KPC & KCC verification and updates

g_dep1

Starting to get Involved
#1
Hello everyone,

I'm new to the forum and excited to be posting on here.

I know there have been threads on how to generate KPC and KCCs, but I would like some suggestions on how KPC's are updated based on the PFMEA.

For example, if I establish during the DFMEA that a specific feature, lets say the sheet metal thickness is a KPC due to the criticality (severity x occurrence) being high, however during the PFMEA analysis, we establish that the resultant KCC has a occurrence rating that is low, which lowers the criticality. After this PFMEA assessment of the potential KPC identified during DFMEA, could I go back and "remove" the KPC identifier in the drawing and DFMEA since it's established that the KCC associated is well controlled?

The goal is not to have too many KPCs on the drawing, since a lot of our severity levels are high.

Any suggestions are much appreciated.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Coury Ferguson

Moderator here to help
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
As long as you are the design authority, I wouldn't see a problem. As long as you can substantiate your decision(s) based upon statistics or similar identifiers, for the reduction. Prove to your customer, management and such, the reason why the decision was made.

Just my opinion.
 

g_dep1

Starting to get Involved
#3
As long as you are the design authority, I wouldn't see a problem. As long as you can substantiate your decision(s) based upon statistics or similar identifiers, for the reduction. Prove to your customer, management and such, the reason why the decision was made.

Just my opinion.
Thanks for the reply.

A design engineer may argue, that even though the specific feature they identified as a KPC may be justifiably well controlled, it does not take away from the severity of the effect of the failure mode, which may require it being identified as a KPC on the drawing.

What are your thoughts on that?

Thanks
 

Coury Ferguson

Moderator here to help
Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Thanks for the reply.

A design engineer may argue, that even though the specific feature they identified as a KPC may be justifiably well controlled, it does not take away from the severity of the effect of the failure mode, which may require it being identified as a KPC on the drawing.

What are your thoughts on that?

Thanks
I have had debates many times with the Design Engineers. Design Engineers think about the theory not how it will affect manufacturing. I have nothing against Design Engineers. But, sometimes they are only thinking about concept and theory and not how the part is made/manufactured.

If the evidence through statistical analysis reflects that the occurrence is a low risk, why place that type of critically on that feature? I am not saying that in the event there was a fallout of that call-out that it couldn't return back to the original risk assessment.

When all of your supporting data does support that decision, of reduction, it is a waste of time and money to keep that identified as a high risk.

This is just my opinion.
 

g_dep1

Starting to get Involved
#5
I have had debates many times with the Design Engineers. Design Engineers think about the theory not how it will affect manufacturing. I have nothing against Design Engineers. But, sometimes they are only thinking about concept and theory and not how the part is made/manufactured.

If the evidence through statistical analysis reflects that the occurrence is a low risk, why place that type of critically on that feature? I am not saying that in the event there was a fallout of that call-out that it couldn't return back to the original risk assessment.

When all of your supporting data does support that decision, of reduction, it is a waste of time and money to keep that identified as a high risk.

This is just my opinion.
I would have to agree with you regarding Design Engineers (generally speaking)

I guess it comes down to KPC criteria during DFMEA

Should a severity of 8 and above ALWAYS denote a KPC? That's industry standards, but I believe that will lead to way to many KPCs (or potential KPCs depending on how you look at it) being defined.
 

John Predmore

Quite Involved in Discussions
#6
If the evidence through statistical analysis reflects that the occurrence is a low risk, why place that type of critically on that feature?
The severity of a failure mode remains high even though the occurrence may be low. To a nation of consumers, a failure rate of 1 ppm has low criticality. To the one consumer out of a million who is injured by a malfunction, the criticality is high. Process controls and error-proofing measures may reduce the risk of occurrence, but over time, changes occur which were never anticipated or countermeasures have a way of becoming removed or defeated. Someone once said, it is tough to make any design foolproof because they keep making better fools. Marking a KPC on a design document ensures that the potential risk is communicated and not overlooked, now and long into the future.
 

GRP

Involved In Discussions
#7
Are you in automotive? Ford deals with this with the SCCAF - special characteristics confirmation and agreement form. Since the DFMEA identifies potential special characteristics, the pfmea sets out to confirm or not the inclusion of special controls for the characteristic. In this way you can have many KPCs in your drawing, but you do not have to necessarily do anything about it.

The lines above presuppose there is a client-customer relationship. Are you responsible both for design and production?

I´d be interested in knowing if anyone has seen KPCs removed from the drawing based on the PFMEA (and/or SCCAF). Which brings us back to your original question, I realize.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
Since severity never changes and design engineers and process engineers and manufacturing supervisors move on and product / process changes are inevitable, Any KPC should remain on the drawing as critical until the function itself is removed. The point of identifying KPCs is to ensure that they are well controlled so that they do not fail. Removing them form the drawing simply because they are well controlled today, obviates that intent.
 

g_dep1

Starting to get Involved
#9
Since severity never changes and design engineers and process engineers and manufacturing supervisors move on and product / process changes are inevitable, Any KPC should remain on the drawing as critical until the function itself is removed. The point of identifying KPCs is to ensure that they are well controlled so that they do not fail. Removing them form the drawing simply because they are well controlled today, obviates that intent.
So in essence, when the Design Engineer states that if they found the product feature as a KPC due to a severity of 8 or greater, even if there is an occurrence rating of 1, manufacturing has no say in whether it remains a KPC or not.

I am not the design responsible engineer, but I am finding that way too many KPCs are being called out and I feel as though it is going to lead to concern with our customer and more scrutiny. I don't necessarily agree that a Severity rating of 8 or above should single handedly trigger a KPC. Occurance should always be taken in to account.

Would anyone agree with this?
 

g_dep1

Starting to get Involved
#10
Are you in automotive? Ford deals with this with the SCCAF - special characteristics confirmation and agreement form. Since the DFMEA identifies potential special characteristics, the pfmea sets out to confirm or not the inclusion of special controls for the characteristic. In this way you can have many KPCs in your drawing, but you do not have to necessarily do anything about it.

The lines above presuppose there is a client-customer relationship. Are you responsible both for design and production?

I´d be interested in knowing if anyone has seen KPCs removed from the drawing based on the PFMEA (and/or SCCAF). Which brings us back to your original question, I realize.
I have spent many years in automotive and am familiar with the YCs and YSs from reviewing Fords FMEA handbook thoroughly.

I will have to check out the SCCAF form.

I just still feel as though there is no clear methodology of KPC revision based on PFMEA analysis.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Definition KPC and KCC - Definitions Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 6
V How do KPC/KCC features work into PFMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 4
B Maximum Material Condition with Bonus - Determine Cpk for this one kpc Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 2
D Establishing Key Process Characteristics (KPC's) Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 6
S Advice on numbering of KPC's, please APQP and PPAP 4
P Must Key Product/Process Characteristics (KPC's) always be variables? Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 11
J KPC (Key Product Characteristic) vs. PQC (Product Quality Charecteristic)? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 7
R Definition Key Product Characteristics (KPC) and Critical Characteristics (CC) - Differences Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 2
K Special Characteristics on DFMEAs - KPC's on the Design FMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 19
A DFMEA, PFMEA and KCC's (Key Control Characteristics) Relationships FMEA and Control Plans 11
S Documenting Design Verification Test Results (ISO 9001) Design and Development of Products and Processes 1
C Documentation for items used for Design Verification 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P Design verification driven by new equipment. How is this different than process validation? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
W Seeking Guidance Verification Test Strategy for Class B Medical Devices IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 1
NDesouza Verification of Supplier RCCAs Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
I IATF 2016 - 8.5.1.4 Verification after shutdown due to COVID19 Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 1
M IATF 16949 8.5.1.3 Verification of job set-ups - Do we need secondary check? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
G Supplier flowdown verification of tests and revisions Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 0
G Devices from IQ, OQ or PQ process to be used for verification, validation and summative? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
M Calibration or Verification? What terminology to use ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
Bev D Verification and Validation of Measurement Systems Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 0
A Our auditor told if we didn't have a patent we would have to do a validation or verification ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
N Design Verification & Process Validation - Statistical sample sizes Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
D Design Verification - Is testing required? Design and Development of Products and Processes 5
J Verification of purchased product / Alexa as a medical device ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
C Machine Verification Plan Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
A What to do when 100 % verification is not 100 % Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
R Design Verification Documentation ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 19
D 510K and Changes to Verification and Validation US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
R Design verification for interim design outputs - sampling rationale ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
B Verification/release medical device modules Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 7
V Calibration certificate verification Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
Ed Panek Label verification and validation US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
D Testing to failure for design verification Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 11
D Supplied item design verification Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 5
Ronen E A Rational Basis for Design Verification Design and Development of Products and Processes 5
V Which batches should or could be considered for design validation and design verification? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
R Supplier related drawings and verification of process requirements - Source Inspection AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 3
R Medical Device Design verification sample prototype Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 14
I Medical device Validation/Verification template ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
APHX02 Thread Roll Process Verification w/in AS9100 (i.e. BSP-F-69/AS8879) Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
R Plan to Volvo Cars for capacity verification in Phase 3 of PPAP Customer and Company Specific Requirements 3
F AS9100 D - Verification of purchased product - Sheet metal and aluminum extrusion stock AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 2
Prashant G AS9100 Requirement - Verification of characteristics results with drawing requirements AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 13
S Testing (Evaluation of) and Verification of Employee Color Vision Human Factors and Ergonomics in Engineering 19
G Assigning a calibration tolerance - An x-y coordinate machine - Uncertainty as my verification tolerance General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 4
I Bench Testing & Pre-verification vs. Formal verification 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
M Does anyone has a good verification and validation plan template? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
Sidney Vianna Informational AS13100 A - Delegated Product Verification Training Requirements AS9100, IAQG 9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 0
E Sample size for design verification of variable in single use device Design and Development of Products and Processes 19
Similar threads


















































Top Bottom