Problem with Falsified Data in PPAP Submission

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#11
I think that Steve is asking more as to what sort of information (data, datum, whatever) should be requested to prove process capability in lieu of a capability index number?

I agree for the most part that these indices are probably not nearly as telling as we have always been led to believe in the past. Forgive me for my ignorance, statistics has never been my strong point, being self taught and fed only what others would have me know.:mg:
A run chart or SPC chart (if applicable) would be the only anecdotal evidence of what occurred during that run. And, it is not likely to provide indication of future performance.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#12
All trust is now lost in this supplier and I am curently deciding what to do with them.
In my opinion, the moment you confirm the data was manipulated/falsified, you should start a process to drop the supplier from your list. Dealing with a supplier that can't be trusted is too much of a risk. They are no longer an asset, but purely a liability. Failure to take swift action increases your risk exposure tremendously.
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#13
A run chart or SPC chart (if applicable) would be the only anecdotal evidence of what occurred during that run. And, it is not likely to provide indication of future performance.
Agin, Bob, I am definitely not saying you are wrong, but what, as quality professionals should we be doing? What evidence should be asked for, and what can we do to change the perceptions currently in use? I ask this as someone who wants to learn, not as an argumentative question.:)
 

howste

Thaumaturge
Super Moderator
#14
Not requiring a capability value at all is a reasonable suggestion. My analogy would be not jumping off the cliff is better than jumping with everyone else.
It sounds like the OP was not just relying on a single capability value.

I fail to see how your analogy applies to this situation. Are you saying that requesting data is the same as suicide? :confused: It's clear that you aren't a fan of preliminary process capability studies. It seems that you're implying that they shouldn't try to characterize the process in any way. The alternatives are to do nothing or to do something better. What do you suggest?
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#15
Again, Bob, I am definitely not saying you are wrong, but what, as quality professionals should we be doing? What evidence should be asked for, and what can we do to change the perceptions currently in use? I ask this as someone who wants to learn, not as an argumentative question.:)
I expect to see a run chart - or SPC chart if applicable - as an indication of that particular run - with any adjustments necessary noted. Most data taken during an honest run @ rate would help paint the picture as to the current success of the process.

It would be nice if their was an appraisal of the expected distributions of the variables involved - as the full distribution may not be realized during the PPAP run.

I am tossing these out as off the cuff observations. More deliberate pondering may provide even more ideas. But - bottom line -we need to put on our reality pants on as far as how much predictability such a small amount of data can provide. Without a USB crystal ball, it will not likely be accurately reported.

And I agree with Sidney - if the vendor is neither honest with their data nor comfortable enough with you as a customer to work through data issues (yes, it can very readily be a two-way street!), it is time to part ways.
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#16
I fail to see how your analogy applies to this situation. Are you saying that requesting data is the same as suicide? :confused:
Sorry you didn't get it. It is about doing something just because everyone else is. :rolleyes:

Although, committing to high, incorrectly evaluated capability values can be professional suicide...:notme:
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#17
It sounds like the OP was not just relying on a single capability value.

I fail to see how your analogy applies to this situation. Are you saying that requesting data is the same as suicide? :confused: It's clear that you aren't a fan of preliminary process capability studies. It seems that you're implying that they shouldn't try to characterize the process in any way. The alternatives are to do nothing or to do something better. What do you suggest?
Part of the problem lies in the fact that OEMs put requirements in place without having any idea whether their suppliers are capable of fulfilling them. This is especially true of SPC and statistics in general. I recall a supplier submitting a PPAP package that included a capability report that had obviously been fudged. He was amazed (and chagrined) to find out that it was possible to tell conclusively (in many cases) that the data he presented wasn't the result of a randomly-operating process.

This is a problem that doesn't lend itself to simple answers, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect a person who recognizes the problem to either offer a solution or be quiet about it.
 

bobdoering

Stop X-bar/R Madness!!
Trusted Information Resource
#18
Part of the problem lies in the fact that OEMs put requirements in place without having any idea whether their suppliers are capable of fulfilling them. This is especially true of SPC and statistics in general.
This has absolutely been true, with the greatest disservice starting back at the introduction of QS9000, where people were forced to use statistics that they had no clue how to use - and do it NOW! It is so pervasive now that it will be equally as difficult to straighten it out.

I know I have been fighting it tooth and nail for over 15 years.....some of the time I have spent learning it better myself.
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#19
I expect to see a run chart - or SPC chart if applicable - as an indication of that particular run - with any adjustments necessary noted. Most data taken during an honest run @ rate would help paint the picture as to the current success of the process.

It would be nice if their was an appraisal of the expected distributions of the variables involved - as the full distribution may not be realized during the PPAP run.

I am tossing these out as off the cuff observations. More deliberate pondering may provide even more ideas. But - bottom line -we need to put on our reality pants on as far as how much predictability such a small amount of data can provide. Without a USB crystal ball, it will not likely be accurately reported.

And I agree with Sidney - if the vendor is neither honest with their data nor comfortable enough with you as a customer to work through data issues (yes, it can very readily be a two-way street!), it is time to part ways.
Thanks Bob, these observations were what I was looking for....some of us don't know enough to even know what we don't know. It is always nice to learn some possibilities, and what better place to ask questions than someplace where you know there are folks who have more knowledge.
 

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#20
This has absolutely been true, with the greatest disservice starting back at the introduction of QS9000, where people were forced to use statistics that they had no clue how to use - and do it NOW! It is so pervasive now that it will be equally as difficult to straighten it out.

I know I have been fighting it tooth and nail for over 15 years.....some of the time I have spent learning it better myself.
This situation that Bob describes pretty much sums up all my knowledge of statistics. QS9000. Do it and do it now. Even though our processes were were set to run at the low end of a spec (in order to save those dollars that were a requirement in the lower costs drive) and the statistics were all set to run dead center in the tolerance range. It never made much sense to me that we could produce everything in spec (no complaint for out of tolerance product for size in the 4 years I was there doing QS) yet the indices were all wack because they were offset from center. I have a real fear of statistics, all brought on during these years.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J How to keep MDD certificate valid when legal manufacturer has liquidity problem EU Medical Device Regulations 0
normhowe "The Problem with Quality Management: Process orientation, controllability and zero-defect processes as modern myths" Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 2
M Problem with nonlinear regression Using Minitab Software 12
M Problem Solving in Fiat Automobiles Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 0
R Problem solving activity - Three hours to fix the issue Manufacturing and Related Processes 15
T Formal Q Self Assessment - Problem with assigning Product and Process Customer and Company Specific Requirements 1
NDesouza Go See, Think, Do (GSTD) Problem Solving Activity Food Safety - ISO 22000, HACCP (21 CFR 120) 8
Marc Medical device vulnerability highlights problem of third-party code in IoT devices Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 1
P How far an operator can reach into a machine before it becomes an ergonomic problem CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 5
V Ammeter calibration - Measuring head (on pic.) problem General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 1
G Problem Resolution Report Monitoring - Customer complaint or PRR as general motors use Customer Complaints 12
S Relationship between IEC 62304 problem resolution and ISO 13485 IEC 62304 - Medical Device Software Life Cycle Processes 8
qualprod Add new action plans in CA, while waiting effectiveness - Same problem reappears ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
bryan willemot Documenting past problem history for fasteners for AS9100 Rev D AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
Marc Problem Opening Attachments Elsmar Cove Forum Suggestions, Complaints, Problems and Bug Reports 4
Marc Problem with 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) sub-forum link - 2 May 2019 Elsmar Cove Forum Suggestions, Complaints, Problems and Bug Reports 1
K Does anyone have a copy of a GM 5 Phase Problem solving form Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 1
D Training for AS13000 - Problem Solving Requirements for Suppliers Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 14
eule del ayre Manual Inventory System - Problem is discipline of the employees Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 7
G When preventative action is prohibited by cost in 8D problem solving Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 1
G When preventative action is prohibited by cost in 8D problem solving Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 8
Marc vBulletin to Xenforo Import Problem Reports 28180928 Elsmar Cove Forum Suggestions, Complaints, Problems and Bug Reports 25
M Training in 8D Problem Solving as a Preventive Action? Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 9
A 5Why vs. 8D - Problem Solving Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 19
K Documented problem solving and documented error-proofing - IATF 16949 10.2.3 & 10.2.4 Internal Auditing 7
V Query on PA66+GF15% - Color variation (Natural to Yellowish) problem Manufacturing and Related Processes 20
J Can someone help me get the UCL AND LCL for this problem? Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 2
P Problem with IATF 16949 Clause 7.2.3 Requirements (Internal Auditor Competency) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
K Problem with Cable Composed of Coextruded Litz Wire and Tube Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
W Documented Problem-Solving for Automotive IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
R Review of "Key Data" for contract labs, but SOP doesn't define "key data". Problem? Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 2
M Taguchi Loss Function Problem Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
R RoHS Compliance Problem with One Component RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 5
Q Problem Solving Techniques - 5 why or Fishbone diagram ? Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 8
S Problem Solving Database for Each Machine Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
L Suppliers Problem - One of our material suppliers is not ISO certified ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
Y Please help me solve a DOE problem - New Minitab User Using Minitab Software 36
J Should failure mode caused by Fixture problem be into PFMEA? FMEA and Control Plans 2
K Quality Manual Problem Root Cause Analysis Nonconformance and Corrective Action 8
Ron Rompen Unusual problem with Excel - Need some help Excel .xls Spreadsheet Templates and Tools 7
automoto International Problem Solving Guide Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 2
R CQE Exam Problem Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 9
M Internal Audit Findings and Issuance Problem Internal Auditing 4
M Problem Solving: JDI (just do it) vs. A3 vs PDCA Projects Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 1
S Process Owner role in Problem Investigation/Corrective Action Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 9
P Global 8D Problem Solving Training Material Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 1
P Global 8D Problem Solving Example Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 5
Moncia Problem with Corrective Action for Flavor / Fragrance related Customer Returns Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 9
K Peculiar problem with my CSSGB exam with ASQ Six Sigma 1
D FAA 8130-3 Repaired Leather Dress Cover problem Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standards and Requirements 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom