TS 16949 Clause 7.3.2.3 when the Customer has no Special Characteristics

[basselope]

... the Customer has the final say whatever the guidelines are and Auditors are bound by Customer requirements.

For me, that is the whole point. If my customer does not designate an SC and does not require their suppliers to do so, what exact standard is the supplier violating?

I have been asking my customers for statements in this regard. In one particular case the reply was "You can do it if you want to, but I don't ever want to see it."

 

[basselope]

2nd reply received. I don't have explicit permission to share a name, so I will only say that this person works in Supplier Technical Assistance at Ford. The answer appears to be Ford-centric, but I have asked this person if they would be willing to render an opinion over the broader application of the issue:

Customer specific requirements are requirements. It appears to me to be an academic question as to whether a base document requires something when the Customer specifies it quite clearly.

The Ford Customer Specifics state:

11 Initial Process Studies (General) (PPAP section 2.2.11.1)
Designation of characteristics for demonstration of process capability
Where the part does not have any Ford-designated special characteristics, the organization shall control part quality through the designation of appropriate control characteristics, including them in the Control Plan and demonstrating process capability on those organization-designated control characteristics.

This says to me that where Ford does not specify special characteristics, then the organization (the supplier) must designate appropriate characteristics for appropriate identified controls. All parts are required to meet all characteristic requirements all the time, so designating these ?control? characteristics should not be a burden. The controls should be no more than what was already planned for the characteristics.

Yes, initial process capability demonstration is required for those characteristics and ongoing control (whatever is appropriate) is required, since they are required to be on the control plan, per the customer specifics.

If SPC is not the best appropriate control on-going then SPC is not the best control, however, an appropriate method of control is required.

I believe this pretty well sums up the approach most of us here feel is a sensible one. As far as I am concerned, this language could be cut-and-pasted into the reference manuals with only the word "Ford" being replaced with the word "Customer".

 

[Andrews]

If customer does not identify any special characteristics, the organisation is expected to identify special characteristics based on tightest tolerance available or based on rejections.

 

[Chennaiite]

Customer specific requirements are requirements. It appears to me to be an academic question as to whether a base document requires something when the Customer specifies it quite clearly.

The Ford Customer Specifics state:

11 Initial Process Studies (General) (PPAP section 2.2.11.1)
Designation of characteristics for demonstration of process capability
Where the part does not have any Ford-designated special characteristics, the organization shall control part quality through the designation of appropriate control characteristics, including them in the Control Plan and demonstrating process capability on those organization-designated control characteristics.

This says to me that where Ford does not specify special characteristics, then the organization (the supplier) must designate appropriate characteristics for appropriate identified controls. All parts are required to meet all characteristic requirements all the time, so designating these ?control? characteristics should not be a burden. The controls should be no more than what was already planned for the characteristics.

Yes, initial process capability demonstration is required for those characteristics and ongoing control (whatever is appropriate) is required, since they are required to be on the control plan, per the customer specifics.

If SPC is not the best appropriate control on-going then SPC is not the best control, however, an appropriate method of control is required.

May be I am wrong, but I find lot of subjectivity in these statements. What is appropriate control is for anybodys guess. It appears the Customer specifics quoted from Ford is not any different from the PPAP's.

 

[basselope]

If customer does not identify any special characteristics, the organisation is expected to identify special characteristics based on tightest tolerance available or based on rejections.

This may be a good approach for certain products and/or a requirement of certain customers, however I can not find any requirement in the AIAG/TS rules that support this statement.

May be I am wrong, but I find lot of subjectivity in these statements. What is appropriate control is for anybodys guess. It appears the Customer specifics quoted from Ford is not any different from the PPAP's.

I don't disagree that there is still room for interpretation in the statement from the Ford manual, but I do believe it goes a step further in clarifying that suppliers are not automatically required to pick a characteristic and designate it as SC.

 

[basselope]

A slight update to my most recent response (see text in blue):

2nd reply received.Customer specific requirements are requirements. It appears to me to be an academic question as to whether a base document requires something when the Customer specifies it quite clearly.

The Ford Customer Specifics state:

11 Initial Process Studies (General) (PPAP section 2.2.11.1)
Designation of characteristics for demonstration of process capability
Where the part does not have any Ford-designated special characteristics, the organization shall control part quality through the designation of appropriate control characteristics, including them in the Control Plan and demonstrating process capability on those organization-designated control characteristics.

This says to me that where Ford does not specify special characteristics, then the organization (the supplier) must designate appropriate characteristics for appropriate identified controls. All parts are required to meet all characteristic requirements all the time, so designating these ?control? characteristics should not be a burden. The controls should be no more than what was already planned for the characteristics.

Yes, initial process capability demonstration is required for those characteristics and ongoing control (whatever is appropriate) is required, since they are required to be on the control plan, per the customer specifics.

If SPC is not the best appropriate control on-going then SPC is not the best control, however, an appropriate method of control is required.

Update: the tier 1 supplier must meet the requirements of its customer(s). It is the responsibility of the tier 1 supplier to cascade those requirements to the sub-tier. I do not know how an auditor can specify (if I understand correctly) that a tier 4 supplier must meet a requirement that is not specified to it and the supplier is not aware of. The issues lay with the tier 1/2/3 apparently for not cascading the requirements.