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 NOT required... but...

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 NOT required... but...
ALM
Forum Contributor

Posts: 80
From:Philadelphia
Registered: Jun 1999

posted 07 August 1999 08:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ALM   Click Here to Email ALM     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Help me understand what I have just been told of this week:

An automotive customer, with an automotive part, waives the requirement of having to do a PPAP submission... However, I am told that, by "rule" I am still required to perform all of the necessary operations and have them on file... otherwise, I will have a serious nonconformance come audit time.

Now... try to ignore the issue of whether or not conducting the Control Plans, FMEA, Capability Studies, and all the rest are value-added steps.

I want to know if what I have been told is true. I have always operated under the guise that, if the customer waives it, I don't NEED to "do it anyway."

The reason, I am told, is that "just because the customer waives the requirement for PPAP submission, doesn't mean that you are absolved of the requirement to compile one and retain the data/paperwork. PPAP is *still* a requirement of the standard.

Have I really been misinterpreting the requirement this bad and do I need to re-evaluate my operation of the PPAPing?

Clue me in!

ALM

IP: Logged

Batman
Forum Contributor

Posts: 111
From:Kane, PA 16735
Registered:

posted 08 August 1999 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Batman   Click Here to Email Batman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hi ALM..
It was always my understanding that a full PPAP was required to be completed and on file when any of the process / product change reasons listed in the PPAP manual were there - new or changed equipment, changed location, drawing release, etc. This applies whether it is a customer originated change or your requested change.

However, the actual submission requirement, that is, the requirement for amount of documentation sent to the customer for approval, was up to the customer. The "levels" listed are submission levels. Your customer determines this submission.

The reasoning behind a complete PPAP for any of the changes listed is to protect you and your customer from nonconforming product. ANY changes should be verified, and any related operator instructions and measurement devices and manufacturing aids and etc., etc. should be reviewed. If there are any problems after the process change, a FMEA review is likely in order. This could result in a revised control plan. Basically, with any "change" to the product or process, an APQP type review is in order, and perhaps to the extent that a feasibility review is in order.

But, the good news is that this review could be only a few minutes, and one or two folks. Depending upon the scope of the change, a quick review of the appropriate process documentation, a part layout or capability, items like that that are used to verify product conformance, may only take a few minutes. If there is no change to your documentation, copy it, put it in the PPAP file for that change. It could be that easy.

What your auditors are looking for, and more importantly what you should be looking for, is verification that the process / product change had no negative impact to the product quality, or if there is a change to the product quality, it is known, assessed, and resolved. All of the methods and tools that help make the product conforming must be reviewed. This includes a consideration of a review of a new supplier.

Horror stories are always circulating about this. Recalls, lawsuits, things like this many times have their origins in a "change" that someone thought was no big deal, and was not verified. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a customer change a print, even for a minor dimension, and the change was not relayed to the tool maker, or the minor dimension turned out to be a key characteristic to the manufacturing folks, or a necessary gage was not ordered in time and the product is ready to ship, and so on.

An appropriate review - could be 10 minutes, could be longer - when the customer document came in could have allowed a review of the scop of the change by concerned parties, plans for the amount of needed verification work, and the timing for the assembly of the PPAP. You may have a running change, or you may have to build inventory of the current part to allow testing and verification of the changed part at the customer.

No, don't take the chance. Yes, do your PPAP, to the extent necessary. Submit the appropriate level as requested to your customer. File the whole thing, and then proudly show it to your auditor next time. They likely won't be back for a while.

When I teach this, I ask to consider this: Suppose the customer calls [he has every right to] a few days after the first shipment and says the parts don't work, send the PPAP stuff.

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!