Question about "When PPAP is required" - Tier 2 to GM - Fabric Density on Part

B

Bryon

#11
ppap and fabric

Thanks for all of the replies. I believe I will need to clarify a couple of details.

The spec calls for a 36 gpsf MINIMUM material. The 36 gpsf is not a top-end spec requirement. There is no maximum. That being said,we are not sending in non-conforming product.

The original validation was done with the 36 gpsf material....the material we are sending in now, the customer is aware that it exceeds the 36 gpsf minimum requirement, and they are obviously OK with that.

My statement that it makes it easier to purchase stems from the fact that we only have one material on the floor to deal with, not two. It makes it easier to purchase and handle one material, rather than two....of differenet densities. Availability is not an issue.

Certainly, I am not considering an un-ethical action, nor do I intend to violate the standard. Merely asking the opinions of those far more well-versed than I

Thanks
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
D

D.Scott

#12
Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying there is anything unethical here and said I refrained from going there because I didn't want that implied.

What I am pointing out is that there are specific times when a customer SHALL be notified of a change. IMHO this is one of them. It is then up to the customer to decide if he wants a re-submission and/or a contract review.

I stand by the statement that the only way to resolve any issue is to present the absolute facts and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes the benefits earned by being up-front far outweigh the alternatives.

Dave
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
#13
D.Scott said:
Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying there is anything unethical here and said I refrained from going there because I didn't want that implied.

What I am pointing out is that there are specific times when a customer SHALL be notified of a change. IMHO this is one of them. It is then up to the customer to decide if he wants a re-submission and/or a contract review.

I stand by the statement that the only way to resolve any issue is to present the absolute facts and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes the benefits earned by being up-front far outweigh the alternatives.

Dave
Now I feel better . . .and we ARE on the same page. . .
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#14
ralphsulser said:
I agree with Taz's comment, however an abrupt change may be noticed by your customer and open you to a complaint because suddenly the product is different, and inconsistent. Maybe a gradual change with monitoring, or go ahead and PPAP it. JMO and 2 cents.
I agree that you need to inform the customer,and re PPAP if he requires this.
The most important aspect as I see it is to retain the trust of the customer, a scenario that I can see is that the line workers see the difference and raise this issue to their supervisors and it goes up the line.

Bryon said:
The spec calls for a 36 gpsf MINIMUM material. The 36 gpsf is not a top-end spec requirement. There is no maximum. That being said,we are not sending in non-conforming product.

The original validation was done with the 36 gpsf material....the material we are sending in now, the customer is aware that it exceeds the 36 gpsf minimum requirement, and they are obviously OK with that.
You are right and wrong, the original spec is a minimum but if in the PPAP submission you submitted material certification then this certification is no longer correct. You in effect changed the specification by providing a "better" product.
The part in my opinion is non conforming to your PPAP submission and this must be corrected.
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#15
Howard Atkins said:
You are right and wrong, the original spec is a minimum but if in the PPAP submission you submitted material certification then this certification is no longer correct. You in effect changed the specification by providing a "better" product.
The part in my opinion is non conforming to your PPAP submission and this must be corrected.
I really tried my best to stay out of this, but........

I have a minimum tensile requirement of 200 ft/lbs. I submit a PPAP that shows a mean of 300 ft/lbs. I decide to retarget my process to 250 ft/lbs. (for whatever reason). Am I going to PPAP that - NO. The change has not affected customer requirements for fit, form, function, performance, and/or durability. I guess I don't see where Bryon's scenario is any different and I don't see where that decision is unethical.

:2cents:

Bill
 
D

DDaenen1

#16
I am sorry Bill but i absolutely disagree with you and this because:

- your performance measurement data will change if this tensile is a specified requirement.
- Maybe this metric is an SC, your capability calcs will change
- The customer may have adapted other involved components to match with the current tensile strength value for assemling, assembly validation or other purposes. In case an issue occurs, it may come up during a root cause analysis.
- It may be highlighted during an annual PPAP layout review.

Is it worth bypassing the system and get yourself in one of the above situations? I dont think so. And as i wrote earlier in this thread, there are enough ways to ensure that you can keep some of the saving in case the customer would want a chunk of it.
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#17
DDaenen1 said:
I am sorry Bill but i absolutely disagree with you and this because:

- your performance measurement data will change if this tensile is a specified requirement.
- Maybe this metric is an SC, your capability calcs will change
- The customer may have adapted other involved components to match with the current tensile strength value for assemling, assembly validation or other purposes. In case an issue occurs, it may come up during a root cause analysis.
- It may be highlighted during an annual PPAP layout review.

Is it worth bypassing the system and get yourself in one of the above situations? I dont think so. And as i wrote earlier in this thread, there are enough ways to ensure that you can keep some of the saving in case the customer would want a chunk of it.
- My "performance measurement data" changes constantly. The design specification doesn't change.
- SC or not, the capability index changes constantly. Are you saying you expect to see the same index every time you do a study?
- If my customer "adapts" other components to work to a different specification and hasn't changed my design specification, he doesn't have a leg to stand on - IMO. His assembly was designed for a certain performance level. That "design level" was conveyed (and contracted!) on a part drawing which has a MINIMUM tensile requirement. As long as I "capably" meet that minimum, I have met the design intent.
- I don't understand this question. If, during a PPAP review, the customer sees a different capability index on my current production, higher or lower, but still capable - what is he going to do?

I just don't see where I'm "bypassing" anything.

I seem to remember a similar discussion in another thread and I don't think I won anyone over in that one either :frust:

Bill
 
D

DDaenen1

#18
Bill Ryan said:
- If my customer "adapts" other components to work to a different specification and hasn't changed my design specification, he doesn't have a leg to stand on - IMO. His assembly was designed for a certain performance level. That "design level" was conveyed (and contracted!) on a part drawing which has a MINIMUM tensile requirement. As long as I "capably" meet that minimum, I have met the design intent.
I agree with you but isnt the whole question based on the fact that Bryons company doesnt want to report this change in material due to the saving that is involved? Even if the customer doesnt have any leg to stand on, the change will be exposed and thus most likely the involved saving will be on the table too.
 
D

D.Scott

#19
Bill, even if you don't win anyone over, please never stop posting stuff like this. We need both sides to have any kind of decent discussion. This scenario comes up a lot and the points you make do really make a lot of sense.

I consider QS-9000 4.9.2 (Maintaining Process Control) and the statement "The supplier shall maintain (or exceed) process capability or performance as approved via PPAP. The IASG ruled on this some time ago stating although this wasn't a numerical value the process characteristics shall remain the same. If you reduce the tensile strength from what it was at PPAP, IMHO you have changed a characteristic of your process which would require notification to your customer. This doesn't mean I am right - it is only my opinion that this is what the requirement is.

What if you were to submit a sample based on a minimum and to "impress" the customer you far exceeded the minimum. The customer, after testing in their facility, chooses your quote and asks for a PPAP which you do the same as your samples. Later, for whatever reasoning you have you start supplying a material at the minimum. The customer questions this saying they want it the way you had been sending it and they don't like what you are sending now. Is the customer justified in their comment?

Use the same theme but substitute paint for the material. The original quote and PPAP called for you to paint your product with "green" paint which you did. You find later that you can buy the same paint at half price which will save you hundreds. Problem is, the paint is a slightly lighter shade of green. The customer sees the difference and asks for his "correct color" back - the one you established at PPAP. How would you handle that?

My point is, you may have a spec when you quote but if you raise the bar and have it approved at PPAP, the customer has the right to expect that level of performance, quality, or whatever for the rest of the contract. Any changes would need to be communicated to the customer.

Dave
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
#20
D.Scott said:
Bill, even if you don't win anyone over, please never stop posting stuff like this. We need both sides to have any kind of decent discussion. This scenario comes up a lot and the points you make do really make a lot of sense. Dave
Hey gang. . . if it KEEPS coming up. . . I guess nobody has really gotten to the heart of the matter yet.

After I looked back at the original posts, I think that:
1) PPAP the change
2) IF this move is improving margin, then I am all for it. There will be additional resources available.
3) As Dave says, let the chips fall where they may. . . if the customer determines that there is a savings to be had and wants a piece of the pie . . share. You WILL have satisfied THAT customer beyond expectations.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S APQP, PPAP and PSW Question from a Rookie APQP and PPAP 4
J Prior Notice of Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change - PPAP Requirements Question APQP and PPAP 13
J PPAP Requirements Question APQP and PPAP 4
E Question about AIAG PPAP Third Edition APQP and PPAP 2
J Plastic Injection Molding Mold Change - PPAP Process Question APQP and PPAP 8
J Microsoft Access Integrated Database Question - PPAP Module Software Quality Assurance 13
R Sister Plant PPAP Question - Can we hold the PPAP paperwork and not send it to them? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
lanley liao Question regarding the calibration of monitoring and measure equipment. Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 0
C Gauge R&R Question Using Minitab Software 1
J IATF 16949 Internal Audit question - Auditor's responsibility Internal Auditing 6
K Question on MDR classification EU Medical Device Regulations 4
D Question on equipment - when to use reference only or research only stickers ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
D Work Instruction Question ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 5
M Clinical Decision Support Software Question 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
John C. Abnet VDA 6.3 - Question 7.3 - "blocking of parts" VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 6
D Approved supplier list - Distributors question ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
D Equipment Register and PM question ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
D Question regarding "storage and distribution" ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
D Calibration tolerance question using Pipettes Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
D Question regarding customer feedback process ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
D Equipment Register related question ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
S Study sign off question / responsibilities ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
S Qualification question - ISO 13485 - Setting up a small lab Reliability Analysis - Predictions, Testing and Standards 2
M Question for Auditors - "Off the Record" Conversation? General Auditing Discussions 14
D Question regarding ECO process, specifically for Life Science products and defining form fit and function ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
R Accelerated Aging - Creating test samples - Implantable medical device Question Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
A Question on Authorized Representative in Malaysia Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 3
D Limited Scope for second site Question? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
I ISO 2233:2000 Question - Medical Device Shipping/Transportation Validation Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
Anonymous16-2 Labeling Question (Dietary Supplements/Food) Pharmaceuticals (21 CFR Part 210, 21 CFR Part 211 and related Regulations) 1
T Question for: Cg & Cgk calculation General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
N ASL Question for GitHub ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
hogheavenfarm GDT Flatness measurement question Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 10
A Question on ISO 14001:2015 - Are annual audits required? ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 11
dinaroxentool Question about FDA Classification of a Device 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
J Another DFAR question 252.225-7009 AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 0
F Conflict Mineral Smelter Question RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 8
R NRTL - Scope Question - Off-the-Shelf Plug In IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 0
D API 6A Certification Question Oil and Gas Industry Standards and Regulations 4
dinaroxentool Question about qualification as a medical device or accessory in Europe EU Medical Device Regulations 2
R DHR question: Traceability of components ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
C MDR - Question around software accesories EU Medical Device Regulations 2
K My question is, what/when is a nonconformity? Therefore what requires an NCR? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
Watchcat Authoritative References about the Research Question? Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 0
T Question about Quality Department employee position titles Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 10
N Question on creepage/clearance requirements for HF Active Accessories for 2nd edition 60601-1 IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 1
J Question: How to create an IMDS RoHS, REACH, ELV, IMDS and Restricted Substances 3
K Question on whether IEC 60601-2-62 standard is applied IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 4
B QMS question in regards to multiple medical devices/products and N/A activities Other Medical Device Related Standards 12
C NB approval - Basic question about Notified Bodies and their role EU Medical Device Regulations 10

Similar threads

Top Bottom