Supplier shall notify GM - II.3.3 Customer Notification of Supplier Initiated Changes

[Sporty]

We are having a disagreement with a specific GM plant on interpretatation for the following in the 3rd Edition PPAP manual.
Page 35, II.3.4 "for item 1, table I.3.3, the supplier shall notify GM per II.3.3 Customer Notification of Supplier Initiated Changes."
If you look at table I.3.3, item 1 (GM specific instructions) it reads "Changes to component level drawings, manufactured internally or manufactured by subcontractors, that do not impact the design record for the product supplied to the Customer (changes do not affect customer fit, form, function, durability or performance requirements).
Table II.3.3, item 1 (GM specific) states "The supplier shall review the proposed change with the procuring division prior to implementation to obtain concurrence per the divisions local practice".
The problem is this, this specific GM plant interprets this as any corrective action taken by us (8D) means we must notify them and they will decide if a re-PPAP is necessary. We are saying corrective action does not meet the requirements and should be dealt with in the normal corrective action process.
Has anyone else had this problem with GM, or any advice on how to handle this? We could be re-PPAPing daily if they insist on this interpretation.
Help!

 

[Al Dyer]

Sporty,

My first thought is with yours, that you don't need to submit a new PPAP for each corrective action you perform.

I say this with caution because I would like to research further.

And no, I have never seen or heard of this requirement or interpretation. I've been in automotive for 23 or so years and find it hard to believe that a GM plant would want a PPAP for a corrective action unless there is a major change to the process.

I see you are from Ontario, are you supplying Oshawa plants 1 or 2?

More later.

ASD...

 

[Sporty]

I've actually e-mailed AIAG and asked for their interpretation. We do supply GM Oshawa, but the actual plant that wants the PPAP for corrective action is Fairfax.
Thanks for your help.

 

[Marc]

As much as I would like to give you a clear answer, I can't. It has been a couple of years since I have done any work for a GM supplier and a number of years since I did any work dorectly with GM.

However, my experience has been that when an 8-D indicates a process or design change is necessary - no matter how small - the customer has to be notified. I used to prepare a specific proposal for what, if anything, I believed would be 'appropriate' in so far as re-doing the PPAP in part or in whole. Typically the customer SQA would accept the proposal.

-> We could be re-PPAPing daily if they insist on this
-> interpretation.

Surely you're not doing that many 8-Ds! Can you give an example of an 8-D where you believe the customer does not have to be notified?

 

[Sporty]

We aren't doing 8Ds to that specific plant daily, but we supply over 60 OEM's worldwide, with over 900 part numbers being shipped out the door daily. Unfortunately, we do get our share of non-conformances.
It also seems the OEM's are getting extra tough with their supplier base these days, so it's become a big stuggle with the new expectations.
The OEM's would receive a copy of the 8D (or PRR) which I would consider their notification. Also, if our corrective action is something like installing a sensor, or some other poka yoke, (go-no go gage), I don't consider that requiring the new PPAP.
It's a difficult situation, it opens the door to all plants to start wanting PPAPs based on corrective actions.
Thanks very much to all for the feedback. I'm anxious to see what AIAG comes back with.

 

[Marc]

You are going to have non-conformances. That's life. But - not every nonconformance requires an 8-D. And in many cases the 8-D can be brief. This said, it is quite apparent that more and more companies are requiring an 8-D for just about everything - whether it deserves one or not. Corrective Action, particularly in the automotive industry, is becoming more and more a part of the 'required' every day business processes - the same as internal auditing. How many companies can you name who did internal audits prior to ISO or QS registration? For that matter, prior to a customer requiring a formal corrective action, how many companies do you think did them?

The first thing I would do is take a look at what you're getting 8-Ds on. Assuming you're with a large company, categorize and see if you can find related ones. Look, as well, for patterns. No matter what, if you're an automotive supplier, formal 8-Ds are a part of every day life and will increase in importance - not to mention frequency. The Firestone-Ford debacle has helped to ensure this trend will continue.

-> I'm anxious to see what AIAG comes back with.

I'd like to know how long it takes them to respond, if they respond.

 

[Sporty]

Well, the AIAG e-mailed back with their interpretation being that 8Ds do require us notifying the Customer for their decision on whether to re-PPAP or not.
I guess we can only hope the SQE we deal with is a reasonable person.

I sent my question to the AIAG technical question group for Quality, and they replied in one day, I must say I am impressed.

Thanks again for all the feedback everyone.

 

[Marc]

I'm impressed that they replied so quickly!

 

[Sporty]

Just an added note, I spoke with my registrar about this whole issue, he is on our (my) side and doesn't agree with the AIAG reply on the interpretation of the manual.
He has recommended I ask for a formal interpretation and have the committee actual meet to make the final decision. Anyone know how to go about getting that done?