|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 Statistical Techniques and 6 Sigma
 Capability studies with less than 125 individual samples.
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Capability studies with less than 125 individual samples. |
|
Dan Reicher unregistered |
posted 24 February 2000 01:05 PM
 
Dear Fellows. . . We did some capability studies with 25 individuals samples to analise some processes without security characteristics. IP: Logged |
|
Batman Forum Contributor Posts: 111 |
posted 27 February 2000 09:57 PM
 
Fire your auditor. Seriuosly, here is a true life story about capability studies. One day the customer made a change to the plastic material requirements. The supplier had 4 tooling sets, 8 cavities each. Each part had 6 "critical" characteristics. To perform a "legal" PPAP submission, there were to be 19,200 measurements taken. We told the customer that this would be 800 hours total elapsed time. (Long ago a complete PPAP submission was calculated as 2.5 minutes per "critical" dimension as an elapsed time, for PPAP timing purposes.) The customer agreed to 25 samples per cavity, to cut down the time. That's only 4,800 total measurements. Don't you think they will understand the impact of the process change with that many parts? Point is, get the blessing from your customer that 25 is enough, defend that to your auditor. Defend in that the purpose of a capability study is a determination of a sample meeting some specification. 25 RANDOM parts could be enough, particularly if as you say there are no critical characteristics. But remember the AIAG SPC manual states 100 parts. This usally applies to key or critical characteristics. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 01 March 2000 03:39 AM
Not to be off subject, but thses types of costs should be considered during contract review. If it costs you $4000 to rePPAP after a change, who picks up the tab for expenses associated with this unplanned change? IP: Logged |
|
Laura M Forum Contributor Posts: 299 |
posted 01 March 2000 09:21 AM
Marc, Have you seen where a customer "pays" for the PPAP costs? My experience is customers say "do this now" - may consider a piece price increase, but flat charges, no way. Perfect example, after initial PPAP, the customer asked us to "hold" parts for 24 hours and perform a check..piece price/handling charges were agreed to. Then we have to add the step to the PFMEA, PCP, source warrant, etc...no engineer change level, but a process change. Last week, they said, change the "HOLD" time to 48 hours, and perform the same check. So technically, no "additional" labor, but the update the PPAP documentation came up. (FYI, the reason the parts are being held & checked is a design issue, and the customer is design responsible) Yeah, it's an ammendment to the contract and should go through a Contract Review process, but its kind of like a lightweight arm wrestling a heavyweight. 4.3.2.d "all reqt's...shall be met" become the suppliers responsibility. Would love to have a clause in the initial contract showing a flat charge for subsequent PPAP's. Has anyone done this successfully? Laura IP: Logged |
|
Spaceman Spiff Forum Contributor Posts: 64 |
posted 01 March 2000 09:52 AM
I've been through similar situations in the past and was never able to recoup administrative costs, i.e., minor print changes such as error corrections (on customer's print) but still require PPAP to the latest print rev. The B3 is like 10 ton elephants... when they feel like trampling through your house, all you can do is follow after them with a shovel. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 01 March 2000 11:19 AM
I can't say I've seen a flat rate. Most of the time companies just do what they're told. That's up to the company until they see they're losing on a contract. I saw one company which, due to a customer's reduced volume (attibuted by GM to 'bad sales for that model that year'), ended up actually paying a nickel a piece for GM to 'buy' them. They never addressed reduced volumes from the original contracted volume in contract review. This all said, yes - if you want to sell to automotive you have decided to house the gorilla for a while. If I ran a company selling to the automotive industry, I'd want safe guards. PPAPs are not cheap. Contractr review is the place to adderss such issues. "... Yeah, it's an ammendment to the contract and should go through a Contract Review process..." Yup - sure it (or should be...) IP: Logged |
|
Dan Reicher unregistered |
posted 03 March 2000 08:21 AM
Thank you all for your help. It is really very difficult to deal with our costumers. We«ve discussed with our consultor and he suggestes us to do ICm (mini machine capacity) instead of capability studies. This study can be done with 10 samples, and will be problably enogth for us to control our process, considering that we will use it just when there is no "shield" in the process. Asking a Waiver for the costumer would be a good idea, altough it would be very difficul to recieve it. What do you thing about it? IP: Logged |
|
Sam Forum Contributor Posts: 244 |
posted 03 March 2000 08:35 AM
We have just completed our QS9000 registration audit and one of the observations was pertaining to an incomplete PPAP; capability study missing from data package. Dilema: Our PPAP sample size consists of one piece. We send the sample to the customer (Chrysler)with a level I data package, they fit it to the vehicle, evaluate and accept/reject. The auditor has requested that I conduct a capability study. IP: Logged |
|
Dan Reicher unregistered |
posted 03 March 2000 08:51 AM
I am not sure if it will help... In our case we submit the PPAP with 10 pieces, as chrysler askes us, even though we don«t any oficial document. To sovle this problem we are asking them a waiver, to allow it and to let us give them capability studies from the further product because they are very similar and there are no changes in the process, just in some components. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 04 March 2000 12:47 PM
quote:The heck with the auditor and what s/he requests. Your customer is supposed to tell you what they want - not your auditor. The auditor has no place telling you to do a capability study if not requested or required by your customer. Get your customer to tell you, preferably in writing, what they require. Get a waiver if necessary. Remember, you can get a verbal waiver. Record the person (and their title) who is giving the waiver, the specifics of the waiver, the time of day and date you spoke with the person, and the phone number you reached him/her at. [This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 04 March 2000).] IP: Logged |
|
Sam Forum Contributor Posts: 244 |
posted 06 March 2000 09:14 AM
I agree with you, Marc, That is the position I originally stated to the auditor, however, I was told that 1)- during a registration audit I am required to present a completed Level III PPAP for auditor review; regardless of customer requirements, and 2) that QS9000 compliance is "your responsibility and not your customer's". Further discussion was directed to the level III (Default)requirements stated in the PPAP; that regardless of customer requirements I "shall" have on hand a completed level III for all Customers. I took this to mean that for future surveillance audits the auditor would look for default level III PPAP's for each and every customer. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 06 March 2000 09:53 PM
The requirement is that you be able to demonstrate a 'complete packet' to the auditor. Not a complete packet for every contract. The warrant is a standard warrant for the standard submission. However, if you get a waiver for any part of the packet (let's say you get a waiver from doing a complete layout) you do not have to do it. In addition, some suppliers never do a complete packet due to the nature of their product. I had a client who made a transmission controller for a GM military application. GM made them do the QS9000 registration dance even though they only make 3 to 5 units a year. Obviously there were no capability studies, nor could they do them. They had a waiver. Their registrar required them to have a packet with the 'standard' contents less the items waivered. IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 06 March 2000 10:06 PM
quote:For all customers?? I don't think so. You have to show your auditor your system works. If it works for 1, why would it not for another? quote:So - you get a waiver from some part of a PPAP from your customer and the auditor says you have to do every thing per level 3 anyway? Hell - what good would a waiver be if you have to do it for the auditor anyway. Nope - I still say they're over stepping the intent. I did a number of submissions for a company last spring - summer. We did, and I submitted, only what the customer required. I cited waivers in the EXPLAINATION/COMMENTS field and I lined out the items waivered in the appropriate REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one) field. IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
