PPAP submission level classification - One dimension on print is changed

[BrakeMan]

I've got a couple of questions, and I can't find anything clear in the AIAG.

Say a new drawing is released that changes one dimension and you want to allow the supplier to just submit a partial PPAP. If they submit all the elements on page 16 of the AIAG PPAP manual, except that the dimensional layout consists of just the one dimension and not 100%, can that still be classified as a level 3? What if you didn't require capability studies because the dimension was not a designated characteristic? Since that is one of the elements listed as "S", it is not level 3. But what level is it then?

Say the supplier wanted to use a different adhesive, which obviously wouldn't change dimensions, and by being a good supplier, you just needed a copy of the control plan, flow, pfmea, and functional/materials. How should the PSW be marked for submission level?

Even when you don't require full submission, page 16 requires the information to be fully completed and retained at the supplier, no matter how minor the change to the revision, right?

Thanks,
Patrick

 

[Al Dyer]

Brakeman,

I have read your message and respectfully ask:

What the XXX are you asking about?

ASD...

 

[Casana]

Al,
Here’s my interpretation of Brakeman’s question, translated to English:

1) How much information & what level of submission is needed for a PPAP on a minor revision, and
2) does the supplier really have to have all that documentation (as listed on p. 16) at their facility?

Here’s my answers:

1) You should contact your customer for guidance. Most likely the’ll ask for a level 4 or 5 submission.
2) As far as the paperwork needed, don’t sweat it, you’ve already got 99% of it done in the original PPAP. If the change is as minor as you’ve stated, barely any changes will be needed to the original submission (just double check, though!)

Hope I guessed right!

-Casana

 

[BrakeMan]

Sorry to confuse you, Al. Guess I did go the long way around and I do tend to speak my own language...
Casana,
Exactly what I was asking, and re-affirmed my position. I used to accept level 4s from suppliers without apprehension. However, just started in a position at a new company and I have been trying to explain this to co-workers for a while now. After showing them the level 4 description on page 16, his question is, "Even if they change the adhesive and we could live with just functional/material data, why not require them to submit the full PPAP, since page 16 says even if they don't submit it, they have to do the work anyway? That way we can make sure the supplier is doing what they are supposed to."
IF, with every new drawing revision (no matter how minor the change), they must re-complete (and retain) every element listed again, then I would have to agree with him. However, in my opinion they have already submitted this information in previous PPAPs. So, I have been reluctantly defending the need for full level 3 PPAPs to my suppliers for minor changes, while the interpretation is debated. To make my question short and sweet for Al, is it necessary for a supplier to re-do all the elements on pg. 16 just for a minor print change, regardless of submission requirements? If the supplier has a poor rating, is there any argument against requiring them to submit full level 3s, with all new data, as a means to monitor them?

Thanks
BrakeMan

 

[Al Dyer]

Brakeman,

You as the customer need to define what you require from the supplier. But let me expound;

1: There is a print change increasing the diameter of a characteristic.

-Does the process flow change? Probably not, so I would not require the submission of a new process flow. You already have one.

-Does the gage chage? If no, the current R&R is on file so I would not require a new one. If yes I would ask for a new one.

Basically I would only ask for revised copies of the documents that change so that when you get audited you have your ducks in a row.

Having your supplier re-submit all documentation sounds like overwork and a document control nightmare, let the supplier do some of the work.

What I like to do is verify (sample) the documents during a supplier visit. If there is a supplier that is not keeping good records the corrective action process needs to be initiated and reflected in whatever type of supplier rating/approval system you have.

If you don't visit that often, have them send you their approved document list and match it against your records. If you want to take it to another level, request the same information from different personnel in the suppliers organization and match those!

You have to trust your good suppliers, work with your marginal suppliers to develop and improve them, or resource your ineffective suppliers.

Hope this helps.

ASD...

[This message has been edited by Al Dyer (edited 24 February 2001).]

 

[BrakeMan]

Thanks Al.

What you have stated is exactly what I have
done in the past. I only required suppliers to submit for whatever changed (flow, dimensions that changed, es tests, etc). However, after meeting another QE at my new job, he insists that I am wrong. He does not understand why I would allow less than a level 3 submission, when in his judgement, level 3 work must be done everytime there is a print change. Despite your help, I can't argue one way or the other. I am probably going in circles, but here goes:

Interpretation #1 (Mine)
Only documentation related to the change is necessary to be revised and submitted, because the rest has been submitted previously. For example, if a full dimensional layout was submitted less than a year ago and the new drawing has only changed a diameter. The only thing that I would need is a revised control plan (if necessary), a layout for that one dimension, and a level 4 PSW. I would not expect them to (to my interpretation) to spend time re-doing capability studies, R&Rs, material/functional testing, a full layout etc., when it haven't asked for it and is not related to the change. Basically, I believe it is necessary to do only the work associated with the change.

Interpretation #2 (Seems unjustified, but can't find a clause in QS to argue against)
All print revisions require PPAP. All PPAP submission requirements are shown on page 16, the only difference is whether certain documentation is retained at supplier's location or submitted to customer. With his interpretation, there is no difference in a full level 3,2,1, or 4 (except retained vs. submitted info), the entire work (as if for an initial level 3) still must be completed on this new PPAP run. For example, even if you allow the supplier to just submit measurements and revised control plan for the one dimension, they must still re-do gage R&Rs, capability studies, material/functional testing, a full layout, etc and keep it on file at their facility for this particular PPAP run. Submission of documentation related just to the changes does not exempt them from fully completing a new level 3 PPAP and retaining this information at their facility.

I can see it both ways. Why do level 3 work, when a simple change is made? Or - No matter how simple the change, level 3 work is required, so why not go ahead and require them to submit it anyway?

And so on... Just trying to give examples of situations. I just want to know if a full PPAP is required to be done every time, despite what the customer will allow you to submit.

BrakeMan

 

[Al Dyer]

Brakeman,

In answer to this:

"And so on... Just trying to give examples of situations. I just want to know if a full PPAP is required to be done every time, despite what the customer will allow you to submit."

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

ASD...

 

[Marc]

I would hope one would use common sense. Let's say I am running a machine and are using a certain tool. I change from a tool of one material to a tool of another material. I would look at the change and determine what will (probably or likely) be affected by the change. Those are the issues you should address in your PPAP resubmission. Often a complete re-PPAP is neither needed or required.

->Say a new drawing is released that changes one dimension
->and you want to allow the supplier to just submit a
->partial PPAP.

Depends... If you investigate and you find that the dimensional change was in response to an engineering change requested to solve an issue with capability (let's say a tolerance is opened up a tad), you may have a lot of work to do because it may even require a revalidation of the design. Or it may not.

->What if you didn't require capability studies because the
->dimension was not a designated characteristic?

If it didn't require one before, why should it now?

->Say the supplier wanted to use a different adhesive, which
->obviously wouldn't change dimensions, and by being a good
->supplier, you just needed a copy of the control plan,
->flow, pfmea, and functional/materials. How should the PSW
->be marked for submission level?

Depends upon what you're asking for.

Let's take another example.

Let's say your supplier makes a plastic/vinyl part. It has critical dimensions and it has a surface grain requirement. If they get an engineering change for the grain requirement, their re-PPAP would be on issues related to the grain requirement - the dimensional requirements would (probably) not be an issue and it would not make much sense to re-PPAP parts of the original PPAP related to the dimensional aspects. So - request a level 3 (if you want all the stuff sent to you) on the stuff they're doing for the grain requirement.

I have in the past used the EXPLAINATION/COMMENTS space on the PSW form (near the bottom) to describe limitations of the PPAP such as stating it is limited to grain requirements.

My bottom line has been to ALWAYS contact the customer SQA rep and tell him/her what I planned and get at least a verbal approval. It doesn't take all that long to make (and document) a phone call. It eliminates any confusion. Section I.3 (page 11) of the latest PPAP manual is fine and dandy but until the customer SQA agrees with my plan I won't make a move.

In your case of what to ask of a supplier, use your good, common sense. Re-PPAP what is appropriate and not what isn't.

These comments essentially reflect what Al is saying, I think.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 24 February 2001).]

 

[Al Dyer]

Marc and All,

Yes they do, and to just make the point again, work with your SQA!!!

ASD...

 

[BrakeMan]

Al and Marc,

Hope you aren't answering my question and I am not following. Everything you guys have said, is what I routinely do. Regardless of what level a customer will accept, must the supplier per QS re-do everything (100 dimensionals, es testing, r & r's, etc) and store it on file even though the customer does not want it or it is unrelated to the change (ex: diameter changes but none of the criticals or functional requirements). Is the supplier required per QS to complete a full level 3 for each PPAP run, regardless if they submit it all or not? If I allow them to submit a level 4 for a certain dimension, a PSW, and nothing else, should I be able to visit their facility and ask them to pull out the r&r's or capability studies that I didn't ask for?

Al you said, "Per the requirements and as good business practice, Yes."
Please tell me what phrases in AIAG directly or indirectly say that a full level 3 PPAP is required for every print revision, despite whether or not all of it is required to be submitted by the customer.

Marc you said, "I would look at the change and determine what will (probably or likely) be affected by the change. Those are the issues you should address in your PPAP resubmission. Often a complete re-PPAP is neither needed or required... Re-PPAP what is appropriate and not what isn't"

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.
Thanks for the help,
BrakeMan