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
  Engineering Change Validation - 4.2.4.3

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:   Engineering Change Validation - 4.2.4.3
Douglas E. Purdy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 14
From:Schiller Park, IL
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 14 March 2001 12:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Douglas E. Purdy   Click Here to Email Douglas E. Purdy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I must be brain dead after going through our second follow-up audit last week. I was reading our procedures concerning this requirement and for the life of me I can not make sense of the 4.12 and 4.16 reference in this requirement.

"The supplier shall verify that changes are properly validated. See 4.12, 4.16 and PPAP."

Thanks for the enlightenment!

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 15 March 2001 01:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, let me see now. Let's say an 8-D invesitgation reveals a root cause which involves an EC. A typical EC system will require you to go back to your APQP plan - that is to your design and development roadmap. Let's say it is a spring which affects the return of a brake shoe on a foundation brake. You make a material change. You look at your map and see that there was a validation test and information was taken on the spring. You know you have to go through your validation test again. But - let's say that the spring is not with a critical characteristic and nothing in any validation testing had anything to do woiith the spring. In this case you have to, as a 'professional' design engineer, make a decision as to whether or not you need a validation test on that spring for any reason. It may be that as you look at the part history the spring was long ago validated and since no problems have come to light eventually the validation requirement for that spring was dropped. As an engineer you have to consider: is the material change sufficient, with consideration of its role, environment, etc., to warrant validation testing either to the original validation requirement(s) or, possibly, to a new 'specification'.

Your engineering change system should guide you in this to some degree.

4.12 .1 Supplemental Verification adds that your customer may decide additional verification tests and/or requirements are necessary above and beyond what you require.

4.16 says you have to keep records of validations.

PPAP - well, as I said above....

Does that help or have I confused the issue?

IP: Logged

Douglas E. Purdy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 14
From:Schiller Park, IL
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 15 March 2001 03:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Douglas E. Purdy   Click Here to Email Douglas E. Purdy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc,

Yes your explanation makes since if you have design (4.4) as part of your system requirements. But should not the design validation be performed prior to a revised PPAP?

If you do not have design (4.4) as part of your system requirements, then is all I am to look for is that the revised enineering specification and/or drawing was approved and part of my PPAP package?

Or is the requirement trying to say that I am to validate how the engineering change affected my PAPP?

To me there is a difference between verification and validation.

[This message has been edited by Douglas E. Purdy (edited 15 March 2001).]

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 15 March 2001 04:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, it all depends on your overall role. Some companies do not do design but participate or perform certain validations. Most companies have their own validation tests for their design, but not all. What role did you play in the APQP process? Sounds like you neither designed nor participated in any validation. On the other hand you may not do design but assemble an assembly which you do validate.

What I always do is look at the APQP roadmap for that product.

->But should not the design validation be performed prior to
->a revised PPAP?

Well, you're looking at your roadmap and ask yourself what, if anything, will have to be repeated. just like during APQP you essentially make a plan. Do you have to repeat any runoffs? Is there validation testing to do? Etc.

PPAP is just the warrant submission and, depending upon the level required, parts, data, etc. It's done after everything else. Think of PPAP as one big report on what was done during APQP or in response to a product change.

If you are saying a supplier to you did a design change and you don't know what to ask for (you are supposed to be involved) it's a matter of reviewing their roadmap, their proposals and their possible effects on your product. From that you look at both your roadmaps and determine what (which), if any, validation(s) have to be repeated.

->Or is the requirement trying to say that I am to validate
->how the engineering change affected my PAPP?

That as well.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 15 March 2001 04:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hope this helps,

If there is a change, you need to return to ground zero (contract acceptance) and review all of your documentation (APQP/PPAP). With this review you will discover the items that need to be re-evaluated (validated), changed, and re-submitted.

With this change, the records (evidence) will be updated and added to some type of record retention matrix, or whatever tool you use to monitor records.

ASD...

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 15 March 2001 05:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
->return to ground zero (contract acceptance) and review all
->of your documentation (APQP/PPAP).

Exactly. Your APQP product / process roadmap.

IP: Logged

Douglas E. Purdy
Forum Contributor

Posts: 14
From:Schiller Park, IL
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 16 March 2001 11:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Douglas E. Purdy   Click Here to Email Douglas E. Purdy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for your explanations.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

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

posted 16 March 2001 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
->Or is the requirement trying to say that I am to validate
->how the engineering change affected my PAPP?

What I meant is you have to evaluate (rather than validate) whether the supplier's change will affect your product. Whether you have to do any re-validation(s) is determined by that evaluation.

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!