Where in the TS 16949 standard is Yearly PPAP Re-Validation Required

[isabulg]

Hi !

Long time I did not post here, but I think today I need your support (and it is Friday afternoon )..
I have searched already what I could in the Cove, but not easy ..
I also read again ISO/TS and PPAP standards but could not find the answer of my today's question:
"from where exactly this annual PPAP re-submission come from"??

I have a lot of customer Q manuals that are mentioning this, some are even mentioning "according to ISO/TS16949 ..." but can not find exactly from where in the standard ???

Thanks in advance !

 

[Stijloor]

Re: PPAP re-validation - help

ISO/TS 16949:2009 does NOT include a requirement for annual re-submission.

All the Standard states is this:

7.3.6.3 Product approval process

The organization shall conform to a product and manufacturing process approval procedure recognized by the customer.

NOTE Product approval should be subsequent to the verification of the manufacturing process.

This product and manufacturing process approval procedure shall also be applied to suppliers.

Your customer dictates what PPAP submissions are required and possibly re-submissions.

Again, ISO/TS does not mention this. Talk to the Customer if needed.

Stijloor.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: PPAP re-validation - help

Hi !

Long time I did not post here, but I think today I need your support (and it is Friday afternoon )..
I have searched already what I could in the Cove, but not easy ..
I also read again ISO/TS and PPAP standards but could not find the answer of my today's question:
"from where exactly this annual PPAP re-submission come from"??

I have a lot of customer Q manuals that are mentioning this, some are even mentioning "according to ISO/TS16949 ..." but can not find exactly from where in the standard ???

Thanks in advance !

The reason you can't find it is that it isn't there. TS16949 doesn't specifically require PPAP itself, let alone annual submissions. There's also nothing about it in the PPAP manual itself (4th Edition).

When there is a requirement for annual submission, it's coming from a customer, and perhaps a customer who mistakenly thinks it's a general requirement. If you have a customer who cites TS16949 as the basis for the requirement, you can ask to be directed to the place in the standard they're referring to. They won't be able to find it either.

 

[isabulg]

Re: PPAP re-validation - help

Many thanks for your quick replies ! So I was not so stupid as I thought
I always re-negotiated this requirement because for our business, this is quite difficult to maintain (qualification is lasting already 6 to 9 months ...). But I never asked myself where it did come

Enjoy your week end !

 

[Howard Atkins]

Whilst not actually PPAP an annual layout contains the major product aspects of PPAP

 

[Legomoc]

Howard,
You are right about the annual layout inspection. There is also the product audit. But a re-submission to the customer of PPAP is not linked to that. Registration and available for review only.

 

[Howard Atkins]

A lot of people say "according to ISO/TS16949 ..." with out justification.

If the customer asks and it is in his manual then you agreed to this in your contract which invariable refers to documents that most companies dont read as they (the contracts) are stuck with marketing.

 

[JaxQC]

My guess is that it may be a selective interpretation on their part going back to the PPAP book. (my ref is from the 4th ed, page 14, section 3.1.6). Customer Notification req’d PPAP “Product produced after the tooling has been inactive for volume production for 12 months or more”. The key word for me is that it only applies if “inactive” for 12mo. Their eyes may be only seeing the 1 year.

That said, I also had an annual layout to cover tool wear and problems not covered under the per normal audit checks. It was internal, not submitted to Customer, but more than once it stopped them in their tracks. I’d get a call about a potential problem and after “Well we just completed an annual, full dimensional audit, here’s the info”…they never called back. For what it’s worth.

 

[Sturmkind]

The requirement for annual layout was in the customer specific sections of AIAG QS9000 manual where Ford (pg. 67), and Chrysler (page 62) required an annual physical part layout, GM did not but required material certifications and performance evidence be less than 1 year old (GP11).

As other posters have pointed out these requirements were erroneously attributed to ISO/TS.

 

[Stijloor]

The requirement for annual layout was in the customer specific sections of AIAG QS9000 manual where Ford (pg. 67), and Chrysler (page 62) required an annual physical part layout, GM did not but required material certifications and performance evidence be less than 1 year old (GP11).

As other posters have pointed out these requirements were erroneously attributed to ISO/TS.

Here in this Forum, we (Moderators) often deal with (assumed) requirements that do not exist.
Assumptions are often fueled by the ignorant and then they become reality.

Stijloor.