posted 01 June 2001 09:15 AM               

Also, if we DO have to identify these special characteristics, aside from putting a little mark on the Control Plan, would we need to do anything else? It seems like a silly practice, to be honest· what would that little mark do, anyway? We still need to test and pass all specs regardless.

posted 01 June 2001 10:06 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Casana:
Regarding element 4.2.3.2, do we HAVE to identify Special Characteristics at all? As I read the standard, I donât see the word ãSHALLä in that paragraph or the Note that follows it, but a colleague insists that we HAVE to identify these.

--> 4.2.3.2 QS-9000 Third Edition does state "shall"

Our customer is not one of the Big 3, and did not specify any special characteristics.

--> Have you already identified the Special Characteristics for the Big 3? If so, why adopt two systems if you've already got the information? If you haven't, why haven't you done the FMEAs, which will give you your information.

What theyâve specified in their contract would not make sense for us to track and measure, all they care for is to receive matching pairs of our product; they have no interest in what we would consider ãkeyä processing characteristics.

Also, if we DO have to identify these special characteristics, aside from putting a little mark on the Control Plan, would we need to do anything else?

--> Yes! Your Flow Charts, Engineering Specification, Product Drawings, Process Instructions etc all require the symbol marked against the part of the document that the Control Plan has referenced.

It seems like a silly practice, to be honest· what would that little mark do, anyway? We still need to test and pass all specs regardless.

Thanks for any and all input!

---

If your customer is completely non-automotive, and they don't want Control Plans etc then don't do it! QS-9000 is an automotive standard - but as I said why adopt two systems, unless it's more efficient. Make sure your procedures reflect the option for either system if you do!

posted 06 June 2001 11:11 AM               

If the above is correct then QSM read on!

1.When you complete the FMEAs these will tell you if Heat Treatment is an SC.
2.Every process should be controlled by trained personnel.
3.I would identify the SC only at the point where the process is measured or the characteristic that needs special control is mentioned in the control plan. You don't have to mention the SC at every step - because not every step will have an SC.
4.Yes, if you have identified SCs then the symbol should be cross-referenced on the significant documentation.

posted 06 June 2001 11:03 PM               

While it is not particularly unusual, typically items on the Design FMEA are not relevant to the process FMEA - typically they don't carry over.

Remember that items on the design FMEA typically address the product in service. Examples: What if the air bag fails to deploy? What if the air bag deploys off-center?

On the opther hand, a process FMEA typically addresses issues of processing the product. Examples: If dimension A is > 0.005mm the part will not fit and if < 0.004 joint will rattle (giving you a tolerance) {an example of a possible flow-down from a D FMEA}. Or part A123-456 not properly installed in sub-assembly. I remember one where you had to cut metal - a shaft. It had a 'high' OD spec at one point in the process which was determined to be critical because if it was exceeded this dimension it would either not fit into or would jam the next machine which further cutting metal on the rod (moving towards finishing). Jamming the next machine was a possible 20+ hour down time. So - it became, at that step in the process, a critical characteristic even though that characteristic was changed in the next operation.

While you are looking at the function of the product, you are also looking at the assemply process and the effects on steps further down in the processing as well.

So - the bottom line is critical characteristics may pop up anywhere from a brainstorming FMEA meeting to a reaction to a processing 'disaster' experienced.

last of all I have seen many cases where the customer specified no critical characteristics even when they were design responsible. There were none on the print nor in the contract or elsewhere. My experience in QS registrations is the auditors do expect to see at least 1 critical characteristic identified by you - the supplier. And if you told an auditor that the customer had none and you didn't have any either - well, you had one heck of a lot of talking and explaining to do even if what you supply is relatively simple.

If it's not an automotive product and your customer doesn't require any, no big deal. But if it's automotive they usually want to see that you have at least 1. And an FMEA may have 1 line item or it may have many line items. Total numbers is less important than assurance that you have looked at your product through the eyes of the FMEA.

posted 06 June 2001 11:08 PM               

Heat treat is a special process I believe. I know Ford has its own heat treat spec.

-> 2. If yes, what about trained personnel at this
-> process, require or not?

Yup - trained personnel.

-> 3. Do we have to identify SC symbol mark
-> in every step of operation in H/T control plan?

I would think so in some way. The control plan has a column for that, doesn't it?

-> 4. What about some Job Instruction and Monitoring
-> check sheet related to H/T? Do we have to put SC mark on
-> those document?