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
  QS-9000
  PPAP can we say waiver?

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:   PPAP can we say waiver?
Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 08 October 1999 03:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
PPAP is really turning out to be a bureaucratic, non value-added mess. Donât get me wrong, I think PPAP is a valuable concept. But these automotive guys are nuts!!!

I want to avoid requesting waivers from our customers all the time. For example, we need waiver of level 3 submittal for insigificant changes, we need waivers for submittal of 2 samples, we need waiver for retention of a sample part.

We are not in a mass production environment. For us, retention of parts would be a franchise buster. I believe this boils down to the interpretation of part versus bulk material. I would consider our part bulk material. However, it doesnt meet QS9000's definition which is that it is formed into a solid shape. A matter of descrimination against solids? This is not just a little problem. Our parts can cost 150K a piece. We have to retain "parts" we would add huge inventory costs. If we disagree with the requirement we must seek a waiver.

Process changes require qualification, which means you get shut off until the customer gets around to qualifying you. Meanwhile your competitors are eating your lunch.

I would like to submit for only significant changes. I would like to interpret our part as bulk material. I would like to avoid sending warrants and requesting waivers from customers who have never heard of QS9000 and are likely to pull our product fro 6 months until they get around to qualifying us.

Help!!! Can we take advantage of the fact that we do not supply to the big three to get ourselves out of all these waivers?

Thanks,


Steve.

[This message has been edited by Steven Sulkin (edited 11 October 1999).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 08 October 1999 08:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, Steve, I don't know what to say. What do you make?

IP: Logged

dewie
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:BKK
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 09 October 1999 12:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dewie   Click Here to Email dewie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
PPAP is a must. The manual says two samples or as agreed to the control plan. This means that you can make a deal with your customers. The samples are to be retained by you. If the customers don't want to get it, there's no need to submit to them.
For changing in the process, I'm not sure what kind of change. Let me say like this, by the first time you submit PPAP you can submit not only the process you are using. What you need to do is getting the samples from all process you have, collect the data, ..., and submit all of the records and documents as first PPAP. I hope this can help .

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 09 October 1999 02:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That is not always the case. For example, Steve says:
quote:
Our parts can cost 150K a piece.
It is obvious we are not talking about a standard high run production part like, say, a motor or dash board or switch. That said, it is highly unlikely that there would be a requirement to 'keep one part' per the PPAP as it's obvious that what ever Steve makes doesn't go on a car. Hence, my question - what do you make, Steve?

As an asides, as I understand it only tier 1 have to PPAP. Those tier 1's can request whatever they want from their suppliers as long as they are doing 'supplier development' with the base being QS9000. Most tier 1's and tier 2's have simply passed the requirements on down to their suppliers by saying to their suppliers "Get registered".

Steve, you should visit your contract review procedure and see what is looked at there. If your parts really do cost as much as US$150K I would make sure early in the game what the customer's expectations are in these matters. Hell, if they want 5 parts you factor the costs into your quotes, you can give them 5 parts.

I will say that automotive is tough. If you want to 'play the game', you have to be ready for some tough competition.

quote:
Meanwhile your competitors are eating your lunch.
If this is what's happening, you're doing something wrong. Saying 'we can't compete' doesn't cut ice. And if you can't compete - well, we all know the answer to this 'IF' statement.
quote:
In my industry, customers punish vendors who change their process.
Well, now, I'm not so sure that punishment is the correct word. I see value in addressing issues arising from process changes, observed or theoretical.

Are you having trouble getting appropriate waivers?

There's more to this but we need some specifics. Tell us more about the situation.

IP: Logged

Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 11 October 1999 08:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My apologies, I should have been clear from the start. You are correct Marc. Our part does not go into a car. I dont want to identify my employer while I am airing the laundry, but I will do my best to explain. We produce a raw material that is fabricated into a solid part. Our customers use the part in a production process.

I should also mention that the value we add to the part is in the material itself. Thus, retention of the material should be sufficient. Our part challenges the definition used by QS9000. I would consider it bulk material rather than a "part."

As I said before, we do not sell to automotive. We have hundred of customers who do not understand, nor have they ever heard of QS9000. Of course, I am being sarcastic when I say, punish. My point is that the qualification process is costly and can take forever.

This is not an ideal quality environment, but we want to do the best we can. I want to avoid requesting 300 waivers and sending 300 warrants every time we make a change. Some customers are less sensitive then others, but the result is still chaotic.

IP: Logged

Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 11 October 1999 09:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Let me add a little more information to move this along....

The PPAP is valueable to use because it forces us to retain all the records of the change. It is also a valuable service to our customers -notifying them of significant changes. Just like everyone else, we dont want to be burned, or have our customers burned.

We do not have a large volume production line. We are a low volume plant with thousands of parts and hundreds of customers. Almost a job shop environment. We are aggressively pursuing process development and trying to improve product consistency, so we are constantly making "changes."

My question, can we limit our interpretation of change? We saw some discussions earlier about how interpretations can vary from a particular press to presses in general. (https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000193.html). That is what I am asking here.

Does anyone else interpret change as being significant (form, fit, function) and insignificant?

IP: Logged

dewie
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:BKK
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 11 October 1999 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for dewie   Click Here to Email dewie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When to submit PPAP is defined in PPAP manual page no.2. The first three situations are noted to be done, but the other 8 situations are under the paragraph of customer waives.
You can ask the customer to waive for some situations or even PPAP for that particular customer.

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 11 October 1999 04:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steven, Check with your customer for a determination of bulk material, (ref PPAP Glossary)
Also, since you do not sell to automotive, I would question the need for a request for PPAP from your customer.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 11 October 1999 06:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
it seems to me that your customer may not understand the requirement and is just passing along his pain .....it flows down hill... :-)

You need to understand the requirement in order to "help the customer" understand his own needs

IP: Logged

Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 12 October 1999 07:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I want to pursue something brought out in the last two postings. Not sure if we have something here or not.

From Sam....
_________________________________________
since you do not sell to automotive, I would question the need for a request for PPAP from your customer.
_________________________________________

and from Barb...
_________________________________________
it seems to me that your customer may not understand the requirement and is just passing along his pain .....it flows down hill... :-)
_________________________________________

None of our customers require a PPAP. They have never heard of it. Some require notification of change, but none require a PPAP. We are very happy to retain records of change. Its a benefit for us to do so, but do we have to get approval from the customer who doesnt require it?

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 12 October 1999 09:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steven, PPAP is a QS-9000 requirement only.
IF you are QS-9000 certified you must present objective evidence that you have complied with the requirement,whether or not you sell to automotive. IF your customer does not want a PPAP,then you must provide a waiver. (This could be a one time waiver.)
IF you are not certified and sell to an automotive supplier who is certified, then they have a requirement to "persuade" you to comply with QS-9000,I.E, PPAP.
IF you are not certified and do not sell to an automotive supplier,then it (PPAP) becomes a non-isuue.
I hope I didn't add any more confusion to the issue.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 12 October 1999 09:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sam writes:
____________________________________
IF you are QS-9000 certified you must present objective evidence that you have complied with the requirement,whether or not you sell to automotive.
____________________________________
I agree, if they are to claim QS-9000.
How about a company that sells automotive and non-automotive? Wouldn't the scope define the products that are QS-9000? Can't the company be ISO-9000 on the non-automotive, and QS-9000 on the automotive? In the productive part world it may be harder to differentiate because they could be off the same processes, but what about the T/E side? Many non-automotive's wouldn't understand what they are waiving. For some suppliers it would appear to be the chicken/egg thing. No automotive business until certified, but no current products requiring QS. So the portion that is the customer responsibility (ie, PPAP approvals, providing enough parts for machine qualification runs) in QS gets muddy. Thoughts?

------------------

IP: Logged

Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 12 October 1999 10:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We just went through our QS9000 registration audit, so we expect to be a QS9000 company. I do not believe we have any QS9000 customers at all. We pursued QS9000 because it was a good fit, not because our customers forced us into it.

So, do I have to request a waiver from all my (non automotive, non-QS) customers?

OR

Can I have a system that is setup to be compliant to PPAP (i.e. retain proper documents and be able to comply with notification requirements), but not have to request waivers from everyone?

IP: Logged

dewie
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:BKK
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 12 October 1999 12:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dewie   Click Here to Email dewie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You can do a matrix of which supplier need or donot need PPAP and what level he is. What kind of documents he wants as refer to PPAP manual page 3. The documents submit to the customers should comply to the documents you submit now, no need to submit everything mention in PPAP manual--yes, you need your customer signature.
What you can do for the next contract is to include the waived document as apart of you contract.

IP: Logged

Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 12 October 1999 01:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So, it doesnt really matter if they are Big 3, automotive, or not. We cannot assume that our non-QS9K customers dont want PPAP? We still need to request waivers for PPAP from 300 or so customers?

IP: Logged

Mike525
Forum Contributor

Posts: 49
From:
Registered: Apr 99

posted 12 October 1999 03:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike525   Click Here to Email Mike525     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Steve, I'll be honest with ya' - it sounds to me like you've been dumped on! You're dealing with issues that should have been addressed up front. I think Marc came closest to the best answer / advice when he mentioned the contract with the customer. There are so many things that need to be dealt with up front contractually that your company's marketing / sales force needs to have a clear and precise understanding of what issues to address when offering a contract to produce.

IP: Logged

Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 12 October 1999 04:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am still not quite sure what is required or not required if your customers are not QS9K. Our customers have simple notification requirements and I would prefer sticking to those without calling each of them up, explaining what a PPAP is, and asking for a waiver from them. Seems pretty wasteful.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 12 October 1999 05:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is a bit strange because you are the first company I have ever heard of which registered to QS9000 (actually, as we all know, it's really ISO9001 with the QS addendum) which has no automotive customers. I didn't even know you COULD register to QS9000 if you didn't have at lease one automotive customer.

Let's see if I have this streight.

1. You are ISO9001 registered with the additional QS requirements and this is stated on your registration certificate.

2. You have absolutely no automotive customers.

3. You have absolutely no customers requiring PPAP.

4. You choose QS9000 because you thought it was a good idea.

If all are true, my comments:

You had to do (or should have had to do) at least one PPAP, whether requested or not, because that's the only evidence that you have a PPAP system in place which functions - if you didn't do at least one, I don't know a registrar who which would pass you, so to speak.

QS9000 does not say you will do PPAP on all products for all customers. It says you have to do it if your customer requires it - which all upper tier automotive suppliers do. Since you have no customers requiring PPAP, you do not have to do any PPAPs.

In so far as what you do have to do when you change a process, that depends upon your customer requirements. As you know, some may require you to notify them of a change and nothing else. Some may not even require that.

But there is more to it than that. Your nightmare is if you have a product you sell to more than 1 customer and each has different requirements. In which case I would be sure during contract review to consider the impact if a customer asks to be notified (or worse, like wants certain data that others do not ask for) when a process changes.

And - Some companies register only certain product lines (their scope only includes automotive lines). So - if a line is out of the scope of the registration, it's not even subject to utilizing the nonconformance and corrective actions systems you have set up to work with the registered lines. I will say I have never had a client try to set up some lines as ISO9001 and others as QS9000 - they were either in or out of the scope.

But back to you. If your customers don't require PPAP, you don't have to do PPAP, as I understand it. It gets goosy here as you are supposed to have a waiver - which is your bitch - because the assumption of QS9000 is that you are an automotive supplier.

If I was you, I would simply require a waiver from every customer upon acceptance of an order. Make up a standard form and send it to them, request that they sign it and return it. You asked for QS9000 - you got it!

Talk to your registrar and see if you can't work something else out. My real advice would be to change your registration to ISO9001 but keep the systems in place you like. If you like APQP just do it. You shouldn't need a registrar to watch over you. you can be QS9000 compliant without being QS registered (which holds true for ISO9000, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

IP: Logged

Laura M
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
From:Rochester, NY US
Registered: Aug 1999

posted 12 October 1999 05:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Laura M   Click Here to Email Laura M     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc writes:
____________________________
I will say I have never had a client try to set up some lines as ISO9001 and others as QS9000 - they were either in or out of the scope.
____________________________

Key word "lines." In my previous post I said that would be difficult for productive parts. What about T/E? The majority of the requirements are no problem - can't really distinquish auto/non-auto for, say receiving inspection, but on the machine qualification end, many non-automotives don't provide enough parts to run the Phase 1, 2, 3 requirements. I have a customer who plans on writing their procedure for MQ based on whether they are an automotive customer or non-automotive customer. Anyone know how a registrar will handle that?
By the way, it will all be documented in the customer quote - in a way waived - by their acceptance of the quote.

[This message has been edited by Laura M (edited 12 October 1999).]

IP: Logged

Steven Sulkin
Forum Contributor

Posts: 75
From:Columbus, Ohio
Registered:

posted 13 October 1999 02:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Steven Sulkin   Click Here to Email Steven Sulkin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
On registering to QS9K-
QS9K registration is a marketing tool that distinguishes us from our competitors. Our customers may not be QS9K, but they have advanced quality systems. Customers concerned enough to visit are impressed with our systems and see our advantage. Registration adds legitimacy to that. We dont just talk the talk, we walk the walk.

To the assumptions- Contract review found a few (of about 300) customers that are QS9K certified. They are not automotive by the way. They have yet to revise their specs to include PPAP. I assume they are doing QS9k for the same reasons we are. If they are working with automotive clients, chances are its far down the line (3 tier?).

Per our certification- We just had our registration audit. The auditors will be recommending our certification.

Our current approach to PPAP:
We are currently documenting notification requirements during spec reviews. At that time we explain PPAP, and request waiver. We then document their requirements. We grandfathered the list to reflect customers requirements for change notification. Thus, customers who dont need notification are level 5, those that do are level 1, and those that require submittal get the documents they require.

No customer has officially requested PPAP, but we use the system anyway. For example, a change was recently made and we sent our version of the warrant to fulfill their requirement for level 1 notification.

The auditors were ok with our approach, but I suspect they will dig much deeper during the surveillance audit. I also suspect the registrar to continue to challenge our approach.

IP: Logged

Louis B
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 13 October 1999 03:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Louis B     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Speaking of PPAP, I understand that the big three have not met compliance to their own standard. That means, since I am their customer, they do not have to provide me warrants for design changes. As a very dissatified customer of one of the big three, I would like to see what they are going to do to improve some of the long term problems. Since I never indicated warrant level, it should default to a level 3. Somehow, I don't think they will provide it.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 13 October 1999 07:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
By the way, it will all be documented in the customer quote - in a way waived - by their acceptance of the quote.
Now I really like that idea! Good show!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 13 October 1999 07:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, Steve, I commend you. Maybe some Baldrige elements are next.

Yeah - it does lend credibility being looked at by an 'unbiased' (disinterested?) outside party such as a registrar. QS has good points and bad points.

To say again, to me it is surprising - but that's my paradigm. Didn't even know you could register.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 13 October 1999 08:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In reviewing this thread, I wanted to bring back some points.
quote:
PPAP is really turning out to be a bureaucratic,
True,, but you asked for it!
quote:
non value-added mess.
Well, not really, as you next say:
quote:
Donât get me wrong, I think PPAP is a valuable concept.
Yes, it can be.
quote:
But these automotive guys are nuts!!!
Correct again!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 13 October 1999 08:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Welcome to the 'Club', Steve!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
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
Forum 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
Forum 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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum 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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum 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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
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
Forum Contributor

Posts: 299
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

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!