Who has Design Responsibility in this Scenario - Rubber Parts Manufacturer

[Miner]

A rubber parts manufacturing organization is provided product characteristics such as rubber type, hardness, elongation, colour by the customer. The organization, in turn, finalizes the rubber composition formula through a series of hits and trials which can meet the customer provided product characteristics. Is the organization product design responsible?

What is the specific product?

 

[Rameshwar25]

Rameshwar25:

Can you make a change to the product characteristics without the customer's approval?

You might be design responsible for the manufacturing process. I would question if you are design responsible for the product.

ofcourse, the supplier can not change the specification but can change raw material composition to meet the product characteristics.

What is the specific product?

Miner, the question is not related to one supplier. As an auditor, I have audited many rubber molded parts manufacturing organizations and everywhere I accepted their exclusion of clause 7.3 of ISO 9001:2008. Recently during one audit, my colleague, who is ISO/TS 16949:2009 auditor asked me to think whether such companies were design responsible or not? My opinion is that since they can not change product characteristics without customer approval, they all are non-design responsible companies. My colleague says that raw material composition is also one of the product characteristics which is directly in control of such suppliers, these suppliers are design responsible and clause 7.3 should be applicable.

Regards
Rameshwar

 

[Jim Wynne]

ofcourse, the supplier can not change the specification but can change raw material composition to meet the product characteristics.

Miner, the question is not related to one supplier. As an auditor, I have audited many rubber molded parts manufacturing organizations and everywhere I accepted their exclusion of clause 7.3 of ISO 9001:2008. Recently during one audit, my colleague, who is ISO/TS 16949:2009 auditor asked me to think whether such companies were design responsible or not? My opinion is that since they can not change product characteristics without customer approval, they all are non-design responsible companies. My colleague says that raw material composition is also one of the product characteristics which is directly in control of such suppliers, these suppliers are design responsible and clause 7.3 should be applicable.

Regards
Rameshwar

How can raw material composition be in the direct control of a supplier if the supplier has no authority to change it? The compounding is a manufacturing process that's not substantively different from any other manufacture of a product in accordance with customer requirements.

 

[Rameshwar25]

How can raw material composition be in the direct control of a supplier if the supplier has no authority to change it? The compounding is a manufacturing process that's not substantively different from any other manufacture of a product in accordance with customer requirements.

Jim, the compounding is done on part of suppliers. Rubber compounding typically is mixing of rubber and other chemicals. Although, the suppliers use formula to finalize percentage of different chemicals to get the customer-provided characteristics, usually you will find a lot of difference in raw material compositions of two different suppliers, though the final part from both suppliers will meet all the product characteristics. That is why i wrote that raw material composition is in directly control of suppliers.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Jim, the compounding is done on part of suppliers. Rubber compounding typically is mixing of rubber and other chemicals. Although, the suppliers use formula to finalize percentage of different chemicals to get the customer-provided characteristics, usually you will find a lot of difference in raw material compositions of two different suppliers, though the final part from both suppliers will meet all the product characteristics. That is why i wrote that raw material composition is in directly control of suppliers.

I understand. But to reiterate, the compounding of the material is no different from meeting other customer specifications--dimensional, e.g.--for a finished part.

 

[ncwalker]

Here's an easy litmus test.....

If the customer has taken your print of the part, wrapped his title block around the image of your part print and released it in his system, you're probably design responsible.

If he has given you a print and said "make this" then he is.

 

[vanputten]

I wonder about the posters approach to posting a question and then on posting #12 we find out the poster has an opinion on the question. It would have been nice to know in posting #1 what you wrote in posting #12. I feel sort of tricked or duped.

Now, back to the question. The first problem with the debate is the lack of operational definition on design. I alluded to this in my posting #5.

There are many types of design - product, process, manufacturability, environmental, end of life, etc.

I think you and your colleague are debating two different types of design responsibility - process (compounding) Vs product (the final thing provided to the customer that has characteristics the supplier cannot change.)

 

[Miner]

There is no blanket statement that covers all contingencies. Take some of the following examples from my past experience (15 years in automotive rubber manufacturing).

• Automotive weatherstrips: The OEM gave us drawings of the weatherstrip with performance criteria. Dimensions were limited to gross characteristics such as length. No detail dimensions were provided. We designed the physical details and formulated the rubber compounds in order to meet the functional requirements. We designed the extrusion dies and the molds to manufacture the product.
• Vibration Isolation (e.g., engine mounts, bushings, suspension links, etc.): The customer gave us drawings of performance criteria and key dimensions of mounting surfaces to mating parts. We designed all details and the rubber formulation to meet these criteria. We designed all tooling, inserts, stampings and weldments.
• O-rings: The customer gave us drawings of performance criteria and physical dimensions. We designed the rubber formulations and tooling to meet these criteria.

In all cases, the design responsibility was shared to varying degrees. The OEM held us accountable for design related field issues. I remember one example where we proposed a weatherstrip with a vinyl base that was color matched to the interior trim. The customer approved it, but shortly after launch it became apparent that when the weatherstrip was exposed to the hot sun, it softened and fell off the sheet metal flanges. You better believe that the OEM held us design responsible for the cost of replacing the entire fleet.

I was involved with almost every rubber component used in a car, and was at least partially design responsible in the eyes of the OEM for all of them.

 

[somashekar]

Design and development is always a shared responsibility. A rubber part in an automotive can be designed and developed by a tier 1/tier 2 supplier, but in the eye of the customer, every part is designed and developed by the automotive manufacturer.
An so the responsibility goes.
In a technical situation that comes under audit scope, you are design responsible. But you have no absolute authority, as you do not supply the rubber part directly to the end customer. In most business to business supply chain, design becomes shared responsibility.

 

[vanputten]

Hello Someshakar

I couldn't disagree more with "but in the eye of the customer, every part is designed and developed by the automotive manufacturer."

Then why does TS 16949 have section 7.3?

All of my organization's parts are clearly designed by us, the manufacturer, and customers agree.