PPAPs for job shops that produce short run assemblies (i.e 100 to 10,000 units)

[Thom Trimborn]

While I understand the applications of PPAPs in contract manufacturing, I am curious if there is a scaled down version for job shops that produce short run assemblies (i.e 100 to 10,000 units). I would appriciate any guideance in this matter.

 

[BWoods]

Originally posted by Thom Trimborn:
While I understand the applications of PPAPs in contract manufacturing, I am curious if there is a scaled down version for job shops that produce short run assemblies (i.e 100 to 10,000 units). I would appriciate any guideance in this matter.

As you can see in the standard, the only senerio close to what you discribe is for the trucking industry. I agree that you have to have your customer "buy in" to your plan.

Also if you have families of parts, you may try the idea of doing PPAPs on families rather than part numbers. That is the way we do it.

 

[Jim Biz]

Annual usage as far as I know is not a factor. No scaled down versions in my expierience we folow PPAP individual customer instructins for designated level 1 2 or 3 parts (unless you can negotiate something directly with your customer)

We have completed PPAP documentation for as few as 3 parts -1 time run prototypes... then gone back & upgraded the same documentation forms & formats for each change as they come up...

Regards
Jim

[This message has been edited by Jim Biz (edited 13 June 2000).]

 

[Marc]

Just wondering if anyone currently visiting here is from a job shop producing such small 'lots'. If any of you are in this scenario, what are you doing about PPAPs these days under TS 16949??

 

[gaugefixer]

Just wondering if anyone currently visiting here is from a job shop producing such small 'lots'. If any of you are in this scenario, what are you doing about PPAPs these days under TS 16949??

We are doing everything required under the standard; generally because the auditors will get us otherwise. The customers don't care whether you have GR&R and everything else-they just want good parts on time. Imagine making 100 parts a year: The paperwork can take more time than making the parts!
TS16949 is not friendly to small run manufacturers at all, it's definitely a burden.

 

[Raffy]

I agree, our personnel in our manufacturing company is less than 25 persons, and we are having some problem in documenting the TS16949 requirements. Not to mention, the APQP requirements, we are do not have product design responsibility.
My concern are the following: How are we going to document the APQP requirements:
1. Packaging Evaluation – Do we need a procedure on how are we going to evaluate packaging? What does packaging evaluation means in APQP? Is this a drop test requirement? Puncture test? Shear test? Please advice.
2. Floor Plan Layout – Do we also need a separate procedure on how to create a layout or can we just prepare a plant layout of the manufacturing process? Please advise.
3. Characteristics Matrix – basically, I’m having some confusion with regard to this, because what I understand these are customer dictated characteristics? Please comment. If not, how are we going to generate our own special characteristics? In our current process, in our FMEA, we do not specify our special characteristics? Please advise.
Thank you very much for the usual prompt attention you will give this request.
Best regards,
Raffy

 

[Russ]

We are fortunate we only have a few customers that require a full blown PPAP. One customer who has unloaded dozens of new jobs on us in the last year decided the price wasn't worth it and conceded to a 1 pc. ISIR with documentation. This we give them for free just so we don't have to invest the hours it takes for full PPAP's. This has really lightened our PPAP load for that customer. Very few are open to this method though.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

We are doing everything required under the standard; generally because the auditors will get us otherwise. The customers don't care whether you have GR&R and everything else-they just want good parts on time. Imagine making 100 parts a year: The paperwork can take more time than making the parts!
TS16949 is not friendly to small run manufacturers at all, it's definitely a burden.

If the customer just wants good parts, then ask them to waive the PPAP requirement. It is their choice, after all. Then you will have evidence for the auditor that you don't have to do it...

You agreed to comply with the TS program, and asked the auditor to assess whether you met your commitment. Then you get mad at the auditor for assessing whether you met your commitment?

 

[kdee122]

I can bring a different view on this...I work for a auto OEM with a very low production rate, we are alittle under 1000 units.

We have about 350 parts that need to be PPAPed.

We typically get level 1,2, and 3 PPAPs. We have not had too much trouble getting our suppliers to provide PPAP documentation. We ARE flexible on the format and that seems to have helped the most.

If you are a typical job shop your flow diagram may be identical for many parts:
rec inspection->machining->inspection->packing

In addition I have allowed supplier to generalize the PFMEA, E.G. a machining job shop may have "hole oversize" for a failure mode instead of listing every single hole size.

On control plan I have also allowed supplier to group dimension that are all controled the same. E.G. a vacuum formed part were all the dimensions are formed and thne inspected on a CMM.

hope that helps!
kdee122

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I can bring a different view on this...I work for a auto OEM with a very low production rate, we are alittle under 1000 units.

We have about 350 parts that need to be PPAPed.

We typically get level 1,2, and 3 PPAPs. We have not had too much trouble getting our suppliers to provide PPAP documentation. We ARE flexible on the format and that seems to have helped the most.

If you are a typical job shop your flow diagram may be identical for many parts:
rec inspection->machining->inspection->packing

In addition I have allowed supplier to generalize the PFMEA, E.G. a machining job shop may have "hole oversize" for a failure mode instead of listing every single hole size.

On control plan I have also allowed supplier to group dimension that are all controled the same. E.G. a vacuum formed part were all the dimensions are formed and thne inspected on a CMM.

hope that helps!
kdee122

You have a neat approach. I appreciate your pragmatism. Out of curiousity, what OEM has less than 1000 units?