B
Atetsade
I can't envision any time a Control Plan would be "larger" (by weight or volume) than a PFMEA. If your Control Plan is "growing exponentially", I would need to understand your Control Plan methodology. If something is not addressed in the PFMEA, it should not be "showing up" in the Control Plan.
As I read your post, it sounded to me as if you might be letting the Control Plan "drive" your PFMEA. This, if fact, is absolutely backwards.
Do all your nuts go through the same process flow (drilling, tapping, forming, thread rolling, knurling, boring, recessing, finishing, burnishing)? If so, a "generic" Control Plan might be a relatively simple excersize. You could certainly do operation specific CPs but if most of your nuts all follow the same flow, one CP should suffice. The "oddball" parts would then need their own Flow Diagram, PFMEA, and CP. The operation "doesn't care" whether a feature is a KPC, what size the threads might be, or what the material is made out of. It only "spits out product" as it was set up to do. The Failure Causes very well could (should?) be generic and that is how to approach a "generic" CP (and PFMEA). Once you have the "generic baseline", if your customer(s) require part specific documents, simply changing the header information and a couple of dimensional callouts on the CP (if you list dimensions - which goes away from the generic) should make life pretty easy.
Gotta run pretty quickly. I'd be more than happy to continue with this if you can give a little more detail of your operations.
Bill
I can't envision any time a Control Plan would be "larger" (by weight or volume) than a PFMEA. If your Control Plan is "growing exponentially", I would need to understand your Control Plan methodology. If something is not addressed in the PFMEA, it should not be "showing up" in the Control Plan.
As I read your post, it sounded to me as if you might be letting the Control Plan "drive" your PFMEA. This, if fact, is absolutely backwards.
Do all your nuts go through the same process flow (drilling, tapping, forming, thread rolling, knurling, boring, recessing, finishing, burnishing)? If so, a "generic" Control Plan might be a relatively simple excersize. You could certainly do operation specific CPs but if most of your nuts all follow the same flow, one CP should suffice. The "oddball" parts would then need their own Flow Diagram, PFMEA, and CP. The operation "doesn't care" whether a feature is a KPC, what size the threads might be, or what the material is made out of. It only "spits out product" as it was set up to do. The Failure Causes very well could (should?) be generic and that is how to approach a "generic" CP (and PFMEA). Once you have the "generic baseline", if your customer(s) require part specific documents, simply changing the header information and a couple of dimensional callouts on the CP (if you list dimensions - which goes away from the generic) should make life pretty easy.
Gotta run pretty quickly. I'd be more than happy to continue with this if you can give a little more detail of your operations.
Bill
Last edited by a moderator: