GM (General Motors) Bulletin 803en - Unauthorized changes PPAP



On the gmsupplypower website, bulletin 803en, GM makes dark threats against any supplier that makes conscious, unauthorized changes to products or processes without involving the appropriate GM personnel.
The threats include a supplier quality improvement meeting, a joint study of the matter between the supplier CEO and GM Purchasing and Supplier Quality Executive Directors, the supplier being placed on new business hold and the QS-9000 registrar being requested to perform a recertification audit.
Has anyone had experience of GM carrying out any of these actions?
Does anyone know if this is only the policy of GM NAO or does it extend to other parts of the GM empire in Europe, Australia etc.?

Al Dyer

I havn't been called in for that infraction but a couple of years ago I was "asked" to the GM Tech Center to meet with our "Supplier Engineer" because our PPM was too high. (2300)

It was not a pleasant experience and I believe that many of these types "meetings" are called because there is a change in personnel or there is a breakdown in communications between the supplier rep. and the applicable GM contact.

Considering the dictate to reduce the supplier base, I would take all such directives to heart, and if possible smooth over any problems before they get to the CEO.


Al Dyer
Mngt. Rep.
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by Al Dyer (edited 25 November 2000).]


Fully vaccinated are you?
So, Al, I guess yuou're saying that pissing GM off could prove to be an expensive problem, eh?!?

I've been to a number of these types of meetings over the years. Some have been 'reasonable' and some have been walk-outs. I was once (1994 or so) in one meeting that led to a post-meeting without Chrysler folks where it was decided to not bid on future Chrysler work. A letter was written to Chrysler saying my client would complete the current contract but that they would no longer bid on Chrysler work. They were a sole supplier - Took Chrysler about 2 weeks to come around.

This was an extreme I saw. Typically they beat you up and harrass you for a while. Eventually they go on to another 'target' after a while.

In regard to your query about product and process changes, they're real serious about wanting to be kept informed about changes. The somewhat recent Firestone 'incident' won't help that situation. If this GM posting is relatively recent, it might, in fact, be a reaction to the Firestone-Bridgestone-Ford fiasco.

Laura M

Having been on both sides of that coin, I believe they will carry out "the threat." Pre-PPAP time, we were relocating a complex. We had US approval, but not overseas approval. Talk about some early morning meetings and scrambling to get them to agree. (The wreckers were ready to load the equipment.)

We also had a situation in which there was a color change only to a diaphragm visible fromt the outside. Again, Pre-PPAP. The part passed all eng requirements, but the using facility didn't know. Thought they got a wrong part and "shut down"

So all the requirements, as much of a pain in the ass as they can be, always seem to have arisen due to awful past experiences. Granted, alot seems like BS, but there were days when suppliers were surprising GM on a daily basis.

Paul Mc

"unauthorized changes to products or processes", where does it stop?
1. In certain cases it's obviously eg change manufacturing site, change of material, change of supplier.........
2. In the majority of cases it is not eg we currently have 2 suppliers who which to make "minor" changes which will improve the product they supply to us eg a. a dimension change from 4.5mm to 4.3mm.....there capability to produce goes from 1.1 to 1.6 b. an additional cleaning process step.

We believe that it should read "through your APQP activity the OEM should be made aware of any proposed product/process changes which can potentially affect the delivered product"..........and as such will focus the OEM to target the effectiveness/robustness of the suppliers APQP activity and NOT put an "obstacle"(continual red tape, re-PPAPs) in front of suppliers which hinders continous improvement ie the bureaucy to introduce this change outweighs the benefits....people get de-moralised, why bother?.......
Top Bottom