7.component part

Component part qualityassurance concerns

and standardsComparison of world-class manufacturers

Alan D. SmithDepartment of Management and Marketing, Robert Morris University,

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide practitioners of management with a comparativeanalysis of how two global firms ensure quality standards in new product development/new productmanufacturability processes and manage design changes in reduced product life cycles in the currenteconomic recession.

Design/methodology/approach – The firms selected were: Newell Rubbermaid, a high-volumemanufacturer with a diverse product offering, designing and manufacturing consumer products forlarge retail customers, and General Electric Healthcare Coils, a low-volume manufacturer of a nicheproduct for the magnet resonance imaging medical diagnostic systems. This case study presented areview of the quality steps performed when they are faced with a design change to a part, benchmarkingtheir quality processes with the highest industrial standards possible.

Findings – The effective managing of engineering change has always been difficult, time consuming,and a regular source of inefficiency and irritation for manufacturers. Best-in-class companiesunderstand that better change processes can drive top-line benefits and the two distinct companieshave developed very similar processes through effective industrial benchmarking activities that resultin improving speed to market while maintaining high-quality standards.

Practical implications – The component part design revision processes are well documentedbetween the two firms, with an appropriate comparative analysis.

Originality/value – Corporate management has demonstrated a commitment to component partquality throughout the development and redesigns processes and has earned and maintained thereputation of best-in-class manufacturing in their respective fields. Through successful qualityassurances and collaboration processes, the companies studied found stability in a very turbulentfinancial and service-orientated marketplace.

Keywords Benchmarking, Corporate strategy, Competitive advantage, World class manufacturing,Product development

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction1.1 Quality assurances through the product life cycleOne of the key strategic decisions in operations management and in providinga competitive product is applying the correct quality techniques to assure that parts

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

The author wishes to thank, most heartedly the reviewers for their valuable contributions andinput into the final paper. Peer reviewing and editing are commonly tedious and thankless tasks.The author equally thanks the management teams of HR and GEHCC for demonstrating awillingness to share in their world-class processes of manufacturing.

BIJ18,1

128

Benchmarking: An InternationalJournalVol. 18 No. 1, 2011pp. 128-148q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-5771DOI 10.1108/14635771111109850

continue to meet the specified quality and design requirements throughout the product’slife cycle in a lean management fashion (Biswas and Sarker, 2008; Browning and Heath,2009; Chan and Kumar, 2009; Grewal, 2008). As suggested by Butcher (2006), a greatfunction of product design is to be able to project and embody the future rather than thepresent, where true added value comes from. Competition in the marketplace demandsthat companies develop and manufacture complex products with higher performanceand quality at a lower price than before to stay competitive. Product life cycles havedecreased, thus creating the need to develop new product development/new productmanufacturability (NPD/NPM) processes and manage design change in a shorter periodof time with no compromise on quality assurance (Pikosz and Malmqvst, 2000; Summersand Scherpereel, 2008; Swink, 1999, 2000). Leading manufacturers in their respectivefields understand the importance of this and have developed new product and changequality control systems that maximize profitability for their organization. Song andParry (1999), for example, created and tested a contingency model is used to examine themoderating affects of product innovativeness on new produce performance. Their modellinked measures of product innovativeness, product synergy, development proficiency,product competitive advantage, and product performance. The model performancesuggested that increases in product innovativeness weaken the influence of productsynergies and development proficiencies on product performance.

Through the four phases of the product’s life cycle different types of qualitytechniques will be required. In the development phase, extensive reliability testingand research will be required to assure design compliance to the quality and designrequirements. As the product moves into the growth cycle, more focus will be placed onprocess quality and supplier quality. In the mature product phase and the end of lifephase, quality becomes a process of optimization and cost reduction. As suggested byDudek-Burlikowska and Szewieczek (2007), through all four cycles a critical aspect ofproduct quality is determining the part quality sensitivity to minor changes and howthose changes affect product quality and reliability.

Competitive advantage goes deeper than just the quality of parts and products.Summers and Jones (2002) pointed to several areas to address when developingcompetetive advantage but for this comparison analysis, the author of the present studywill only focus on the process of maintaining part quality and reliability as thecomplonent travels through a design change process.

1.2 Top management’s involvement is associated with innovative NPD/NPM processesthat result in redefining manufacturing cultureTop management involvement is essential in promoting product design initiativescommon to successful NPD/NPM processes (Toremen et al., 2009; Tripathi and Jeevan,2009; Vinodh et al., 2008; Wan and Chen, 2008). As McDermott (1999, p. 638) commented,“Across all the projects, there was a persistence among team believers that simply wouldnot let the projects die”. There appeared to be both a strong champion as well as a strongsponsor, usually a director through the CEO that provided the encouragement and/orfinancial backing to the projects when traditional sources were eliminated. This trendwas especially true in product developments requiring long payback periods.

Unfortunately, many product development and innovations that are viable andpossibly essential for the long-term survival of the firm may be denied due to the need forshort-term high rate of return mentality exhibited by many manufacturing firms:

Componentpart quality

assurance

129

Rather than based on promises of specific economic payback hurdles, sponsors commonlycited continued investment on a gut feel that the project could have significant impact on thelong-term success of the firm. Without a sponsor, many of the projects would have “fallenbetween the cracks” of the existing businesses of their corporations. The sponsor of each ofthese projects worked to keep them alive (even unofficially), and encourage business units toadopt them (McDermott, 1999, pp. 638-9).

It is critical, regardless of all the other factors that someone within the firm witha position of power must be willing to identify and promote high-risk and high-potentialprojects. Concepts of financial and upper management support are importantfor promoting the positive effects of development team integration on successfulNPD/NPM processes.

Quinn et al. (1996, p. 71) suggested that “the success of a corporation lies more in itsintellectual and systems capabilities than in its physical assets”. The traditional methodof management of human capital, creativity, innovation, and the learning culture withinan organization has long over-shadowed the management of the professional intellect.As with the tenets of resource-based view, strategic philosophy (Michalisin et al., 1997,2000), the intangible strategic intelligence creates most of professional intellect ofan organization, and operates on the following four levels (in increasing importance):cognitive knowledge or basic mastery of a professional discipline, advanced skills orthe ability to translate theory into effective execution or practice, systems understandingor the deep knowledge of the cause and effect relationships underlying the professionaldiscipline, and self-motivated creativity or the motivation and adaptability for success.The interaction of these factors allow nurturing organizations the ability to“simultaneously thrive in the face of today’s rapid changes and renew their cognitiveknowledge, advanced skills, and systems understanding in order to compete in the nextwave of advances” (p. 72).

Quinn et al. (1996) also noted that the professional intellect within an organizationfrequently becomes isolated inside the organization. As shown in the present study, anyattempts to isolate product development teams from the rest of the organization wereviewed very negatively in terms of its impacts on achieving the firms’ manufacturinggoals in the present study. It is a fact that the existence of a large organizational culturecreates conflict with other groups, such as marketing or manufacturing conflictingwith R&D departments. Thus, at the heart of an effective manufacturing organization,managing and developing the professional intellect is critical for sustained competitiveadvantage. The authors suggested the following successful practices to ensure thedevelopment and growth of the professional intellect: recruit the best, force intensiveearly development, constantly increase professional challenges, and evaluate and weed.As the authors point out, “heavy internal competition and frequent performanceappraisal and feedback are common in outstanding organizations” (p. 74). Organizationsconstantly need to leverage their professional intellect for sustainable competitiveadvantage.

This leveraging of professional intelligence can be accomplished by capturingknowledge in systems and software, overcoming reluctance to share information,and organizing around reinvestment in intellectual capital through relinquishingmanagerial control and empowering product development teams to mitigate thepotential threats to manufacturability. Unfortunately, to accomplish these importantobjectives, organizations may have to abandon their familiar hierarchical structures

BIJ18,1

130

and reorganize in patterns that best suit their professional intellect to create value withinthe organization. By creating intellectual webs and connectivity within the organization,networking and culture, and incentives for sharing, managers have the keys to successwithin these organizations. Just as important, how the various product team membersinteract and communicate within the organization is as critical as the actual knowledgethat is created and transferred.

Business-decision support systems within manufacturing environments must takeadvantage of the professional intellect that are found in technical project teams andleverage the power of interactive computer-based systems directed toward the complexand dependent decision problems found in strategic manufacturing management.Team integration and NPD/NPM processes must be included in any system that isdesigned to help domestic manufacturing firms to formulate generic competitivenessstrategies, to test them, and to establish when and how to make a specific plan or acombination of actions. It is becoming increasingly apparent that an organization shouldbe a catalyst for such networking, instead of creating barriers for its development. Onlythrough sincere sharing of information and the development of the professional intellectwithin the organizations’ product team culture can sustainable strategic advantage becreated in a meaningful way. The formulation of product development team culturemust support the achievement of long-term directions and mission, key strategic andfinancial objectives, overall business strategies, specific functional strategies, andtactical decision making. Hence, sincere sharing of information and the development of acollaborative environment may be created.

As noted by Rondeau et al. (2002) and Smith (2006a, b), manufacturingpractices that reduce response time and enhance customization capabilities require aninformation-rich internal environment that is capable of flexible resource deploymentand direct and continuous feedback. Especially, in a post-industrial environment,manufacturing organizations have been searching for ways to reduce time to market,while meeting stringent cost and quality targets in team integration and successfulmanagement of new product initiatives.

As previously discussed, research efforts by Swink (1999, 2000) reinforces the notionthat development team integration processes are important to manufacturability andresolving production problems. In general, project complexity and design appear to raisethe level of difficulty in manufacturing, but development team integration outweighsand may alleviate the negative aspects of these influences, which was reaffirmed in thepresent case study. Hout (1999) argued that good management practices should provideinsight to the complexity and interaction of traditional manufacturing variables withthe desire to promote a positive organizational culture of sharing and improvement.Specifically, strategic management through management’s involvement in productteam integration activities should be studied in more detail. It is proposed that suchmanagerial support of involvement in innovative NPD/NPM processes will result inre-defining the form’s manufacturing culture.

2. Case studies of product quality revision and adaptability2.1 MethodologyAs the previous studies reviewed on the tactical and strategic importance of qualitybenchmarking processes in its various forms and its associated implementationproblems (Smith and Offodile, 2007, 2008a, b), the author of the present study decided


assurance

131

to review such parts revision processes from world class, global firms that are accessibleand have open-minded approaches to new product design and development. The twomanufacturing-orientated companies that were selected were Northeast Ohio based,with global operations and reach capabilities, which were within relatively easyaccess and can be reviewed for the principles of the strategic, financial, informational,and operational viewpoints. Such organizations are mainstream economic drivers of theMidwestern USA and provide an opportunity to review manufacturing firms thatclosely link strategy with service marketing of quality and NPD/NPM processes.

While these firms are quite similar in nature and scope, especially in terms of theirdesire to serve clientele, each firm faces unique challenges in utilizing its reputation forquality and expertise in a highly competitive and cost-sensitive environment, withsignificant consequences for getting it wrong in a recessionary economy (Hsu et al., 2009;Kanniainen et al., 2009). Commonly established case study procedures associate withquality initiatives and improvements were followed in the present study (Nonthaleerakand Hendry, 2008; Smith, 2008, 2009).

2.2 Sample selectionThe two relatively large organizations analyzed from a case study perspective in termsof product design initiatives followed in the order of Newell Rubbermaid (NR) andGeneral Electric Healthcare Coils (GEHCC), two world-class design and manufacturingcompanies perform changes to existing parts continuously to comply with suppliersrequests, part cost optimization, and part obsolescence to name a few. The leaders in theindustry must maintain part quality and product reliability without spending excessiveamounts of cash and without shutting down production while the part design ischanging. They accomplish this task by implementing design and quality procedures,which allow for quicker implementation and add competitive advantage through qualityby employing quality function development scenarios and focus on positive qualityoutcomes.

Combinations of personal interviews of upper to middle management, as well ascomments from convenient samples of employees were used to gather perceptionsof the accuracy of the various managements’ perceived metric-based product qualityinitiatives and the associated strategic initiatives that support their efforts foroperational effectiveness. In essence, much of the factual information, not just personalexperiences, were obtained either directly from management’s permission, interviews,and/or from the firms’ web sites, or a combination of all named sources.

The following section begin with a brief introduction to its general operatingenvironment followed by sections describing its goals for implementing incrementaland/or radical product design and related offers, and specific information concerningthe construction and delivery systems of these systems. Discussion of the practicalapplications of lessons learned from the case studies follow these sections.

3. Company case studiesRubbermaid is a high-volume manufacturer with a diverse product offering, designing,and manufacturing consumer products for large retail customers, such as Wal-Mart Co.,and they design and manufacture products for regulated industries. Each of thesecustomers expects the highest quality product at the lowest possible price. GEHCC is alow-volume manufacturer of a niche product for the magnet resonance imaging medical

BIJ18,1

132

diagnostic systems. GEHCC designs and manufactures products under Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) regulatory requirements, with their customers demandingextremely high quality and high reliability. This case study will present a review of thequality steps performed by appropriate management of Rubbermaid and GEHCC whenthey are faced with a design change to a part, benchmarking their quality processes withthe highest industrial standards possible. The process identified for each company is arepresentation of the actual process used and in no way implies the complete compliantprocess.

3.1 Case 1: GEHCC3.1.1 Part quality process at GEHCC. As with many benching companies, managementat both the parent company, General Electric, and GEHCC have developed local andglobal written Quality Policies, Procedures and Work Instructions (2009) to facilitatea compliant methodology in maintaining part quality and reliability as the part goesthrough redesign. A part design change starts with the initial engineering change request(ECR) document, which provides the proper rationale for the change request. Somepossible reasons for a change request are; supplier requests, cost reductions, and/or toimprove manufacturability. This process is a fairly standardized process and normallyfollows recognized standards such as ISO 9000 published guidelines on engineeringchange order (ECO) systems (“Engineering Change Order System”, 2010). For the purposeof this case study, the GEHCC evaluation will be based an internal ECR to improvemanufacturability.

Once the Change Control Board approves the ECR, it is sent to the appropriateengineering department to be implemented. The eight steps involved in processingan ECR are very similar to the steps are similar to both companies, GEHCC and NR, andare shown in Figure 1. These steps are further broken down into key tasks, which requirecompletion before moving to the next step. Each of these steps will be evaluated tohighlight the importance they play in assuring that the original quality and designrequirements are met during the implementation of the design change.

3.1.2 Supplier notification of change phase. The initial contacting of the supplier is todiscuss the change and it allows the engineer an opportunity to determine if the supplieris capable of performing the design change. During the supplier review, alternativesolutions and methods can be discussed. In a complex design change, it may be necessaryto identify alternative suppliers to manufacture the part.

3.1.3 Drawing revised phase. During this process, the engineer makes the changesto the design and evaluates the design for features critical to quality (CTQ), whichincludes design characteristics, manufacturing, and quality requirements. Determiningthe design characteristics involves a thorough review and understanding of thedesign and the original quality and design requirements. The assigned engineers reviewwith established manufacturing and quality to determine if these disciplines haverequirements for additional CTQ’s. These engineers typically discuss the CTQ’s with thesupplier. Once the CTQ’s are identified the drawing can be revised.

3.1.4 First article parts phase. Before the revised drawing is released tomanufacturing the revised parts are ordered from the supplier; these parts are knownas first article parts. In this step of the process, the ability of the supplier to manufactureparts to the revised drawing is evaluated. This evaluation is called a First ArticleInspection (FAI). To conduct the FAI, an appropriate evaluation form is prepared by


assurance

133

the engineer, which identifies those criteria that require proof of compliance before thepart can be accepted for product testing. The FAI is also used to determine ifthe inspection code for the part needs to be modified. The inspection code providesinformation to quality control to identify inspection requirement for production parts.

3.1.5 Product test phase. Medical products fall under strict design and manufacturingrequirements regulated by the US FDA. Every evaluation must comply with the designcontrol requirements in FDA-based quality system regulation (21 CFR Part 820). Thegeneral guidelines are outlined by Matlis and Rubin (2009). To evaluate and demonstratethat the revised part is reliable and can meet the original quality and design requirements,a product test program must be developed. An engineering team will review the originalproduct evaluation and test documents and determine what types of tests are required forthe new part to show continued product compliance to the original quality and designrequirements. The testing requirements for the revised product are documented in atest plan, which must be reviewed and approved by engineering and quality departmentsprior to implementing the test. Testing is typically performed by specifically trainingtechnicians who understand and follow the test plan requirements and provide thenecessary documentation the data sheets. After completion of each test, the test datasheets are reviewed and approved by engineering and quality.

An assigned engineer prepares a test report after all testing is completed. The testreport documents the results of the tests, identifies if the product passed the testing, andprovides a written conclusion and recommendation on the use of the product. The reportis reviewed for compliance to the original quality and design requirements and approvedby engineering and quality prior to implementing the part change.

Figure 1.Typical change evaluationworkflow at GEHCC

Product test

First articleparts

In-house FAI Develop CTQ's

Supplier FAI &cert

Determineinspection

code

Drawingrevised

2

1 Suppliernotificationof change

Initialdiscussion

8 Updateproduction

AssemblyIn processinspection

Manufacturingquality process review

5

6 Releaserevised

documents anddrawing

Qualitypart change

Engineeringreview and

approveManufacturing

review andapprove

Productionreview and

approveSourcing

review andapprove

Service reviewand approve

Quality reviewand approve

7 Updateinspection

Newdocuments

Training

Manufacturingreview

Quality review

Test plan

Run test

Test report

43BIJ

18,1

134

3.1.6 Manufacturing and quality process review phase. The manufacturing andquality processes used in the manufacture of the product will be reviewed to assurethat the part change did not affect these documents. Any documents affected by thechange must be revised and approved and the revised documents will be released whenthe revised drawing is released.

3.1.7 Release revised documents and drawing phase. All revised documents and thedrawing will be listed on an ECO form. The ECO identifies the reason for change, therevision level of each document and drawing, it provides instructions on whichdocuments must be supplied to the supplier and which documents must be updated inmanufacturing and quality, it provides corrective action for parts in inventory, work inprocess, finished goods and on order, and the ECO provides service rework instructionif required. The overall ECO packet consisting of the revised documents, drawing, andsupport documentation will be electronically routed for final approval for complianceto the quality and design requirements before release. Once the ECO is approved forrelease, the implementation date for the ECO will be added to the ECO.

3.1.8 Update inspection phase. Prior to the implementation of the ECO, all thedocuments and drawing will be reviewed with the inspection department to updatethem on any new quality requirements and to assure that the inspection code for thepart is updated when the ECO is implemented. Also, any new training will be identifiedat this time.

3.1.9 Update production phase. Prior to the implementation of the ECO, thedocuments and drawings will be reviewed with the product assemblers to update themon any new manufacturing and quality requirements. Any new training will beidentified at this time. This entire quality revision processes is shown in Figure 1, whichshows the typical change workflows for GEHCC.

3.2 Case 2: NR3.2.1 Part quality process at NR. At the heart of the corporate quality initiatives at NR istheir new product and product change quality control system is what the organizationrefers to as the consumer-driven innovation (CDI) process. This process was designedin order create a robust procedure for generating, evaluating and launching newproducts and product updates, and consists of five milestones; discovery, definition,design, development, deployment, and delivery. Figure 2 is a representation of the basicdecision steps outlined in the CDI process at NR.

Figure 2.New product and product

change quality controlsystem, known as the CDI

process

MS Odiscovery

MS 1definition

MS 3development

MS 4deployment

MS 2design

MS 5delivery

GATE 1 GATE 2

GATE 4

GATE 3

GATE 5

Post-launchaudit


assurance

135

As shown in Figure 2, the concepts behind the CDI process are that work is done tounderstand the potential costs and benefits in the milestone processes, then evaluated bykey decision makers at each gate in order to ensure that only projects with adequatereturns are selected and implemented. In addition to this benefit, the milestone andgate procedure creates buy-in from top management and helps to expedite theimplementation of project proposals. This process gives the firm the ability toconcentrate on quality at many levels, as they are not solely focused on part quality,but the quality of ideas, and of the process as a whole.

3.2.2 MS-0-discovery phase. Members of the NR Innovation University, the majorcorporate training center for the company, lead the definition phase. These teammembers are responsible for gathering and filtering concepts at a very high level.In this phase, ideas are very broad, and are generally not linked to metrics that measuresuccess. In order to generate ideas, the team members hold regular brainstormingmeetings with players from across the supply chain and internal departments; typically,these meetings are held bi-weekly. In addition to this method, ideas can be generated viaa product creation request (PCR) or ECR. These can be submitted anytime by individualswithin the organization or by key individuals within the supply chain by visiting the CDIintranet site. These ideas are evaluated on a daily basis for linkage to strategy, marketattractiveness, and potential unmet customer/consumer needs (“CDI Process Overview”,2007). If an idea is deemed viable, it is moved from MS0 to MS1, the definition phase.

3.2.3 MS-1-definition phase. In this phase, the high-level ECR begins to route to keyindividuals in the business. These individuals are tasked with verifying and defining theopportunity. In this phase, the focus is more on the quality of the idea, rather than thepart quality, so it will be discussed only briefly. In this phase, the ECR is routed toindividuals that will put the project in perspective, and a project manager is assigned.They will put together their thoughts on the strategic fit, market potential, conductconsumer research, provide a competitive assessment, and specify resources. At theconclusion of this step, projects will either be terminated or moved to MS-2, the designphase. In order to move to the next phase, the project manager and innovation teammembers must be satisfied that the change will positively impact the firm’s bottom line,and align with business goals and values. In order to keep tabs on the process, all ECR’sare entered into our product life cycle management (PLM) software. The software keepstabs on the routing process, assigns time limits to individual tasks and allows us tocentralize all information regarding the proposed change.

Based on inputs from the project manger, applications of the softwarewill automatically determine the routing sequence, and move the project through themilestone process as tasks are completed. In addition to this automated functionality,NR employs several database administrators tasked with making sure the tasks arecompleted correctly and on time. Individuals critical to the process are tied to theperformance of the system through their yearly performance evaluations.

3.2.4 MS-2-design phase. The design phase is where things finally start to cometogether, and where the part quality procedures start to weigh heavily on the conceptmoving forward. The part quality process is referred to as the production part approvalprocess (PPAP), and integrates with the CDI process as shown in Figure 3.

As typical of most manufacturing companies, management at NR seeks to beconstantly competitive, remaining lean and high quality. For these reasons, the leadershipteam treats all manufacturing sites as an external supplier. Manufacturing sites within

BIJ18,1

136

the firm are forced to compete for business with outside suppliers every time a productchanges or a new product is introduced. For that reason, the PPAP process is the sameregardless of who actually does the manufacturing. Therefore, moving forward, we willrefer to Newell manufacturing sites and outside contractors as suppliers.

At this point in the process, there are many activities moving forward in concert asthe various functional departments tackle their respective tasks. In MS-2, the PPAPstarts with a supplier kick-off meeting. Pre-requisites to the meeting include thefinalization of product concept, revised drawings, an approved business plan, and amanufacturing/sourcing evaluation where we send the revised prints out for quotation.Upon receipt of the quotes, the strategic sourcing team will determine where the partwill be manufactured and the PPAP process can begin. The PPAP process consists ofthe following steps: supplier kick-off meeting (MS-2), documentation review (MS-3),PPAP submission request (MS-3), and PPAP submission warrant (MS-4). The supplierkick-off meeting is designed in order to communicate the goals, objectives, timeline,and requirements of the PPAP process. The process at NR also relays corrective actionrequirements and potential repercussions that can exist if the process is not followed

Figure 3.PPAP in terms

preparation and timingactivities

Milestone0

discovery

Milestone1

definition

Milestone2

design

Milestone3

development

Milestone4

deployment

Milestone5

delivery

Step 1, PPAPsupply kickoff

meeting

Step 2, documentation reviewStep 3, PPAP submission

request

Step 4, PPAPwarranty

submission


assurance

137

in a timely manner and in accordance with all standard operating procedures. Objectivesof the meeting and high-level PPAP requirements can be found in Figure 4.

3.2.5 MS-3-development phase. MS-3 phase occurs when the PPAP process starts tounfold, after the initial test run of the product is completed, along with all the requireddocumentation. The PPAP documentation required by suppliers is found in Figure 5.

All documents are considered critical to the success of the launch, for simplicitysake; however, only a few of the more critical documents are discussed as they

Figure 4.General objectives of themeeting and high-levelPPAP requirements

Program name

Part name(s)

What is PPAP?What are the keys to PPAP?

What is a pilot run?When is a pilot run performed?PPAP general requirements

Key program & PPAP dates

Source: “PPAP quality procedures” (2008)

PPAP submission includes 6 dimensional samples with 100% layout. (Minimum)

Review PPAP Submission documentation.

Review the target pilot run and PPAP submission dates for the program.

Supplier's production run at rate will be verified during the PPAP Pilot Run.

RFP product engineer and supplier quality give PPAP approval.

PPAP must be run on 100% production process at production rate.

Review the purpose of the production part approval process.

1. Supplier kickoff meeting - Occurs when supplier is awarded business.

PPAP approval must happen before first shipment.

PPAP samples mustcome from a 300 piece production Pilot Run.

4. PPAP submission - Submitted by supplier immediately following Pilot Run.

The initial production trial run from which the PPAP samples are taken.

3. PPAP submission request - Sent to supplier 4 weeks prior to PPAP.

2. Documentation request - Occurs immediately following T1 trial run.

When the process is 100% production representative.

1. Review the Program information and PPAP submission date.

A supplier kickoff meeting is performed in preparation for PPAP submission for any newproduct launch.

SUPPLIER KICKOFF MEETING

2. Review the Checklist for the topics to be reviewed during the supplier kickoff.

Work instructions

3. Review the Special instructions for any additional PPAP requirements.

Program informationDescription Supplier name

RFP product engineer

Checklist

PPAP Submission date

BIJ18,1

138

related to component quality initiatives, namely process flow, control plan, anddimensional results.

The process flow is essentially a process map that is a schematic representationof the current or proposed process flow. It can be used to show sources of variation

Figure 5.Required supplier

documentation in thePPAP process

Program name

Part number(s)

DescriptionRequest to

submitSubmitted by

supplier

Preliminary process flow

Preliminary control plan

Manufacturing floor plan

Preliminary testing results

Preliminary dimensional results

Preliminary capability studies

Production gage plan & gage R&R

Process validation test plan

Preliminary packaging samples

Material & color documentation

Development drawingsAdditional documentation 1

Additional documentation 2

SAMPLE REQUEST 1

SAMPLE REQUEST 2

1. Review the Program information and submission date. Documentation must besubmitted prior to the submission date.

DOCUMENTATION REQUEST

2. Review the Checklist for the list of documentation requested.

Use this document to request preliminary information during the development process.

Work instructions

3. Review the Special instructions for any additional notes.


Documentation requested by

Checkl ist

Notes

Document submission date

_____ Pieces per cavity

_____ Pieces per cavity



assurance

139

in the process such as different machines, the introduction of new material, the methodsused to manufacture product, and the use of manpower. It helps to analyze the entireprocess of how a specific product is manufactured and can be used to improve the qualityof the product or productivity. The purpose of control plan, on the other hand, is to aid inthe manufacturing of quality products according to customer requirements. Controlplans provide a written summary description of the systems used in minimizing processand product variation. The control plan describes the actions that are required ateach phase of the process including receiving; in-process, out-going and periodicrequirements to assure that all process outputs are being controlled. During production,the control plan provides the process monitoring and control methods that will be usedto control part and process quality. The control plan should be updated and revised asthe process changes, as shown in Figure 6. If methods of inspection are improved,it needs to be reflected in the control plan, so this document needs to accurately tell thestory of the production and inspection process.

In terms of the dimensional results, the supplier in question must providedocumentation to show that the parts supplied are in accordance with the dimensionscalled out on the prints. To accomplish this documentation properly, all dimensions,including reference dimensions, on the print are highlighted and numbered by thevendor. The dimensions are measured and compared to what is called out on the print sothat everything of value is noted on the dimensional result sheet and a copy of the printwith the ballooned numbers is included with the submission and CTQ’s will be called outon the print. An example of the PPAP dimensional report can be shown in Figure 7.

Upon receipt of the appropriate documents, management then identifies the areasthat need improvement before moving into the pilot runs. The process of refiningthe documents will continue until the PPAP process is completed and formal partsare submitted. An important aspect of the MS-3 phase involves the formal PPAPsubmission request. This request instructs the supplier to move forward with a limited,pilot production run of the part. In this step, the vendor is required to submit a minimumamount of product produced in an environment that will exactly mimic the real-worldproduction environment. This request is typically submitted four weeks prior the pilotrun in order to give suppliers ample time to work on processing parameters and processdocumentation. Figure 8 is an example PPAP submission request.

3.2.6 MS-4-deployment phase. In this phase, the pilot production runs and requireddocuments are completed and submitted to the leadership team for approval.

Figure 6.Control planexample format

QA appv'l/date:

Part number/latest change level

Part name/description By/date Appv'd date Page

Supplier/code: Ref: MFG. appv'l/date:

# Name

Process control plan

Sequence Criticalcharacteristic

SpecificationEvaluation

methodEvaluationfrequency

AuthorityReaction to out ofcontrol conditions

Relateddocuments

1

2 3 4

5 6 7

9 10 11 1 13 1 15 1 17

Machinenumber

8


BIJ18,1

140

The process starts with the submission of the PPAP part submission warrant form. Thesubmissions are reviewed by relevant associates, and hopefully, the product is releasedfor production. As with all of these steps, relevant information including drawings,documents, and communication history are uploaded into the company’s PLM softwarefor easy data sharing and project tracking.

3.2.7 MS-5-delivery phase. During MS-5 phase, the sixth and final step in the CDIprocess, production is ramped up and daily quality activities begin. In the case of NR,the critical dimensions are monitored continuously via random product audits. Typicalaudits consist of a five-piece audit every hour for critical dimensions and for fit/function.

Figure 7.PPAP dimensional report

plan example format

PPAP DIMENSIONAL REPORTPreparer instructions

1. Complete sections 1- 3.2. Item number should be linked to corresponding ballooned engineering drawing and product specifications.3. Provide report with PPAP submission to Newell Rubbermaid SQE for approval.

Refer to the supplier quality assurance manual (CORP1QA-001) for additional information.

1. General informationPart number/Rev Description

PPAP samplepart number

2. Measurement informationStatusItem

noZone/Page

Characterstic & tolerance Actual measurementAccept Reject

Comments

3. Preparer signature



assurance

141

Dimensions that prove to be difficult to control will be tracked on control charts,and periodic capability studies will be performed. In addition to these steps, managementclosely tracks other critical metrics; such as utilization, cycle time, material/labor usageand tool wear among others. Upon successful launch of the product, the documentationwill be reviewed one final time and the ECR/PCR will be closed by the relevant

Figure 8.MS-3 phase the formalPPAP submissionchecklist example format

Program name

Part name(s)

Request tosubmit Approved

PPAP part submission warrant

NR engineering drawing(s)

NR product specification(s)

NR test specifications(s)

NR packaging specification(s)

PPAP dimensional report

PPAP 100% layout samples

Process capability studies

Process flow chart

Process control plan

Gage R&R study

Supplier PPAP testing report

NSF and/or FDA approval

Received Approved

NR material & color approval

NR packaging approval

NR test report

NR process sign off results

Production run at rate results NR / GSA representative.

NR enters number & revision level



PPAP SUBMISSION REQUEST

2. Review the PPAP submission checklist for the list of PPAP submission requirements.

PPAP instructions

1. Review the PPAP information and submission date. PPAP samples and PPAP documentationmust be submitted prior to the submission date.

PPAP Submission requested by

PPAP submission checklist

Required submission date

NR materials is responsible for material and color approval.

NR packaging is responsible for packaging approval.

NR test lab is responsible for the production test lab report.

NR product engineer & supplier quality.

Special instructions

Newell Rubbermaid approval documents

3. Review the Special instructions for specific PPAP requirements.

4. To submit PPAP first sign and complete a PPAPP art submission warrant. The warrant shouldbe the first document in the PPAP submission.

Use this document to request preliminary information during the development process.

6 Parts or __________ Parts per cavity


Document description



BIJ18,1

142

project manager. All information regarding the launch will remain available to themasses for the life of the product.

4. Discussion and implications4.1 Comparison of component quality processesBoth Rubbermaid and GEHCC have very structured processes for ensuring thatpart quality is included in its part design methodology. While at first glance thereseems to be major differences in their methodologies, there are many similarities witheach organization’s approach to part quality. It is also interesting to note where theorganizations have differences as it pertains to each process. This comparison is notmeant to endorse one process over another, but rather to show how two organizationsare similar with their processes and to note where they differ.

At GEHCC, the part change process begins with the ECR as it does with Rubbermaid,but it is interesting to note how the two organizations are different in their approaches.At GEHCC, the initiation of an ECR tends to be driven by cost reductions, supplierrequests, or to improve manufacturability. These initiations tend to be driven by verytactical decision-making criteria. NR has a very different organizational mindset when itcomes to ECR, and management appears to place significant emphasis on ensuring thepart and its quality is aligned with high-level organizational mission and goals beforecreating the ECR. This is an interesting contrast to how organizations view quality froma high level. It seems like GEHCC is very tactical and in the trenches when it comes tousing quality to drive part-making decisions. Quality at this stage for NR focuses onensuring the ECR request is going to meet all organizational goals. This is not to saymanagement does not look at changing parts for the reasons listed for GEHCC, butrather to point out where the general emphasis is focused.

Once an ECR has been approved to move forward in the process, the next step is tobegin designing the actual part. It is at this point that both firms really start to focuson part quality from a production standpoint as both firms start with a design andhave to consider if internal or external suppliers will be producing the part. It isinteresting to note both firms are willing to use a supplier regardless if it is internal orexternal to the organization. They both evaluate the ability of the supplier on how theycan deliver the parts, not if the supplier is with the parent company or not.

One of the major differences in how each company addresses development is howthey handle the upfront decision-making process of determining if the supplier iscapable of making the part according to the specifications. GEHCC has incorporateda first article part process that requires the suppliers to prove they can make theparts to the quality and other specifications previously determined. Only upon passingthis initial test will the drawing be released to manufacturing for full-product testing.NR puts its process flow, control plan, and manufacturing floor plan together beforedoing actual product testing. Both organizations require that suppliers showdocumentation that they are able to produce the part to the specifications set forth inthe design documents. GEHCC takes a bit more cautious approach to the developmentbefore going to a full production run, but this situation may be due that the company is inthe medical-device industry and they have more regulations they must meet beforecommitting to a full production run. Additionally, GEHCC breaks the part design andtesting down to four milestones (first article parts, product test, manufacturing qualityprocess review, and release revised documents and drawing) while NR has this one step


assurance

143

listed as development. Again, this difference in emphasis ties back to the overallorganizational philosophy. Management at GEHCC tends to be a very tactical when itcomes to part quality and design and it shows by breaking the process down to severalmajor milestones. NR’s management tends to focus on products and quality from anorganizational level and thus has more emphasis on upfront process of the discovery anddefinition phases. While both are very good at producing high-quality products, theycome to this end through very different means. Another notable difference between thetwo is that GEHCC has built a training component into its quality part change process asit sees the training of its people as a critical step in ensuring quality.

The corporate structures for quality benchmarking at NR and GEHCC have similarprocesses in place to identify quality issues that need to be improved upon before goinginto full production. In essence, NR uses its PPAP checklist to capture and track qualityissues, while GEHCC uses a test plan and report model to do the same function. It is afterpassing through these processes that GEHCC and NR will begin a full production run ofthe indicated parts. Both organizations have set monitoring processes to address qualityissues throughout the product life cycle, as illustrated in Table I.

4.2 Management recommendationsIn most organizations, product quality and reliability is a measurement of success.The management of the two organizations discussed in the present case studymust continue to utilize various methods to maintain a level of success. Developinghigh-quality products is the objective of management at GEHCC and Rubbermaid.Moving forward to achieve this goal requires continued engagement by all levels ofeach firm, as management oversees the design of parts and products, it will also need toprovide leadership. It is essential to follow the processes in place to accomplish a long-termreturn on investment, but both companies have proven to be elite and world class in theirrespective marketplaces by demonstrating their profound commitment to offer qualityproducts. Their management must maintain a critical analysis of performance in order toassess continued process improvement. Without continuous quality improvementinitiatives, the management team minimizes the opportunity for their company to becompetitive. Continuous evaluation of critical success factors is significant in continuedprofitability, as well as consistent evaluation also includes the supply chain network.

The supply management connectivity is vital for both firms. As mentioned earlier,GEHCC engineers develop a rapport with their suppliers keeping communication lines

Part design change process comparisonActivities Rubbermaid GEHCC

Supplier notification X XDrawing revisions X XFirst article inspection X XProduct test X XManufacturing and quality process review X XRelease revised documents and drawing X XUpdate inspection X XUpdate production X X

Note: X indicates active involvement and requirements

Table I.GEHCC and Rubbermaidparts’ production qualitycomparisons

BIJ18,1

144

open for frequent change. They function as a team to collaborate on the goals of the firm.On the other hand, NR has a process by which the suppliers are included in milestonenumber two, the design phase. In a comparison of both methods, the key element is thatmanagers need to routinely assess the firm’s relationship with their suppliers, sinceestablishing or sustaining a competitive advantage is at stake and should be at theforefront of management.

As presented in the present study, component or part quality is echoed throughoutboth of the company’s organizational goals. Definitively outlined with NR, managersmust continually take in consideration the five milestones of the CDI process. The missionat GEHCC essential objectives varies, but it also focuses on a standardized processfor part quality. A diverse set of tools is at the disposal of managers to achieve long-termcompetitive strategy. One of those tools that management uses is of cost and benefitanalysis in developing strategies for future production that will assist managers inknowing their strengths and weaknesses. Management’s theoretical approach forNPD/NPM should always be one of value added to the ultimate customer. Effectiveutilization of resources is on the shoulders of the professional managers. Management atboth NR and GEHCC management must be clear about responsibilities, have good businesspractices, and implement timely reporting systems of performance for continuity of successin the marketplace (Hu et al., 2008; Jain et al., 2008; Smith, 2006a, b; McDermott, 1999).

5. General conclusions on quality assurance standardsManaging engineering change has always been a difficult and time-consuming task andis a regular source of inefficiency and irritation for manufacturers. Best-in-classcompanies understand that better change processes can drive top-line benefits and as aresult are developing these processes with a focus on improving speed to market whilemaintaining high-quality standards. Quality, or the lack of quality, affects the entireorganization from supplier to customer and from product design to maintenance.Quality has implications beyond those related to operations including; companyreputation, product liability, and global implications. All serve as strong arguments foran organization to understand quality and build a total quality management systemwith the focus of identifying and satisfying customers needs.

The cost of quality for any organization consists of four major categories, includingprevention costs, appraisal costs, internal failure, and external costs. The cost of the firstthree factors can be reasonably estimated (Kennedy and Widener, 2008), but the externalcosts which are incurred after delivery of defective parts or services can be very hard toquantify and can exceed the value of revenues associated with a product, if proper qualitymanagement is not in place for an organization. In the present case study, management atboth NR and GEHCC have shown a commitment to part quality throughout thedevelopment and redesign processes in place at each organization and have earned andmaintained the reputation of best-in-class manufacturing in their respective fields.

References

Biswas, P. and Sarker, B.R. (2008), “Optimal batch quantity models for a lean production systemwith in-cycle rework and scrap”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46No. 23, pp. 6585-610.

Browning, T.R. and Heath, R.D. (2009), “Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production costs withevidence from the F-22 program”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-35.


assurance

145

Butcher, D.R. (2006), “Importance of innovative design strategy in business”, Thomas Net News,October 26, available at: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2006/10/importance_of_innovative_design_strategy_in_business.html

CDI Process Overview (2007), Newell Rubbermaid CDI Documents, Newell Rubbermaid,Atlanta, GA.

Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, V. (2009), “Performance optimization of a leagility inspired supplychain model: a CFGTSA algorithm based approach”, International Journal of ProductionResearch, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 777-91.

Dudek-Burlikowska, M. and Szewieczek, D. (2007), “The product life cycle”, Journal AMME,Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 243-5, available at: www.journalamme.org/papers_vol24_2/24245.pdf

Engineering Change Order System (2010), “ISO 9000 resources”, available at:www.iso9000resources.com/ba/engineering-change-procedure.cfm

Grewal, C. (2008), “An initiative to implement lean manufacturing using value stream mappingin a small company”, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology andManagement, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 404-21.

Hout, T.M. (1999), “Are managers obsolete?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 161-8.

Hsu, S., Ko, P.-S., Wu, C.-C., Cheng, S.-R. and Chen, Y.-S. (2009), “Hedging with derivatives byTaiwanese listed non-financial companies”, International Journal of Electronic Finance,Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 211-34.

Hu, G., Wang, L., Fetch, S. and Bidanda, B. (2008), “A multi-objective model for project portfolioselection to implement lean and Six Sigma concepts”, International Journal of ProductionResearch, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6611-48.

Jain, V., Benyoucef, L. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “What’s the buzz about moving from ‘lean’ to‘agile’ integrated supply chains? A fuzzy intelligent agent-based approach”, InternationalJournal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6649-78.

Kanniainen, J., Piche, R. and Mikkonen, T. (2009), “Use of distributed computing in derivativepricing”, International Journal of Electronic Finance, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 270-83.

Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K. (2008), “A control framework: insights from evidence on leanaccounting”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 301-19.

McDermott, C.M. (1999), “Managing radical product development in large manufacturing firms:a longitudinal study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 631-44.

Matlis, D.R. and Rubin, D. (2009), “Managing the total product life cycle, the changing face ofmedical device product development”, Medical Products Magazine, July, available at:www.mpo-mag.com/articles/2009/07/managing-the-total-product-life-cycle

Michalisin, M.D., Kline, D.M. and Smith, R.F. (2000), “Intangible strategic assets and firmperformance: a multi-industry study of the resource-based view”, Journal of BusinessStrategy, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 91-117.

Michalisin, M.D., Smith, R.F. and Kline, D.M. (1997), “In search of strategic assets”,The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 360-87.

Nonthaleerak, P. and Hendry, L. (2008), “Exploring the six sigma phenomenon using multiplecase study evidence”, International Journal of Operations and Productions Management,Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 279-303.

Pikosz, P. and Malmqvst, J. (2000), “A comparative study of engineering change management inthree Swedish engineering companies”, available at: www.johnstark.com/ec008.pdf

PPAP Quality Procedures (2008), Newell Rubbermaid Quality Documents, Newell Rubbermaid,Atlanta, GA.

BIJ18,1

146

Quality policies, procedures and work instructions (2009), GE Quality Documents, Global:General Electric, Niskayuna, NY.

Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), “Managing the professional intellect: makingthe most of the best”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-80.

Rondeau, P.J., Vonderembse, M.A. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2002), “Investigating the level ofend-user development and involvement among time-based competitors”, Decision Sciences,Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 149-61.

Smith, A.D. (2006a), “Exploring dimensions of customer retention and information quality in theonline automobile industry”, International Journal of Electronic Business Management,Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 48-63.

Smith, A.D. (2006b), “Technology advancements for service marketing and quality improvement:multi-firm case study”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 99-113.

Smith, A.D. (2008), “Modernizing retail grocery business via knowledge management-basedsystems”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 114-26.

Smith, A.D. (2009), “The virtual classroom from a business customer retention viewpoint:an empirical-based study”, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 2 No. 4,pp. 372-400.

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2007), “Exploring forecasting and project managementcharacteristics of supply chain management”, International Journal of Logistics and SupplyManagement, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 174-214.

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2008a), “Data collection automation and total qualitymanagement: case studies of healthcare providers”, Health Services Quarterly, Vol. 25No. 3, pp. 217-40.

Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2008b), “Strategic importance of team integration issues inproduct development processes to improve manufacturability”, Team PerformanceManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 269-92.

Song, X.M. and Parry, M.E. (1999), “Challenges of managing the development of breakthroughproducts in Japan”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 665-88.

Summers, A. and Jones, D. (2002), CBI: The Voice of Business, available at: www.honeycombcreative.com/site/_pdf/DesignAdvantage.pdf

Summers, G.J. and Scherpereel, C.M. (2008), “Decision making in product development: are yououtside-in or inside-out?”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1299-314.

Swink, M. (1999), “Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of developmentteam integration processes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 691-709.

Swink, M. (2000), “Technological innovativeness as a moderator of new product designintegration and top management support”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 208-20.

Toremen, F., Karakus, M. and Yasan, T. (2009), “Total quality management practices in Turkishprimary schools”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-44.

Tripathi, M. and Jeevan, V.K.J. (2009), “Quality assurance in distance learning libraries”,Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-9.

Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S.R. and Maharaja, R. (2008), “DESSAC: a decisionsupport system for quantifying and analysing agility”, International Journal of ProductionResearch, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6739-58.

Wan, H-D. and Chen, F.F. (2008), “A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifyingimpacts of lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23,pp. 6567-84.


assurance

147

Further reading

Cavaleri, S.A. (2008), “Are learning organizations pragmatic?”, The Learning Organization,Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 474-81.

Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T.A. and Deflorin, P. (2009), “Lean, take two! Reflections from thesecond attempt at lean implementation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 79-85.

Sprovieri, J. (2008), “A modest Increase”, Assembly, Vol. 51 No. 13, pp. 22-41.

About the authorAlan D. Smith is presently University Professor of Operations Management in the Department ofManagement and Marketing at Robert Morris University, located in Pittsburgh, PA. Previously,he was Chair of the Department of Quantitative and Natural Sciences and Coordinator ofEngineering Programs at the same institution, as well as Associate Professor of BusinessAdministration and Director of Coal Mining Administration at Eastern Kentucky University.He holds concurrent PhDs in Engineering Systems/Education from The University of Akron andin Business Administration (OM and MIS) from Kent State University, as well as being author ofnumerous articles and book chapters. Alan D. Smith can be contacted at: [email protected]

BIJ18,1

148

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

7.component part

Documents

Transcript of 7.component part