4th Edition PPAP

APQP/PPAP WORKBOOK V4.
0
Copyright 2006 March Quality Services Part Name Part Number Engineering Change Level Engineering Change Level Date Supplier Name Supplier Code Street Address City State Zip Phone Number Customer Name Division Application File Name NAME NUMBER ECL ECL DATE SUPPLIER CODE ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP 555-555-5555 GM DIVISION APPLICATION FILE.XLS
For sales and technical support contact AIAG at 1-248-358-3570
THE FOLLOWING LEVELS OF DOCUMENTS WERE USED TO PREPARE THIS WORKBOOK.
DOCUMENT ADVANCED PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING AND CONTROL PLAN REFERENCE MANUAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL
EDITION First Third Third Fourth
PRINTING Feb-95 Mar-02 Apr-01 Mar-06
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER
Question
1 Was the SFMEA and/or DFMEA prepared using the DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference manual? 2 Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed? 3 Have similar part DFMEAs been considered? 4 Does the SFMEA and/or DFMEA identify Special Characteristics? 5 Have design characteristics that affect high risk priority failure modes been identified? 6 Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to high risk priority numbers? 7 Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to high severity numbers? 8 Have risk priorities been revised when corrective actions have been completed and verified?
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
Person Responsible
Due Date
Revision Date:
Prepared By:
Page 3 of 83
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Question
A. General Does the design require: 1 l New materials? / 2 l Special tooling? 3 Has assembly build variation analysis been considered? 4 Has Design of Experiments been considered? 5 Is there a plan for prototypes in place? / 6 Has a DFMEA been completed? / 7 Has a DFMA been completed? 8 Have service and maintenance issues been considered? 9 Has the Design Verification Plan been considered? 10 If yes, was it completed by a cross functional team? 11 Are all specified tests, methods, equipment and acceptance criteria clearly defined and understood? 12 Have Special Characteristics been selected? / 13 Is bill of material complete? /
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Page 4 of 83

Question
14 Are Special Characteristics properly documented? B. Engineering Drawings 15 Have dimensions that affect fit, function and durability been identified? 16 Are reference dimensions identified to minimize inspection layout time? 17 Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces identified to design functional gages? 18 Are tolerances compatible with accepted manufacturing standards? 19 Are there any requirements specified that cannot be evaluated using known inspection techniques? C. Engineering Performance Specifications 20 Have all special characteristics been identified? / 21 Is test loading sufficient to provide all conditions, i.e., production validation and end use? 22 Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specifications been tested? 23 Can additional samples be tested when a reaction plan requires it, and still conduct regularly scheduled in-process tests? 24 Will all product testing be done in-house? /
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Page 5 of 83

Question
25 If not, is it done by an approved subcontractor? / 26 Is the specified test sampling size and/or frequency feasible? 27 If required, has customer approval been obtained for test equipment? D. Material Specification 28 Are special material characteristics identified? / 29 Are specified materials, heat treat and surface treatments compatible with the durability requirements in the identified environment? 30 Are the intended material suppliers on the customer approved list? 31 Will material suppliers be required to provide certification with each shipment? 32 Have material characteristics requiring inspection been identified? If so, 33 / 34 /
l Will training be required to assure accurate test results? 36 Will outside laboratories be used? / l l
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Will characteristics be checked in-house? Is test equipment available?
35
Page 6 of 83

Question
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
37 Are all laboratories used accredited (if required)? / Have the following material requirements been considered: 38 l Handling? / 39 l Storage? / 40 l Environmental? /
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 7 of 83
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Question
1 2 3 4 Does the design require: l New materials? / l Quick change? / l Volume fluctuations? / l Mistake proofing? / Have lists been prepared identifying: l New equipment? / l New tooling? / l New test equipment? / Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for: l New equipment? / l New tooling? / l New test equipment? / Will a preliminary capability study be conducted at the tooling and/or equipment manufacturer?
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been established? 13 Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for equipment and tooling?
Page 8 of 83
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Question
14 Are setup instructions for new equipment and tooling complete and understandable? 15 Will capable gages be available to run preliminary process capability studies at the equipment supplier's facility? 16 Will preliminary process capability studies be run at the processing plant? 17 Have process characteristics that affect special product characteristics been identified? 18 Were special product characteristics used in determining acceptance criteria? 19 Does the manufacturing equipment have sufficient capacity to handle forecasted production and service volumes? 20 Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate testing?
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 9 of 83
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Question
1 Is the assistance of the customer's quality assurance or product engineering activity needed to develop or concur to the control plan? 2 Has the supplier identified who will be the quality liaison with the customer? 3 Has the supplier identified who will be the quality liaison with its suppliers? 4 Has the quality assurance system been reviewed using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors Quality System Assessment? Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover: 5 / 6 / 7 / 8
l Problem resolution analysis? / Is there a documented training program that: l Includes all employees? / l Lists whose been trained? / l Provides a training schedule? / Has training been completed for: l Statistical process control? / l Capability studies? / l l l
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Control plan requirements? Layout inspection? Engineering performance testing?
9 10 11
12 13
THIS CHECKLIST IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CHRYSLER, FORD, AND GENERAL MOTORS QUALITY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT.
Page 10 of 83

Question
14 / 15 / 16 17 18 19
l Other topics as identified? / Is each operation provided with process instructions that are keyed to the control plan? Are standard operator instructions available at each operation? Were operator/team leaders involved in developing standard operator instructions? Do inspection instructions include: l Easily understood engineering performance specifications? l Test frequencies? / l Sample sizes? / l Reaction plans? / l Documentation? / Are visual aids: l Easily understood? / l Available? / l Accessible? / l Approved? / l l
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Problem solving? Mistake proofing?
20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28
Page 11 of 83

Question
29 30
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
31 32
33
34 35 36 37
l Dated and current? / Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and establish reaction plans for statistical control charts? Is there an effective root cause analysis system in place? Have provisions been made to place the latest drawings and specifications at the point of the inspection? Are forms/logs available for appropriate personnel to record inspection results? Have provisions been made to place the following at the monitored operation: l Inspection gages? / l Gage instructions? / l Reference samples? / l Inspection logs? /
38 Have provisions been made to certify and routinely calibrate gages and test equipment? Have required measurement system capability studies been: 39 l Completed? / 40 l Acceptable? / 41 Are layout inspection equipment and facilities adequate to provide initial and ongoing layout of all details and components? Is there a procedure for controlling incoming product that identifies:
Page 12 of 83

Question
42 / 43 / 44 45 / 46 47
l Disposition of nonconforming products? / Is there a procedure to identify, segregate, and control nonconforming products to prevent shipment? Are rework/repair procedures available? Is there a procedure to requalify repaired/reworked material? Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure? l l l l
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Characteristics to be inspected? Frequency of inspection? Sample size? Designated location for approved product? /
48 49 50
51 Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned and implemented? 52 Are periodic surveys of the quality system planned and implemented? 53 Has the customer approved the packaging specification?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 13 of 83
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Question
1 Does the floor plan identify all required process and inspection points? 2 Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools, and equipment at each operation been considered? 3 Has sufficient space been allocated for all equipment? Are process and inspection areas: 4 l Of adequate size? / 5 l Properly lighted? / 6 Do inspection areas contain necessary equipment and files? Are there adequate: 7 l Staging areas? / 8 l Impound areas? / 9 Are inspection points logically located to prevent shipment of nonconforming products? 10 Have controls been established to eliminate the potential for an operation, including outside processing, to contaminate or mix similar products? 11 Is material protected from overhead or air handling systems contamination? 12 Have final audit facilities been provided?
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Page 14 of 83
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Question
13 Are controls adequate to prevent movement of nonconforming incoming material to storage or point of use?
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 15 of 83
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST

Question
1 Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production and inspection stations? 2 Were all appropriate FMEA's (SFMEA, DFMEA) available and used as aids to develop the process flow chart? 3 Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in the control plan? 4 Does the flow chart describe how the product will move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.? 5 Has the pull system/optimization been considered for this process? 6 Have provisions been made to identify and inspect reworked product before being used? 7 Have potential quality problems due to handling and outside processing been identified and corrected?
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 16 of 83
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

Question
1 Was the Process FMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors guidelines? 2 Have all operations affecting fit, function, durability, governmental regulations and safety been identified and listed sequentially? 3 Were similar part FMEA's considered? 4 Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed? 5 Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or taken for high risk priority items? 6 Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or taken for high severity numbers? 7 Were risk priorities numbers revised when corrective action was completed? 8 Were high severity numbers revised when a design change was completed? 9 Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the subsequent operation, assembly, and product? 10 Was warranty information used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA? 11 Were customer plant problems used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA? 12 Have the causes been described in terms of something that can be fixed or controlled? 13 Where detection is the major factor, have provisions been made to control the cause prior to the next operation?
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 17 of 83
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST

Question
1 Was the control plan methodology referenced in Section 6 used in preparing the control plan? 2 Have all known customer complaints been identified to facilitate the selection of special product/process characteristics? 3 Are all special product/process characteristics included in the control plan? 4 Were SFMEA, DFMEA, and PFMEA used to prepare the control plan? 5 Are material specifications requiring inspection identified? 6 Does the control pan address incoming (material/components) through processing/assembly including packaging? 7 Are engineering performance testing requirements identified? 8 Are gages and test equipment available as required by the control plan? 9 If required, has the customer approved the control plan? 10 Are gage methods compatible between supplier and customer?
Yes No
Person Responsible
Due Date
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 18 of 83
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT

Customer: Part Number: GM NUMBER Part Name: Date: NAME
Feasibility Considerations Our product quality planning team has considered the following questions, not intended to be all-inclusive in performing a feasibility evaluation. The drawings and/or specifications provided have been used as a basis for analyzing the ability to meet all specified requirements. All "no" answers are supported with attached comments identifying our concerns and/or proposed changes to enable us to meet the specified requirements. YES NO CONSIDERATION Is product adequately defined (application requirements, etc. to enable feasibility evaluation? Can Engineering Performance Specifications be met as written? Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing? Can product be manufactured with Cpk's that meet requirements? Is there adequate capacity to produce product? Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques? Can the product be manufactured without incurring any unusual: - Costs for capital equipment? - Costs for tooling? - Alternative manufacturing methods? Is statistical process control required on the product? Is statistical process control presently used on similar products? Where statistical process control is used on similar products: - Are the processes in control and stable? - Are Cpk's greater than 1.33?
Conclusion Feasible Feasible Not Feasible Sign-Off Product can be produced as specified with no revisions. Changes recommended (see attached). Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirements.
Team Member/Title/Date
PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND SIGN-OFF

DATE: PRODUCT NAME: CUSTOMER:
NAME GM
PART NUMBER: MANUFACTURING PLANT:
NUMBER CITY
1. PRELIMINARY PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY REQUIRED Ppk - SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS 2. CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required) 3. INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY SAMPLES DIMENSIONAL VISUAL LABORATORY PERFORMANCE 4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS REQUIRED SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC 5. PROCESS MONITORING APPROVED: YES / NO*
QUANTITY ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
DATE APPROVED
QUANTITY CHARACTERISTICS PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
QUANTITY ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
QUANTITY PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS PROCESS SHEETS VISUAL AIDS 6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING REQUIRED PACKAGING APPROVAL SHIPPING TRIALS 7. SIGN-OFF QUANTITY ACCEPTABLE PENDING* REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE
* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.
SUPPLIER MFG. LOCATION PART NUMBER(S) CHANGE LEVEL(S)
SUPPLIER ADDRESS NUMBER ECL
PROGRAM APPLICATION SUPPLIER CODE CODE PART NAME(S) NAME PRE-PSO MEETING DATE PSO ON-SITE VISIT DATE / NUMBER
DaimlerChrysler
PSO
5th Edition
SUPPLIER READINESS EVALUATION

QUANTITY DETERMINED BY SUPPLIER AND DAIMLERCHRYSLER PSO TEAM: SRE LINE RATE: SHIFT:
PERFORMANCE RESULTS
ITEM # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Process Feature / Part Characteristic
1 Meas. Process / Part Freq.
USL
UCL
Part / Proc. Avg.
LCL
LSL
Pp
Ppk
Quantity Attempted
Quantity Accepted
FTC Percent (without
% ACC / REJ GR&R
Notes:
Measurement Taken During In-Process / or Final Inspection
DaimlerChrysler PSO Status Summary
SSP PSO Status: Last Updated:

1 Part Number Description Asy or Stp'g Part Num. Des & Chg Lvl
S1 Date:
V1 Date:
Assembly:
Press Room:
Total:
Percent Signed:
Status by PSO Item Number

2 Design FMEA 3 Tst Sample Size & Freq. 4 Process FMEA 5 6 7 Quality Planning 8 Incoming M. Qual / Cert Run 9 Parts Handling Plan 10 11 12 13 Process Monitoring 14 Error & Mistake Proofing 15 16 Evidence of Prod. Spec. 17 Line Speed Demo 18 Outgoing Qual. Plan 19 20 21 Preventive Maintenance Process Flow Diag. & Control Plan Mfg Flr Run Tooling, Special Proc Equip. & / Prod Ident. Gages Ident. Parts Packaging & Gage & Test Shipping Eval. Spec.
Op Instr
LPA Plan
Due Date >> % Complete>>
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Key Contact
Legend: I
0% Incomplete R
25%
50% C
75% Condition Approval - Open Issues
100%
N A A
Not Applicable Completed Approved
Completed / Rejection-Action Required
DAIMLERCHRYSLER PROCESS SIGN-OFF SUMMARY REPORT

ALL PROCESS SIGN-OFF ELEMENTS APPROVED: SUPPLIER MFG. LOCATION PART NUMBER(S) CHANGE LEVEL(S) PROGRAM SUPPLIER CITY NUMBER ECL APPLICATION YES NO SUPPLIER CODE PART NAME(S) PRE-PSO MEETING DATE PSO ON-SITE VISIT DATE / NUMBER PSO EXTENDED RUN: YES CODE NAME NO OPTIONS
* Documents with asterisk should be reviewed during AQP meeting and again during the Pre-PSO documentation Review.
PSO PROCESS ELEMENTS

DOCUMENTATION Accept Reject 1 PART NUMBER, DESCRIPTION AND CHANGE LEVEL *Cross reference sheet Yes (IF APPLICABLE) 1.4 Engineering Standards Identified Yes *CATIA comments page with list of applicable standards (e.g. DCC, ENVIRONMENTAL, etc.) 2 DESIGN FMEA *Design FMEA complete & acceptable No PROCESS Accept Reject
No
Acceptable Supplier change notice procedure Evidence of customer change notice procedure Process for obtaining the latest standard revision
Yes
No
Yes
No
Accept Yes No Accept 3 TEST SAMPLE SIZES AND FREQUENCIES Yes *Signed DV and PV plans *Signed DVP&R (DV complete) *Signed waivers (IF APPLICABLE) PROCESS FMEA *Process FMEA complete & acceptable No
Reject DFMEA updated to include applicable DV failures Reject Yes No
Accept
Reject
Accept 4 Yes No Accept 5 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM & MFG FLOOR PLAN Yes *Flow diagram *Manufacturing floor plan *Work station layout CONTROL PLAN *Process characteristics identified on the Control Plan *Verification of mistake proofing on the Control Plan QUALITY PLANNING Yes *Completed PAP/APQP PSO Summary Matrix 7.2 Supply Base Management *Easy Map, Etc. Risked sub-components Level 3 PPAP data 7.3 Problem Solving Methods *Example of DOE's, etc. SID'S for DCC systems *Example of problem solving techniques 8 No No
Reject Process correlates with occurrence and detection numbers on PFMEA Reject SPC operations identified on flow diagram Unique Equipment numbers identified on mfg floor plan, flow diagram, or workstation layout Proper adherence to Control Plan Rework / Repair stations have acceptable controls (IF APPLICABLE) Yes No Yes No
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept 6 Yes No
Reject
Accept Yes No
Reject
Accept 7
Reject
Yes
No
Yes
No
Accept INCOMING MATERIAL QUALIF / CERT PLAN Yes Certificates of analysis Copy of sub-tier PSW's *Plan for lot control *Plan for traceability No
Reject Yes Evidence of sub-tier monitoring Proof of lot control Proof or traceability No
Accept
Reject
COPYRIGHT 2005 DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Page 23 of 5

SUPPLIER NAME: PART NUMBER 9 SUPPLIER NUMBER DOCUMENTATION Accept Reject Yes *Router / Traveler Cards *Parts handling Plan *Container Maintenance plan Accept 10 OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS Yes *Work Instructions (WI's) *Inspection instructions *Rework / repair instructions (IF APPLICABLE) TOOLING, EQUIPMENT AND GAGES IDENTIFIED Yes *Tooling and equipment list *Supplier tool record SPECIAL PRODUCT AND PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS IDENTIFIED Yes *FPSC plan acceptable and contains special process / product characteristics PROCESS MONITORING Yes *Control charts *1st piece approval procedure ERROR AND MISTAKE PROOFING Yes *Error & mistake proofing plan *List of error & mistake proofing Accept 15 LAYERED PROCESS AUDIT PLAN Yes *Acceptable LPA plan *Frequency and structure chart EVIDENCE OF PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Yes *SRE completed and acceptable LINE SPEED DEMONSTRATION No Accept Reject No Acceptable LPA performed Accept Reject Completed and approved Measurement System Verification Report Contingency plan for bottlenecks (IF APPLICABLE) Line Speed Observed Accept 18 OUTGOING QUALIFICATION PLAN Yes *Outgoing inspection plan *Part Inspection Standard Accept 19 PARTS PACKAGING & SHIPPING SPECS Yes *Packaging & shipping plan GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Yes *Gage R&R studies *Calibration plan & schedule No No *Acceptable container management plan Accept Reject Appropriate gages used in the process Calibration performed according to schedule Yes No Yes No Accept Reject Reject No Evidence of non-conformance Yes containment Evidence of outgoing audits (USING PART INSPECTION STANDARD) No Reject Yes No Accept Yes No Reject Accept Reject Yes No Reject No No Visual displays clearly present at each station Operators follow WI's Evidence of proper operator training STR in agreement with Supplier's manufacturing facility DCC ownership tags present Accept No Reject SPC performed for identified special characteristics Accept No Reject Acceptable 1st piece approval process 1st approval records Control & Performance charts maintained appropriately Boundary samples created & utilized Mistake proofing contingency plan with audible / visual alarm Yes No Yes No Yes No Reject No Evidence of acceptable part handling Acceptable method of inventory control Accept Reject Yes Yes No No PROCESS Accept Reject
PARTS HANDLING PLAN
Accept No
Reject
Accept Yes No
Reject
11
12
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
13
14
Accept
Reject
Accept Yes No
Reject
Accept
Reject
16
17
FTC: Accept Reject
Accept
Reject
20
Page 24 of 5

SUPPLIER NAME: PART NUMBER 21 SUPPLIER NUMBER DOCUMENTATION Accept Reject Yes *PM plan *PM schedule *PM procedures and WI's Accept 22 INITIAL PROCESS STUDY Yes Deviations (IF APPLICABLE) Sample size Ppk requirement No Acceptable FTC Acceptable process capability Yes No Reject No PM performed according to schedule Robust PM process All tooling / equipment listed on PM schedule Yes No PROCESS Accept Reject
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLANS
Accept
Reject
PSO PROCESS ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR FULL APPROVAL

DOCUMENTATION Accept Reject 23 PACKAGING SHIPPING TEST APPROVAL Yes Signed shipping / simulation test approval (MHE mtg minutes) PRODUCTION VALIDATION TESTING COMPLETE Yes Signed DVP&R (PV complete) Signed Waivers (IF APPLICABLE) No Accept No BSR/NVH testing complete PV testing complete Repair / rework process validation complete (IF APPLICABLE) CC team is sufficient to support post-PSO activities Acceptable process for warranty analysis Family PV testing agreed to by the PSO team Vehicle families included in family OV: Yes No Reject Shipping simulation testing complete Yes No Yes No Accept Reject PROCESS Accept Reject
24
Accept 25 CONTINUOUS CONFORMANCE (CC) Continuous conformance team Yes identified and trained Warranty process flow diagram Forever requirements submission procedure No
Reject
Accept
Reject
Yes
No
CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED ON-SITE REVISIT REQUIRED
YES YES
NO NO
DATE DATE
Process Sign-Off Team
Manufacturing Facility
ENGINEERING
PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE
QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER
SUPPLIER QUALITY
MANUFACTURING MANAGER
PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE Additional Signatures Needed for Internal PSO's
PLANT MANAGER
PRODUCT ENGINEERING
MANUFACTURING LINE SPVSR.
RESIDENT ENGINEERING MGR.
MQAS COORDINATOR
AME TOOL ENGINEER
AME SENIOR MANAGER
1st or 2nd Party PSO Lead
Page 25 of 5
SUPPLIER CITY NUMBER ECL
PROGRAM SUPPLIER CODE PART NAME(S) PRE-PSO MEETING DATE
APPLICATION CODE NAME DaimlerChrysler
PSO
5th Edition
PSO ON-SITE VISIT DATE / NUMBER
PROCESS SIGN-OFF COMMENTS SHEET

ELEMENT NO. ISSUE / ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TARGET
Page 26 of 5
SUPPLIER CITY NUMBER ECL
PROGRAM SUPPLIER CODE PART NAME(S) PRE-PSO MEETING DATE
APPLICATION CODE DaimlerChrysler NAME
PSO
5th Edition
PSO ON-SITE VISIT DATE / NUMBER
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM VERIFICATION REPORT

As part of the PSO, the actual measurement process must be witnessed by the PSO Team. A minimum of 3 characteristics are to be checked. For any given part, assembly, or process, the number of characteristics selected depends upon the complexity. A minimum of 30 randomly selected samples shall be checked during the PSO on-site visit. Variable data is preferred but attribute data is acceptable. Refer to the Ppk Capability Matrix (Appendix B of the PSO 5th Edition Manual) for Ppk requirements. For attribute data, a 30 piece sample with one or more non-conformances is unacceptable. All deviations shall be listed in the COMMENTS section of this document.
SUMMARY EXAMPLE
CHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION METHOD OF MEASUREMENT QUANTITY QUANTITY ATTEMPTED ACCEPTED FTC PERCENTAGE (without repair) Pp / Ppk PROCESS ACC / REJ
Length Hole Size Number of parts witnessed:
3.6 - 7.5mm 2.0 +/- 0.2mm
Caliper CMM Witnessed By:
30 30
30 28
100% 93%
1.7/1.6 2.3/2.2
ACC REJ
DATA
CHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION METHOD OF MEASUREMENT QUANTITY QUANTITY ATTEMPTED ACCEPTED FTC PERCENTAGE (without repair) Pp / Ppk PROCESS ACC / REJ
COMMENTS:
Page 5 of 5
PRODUCTION DEMONSTRATION RESULTS

SUPPLIER MFG. LOCATION PART NUMBER(S) CHANGE LEVEL(S) SUPPLIER ADDRESS NUMBER ECL PROGRAM APPLICATION SUPPLIER CODE CODE PART NAME(S) NAME PRE-PSO MEETING DATE PSO ON-SITE VISIT DATE / NUMBER
DaimlerChrysler
PSO
5th Edition
Line Speed Demonstration

Quoted Tooling Capacity Net DC Operating Time Line Speed Required Part Quantity Ran Part Quantity Accepted Duration of Run Line Speed Demonstrated FTC % of DC Capacity Line Shared (Y/N): Number of shifts (SH): Hours / Shift (HR): Days / Week (DY): Other Customer Capacity Excess Capacity Available
COMMENTS
Note: Pieces per hour shall be greater than or equal to the Line Speed Required. FTC shall be 90% or greater or a signed waiver from the appropriate Supplier Quality Manager is required.
Summary Example
ITEM # 1 2 Process Feature / Part Characteristic P025 Gap - Machine 66 P025 Gap - Machine 67 Meas. USL Process / Part Freq. Part 2/Shift 0.097 Part 2/Shift 0.097
1
UCL 0.009 0.009
Part / Proc. Avg. 0.0874 0.0874
LCL 0.085 0.085
LSL 0.077 0.077
Pp 2.5 2.54
Ppk 2.28 2.41
Quantity Attempted 30 30
Quantity Accepted 30 30
FTC Percent (without 100% 100%
% ACC / REJ GR&R 9.37 ACC 12.7 ACC
Initial Process Study

ITEM # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Process Feature / Part Characteristic Meas. Process / Part Freq.
1
USL
UCL
Part / Proc. Avg.
LCL
LSL
Pp
Ppk
Quantity Attempted
Quantity Accepted
FTC Percent (without
% ACC / REJ GR&R
Notes:
Measurement Taken During In-Process / or Final Inspection
Page 28 of 83
PART HISTORY
Part Number Part Name
NUMBER Date Remarks
NAME
Page 29 of 83
PROCESS / INSPECTION FLOWCHART

Product Program Supplier Name Supplier Location Legend: Operation Transportation Inspection Description of Operation or Event Delay Storage Evaluation and Analysis Methods CITY SUPPLIER STATE Issue Date Part Name Part Number ECL NAME NUMBER ECL
Operation or Event
Page 30 of 83
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

PART NUMBER: PART DESCRIPTION: NUMBER NAME
FABRICATION
DATE: ECL: PREPARED BY:
ECL
INSPECT
STORE
MOVE
STEP
OPERATION DESCRIPTION
PRODUCT AND PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS
ITEM #
ITEM #
CONTROL METHODS
Page 31 of 83
PROCESS FLOW
Part # NUMBER Part Name NAME Component to ECL Product Line Assembly Name Process Flow Diagram operation w/auto inspection Process Responsibility Core Team Key Date Operation Potential Quality Problems Prepared By Date (revised) Date (original) Product Characteristics
JOB #
Process Characteristics
w/mult product streams transportation inspection decision operator rework R Delay partial storage
CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX
Part Number Engineering Change Level Part Name
NUMBER
ECL
NAME C = Characteristic at an operation used for clamping L = Characteristic at an operation used for locating X = Characteristic created or changed by this operation should match the process flow diagram form
DIMENSION NUMBER
OPERATION NUMBER DESCRIPTION TOLERANCE
Page 33 of 83
DESIGN MATRIX Product Code / Description: POTENTIAL CAUSES

ROBUST THRESHOLD RANGE Prelim. Special Characteristics
Project #: FUNCTION - DESIRED ATTRIBUTES (POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES)
PROCESS ABILITY
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS: HIGH = 3; MED = 2; LOW = 1; NONE = 0; UNKNOWN = ?
APPEARANCE
CATEGORY / CHARACTERISTICS
ENVIRONMENTAL
FAILURE
PERFORMANCE
UNITS
System Subsystem Component Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) Core Team:

Item / Function Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (DESIGN FMEA) Design Responsibility: APPLICATION Key Date SUPPLIER
FMEA Number: Prepared by: Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS
S e v
C l a s s
Potential Causes(s)/ Mechanism(s) of Failure
O c c u r
Current Design Controls -Prevention -Detection
D e t e c
R. P. N.
Recommended Action(s)
Responsibility & Target Completion Date
Action Results Actions Taken S e v O c c D e t R. P. N.
Page 35 of 83
System Subsystem Component Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) Core Team:

Item / Function Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (DESIGN FMEA) Design Responsibility APPLICATION Key Date SUPPLIER
FILE.XLS
S e v
C l a s s
O c c u r
Current Process Controls Prevention
Current Process Controls Detection
D e t e c
R. P. N.
Page 36 of 83
Print # Item:
NUMBER NAME
Rev.
ECL
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PROCESS FMEA) Process Responsibility: Key Date SUPPLIER
FILE.XLS
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) Core Team:

Process Function/ Requirements Potential Failure Mode
APPLICATION
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
S e v
C l a s s
O c c u r
Current Process Controls -Prevention -Detection
D e t e c
R. P. N.
Page 37 of 83
Print # Item:
NUMBER NAME
Rev.
ECL
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (PROCESS FMEA) Process Responsibility Key Date SUPPLIER
FILE.XLS
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) Core Team:

Process Function/ Requirements Potential Failure Mode
APPLICATION
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
S e v
C l a s s
O c c u r
D e t e c
R. P. N.
Page 38 of 83
System Subsystem Component Program(s) / Plant(s) Core Team:

Machinery Function / Requirements Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure S e v C l a s s
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (MACHINERY FMEA) Supplier Name Key Date SUPPLIER
FILE.XLS
O c c u r
Current Machinery Controls -Prevention -Detection
D e t e c
R. P. N.
Action Results Actions Taken S e v O c c D e t
Page 39 of 83
Action Results R. P. N.
Page 40 of 83
System Subsystem Component Program(s) / Plant(s) Core Team:

Machinery Function / Requirements Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure S e v C l a s s
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS (MACHINERY FMEA) Supplier Name Key Date SUPPLIER
FILE.XLS
O c c u r
D e t e c
R. P. N.
Action Results Actions Taken S e v O c c D e t
Page 41 of 83
Action Results R. P. N.
Page 42 of 83
Prototype Control Plan Number
Pre-Launch
Production Key Contact/Phone Core Team
CONTROL PLAN
Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS
Part Number/Latest Change Level
555-555-5555 ECL
Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) CHARACTERISTICS NO. PRODUCT PROCESS
1/1/1996
1/1/1996
Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER
Part Name/Description
NAME
Supplier/Plant
SUPPLIER
CODE
SPECIA METHODS L PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE CHAR. SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT SIZE FREQ. CLASS TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE REACTION PLAN
PART/ MACHINE, PROCESS NAME/ PROCES DEVICE OPERATION S JIG, TOOLS DESCRIPTION NUMBER FOR MFG.
CONTROL METHOD
Page 43 of 83
Prototype Control Plan Number
Pre-Launch
CONTROL PLAN SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Production Key Contact/Phone Core Team Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS
Part Number/Latest Change Level
555-555-5555 ECL
Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
1/1/1996
1/1/1996
Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER
Part Name/Description
NAME
Supplier/Plant
SUPPLIER No.
CODE Description/Rationale
Specification/Tolerance
Class
Illustration/Pictorial
Page 44 of 83
DATA POINT COORDINATES

Control Plan No. Part Number Engineering Change Level Date(Orig):
FILE.XLS
Part Name
NUMBER
Customer Supplier
ECL
Date(Rev):
1/1/1996 1/1/1996 Point Ident. X Y Z
NAME Char. Point No. Ident. X Y Z Char. Point No. Ident.
GM X Y Z
SUPPLIER Char. No.
Page 45 of 83
Dynamic Control Plan - Master Copy

Company/Plant Department Machine Operation Part Number Station Part Name Control Plan Revision Date B/P revision date
SUPPLIER
Process Characteristic Char Description # (Product & Process)
NAME
Process sheet revision date
NUMBER
ECL DATE
C Spec T I Failure Effects S Causes O Current D R Recom. Area Actions S O D R Ctrl. l Control T Gage desc, GR&R Cp/Cpk Reaction y m Mode of E of C Controls E P Actions Respon. Taken E C E P Fact. a Method o master, & (target) Plans p p failure V Failure C T N & Date V C T N s o detail Date & Date e s l
Page 46 of 83
Dynamic Control Plan - Operator Copy

Department Process Operation Machine Part Name Control Plan Revision Date Process Sheet Revision Date B/P Revision Date
NAME
Part Number
Char #
Characteristic Description
Spec
NUMBER C l Control a Method s s
ECL DATE Current Controls Gage desc, master, detail Reaction Plans
Page 47 of 83
Production Part Approval Dimensional Test Results

ORGANIZATION:
Page 48 of 83 Pages
SUPPLIER
PART NUMBER: PART NAME:
SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE INSPECTION FACILITY:
NUMBER NAME ECL
DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
ITEM
DIMENSION / SPECIFICATION
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS
TEST DATE
QTY. TESTED
ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA)
OK
NOT OK
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
March CFG-1003 2006
Production Part Approval Material Test Results

ORGANIZATION:
Page 83 of 49 Pages
SUPPLIER
SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE MATERIAL SUPPLIER: *CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE:
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.
NUMBER NAME ECL
DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS: NAME of LABORATORY: TEST DATE QTY. TESTED
MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)
OK
NOT OK
March CFG-1004 2006
Production Part Approval Performance Test Results

ORGANIZATION:
Page 50 of 83 Pages
SUPPLIER
SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE NAME of LABORATORY: *CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE:
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.
NUMBER NAME ECL
DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS: TEST DATE QTY. TESTED
TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ TEST CONDITIONS
OK
NOT OK
March CFG-1005 2006
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT

PART NUMBER PART NAME NAME SUBMISSION DRAWING APPLICATION (VEHICLES) E/C LEVEL DATE SUPPLIER / VENDOR
NUMBER NAME SUPPLIER

PART SUBMISSION WARRANT PRE TEXTURE LOCATION
NUMBER BUYER CODE MANUFACTURING SPECIAL SAMPLE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT
APPLICATION
ECL ADDRESS CITY STATE

RE-SUBMISSION ENGINEERING CHANGE
ORGANIZATION REASON FOR
ZIP CODE
OTHER
CODE
APPEARANCE EVALUATION
AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER
ORGANIZATION SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION
PRE-TEXTURE EVALUATION CORRECT AND PROCEED CORRECT AND PROCEED APPROVED TO ETCH/TOOL/EDM
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE AND DATE
COLOR EVALUATION
METALLIC COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL DATE TYPE SOURCE
RED
COLOR PART DISPOSITION SUFFIX
HUE
YEL GRN BLU
VALUE
LIGHT DARK
CHROMA
GRAY CLEAN
GLOSS
HIGH LOW
BRILLIANCE SHIPPING
HIGH LOW
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER
COMMENTS
ORGANIZATION SIGNATURE
PHONE NO.
DATE
AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
DATE
March CFG-1002 2006
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT ATTRIBUTE ANALYTICAL METHOD

Part Number Gage Name Gage Number Gage Type Upper Limit Appraiser Date Performed Lower Limit
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ATTRIBUTE DATA XT P'a a 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
FROM THE GRAPH ENTER THE FOLLOWING: XT (P=.5) = XT (P=.995) = XT (P=.005) =
Measurement Unit Analysis

Bias B = = Repeatability R = =
t Statistic t = = = 31.3 IBI / R t0.025,19 = 2.093
Result
Reviewed Title
Directions for Gage Performance Curve for Attribute Analytical Method Form
1) Click Tools - Data Analysis - Regression (If Data Analysis is not available load Analysis Tool Pak from the Add-Ins menu) 2) In the box for Input Y Range select the cells GR&R ATT(L)!D14:D22 3) In the box for Input X Range select the cells GR&R ATT(L)!B14:B22 4) In the box for Output range select the cells below A23:M60 5) Check Line Fit Plots 6) Press OK 7) Copy the Line Fit plot graph to the space on the Analytic sheet 8) Change the graph title to Gage Performance Curve 9) Change the x axis to Xt 10) Change the y axis to Probability
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT ATTRIBUTE RISK METHOD

Part Number Gage Name Gage Number Upper Specification Date Performed Gage Type Lower Specification Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
DATA TABLE
PART 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Reference Value Code
Page 54 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
DATA TABLE CONTINUED

PART 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Reference Value Code
Risk Analysis
A * B Crosstabulation
B 0 A 1 Total Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0
B * C Crosstabulation
C 0 B 1 Total Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0
Page 55 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
A * C Crosstabulation
C 0 A 1 Total Count Expected Count Count Expected Count Count Expected Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0
Kappa A B C
A -
B -
DETERMINATION AxB AxC BxC
Approved for Use
Date
Page 56 of 83
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET VARIABLE DATA RESULTS

Part Number Gage Name Gage Number Specification Gage Type Trials Parts Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C Appraisers Date Performed
GA
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic Characteristic Classification
Lower Upper
APPRAISER/ TRIAL # 1. A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. C 12. 13. 14. 15. 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 4 5
PART 6 7 8 9 10
AVERAGE
xa= ra=
xb= rb=
xc= rc= X=
Rp =
16. PART AVERAGE 17. 18. 19. (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = * UCLR =
R= xDIFF=
UCLR=
R x D4 =
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations. Notes:

Part Number Gage Name Gage Number Gage Type Trials Parts Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C Appraisers Date Performed
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV) EV = = = Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV) {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 AV = = =
Appraisers
% Total Variation (TV)

K1 0.8865 0.5907 % AV % EV = = = = = = 2 3 0.5236 % GRR = = = 100 (GRR/TV) 100 (AV/TV) 100 (EV/TV)
R x K1
Trials 2 3
n = parts
r = trials
2 2 1/2
K2
0.7087
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) GRR = = = Part Variation (PV) RP x K3 PV = = = Total Variation (TV) TV = = = {(GRR + PV )}
2 2 1/2
{(EV + AV )}
Parts 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
K3 0.7087 0.5236 0.4464 0.4032 0.3745 0.3534 0.3378 0.3247 0.3145 ndc % PV
= = =
100 (PV/TV)
= = =
1.41(PV/GRR)
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual , Third edition.

GA
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
APPRAISER/ TRIAL # 1. A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. C 12. 13. 14. 15. 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 4 5
PART 6 7 8 9 10
AVERAGE
xa= ra=
xb= rb=
xc= rc= X= Rp = R= xDIFF=

UCLR=
16. PART AVERAGE 17. 18. 19. (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = * UCLR =
R x D4 =
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations. Notes:

Part Number Gage Name Gage Number Gage Type Trials Parts Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C Appraisers Date Performed
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV) EV = = = Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV) {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 AV = = =
Appraisers
% Tolerance (Tol)
K1 0.8865 0.5907 % AV % EV = = = = = = 2 3 0.5236 % GRR = = = 100 (GRR/Tol) 100 (AV/Tol) 100 (EV/Tol)
R x K1
Trials 2 3
n = parts
r = trials
2 2 1/2
K2
0.7087
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) GRR = = = Part Variation (PV) RP x K3 PV = = = Tolerance (Tol) Tol = = = Upper - Lower / 6 ( Upper - Lower ) / 6 {(EV + AV )} Parts 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 K3 0.7087 0.5236 0.4464 0.4032 0.3745 0.3534 0.3378 0.3247 0.3145
% PV
= = =
100 (PV/Tol)
ndc
= = =
1.41(PV/GRR)
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual , Third edition.
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET ANOVA METHOD

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
APPRAISER/ TRIAL # 1. A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. C 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. PART AVERAGE 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R
PART 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AVERAGE
xa= ra=
xb= rb=
xc= rc= X=
Rp =
Anova Table
Source Appraiser Parts Appraiser-by-Part Equipment Total * Significant at a = 0.05 level DF SS MS F Sig
Page 61 of 83
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET ANOVA METHOD

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Anova Report
Repeatability (EV) Reproducibility (AV) Appraiser by Part (INT) GRR Part-to-Part (PV)
Standard Deviation (s)
% Total Variation
% Contribution
Note: Tolerance = Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =
Total variation (TV) =
Page 62 of 83
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
APPRAISER/ TRIAL # 1. A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. C 12. 13. 14. 15. 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R 1 2 3 AVE R
PART 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AVERAGE
xa= ra=
xb= rb=
xc= rc= X= Rp =
16. PART AVE ( Xp )
Note:
The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indication true bias.
Page 63 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Average Chart -"Stacked"
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Su
Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C Upper Spec Lower Spec
Average
Up Lo Ru
Part Number
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Stacked"

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Part Number
Analysis:
Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C Rucl
Range
Page 64 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Average Chart -"Unstacked" 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Average
Appr A
Analysis:
Appr B
Appr C
Range Chart -"Unstacked" 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Average
Appr A
Analysis:
Appr B
Appr C
Page 65 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Run Chart 1.00
0.90
0.80 0.70 0.60 Value 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 Part
Analysis:
10
Page 66 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Su
Scatter Plot
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Part 1
Part 3
Scatter Plot
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Part 6
Part 8
Analysis:
Page 67 of 83
Part 10
Part 5

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ap
Ap
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Analysis:
Page 68 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Error Chart
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Part 1
Part 3
Error Chart
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Part 6
Part 8
Analysis:
Page 69 of 83
Part 10
Part 5

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Normalized Histogram - Error

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
su
div Co
Appr A

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Appr B

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Appr C
Analysis:
Page 70 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
XY Plot of Averages by Size

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Ap Ap
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Analysis:
Page 71 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Comparison XY Plot
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00
Appr B
2.00
4.00
6.00 Appr A
8.00
10.00
12.00
Comparison XY Plot
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00
Appr C
2.00
4.00
6.00 Appr A
8.00
10.00
12.00
Page 72 of 83

NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Lower Upper
Comparison XY Plot
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00
Appr C
2.00
4.00
6.00 Appr B
8.00
10.00
12.00
Analysis:
Page 73 of 83
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )
PART NO.
CHART NO. SPECIFICATION LIMITS
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE
NUMBER
NAME
APPRAISER A GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
x=
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4
UCL =
LCL =
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
r=
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4
UCL =
LCL =
RANGES (R CHART)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
APPRAISER A PART NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4
APPRAISER B 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4
APPRAISER C 5 6 7 8 9 10
R E A D I N G S
1 2 3 4 5
SUM
x R
SUM NUM HIGHLOW ** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )
PART NO.
CHART NO. SPECIFICATION LIMITS
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE
NUMBER
NAME
APPRAISER A GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
Computations for the Control Chart Method of Evaluating a Measurement Process

REPLICATION ERROR: Average Subgroup Range = r = Number of replications = Subgroup Size = r = Estimate Replication Standard Deviation r / d2 = se = CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT: no 2 3 d2* 1.410 1.906 Number of Appraisers = nA = Number of Samples = n = Range of Appraiser Averages = RA = Appraiser Effect = RA / d2* = sA = CALCULATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION: sm = SQRT ( se + sA ) Sample Averages 0.00 Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Average 0 0 0.00 r 2 3 4 5 d2 1.126 1.693 2.059 2.326
Appraiser Averages Appraiser A B C Average
CALCULATIONS FOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO: no 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 d2* 1.410 1.906 2.237 2.477 2.669 2.827 2.961 3.076 3.178 Range for these Sample Averages = Rp = Estimate Sample to Sample Standard Deviation: sp Signal to Noise Ratio: sp / sm = = Rp / d2* =
Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is: ndc = 1.41 x sp / sm =
This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals that will span the range of product variation. (A 97% confidence interval centered on a single measurement would contain the actual product value that is represented by that measurement 97% of the time.)
GAGE R STUDY
PART NO.
CHART NO. ZERO EQUALS
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE
NUMBER
NAME
APPRAISER UPPER SPECIFICATION LOWER SPECIFICATION
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART) x= UCL =

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50
0.40 0.30
LCL =
0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RANGES (R CHART) r= UCL =
LCL =
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
10
READING VALUE R HIGHLOW
10
n/a
** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL
GAGE R ANALYSIS
Data in control? % Repeatability =
This method CANNOT be used for final gage acceptance without other complete and detailed MSA methods.
Bulk Materials Requirements Checklist
Project:
Comments / Conditions Approved by / date
Required / Primary Responsibility Target Date Customer Supplier Product Design and Development Verification Design Matrix Design FMEA Special Product Characteristics Design Records Prototype Control Plan Appearance Approval Report Master Samples Test Results Dimensional Results Checking Aids Engineering Approval Process Design and Development Verification Process Flow Diagrams Process FMEA Special Product Characteristics Pre-launch Control Plan Production Control Plan Measurement System Studies Interim Approval Product and Process Validation Initial Process Studies Part Submission Warrant Elements to be Completed as Needed Customer Plant Connection Customer Specific Requirements Change Documentation Supplier Considerations
Plan agreed to by: Name / Function
Company / Title / Date
BULK MATERIAL INTERIM APPROVAL FORM

SUPPLIER NAME: SUPPLIER SUPPLIER CODE: CODE MANUF. SITE: CITY ENG. CHANGE #: ECL RECEIVED DATE: SUBMISSION LEVEL: TRACKING CODE: PRODUCT NAME: NAME ENG. SPEC.: PART #: FORMULA DATE: RECEIVED BY: EXPIRATION DATE: RE-SUBMISSION DATE:
STATUS: (NR - Not Required, A - Approved, I - Interim)

Design Matrix Control Plans Test results DFMEA: PFMEA: Process Studies: Special Product Characteristics Special Process Characteristics Dimensional Results Appearance Approval Report Engineering Approval Process Flow Diagram Master Sample
Measurement Systems Studies:
SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MATERIAL AUTHORIZED (IF APPLICABLE): PRODUCTION TRIAL AUTHORIZATION #: REASON(S) FOR INTERIM APPROVAL:
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED, EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE (CLASSIFY AS ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PROCESS, OR OTHER):
ACTIONS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED DURING INTERIM PERIOD, EFFECTIVE DATE:
PROGRESS REVIEW DATE: DATE MATERIAL DUE AT PLANT: WHAT ACTIONS ARE TAKING PLACE TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE SUBMISSIONS WILL CONFORM TO BULK MATERIAL PPAP REQUIREMENTS BY THE SAMPLE PROMISE DATE?
SUPPLIER (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE) (PRINT NAME) CUSTOMER APPROVALS (as needed): PRODUCT ENG. (SIGNATURE) (PRINT NAME) MATERIALS ENG. (SIGNATURE) (PRINT NAME) QUALITY ENG. (SIGNATURE) (PRINT NAME) INTERIM APPROVAL NUMBER:
PHONE: DATE: PHONE: DATE:
PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE NOTIFICATION

Complete this form and e-mail to your customer organization whenever customer notification is required by the PPAP Manual in Table 3.1. Your customer will respond back with an acknowledgement and may request additional change clarification or PPAP submission requirements. To:
Organization Part Number: Customer Part Number: Purchase Order Number: Application:
Customer: GM
Engineering Revision Level:
DIVISION
Dated:
NUMBER
Engineering Revision Level:
ECL
Dated:
ECL DATE
Safety and/or Government Regulation:
APPLICATION
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION

Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip:
CITY
SUPPLIER ADDRESS STATE
Code:
CODE
Change Type (check all that apply) Dimensional Materials Functional
ZIP
Customer Plants Affected:
Design Responsibility:
Customer
Organization
Appearance
Organization Change That May Affect End Item:

Product Change Engineering Drawing Change New or Revised Subcomponent
Expected PPAP Completion / Submission Date: DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE:
Planned Date of Implementation: DECLARATION: I hereby certify that representative samples will be manufactured using the revised product and/or process and verified, where appropriate, for dimensional change, appearance change, physical property change, functionally for performance and durability. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for customer review. Explanation/Comments:
NAME: BUSINESS PHONE NO: E-MAIL:
TITLE: FAX NO: DATE:
NOTE: Please submit this notification at least 6 weeks prior to the planned change implementation!
Contact your customer to determine if this form is available in an electronic format or if this form should be faxed.
March 2006
THE-1220
Truck Industry Part Name Tool PO Number Additional Engineering Changes Shown on Drawing Number Checking Aid Number
Part Submission Warrant

NAME
Customer Part Number
NUMBER ECL
Rev.
If applicable Dated Dated
Engineering Drawing Change Level
Purchase Order No. Engineering Change Level SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Weight (kg) Dated
SUPPLIER
Organization Name and Code
CODE
GM
Customer Name/Division
DIVISION
ADDRESS
Street Address Customer Contact
CITY
City Note:
STATE
State
ZIP
Zip
APPLICATION
Application
Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances? Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes?
Yes Yes
No No
REASON FOR SUBMISSION Initial submission Engineering Change(s) Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or Additional Correction of Discrepancy Tooling inactive > than 1 year REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one) Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer. Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer. Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer. Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer. Change to Optional Construction or Material Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change Change in Part Processing Parts produced at Additional Location Other - please specify
1
(check)
10
11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufacturing location. DECLARATION I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts and have been made to the applicable customer drawings and specifications and are made from specified materials on regular production tooling with no operations other than the regular production process. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for review. EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
List Molds / Cavities / Production Processes Organization Authorized Signature Print Name Title Phone No. E-Mail FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY PPAP Warrant Disposition: 555-555-5555 Date Fax No.
Approved Interim Approval
Rejected
Comment: Date
Customer Signature Print Name
March 2006
THE-1001
Part Submission Warrant

Part Name Shown on Drawing Number Engineering Change Level Additional Engineering Changes Safety and/or Government Regulation Checking Aid Number
NAME
Cust. Part Number Orig. Part Number
NUMBER
ECL
Dated Dated
ECL DATE
Yes
No
Purchase Order No.
Weight (kg) Dated
Checking Aid Eng. Change Level CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
SUPPLIER
Organization Name & Supplier/Vendor Code
CODE
GM
Customer Name/Division
DIVISION
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY
City
STATE
Region
ZIP
Postal Code Country
APPLICATION
Application
MATERIALS REPORTING Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported? Submitted by IMDS or other customer format:
Yes
No
n/a
Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one) Initial submission Engineering Change(s) Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Correction of Discrepancy Tooling Inactive > than 1 year REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)
Yes
No
n/a
Change to Optional Construction or Material Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change Change in Part Processing Parts produced at Additional Location Other - please specify
Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer. Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer. Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer. Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer. Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at organization's manufacturing location. SUBMISSION RESULTS dimensional measurements The results for These results meet all design record requirements: Mold / Cavity / Production Process DECLARATION I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, which were made by a process that meets all Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples were produced at the production rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your review. I have noted any deviation from this declaration below. EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
material and functional tests Yes NO
appearance criteria
statistical process package
(If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered? Organization Authorized Signature Print Name Title Phone No. E-mail
Yes
No
n/a
Date
555-555-5555
Fax No.
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE) PPAP Warrant Disposition: Customer Signature Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)
Approved
Rejected
Other
Date
March 2006
CFG-1001
CUSTOMER LIST
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ACTIVE # IN DOCUMENT GM Ford Motor Company DaimlerChrysler 1
D/P FMEA LISTS

SEVERITY SCALE 10 Hazardous - w/o warning 9 Hazardous - w/ warning 8 Very High 7 High 6 Moderate 5 Low 4 Very Low 3 Minor 2 Very Minor 1 None OCCURENCE SCALE 10 >100 Per 1,000 9 50 Per 1,000 8 20 per 1,000 7 10 Per 1,000 6 5 Per 1,000 5 2 Per 1,000 4 1 Per 1,000 3 0.5 per 1,000 2 0.1 Per 1,000 1 <0.01 Per 1,000 DETECTION SCALE 10 Absolute Impossible 9 Very Remote 8 Remote 7 Very Low 6 Low 5 Moderate 4 Moderately High 3 High 2 Almost Certain 1 Certain
M FMEA LISTS
SEVERITY SCALE
10 Hazardous - w/o warning 9 Hazardous - w/ warning 8 Very High (Downtime - 8 hrs, Defects 6 Moderate (Downtime - 1-4 hrs, Defects
7 High (Downtime - 4-8 hrs, Defects - 2-4
5 Low (Downtime - 0.5-1 hrs, Defects - 0-
4 Very Low (Downtime - 10-30 min., 0 De 2 Very Minor (0 Downtime, 0 Defects) 1 None
3 Minor (Downtime - 0-10 min., 0 Defects
OCCURENCE SCALE 10 1 in 1 hour, 1 in 90 cycles 9 1 in 8 hours, 1 in 900 cycles 8 1 in 24 hour, 1 in 36,000 cycles 7 1 in 80 hour, 1 in 90,000 cycles 6 1 in 350 hour, 1 in 180,000 cycle 5 1 in 1,000 hour, 1 in 270,000 cyc 4 1 in 2,500 hour, 1 in 360,000 cyc 3 1 in 5,000 hour, 1 in 540,000 cyc 2 1 in 10,000 hour, 1 in 900,000 c 1 1 in 25,000 hour, 1 in >900,000 DETECTION SCALE 10 Absolute Impossible 9 Very Remote 8 Remote 7 Very Low 6 Low 5 Moderate 4 Moderately High 3 High 2 Almost Certain 1 Certain
M FMEA LISTS
SEVERITY SCALE
10 Hazardous - w/o warning 9 Hazardous - w/ warning 8 Very High (Downtime - 8 hrs, Defects - 4 hrs) 7 High (Downtime - 4-8 hrs, Defects - 2-4 hrs) 6 Moderate (Downtime - 1-4 hrs, Defects - 1-2 hrs) 5 Low (Downtime - 0.5-1 hrs, Defects - 0-1 hrs) 4 Very Low (Downtime - 10-30 min., 0 Defects) 3 Minor (Downtime - 0-10 min., 0 Defects) 2 Very Minor (0 Downtime, 0 Defects)
OCCURENCE SCALE 10 1 in 1 hour, 1 in 90 cycles 9 1 in 8 hours, 1 in 900 cycles 8 1 in 24 hour, 1 in 36,000 cycles 7 1 in 80 hour, 1 in 90,000 cycles 6 1 in 350 hour, 1 in 180,000 cycles 5 1 in 1,000 hour, 1 in 270,000 cycles 4 1 in 2,500 hour, 1 in 360,000 cycles 3 1 in 5,000 hour, 1 in 540,000 cycles 2 1 in 10,000 hour, 1 in 900,000 cycles 1 1 in 25,000 hour, 1 in >900,000 cycles DETECTION SCALE 10 Absolute Impossible 9 Very Remote 8 Remote 7 Very Low 5 Moderate 4 Moderately High 2 Almost Certain

4th Edition PPAP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4th Edition PPAP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4th Edition PPAP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the different types of documents referenced in the workbook?

What are the different types of documents referenced in the workbook?

What information is included in the Design FMEA Checklist?

What information is included in the Design FMEA Checklist?

APQP/PPAP WORKBOOK V4.

For sales and technical support contact AIAG at 1-248-358-3570

THE FOLLOWING LEVELS OF DOCUMENTS WERE USED TO PREPARE THIS WORKBOOK.

EDITION First Third Third Fourth

PRINTING Feb-95 Mar-02 Apr-01 Mar-06

A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

Will characteristics be checked in-house? Is test equipment available?

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

Control plan requirements? Layout inspection? Engineering performance testing?

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

Problem solving? Mistake proofing?

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT

PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND SIGN-OFF

PART NUMBER: MANUFACTURING PLANT:

QUANTITY ACCEPTABLE PENDING*

QUANTITY CHARACTERISTICS PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PENDING*

QUANTITY ACCEPTABLE PENDING*

* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.

SUPPLIER MFG. LOCATION PART NUMBER(S) CHANGE LEVEL(S)

SUPPLIER ADDRESS NUMBER ECL

SUPPLIER READINESS EVALUATION

Part / Proc. Avg.

FTC Percent (without

% ACC / REJ GR&R

Measurement Taken During In-Process / or Final Inspection

DaimlerChrysler PSO Status Summary

SSP PSO Status: Last Updated: