Is the QS-9000 requirement to maintain PPAP capability gone from TS 16949?

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
Greetings

I can not find this old QS 9000 requirement in TS.

Maintaining Process Control - 4.9.2

The supplier shall maintain (or exceed) process capability or performance as approved via PPAP.

Is it really gone, or is it just hidden somwhere?

Your help is appreciated.
 
R

ralphsulser

Look at 7.3.6 Design and Development Validations- and how it applies to PPAP
 
M

Mustang

Found it!

It is in section 8.2.3.1 paragraph 2:

The organization shall maintain manufacturing process capability or performance as specified by the customer part approval process requirements."
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
Thanks as always.

I just checked with my PPAP guy. As you say, each customer has no problem telling us exactly what their requirements for capability are in their own PPAP requirements package.

Nothing ever goes away I guess.
 
M

Mustang

Scientific

Your welcome!

What was the saying from Physics class? "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, merely changed". I guess that applies to customer requirements as well.
 
G

Gayle215

The QS9000 requirements are listed within the TS16949 customer specific requirements. I don't think we really lost a lot going from QS9000 to TS16949 with the exception of perhaps a lot of unnecessary procedures. The evidence of records to prove we are doing what is requiredof seems to be more of the focus for our auditor.
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
Gayle215 said:
The QS9000 requirements are listed within the TS16949 customer specific requirements.

I agree that a lot of old QS9000 stuff got shuffled off to the TS CSRs.

In particular, the Ford CSRs are almost bigger than all of TS!

I have gone through the Big 3 CSRs with a fine tooth comb and can't find an explicit call out for maintain Cpk at PPAP levels. It sure is implied in a lot of places. If you can find a paragraph number, I would appreciate it, since it sure would put an end to a lot of heated debate here.

I guess it's a case of show me the shall. :argue:
 
Top Bottom