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
  APQP and PPAP
  PPAP Applicability

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 Applicability
Bryon C Simmons
Forum Contributor

Posts: 65
From:Zeeland, MI USA
Registered: Dec 98

posted 14 January 1999 07:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bryon C Simmons   Click Here to Email Bryon C Simmons     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi

We are a job shop..produce probably 10, 000 different part numbers in any given year.....only two of these part numbers are sold directly to any of the Big 3.....most are automotive related, but not direct.

Our registrar is telling me that I must do COntrol Plans on ALL part numbers, or have waiver from customers for PPAP. We are talking about approximately 2500 different customers.......I have the proper documentation ...i.e. Control Plans, FMEA, PPAP records for the parts sold directly.....but not for all the others.......

Feedback anyone.........do we need this documentation?. I have written my procedure to state, that when it is contractually required, we will do PPAP. THey didnt like this very much....wanted to see all of it........

IP: Logged

Howard Atkins
Forum Wizard

Posts: 202
From:Israel
Registered:

posted 28 January 1999 12:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Howard Atkins   Click Here to Email Howard Atkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think that you must ask your customer if he requires PPAP. This must be a positive action on your part. As a supplier to Delphi they require me to supply the warrant of any purchased parts and to have them submit PPAP. If you send a sample send it with a warrant (level 1) this shows your customer that you know what you are doing and he can use it to approve the part, which you need any way.
Best of luck.

------------------
Howard Atkins Quality Manager
Raviv raviv.com

IP: Logged

Kevin Mader
Forum Wizard

Posts: 575
From:Seymour, CT USA
Registered: Nov 98

posted 28 January 1999 02:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Kevin Mader   Click Here to Email Kevin Mader     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bryon,

I believe you are right, your registrar wrong. Only parts sold directly to the OEM require PPAP. Your registrar may be thinking this however. If you chose to live in two manufacturing worlds, do you endorse the full benefit of QS 9000 system requirements? The answer is, you do what you can based on your resources available. You may not be able to apply the PPAP to all 10,000 or even 10. So this is why you live in two worlds and perform as contractually obligated.

IP: Logged

Howard Atkins
Forum Wizard

Posts: 202
From:Israel
Registered:

posted 28 January 1999 03:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Howard Atkins   Click Here to Email Howard Atkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Please note the following from QS ed 3
4.2.4.2 Subcontractor Requirements.
Suppliers should utilize a part approval process (e.g. PPAP) for subcontractors/
Note Certain customers require that their suppliers use PPAP with their subcontractors.

This shows that not only OEM parts are required for PPAP .

IP: Logged

Dawn
Forum Contributor

Posts: 245
From:St. Marys, PA
Registered: Sep 98

posted 10 April 1999 04:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dawn   Click Here to Email Dawn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are you saying we do not have to require PPAP's from our subcontractors if we are tier two, not dealing directly with Ford, Chrysler, or GM?
Because it states this in the third edition that we do require PPAP's from suppliers.
Do we only have to do this if we are tier one?

IP: Logged

Howard Atkins
Forum Wizard

Posts: 202
From:Israel
Registered:

posted 11 April 1999 10:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Howard Atkins   Click Here to Email Howard Atkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As I said before the tier is not the criterion, you are expected to develop your suppliers and encourage them to work according to QS. You do not have to request a full PPAP and not all suppliers can do this but you should expect at least an abreviated form so that you and not the next tier can be sure the part that you purchase is good.

IP: Logged

Chad Eilers
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 5
From:Edmonton, Kentucky, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 28 May 1999 07:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Chad Eilers   Click Here to Email Chad Eilers     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This seems to be a very interesting topic. During our pre-assessment the auditor explained that a Level 1 - 5 is only a SUBMISSION LEVEL, and we (as a Tier 2&3 supplier) must do all PPAP documentation and updated Control Plans for all current products being supplied to the automotive industry if we wish to obtain QS-9000 certification. It does not matter what your customer requests (that is only the submission level), we must do complete PPAP regardless!

I had same opinion & I do not agree with; however, that is what I was told.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 16 June 1999 01:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Have I ever mentioned how much I despise QS9000?

Anyhoo...

Welcome to "user-interpretations" class:

We have defined the scope of our QS9000 based Quality System to apply ONLY TO AUTOMOTIVE-RELATED PARTS. I have not heard first-hand of a single instance where a registrar has zapped a company for not applying it to ALL parts produced. (I work in a "job-shop," too. If I didn't know better, I would think that you are in one of our offices!)

Additionally, I currently have only provided PPAPS upon request from the customer (we are not a tier 1 supplier but still do a LOT of PPAP'ing to the people we supply).

Perhaps I am in for a rude awakening but, in talking to our registrar, BSI... so far, so good. In fact, our office personnel are broken down into industry related work groups. The registrar will only be auditing those QS related activities performed by our "Transportation Team." The rest of the teams matter not. That is how the scope has been defined for us.

ALM

IP: Logged

Batman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 111
From:Kane, PA 16735
Registered:

posted 16 June 1999 06:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Batman   Click Here to Email Batman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi ALM-

I have seen in other sections discussions re APQP, Continuous Improvement, SPC, Cpk, et al as only applying to "Automotive" customers, or some who have stated that only some of their products are "automotive" so only those are "under" QS9000. These discussions can be looked up and reviewed, but to add a penny or so, I wonder if having 2 systems for new project development, feasibility review, SPC, etc.? Is it feasible to bring some projects on (or control processes or control documentation or whatever) under the QS9000 auspices, and other projects just happen? Can you for instance have some documentation revision controlled and some not?

I think having two systems would be more difficult than having one good one, and be able to prove that it is in compliance.

Also I would be surprised that the auditors that are supposed to audit to a QS9000 based quality system would accept the fact that some areas of a facility is in compliance to QS9000 and some parts are not.?

Or am I misreading you?

IP: Logged

Jada
Forum Contributor

Posts: 26
From:Melbourne, Australia
Registered: Mar 99

posted 16 June 1999 08:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jada   Click Here to Email Jada     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've read these replies with some interest, so I thought I would add my 5 cents worth!!

To understand QS, terminolgy is very important. In terms of QS a customer is GM, Ford, Chrysler and anyone who subscribes to QS 9000. A supplier is an organisation who provides products etc.. to these customers. A subcontractor is an organisation who provides production materials etc.. directly to a supplier to Ford, GM, Chrysler and anyone else who subscribes to QS 9000 (Refer to QS Glossary for Subcontractor).

Therefore the subcontractor PPAP requirements 4.2.4 are only for the subcontractrs who fall under the above definition, likewise Subcontractor development 4.6.2.1 is only for subcontractors who fall under the above definition.

Based on the definition of "Subcontractor" I would totally disagree that Subcontractor development or PPAP is required for all subcontractors. This is only the case if they fall under the definition of subcontractor as defined by QS.

IP: Logged

ALM
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 17 June 1999 11:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
BATMAN -

It isn't so much having and managing 2 systems.

Certainly we intend to be certified to QS9000 and are currently certified to ISO9002. As I have previously stated, I may be in for a shock.

However, my understanding is that it is all in the scope of registration. So, while we have ONE documented quality system that will include procedures to cover performance to both standards... the issue is to what part of the business will the QS Standards apply. For us, the QS9000 scope will only include activities for automotive and automotive-related customers.

That is what the auditor is required to audit. The part of the business that is covered by QS9000. For example, if I have side-by-side facilities, one responsible for the automotive business and the other responsible for all other industries, that would be easy. Plant A is under the scope of QS9000 registration, Plant B is not. It is no different internally. The automotive parts of our business are under the scope of registration, the others are not.

We have a "Transportation Team" in the front office. They will be involved in the PPAP process and the myriad of other events governed by the QS Standards. However, why should my "Medical and Healthcare Team," my "Electronics Team," and my "General Industrial Team" have to face the scrutiny of a QS9000 audit? Because the auditor might raise an eyebrow? I don't think so. His job is to audit within the scope of registration. If other parts of my business are not within the scope, his OPINION on its impact on my business is none of his concern. It is an automotive standard and it will apply to all systems in our facility that fall under that scope. My Medical, Electronic, and General Industrial Business in NOT with that scope.

Keep in mind though, there will be parts of the QS system that will apply to things that go on everywhere here. For instance, automotive parts could run on any machine in the facility. Therefore, our Maintenance Program will not simply be relegated to machines that run automotive parts, but have to apply to all machines (also because such an endeavor will add value to the business as a whole).

As for having all of our parts and customers being governed by an QS9000 Quality System... there wouldn't be enough time in the day to perform PPAPs, feasibility studies, and all of the other paperwork and planning for the Department of Redundancy Department we all know and love as the "Automotive Group" and apply it to all of our business. We are talking tens of thousands of different custom parts for thousands of customers. We don't just make transmissions, dashboards, brakes... single or few product lines. Each new RFQ is another new product we are making for somebody.

I don't know if all of this rambling has done anything for you, but I tried. Quite frankly, I wouldn't even be discussing QS9000 if the "Auto Group" weren't MAKING us do it in order to keep existing business and possibly get new business with them.

What I find absolutely amazing is that, prior to the advent of QS9000, we supplied wonderful products to them. Now, our business is in jeopardy over what I believe to not only be a "Quality System" but an opportunity to generate revenue via Plexus, books and all kinds of crap from the AIAG that are required, charge-backs, EDI via THEIR systems and so on.

TPTB here believe it is all worth it.

ALM

ALM

IP: Logged

ALM
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 17 June 1999 11:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
JADA -

Here is something for you to ponder...

Though Delphi is ramming QS9000 down our throats... we do not supply anything directly to Delphi. We sell our product to a middle man who then stores it or marks it up and sells it to Delphi. That's correct - not a single product that we make for ultimate sale to them goes directly from us to Delphi. ALL of it goes through our direct customer.

Guess what? Delphi IS NOT requiring THEM to be QS9000 certified, but is only requiring the WE are certified.

Help me understand this. Anyone.

This is why QS9000 makes me nuts.

ALM

IP: Logged

admin
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 46
From:
Registered: Feb 99

posted 17 June 1999 12:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for admin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Stupid or not - the middleman (middleperson?) does nothing to the product which is why no QS requirement. I'm not going to get into whether QS makes any sense - some does and much doesn't. But - that's not the issue here anyway. The issue is whether it's a customer requirement and whether your company wants automotive business.

I have no problem with separation of the business by scope. One former client did ISO9001 for the plant and QS9000 only onautomotive products. In large part they did not see value in PPAPs for every customer and such like that. Even the plant layout had 'designated' QS9000 areas where equipment used to produce automotive (and other) product was specifically marked. I didn't see it as a 'two systems' issue particularly. Most of the master systems were the same - nonconformance and corrective action and such.

The automotive industry (particularly Ford, GM and Chrysler) are like kids. Try to understand them and you will fail. Best you can do is live with them or 'move out'!

IP: Logged

Batman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 111
From:Kane, PA 16735
Registered:

posted 17 June 1999 06:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Batman   Click Here to Email Batman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was just curious about the "two" systems. If it works for you (most important) and the auditor says it is OK, I understand. We have been QS9 registered for 2 years, but lately I have heard about some parts - old parts with new tooling, and new parts - that do not need PPAP since the customer is not automotive. I think this is trouble.

Suggestion for Bryon, who originally asked about Control Plan for 10,000 parts - Marc has said it, others have said it - process control should address machines or work centers, not parts. You probably don't have 10,000 machines. You could group parts into "families."

IP: Logged

Howard Atkins
Forum Wizard

Posts: 202
From:Israel
Registered:

posted 18 June 1999 01:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Howard Atkins   Click Here to Email Howard Atkins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Therefore the subcontractor PPAP requirements 4.2.4 are only for the
subcontractrs who fall under the above definition, likewise Subcontractor
development 4.6.2.1 is only for subcontractors who fall under the above definition." Jada.
Yes this means that anything that I buy as a QS company requires me to demand PPAP and pursue Subcontractor development.
There is no need for 2 systems. A control plan is just a collection of your work procedures which you produce anyway for non-automotive parts. You are also obliged by ISO to make quality plans. You define in your procedures that you produce a quality plan but dependent on your customer it is in a different format. I supply to Renault and they reguest "PPAP" in a different manner but as I have defined as requested by customer there is no problem. The VDA uses a different warrant here again no problem. Non auto suppliers usually get a dimensional report and a material certificate because that is what they request.
One system but different outputs depending on the customer requests.

IP: Logged

Lassitude
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:
Registered: Jun 99

posted 29 June 1999 04:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lassitude   Click Here to Email Lassitude     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
At LucasVerity the requirement is for a 'standard' PPAP from suppliers capable of same, however from a lot of european suppliers we get a dimensional report (the ISIR), material certs and such. Never a warrant as detailed by the QS folks.

IP: Logged

Lassitude
Forum Contributor

Posts: 89
From:
Registered: Jun 99

posted 29 June 1999 05:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lassitude   Click Here to Email Lassitude     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You might also want to check out:
https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000017.html

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!