Posts: 4
From:Wilson, NC 27893
Registered: Aug 98

posted 28 August 1998 03:25 PM               

---

If one reads this element literally, and I do mean literally, it borders on the absurd. "The supplier shall maintain(or exceed) process capability or performance as approved via PPAP. Should one interpret this to mean if a PPAP is submitted showing a short term capability of 2.0, that a 2.0 would have to be maintained ongoing? This contridicts the PPAP Manual page 8 which talks about a lower Ppk of 1.33 ongoing as opposed to a 1.67 which is required for ppap submission. Our registrar is hanging on the literal and I have a feeling we are being hung period. I would like someone elses intrepretation. Thanks, Mike

IP: Logged

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 28 August 1998 06:32 PM               

---

The PPAP manual is a guide and as such is not auditable so you have to stick with the QS9000 book as the focus of your compliance

I'm not savvy on how they are interpreting the capability aspect of your question. I'll take a looksie if I get a few minutes this weekend and see what the books say.

Anyone else want to field an opinion on this issue?

IP: Logged

Posts: 21
From:Ipoh, Parak, Malaysia
Registered:

posted 02 September 1998 07:17 AM               

---

I flip through the manual but could not locate that statement. Where exactly does that statement come from?

IP: Logged

Posts: 21
From:Ipoh, Parak, Malaysia
Registered:

posted 02 September 1998 07:42 AM               

---

Disregard my previous message. I found that statement in the Third Ed. I think Cpk is just one of the indicator of process capability.
If your Cpk is 2 as approved via PPAP, which exceeds 1.33. During production your Cpk is 1.7 which also exceeds 1.33. Therefore you are maintaining the Cpk exceeding 1.33 as approved via PPAP.
Does this sound logical?

IP: Logged

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 04 September 1998 04:45 AM               

---

MSHELLY,

Please cite where in the new QS the statement is that contradicts the PPAP manual. I'll look closer at it and give you my read. I think what you are asking is this: "If I submit PPAP with a capability Ppk of 2.0 is that my minimum Ppk through out the life of production?"

IP: Logged

posted 15 September 1998 12:02 PM              

---

A slight correction to what was stated earlier. Since 4.2.4.1 indicates "The supplier shall fully comply with all requirements set forth in the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) manual," I believe this means that the PPAP manual is auditable.

IP: Logged

Posts: 117
From:Auburn, NY
Registered:

posted 15 September 1998 03:38 PM               

---

I'll agree with Chad on this one. If there was one thing that was reiterated time and time again while I was becoming a QS certified auditor, it's that there are 3 documents that make QS-9000: The QSR manual, PPAP, and the QSA. These three document are mandatory. FMEA, APQP, MSA, and SPC are "optional". The way the QSR reads they are mandatory options if there is such a thing.

IP: Logged

Posts: 21
From:Ipoh, Parak, Malaysia
Registered:

posted 15 December 1998 03:17 AM               

---

1) Am I right to say that full PPAP requirements are applicable to suppliers to Ford, GM and Chrysler, but partially (with modification) applicable to party seeking third party registration?
2) Could someone response to MSHELLEY's question? If that (4.9.2)is taken literally, I need to list all Ppk values for different products submitted and and compare them against current values. This is a lot of work. I prefer a fixed value e.g. > 1.33.

IP: Logged

Posts: 35
From:Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:

posted 15 December 1998 06:58 PM               

---

I'm going to agree with what Christian has said. If you look at the document progression chart on page 6 of the third edition, it clearly shouws that the QS9000 manual and PPAP are to "define customer requirements". APQP, FMEA, etc. are listed under "Customer Reference Manual," though this goes against what LRQA recently told a large manufacturer going through a QS9000 certification audit.

IP: Logged

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 16 December 1998 08:42 AM               

---

I think the wording in the PPAP manual is somewhat confusing on page 8. It looks like the Big 3 want to "hedge" a little bit. It's clear that they may not be satisfied with Ppk between 1.33 and 1.67, even though according to their criteria, this assumes that the process is stable. They clearly want Ppk above 1.67. I would say that if your process is submitted with a Ppk of 2.0, then this needs to be maintained throughout the product's production life. It looks like if you submit with a certain Ppk, then that's what the Big 3 (or auditor) expects to see as the ongoing "requirement" for your process. I would take the statement under 4.9.2 as the overriding requirement for Ppk.

IP: Logged

Posts: 1
From:Defiance, Ohio, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 29 January 2001 10:20 AM               

---

There has been several comments on Cpk's in regards to this clause. However, here's my interpretation is this. The clause specifically states "To accomplish this, the supplier shall ensure that the Control Plan and Process Flow Diagram are implemented, including but not limited to, adherence to the specified:" Measuring Technique, Sampling Plans, Acceptance Criteria, and Reaction plans when acceptance criteria is not met. Is this not saying that the above are the indicators of the "process capability or performance"?
I agree that the Control Plans, and the PFD's should meet or exceed the original approved versions submitted with PPAP. To interpret that the Cpk must meet or exceed the level approved via PPAP is a task that I find nearly impossible in our case.
Any thoughts on this interpretation? If I'm missing the boat here, I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how to monitor Cpk's on 1200 different SC's that we currently monitoring.

IP: Logged

posted 22 February 2001 02:56 PM              

---

I thought this issue was dead and burried. We went through a similar battle with our auditors on their interpretation of this requirement. Sounds like you have the same registrar. There should be no problem with this since the IASG came out with their ruling in February of last year:
IASG SANCTIONED QS-9000 INTERPRETATIONS, Copyright 2/29/00. All rights retained by DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors.
Element 4.9 Maintaining Process Control
C7
Maintaining Process Control (4.9.2) (11/1/99)
The intent of this requirement is based on the maintenance of the process and not the level of the indicesâ value. To maintain (or exceed) requires two components:

1.Monitoring of the process over time to verify capability and stability; and
2.If the process is capable and stable, then to verify that the process meets the requirements as described in PPAP

Our "concern" was closed with this ruling.

IP: Logged

Posts: 19
From:Henderson, KY, USA
Registered:

posted 04 April 2001 09:19 AM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Smith:
The PPAP manual is a guide and as such is not auditable

---

I was distinctly under the impression that the PPAP is indeed a requirement (not a guide) and thus is auditable. All other manuals, other than the QS9000 3rd Edition, are reference manuals only and are not auditable.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 04 April 2001 09:44 AM               

---

The PPAP manual was revised in September 1999. If you look at the date of the comment of mine which you cited you will notice it was from 1998. Prior to that I never saw the PPAP manual audited against.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)