S
As a relative newcomer to the Automotive world (my experience is mostly from Aerospace) I would like your opinions on the following topic.
It regards the necessity to re-PPAP when making an Engineering change to a finished product.
As background, my company (Tier 2) designs and manufactures a finished assembly that is subsequently sold to many different Tier 1 customers.
It is fairly straightforward for me to work out that if we make an Engineering change which affects the FFF of our finished product (and hence the part # on our customer print rolls a level) then a new PPAP submission is required. That's a no-brainer.
But what happens if the change is applied to a component at a level lower than the finished product and the interchangeability of the product is re-established before we get to the final assembly level i.e. there is no need to roll the part # of the finished product as supplied to our customer(s).
This type of change would effectively be 100% invisible or of no consequence to our customer(s) - does this still require a new PPAP submission to be supplied?
Before you all say "yes", consider the following 2 examples;
a) Engineering changes made, for example, for internal VA/VE purposes (cost reductions, etc) all fall into this category. If we engineer a cheaper way to make part of our product, but still maintain the integrity of the final item as supplied to our customers, declaring this to the customer (by re-PPAPing) would leave us wide open to them holding us to ransom by either demanding a piece (or perhaps all) of that cost save or refusing to accept the change. Hence our ability to engineer a more cost-effective product would be lost.
b) If we have to re-PPAP for every change we make, regardless of its impact, then by the same token it should cascade all the way to the OEM. In other words, if a Tier 3 supplier makes a minor tweak to his product and he is forced to re-PPAP to his Tier 2 customer, then, following the rule, that Tier 2 customer will also be forced to re-PPAP his product to his Tier 1 customer, and that Tier 1 customer to his OEM. The ramifications of this are huge. Are we really saying that the OEMs should be buried in paperwork, because that's what would happen. :truce:
In the aerospace world, (where there is no PPAP) if the interchangeabilty (ICY) of a product has been re-established and there is no change to the part #, then no approval is necessary. If the change is such that ICY is re-restablished before the customer print is affected, then he does not need to know.
What say the masses? (Apologies for the long post)
It regards the necessity to re-PPAP when making an Engineering change to a finished product.
As background, my company (Tier 2) designs and manufactures a finished assembly that is subsequently sold to many different Tier 1 customers.
It is fairly straightforward for me to work out that if we make an Engineering change which affects the FFF of our finished product (and hence the part # on our customer print rolls a level) then a new PPAP submission is required. That's a no-brainer.
But what happens if the change is applied to a component at a level lower than the finished product and the interchangeability of the product is re-established before we get to the final assembly level i.e. there is no need to roll the part # of the finished product as supplied to our customer(s).
This type of change would effectively be 100% invisible or of no consequence to our customer(s) - does this still require a new PPAP submission to be supplied?
Before you all say "yes", consider the following 2 examples;
a) Engineering changes made, for example, for internal VA/VE purposes (cost reductions, etc) all fall into this category. If we engineer a cheaper way to make part of our product, but still maintain the integrity of the final item as supplied to our customers, declaring this to the customer (by re-PPAPing) would leave us wide open to them holding us to ransom by either demanding a piece (or perhaps all) of that cost save or refusing to accept the change. Hence our ability to engineer a more cost-effective product would be lost.
b) If we have to re-PPAP for every change we make, regardless of its impact, then by the same token it should cascade all the way to the OEM. In other words, if a Tier 3 supplier makes a minor tweak to his product and he is forced to re-PPAP to his Tier 2 customer, then, following the rule, that Tier 2 customer will also be forced to re-PPAP his product to his Tier 1 customer, and that Tier 1 customer to his OEM. The ramifications of this are huge. Are we really saying that the OEMs should be buried in paperwork, because that's what would happen. :truce:
In the aerospace world, (where there is no PPAP) if the interchangeabilty (ICY) of a product has been re-established and there is no change to the part #, then no approval is necessary. If the change is such that ICY is re-restablished before the customer print is affected, then he does not need to know.
What say the masses? (Apologies for the long post)
:ca: