PPAP Rejection for "MSA-GR&R are not using the latest AIAG format"

C

Carrb

I'm unaware that a particular format is required when submitting R&R information for gages used in production. I use Minitab for our MSA studies and this is the first rejection that I've seen for this reason. Can someone point me to an answer? I've referred to the AIAG hand book but there are only two forms at the back and I feel as though they say they are just ideas for forms and they do not need to be followed to the "T". Any help on this would be appreciated. Thanks!
 

Miner

Forum Moderator
Leader
Admin
Re: Receieved PPAP rejection for "MSA-GR&R, are not using the latest AIAG format"

The MSA manual provides guidelines, not specific requirements. Were you provided any additional reason for the rejection?

One area that is often overlooked is that the manual covers bias/linearity and stability in addition to R&R. Are you certain that you weren't dinged for not having the other studies?
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Auto or non-auto? Any customer specific requirements?

The problem with the aiag books, as miner says, they talk about guidelines and recommendations. Then suddenly they become "requirements."
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
Several customers will say as does GM
The list above contains the most current editions. However, the latest edition or most current version of the reference documents listed applies unless otherwise specified by the GM Procuring Division.
Or more specific Ford
7.6.1 Measurement Systems Analysis

Gauging requirements
All gauges used for checking Ford components/parts per the control plan shall have a gauge R&R performed in accordance with the appropriate methods described by the latest AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis Manual (MSA) to determine measurement system variability. The Gauge R&R is to be completed using Ford parts.
The control plan identifies which gauges are used for each measurement.

If the CSRs call out reference books then they are auditable and not suggestions
 
C

Carrb

Re: Receieved PPAP rejection for "MSA-GR&R, are not using the latest AIAG format"

Thank you for the replies first off! I've spoken with a fellow co-worker and they are going to request a template of what the customer is expecting to see. To clarify this is an auto customer but perhaps they are asking for something we aren't required to give. Our company policy is to use Minitab for all R&R / Risk analysis studies which we've done and these studies have been accepted by other auto customers without any complaint. As soon as my co-worker hears back from the customer I will post again with their reply.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
Several customers will say as does GM

Or more specific Ford


If the CSRs call out reference books then they are auditable and not suggestions

That's great but the problem is that the books don't use "shall." They are more of a guidance document as not everything is applicable to all cases. I think they even use the term "common sense" in a few places. Trying to audit to them thus becomes a minefield.
 
N

ncwalker

What happens is this ... people start using shells they find out on the internet, and they get "broken." So while numbers are in fields, you don't have any assurance that the formulas work.

Also - I have seen professional packages have the calculations wrong (not Minitab).

We (Tier 1) allow the supplier to use Minitab OR our forms we provide and that's it. Most suppliers have no problems complying with this. If they do, and want to use "their" thing, we usually ask them to do at least one in both to prove out their thing works.

So you may want to key in the actual example from the MSA and demonstrate it works.

Also, in the Ford systems for sure, you can download test data for running through Gage R&R calculations or Capability Studies, etc, that have been vetted by Ford.

If it meets the requirement of demonstrated as working ... you should be OK.

If not, you have a pain in the butt SQ, sorry.
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
That's great but the problem is that the books don't use "shall." They are more of a guidance document as not everything is applicable to all cases. I think they even use the term "common sense" in a few places. Trying to audit to them thus becomes a minefield.

BUT the customers shall overrides this
 

Mikey324

Quite Involved in Discussions
We do an annual validation study on of MSA software. Some OEM's offer data that can be plugged into your system along with what results to expect. As long as your software, whatever it may be, delivers these results you should be fine.
 

Mikey324

Quite Involved in Discussions
Missed this post. This is one of the data sets I referred to. Good way to prove your point should you ever be questioned about validity of results...
 
Top Bottom