Not feeling the love for element 9

So element 9 is the dimensional report. Typically this requirement is met by a supplier furnishing 6 sample parts that are fully laid out to print. And typically, everyone wants these parts in spec.

I don't like this. All it tells me is the supplier can, in fact, make 6 parts to print. It's not statistical, and it also doesn't let me know they can detect good from bad.

The counter proposal would be - instead of doing a full layout on 6 good parts, throw some bad parts in there and correlate the measurements between the supplier and customer. It's not much more work (unless you just typically review the suppliers ISIR and don't actually check them). And what you get is better information. You detect that you both agree on what is good and what is bad via the correlation. An exercise you will go through under the gun the day the supplier decides to run too close to the limits

The only down side is, you "6 Golden PPAP samples" aren't so golden - there's bad ones in there. Which could be a hangup for a certain class of supplier quality engineer.

Why not do both? Well, for one, cost. And for two, as I said I don't think there's much value add looking at 6 perfect parts. So why do it?

Thoughts?

 

Well spoken for a SQE, but the supplier already has a high bar to hurdle with the current PPAP requirements. Capability questions are dealt with in section 11 (Initial Process Studies). Yes, addressing correlation is important & overlooked, but would add a lot of time to an already time-compressed process. My experience has always been the quality department being forced to make up for all missed target dates in the launch schedule.

To address your valid concern, I would propose that correlations between customer & supplier metrology departments be performed as a one time activity when new suppliers are approved. A new suppliers ability to prove their metrology "chops" would seem as important a checkbox in their approval process as some quality system certification (TS, IATF, ...).

One last point, there are some processes (ie: molding, broaching, metal stamping, ...), where making a part out of specification is not as easy as adjusting a CNC (and sometime downright impossible).

Everything said, I like where you're going with it. I'm sure there are others willing to contribute ideas how how to improve.

 

You haven't seen our shop.

But yes, asking us to "ruin" a perfectly good process to get "bad" parts will get you a kick in the you know where. As customers get further and further away from the processing of their parts, their knowledge becomes worse and worse -- dare I say sometimes it regresses. I have seen to many things drawn on a print and when asked "ok, how you going to measure that" all you get is blank stares and then "that's QA's problem." I have also been in too many quality labs where we end up teaching the people how to check the parts (like the "Quality Engineer" who was racheting down so hard on a thin walled part he was collapsing the dia. and calling it "no good)". In most cases, I am not worried about what is "good" or "bad" but rather what works.

 

Agreed. I'm finding the Element 9 dimension check typically gets a cursory review and stored (yep, it's there, box checked). And being a big proponent of the question "If you aren't doing something with the data, why are you storing it? OR ... if you are storing the data, why aren't you doing something with it?"

But I find the correlation causes all the right behaviors. Mainly us and our suppliers working together to ensure we are in agreement as to what the design means and we see the same things. The design coming from "the gods," not us.

And the interesting thing is - you're most likely going to correlate. SORP+, one day the supplier is going to send you a part near the limit. Then you're going to argue as to it being in or not. And you find then you have a correlation issue, so step one to the solving of the problem is get correlated. All under the eyes of the bosses on this, now critical, part that is going to shut the line down. Yeah. I'd rather correlate at PPAP without everyone breathing down my neck.

 

Not familiar with the acronym, I google it. Pretty sure it's not #2.

 

It's #3. But Lord if it doesn't FEEL like #2 sometimes.