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 ForumsThe Cove Forums
  QS-9000
  PPAP can we say waiver? (Page 2)

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

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   PPAP can we say waiver?
Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 2790
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 13 October 1999 08:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry - long week. I couldn't resist needleing a bit!!!

IP: Logged

Batman
Forums Contributor

Posts: 111
From:Kane, PA 16735
Registered:

posted 18 October 1999 06:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Batman   Click Here to Email Batman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It was always my interpretation that the PPAP was simply required, when any of the requirements for PPAP were met, and the waiver from the customer, if you got one, was only insofar as the actual submission to the customer was concerned. The level 3 PPAP should be on file, and the actual level of submission is up to your customer.

I do not have access to the latest version of PPAP, only the second edition.

IP: Logged

David Guffey
Forums Contributor

Posts: 49
From:St. Joseph MI, USA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 26 October 1999 07:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Guffey   Click Here to Email David Guffey     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is a very interesting thread.

We, too, are much like Steve in that we are not a Tier 1 and have no OEM Automotive customers. We are into the category of a level 2 supplier being developed to QS-9000.

Marc is correct in saying that PPAPs are not required if the customer does not make it part of the contract. He is also correct in saying that at least one PPAP must be demonstrated.

However, as a follow-on, let me share what my registrar expects. (We are beyond the stage of submitting a PPAP. We are fully capable and can easily demonstrate that.) Our registrar said that even without requirements for PPAPs, once the stake was driven into the ground that we would be ISO 9002 with QS-9000 endorsement, from that point on with any new product and with exising product in production, the TOOLS of QS-9000 MUST be in place: specifically, FMEAs, Process Flow Charts, and Control Plans to the AIAG format.

I suppose it will be argued that this is not really necessary. No matter. We have accepted the "requirement" and are complying. We are also finding this to be a very good way to do business. It is now the culture.

Once these tools are in place, Level I and Level II PPAPs and some Level 3 PPAPs become non-issues. So, if you have put QS-9000 in your sights, be prepared to play the game or don't bother to cite QS-9000.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forums Contributor

Posts: 79
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 18 November 1999 09:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Whew! What a brutal thread... I'll either make it worse or make it better.

My take is it is all in the scope of your registration.

If your scope will apply QS9000 to automotive customers/products only (oh, and those who "subscribe to this document - QS9000)... forget about PPAP, waivers, sample retention, the whole works.

That is how we are doing it.

Keep in mind, though, even if an auto customer/part may not REQUIRE PPAP, it does not absolve you of the responsibility for having one in place. You would also need to obtain a waiver.

Our registrar had no problem with this "limited scope" approach.

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forums Contributor

Posts: 206
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 18 November 1999 09:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Talk about a sticky subject!!
Our auditor told me if we are not required by the customer to do PPAP, we SHALL have waivers on file. I haven't seen him since I sent all these waivers out to customers, but I can tell you, I had more than a few disgruntled customers by this. One customer actually called me all ticked off and said our auditor is wrong; that they are certified to QS also, and this waiver is not a requirement. And needless to say, he did not return the waiver.
By the way, he does not require PPAP. We have customers who are automotive and who are not, and neither apprecviated the waiver. I was told to read their contract.
I am anxious to let our auditor know.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forums Contributor

Posts: 79
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 19 November 1999 01:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, I agree that it is ludicrous to a degree...

Having recently gone thru pre-assessment, I was stunned to learn that, as an announced "not-design responsible supplier" - the auditor (from BSI, mind you) said that I MUST have waivers from all of the automotive customers "waiving" us as being "not design responsible."

I came right out and said, "that's ridiculous, are you kidding me?!?!?! WE DON'T DO DESIGN, so, am I going to fail a QS audit when they laugh at me and not return a signed waiver?"

His response was "no" because he would accept one-way communication... e.g., evidence that we sent a waiver to the customer and to be sure that we indicate that a non-response will be deemed as acknowledgement and the requirement for design would be considered waived.

I also fear that we risk pissing off the customers... or, asking for more work that we would otherwise have not had to perform... (for example --> if a customer doesn't request a PPAP, and we send a waiver request... they'll suddenly say, "well, if they can do it, we might as well get one..."

ALM

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 19 November 1999 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dawn - be careful the auditor doesn't turn it into a contract review issue if you bring up what the customer stated. I can't imagine sending all those waivers. I would expect the automotive customers to want PPAP, not the waiver. And the non-automotive to not even know what it is. I can certainly see them being pissed off. If it is in the contract, then no need for a waiver.

ALM - WHAT? Doesn't the registrar determine the scope with the company being audited? The only caveat to that is I've heard companies that do design work try for ISO9002 to avoid that element being audited. Trying to be registered the "easiest way possible" But this sounds absurd. The standard certainly doesn't call for it. It is a BSI policy? For so much stuff requiring customer approval, I can't imagine how a one-way communication would even satisfy the requirement if there was one. If I understand you right the letter would read... "Dear customer, Just to verify that we don't design the products we make for you. Your non-response to the memo means you agree..." Thanks for the chuckle.

IP: Logged

David Guffey
Forums Contributor

Posts: 49
From:St. Joseph MI, USA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 19 November 1999 02:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Guffey   Click Here to Email David Guffey     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Laura, did you really mean to say that the registrar determines the scope? I do not know who your registrar is, but that's news to me. The companies I have been with and have taken to registration wrote their (our) own scope statement. Yes, the registrar may have guided to assure it was wording they could live with. But, once the scope statement was in place, the audit occurred in accordance with that scope statement. The registrar then judged for certification based on the stated scope. Let me illustrate: if I do design work, I scope 9001. I get audited to 9001. I either am recommended or not. BUT, I can also elect instead to scope 9002, which then excludes my design capabilities. Likewise, if I weld, I add weldments/welding to the scope. If I have it in there and do no welding, the registrar will not certify me to that scope. (At least, I'd hope not.)
You call it, the registrar audits to it.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 19 November 1999 04:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bad choice of word "determine", I guess, but I think I included..."with the company being audited." In otherwords, they agree to the scope prior to the audit. Pre-assessment would be a good time to make sure it is understood. I agree that the company sets it, and may have to justify it...but not to the extent of asking their customer. Do we agree there?

On the issue of not including design in the scope, even if you design...I've recently heard that this might change -if you design, you are required to go 9001 - no scoping out a potential problem area - maybe it was in relation to ISO9000: 2000? Can't remember. The justification had something to do with instances of companies wanting to change the scope after a "major" in design...Anyone?

IP: Logged

David Guffey
Forums Contributor

Posts: 49
From:St. Joseph MI, USA
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 20 November 1999 12:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Guffey   Click Here to Email David Guffey     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, we do agree the customer does not get involved in setting the scope. (However, the scope statement will help customers and potential customers determine if they even want to look further.)

And, you are right...if and when ISO 9000:2000 becomes gospel, there will be no more switching.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forums Contributor

Posts: 79
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 22 November 1999 11:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As far as scope is concerned... we will have what is termed a "split scope."

That is, for our automotive customer base, we need to fulfill all of the requirements of QS9000... for the balance we are and will continue to be ISO9002. (Though, there are certain elements of QS that will add value across the board, and we will apply them accordingly.)

As for the "one-way communication" issue, it will work because no registrar in their right mind, in an effort to "cultivate a relationship" with their client, is going to penalize you because a customer refuses to sign or otherwise acknowledge your literature. Do you think it would be right for them to do so? I don't know what about it made you chuckle, but those customers do exist. Heck, we have one who just would not send back a signed warrant indicating PPAP approval for YEARS, until recently. What I find worth a chuckle is that, you could search our facility high and low for evidence of design and won't find any. We have 50+ years worth of business history with no design. Humorous? The fact that we have to obtain waivers from customers acknowledging the fact that we do not do design.

It is also important for you to know that we are a customer converter of materials of all kinds. ALL of the parts on which we do work are designed by the customer. We source, convert, (add-value) the materials to their specifications. We do not do design in any way, shape, or form.

To write up us for noncompliance because we don't threaten, travel out to the customer and force them to sign, or otherwise force them to acknowledge our information would be ludicrous.

ALM

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 22 November 1999 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The chuckle was..why would a registrar want you even to spend the time on the one way communication... It would seem the auditor was a little "untrusting" if I'm interpretting the scenario correctly.

Anyway - I'm interested in the split scope. Is that also reflected in your quality manual? ie...this portion applies to automotive customers only... Do you need the customer to "prove" they are not interested in the QS requirements? I'm handling that through contract review right now. Wondered how the auditors handled it.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forums Contributor

Posts: 79
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 24 November 1999 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, definitely not an "untrusting" situation. Reality dictates that an auditor must have "objective evidence." Now, I could tell him that "I tried to get a waiver" all I want. He/She is going to want to see some evidence that I did. So, my faxed waiver with the dated fax reciept in my PPAP book will suffice.

As for the split scope - we do just that... apply the QS Standards to our auto customers/parts only. In the procedures, we use the "italics/non-italics" print to differentiate between the automotive requirements and not (just like the standards differentiate between ISO and QS.) Certainly, there are some aspects of the business where it makes sense for us to apply QS across the board, and we do... (100% on-time shipment/delivery, upgrading our inspection processes, among others).

I don't believe that there is a requirement to "prove" our customers are not interested. We prove that they are interested by having a list of who our auto customers are. Some of those customers also order non-automotive applicable parts and are therefore not applicable, either. A list of auto customers and auto parts solves our problems in that area.

ALM

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forums Contributor

Posts: 149
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 24 November 1999 12:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry if I misinterpretted. Still have trouble with the aspect described above on all the PPAP waivers. Split scope approach sounds exactly how we handled it except we didn't italics/non-italics procedures. Pretty much let the contract review dictate applicability and in the procedures stated "for customers subscribing to QS-9000 only"

Laura

IP: Logged


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

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 | Cayman Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks! - Marc

Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
UBB 5.45c

The Old Cove Message Board The Cove Privacy Policy
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?