Yet another design question - Customer is asking for a print but we do not do design

K

Kwilson

#1
Sorry to ask another design question, but seaching the forums didn't help me. Here's the situation:

In the past, under QS9000, we excluded design because we don't actually design anything, we manufacture. Recently one of our customers sent us a part and asked us to measure a particular surface on our CMM, and send them a drawing for a part of a certain thinkness that would fit/interface on that surface. We make foam gasket type of materials and usually our customers just send us a drawing and tell us to make it. Now, once the drawing was created, we sent it to them for approvals and signatures and then we proceded with the rest of the APQP/PPAP/FMEA process before production. Does this now make us design responsible, do we have to write this as a process or can it be included in the APQP/PPAP/FMEA process? This is an extremely limited circumstance, and as far as anyone can remember this has only happened once, maybe twice in the company history of 28 years.

Thanks in advance for all of the wonderful and helpful responses.

Kevin
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#2
If the customer owns the design, then the customer is ultimately design-responsible. In other words, if you are making an accommodation to the customer, as opposed to entering into the gasket design business, then in my opinion you do not have design responsibility under ISO (or QS) expectations. Primary control for the drawing in the situation you describe should be the responsibility of the customer, and you should treat it as you do any other customer drawing.
 
T

The Fast One

#3
Kwilson said:
Sorry to ask another design question, but seaching the forums didn't help me. Here's the situation:

In the past, under QS9000, we excluded design because we don't actually design anything, we manufacture. Recently one of our customers sent us a part and asked us to measure a particular surface on our CMM, and send them a drawing for a part of a certain thinkness that would fit/interface on that surface. We make foam gasket type of materials and usually our customers just send us a drawing and tell us to make it. Now, once the drawing was created, we sent it to them for approvals and signatures and then we proceded with the rest of the APQP/PPAP/FMEA process before production. Does this now make us design responsible, do we have to write this as a process or can it be included in the APQP/PPAP/FMEA process? This is an extremely limited circumstance, and as far as anyone can remember this has only happened once, maybe twice in the company history of 28 years.

Thanks in advance for all of the wonderful and helpful responses.

Kevin
As you designed the part you are design repsonsible, but I wouldn't waste my time bothering with apqp AFTER you have designed the part because the tools within apqp are supposed to be used to help during the design, not become the bureaucratic nonsense that only give negative value by 'Designers' who have it imposed upon them by people who have no idea what apqp is..

I'm not sure I understand your question, ppap and fmea is a part of apqp and the design part of apqp would be biased towards the beggining of the process and the manufacturing part would be more biased towards the end of apqp as it progresses to job #1
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#4
The Fast One said:
As you designed the part you are design repsonsible
As I pointed out in my initial post, making an accommodation for a customer doesn not, in itself, make a supplier design responsible. For ISO 9000 purposes, the term applies to companies that do design the products that they make. This means it applies generally to OEMs and not to job shops.
 
T

The Fast One

#5
JSW05 said:
As I pointed out in my initial post, making an accommodation for a customer doesn not, in itself, make a supplier design responsible. For ISO 9000 purposes, the term applies to companies that do design the products that they make. This means it applies generally to OEMs and not to job shops.
Not withstanding the complete and utter tosh that 'Quality' systems spout, if I design a something I am design responsible, part of which means I am accountable if it goes wrong, so, as I pointed in MY original post, don't let all this nonsense get in the way of your responsibilities to give Customers what they want which in turn enables you to stay in business...
 
S

surendro - 2009

#6
Hi,

Designing to be included in the process should be the normal part of the organisation and should precede all its production activities, or an independent service to its clients. But since as you have stated, it is only once in a long while that you did or do it as a courtesy to your customer, therefore, I do not think it needs documentation; especially since the customer after all has finally to accept or reject it before production starts.

Surendro
 
#7
According to ISO 9000 3.4.4 design and development: "set of process that transforms requirements into specified characteristics or into the specification of a product, process or system"

So, the question is whether your activity meets these requirements. If it does, then I think you have just expanded the scope of your business and you can no longer exclude the requirements for 7.3. TS separates product design from process design, and using this definition from 9K, the argument could be made that ISO companies cannot exclude those 7.3 requirements that can be applied to process design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#8
The Fast One said:
Not withstanding the complete and utter tosh that 'Quality' systems spout
You'll note that the OP made reference to QS9000, which is "complete and utter tosh" only if you don't have to satisfy its requirements.

The Fast One said:
if I design a something I am design responsible, part of which means I am accountable if it goes wrong
This is a matter of contract review (oops--there's some more of that 'utter tosh'). You are responsible only if you have not been contractually indemnified.

The Fast One said:
so, as I pointed in MY original post, don't let all this nonsense get in the way of your responsibilities to give Customers what they want which in turn enables you to stay in business
The OP had a legitimate question, and you gave an inaccurate answer. Where is the nonsense?
 
#9
JSW05 said:
This is a matter of contract review (oops--there's some more of that 'utter tosh'). You are responsible only if you have not been contractually indemnified.
We might be talking about two separate things here. IMNSHO, the question is not about "design responsibility", but rather about the “processes … specific to the product:” (ISO 9001 7.1 b). If one of the processes identified, specific to the product, is to develop the specifications of a product, (ISO 9000 3.4.4) then the rules for design (ISO 9001 7.3) must be followed.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#10
db said:
According to ISO 9000 3.4.4.
QS9000 was specifically cited, so my assumption is that QS9000 3rd Edition (1998) is the ruling standard. Quoting from that standard (4.4., page 23):

A supplier is defined as design-responsible if it has the authority to establish a new, or change an existing product specification for any product shipped to a customer.

In the case at hand, there is no evidence that the supplier has the authority to establish a product or change an existing one unilaterally. In other words, according to QS9000, the supplier is not design-responsible in this instance unless there is more to this that we don't know.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
I Yet another 'design clause' twist: Originally developed for in-house use Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
D Yet another torque question... Assembly processes AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
Sidney Vianna And yet another critical view of ISO 9001:2008 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 23
Jim Wynne Yet another reason not to join the ASQ (American Society for Quality) ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 166
Jim Wynne GOOG-411 - Yet another Google feature After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 2
C Reference Guide for Process Auditors - Yet another Process Auditing Tool General Auditing Discussions 1
Sidney Vianna And yet, another CB has their Aerospace Accreditation suspended Registrars and Notified Bodies 16
Watchcat Anyone had an MDR technical file review/audit yet? EU Medical Device Regulations 13
adir88 Amendment 1 of IEC 62366-1 - Details yet? IEC 62366 - Medical Device Usability Engineering 2
Q Audit 1 week away and no agenda from auditor yet IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12
R Clinical validation/investigation in Egypt - Medical Devices sevices that are not marked yet Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 4
supadrai My short yet eventful stint as a regulatory affairs lawyer dude is coming to an end! Career and Occupation Discussions 1
M Has any US Medical Device maker here joined MDSAP yet? Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
C Clause 7.2 with no customers (yet) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
M EN ISO 60601-2-22:2013 hasn't been published in OJEU yet Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 11
V Best CAPA for slip in simple-yet-persistent oversight-review mechanism Nonconformance and Corrective Action 7
W No Contract (MOA) Yet But Execution On Going Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 1
Q Has the update to MDD 93/42/EEC been released yet? CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 9
A Expired CMDCAS Certificate - Registrar has yet to send the new CMDCAS certificate Canada Medical Device Regulations 4
S Have you submitted a Technical File yet? Directive 2007/47/EC CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 10
S Federal Register - Software Reclassification (MDDS) - Final Decision by FDA yet? Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
C Minor NC - NDC of 0.4 yet the system had been accepted with no investigation Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 9
G Is there an AS9100C to AS9100B word for word comparison chart yet? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
Wes Bucey Pico projectors - tried 'em yet? After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 7
L AS9100 Rev C. - Not ready yet (January 2010) AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 18
K Quality Objectives, Small Company, No sales yet... ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
John Broomfield Zombie Requirements - Registrar's auditors have yet to get IAQG-designed training AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
B Has anyone seen a Summary of AS9100C Changes yet? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 6
H OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard yet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Now it is! March 2018 Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 100
A ISO 9001:2008 Assessment - Has anyone been audited yet? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 52
J NADCAP: The NEW Watchdog - Has anyone felt the wrath of NADCAP yet? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 111
I Supplier Dispute Procedure - parts on hold not yet replaced IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
S Has the AIAG published the latest FMEA manual yet? FMEA and Control Plans 2
ScottK Have you played with Google Maps Street View Yet? After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 4
T MSDS Software - Anyone know of any affordable, yet good, stand alone MSDS software? Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 6
M Thermocouple/Furnace Gage R&R - I have yet to find a useful method Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 8
Marc Convection Oven Cooking - If you have one, do you like it? Cooked a turkey yet? Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 17
A Where to get the cheapest yet reliable airline tickets Travel - Hotels, Motels, Planes and Trains 12
waterdog 8.2.4.2 First Article Inspection - No customers require them (yet) - AS9100 Audit AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 9
Claes Gefvenberg Have you upgraded to ISO 14001:2004 yet? ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 26
A ISO implementation - Where or better yet what else should I be doing now ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
O March 5, 2005 ASQ Exams - Anybody get their test results yet? Professional Certifications and Degrees 20
D Do all levels of a PPAP require a GRR study? And is the new PPAP out yet? APQP and PPAP 7
Claes Gefvenberg Have you installed Win XP SP2 yet? Opinions? After Work and Weekend Discussion Topics 37
W Has East met West yet? Perceptions of quality, business practices, system maintenance Philosophy, Gurus, Innovation and Evolution 8
Claes Gefvenberg Had the flu yet? Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 17
J TS 16949 Sanctioned Interpretations yet? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
S ISO TS 16949:2002 - Sanctioned interpretations on the new requirements yet? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 9
Marc NIST Traceability Numbers - Confused Yet? General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 5
M Transferring ISO 17025 from one company to another ISO 17025 related Discussions 1

Similar threads

Top Bottom