Production Part Approval Process - Assignment Example

Production Part Approval Process. What is it and how/why it should be applied? Table of Contents Introduction 3 2.PPAP elements, levels of the process, and purpose/importance 4 i.Level 1 10 ii.Level 2 10 iii.Level 3 10 iv.Level 4 10 v.Level 5 11 3.Conclusion 12 4.References 14 1. Introduction Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) is a comprehensive process used in the automotive engineering industry to ascertain that components meet the required specifications and design throughout the production process (Joshua, 2015). PPAP has gained relevance due to the continue quality challenges facing manufacturers particularly in the automotive industry. These challenges made it necessary to formulate production processes that will serve as a lasting solution. Notably, since its inception, PPAP has gained a positive impact and various companies including General motors, BMW, Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler are continuously implementing it. PPAP establishes consumer confidence by indicating that component suppliers have comprehensively understood what the customers requires, all necessary customer requirements are accurately me, and the production process is fairly consistent to produce conforming products or parts (Magrab, 2009; Joshua, 2015). It has significantly reduced the stress, tension, and apprehension associated with managing contrasting international supplier systems. The customary quality management systems that were paper-driven are being faced out as IT is used to meritoriously and proficiently undertake the task of building good relationships between suppliers and customers. Apparently, inspections are an obligatory part of the AS 9100 standards series, analogous to the ISO standards common in validation of institutions or businesses. The PPAP manual specifies comprehensive procedures, activities, and reporting requirements that suppliers must conform to in an effort to ensure that the ultimate consumers enjoy quality, standard products. To gain PPAP approval, manufacturers or suppliers must submit assessable information in the form of documents, often termed as PPAT elements. Failure to provide the required documents at various stages automatically results in declination of part approvals and the manufacturing process cannot proceed. Approbation or approval is mandatory in the currently competitive corporate world to ensure that the safety of customers is upheld while still delivering quality products and without negatively impacting on the manufacturers’ proceeds. 2. PPAP elements, levels of the process, and purpose/importance a. Critical elements of PPAP (Magrab, 2009; Joshua, 2015; Chrysler Corporation et al., 1995). The PPAP elements are a list of 18 required documents that are required to be submitted. A component proposal is evaluated and scrutinized based on these elements prior to making a decision on whether the production run should be undertaken. These elements are presented below and are often upheld for the benefits of the supplier and customer, but more specifically the customers and the market benefit most. Design records; it is a printed copy of the drawing of a particular product that the manufacturer needs to provide. According to Joshua (2015), it is the customer who often provides the drawing since they are the ones who understands the parts’ or components’ end and use. The drawing is required to confirm to the customer that the part drawing they have is exactly similar to what the supplier presents. Engineering change documents; they provide a deeper analysis or description of a particular change. Chrysler Corporation et al. (1995) assert that this document allows or empowers the supplier to alter part of the instructions that were submitted in the design records. Similarly, Magrab (2009) further indicates that any applicable engineering changes, deviation, and permits should be included at this subdivision of the PPAP. The detailed changes are often intended to improve the functionality or quality of the part. Engineering approval; it indicates that the parts were literally tested or tried at a certain customer plant. The customer who received and tested the parts records and signs against any changes that were observed in the part (Joshua, 2015). Further, they have to provide evidence to support the contents of the documents or claims failure to which such claims may be deemed extraneous. Design failure mode and effect analysis (DFMEA); it is a document reviewed and signed by both the supplier and the customer (Chandler, 2009). It is only applicable in production of parts where the supplier has design obligations and its main objective is to pinpoint where the design of the product could possibly fail. Apparently, DFMEA, which starts at the preliminary phases of concept development, enables the designers to forecast the probable modes of failure hence vindicating the causes of failure before finalizing the design. Process flow diagram; the flow chart of the process detailing the sequence and all steps in the production process is necessary. Additionally, this diagram indicates the offline activities related to a particular part. Among the common offline activities that hardly misses out in the diagram are inspection, measuring and handling. Similarly, the diagram must indicate the flow of components that can be recouped, flow of rejects (non-conforming materials), as well as flow of scrap or waste parts from the production (Joshua, 2015; Chrysler Corporation et al., 1995). Process FMEA; just like the DFMEA, the process FMEA must be reviewed and signed by both the supplier and customer and indicates the flow of processes and anything that might go wrong during the exact process (Boothroyd, 1992). Through analysis of each step in the process, process FMEA assigns each step a score of between 1 and 10. This score indicates a step’s occurrence, rigorousness, and detection, critical factors that give the manufacturer a risk priority number (RPN) which hints on the steps where production can fail. Consequently, the manufacturer keeps the process FMEA throughout the life cycle of the component as it enables them to update processes and plummet possible causes of failure. Control plan; covers both DFMEA and PFMEA and provides details of how any issues that might arise during production will be catered for (Magrab, 2009). For instance, it provides information regarding the scheming of assembly process. It details any production inhibitions and mirrors the progression of the production runs once production is launched. MSA (Measurement System Analysis); provides the calibration used in evaluating and/or measuring high power or precarious characteristics. Additionally, being a study in itself, MSA provides a check list of raw materials as well as end products as itemized in the supplier’s control plan explicated above. Noteworthy, suppliers must ensure that their MSA conform to the relevant standards guiding the production of the parts in question. Dimension analysis; it shows the measurement, characteristics, specifications and other dimensions that were included in the drawing and ascertains whether the required standard has been met. The supplier records features such as thickness, length, angles, size, and width and compares it with those that were specified by the customer in the design drawing to ensure all specifications are met (Joshua, 2015). However, if for a valid reason there are some slight variations, the supplier can still advance to mass production, but creates an exception report detailing why the anomalies or disparities occurred (Boothroyd, 1992). Performance Tests; it is an instant and précises swift of all the tests that have been performed on a particular component. Any pass of fails recognized are documented (Magrab, 2009). Apparently, the supplier and the customer sign the document as a way of affirming that all required tests were conducted and sufficient data to substantiate the outcomes provided (Joshua, 2015). Report on preliminary inspection; it details the material samples that were examined and tested prior to prototyping (Boothroyd, 1992). The report indicates that the production process is capable of producing consistent parts. It further indicates that the production process is operating close to the envisioned nominal value. Competent laboratory records; certificates detailing whether the part tested met all required specifications is provided. If the supplier performed the test in their internal lab, a copy of their quality certification and a copy of certification from an autonomous test house must be submitted. However, the quality certification from the autonomous test house is often considered weightier as they are operating from an independent, non-biased position. AAR (Appearance Approval Report); it is a modest copy of checkup documents often signed by the approval inspection officers and customers confirming that a particular component meets the required appearance (Magrab, 2009). It is required that the appearance inspection process be thorough so that the AAR’s accuracy is safeguarded. If the consumer has any trepidation concerning the exterior of the part, they must articulate them at this juncture for consideration. Sample product; a product from the initial production run is sublimated to the engineers who gauge it against required and/or postulated guidelines. The supplier is free to include several pictures of the sample part, images of packing instructions, as well as images pictures of storage area (Magrab, 2009). However, the images of the sample pictures included must be from the matching production run that has been analyzed all over the PPAP. Master sample; the supplier and customer sign a model product that will be used to teach and illustrate imperative subjective checkups to operators (Boothroyd, 1992). The supplier and the customer should only sign the master sample after they are happy that it meets all requirements. The organization is allowed to retain the sample for reference purposes. “The organization shall retain a master sample for the same period as the production part approval records, or (A) until a new master sample is produced for the same customer part number for customer approval, or (B) where a master sample is required by the design record, Control Plan or inspection criteria, as a reference or standard” (Joshua, 2015). Hence, the master sample is crucial and the supplier and customer should be acquainted with this when signing. Checking aids; when a particular component requires the use of special tools for examination of parts, the names of the tools, pictures, and calibration are provided at this step. When distinctive implements are used and not included in this section, the manufacturer will be considered to have violated the PPAP and its repercussions in extreme cases include interdiction of the production of the part. Records of acquiescence; it details how the manufacturer has or will comply with the required standards. Considering the divergence in customer needs and wants, the manufacturer may ask what the customer wants to be included in the PPAP package. This ensures that the manufacturer, during the production runs, is acquainted with all customer requirements and can ardently designate on how to deliver. PSW (Part Submission Warrant); this document is a precise explanation of the PPAP collection indicating why it was submitted, degree of customers’ consent and authentication, reasons for change of design, incessant authentication process, and other details (Chrysler Corporation et al., 1995). On the warrant, the supplier should indicate any deviations or inform the engineers’ board that the PPAP is not ready for submission. b. Levels of PPAP PPAP has five levels which detail the kind of details or documents that should be submitted to the client (Joshua, 2015). However, despite the existence of various PPAP levels, the work that is to be done by the supplier does not change. Ultimately, the supplier will be required to have accomplished all the elements. i. Level 1 For this level, only a PSW is submitted to the client. While what is mandatory is that the client submits only the PSW document, any requisite terms and conditions will still be required to be illuminated and discussed before approval. ii. Level 2 Here, the PSW is submitted to the client together with samples and some shallow backup data. A level two PPAP reassures the customer that the part substantially meets elementary requirements. While there are manuals detailing PPAP essential elements, it is the ultimate negotiation between supplier and customer that determines how each element will be satisfied. iii. Level 3 For level 3, the PSW is submitted together with samples and full backup data. Here, the customer scrutinizes the PSW, backup data, and the submitted samples to identify any variations or pinpoint any information that might be misrepresentative. iv. Level 4 The PSW is submitted and accompanied by any other necessities/specifications as the customer defines (Magrab, 2009; Chrysler Corporation et al., 1995). The previous design specifications by customer are evaluated to identify if the sample adequately covers them. The customer may require any additional information that might help them in assessing the provided PSW. v. Level 5 Level 5 is profound and the PSW, samples as well as the full data to support the production are reviewed at the manufacturing site/location (Joshua, 2015). A level five PPAP is deeper and comprehensively. It is done at the production site to enable the client obtain first-hand information regarding the PSW and the production runs. This has the benefit that the consumer has the aptitude and capability of raising any concerns which can then be promptly addressed at the site. c. Importance/purpose of PPAP PPAP ensures that quality and consistency is upheld by guaranteeing that the supplier can meet quality and manufacturability requirements of a product as mandated by the customer (Boothroyd, 1992). Through elements such as PSW, DFMEA, and process FMEA, PPAP ensures that the parts of an end product are consistent and the customer enjoys a quality product. Declining approval to low end or inconsistent products or parts further safeguards the consumer by ensuring that the market is not flooded with low-end or poor quality products whose consistency and reliability is dubious. What’s more, it ensures that the supplier candidly and comprehensively comprehends the customer specification requirements (Boothroyd, 1992). The continuity of any manufacturer depends on their ability to meet customer needs, preferences, and wants. While manufacturers have their internal quality specifications, PPAP ensures that the predominant needs of the customers are appropriately met. In a way, PPAP protects the customers’’ right to quality products produced bearing in mind their specifications. Costly reworking is also jettisoned. Many manufacturers have been able to reduce quality costs by up to 30% through implementation of PPAP. It further eliminates inconsistency in production by ensuring that a manufacturing process can produce products with consistent characteristics, value, and qualities. A competitive product must score well on the eight dimensions of quality that includes durability, aesthetics, performance, and conformance. Through PPAP, consumers establish confidence in manufacturers. This confidence translates into a close working supplier-customer relationship that allows the supplier to determine precisely what the market requires. Products with consistent characteristics, value, and qualities are more attractive to consumers and protect the supplier from losing prominence in the market. Moreover, since integrated systems are becoming predominant in the contemporary world, PPAP enables suppliers to manage quality amidst the challenges of diversified customer-supplier networks. 3. Conclusion The above elucidation candidly and comprehensively indicates that PPAP contains various critical elements that manufacturers in the automotive industry are required to submit or observe to guarantee production of safe, quality products (Joshua, 2015). Failure to meet any PPAP requirements implies that approval will be denied. Hence, PPAP protects the customers against the actions of rogue suppliers who might want to produce substandard products. It eliminates inconsistencies in production and averts the negligence-associated costs to customer and society (Chandler, 2009). A PPAP approval is given after engineers and the customer are satisfied that the supplier meets all requirements and their production runs are capable of producing consistent products and maintain the required quality standards. Moreover, PPAP gives the supplier an enhanced capacity to manage modifications to processes while giving the customers a high confidence in the quality of products supplied. Apparently, while PPAP is often common in the automotive industry, its replication in other industries will inevitably improve quality delivery to customers. 4. References Boothroyd, G. (1992). Assembly automation and product design. New York: M. Dekker. Chandler, H. M. (2009). The game production handbook. Hingham, Mass: Infinity Science Press. Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, & International Organization for Standardization. (1995). Production part approval process (PPAP). Place of publication not identified: Chrysler Corp. Joshua, M. (2015). Welcome to PPAPDocuments.com | PPAP Documents. Retrieved from http://ppapdocuments.com/ Magrab, E.B. (2009). Integrated Product and Process Design and Development: The Product Realization Process, 2nd Ed. New York: CRC Press. ISBN 1420070606. Read More