posted 19 February 2001 10:27 PM               

Say a new drawing is released that changes one dimension and you want to allow the supplier to just submit a partial PPAP. If they submit all the elements on page 16 of the AIAG PPAP manual, except that the dimensional layout consists of just the one dimension and not 100%, can that still be classified as a level 3? What if you didn't require capability studies because the dimension was not a designated characteristic? Since that is one of the elements listed as "S", it is not level 3. But what level is it then?

Say the supplier wanted to use a different adhesive, which obviously wouldn't change dimensions, and by being a good supplier, you just needed a copy of the control plan, flow, pfmea, and functional/materials. How should the PSW be marked for submission level?

Even when you don't require full submission, page 16 requires the information to be fully completed and retained at the supplier, no matter how minor the change to the revision, right?

posted 19 February 2001 10:45 PM               

I have read your message and respectfully ask:

What the XXX are you asking about?

posted 20 February 2001 03:34 PM               

1) How much information & what level of submission is needed for a PPAP on a minor revision, and
2) does the supplier really have to have all that documentation (as listed on p. 16) at their facility?

Hereâs my answers:

1) You should contact your customer for guidance. Most likely theâll ask for a level 4 or 5 submission.
2) As far as the paperwork needed, donât sweat it, youâve already got 99% of it done in the original PPAP. If the change is as minor as youâve stated, barely any changes will be needed to the original submission (just double check, though!)

Hope I guessed right!

-Casana

posted 21 February 2001 06:18 PM               

You as the customer need to define what you require from the supplier. But let me expound;

1: There is a print change increasing the diameter of a characteristic.

-Does the process flow change? Probably not, so I would not require the submission of a new process flow. You already have one.

-Does the gage chage? If no, the current R&R is on file so I would not require a new one. If yes I would ask for a new one.

Basically I would only ask for revised copies of the documents that change so that when you get audited you have your ducks in a row.

Having your supplier re-submit all documentation sounds like overwork and a document control nightmare, let the supplier do some of the work.

What I like to do is verify (sample) the documents during a supplier visit. If there is a supplier that is not keeping good records the corrective action process needs to be initiated and reflected in whatever type of supplier rating/approval system you have.

If you don't visit that often, have them send you their approved document list and match it against your records. If you want to take it to another level, request the same information from different personnel in the suppliers organization and match those!

You have to trust your good suppliers, work with your marginal suppliers to develop and improve them, or resource your ineffective suppliers.

Hope this helps.

ASD...

posted 24 February 2001 03:43 AM               

What you have stated is exactly what I have
done in the past. I only required suppliers to submit for whatever changed (flow, dimensions that changed, es tests, etc). However, after meeting another QE at my new job, he insists that I am wrong. He does not understand why I would allow less than a level 3 submission, when in his judgement, level 3 work must be done everytime there is a print change. Despite your help, I can't argue one way or the other. I am probably going in circles, but here goes:

Interpretation #1 (Mine)
Only documentation related to the change is necessary to be revised and submitted, because the rest has been submitted previously. For example, if a full dimensional layout was submitted less than a year ago and the new drawing has only changed a diameter. The only thing that I would need is a revised control plan (if necessary), a layout for that one dimension, and a level 4 PSW. I would not expect them to (to my interpretation) to spend time re-doing capability studies, R&Rs, material/functional testing, a full layout etc., when it haven't asked for it and is not related to the change. Basically, I believe it is necessary to do only the work associated with the change.

Interpretation #2 (Seems unjustified, but can't find a clause in QS to argue against)
All print revisions require PPAP. All PPAP submission requirements are shown on page 16, the only difference is whether certain documentation is retained at supplier's location or submitted to customer. With his interpretation, there is no difference in a full level 3,2,1, or 4 (except retained vs. submitted info), the entire work (as if for an initial level 3) still must be completed on this new PPAP run. For example, even if you allow the supplier to just submit measurements and revised control plan for the one dimension, they must still re-do gage R&Rs, capability studies, material/functional testing, a full layout, etc and keep it on file at their facility for this particular PPAP run. Submission of documentation related just to the changes does not exempt them from fully completing a new level 3 PPAP and retaining this information at their facility.

I can see it both ways. Why do level 3 work, when a simple change is made? Or - No matter how simple the change, level 3 work is required, so why not go ahead and require them to submit it anyway?

And so on... Just trying to give examples of situations. I just want to know if a full PPAP is required to be done every time, despite what the customer will allow you to submit.

posted 24 February 2001 04:16 AM               

In answer to this:

"And so on... Just trying to give examples of situations. I just want to know if a full PPAP is required to be done every time, despite what the customer will allow you to submit."

Per the requirements and as a good business practice, Yes.

ASD...

posted 24 February 2001 05:57 AM               

->Say a new drawing is released that changes one dimension
->and you want to allow the supplier to just submit a
->partial PPAP.

Depends... If you investigate and you find that the dimensional change was in response to an engineering change requested to solve an issue with capability (let's say a tolerance is opened up a tad), you may have a lot of work to do because it may even require a revalidation of the design. Or it may not.

->What if you didn't require capability studies because the
->dimension was not a designated characteristic?

If it didn't require one before, why should it now?

->Say the supplier wanted to use a different adhesive, which
->obviously wouldn't change dimensions, and by being a good
->supplier, you just needed a copy of the control plan,
->flow, pfmea, and functional/materials. How should the PSW
->be marked for submission level?

Depends upon what you're asking for.

Let's take another example.

Let's say your supplier makes a plastic/vinyl part. It has critical dimensions and it has a surface grain requirement. If they get an engineering change for the grain requirement, their re-PPAP would be on issues related to the grain requirement - the dimensional requirements would (probably) not be an issue and it would not make much sense to re-PPAP parts of the original PPAP related to the dimensional aspects. So - request a level 3 (if you want all the stuff sent to you) on the stuff they're doing for the grain requirement.

I have in the past used the EXPLAINATION/COMMENTS space on the PSW form (near the bottom) to describe limitations of the PPAP such as stating it is limited to grain requirements.

My bottom line has been to ALWAYS contact the customer SQA rep and tell him/her what I planned and get at least a verbal approval. It doesn't take all that long to make (and document) a phone call. It eliminates any confusion. Section I.3 (page 11) of the latest PPAP manual is fine and dandy but until the customer SQA agrees with my plan I won't make a move.

In your case of what to ask of a supplier, use your good, common sense. Re-PPAP what is appropriate and not what isn't.

These comments essentially reflect what Al is saying, I think.

posted 24 February 2001 11:16 AM               

Yes they do, and to just make the point again, work with your SQA!!!

posted 25 February 2001 03:26 AM               

Hope you aren't answering my question and I am not following. Everything you guys have said, is what I routinely do. Regardless of what level a customer will accept, must the supplier per QS re-do everything (100 dimensionals, es testing, r & r's, etc) and store it on file even though the customer does not want it or it is unrelated to the change (ex: diameter changes but none of the criticals or functional requirements). Is the supplier required per QS to complete a full level 3 for each PPAP run, regardless if they submit it all or not? If I allow them to submit a level 4 for a certain dimension, a PSW, and nothing else, should I be able to visit their facility and ask them to pull out the r&r's or capability studies that I didn't ask for?

Al you said, "Per the requirements and as good business practice, Yes."
Please tell me what phrases in AIAG directly or indirectly say that a full level 3 PPAP is required for every print revision, despite whether or not all of it is required to be submitted by the customer.

Marc you said, "I would look at the change and determine what will (probably or likely) be affected by the change. Those are the issues you should address in your PPAP resubmission. Often a complete re-PPAP is neither needed or required... Re-PPAP what is appropriate and not what isn't"

posted 25 February 2001 04:41 AM               

I don't know how to say it any plainer than this: You ask for what makes sense. If only 1 dimension would be affected, why would you now want PPAP information on 100 dimensions? And why would they? They will do what you ask them to do in addition to whatever they believe is appropriate.

I get a PPAP. It has 10 critical dimensions requiring data. Only 9 come into print. I don't now ask for them to redo all data after they fix that 1 dimension. I ask for them to redo the data and submit for that 1 dimension. It's no different if its a design change.

->Marc, I agree and I know what to ask my supplier to submit
->to satisfy a PPAP. What I don't know is whether they must
->go through the whole routine of PPAP even though the
->customer has agreed to accept a partial PPAP.

Why would they? The data from the original PPAP is still good except for that 1 dimension. Unless that 1 dimension can be shown to affect some or all other dimensions (as does happen from time to time with considerations to GD&T) there is no reason why they should do a Dixie two step (repeat everything) for you. As I said above, you require resubmission of PPAP elements invalidated by the change.

posted 25 February 2001 09:29 PM               

I agree totally. It only makes sense. However, my QE co-worker says, "On page 16 of the PPAP manual it shows all levels of PPAP submissions. There are no differences between them except whether the information is retained or submitted. It says nothing about not completing all the work, despite what the customer will accept for submission. Either it is retained or submitted. Just because you allow them to submit a PSW, revised CP, and a layout for the one dimension, this does not alleviate the supplier's responsibility to complete the full layout, capability studies, etc. Even though the change does not 'affect' these items, they still have to either retain or submit it. This is a new PPAP run. Again, per page 16."

While I agree with your position and this was my policy at my former company, I was never confronted with this interpretation. I am taking a lot a grief, as you can imagine, from suppliers. I agree with them, but the above interpretion is shared with the other QE, the QA Manager, and others in management.
Somehow, I need to find a something in the manuals (to convince them) that a small change doesn't require a full PPAP to be on file at the supplier. As you can see, they take page 16 literally to mean "Full PPAP required everytime internally", just that the customer will allow you different levels of evidence on their end. The only thing I can say is, "I want this and that evidence. It will affect nothing else. If I ask for just this information, where does it say that they are obligated to full PPAP and store this unwanted information? Why would they do it? Seems like a waste of time." Again... Page 16. "Says they must either retain or submit. How clearer can it get?" How do you argue against, besides using common sense?

I don't mean to beat this to death, but if I am the SQA and see it appropriate to work with suppliers by allowing a partial PPAP, then I must be able to convince everyone else, including my boss, that "They have to do all the work anyway, so what is the problem not cutting a few holes and putting the rest of it in the binder." is wrong.

Again, thanks.

posted 26 February 2001 08:49 AM               

Try to think of it like this... I submit a complete PPAP to you. I make a dimensional change to 1 dimension through an engineering change. I do capability on this one dimension, revise control plan, etc. and submit to you. Data on the other dimensions are are in the original PPAP. This new stuff is like an amendment to contract - the file as a whole is the PPAP file, you're just adding data. Also remember - the submission level has nothing to do with what a company does for a PPAP, it is only relevant to what has to be sent to the customer. A customer may require a level 1 - warrant only. That's only what you submit. Everything else applicable you have to have in-house (such as runoff data).

I'm looking at the PPAP 3rd edition on page 16 and only see a matrix. It does cite I.2.2 Note 2 which clarifies that the requirements listed on page 16 are a 'laundry list' all of which may not be applicable to your product. I have a hard time interpreting this matrix as a requirement for a full PPAP.

It also should be noted that this matrix on page 16 is really aimed at the original PPAP submission as opposed to re-PPAP after an engineering change.

posted 26 February 2001 08:45 PM               

My Quote;

"Per the requirements and as good business practice, Yes."

Your quote;

Please tell me what phrases in AIAG directly or indirectly say that a full level 3 PPAP is required for every print revision"

It is not, if you are the custimer, you dictate, no matter if you are a level I, II or III,

I do agree with the above comments and say that if management wants a full re-submitted PPAP on file they will get it! Good luck in trying to inform them that it is not required.

Think about the best business practice that will serve your company. To me it sounds good that your management is at least getting involved in the process!

ASD...

posted 27 February 2001 11:27 PM               

Sounds like most are on the side that it is not required as I thought. However, I have asked our newly-hired QS Management Representative to put a level 3 requirement for all PPAP submissions into our upcoming supplier quality manual if that is to be the policy of our company. That makes my job easier, since I can just reference it as 'company policy'. Since AIAG doesn't give me anything black or white, hopefully a copy of this discussion will sway the opinion slighly.