PPAP submission level classification - One dimension on print is changed


Fully vaccinated are you?
->Regardless of what level a customer will accept, must the
->supplier per QS re-do everything (100 dimensionals, es
->testing, r & r's, etc)

I don't know how to say it any plainer than this: You ask for what makes sense. If only 1 dimension would be affected, why would you now want PPAP information on 100 dimensions? And why would they? They will do what you ask them to do in addition to whatever they believe is appropriate.

I get a PPAP. It has 10 critical dimensions requiring data. Only 9 come into print. I don't now ask for them to redo all data after they fix that 1 dimension. I ask for them to redo the data and submit for that 1 dimension. It's no different if its a design change.

->Marc, I agree and I know what to ask my supplier to submit
->to satisfy a PPAP. What I don't know is whether they must
->go through the whole routine of PPAP even though the
->customer has agreed to accept a partial PPAP.

Why would they? The data from the original PPAP is still good except for that 1 dimension. Unless that 1 dimension can be shown to affect some or all other dimensions (as does happen from time to time with considerations to GD&T) there is no reason why they should do a Dixie two step (repeat everything) for you. As I said above, you require resubmission of PPAP elements invalidated by the change.

You're reading too much into the requirements.


Thanks Marc.

I agree totally. It only makes sense. However, my QE co-worker says, "On page 16 of the PPAP manual it shows all levels of PPAP submissions. There are no differences between them except whether the information is retained or submitted. It says nothing about not completing all the work, despite what the customer will accept for submission. Either it is retained or submitted. Just because you allow them to submit a PSW, revised CP, and a layout for the one dimension, this does not alleviate the supplier's responsibility to complete the full layout, capability studies, etc. Even though the change does not 'affect' these items, they still have to either retain or submit it. This is a new PPAP run. Again, per page 16."

While I agree with your position and this was my policy at my former company, I was never confronted with this interpretation. I am taking a lot a grief, as you can imagine, from suppliers. I agree with them, but the above interpretion is shared with the other QE, the QA Manager, and others in management.
Somehow, I need to find a something in the manuals (to convince them) that a small change doesn't require a full PPAP to be on file at the supplier. As you can see, they take page 16 literally to mean "Full PPAP required everytime internally", just that the customer will allow you different levels of evidence on their end. The only thing I can say is, "I want this and that evidence. It will affect nothing else. If I ask for just this information, where does it say that they are obligated to full PPAP and store this unwanted information? Why would they do it? Seems like a waste of time." Again... Page 16. "Says they must either retain or submit. How clearer can it get?" How do you argue against, besides using common sense?

I don't mean to beat this to death, but if I am the SQA and see it appropriate to work with suppliers by allowing a partial PPAP, then I must be able to convince everyone else, including my boss, that "They have to do all the work anyway, so what is the problem not cutting a few holes and putting the rest of it in the binder." is wrong.

Again, thanks.



Fully vaccinated are you?
I doubt you'll find the verbiage you are looking for.

Try to think of it like this... I submit a complete PPAP to you. I make a dimensional change to 1 dimension through an engineering change. I do capability on this one dimension, revise control plan, etc. and submit to you. Data on the other dimensions are are in the original PPAP. This new stuff is like an amendment to contract - the file as a whole is the PPAP file, you're just adding data. Also remember - the submission level has nothing to do with what a company does for a PPAP, it is only relevant to what has to be sent to the customer. A customer may require a level 1 - warrant only. That's only what you submit. Everything else applicable you have to have in-house (such as runoff data).

I'm looking at the PPAP 3rd edition on page 16 and only see a matrix. It does cite I.2.2 Note 2 which clarifies that the requirements listed on page 16 are a 'laundry list' all of which may not be applicable to your product. I have a hard time interpreting this matrix as a requirement for a full PPAP.

It also should be noted that this matrix on page 16 is really aimed at the original PPAP submission as opposed to re-PPAP after an engineering change.

On the other hand, you could just give in and ask every supplier for a full PPAP everytime there's the smallest change. Maybe your suppliers will stay with you, maybe they'll find a customer they can afford to work with. Good luck!


Brakeman, You don't mention whether or not the your QA manager applies the same criteris internally as well. If not, then it appears he has a vendetta against subcontractors or is just plain ignorant of the quality concepts. Where is the purchasing manager in these debates? Where is upper management in these debates? If no one else is concerned , then I'm afraid you might be fighting a losing battle.

Dan Larsen

I think Marc pretty much approaches it the way it was intended. Once you do the first PPAP (probably level 3), you've already got all the data pulled together. Now, change something. When the change is made, it should force you to look at all the existing docuemntation, especially the FMEA and Control Plan. These docs may change (most likely will). Now submit the change as a level 1 (if that's what your supplier asks for). You only provide the PSW, but you have changed docs (some but not all are changed)in your possession.

I suggest my clients maintain a folder (ONE folder) for each PPAP job they do. Contained in the folder is all the docs related to the job, including changed FMEA's, Control Plans, etc. and all subsequent PSW's if changes were submitted.

Al Dyer


My Quote;

"Per the requirements and as good business practice, Yes."

Your quote;

Please tell me what phrases in AIAG directly or indirectly say that a full level 3 PPAP is required for every print revision"

It is not, if you are the custimer, you dictate, no matter if you are a level I, II or III,

I do agree with the above comments and say that if management wants a full re-submitted PPAP on file they will get it! Good luck in trying to inform them that it is not required.

Think about the best business practice that will serve your company. To me it sounds good that your management is at least getting involved in the process!


[This message has been edited by Al Dyer (edited 26 February 2001).]


Thanks Everyone.

Sounds like most are on the side that it is not required as I thought. However, I have asked our newly-hired QS Management Representative to put a level 3 requirement for all PPAP submissions into our upcoming supplier quality manual if that is to be the policy of our company. That makes my job easier, since I can just reference it as 'company policy'. Since AIAG doesn't give me anything black or white, hopefully a copy of this discussion will sway the opinion slighly.

Again thanks
Top Bottom