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 SUBMISSION

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 SUBMISSION
MSHEL
unregistered
posted 15 August 2000 11:30 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
QUESTION: I AM BEING ASKED BY A CUSTOMER TO SUBMIT STABILITY, LINEARITY & BIAS STUDIES ALONG WITH THE GR&R FOR EACH PPAP I SUBMIT. AM I MISINTEREPTING THE STANDARD OR IS THE CUSTOMER BEING UNREASONABLE. YES, THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT BUT CAN ALSO BE UNREASONABLE. WOULD LIKE YOUR COMMENTS ON HOW YOU INTERPRET THIS.

IP: Logged

Howard Atkins
Forum Wizard

Posts: 202
From:Israel
Registered:

posted 15 August 2000 11:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Howard Atkins   Click Here to Email Howard Atkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would agree that this is unreasonable, IMHO there is no demand in the standards for this.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 15 August 2000 11:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree with Howard, however it is pretty standard in QS9000 for auditors to address this in compliance with MSA so this doesn't surprise me.

IP: Logged

Sam
Forum Contributor

Posts: 244
From:
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 16 August 2000 08:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sam   Click Here to Email Sam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Albeit it vague I believe 4.11.4 opens up the door for this "requirement"

IP: Logged

lyman
Forum Contributor

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

posted 16 August 2000 01:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for lyman   Click Here to Email lyman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Boy I remember this same situation during our initial QS certification audit - we received an "Observation" from the third party auditors saying that we needed to have a five part MSA. Our response was, "No" our QM stated we needed to conduct the appropriate statistical studies to analyze variation "(e.g., bias, linearity, stability, repeatability and reproductibility studies, etc.)" and we're evaluating that need and complying based on each of the pertinent technologies' parameters. Surveillance audit - they came back again and said "we really meant it the first time when we told you that you needed to have a 5 part MSA." Our response
bascially came down to "what don't you understand about the meaning of e.g.", they were not amused. By this time the third party auditors were writing up sister Divisions throughout the entire Sector for the same thing, since the writing was on the wall we finally just caved. We adopted the attitude that following a 5 part MSA was just rounding out the characterization process and the right thing to do - our Ops Manager was a master at looking for the positive spin and selling it. However, it was very galling to have someone reinterpret and apply what we felt were clear instructions in our QM.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 17 August 2000 08:28 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The bottom line is the requirement has evolved. Initially the question was whether your M&TE was calibrated. Now it is do you understand measurement systems and do you demonstrate this understanding through out PPAP including decisions on what to use to measure what on through uncertainty. It was 1996 or 1997 when things started getting 'more to the point' so to speak. I have had heated 'discussions' with folks in the past over this issue. I can see its merits.

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!