No Supplier PPAP or PSO (process approval) Requirement

[Bigfoot]

Hello all,
I have a product (cast aluminum) which is susceptible to porosity. Our Customers acknowledge that it exists and have issued engineering specifications for leak rates due to this. They also are aware of the recovery process of impregnation with a solution / resin mixture to seal the cast part so the porosity is sealed & the leak rate meets the engineering spec. We are in the process of considering a different source for impregnation services which would result in a sizable cost savings in freight cost & piece price. This source is being used by a nearby OEM component plant, but they have no process approval (ie: PPAP or PSO) to show from them.

So I would like to :ca: on this and get some of your thoughts on how much or how little would be appropriate in making an evaluation of the supplier? Is a PPAP appropriate? What about a PSO? I am looking for input in an attempt to make this a somewhat value added process for all parties ( I KNOW, IT'S AUTOMOTIVE SO WHAT DOES VALUE ADDED HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING UNLESS I PASS ON THE COST REDUCTION, RIGHT?)

What are all of your thoughts on this?

 

[Wes Bucey]

Hello all,
I have a product (cast aluminum) which is susceptible to porosity. Our Customers acknowledge that it exists and have issued engineering specifications for leak rates due to this. They also are aware of the recovery process of impregnation with a solution / resin mixture to seal the cast part so the porosity is sealed & the leak rate meets the engineering spec. We are in the process of considering a different source for impregnation services which would result in a sizable cost savings in freight cost & piece price. This source is being used by a nearby OEM component plant, but they have no process approval (ie: PPAP or PSO) to show from them.

So I would like to :ca: on this and get some of your thoughts on how much or how little would be appropriate in making an evaluation of the supplier? Is a PPAP appropriate? What about a PSO? I am looking for input in an attempt to make this a somewhat value added process for all parties ( I KNOW, IT'S AUTOMOTIVE SO WHAT DOES VALUE ADDED HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING UNLESS I PASS ON THE COST REDUCTION, RIGHT?)

What are all of your thoughts on this?

Disclaimer: this is my pragmatic opinion on resolving the issue. It is questionable whether the suits in either your organization or the supplier's organization will agree. In any regard, you have to pass it by your customer to conform to TS16949 (excerpted from AIAG ISO/TS 16949:2002 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE):

7.3.6.3
Product Approval Process
The organization shall conform to a product and manufacturing process approval procedure recognized by the customer. Note: Product approval should be subsequent to the verification of the manufacturing process. The product and manufacturing process approval procedure shall also be
applied to suppliers.

(note it doesn't require PPAP unless your customer does)

Start from the fact that at least one OEM is/was happy enough with the output to use them as a supplier. Do they have any letters/memos/etc. from the OEM (quarterly reports on supplier status?) which attest to the fact the OEM considers them a good supplier? If so, can they give you a copy? If so, that's one giant step.

Next, does the supplier have a written process? a written Control Plan, which includes any in-process inspection? If so, can he give you a copy? Otherwise, can he adapt a Control Plan for another product to your product?

Will supplier agree to let you send an observer to watch the process when your product runs to verify actual process follows the plan?

Armed with documentation that an OEM continues to do business with them plus your own observation supplier has a written process and Control Plan which they follow, you are ready to grant Supplier Approval which will withstand scrutiny from anyone. It would certainly stand up to scrutiny from FAA as an outsourced process for an FAA-PMA certified parts manufacturer.

The added advantage is that this is a relatively inexpensive exercise for both you and the supplier. The supplier most likely has tons of experience and probably has written procedures for his processes. The hangups are in what he and his OEM customer are willing to let you know about the relationship between them.

As you receive shipments, continue to document the Quality level
(either on Supplier's inspection sheets/SPC charts/whatever or
on your own incoming inspection)
and help your supplier by offering to give him same data about your relationship as you requested about OEM-Supplier relationship. This will help him get his next customer who might be gun-shy. WIN-WIN!

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

We also use an impregnation service for some of our aluminum castings (we can "make" porosity with the best of 'em - and we don't charge the customer for that expertise either ). Over the years I have worked with them and they have formalized a pretty decent PFMEA and Control Plan. They have also realized the benefit of a Process Flow Diagram. I don't know that the house you are looking at has these documents but I include them in my PPAP submissions to my customers. We also have a GM impregnation specification called out on two of our drawings (can't remember the spec. number right now) and proof of conformance to that specification is also required, along with the appropriate MSDSs. That is all I have asked of them, from a "PPAP submission" standpoint, to be our supplier and I've not had an issue with my submissions. They took it on their own to become registered to ISO, but even had they not, we would have kept them on our list due to their history with us.

I hope that is in line with what you were asking about.
("PSO" stands for what?)

Bill

 

[Bigfoot]

I hope that is in line with what you were asking about.
("PSO" stands for what?)

Bill

Bill, PSO stands for Process Sign Off a DCX CSR along with a whole bunch of others who have jumped onto the bandwagon.

The supplier we are considering is ISO 9001:2000 registered so they should be able to fulfill most of the documentation portion. I am going to observe a trial run there next week so we will see. Thank you for your input on this.