc. You got me ! (But, I will try to make a point to get to the Sharonville plant to find some evidence--ha !)

 

[Groo3]

We use general equipment specific control plans which define the general opperational parameters our workers need to be aware of (in other words run the equipment within these parameters and everything will be ok)... Product specific control plans have been incorporated into our procedures and are what make up the bulk of our quality system documentation... I also believe in the KISS principle = keep it simple ____ {as there are many variations on this last word, I will let you fill in the blank }... E​

 

[apestate]

search function useful

What is a good way to approach the family control plan coverage?

I work in a small screw machine shop making nuts and bolts and many turned products for TS-16949 companies and they *require* control plans through corrective actions and through PPAP activities.

I created an FMEA and Control Plan for an 8x1.5mm insert nut. The part has a total of 8 features, including the material and plating specs. I read the AIAG manuals and concentrated and went into it and ended up with a 3 page FMEA with 25 failure modes, and a control plan that simply grew universally, exponentially. It was ridiculous and I felt really childish about it.

However, the work I did identified many many areas that require control by the operator.

I'm thinking about using my work on the part to create process control plans separate from the part specific control plan.

process control plans would be created for various processes and be additive. If we have a machine cutting off blanks, you would start with the first and most basic control plan. Add drilling, tapping, forming, thread rolling, knurling, boring, recessing, finishing, burnishing, and you would collect all of the control plans created for those processes. Therefore, an operator having a problem with a thread roll could look up the thread roll control plan and perform some basic adjustments.

a part specific control plan would simply state which inspection criteria were required for each specific part.

does this sound like a reasonable use of the control plan format?

it seems like it would add a lot to the company in terms of information resources, it seems like a project of reasonable scope and application. this is something I'm really interested in but I'm still struggling with precisely how to accomplish it. the alternative is to document all of the same process controls without control plan format--to make a training program. If I can use control plans this way I think it would be very nice.

 

[Al Dyer]

FMEA's and Control Plans are living documents. Some start out large and get smaller, some start small and grow. The important thing is that each of these documents "tells" the truth about the product at a given point in time.

Al...