PPAP - Complaint from a Tier One customer concerning Product Dimension

[Marc]

I agree completely, Bruser. I have seen a long running part which was brought in from a different supplier (long story - customer owned die and supplier issues). In our plant we couldn't get it to print. It was an old, well worn die which we "inherited", and they (customer) would not pay to have the die refurbished. So - We ran on a waiver for a year and they kept promising a print change which never came. The waiver expired, their receiving started rejecting parts. Big hassle, we got "demerits", the waiver was then extended for another year. Left before that year was up. Never did hear what happened.

Just a quckie to say I agree with you 100% - But getting a print change from a tier 1 or an OEM is often impossible.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Thanks for your answer. Actually, we were aware that the dimension was outside specificaiton during PPAP submission and it seems that our customer didn't verify it very carefully and just approved the PPAP. 4 years later, the issue was found by OEM.

For the mould modification, I checked all our contract with the customer that the responsiblity of mould modification is not defined in the contract, I am in the injection moulding industry and I think it is difficult to define the responsibility. Have you ever seen a contract which defines clearly the responsibility of mould modification?

Having worked in both molding and stamping job shops, I don't think I ever heard of a contract where tool maintenance responsibility wasn't spelled out. Your company is at fault for not making sure of it.

Some general observations, again based on my own direct experience:

1. PPAP should never be submitted, let alone approved, before nonconforming conditions are reconciled. If a waiver is required, it should be obtained in advance and should be submitted with the rest of the PPAP documentation. The Declaration section of the PSW says, in part, "I hereby affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts which were made by a process that meets all Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements." One of the PPAP manual requirements is to not submit when there are nonconforming conditions.
2. Once a nonconforming condition has been discovered by a customer and there is no associated deviation approved by the customer, you're basically dead. Depending on the customer, and how high up you are in the chain, you might be dead even if you do have a waiver. I was once informed by a GM engineer that the by-the-book waiver I had was no good because the person who approved it lacked the authority to do so. When I asked for a list of persons who were authorized, I got no answer.
3. Marc observed in this thread that it's nearly impossible to get a Tier One or OEM to change a drawing, and that's generally true at PPAP time. My experience has been that you have a much better chance of getting it done if you do it very early in the APQP process, even at the RFQ stage. Again, don't wait for PPAP because by that time the "cognizant" engineers are probably knee-deep in working on the next model year parts and don't want to be bothered with "old" problems.

 

[John P (2016 Owner)]

Just to add to Jim's post, mold maintenance is one thing, and yes - Responsibility should be called out in the contract. Mould modification typically requires a contract change after contract acceptance.

Waiver duration should be monitored by the supplier so that what I described in Post 11 doesn't happen. Waiver expired? Stop shipping until another is approved IN WRITING or a print change is made, you have gotten a copy and gone through the required steps to approve it internally. Sometimes a partial PPAP is required. In the situation in Post 11, the customer put it in the dashboard and it caused big problems including a visit by the customer's supplier to "review" the facility.

Thoughts: Production Permit (aka Waiver) vs. Concession (aka Deviation) - Definitions

... Again, don't wait for PPAP because by that time the "cognizant" engineers are probably knee-deep in working on the next model year parts and don't want to be bothered with "old" problems.

Or, the "cognizant" engineers are no longer "cognizant" for that part if PPAP is past. Responsibilities change around a lot in big companies.

 

[Marc]

Also see: Temporary Deviation Procedure

 

[tongxiaozhi]

If you where aware of it being out of specification, did you disclose it? If it was out shown as no good on your dimensional inspection report at least you have some argument to discuss a deviation. You also have a exception box on the PSW.

As far as who is responsible for mold modifications -- if it is not addressed in the contract (very likely), then industry practice is that the customer would be responsible for wear and tear maintenance items. However, in your circumstance, the mold never made "good" parts. Then it is probably your responsibility to modify the mold to make the part. If it has been "out" for four years, doesn't seem like a critical issue to me. But good luck.

I checked our PPAP report that the NOK dimensions were marked in red in our PPAP report. The customer also acknowledged that they were partially responsible for the issue because they didn't check the part and report carefully. But they insist that we modify the mould.

We may just modify the mould if the cost is not high. But it is not the case, the cost for modification is very high as we need to make a new cavity to correct these dimensions.

My answer to the customer is that, for quality department, the mould is modifiable but needs money, so it turns out to be a commercial issue . I proposed that their purhase department discuss with our sales department. I am not sure if I am right. it seems that it is the only way I can do now.

 

[Golfman25]

Well it sounds like you are at a standoff. Right now the easiest thing for your customer is to "demand" you fix the mold. But here's the thing. What are they going to really do? Buy a new mold from another vendor? Over a dimension which apparently isn't critical? If they need parts they should eventually come to their senses.

 

[bobdoering]

In 2016 approving a PPAP is not considered accepting anything outside of the contract (print). In 1994, it seemed to mean that, but it doesn't hold that kind of water anymore. All it does is lead to a finding on your PPAP and APQP process that you did not resolve the problem initially. Even TS 16949 assessors would lean on the approach that signing a PPAP does not hold the customer to accepting these issues. I think it has twisted the original intent of getting everyone on the same page, but the fact is a customer that does not have the resources to pick through a PPAP page by page is not going to be held responsible for a supplier issue. They hold the pen that signs the checks.

 

[tongxiaozhi]

Not to muddy the waters.... For all the Tier 1 customers that I have worked with we were required to provide annual revalidation (Dimensional, material cert and PSW) and submit to the Tier 1. If you have an ongoing history of resubmission with approval they have ownership in the issue. If not you only have a small piece of ground to stand on "But you said it was OK".
Obviously the "Fit, Form, Function" is acceptable otherwise this would have blown up earlier. Using that logic I would approach the customer about a print change. Just my $.02

You are absolutely right. The parts have been used for 4 years without major issues. The noncompliant dimension are absolutely not key dimensions, which don't affect fit, form and function. It only became an issue when GM found it during an audit at our customer's site.

We proposed our customer to change the drawing but it seems that it is impossible, because it is a global project, the drawing of which is shared by several suppliers in different areas in the world.

 

[tongxiaozhi]

Well it sounds like you are at a standoff. Right now the easiest thing for your customer is to "demand" you fix the mold. But here's the thing. What are they going to really do? Buy a new mold from another vendor? Over a dimension which apparently isn't critical? If they need parts they should eventually come to their senses.

Yes, the customer demand we modify the mould with a very high price, for which we don't the budget this year.

they have two suppliers, the other one is our brother company in EU, which supplies to customer's brother company in EU. Our customer can buy the parts from EU but the price will be very high, which will cause unfavorable menufacturing variance due to high demand.

 

[tongxiaozhi]

In 2016 approving a PPAP is not considered accepting anything outside of the contract (print). In 1994, it seemed to mean that, but it doesn't hold that kind of water anymore. All it does is lead to a finding on your PPAP and APQP process that you did not resolve the problem initially. Even TS 16949 assessors would lean on the approach that signing a PPAP does not hold the customer to accepting these issues. I think it has twisted the original intent of getting everyone on the same page, but the fact is a customer that does not have the resources to pick through a PPAP page by page is not going to be held responsible for a supplier issue. They hold the pen that signs the checks.

I checked the terms of PPAP,TS and our contract, it seems that this one is not clearly defined in either of the documents