The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  4.9.3 Modified Process Control Requirements

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   4.9.3 Modified Process Control Requirements
Forum Contributor

Posts: 11
From:Monterrey, Nuevo Le—n, Mˇxico

posted 28 May 1999 11:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ovidiomolina   Click Here to Email ovidiomolina     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm confused about this clause. I can't understand if it is refering to cpk's or it is taking about some product characteristic in particular.

Can anybody out there explain to me ?


IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA

posted 01 June 1999 08:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think this means - say you have a supplier who cannot keep a high Cpk because of a tight tolerance (or whatever excuse / reality). Then they have to have a tight inspection in the Control Plan compared to what they would have if they could hold a high Cpk.

IP: Logged

Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
Registered: Jun 99

posted 07 June 1999 06:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lassitude   Click Here to Email Lassitude     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does this make sense to anyone else?

IP: Logged

Forum Contributor

Posts: 111
From:Kane, PA 16735

posted 07 June 1999 11:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Batman   Click Here to Email Batman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think Marc is correct. I also think that this section is a "out" for customers to specify something that may not be stated elsewhere, such as a generic performance specification or tolerance on a drawing.

We have had a couple of occasions where there was a new requirement for testing that was a result of a failure long after a product had been in production. Example, a customer is suddenly experiencing breakage, so we instituted a break test sample. This was added to our control plan. It is not necessarily stated anywhere on the customer's drawing or specifications, however.

If there is some requirement, such as a higher Cpk, you should have addressed this in APQP, including a feasibility review, anyway. So requirements above the minimums in QS9000 and APQP and Control Plan manuals should already have been addressed.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA

posted 09 June 1999 12:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is the problem of reality vs APQP. Supplier goes thru APQP and just about PPAP when the capability run is done, it's discovered that the measurement method of a characteristic isn't valid or the tolerance is taken up in measurement uncertainty. All the early theory simply didn't prove out or someone forgot something (yes, we are human and human systems do fail rom time to time). So - do we get the engineers to do an 11th hour engineering change to open up the tolerance? Or do we allow the supplier to carry a low Cpk with 'special' receiving inspection? Do we make a hard gage for the check or do we write a CMM program? Will an optical comparator be a better choice?

The bottom line is you continue to try to solve the problems and get on with the show. Reality is a pain in the ass. Systems developed to comply with the APQP 'philosophy' are, in my opinion, a positive control factor - This is to say I have a firm belief in defined design systems and in the APQP philosophy, if you will, as a basic control of 'holistic' and coordinated product evolution.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!

Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!