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
  life of product + 1 year

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:   life of product + 1 year
Michel Saad
Forum Contributor

Posts: 18
From:Bromont, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 29 June 2000 03:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Michel Saad     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi folks,

Can anyone give me a definintion of "lenght of time that the product is active" as stated in 4.16.1

We are having disagreements internally on this point. Where I worked before, it was stated as "duration of the contract + 1 year", but I am not sure that it meets the intent.

Let me know how you deal with this.

Michel

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 30 June 2000 08:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That is normally a requirement established by your customer; includes production and service requirements. Service requirements can be as long as 10 years.

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 30 June 2000 08:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That is normally a requirement established by your customer; includes production and service requirements. Service requirements can be as long as 10 years.

IP: Logged

lyman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 19
From:Salem, Oregon
Registered: May 2000

posted 30 June 2000 12:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lyman   Click Here to Email lyman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bonjour Michel:

The group I formerly worked for, who were QS9K certified in 1998 (and the one that I now work for - who are busy putting our system together for certification in 2001)are writing our retention documents as follows: records will be retained for families of devices or single devices for as long as the device remains active in our portfolio + one calendar year. If you look at the PPAP Manual, Sect. VI (bold printed text specifically, add Sect. 4.16.1.S of the Semiconductor Supplement, in addition to the requirements under Sect. 4.16 of QS9K I think you can understand how we have come to our decision. (QS9K requirements turned out to be one of the great motivators to cull the portfolio at my last job, I'm hoping it will have the same effect here.)

Regards

IP: Logged

Michel Saad
Forum Contributor

Posts: 18
From:Bromont, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 30 June 2000 01:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Michel Saad     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bonjour Lyman,

When you say that the product is active in your portfolio, do you include or exclude revisions. What I mean by that is if the part changed from XXXX rev A to XXXX rev B, do you keep the info of A for 1 extra year or do you keep it until the last of the revisions is no longer active (which could be many many years later)?

Thanks in advance

Michel

IP: Logged

lyman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 19
From:Salem, Oregon
Registered: May 2000

posted 30 June 2000 02:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lyman   Click Here to Email lyman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Great question - I admit I hadn't contemplated it when I responded, although after asked I suspected what our position would be given the raging paranoia we have regarding throwing anything away. I went and confirmed my suspicions with one of our Quality Managers - we're going to keep everything (Rev data included) until such time that we are no longer producing the part. My question to you - would you set up your system such that a decision to destroy the records is based on the type of revision being made, i.e., if your changing your labels or labeling info and it requires a revision you're not going to pitch all the prior rev history incorporating your test results, etc., are you?

As you can see - our system will never require us to make those decisions, however, if we ever have a fire you should be able to spot it from Quebec because we'll have plenty of fuel!!

IP: Logged

Michel Saad
Forum Contributor

Posts: 18
From:Bromont, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 30 June 2000 03:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Michel Saad     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Make sure the fire is in winter and we can send you a couple hundred trucks of snow to help put it out!!

We have a 2 revision system. The parts are more like XXX rev A.1. For minor changes, the .1 will move to .2 while for major changes (fit, form, function, reliability), the letter revision will change. We have some parts at F.12 and they have nothing to do with A.1, so I ask why keep the data around? Obviously, we are going to be smart and not throw away material from a previous revision if it is still useful. I am simply looking for a way to not HAVE TO keep material forever if it has no added value. The issue is, does treating a new revision of product like a new product (even though the part number doesn't change) meet the intent of 4.16 of QS9000?

Regards,

Michel

IP: Logged

lyman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 19
From:Salem, Oregon
Registered: May 2000

posted 30 June 2000 04:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lyman   Click Here to Email lyman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can only speak for myself as an auditor (maybe Marc or someone else can let you know how they would audit to this requirement) but if I audited my engineering/design groups and their system was set up like yours I would expect that they could provide the appropriate new documentation/samples, etc. as required under Sect. III of PPAP. I would also expect that they could show me a Rev history or some linkage between revs. As long as their records reflect their complete current process then if they had documented to destroy prior revision records after the calendar year requirement was met I wouldn't have an issue with that.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 01 July 2000 03:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by lyman:

...we're going to keep everything (Rev data included) until such time that we are no longer producing the part.


I think this is the key.

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!