MANUFACTURING / JAPAN SOURCING
Automotive part changes: the same drawing does not describe the whole change
Describe the material, process or production-site change against the accepted baseline. Ask the customer which review, evidence and release apply before treating an unchanged part number or sample result as permission to switch.
A new factory can produce the same drawing and still change the proposal
Imagine an automotive bracket being moved to another production site. The supplier will keep the drawing number and material designation, and an initial sample meets the measured dimensions. This fictional proposal still changes where and how production is carried out. Before placing a repeat order under the old approval, identify the approved site and process, the proposed differences and the customer requirements that govern the part.
This article uses an automotive purchasing case. Marine, railway and aviation parts need their own applicable requirements and technical review. Keep a design-material comparison separate from the customer’s change-control route: both may matter, and one does not replace the other.
Name the differences even when the part number stays the same
Record the existing and proposed material specification, source, process, tooling, production site, inspection and any affected subcontracted work. Include linked changes, rather than describing a site transfer as an address update if equipment or process controls also change. Mark what is unchanged and what is still unknown.
Veoneer’s published quality page calls for engineering approval before a change is implemented.[1] Its linked VS007 Appendix J v2.0 covers changes such as design, process, tooling and production location for the specified approved-PPAP scope; it also describes cases where the part number remains unchanged.[2] Use this as a customer-specific example. Obtain the applicable current documents and instructions from your own customer before deciding the required notification and submission.
For the bracket, ask the responsible engineering and quality contacts which effects need evaluation: material condition, process controls, relevant characteristics and performance in its assembly. Agree the evidence and criteria for this change; a dimension report alone need not answer those other questions.
- 1Accepted baseline: identify the original production setting and part record
- 2Proposal: show the changed site or process, even if the shape is unchanged
- 3Decision record: connect the differences to the required customer review
Fictional factories and brackets. Both shapes are illustrative; they do not prove dimensional or functional equivalence. The lines pass information into a blank review record, not permission to move production.
Give the customer a comparison that can be assessed
The following record is a request format for the fictional transfer. It is not a universal submission checklist. Ask the customer who receives the proposal, who assesses technical and quality effects, and who can release the agreed use. Keep the authorization reference and permitted scope with the part.
| Question | Existing baseline and proposed change | Evidence or decision still needed |
|---|---|---|
| Affected scope | Existing baseline and proposed changeCustomer part, drawing revision, products, sites and change reason | Evidence or decision still neededApplicable customer requirements and review contacts |
| Material and source | Existing baseline and proposed changeSpecification, condition, producer and proposed source changes | Evidence or decision still neededMaterial evidence and application-specific evaluation |
| Manufacturing | Existing baseline and proposed changeExisting and proposed site, process, tooling and subcontracted operations | Evidence or decision still neededRisk review, controls and agreed production evidence |
| Inspection and testing | Existing baseline and proposed changeMethods, equipment, criteria and available sample results | Evidence or decision still neededRequired validation, submitted records and open findings |
| Trial versus release | Existing baseline and proposed changeSample identity, intended use and proposed quantities | Evidence or decision still neededPermission for evaluation distinguished from production use |
| Switch and stock | Existing baseline and proposed changeExisting and proposed lot identity, stock and proposed timing | Evidence or decision still neededAuthorized cutover, shipment scope and retained history |
Read what an approval permits, not just its heading
In the published Veoneer example, approval to ship specified validation samples is distinguished from serial delivery and final implementation of the change.[2] That distinction matters when a purchasing email says “approved”: retain what was authorized, for which samples or production scope, by whom, and with which conditions. Do not generalize that customer’s form, phases or deadlines to another program.
Plan trials and samples so they can be identified and kept within their authorized use. If urgency leads to a proposed exception, ask for the actual authorized exception and its limits through the applicable customer process. A cost saving or a requested delivery date is not evidence that a technical difference has been resolved.
Carry the decision into the production and delivery records
Before the agreed switch, align the released drawing or specification, process and inspection records, purchasing instructions and lot identification. Agree how old stock, work in progress and changed lots will be handled, and which delivery first uses the new scope. Keep the change reference so a later complaint or reorder can be traced to the configuration supplied.
Send HAM the part and drawing references, use, reason for change, existing and proposed manufacturing scope, quantity, destination and the customer instructions already available. We can help organise questions to Japanese suppliers and compare the scope of quotations. The customer’s designated approval team determines the required review and release; HAM’s sourcing discussion does not supply that authorization.
Questions to send your supplier
Open supplier questions
Customer part number, drawing/specification revision and affected products: Existing approved site, process, tooling and material/source: Proposed differences, linked changes and reason: Applicable current customer change requirements and contacts: Expected technical/quality effects and unresolved questions: Proposed risk review, trial, sample identity, methods and criteria: Available results, missing evidence and requested submissions: Approval reference, permitted evaluation or production scope and limits: Old stock, work in progress, lot marking and cutover proposal: Required quantities, timing and destination: Production/inspection documents and purchasing instructions to update: Please separate a proposal, sample-evaluation permission and authorization to supply changed production parts.
Sources
- Veoneer — Quality general, supplier change request
Read HTML section 6 and the linked customer-specific context. Published example of prior engineering approval, not the effective contract or requirements for every automotive customer.
- Veoneer — VS007 Appendix J, Supplier Change Request Management v2.0, 21 Nov 2022
Read extracted sections 2/4 and rendered pages 3, 5, 8 and 9 of 15. Used for scope, part-number continuity, validation samples and release distinction. Not a full-manual review or confirmation of current applicability to a particular order.