[XLS]Dossier APQP - Formulaires - Consultant en Qualite et ...qualiteplusconseil.com/.../qpc-apqp-formulaires.xls · Web viewTitle Dossier APQP - Formulaires Subject Permet de constituer

TS-16949

WORKBOOK V4b

Part Name NAMEPart Number NUMBER

Engineering Change Level ECLEngineering Change Level Date ECL DATE

Supplier Name SUPPLIERSupplier Code CODEStreet Address ADDRESS

City CITYState STATEZip ZIP

Phone Number 555-555-5555

Customer Name GMDivision DIVISION

Application APPLICATION

File Name FILE.XLS

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

DOCUMENT EDITION PRINTINGFirst Feb-95

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS Third Mar-02POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS Third Jul-01PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL Fourth Mar-06

ADVANCED PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING AND CONTROL PLAN REFERENCE MANUAL

Page 3 of 90

A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required

1

2

3 Have similar part DFMEAs been considered?4

5

6

7

8

Revision Date:

Prepared By:

Person Responsible

Due Date

Was the SFMEA and/or DFMEA prepared using the DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference manual?

Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed?

Does the SFMEA and/or DFMEA identify Special Characteristics?Have design characteristics that affect high risk priority failure modes been identified?Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to high risk priority numbers?Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to high severity numbers?Have risk priorities been revised when corrective actions have been completed and verified?

Page 4 of 90

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST



A. GeneralDoes the design require:

1

2

3

4 Has Design of Experiments been considered?5

6

7 Has a DFMA been completed?8

9

10

11

12

Person Responsible

Due Date

l New materials? / l Special tooling? /

Has assembly build variation analysis been considered?

Is there a plan for prototypes in place? /Has a DFMEA been completed? /

Have service and maintenance issues been considered?Has the Design Verification Plan been considered?If yes, was it completed by a cross functional team?Are all specified tests, methods, equipment and acceptance criteria clearly defined and understood?Have Special Characteristics been selected? /

Page 5 of 90



Question Yes No Comment / Action Required Person Responsible

Due Date

13

14

B. Engineering Drawings15

16

17

18

19

C. Engineering Performance Specifications20

21

22

Is bill of material complete? /Are Special Characteristics properly documented?

Have dimensions that affect fit, function and durability been identified?Are reference dimensions identified to minimize inspection layout time?Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces identified to design functional gages?Are tolerances compatible with accepted manufacturing standards?Are there any requirements specified that cannot be evaluated using known inspection techniques?

Have all special characteristics been identified? /Is test loading sufficient to provide all conditions, i.e., production validation and end use?

Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specifications been tested?

Page 6 of 90




Due Date

23

24

25

26

27

D. Material Specification28

29

30

31

32

Can additional samples be tested when a reaction plan requires it, and still conduct regularly scheduled in-process tests?Will all product testing be done in-house? /If not, is it done by an approved subcontractor? /Is the specified test sampling size and/or frequency feasible?If required, has customer approval been obtained for test equipment?

Are special material characteristics identified? /Are specified materials, heat treat and surface treatments compatible with the durability requirements in the identified environment?Are the intended material suppliers on the customer approved list?Will material suppliers be required to provide certification with each shipment?Have material characteristics requiring inspection been identified? If so,

Page 7 of 90




Due Date

33

34

35

36

37

Have the following material requirements been considered:38

39

40

Revision Date

Prepared By:

l Will characteristics be checked in-house? / l Is test equipment available? / l Will training be required to assure accurate test results?Will outside laboratories be used? /Are all laboratories used accredited (if required)? /

l Handling? / l Storage? / l Environmental? /

Page 8 of 90

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



Does the design require:1

2

3

4

Have lists been prepared identifying:5

6

7

Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for:8

9

10

11

12

Person Responsible

Due Date

l New materials? / l Quick change? / l Volume fluctuations? / l Mistake proofing? /

l New equipment? / l New tooling? / l New test equipment? /

l New equipment? / l New tooling? / l New test equipment? /Will a preliminary capability study be conducted at the tooling and/or equipment manufacturer?

Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been established?

Page 9 of 90

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



Due Date

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for equipment and tooling?Are setup instructions for new equipment and tooling complete and understandable?Will capable gages be available to run preliminary process capability studies at the equipment supplier's facility?Will preliminary process capability studies be run at the processing plant?Have process characteristics that affect special product characteristics been identified?Were special product characteristics used in determining acceptance criteria?Does the manufacturing equipment have sufficient capacity to handle forecasted production and service volumes?Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate testing?

THIS CHECKLIST IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CHRYSLER, FORD, AND GENERAL MOTORS QUALITY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT. Page 10 of 90

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4

Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:

5

6

7

8

Is there a documented training program that:9

10

11

Has training been completed for:12

Person Responsible

Due Date

Is the assistance of the customer's quality assurance or product engineering activity needed to develop or concur to the control plan?

Has the supplier identified who will be the quality liaison with the customer?Has the supplier identified who will be the quality liaison with its suppliers?Has the quality assurance system been reviewed using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors Quality System Assessment?

l Control plan requirements? / l Layout inspection? / l Engineering performance testing? / l Problem resolution analysis? /

l Includes all employees? / l Lists whose been trained? / l Provides a training schedule? /

l Statistical process control? /





Due Date

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Do inspection instructions include:20

21

22

23

24

Are visual aids:25

26

l Capability studies? / l Problem solving? / l Mistake proofing? / 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?

l Easily understood engineering performance specifications? l Test frequencies? / l Sample sizes? / l Reaction plans? / l Documentation? /

l Easily understood? / l Available? /





Due Date

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Have provisions been made to place the following at the monitored operation:34

35

36

37

38

Have required measurement system capability studies been:39

l Accessible? /

l Approved? / 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?

l Inspection gages? / l Gage instructions? / l Reference samples? / l Inspection logs? /

Have provisions been made to certify and routinely calibrate gages and test equipment?

l Completed? /





Due Date

40

41

Is there a procedure for controlling incoming product that identifies:42

43

44

45

46

47

4849

50 Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure?

51

52

53

l Acceptable? /Are layout inspection equipment and facilities adequate to provide initial and ongoing layout of all details and components?

l Characteristics to be inspected? / l Frequency of inspection? / l Sample size? /

l Designated location for approved product? / 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?

Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned and implemented?Are periodic surveys of the quality system planned and implemented?Has the customer approved the packaging specification?





Due Date

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Page 15 of 90

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST



1

2

3

Are process and inspection areas:4

5

6

Are there adequate:7

8

9

10

11

Person Responsible

Due Date

Does the floor plan identify all required process and inspection points?Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools, and equipment at each operation been considered?Has sufficient space been allocated for all equipment?

l Of adequate size? / l Properly lighted? /Do inspection areas contain necessary equipment and files?

l Staging areas? / l Impound areas? /

Are inspection points logically located to prevent shipment of nonconforming products?Have controls been established to eliminate the potential for an operation, including outside processing, to contaminate or mix similar products?

Is material protected from overhead or air handling systems contamination?

Page 16 of 90

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST



Due Date

12 Have final audit facilities been provided?13

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Are controls adequate to prevent movement of nonconforming incoming material to storage or point of use?

Page 17 of 90

A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Person Responsible

Due Date

Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production and inspection stations?Were all appropriate FMEA's (SFMEA, DFMEA) available and used as aids to develop the process flow chart?Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in the control plan?Does the flow chart describe how the product will move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?

Has the pull system/optimization been considered for this process?Have provisions been made to identify and inspect reworked product before being used?Have potential quality problems due to handling and outside processing been identified and corrected?

Page 18 of 90

A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST



1

2

3 Were similar part FMEA's considered?4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Revision Date

Person Responsible

Due Date

Was the Process FMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors guidelines?Have all operations affecting fit, function, durability, governmental regulations and safety been identified and listed sequentially?

Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed?Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or taken for high risk priority items?Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or taken for high severity numbers?Were risk priorities numbers revised when corrective action was completed?Were high severity numbers revised when a design change was completed?Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the subsequent operation, assembly, and product?Was warranty information used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA?Were customer plant problems used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA?Have the causes been described in terms of something that can be fixed or controlled?Where detection is the major factor, have provisions been made to control the cause prior to the next operation?

Page 19 of 90

A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST



Due Date

Prepared By:

Page 20 of 90

A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Person Responsible

Due Date

Was the control plan methodology referenced in Section 6 used in preparing the control plan?Have all known customer complaints been identified to facilitate the selection of special product/process characteristics?Are all special product/process characteristics included in the control plan?Were SFMEA, DFMEA, and PFMEA used to prepare the control plan?Are material specifications requiring inspection identified?Does the control pan address incoming (material/components) through processing/assembly including packaging?Are engineering performance testing requirements identified?Are gages and test equipment available as required by the control plan?If required, has the customer approved the control plan?Are gage methods compatible between supplier and customer?

TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENTCustomer: GM Date:

Part Number: NUMBER Part Name: NAME

Feasibility ConsiderationsOur product quality planning team has considered the following questions, not intended to be all-inclusive inperforming 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 commentsidentifying our concerns and/or proposed changes to enable us to meet the specified requirements.

YES NO CONSIDERATIONIs product adequately defined (application requirements, etc. to enablefeasibility 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 Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.Feasible Changes recommended (see attached).Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirements.

Sign-Off

Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date



PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND SIGN-OFF

DATE:

PRODUCT NAME: NAME PART NUMBER: NUMBER

CUSTOMER: GM MANUFACTURING PLANT: CITY

1. PRELIMINARY PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY QUANTITY

REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*

Ppk - SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

2. APPROVED: YES / NO* DATE APPROVED

3. INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES

CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY QUANTITYCHARACTERISTICS

SAMPLES PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PENDING*DIMENSIONALVISUALLABORATORY

PERFORMANCE

4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS QUANTITY

REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*

SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC

5. PROCESS MONITORING

QUANTITY

PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*PROCESS SHEETS

VISUAL AIDS

6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY

REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*PACKAGING APPROVAL

SHIPPING TRIALS

7. SIGN-OFF

TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE



* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.

CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required)

SUPPLIER SUPPLIER PROGRAM APPLICATIONMFG. LOCATION ADDRESS SUPPLIER CODE CODEPART NUMBER(S) NUMBER PART NAME(S) NAMECHANGE LEVEL(S) ECL PRE-PSO MEETING DATE

PSO ON-SITE VISIT DATE / NUMBER

SUPPLIER READINESS EVALUATION

QUANTITY DETERMINED BY SUPPLIER ANDDAIMLERCHRYSLER PSO TEAM:

SRE LINE RATE:

SHIFT:

PERFORMANCE RESULTSUSL UCL LCL LSL Pp Ppk ACC / REJ

12345678910111213141516

Notes:

ITEM #

Process Feature / Part Characteristic Process / Part1 Meas.

Freq.Part / Proc.

Avg.Quantity

AttemptedQuantity Accepted

FTC Percent (without repairs)

% GR&R

1 Measurement Taken During In-Process / or Final Inspection

DaimlerChryslerPSO

5th Edition

DaimlerChrysler PSO Status Summary

SSP PSO Status: S1 Date: V1 Date: Assembly: Press Room: Total: Percent Signed:

Status by PSO Item Number

Part Number Description Asy or Stp'g

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Control Plan 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: 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% N A Not Applicable

I Incomplete R Completed / Rejection-Action Required C Condition Approval - Open Issues A Completed Approved

Last Updated:

Part Num. Des & Chg

Lvl

Design FMEA

Tst Sample Size & Freq.

Process FMEA

Process Flow Diag. & Mfg Flr Run

Quality Planning

Incoming M. Qual / Cert

Run

Parts Handling

Plan

Tooling, Equip. &

Gages Ident.

Special Proc / Prod Ident.

Process Monitoring

Error & Mistake Proofing

Evidence of Prod. Spec.

Line Speed Demo

Outgoing Qual. Plan

Parts Packaging &

Shipping Spec.

Gage & Test Eval.

Preventive Mainten-

ance

COPYRIGHT 2000 DaimlerChrysler Corporation Page 25 of 5

DAIMLERCHRYSLER PROCESS SIGN-OFF SUMMARY REPORT

ALL PROCESS SIGN-OFF ELEMENTS APPROVED: PSO EXTENDED RUN:

SUPPLIER SUPPLIER YES NO YES NO OPTIONS

MFG. LOCATION CITY SUPPLIER CODE CODE

PART NUMBER(S) NUMBER PART NAME(S) NAME

CHANGE LEVEL(S) ECL PRE-PSO MEETING DATE

PROGRAM APPLICATION PSO ON-SITE VISIT DATE / NUMBER

* Documents with asterisk should be reviewed during AQP meeting and again during the Pre-PSO documentation Review.PSO PROCESS ELEMENTS

DOCUMENTATION PROCESSAccept Reject Accept Reject

1 PART NUMBER, DESCRIPTION ANDCHANGE LEVEL*Cross reference sheet Yes No Acceptable Supplier change Yes No(IF APPLICABLE) notice procedure

Evidence of customer change1.4 Engineering Standards Identified notice procedure

Yes No Process for obtaining the latest Yes No*CATIA comments page standard revisionwith list of applicable standards(e.g. DCC, ENVIRONMENTAL, etc.)

Accept Reject Accept Reject2 DESIGN FMEA

*Design FMEA complete Yes No DFMEA updated to include Yes No& acceptable applicable DV failures

Accept Reject3 TEST SAMPLE SIZES AND FREQUENCIES

Yes No*Signed DV and PV plans*Signed DVP&R (DV complete)*Signed waivers (IF APPLICABLE)

Accept Reject Accept Reject4 PROCESS FMEA Process correlates with

*Process FMEA complete Yes No occurrence and detection Yes No& acceptable numbers on PFMEA

Accept Reject Accept Reject5 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM & MFG FLOOR PLAN

Yes No SPC operations identified Yes No*Flow diagram on flow diagram*Manufacturing floor plan Unique Equipment numbers*Work station layout identified on mfg floor plan,

Accept Reject flow diagram, or workstation layout Accept Reject6 CONTROL PLAN

*Process characteristics Yes No Proper adherence to Yes Noidentified on the Control Plan Control Plan*Verification of mistake Rework / Repair stationsproofing on the Control Plan have acceptable controls

Accept Reject (IF APPLICABLE)7 QUALITY PLANNING

Yes No*Completed PAP/APQPPSO Summary Matrix

7.2 Supply Base Management Yes No*Easy Map, Etc.Risked sub-componentsLevel 3 PPAP data

7.3 Problem Solving Methods Yes No*Example of DOE's, etc.SID'S for DCC systems*Example of problemsolving techniques

Accept Reject Accept Reject8 INCOMING MATERIAL QUALIF / CERT PLAN

Yes No Yes NoCertificates of analysis Evidence of sub-tier monitoringCopy of sub-tier PSW's Proof of lot control*Plan for lot control Proof or traceability*Plan for traceability


PSO PROCESS ELEMENTSSUPPLIER NAME: SUPPLIERPART NUMBER NUMBER DOCUMENTATION PROCESS

Accept Reject Accept Reject9 PARTS HANDLING PLAN

Yes No Evidence of acceptable Yes No*Router / Traveler Cards part handling*Parts handling Plan Yes No*Container Maintenance Acceptable method ofplan inventory control

Accept Reject Accept Reject10 OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS

Yes No Visual displays clearly present Yes No*Work Instructions (WI's) at each station*Inspection instructions Operators follow WI's*Rework / repair Evidence of proper operatorinstructions (IF APPLICABLE) Accept Reject training Accept Reject

11 TOOLING, EQUIPMENT AND GAGESIDENTIFIED Yes No STR in agreement with Supplier's Yes No*Tooling and equipment list manufacturing facility*Supplier tool record DCC ownership tags present

12 SPECIAL PRODUCT AND PROCESS Accept Reject Accept RejectCHARACTERISTICS IDENTIFIED

Yes No SPC performed for identified Yes No*FPSC plan acceptable and special characteristicscontains special process / product characteristics Accept Reject Accept Reject

13 PROCESS MONITORINGYes No Acceptable 1st piece approval Yes No

*Control charts process*1st piece approval procedure 1st approval records

Control & Performance charts14 ERROR AND MISTAKE PROOFING Accept Reject maintained appropriately Accept Reject

Yes No Boundary samples created Yes No*Error & mistake proofing plan & utilized*List of error & mistake proofing Mistake proofing contingency

Accept Reject plan with audible / visual alarm Accept Reject15 LAYERED PROCESS AUDIT PLAN

Yes No Yes No*Acceptable LPA plan Acceptable LPA performed*Frequency and structure chart

16 EVIDENCE OF Accept Reject Accept RejectPRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

Yes No Completed and approved Yes No*SRE completed and Measurement Systemacceptable Accept Reject Verification Report Accept Reject

17 LINE SPEED DEMONSTRATION Yes NoContingency plan forbottlenecks (IF APPLICABLE)Line Speed Observed FTC:

Accept Reject Accept Reject18 OUTGOING QUALIFICATION PLAN

Yes No Evidence of non-conformance Yes No*Outgoing inspection plan containment*Part Inspection Standard Evidence of outgoing audits

Accept Reject (USING PART INSPECTION STANDARD) Accept Reject19 PARTS PACKAGING & SHIPPING SPECS

Yes No*Packaging & shipping plan *Acceptable container Yes No

management plan20 GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT EVALUATION Accept Reject Accept Reject

Yes No Appropriate gages used in Yes No*Gage R&R studies the process*Calibration plan & schedule Calibration performed

according to schedule


PSO PROCESS ELEMENTSSUPPLIER NAME: SUPPLIERPART NUMBER NUMBER DOCUMENTATION PROCESS

Accept Reject Accept Reject21 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLANS

Yes No PM performed according to Yes No*PM plan schedule*PM schedule Robust PM process*PM procedures and WI's All tooling / equipment listed on

Accept Reject PM schedule Accept Reject22 INITIAL PROCESS STUDY

Yes No Yes NoDeviations (IF APPLICABLE) Acceptable FTC

Acceptable process capabilitySample size Ppk requirement

PSO PROCESS ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR FULL APPROVALDOCUMENTATION PROCESS

Accept Reject Accept Reject23 PACKAGING SHIPPING TEST APPROVAL

Yes No Yes NoSigned shipping / simulation Shipping simulation testingtest approval (MHE mtg minutes) Accept Reject complete Accept Reject

24 PRODUCTION VALIDATIONTESTING COMPLETE Yes No Yes NoSigned DVP&R (PV complete) BSR/NVH testing completeSigned Waivers (IF APPLICABLE) PV testing complete

Repair / rework processAccept Reject validation complete (IF APPLICABLE) Accept Reject

25 CONTINUOUS CONFORMANCE (CC)Continuous conformance team Yes No CC team is sufficient to Yes Noidentified and trained support post-PSO activitiesWarranty process flow diagram Acceptable process forForever requirements warranty analysis Yes Nosubmission procedure Family PV testing agreed to

by the PSO team

Vehicle families included in family OV:

CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED YES NO DATE

ON-SITE REVISIT REQUIRED YES NO DATE

Process Sign-Off Team Manufacturing Facility

ENGINEERING PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE

SUPPLIER QUALITY PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE MANUFACTURING MANAGER PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE

PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE PLANT MANAGER PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATEAdditional Signatures Needed for Internal PSO's

PRODUCT ENGINEERING PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE MANUFACTURING LINE SPVSR. PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE

RESIDENT ENGINEERING MGR. PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE MQAS COORDINATOR PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE

AME TOOL ENGINEER PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE

AME SENIOR MANAGER PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE

1st or 2nd Party PSO Lead PRINT NAME, SIGN AND DATE


SUPPLIER SUPPLIER PROGRAM APPLICATION





PROCESS SIGN-OFFCOMMENTS SHEET

ELEMENT NO. ISSUE / ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TARGET

DaimlerChryslerPSO

5th Edition

Page 5 of 5

SUPPLIER SUPPLIER PROGRAM APPLICATION





MEASUREMENT SYSTEM VERIFICATION REPORTAs 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 EXAMPLECHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION METHOD OF MEASUREMENT Pp / Ppk

Length 3.6 - 7.5mm Caliper 30 30 100% 1.7/1.6 ACCHole Size 2.0 +/- 0.2mm CMM 30 28 93% 2.3/2.2 REJ

Number of parts witnessed: Witnessed By:

DATACHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION METHOD OF MEASUREMENT Pp / Ppk

COMMENTS:

QUANTITY ATTEMPTED

QUANTITY ACCEPTED

FTC PERCENTAGE (without repair)

PROCESS ACC / REJ

QUANTITY ATTEMPTED

QUANTITY ACCEPTED

FTC PERCENTAGE (without repair)

PROCESS ACC / REJ

DaimlerChryslerPSO

5th Edition

PRODUCTION DEMONSTRATION RESULTS

SUPPLIER SUPPLIER PROGRAM APPLICATIONMFG. LOCATION ADDRESS SUPPLIER CODE CODEPART NUMBER(S) NUMBER PART NAME(S) NAMECHANGE LEVEL(S) ECL PRE-PSO MEETING DATE


Line Speed Demonstration

Part Quantity Ran FTC

Line Shared (Y/N):Number of shifts (SH):Hours / Shift (HR):Days / Week (DY):Other Customer CapacityExcess 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 ExampleUSL UCL LCL LSL Pp Ppk ACC / REJ

1 P025 Gap - Machine 66 Part 2/Shift 0.097 0.009 0.0874 0.0851 0.077 2.5 2.28 30 30 100% 9.37 ACC2 P025 Gap - Machine 67 Part 2/Shift 0.097 0.009 0.0874 0.0851 0.077 2.54 2.41 30 30 100% 12.7 ACC

Initial Process StudyUSL UCL LCL LSL Pp Ppk ACC / REJ

123456789

10111213141516

Notes:

Quoted Tooling

Capacity

Net DC Operating

Time

Line Speed Required

Part Quantity Accepted

Duration of Run

Line Speed Demonstrated

% of DC Capacity

ITEM #


Freq.Part / Proc.

Avg.Quantity



% GR&R

ITEM #


Freq.Part / Proc.

Avg.Quantity



% GR&R

1 Measurement Taken During In-Process / or Final Inspection

DaimlerChryslerPSO

5th Edition

Page 31 of 90

PART HISTORY

Part Number Part NameNUMBER NAME

Date Remarks

Page 32 of 90

PROCESS / INSPECTION FLOWCHART

Product Program Issue Date ECL ECLSupplier Name SUPPLIER Part Name NAMESupplier Location CITY STATE Part Number NUMBER

Legend:

Operation Transportation Inspection Delay Storage

Operation or Event Description of EvaluationOperation or Event and Analysis Methods

Page 33 of 90

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMPART NUMBER: NUMBER DATE:PART DESCRIPTION: ECL: ECL

NAME PREPARED BY:

STEP FAB

RIC

ATI

ON

MO

VE

STO

RE

INS

PE

CT

ITE

M #

ITE

M #

OPERATION DESCRIPTION

PRODUCT AND PROCESS

CHARACTERISTICS

Page 34 of 90

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

ECL

CONTROL METHODS

PROCESS FLOW JOB #Part # ECL Process Responsibility Prepared ByNUMBERPart Name Product Line Core Team Date (revised)NAMEComponent to Assembly Name Key Date Date (original)

Process Flow Diagram Operation Potential Quality Problems Product Characteristics Process Characteristics

operation w/auto inspection

w/mult product streams

transportation storage

inspection

decision Delay

operator partial

rework R

Page 36 of 90

CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX

Part Number Engineering Change Level Part NameNUMBER ECL NAME

C = Characteristic at an operation used for clampingL = Characteristic at an operation used for locatingX = Characteristic created or changed by this operation should match the process flow diagram form

DIMENSION OPERATION NUMBERNUMBER DESCRIPTION TOLERANCE

Page 37 of 90

CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX

Part Number Engineering Change Level Part NameNUMBER ECL NAME

C = Characteristic at an operation used for clampingL = Characteristic at an operation used for locatingX = Characteristic created or changed by this operation should match the process flow diagram form

DIMENSION OPERATION NUMBERNUMBER DESCRIPTION TOLERANCE

DESIGN MATRIX -Product Code / Description: Project #:

POTENTIAL CAUSES FUNCTION - DESIRED ATTRIBUTES (POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES)P

relim

. Spe

cial

Cha

ract

eris

tics

FAIL

UR

E

RO

BU

ST

THR

ES

HO

LD R

AN

GE

UN

ITS

APP

EAR

AN

CE

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E

PRO

CES

S A

BIL

ITY

ENVI

RO

NM

ENTA

L

CATEGORY / CHARACTERISTICS

NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS: HIGH = 3; MED = 2; LOW = 1; NONE = 0; UNKNOWN = ?

Page 39 of 90

System POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Component Design Responsibility: SUPPLIER Prepared by:

Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) APPLICATION Key Date Date (Orig.)

Core Team: Date (Rev.)

C Potential O Current DItem / Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Design e R. Recommended Responsibility Action Results

Function Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.Mode Failure v s of Failure u -Prevention e N. Completion Taken e c e P.

s r -Detection c Date v c t N.

Page 40 of 90


Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Component Design Responsibility SUPPLIER Prepared by:



C Potential O Current Current DItem / Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Design Design e R. Recommended Responsibility Action Results

Function Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.Mode Failure v s of Failure u Prevention Detection e N. Completion Taken e c e P.

s r c Date v c t N.

Page 41 of 90

POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Print # NUMBER Rev. ECL (PROCESS FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Item: NAME Process Responsibility: SUPPLIER Prepared by:



C Potential O Current DProcess Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Process e R. Recommended Responsibility Action ResultsFunction/ Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.Require- Mode Failure v s of Failure u -Prevention e N. Completion Taken e c e P.ments s r -Detection c Date v c t N.

Page 42 of 90

POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Print # NUMBER Rev. ECL (PROCESS FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Item: NAME Process Responsibility SUPPLIER Prepared by:



C Potential O Current Current DProcess Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Process Process e R. Recommended Responsibility Action ResultsFunction/ Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.Require- Mode Failure v s of Failure u Prevention Detection e N. Completion Taken e c e P.ments s r c Date v c t N.

Page 43 of 90


Subsystem (MACHINERY FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Component Supplier Name SUPPLIER Prepared by:

Program(s) / Plant(s) Key Date Date (Orig.)


C Potential O Current DMachinery Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Machinery e R. Recommended Responsibility Action ResultsFunction / Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.

Requirements Mode Failure v s of Failure u -Prevention e N. Completion Taken e c e P.s r -Detection c Date v c t N.

Page 44 of 90


Subsystem (MACHINERY FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Component Supplier Name SUPPLIER Prepared by:

Program(s) / Plant(s) Key Date Date (Orig.)


C Potential O Current Current DMachinery Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Machinery Machinery e R. Recommended Responsibility Action ResultsFunction / Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.

Requirements Mode Failure v s of Failure u Prevention Detection e N. Completion Taken e c e P.s r c Date v c t N.

Page 45 of 90

CONTROL PLANControl Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/1996 1/1/1996Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)NUMBER ECLPart Name/Description Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)NAMESupplier/Plant Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)SUPPLIER CODE

MACHINE,CHARACTERISTICS METHODSPART/ PROCESS NAME/ DEVICE, SPECIAL

PROCESS OPERATION JIG,TOOLS, CHAR. PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE REACTIONNUMBER DESCRIPTION FOR MFG. NO. PRODUCT PROCESS CLASS SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT SIZE FREQ. CONTROL PLAN

TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE METHOD

Prototype Pre-Launch Production

Page 46 of 90

CONTROL PLAN SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICSControl Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/1996 1/1/1996Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)NUMBER ECLPart Name/Description Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)NAMESupplier/Plant Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)SUPPLIER CODE

No. Description/Rationale Specification/Tolerance Class Illustration/Pictorial

Prototype Pre-Launch Production

Page 47 of 90

DATA POINT COORDINATES

Control Plan No. Part Number Engineering Change Level Date(Orig):FILE.XLS NUMBER ECL 1/1/1996

Part Name Customer Supplier Date(Rev):NAME GM SUPPLIER 1/1/1996

Char. Point Char. Point Char. PointNo. Ident. X Y Z No. Ident. X Y Z No. Ident. X Y Z

Page 48 of 90

Dynamic Control Plan - Master CopyCompany/Plant Department Operation Station Part Name Control Plan Revision DateSUPPLIER NAMEProcess Machine Part Number Process sheet revision date B/P revision date

NUMBER ECL DATECharacteristic C

Char Description 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

(Product & p p failure V Failure C T N & Date V C T N s o detail Date & DateProcess) e s l

Page 49 of 90

Dynamic Control Plan - Master CopyCompany/Plant Department Operation Station Part Name Control Plan Revision DateSUPPLIER NAMEProcess Machine Part Number Process sheet revision date B/P revision date

NUMBER ECL DATECharacteristic C

Char Description 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

(Product & p p failure V Failure C T N & Date V C T N s o detail Date & DateProcess) e s l

Page 50 of 90

Dynamic Control Plan - Operator Copy

Department Operation Part Name Control Plan Revision DateNAME

Process Machine Part Number Process Sheet Revision Date B/P Revision DateNUMBER ECL DATE

CChar Characteristic Spec l Control Current Gage desc, Reaction

# Description a Method Controls master, Planss details

Page 51 of 90 Pages

March CFG-1003 2006

Production Part ApprovalDimensional Test Results

ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEINSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LVL: ECL

ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:

ITEM OK

Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.

SIGNATURE TITLE DATE

DIMENSION / SPECIFICATION

SPECIFICATION / LIMITS

TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS

(DATA)

NOT OK

Page 90 of 52 Pages

March CFG-1004 2006

Production Part ApprovalMaterial Test Results

ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEMATERIAL SUPPLIER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LVL: ECL*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:

*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code. NAME of LABORATORY:

MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE OK


SIGNATURE DATE


TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)

NOT OK

Page 53 of 90 Pages

March CFG-1005 2006

Production Part ApprovalPerformance Test Results

ORGANIZATION: SUPPLIER PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMENAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LVL: ECL*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:

*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.

TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE OK


SIGNATURE DATE


TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ TEST CONDITIONS

NOT OK

ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORTANALYTICAL METHOD - LOW LIMIT

Part Number Gage Name AppraiserNUMBER

Part Name Gage Number Date PerformedNAME

Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit

ATTRIBUTE DATA# a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked1 0.000 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve2 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.000

FROM THE GRAPHENTER THE FOLLOWING:

Measurement Unit Analysis Bias Repeatability

B = R == =

t Statistict = 31.3 IBI / R = 2.093

==

Result

XT P'a

XT (P=.5) =XT (P=.995) =XT (P=.005) =

t0.025,19

ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORTANALYTICAL METHOD - HIGH LIMIT




ATTRIBUTE DATA# a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked1 0.025 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve2 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.000

FROM THE GRAPHENTER THE FOLLOWING:

Measurement Unit Analysis Bias Repeatability

B = R == =

t Statistict = 31.3 IBI / R = 2.093

==

Result

XT P'a

XT (P=.5) =XT (P=.995) =XT (P=.005) =

t0.025,19

ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORTANALYTICAL METHOD - GAGE PERFORMANCE CURVE




LOW LIMIT RESULTS* HIGH LIMIT RESULTS*Bias BiasGRR GRR

*Curve can be generated from low or high limit results if symmetry is assumed.

REMARKS

Signature

Title Date

sGRR sGRR

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.0000%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

March CFG-1002 2006

APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORTPART DRAWING APPLICATIONNUMBER NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) APPLICATIONPART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATENAME NAME CODE ECLORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING ADDRESS SUPPLIER / VENDOR

NAME SUPPLIER LOCATION CITY STATE ZIP CODE CODEREASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHERSUBMISSION PRE TEXTURE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT ENGINEERING CHANGE

APPEARANCE EVALUATION AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER

ORGANIZATION SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION PRE-TEXTURE REPRESENTATIVE EVALUATION SIGNATURE AND DATE

COLOR EVALUATIONMETALLIC COLOR

COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS BRILLIANCE SHIPPING PARTSUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW SUFFIX DISPOSITION

COMMENTS

ORGANIZATION PHONE NO. DATE AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER DATE

SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE

CORRECT AND PROCEED

CORRECT AND PROCEED

APPROVED TO ETCH/TOOL/EDM

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 ATT BIAS(Analytic)!D14:D223) In the box for Input X Range select the cells ATT BIAS(Analytic)!B14:B224) In the box for Output range select the cells below A23:M605) Check Line Fit Plots6) Press OK7) Copy the Line Fit plot graph to the space on the Analytic sheet8) Change the graph title to GPC - Low Side Normal Prob Paper9) Change the x axis to Xt10) Change the y axis to Probability11) Repeat for high side data

0 2 4 6 8 10 1205

1015

Gage Performance Curve

Xt

Prob

abili

ty

Page 59 of 90

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD

Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser ANUMBER

Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser BNAME

Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C

DATA TABLE

PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Code123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940

Reference Value

Page 60 of 90





DATA TABLE CONTINUED

PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Code41424344454647484950

Risk Analysis

A * B Crosstabulation

BTotal0 1

A

0 Count 0 0 0Expected Count


TotalCount 0 0 0Expected Count

B * C Crosstabulation

CTotal0 1

B




Reference Value

Page 61 of 90





A * C Crosstabulation

CTotal0 1

A




Kappa A B CA -B -C -

DETERMINATIONA x B 0.75 or higher indicates good agreementA x C Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreementB x C Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement

A * REF Crosstabulation

REFTotal0 1

A




B * REF Crosstabulation

REFTotal0 1

B




Page 62 of 90





C * REF Crosstabulation

REFTotal0 1

C




A B CKappa

DETERMINATIONA x REF 0.75 or higher indicates good agreementB x REF Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreementC x REF Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement

Page 63 of 90





Source Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser CTotal Inspected# Matched 0 0 0 0 0 0False Positive (appraiser biased towards rejection) 0 0 0False Negative (appraiser biased towards acceptance) 0 0 0Mixed

Calculated Score

Total Inspected# in Agreement 0 0

Calculated Score

Notes:(1) Appraiser agress with themself on all trials

(2) Appraiser agrees on all trials with the known standard(3) All appraisers agreed within and between themselves(4) All appraisers agreed within and between themselves and with the reference(5) UCI and LCI are the upper and lower confidence internval bounds, respectively (Wilson score method)

The effectiveness of both appraisers is the same (Null hypothesis)The effectiveness of both appraisers is not the same (Alternative Hypothesis)

Acceptance criteria: The calculated score of the appraiser falls between the confidence interval of the other.

EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONAppraiser A vs. Appraiser B Reject Null Hypothesis Accept AlternativeAppraiser A vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept AlternativeAppraiser B vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative

% Appraiser1 % Score vs. Attribute2

95% UCI5

95% LCI5

System % Effective Score3 System % Effective Score vs. Reference4

95% UCI5

95% LCI5

H0:HA:

Page 64 of 90





Second Analysis

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Effectiveness Miss Rate

Acceptable for the appraiser >90% <2% <5%

>80% <5% <10%

<80% >5% >10%

RESULTS SUMMARY

Appraiser Effectiveness Miss Rate

A

B

C

Final Analysis

Approved for use as isNot approved for use as is

Signature Title

Measurement System Decision

False Alarm Rate

Marginally acceptable fo the appraiser - may need

improvementUnacceptable for the

appraiser - needs improvement

False Alarm Rate

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETVARIABLE DATA RESULTS

Part Number Gage Name Appraiser ANUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser BNAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C

Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed

APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGETRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. A 1

2 2

3 3

4 AVE

5 R

6. B 1

7 2

8 3

9 AVE

10 R

11. C 1

12 2

13 3

14 AVE

15 R

16. PART

AVERAGE

17

18

19

beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or

Notes:

xa=

ra=

xb=

rb=

xc=

rc=

X=

Rp=

(ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=

* UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=

* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are

discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.

F12

MSA recommends 3 trail, 10 part, 3 appraiser analysis when possible


Part Number Gage Name Appraiser ANUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser BNAMECharacteristic Gage Type Appraiser C

Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed

Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV) Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)

EV = Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV)

= 2 0.8865 =

= 3 0.5907 =

Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)

AV = % AV = 100 (AV/TV)

= =

= =

Appraisers 2 3

n = parts r = trials 0.7087 0.5236

Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/TV)

GRR = Parts =

= 2 0.7087 =

= 3 0.5236

Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464

PV = 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/TV)

= 6 0.3745 =

= 7 0.3534 =

Total Variation (TV) 8 0.3378

TV = 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)

= 10 0.3145 =

= =

R x K1

{(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2

K2

{(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 K3

RP x K3

{(GRR2 + PV2)}1/2

For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.





1. A 1

2 2

3 3

4 AVE

5 R

6. B 1

7 2

8 3

9 AVE

10 R

11. C 1

12 2

13 3

14 AVE

15 R

16. PART

AVERAGE

17

18

19

beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or

Notes:

xa=

ra=

xb=

rb=

xc=

rc=

X=

Rp=

(ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=

* UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=

* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are

discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.

F12



Part Number Gage Name Appraiser ANUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser BNAMECharacteristic Gage Type Appraiser C

Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed

Measurement Unit Analysis % Tolerance (Tol) Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)

EV = Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/Tol)

= 2 0.8865 =

= 3 0.5907 =

Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)

AV = % AV = 100 (AV/Tol)

= =

= =

Appraisers 2 3

n = parts r = trials 0.7087 0.5236

Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/Tol)

GRR = Parts =

= 2 0.7087 =

= 3 0.5236

Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464

PV = 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/Tol)

= 6 0.3745 =

= 7 0.3534 =

Tolerance (Tol) 8 0.3378

Tol = Upper - Lower / 6 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)

= ( Upper - Lower ) / 6 10 0.3145 =

= =

R x K1

{(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2

K2

{(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 K3

RP x K3

For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.

Page 69 of 90

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETANOVA METHOD




1. A 1

2 2

3 3

4 AVE

5 R

6. B 1

7 2

8 3

9 AVE

10 R

11. C 1

12 2

13 3

14 AVE

15 R

16. PART

AVERAGE

Anova TableSource DF SS MS F SigAppraiserPartsAppraiser-by-PartEquipmentTotal

xa=

ra=

xb=

rb=

xc=

rc=

X=

Rp=

* Significant at a = 0.05 level

F12


Page 70 of 90

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETANOVA METHOD



Anova Report % Total Variation % Contribution

Repeatability (EV)Reproducibility (AV)Appraiser by Part (INT)GRRPart-to-Part (PV)

Note:Tolerance = Total variation (TV) =Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =

Standard Deviation (s)

Page 71 of 90

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS




1. A 1

2 2

3 3

4 AVE

5 R

6. B 1

7 2

8 3

9 AVE

10 R

11. C 1

12 2

13 3

14 AVE

15 R16. PART

AVE ( Xp )

Note: The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indication true bias.

xa=

ra=

xb=

rb=

xc=

rc=X=

Rp=

F12


C15

Values from GR&R VAR(Tol)

Page 72 of 90




Analysis:

Analysis:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Average Chart -"Stacked"

Appraiser AAppraiser BAppraiser CUpper Spec

Part Number

Ave

rage

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Range Chart -"Stacked"

Appraiser AAppraiser BAppraiser CRucl

Part Number

Ran

ge

F12


Page 73 of 90




Analysis:

Analysis:

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 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Average Chart -"Unstacked"

Appr A Appr B Appr C

Ave

rage

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 9 100.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

Range Chart -"Unstacked"

Appr A Appr B Appr C

Ave

rage

F12


Page 74 of 90




Analysis:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Run Chart

Part

Valu

e

F12


Page 75 of 90




Analysis:

Par

t 1

Par

t 2

Par

t 3

Par

t 4

Par

t 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Scatter Plot

Par

t 6

Par

t 7

Par

t 8

Par

t 9

Par

t 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Scatter Plot

F12


Page 76 of 90




Analysis:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C

F12


Page 77 of 90




Analysis:

Par

t 1

Par

t 2

Par

t 3

Par

t 4

Par

t 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Error Chart

Par

t 6

Par

t 7

Par

t 8

Par

t 9

Par

t 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Error Chart

F12


Page 78 of 90




Analysis:

-1.00

-0.90

-0.80

-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10 0.0

00.1

00.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Normalized Histogram - Error

Appr A

-1.00

-0.90

-0.80

-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10 0.0

00.1

00.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Appr B

-1.00

-0.90

-0.80

-0.70

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10 0.0

00.1

00.2

00.3

00.4

00.5

00.6

00.7

00.8

00.9

01.0

00

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1


Appr C

F12


Page 79 of 90




Analysis:

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

XY Plot of Averages by Size

Appr AAppr BAppr C

F12


Page 80 of 90




0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Comparison XY Plot

Appr A

App

r B

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Comparison XY Plot

Appr A

App

r C

F12


Page 81 of 90




Analysis:

0 2 4 6 8 10 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

Comparison XY Plot

Appr B

App

r C

F12


PART NO. CHART NO.MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBER

PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITSNAMEAPPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS

UCL = LCL = AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)

UCL = LCL = RANGES (R CHART)

APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C

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

R 1

2

3

4

S 5

SUM

x

R

** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL

VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )

x =

r =

PART NUMBER

EAD ING

SUM NUM

HIGH- LOW

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 29 300

2

4

6

8

10

12

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 29 300

2

4

6

8

10

12

PART NO. CHART NO.MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBER

PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITSNAMEAPPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS

VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )

Computations for the Control Chart Method of Evaluating a Measurement Process

REPLICATION ERROR: r2 1.126

Number of replications = Subgroup Size = r = 3 1.6934 2.0595 2.326

CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT: Appraiser Averages

0 Appraiser Average2 1.410 A3 1.906 Number of Samples = n = 0 B

C0.00

CALCULATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION:

=

CALCULATIONS FOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO: Sample Averages

0.00 Sample Average2 1.410 13 1.906 Estimate Sample to Sample Standard Deviation: 24 2.237 35 2.477 = 46 2.669 57 2.827 Signal to Noise Ratio: 68 2.961 79 3.076 810 3.178 9

10

Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is:

ndc =

This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals that will span the range of product variation. (A 97% confidenceinterval centered on a single measurement would contain the actual product value that is represented by that measurement 97%of the time.)

Average Subgroup Range = r = d2

Estimate Replication Standard Deviation r / d2 = se =

no d2* Number of Appraisers = nA =

Range of Appraiser Averages = RA =

Appraiser Effect = RA / d2* = sA =

sm SQRT ( se + sA )

no d2* Range for these Sample Averages = Rp =

sp Rp / d2* =

sp / sm =

1.41 x sp / sm =

GAGE R STUDY PART NO. CHART NO.MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBER

PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) ZERO EQUALSNAMEAPPRAISER MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE UPPER SPECIFICATION LOWER SPECIFICATION

AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)UCL = LCL =

RANGES (R CHART)UCL = LCL =

READING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

VALUE

R n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

** = 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.

x =

r =

HIGH- LOW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Bulk Materials Requirements Checklist Project:Required / Primary Responsibility Comments / Approved

Target Date Customer Supplier Conditions by / date

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 PRODUCT NAME: NAME

CODE ENG. SPEC.:MANUF. SITE: CITY PART #:ENG. CHANGE #: ECL FORMULA DATE:RECEIVED DATE: RECEIVED BY:SUBMISSION LEVEL: EXPIRATION DATE:TRACKING CODE: RE-SUBMISSION DATE:

Design Matrix DFMEA: Special Product Characteristics Engineering ApprovalControl Plans PFMEA: Special Process Characteristics Process Flow Diagram

Test results Process Studies: Dimensional Results Master SampleMeasurement Systems Studies: Appearance Approval Report

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 CONFORMTO BULK MATERIAL PPAP REQUIREMENTS BY THE SAMPLE PROMISE DATE?

PHONE:

(PRINT NAME) DATE:

CUSTOMER APPROVALS (as needed): PHONE: DATE:

PRODUCT ENG. (SIGNATURE)

(PRINT NAME)

MATERIALS ENG. (SIGNATURE)

(PRINT NAME)

QUALITY ENG. (SIGNATURE)

(PRINT NAME)

INTERIM APPROVAL NUMBER:

ORGANIZATION NAME:ORGANIZATION (VENDOR) CODE:

STATUS: (NR - Not Required, A - Approved, I - Interim)

SUPPLIER (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE)

March THE-1002 2006

PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE NOTIFICATION

To: Customer: GM DIVISION

Organization Part Number: Engineering Revision Level: Dated:

Customer Part Number: NUMBER Engineering Revision Level: ECL Dated: ECL DATE

Purchase Order Number: Safety and/or Government Regulation:

Application: APPLICATION

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION

Name: SUPPLIER Code: CODEStreet Address: ADDRESSCity, State, Zip: CITY STATE ZIP Change Type (check all that apply)

Customer Plants Affected:

Design Responsibility:

Organization Change That May Affect End Item:

Expected PPAP Completion / Submission Date:

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE:

Planned Date of Implementation:

DECLARATION:

Explanation/Comments:

NAME: TITLE:

BUSINESS PHONE NO: FAX NO:

E-MAIL: 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.

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.

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.

Dimensional

FunctionalMaterials

AppearanceCustomer Organization

Product Change Engineering Drawing Change New or Revised Subcomponent

March TAG-1001 2006

Truck Industry Part Submission WarrantPart Name NAME Customer Part Number NUMBER Rev.

If applicableTool PO Number Engineering Drawing Change Level ECL Dated

Additional Engineering Changes Dated

Shown on Drawing Number Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)

Checking Aid Number Engineering Change Level Dated

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SUBMISSION INFORMATION

SUPPLIER CODE GM DIVISIONOrganization Name and Code Customer Name/Division

ADDRESSStreet Address Customer Contact

CITY STATE ZIP APPLICATIONCity State Zip Application

Note: Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances?

Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes?

REASON FOR SUBMISSIONInitial submission Change to Optional Construction or MaterialEngineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source ChangeTooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or Additional Change in Part ProcessingCorrection of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional LocationTooling inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify

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.

(check)Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufacturing location.

DECLARATIONI affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts and have been made to the applicable customerdrawings and specifications and are made from specified materials on regular production tooling with no operations other than the regularproduction 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 Date

Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.

Title E-Mail

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLYPPAP Warrant Disposition:

Comment:

Customer Signature Date

Print Name

Approved RejectedInterim Approval

Yes No

Yes No

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

March CFG-1001 2006

Part Submission WarrantPart Name NAME Cust. Part Number NUMBER

Shown on Drawing Number Org. Part Number

Engineering Change Level ECL Dated ECL DATE

Additional Engineering Changes Dated

Safety and/or Government Regulation Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)

Checking Aid Number Checking Aid Eng. Change Level Dated

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION

SUPPLIER CODE GM DIVISIONSupplier Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Customer Name/Division

ADDRESSStreet Address Buyer/Buyer Code

CITY STATE ZIP APPLICATIONCity Region Postal Code Country Application

MATERIALS REPORTING

Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported?

Submitted by IMDS or other customer format:

Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes?

REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one)Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or MaterialEngineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source ChangeTooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part ProcessingCorrection of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional LocationTooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify

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.Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at organization's manufacturing location.

SUBMISSION RESULTSThe results forThese results meet all design record requirements: (If "NO" - Explanation Required)Mold / Cavity / Production Process

DECLARATION

EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:

Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered?

Organization Authorized Signature Date

Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.Title E-mail

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)

PPAP Warrant Disposition:

Customer Signature Date

Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)

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.

Yes NOdimensional measurementsmaterial and functional testsappearance criteria statistical process package

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Approved Rejected Other

n/a

Yes No n/a

CUSTOMER LIST D/P FMEA LISTS M FMEA LISTSACTIVE # IN DOCUMENT 1 SEVERITY SCALE SEVERITY SCALE

1 GM 10 Hazardous - w/o warning 10 Hazardous - w/o warning2 FORD 9 Hazardous - w/ warning 9 Hazardous - w/ warning3 CHRYSLER 8 Very High 8 Very High (Downtime - 8 hrs, Defects - 4 hrs)4 7 High 7 High (Downtime - 4-8 hrs, Defects - 2-4 hrs)5 6 Moderate 6 Moderate (Downtime - 1-4 hrs, Defects - 1-2 hrs)6 5 Low 5 Low (Downtime - 0.5-1 hrs, Defects - 0-1 hrs)7 4 Very Low 4 Very Low (Downtime - 10-30 min., 0 Defects)8 3 Minor 3 Minor (Downtime - 0-10 min., 0 Defects)9 2 Very Minor 2 Very Minor (0 Downtime, 0 Defects)

10 1 None 1 None11 OCCURENCE SCALE OCCURENCE SCALE12 10 >100 Per 1,000 10 1 in 1 hour, 1 in 90 cycles13 9 50 Per 1,000 9 1 in 8 hours, 1 in 900 cycles14 8 20 per 1,000 8 1 in 24 hour, 1 in 36,000 cycles15 7 10 Per 1,000 7 1 in 80 hour, 1 in 90,000 cycles16 6 5 Per 1,000 6 1 in 350 hour, 1 in 180,000 cycles17 5 2 Per 1,000 5 1 in 1,000 hour, 1 in 270,000 cycles18 4 1 Per 1,000 4 1 in 2,500 hour, 1 in 360,000 cycles19 3 0.5 per 1,000 3 1 in 5,000 hour, 1 in 540,000 cycles20 2 0.1 Per 1,000 2 1 in 10,000 hour, 1 in 900,000 cycles

1 <0.01 Per 1,000 1 1 in 25,000 hour, 1 in >900,000 cyclesDETECTION SCALE DETECTION SCALE10 Absolute Impossible 10 Absolute Impossible 9 Very Remote 9 Very Remote 8 Remote 8 Remote 7 Very Low 7 Very Low 6 Low 6 Low 5 Moderate 5 Moderate 4 Moderately High 4 Moderately High 3 High 3 High 2 Almost Certain 2 Almost Certain 1 Certain 1 Certain