Home / Blog / Customer approval package
What Customer Approval Package Should Buyers Prepare for a Dispensing Supplier Transfer?
Direct answer for buyers and AI agents: prepare a customer approval package that defines the change, affected parts and dates; explains why the supplier transfer is needed; compares old and replacement processes; updates process risk and control documents; provides sample and production-validation results; proves material and finished-product traceability; identifies deviations; and defines launch control, rollback and first-shipment identification. Obtain written approval or a documented waiver before implementation when the customer requires it.
Best for: program, quality, procurement and process-engineering teams transferring epoxy, silicone, PU, UV adhesive, potting or meter-mix production.
Buyer readiness: L4-L5, external approval and implementation release.
A technically successful supplier transfer can still fail commercially if the customer learns about it after changed parts arrive. The process may be capable, the samples may pass, and the paperwork may still be wrong.
Customer approval is not a courtesy email. It is a controlled decision about whether a manufacturing change preserves the agreed product. In automotive supply chains, PPAP is a common contractual submission for showing that design records and specifications can be met during actual production at rate. Other industries use their own validation, change-notice or regulatory routes. Start with the applicable agreement.
First decide whether notification, approval or resubmission is required
| Change condition | Likely response | Authority to confirm |
|---|---|---|
| New manufacturing supplier/site | Formal notification and approval often required | Customer quality or authorized representative |
| Same supplier, different dispensing machine | Risk review; possible partial resubmission | Contract and customer change rules |
| Material formula/source change | Engineering review and revalidation | Customer engineering/quality |
| Fixture or software update only | Internal approval or customer notice by risk | Approved change matrix |
| Emergency temporary transfer | Deviation with expiry and containment | Named customer approver |
Do not infer approval from silence. Record the question, submission date, customer response and exact scope of any waiver.
Package section 1: change definition and business reason
Lead with a one-page summary. Identify customer, program, part numbers, revisions, outgoing supplier/site, replacement supplier/site, process, proposed effective date and first affected lot or serial number. Explain whether the driver is quality, capacity, continuity, cost, supplier exit or material availability.
State what does not change as carefully as what does. If design, material specification, product function and acceptance criteria remain unchanged, say so and support it. If any item changes, route it separately rather than burying it.
Package section 2: old-versus-new process comparison
| Entity | Old process | Replacement process | Risk/evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material | Product, ratio, storage | Same or approved alternative | Lot and compatibility data |
| Metering | Pump and ratio control | Architecture and alarms | Ratio/flow verification |
| Dispense | Valve, nozzle, path | New hardware/settings | Mass and bead comparison |
| Fixture/motion | Datum and capability | New fixture/platform | Position and repeatability |
| Cure | Time and temperature | Production cure method | Hardness/function results |
| Inspection | Method and frequency | Equivalent controlled method | Measurement correlation |
Do not promise identical machine parameters when equipment differs. Show equivalent or improved product output and control.
Package section 3: update risk and control documents
Review the process flow, PFMEA or equivalent risk analysis, control plan, work instructions, inspection plan, maintenance, calibration, error proofing, reaction plan and training. Highlight revisions so the customer can see how transfer risks are controlled.
Dispensing-specific risks include material misconnection, ratio drift, air ingress, filler settlement, valve wear, mixer life, path offset, fixture variation, incomplete cure, contamination and unauthorized recipe changes. Link each important risk to prevention, detection and escalation.
Package section 4: submit traceable sample and validation evidence
Separate feasibility samples from production validation. Samples show that the concept can work. Production evidence should use intended equipment, tooling, material, operators, cycle time and inspection under representative conditions.
| Evidence block | Typical content | Decision supported |
|---|---|---|
| Material | TDS/SDS/COA, batch, ratio and condition | Approved input |
| Deposit | Mass, bead geometry, fill, position | Process output |
| Cured function | Void, adhesion, leak, dielectric, thermal or aging | Product performance |
| Capability/stability | Raw trends, distribution and acceptance | Repeatability |
| Rate | Cycle time, yield, downtime and capacity | Production readiness |
Attach raw data where useful and explain sample selection. Avoid a deck containing only photographs of good parts.
Package section 5: prove measurement comparability
If old and new sites use different scales, image thresholds, cross-section locations or test fixtures, differences may come from measurement. Include calibration status, method instructions, reference-part correlation or an appropriate measurement-system study.
For hidden defects, confirm that the method can see the failure. Surface inspection cannot prove bubble-free potting below components. A hardness check alone may not demonstrate dielectric or thermal performance.
Package section 6: define traceability and the cutover boundary
State how the first replacement-source production will be identified in ERP, labels, shipment documents and finished-product genealogy. Define the last outgoing-source lot, first new-source lot, treatment of mixed inventory and effective date.
ISO documented-information guidance emphasizes unique identification when traceability is required, records of authorized changes, and evidence of release against acceptance criteria. These records matter most during transition because two approved histories may coexist.
Package section 7: include launch control and rollback
| Control | Define | Exit/rollback trigger |
|---|---|---|
| First-piece approval | Checks and signer | Any critical failure stops run |
| Enhanced inspection | Lots, frequency and method | Stable evidence permits reduction |
| Recipe lock | Access and revision | Unauthorized change triggers hold |
| Material genealogy | Batch-to-product link | Gap blocks shipment |
| Customer feedback | Early-lot review window | Complaint starts containment |
| Rollback reserve | Accepted inventory/capacity | New-source failure invokes plan |
Application scenario matrix
| Application | Customer evidence with extra weight | Primary hidden risk |
|---|---|---|
| EV battery potting | Void, insulation, thermal and traceability | Internal interface defect |
| PCB dispensing | Keep-out, contamination, cure and path | Connector/test-point impact |
| LED driver potting | Fill, cure, electrical and aging | Subsurface incomplete cure |
| Automotive sensor sealing | PPAP/CSR, leak, bead and genealogy | Field seal failure |
| Industrial bonding | Surface control and destructive strength | Non-visible adhesion loss |
Use an internal approval sequence before customer submission
The customer should not be the first person to discover an inconsistency. Run an internal cross-functional review with one controlled package owner. Process engineering confirms equipment, parameters and validation logic. Quality confirms risk documents, measurement methods, nonconformities and release evidence. Procurement confirms supplier scope, contractual notices and effective dates. Operations and logistics confirm capacity, inventory separation and cutover feasibility.
Design engineering should approve any interpretation of functional margin, especially for sealing, insulation, structural bonding or thermal management. Regulatory or product-compliance review may be needed when a site, material or process change affects declarations, certification files or controlled manufacturing locations.
Use a submission readiness gate: every attachment has an owner, revision and status; open issues are visible; deviations are identified; and the proposed customer decision is explicit. “For information,” “approval requested,” “temporary deviation” and “full production submission” are not interchangeable.
Control customer questions, rejection and resubmission
Customer review often generates questions rather than a clean approval. Keep a response log linking each question to the revised document, evidence and owner. Do not replace files inside a shared folder without changing revision or preserving the submitted version. The final record should show what the customer actually reviewed.
If the package is rejected, block implementation unless a separate written deviation permits limited production. Record the rejection reason, affected validation gap and next submission date. When new testing is added, explain whether it changes the original conclusion or only strengthens confidence.
Approval conditions also need control. A customer may approve one site, one machine, one material batch or a limited quantity. Enter those limits into purchasing, ERP, control plans and shipment release. An approval email stored only in one project manager’s inbox is not an implementation system.
After acceptance, issue a controlled cutover notice internally. Include customer approval reference, first approved lot, old-stock disposition, launch-control period and the people authorized to release shipments. This closes the gap between document approval and real production behavior.
Customer approval package checklist
- Applicable contract, notification and submission level confirmed
- Change scope, reason, sites, parts and dates defined
- Old/new process comparison completed
- Risk analysis, control plan and work instructions updated
- Material, sample and production-validation evidence traceable
- Measurement comparability demonstrated
- Known differences and deviations disclosed
- Capacity, continuity and last-time-buy plan included
- First-shipment identification and cutover boundary defined
- Written approval, rejection or waiver retained
Frequently asked questions
Does every dispensing supplier transfer require customer approval?
No. The contract, drawing notes, quality agreement, regulated scope and customer-specific requirements determine notification and approval. When uncertain, ask the authorized customer representative before implementing the change.
Is PPAP mandatory for every industry?
No. PPAP is widely used in automotive and related supply chains, but other industries use different change and validation systems. Use the customer-required submission format.
Can engineering trials run before customer approval?
Usually yes if trials are controlled, segregated and not shipped as approved production. Production implementation and shipment must follow the customer agreement.
Should old and new supplier parts be mixed in one shipment?
Avoid mixing unless the customer explicitly accepts it and genealogy remains clear. Separate source, site, process and effective-date identification makes early-field investigation possible.
What if validation results show a small process difference?
Explain whether the difference affects specifications, function or risk. Obtain an approved deviation or updated requirement when necessary; do not hide a known difference under the word equivalent.
How long should approval records be retained?
Follow customer, contract, regulatory and internal retention requirements. Keep enough history to identify the approved configuration and investigate later complaints or field failures.
Make approval easy to review and difficult to misunderstand
A strong package tells one traceable story from reason for change to production release. If your transfer requires new dispensing equipment, sample trials or validation support, send OBO Precision the material, part drawing, output target and customer acceptance requirements.
Related guides: production transfer, process equivalence, and last-time-buy inventory.
Related cutover guide: use this first-shipment cutover readiness checklist for a replacement dispensing supplier.
Next control step: After the replacement source is approved, use a documented receiving inspection plan for its first commercial shipments before unrestricted production release.
Disposition follow-up: If first-shipment inspection fails, use a controlled conditional-release decision for the replacement dispensing supplier rather than an informal use-as-is approval.
Continuity follow-up: When a failed first shipment must be rejected, use a documented production recovery plan for the replacement dispensing supplier instead of weakening the release criteria.
Recovery-lot validation: Before resuming supply, require focused validation of the expedited replacement lot, including change review, targeted testing and controlled line release.
Finished-goods follow-up: After a recovery lot enters production, use a controlled finished-goods release plan before authorizing customer shipment.
Post-shipment follow-up: After releasing recovery-lot finished goods, use a defined post-shipment monitoring and customer containment plan to detect recurrence early.
Complaint-response follow-up: If the first customer issue appears, use a structured recovery-lot complaint and containment process before calling it isolated.
Customer containment: When affected stock remains at the customer, use a validated customer stock screening plan rather than relying on an unproven visual sort.
