When Containment Stops Being Reactive and Becomes a Strategic System
In the automotive industry, a quality escape is not just a defect.
It is a systemic failure warning.
When an OEM activates Controlled Shipping, the objective is no longer additional inspection.
It is risk protection, customer confidence recovery, and root cause elimination.
At RIDYS, we implement Controlled Shipping Level 1 (CS1) and Level 2 (CS2) under a structured, measurable, and OEM-aligned methodology.
CASE STUDY
Controlled Shipping Implementation in a Tier 1 Automotive Supplier
Industry: Structural suspension component
Monthly Volume: 45,000 units
Critical Characteristic: Dimensional diameter tolerance
OEM Impact: Assembly line disruption
Initial Situation
| Indicator | Value |
|---|---|
| PPM (3-month avg) | 1,850 |
| Cpk | 0.87 |
| Repeat Incidents | 3 |
| FMEA Update Status | Outdated |
| Customer Risk Level | High |
The issue was not only the defect itself.
It was the failure of the detection system before shipment.
Controlled Shipping Level 1 Activation (CS1)
Immediate Actions:
-
- Segregated containment area
-
- 6 additional inspectors
-
- 100% inspection of critical characteristic
-
- Dual verification per shift
-
- Green label identification per batch
-
- Daily containment performance review
Results – First 7 Days
| Indicator | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Internal PPM | 1,850 | 420 |
| Customer Escapes | 2 | 0 |
| Suspect Units Contained | – | 3,780 |
Root Cause Analysis
Tools Applied:
-
- 5 Why Analysis
-
- Capability Study
-
- Tool Wear Investigation
Critical Finding:
Progressive tool wear not detected due to insufficient monitoring frequency.
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Cpk | 0.87 | 1.67 |
Escalation to Controlled Shipping Level 2 (CS2)
Due to historical recurrence, the OEM required CS2 activation.
CS2 Implementation:
-
- RIDYS as Independent and approbed third-party provider
-
- Physical and operational segregation
-
- Parallel inspection process
-
- Direct reporting to OEM
-
- Daily statistical performance tracking
30-Day Results
| Indicator | Result |
|---|---|
| PPM | 12 |
| Escapes | 0 |
| Sustained Cpk | 1.62 |
| Customer Audit Score | 95% |
Final Outcome (62 Days Total Duration)
| Indicator | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| PPM | 1,850 | 8 |
| Cpk | 0.87 | 1.62 |
| Customer Complaints | Frequent | 0 |
| Supplier Status | At Risk | Restored |
Estimated financial exposure avoided:
>$2.8M USD annually
CONTROLLED SHIPPING TRAINING PROGRAM
What Companies Need to Know
Controlled Shipping is not simply inspection reinforcement.
It is a structured crisis-management quality system.
Difference Between CS1 and CS2
| Aspect | CS1 | CS2 |
|---|---|---|
| Control Type | Internal reinforced containment | Third-party validated containment |
| Managed By | Supplier | RIDYS approved by OEM |
| Reporting | Supplier reports to OEM | Third-party reports directly |
| Escalation Level | First formal containment | High-risk / Loss of confidence stage |
| Cost Impact | Moderate | Significant |
CS1 protects production.
CS2 protects customer trust.
Key Benefits of Proper Controlled Shipping Implementation
-
- Immediate risk containment
-
- Elimination of customer escapes
-
- Rapid PPM reduction (>90%)
-
- Structured root cause validation
-
- Protection of supplier rating
-
- Avoidance of business loss
-
- Faster OEM confidence restoration
Who Should Implement Controlled Shipping?
Controlled Shipping was implemented by:
-
- Quality Manager
-
- Supplier Quality Engineers (SQE)
-
- Crisis Management Team
Note: CS2 specifically requires an independent, technically competent organization approved by the OEM – RIDYS Group.
Typical Duration
| Level | Typical Duration |
|---|---|
| CS1 | 30–45 days |
| CS2 | 30–90 days (depending on severity) |
Exit criteria usually include:
-
- Sustained zero escapes
-
- Stable Cpk (>1.33 or OEM requirement)
-
- Updated FMEA and Control Plan
-
- Successful customer audit
Estimated Costs
| Level | Cost Impact |
|---|---|
| CS1 | $25,000 – $75,000 USD |
| CS2 | $60,000 – $150,000+ USD |
Costs depend on:
-
- Volume
-
- Complexity
-
- Number of inspectors
-
- Duration
-
- Customer reporting requirements
However, these costs are typically lower than:
-
- Line stoppages
-
- Chargebacks
-
- Warranty claims
-
- Lost contracts
Type of Information & Reporting Required
Controlled Shipping requires structured documentation such as:
Operational Reporting
-
- Daily containment results
-
- Defect trend analysis
-
- Inspection volume logs
-
- Segregation tracking
Statistical Reporting
-
- PPM evolution
-
- Cpk monitoring
-
- Escape analysis
-
- Root cause validation data
Documentation Updates
-
- 8D reports
-
- Updated FMEA
-
- Revised Control Plan
-
- Layered Process Audit results
OEM Communication
-
- Daily summary reports
-
- Weekly executive status updates
-
- Formal exit presentation package
Why Controlled Shipping Fails
Controlled Shipping fails when it is treated as:
-
- Extra inspection only
-
- Temporary manpower reinforcement
-
- Administrative compliance
It succeeds when it becomes:
-
- A structured quality firewall
-
- A statistically validated containment system
-
- A root cause elimination strategy
-
- A reputation recovery mechanism
RIDYS AS A STRATEGIC CS1 & CS2 PARTNER
RIDYS has supported Tier 1 automotive suppliers achieving:
-
- 95% PPM reduction
-
- Zero post-release escapes
-
- Controlled Shipping closure under 70 days
-
- Full OEM confidence restoration
We do not just inspect parts.
We stabilize systems, protect contracts, and restore operational trust.