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

#21
Bill Ryan said:
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
True, there is no major difference in your case vs bryons; and since Bryon clarified his conditions I don't see an issue with nonconforming material. If you re-target the process there may be a slight change in results, which may or may not need to be addressed.
In Bryons case, since the weight of the material is almost twice the original it may present a problem with the end user.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#22
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?
Dave - I'm struggling with a response to your question. One of the reasons is that we don't have many "appearance" designated parts. We have two parts which get black e-coated but I have not seen a "pigment analysis" requirement in the ASTM standards specified for the parts. I can understand where changing a shade could/should require a customer approval. But staying with my "dreamt up" example regarding a physical property - when we quote a job the quote is based on the design record specifications and not where our process may be targetted (does that make sense?). Typically, when we launch a new product, it is run under "tighter than normal" control because we don't want to "mess up" a PPAP submission. This means that once we are approved, the "tighter than normal" controls are gone and "business as usual" sets in. More times than not that means Cpk indices tend to change to a somewhat lower value. Is the group saying that if the index changes in either direction ("significantly") that I should be ready to submit a PPAP?

In Bryons case, since the weight of the material is almost twice the original it may present a problem with the end user.
Sam - I can also see that a change in weight could/should require a customer approval. I just don't agree that Bryon NEEDS to PPAP this change but that's coming from someone not familiar with his customers' expectations for his product line.

All in all, my main jist is that my customer has given me a design specification (whether uni or bi lateral) and my product will not harm the performance of his product if my part stays within the specification parameters. That allows me to manufacture product ANYWHERE within those specification parameters. If the customer desires a "higher (or lower) performance level", he would need to have the part requoted. I know that sounds a little hardline but the customer can also put us out of business if their "requests" get out of hand.

Let me add a little more fodder - I submit a PPAP with a Gage R&R of 2.5 (% of tol.). If that "slips" to a 6.5 the next time I study the gage, does that require customer notification?

Bill
 

The Taz!

Quite Involved in Discussions
#23
Bill Ryan said:
Let me add a little more fodder - I submit a PPAP with a Gage R&R of 2.5 (% of tol.). If that "slips" to a 6.5 the next time I study the gage, does that require customer notification? Bill
Not any more than a T-Test is required if you move a line and the new Ppk is > 1.67. . . . even if the Cpk or Ppk was 3.0 before.

At 2.5%, the gaging equipment is over-kill anyway.
 
D

D.Scott

#24
Bill - let me try to answer 1 at a time here - First, I am not sure the group has agreed with me on the change of index issue but I stand behind saying if it drops significantly it is a nonconformance according to QS-9000 4.9.2 which clearly states you must maintain the capability or performance as approved via PPAP. The requirement to PPAP such a situation comes from the PPAP Manual (Table 1.3.2) #2 "Correction of a discrepancy on a previously submitted part". You will see in the clarification - A "discrepancy" can be related to: Dimensional or capability issues (amoung other things).
Second, the color example was presented to illustrate the "unofficial change of a spec" based on the customer's expectation or perception. If you supply a color the customer comes to expect that color although it may never be actually specified. If the color changes, the customer can rightfully make the statement that you changed the process.
Third, if a submission is made under tightened process perameters and later loosened, you have again changed the process. Obviously, the degree to which you actually changed would play a big part in this but I contend if the change were big enough to cause a difference in the product, performance, capability, appearance etc then the process was changed enough to notify the customer.
Fourth, on the R&R issue I would say it depends on the requirements of the customer. If part of the contract required your R&R to be less than 5 and you slip to a 6.5 you would obviously have to do a corrective action. I think I would ask "why did it slip?" - are you doing something different in the measurement? If so, you should probably address that with the customer as well.
I look at your statement "If the customer desires a "higher (or lower) performance level", he would need to have the part requoted." and I think - yes, that's exactly what I am saying. If either side wants to make a change in what we already have, it should be through mutual agreement.

Dave
 
#25
Bill Ryan said:
Dave - I'm struggling with a response to your question. One of the reasons is that we don't have many "appearance" designated parts. We have two parts which get black e-coated but I have not seen a "pigment analysis" requirement in the ASTM standards specified for the parts. I can understand where changing a shade could/should require a customer approval. But staying with my "dreamt up" example regarding a physical property - when we quote a job the quote is based on the design record specifications and not where our process may be targetted (does that make sense?). Typically, when we launch a new product, it is run under "tighter than normal" control because we don't want to "mess up" a PPAP submission. This means that once we are approved, the "tighter than normal" controls are gone and "business as usual" sets in. More times than not that means Cpk indices tend to change to a somewhat lower value. Is the group saying that if the index changes in either direction ("significantly") that I should be ready to submit a PPAP?


Sam - I can also see that a change in weight could/should require a customer approval. I just don't agree that Bryon NEEDS to PPAP this change but that's coming from someone not familiar with his customers' expectations for his product line.

All in all, my main jist is that my customer has given me a design specification (whether uni or bi lateral) and my product will not harm the performance of his product if my part stays within the specification parameters. That allows me to manufacture product ANYWHERE within those specification parameters. If the customer desires a "higher (or lower) performance level", he would need to have the part requoted. I know that sounds a little hardline but the customer can also put us out of business if their "requests" get out of hand.

Let me add a little more fodder - I submit a PPAP with a Gage R&R of 2.5 (% of tol.). If that "slips" to a 6.5 the next time I study the gage, does that require customer notification?

Bill
!st para - Yes you should re-PPAP if the process cannot be brought back to original PPAP conditions.

2nd/3rd para - Even unilateral tolerance, at some point have a bi-directional limit. I would be amazed that the manufacturer of Bryons material didn't have a maximum limit. I would be more amazed if it were twice the stated tolerance. The ANSI drafting standards has more on unilateral tolerances.

4th para - Both conditions are within acceptable limits. However the percent of change indicates that something significant has occured.
 
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