4th Edition PPAP CVB

APQP/PPAP
WORKBOOK V4.0
Copyright 2006 March Quality Services
Part Name
Part Number
Engineering Change Level
Engineering Change Level Date
NAME
NUMBER
ECL
ECL DATE
Supplier Name
Supplier Code
Street Address
City
State
Zip
Phone Number
SUPPLIER
CODE
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP
555-555-5555
Customer Name
Division
Application
#NAME?
DIVISION
APPLICATION
File Name
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
PRINTING
First
Feb-95
Third
Third
Fourth
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?
Have historical campaign and warranty data been

reviewed?
Have similar part DFMEAs been considered?
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?
3
4
5
6
7
8
Yes No
Comment / Action Required
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Revision Date:
Prepared By:
Page 3 of 100
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
A. General
Does the design require:
1
New materials?
/
2
Special tooling?
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?
/
Page 4 of 100

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
13 Is bill of material complete?

/
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?
Page 5 of 100

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
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?
/
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
Will characteristics be checked in-house?

/
Page 6 of 100

Question
34
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Is test equipment available?
/
35
l Will training be required to assure accurate

test results?
36 Will outside laboratories be used?
/
37 Are all laboratories used accredited (if required)?
/
Have the following material requirements been considered:
38
Handling?
/
39
Storage?
/
40
Environmental?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 7 of 100
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Does the design require:

1
New materials?
/
2
3
4
l Quick
change?
l Volume fluctuations?
/
l Mistake proofing?
/
Have lists been prepared identifying:
New equipment?
/
6
New tooling?
/
7
l New test equipment?

/
Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for:
New equipment?
/
9
New tooling?
/
10
l New test equipment?

/
11 Will a preliminary capability study be conducted
at the tooling and/or equipment manufacturer?
12 Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been

established?
Page 8 of 100
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
13 Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for

equipment and tooling?
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?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 9 of 100
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?
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?
3
4
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:

5
Control plan requirements?
/
6
Layout inspection?
/
7
Engineering performance testing?
/
8
Problem resolution analysis?

/
Is there a documented training program that:
l
Includes all employees?
/
10
Lists whose been trained?
/
11
12
Provides a training schedule?

/
Has training been completed for:
l
Statistical process control?
THIS CHECKLIST IS NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CHRYSLER, FORD, AND GENERAL MOTORS QUALITY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT.
Page 10 of 100

Question
13
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Capability studies?
/
14
Problem solving?
/
15
Mistake proofing?
/
16
Other topics as identified?

/
17 Is each operation provided with process
instructions that are keyed to the control plan?
18 Are standard operator instructions available at
each operation?
19 Were operator/team leaders involved in
developing standard operator instructions?
Do inspection instructions include:
20
21
22
23
24
25
l Easily understood engineering performance

specifications?
l Test frequencies?
/
l Sample sizes?
/
l Reaction plans?
/
l Documentation?
/
Are visual aids:
l
Easily understood?
/
26
Available?
/
27
Accessible?
Page 11 of 100

Question
28
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Approved?
/
29
Dated and current?

/
30 Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and
establish reaction plans for statistical control
charts?
l
31 Is there an effective root cause analysis system in

place?
32 Have provisions been made to place the latest
drawings and specifications at the point of the
inspection?
33 Are forms/logs available for appropriate
personnel to record inspection results?
Have provisions been made to place the following at the monitored operation:
34
Inspection gages?
/
35
Gage instructions?
/
36
Reference samples?
/
37
Inspection logs?
38 Have provisions been made to certify and

routinely calibrate gages and test equipment?
Have required measurement system capability studies been:
39
Completed?
/
40
Acceptable?
Page 12 of 100

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
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:
42
Characteristics to be inspected?
/
43
l Frequency of
inspection?
44 l Sample size?
45
/
/
Designated location for approved product?

/
46 l Disposition of nonconforming products?
/
47 Is there a procedure to identify, segregate, and
control nonconforming products to prevent
shipment?
l
48 Are rework/repair procedures available?

49 Is there a procedure to requalify
repaired/reworked material?
50 Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure?
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
Page 13 of 100

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Prepared By:
Page 14 of 100
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Question
1
2
Yes No
Has sufficient space been allocated for all

equipment?
Are process and inspection areas:
l Of adequate
size?
/
l Properly
lighted?
/
Do inspection areas contain necessary
equipment and files?
Are there adequate:
7
8
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?
l Staging
areas?
l Impound areas?
/
/
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?
Page 15 of 100
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
13 Are controls adequate to prevent movement of

nonconforming incoming material to storage or
point of use?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 16 of 100
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST

Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes No
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?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 17 of 100
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

Question
1
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?
3
4
Were similar part FMEA's considered?

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?
5
6
7
8
9
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
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?
Revision Date
Page 18 of 100
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

Question
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
Prepared By:
Page 19 of 100
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST

Question
1
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?
4
5
6
Yes No
Person
Responsible
Due
Date
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?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 20 of 100
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT

Customer:
#NAME?
Part Number:
NUMBER
Date:
Part Name:
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
Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.
Feasible
Not Feasible
Changes recommended (see attached).

Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirements.
Sign-Off
Team Member/Title/Date
PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND SIGN-OFF

DATE:
NAME
PRODUCT NAME:
CUSTOMER:
1.
NUMBER
PART NUMBER:
#NAME?
CITY
MANUFACTURING PLANT:
PRELIMINARY PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY
QUANTITY
REQUIRED
ACCEPTABLE
PENDING*
Ppk - SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

2.
CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required)
3.
INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES
APPROVED: YES / NO*
DATE APPROVED
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY
QUANTITY
CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLES
PER SAMPLE
REQUIRED
ACCEPTABLE
REQUIRED
ACCEPTABLE
ACCEPTABLE
DIMENSIONAL
VISUAL
LABORATORY
PERFORMANCE
4.
GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS
QUANTITY
PENDING*
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC
5.
PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS
PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS
6.
PACKAGING/SHIPPING
QUANTITY
REQUIRED
ACCEPTABLE
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS
7.
SIGN-OFF
TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE
* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.
PENDING*
PENDING*
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
Notes:
Process / Part
Meas.
Freq.
USL
UCL
Part / Proc.
Avg.
Measurement Taken During In-Process / or Final Inspection
LCL
LSL
Pp
Ppk
Quantity
Attempted
Quantity
Accepted
FTC Percent
(without
repairs)
%
ACC / REJ
GR&R
DaimlerChrysler PSO Status Summary
SSP PSO Status:

Last
Updated:
S1 Date:
Assembly:
Press Room:
Total:
Percent Signed:
Status by PSO Item Number

1
Part Number
V1 Date:
Description
Asy or Stp'g
Part Num.
Des & Chg
Lvl
Design
FMEA
Tst Sample
Size & Freq.
Process
FMEA
0%
0%
0%
0%
Due Date >>

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

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

YES
SUPPLIER
MFG. LOCATION
CITY
PART NUMBER(S)
NUMBER
CHANGE LEVEL(S)
ECL
PROGRAM
NO
YES
NO
SUPPLIER CODE
CODE
PART NAME(S)
NAME
OPTIONS
APPLICATION
* 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
(IF APPLICABLE)
1.4
Yes
No
Yes
*CATIA comments page
with list of applicable standards
(e.g. DCC, ENVIRONMENTAL, etc.)
No
Acceptable Supplier change

notice procedure
Evidence of customer change
notice procedure
Process for obtaining the latest
standard revision
Engineering Standards Identified
Accept
2
DESIGN FMEA
*Design FMEA complete
& acceptable
Yes
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
Yes
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM & MFG FLOOR PLAN

Yes
*Flow diagram
*Manufacturing floor plan
*Work station layout
DFMEA updated to include

applicable DV failures
Accept
Reject
CONTROL PLAN
*Process characteristics
identified on the Control Plan
*Verification of mistake
proofing on the Control Plan
Yes
No
Accept
Reject
Yes
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
No
Process correlates with

occurrence and detection
numbers on PFMEA
No
Yes
No
Reject
No
Yes
Reject
SPC operations identified

on flow diagram
Unique Equipment numbers
identified on mfg floor plan,
flow diagram, or workstation layout
Yes
Accept
Reject
Proper adherence to
Control Plan
Rework / Repair stations
have acceptable controls
(IF APPLICABLE)
Accept
Reject
No
No
No
QUALITY PLANNING
*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
Yes
No
No
Accept
6
Yes
Reject
No
Accept
5
PROCESS
Accept
Reject
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
INCOMING MATERIAL QUALIF / CERT PLAN

Yes
Certificates of analysis
Copy of sub-tier PSW's
*Plan for lot control
*Plan for traceability
COPYRIGHT 2005 DaimlerChrysler Corporation
No
Yes
No
Evidence of sub-tier monitoring

Proof of lot control
Proof or traceability
Page 25 of 5

SUPPLIER NAME:
PART NUMBER
9
SUPPLIER
NUMBER
DOCUMENTATION
Accept
Reject
PROCESS
Accept
Reject
PARTS HANDLING PLAN

Yes
No
Evidence of acceptable
part handling
*Router / Traveler Cards

*Parts handling Plan
*Container Maintenance
plan
11
12
13
14
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
Accept
Reject
No
Accept
Visual displays clearly present

at each station
Operators follow WI's
Evidence of proper operator
training
Yes
STR in agreement with Supplier's

manufacturing facility
DCC ownership tags present
Yes
SPC performed for identified

special characteristics
Accept
Yes
Yes
Reject
Acceptable 1st piece approval

process
1st approval records
Control & Performance charts
maintained appropriately
Yes
Reject
Boundary samples created

& utilized
Mistake proofing contingency
plan with audible / visual alarm
No
No
*Acceptable LPA plan

*Frequency and structure chart
EVIDENCE OF
PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
No
No
No
Yes
No
Acceptable LPA performed

Accept
Reject
No
*SRE completed and

acceptable
LINE SPEED DEMONSTRATION
Accept
Reject
Completed and approved

Measurement System
Verification Report
Yes
No
Yes
No
Contingency plan for

bottlenecks (IF APPLICABLE)
Line Speed Observed
Accept
FTC:
Reject
OUTGOING QUALIFICATION PLAN

Yes
No
*Outgoing inspection plan

*Part Inspection Standard
Accept
20
Accept
LAYERED PROCESS AUDIT PLAN
Yes
19
Reject
No
Reject
No
Accept
Yes
18
Accept
No
Reject
No
Accept
17
No
Reject
No
ERROR AND MISTAKE PROOFING

Yes
16
Yes
OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS
*Error & mistake proofing plan

*List of error & mistake proofing
15
No
Acceptable method of
inventory control
Accept
10
Yes
PARTS PACKAGING & SHIPPING SPECS

Yes
*Packaging & shipping plan
Yes
No
*Acceptable container
management plan
No
No
GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT EVALUATION
*Gage R&R studies

*Calibration plan & schedule
Reject
Evidence of non-conformance
Yes
containment
Evidence of outgoing audits
(USING PART INSPECTION STANDARD)
Accept
No
Yes
Reject
Appropriate gages used in
the process
Calibration performed
according to schedule
Yes
No
Page 26 of 5

SUPPLIER NAME:
PART NUMBER
21
SUPPLIER
NUMBER
DOCUMENTATION
Accept
Reject
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PLANS

Yes
No
*PM plan
*PM schedule
*PM procedures and WI's
Accept
22
PROCESS
Accept
Reject
Reject
PM performed according to
schedule
Robust PM process
All tooling / equipment listed on
PM schedule
Yes
No
Accept
Reject
INITIAL PROCESS STUDY

Yes
No
Yes
Deviations (IF APPLICABLE)
No
Acceptable FTC
Acceptable process capability
Sample size
Ppk requirement
PSO PROCESS ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR FULL APPROVAL

DOCUMENTATION
Accept
Reject
23
24
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
Yes
Accept
CONTINUOUS CONFORMANCE (CC)

Continuous conformance team
Yes
identified and trained
Warranty process flow diagram
Forever requirements
submission procedure
Reject
Shipping simulation testing

complete
Reject
BSR/NVH testing complete

PV testing complete
Repair / rework process
validation complete (IF APPLICABLE)
No
Yes
Accept
25
PROCESS
Accept
Reject
No
CC team is sufficient to
support post-PSO activities
Acceptable process for
warranty analysis
Family PV testing agreed to
by the PSO team
No
Accept
Reject
Accept
Reject
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
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
SUPPLIER QUALITY
MANUFACTURING MANAGER

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
Page 27 of 5
1st or 2nd Party PSO Lead
SUPPLIER
MFG. LOCATION
SUPPLIER
CITY
PART NUMBER(S)
NUMBER
CHANGE LEVEL(S)
ECL
PROGRAM
APPLICATION
SUPPLIER CODE
CODE
PART NAME(S)
NAME
DaimlerChrysler
PSO
5th Edition

PROCESS SIGN-OFF
COMMENTS SHEET
ELEMENT NO.
ISSUE / ACTION
RESPONSIBILITY
TARGET
Page 28 of 5
SUPPLIER
SUPPLIER
MFG. LOCATION
CITY
PART NUMBER(S)
NUMBER
CHANGE LEVEL(S)
ECL
PROGRAM
APPLICATION
SUPPLIER CODE
CODE
PART NAME(S)
NAME
DaimlerChrysler
PSO
5th Edition

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
ATTEMPTED
QUANTITY
ACCEPTED
FTC PERCENTAGE
(without repair)
Pp / Ppk
PROCESS
ACC / REJ
Length
Hole Size
3.6 - 7.5mm
2.0 +/- 0.2mm
Caliper
CMM
30
30
30
28
100%
93%
1.7/1.6
2.3/2.2
ACC
REJ
QUANTITY
ATTEMPTED
QUANTITY
ACCEPTED
FTC PERCENTAGE
(without repair)
Pp / Ppk
PROCESS
ACC / REJ
Number of parts witnessed:
Witnessed By:
DATA
CHARACTERISTIC
SPECIFICATION
METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
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
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

Characteristic
P025 Gap - Machine 66
P025 Gap - Machine 67
Meas.
Process / Part1
USL
Freq.
Part
2/Shift 0.097
Part
2/Shift 0.097
ITEM
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Characteristic
Meas.
Process / Part1
Freq.
UCL
0.009
0.009
Part / Proc.
Avg.
0.0874
0.0874
LCL
LSL
0.0851 0.077
0.0851 0.077
Pp
Ppk
2.5
2.54
2.28
2.41
Pp
Ppk
Quantity
Attempted
30
30
Quantity
Accepted
30
30
FTC Percent
(without
repairs)
100%
100%
%
ACC / REJ
GR&R
9.37
ACC
12.7
ACC
Quantity
Attempted
Quantity
Accepted
FTC Percent
(without
repairs)
%
ACC / REJ
GR&R
Initial Process Study
Notes:
USL
UCL
Part / Proc.
Avg.
LCL
LSL
Measurement Taken During In-Process / or Final Inspection

Page 30 of 100
PART HISTORY
Part Number
Part Name
NUMBER
Date
NAME
Remarks
Page 31 of 100
PROCESS / INSPECTION FLOWCHART

Product Program
Issue Date
Supplier Name
Supplier Location
SUPPLIER
CITY
ECL
Part Name
STATE
ECL
NAME
Part Number
NUMBER
Legend:
Operation
Transportation
Operation or Event
Inspection
Description of
Operation or Event
Page 32 of 100
Delay
Storage
Evaluation
and Analysis Methods
PROCESS / INSPECTION FLOWCHART

Product Program
Issue Date
Supplier Name
Supplier Location
SUPPLIER
CITY
ECL
Part Name
STATE
ECL
NAME
Part Number
NUMBER
Legend:
Operation
Transportation
Operation or Event
Inspection
Description of
Operation or Event
Page 33 of 100
Delay
Storage
Evaluation
and Analysis Methods
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

NUMBER
DATE:
ECL:
PREPARED BY:
OPERATION
DESCRIPTION
ITEM #
STORE
MOVE
INSPECT
STEP
FABRICATION
NAME
PRODUCT AND
PROCESS
CHARACTERISTICS
Page 34 of 100
ECL
ITEM #
PART NUMBER:
PART DESCRIPTION:
CONTROL
METHODS
PROCESS FLOW
Part #
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Component to
Process Responsibility
Prepared By
Product Line
Core Team
Date (revised)
Assembly Name
Key Date
Date (original)
Process Flow Diagram

operation
w/auto inspection
w/mult product streams

transportation
storage
inspection
decision
Delay
operator
partial
rework
JOB #
ECL
Operation
Potential Quality Problems
Product Characteristics
Process Characteristics
CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX
Part Number
NUMBER
Part Name
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 36 of 100
DESIGN MATRIX Product Code / Description:
Project #:
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS: HIGH = 3; MED = 2; LOW = 1; NONE = 0; UNKNOWN = ?
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROCESS ABILITY
PERFORMANCE
APPEARANCE
UNITS
FUNCTION - DESIRED ATTRIBUTES (POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES)

ROBUST THRESHOLD RANGE
CATEGORY /
CHARACTERISTICS
FAILURE
Prelim. Special Characteristics
POTENTIAL CAUSES
System
POTENTIAL
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(DESIGN FMEA)
Subsystem
Component
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s)
Design Responsibility:
APPLICATION
FMEA Number:
SUPPLIER
Prepared by:
Key Date
Date (Orig.)
Core Team:
Item /
Function
FILE.XLS
Date (Rev.)
Potential
Failure
Mode
Potential
Effect(s)
of Failure
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
Page 38 of 100
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.
System
POTENTIAL
(DESIGN FMEA)
Subsystem
Component
Design Responsibility
APPLICATION
FMEA Number:
SUPPLIER
Prepared by:
Key Date
Date (Orig.)
Core Team:
Item /
Function
FILE.XLS
Date (Rev.)
Potential
Failure
Mode
Potential
Effect(s)
of Failure
S
e
v
C
l
a
s
s
Potential
Causes(s)/
Mechanism(s)
of Failure
O
c
c
u
r
Current
Process
Controls
Prevention
Page 39 of 100
Current
Process
Controls
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.
Print #
NUMBER
Item:
Rev.
ECL
NAME
POTENTIAL
(PROCESS FMEA)
Process Responsibility:
APPLICATION
FMEA Number:
SUPPLIER
Prepared by:
Key Date
Date (Orig.)
Core Team:
Process
Function/
Requirements
FILE.XLS
Date (Rev.)
Potential
Failure
Mode
Potential
Effect(s)
of Failure
S
e
v
C
l
a
s
s
Potential
Causes(s)/
Mechanism(s)
of Failure
O
c
c
u
r
Current
Process
Controls
-Prevention
-Detection
Page 40 of 100
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.
Print #
NUMBER
Item:
Rev.
ECL
NAME
POTENTIAL
(PROCESS FMEA)
Process Responsibility
APPLICATION
FMEA Number:
SUPPLIER
Prepared by:
Key Date
Date (Orig.)
Core Team:
Process
Function/
Requirements
FILE.XLS
Date (Rev.)
Potential
Failure
Mode
Potential
Effect(s)
of Failure
S
e
v
C
l
a
s
s
Potential
Causes(s)/
Mechanism(s)
of Failure
O
c
c
u
r
Current
Process
Controls
Prevention
Page 41 of 100
Current
Process
Controls
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.
System
POTENTIAL
(MACHINERY FMEA)
Subsystem
Component
Supplier Name
Program(s) / Plant(s)
FMEA Number:
SUPPLIER
Prepared by:
Key Date
Date (Orig.)
Core Team:
Machinery
Function /
Requirements
FILE.XLS
Date (Rev.)
Potential
Failure
Mode
Potential
Effect(s)
of Failure
S
e
v
C
l
a
s
s
Potential
Causes(s)/
Mechanism(s)
of Failure
O
c
c
u
r
Page 42 of 100
Current
Machinery
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.
System
POTENTIAL
(MACHINERY FMEA)
Subsystem
Component
Supplier Name
Program(s) / Plant(s)
FMEA Number:
SUPPLIER
Prepared by:
Key Date
Date (Orig.)
Core Team:
Machinery
Function /
Requirements
FILE.XLS
Date (Rev.)
Potential
Failure
Mode
Potential
Effect(s)
of Failure
S
e
v
C
l
a
s
s
Potential
Causes(s)/
Mechanism(s)
of Failure
O
c
c
u
r
Current
Process
Controls
Prevention
Page 43 of 100
Current
Process
Controls
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.
CONTROL PLAN
Prototype
Control Plan Number
Pre-Launch
Production
Key Contact/Phone
Date (Orig.)
FILE.XLS
555-555-5555
Part Number/Latest Change Level
NUMBER
Date (Rev.)
1/1/1996
1/1/1996
Core Team
Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
Supplier/Plant Approval/Date
Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ECL
Part Name/Description
NAME
Supplier/Plant
Supplier Code
SUPPLIER
CODE
PART/
PROCESS NAME/
PROCES
OPERATION
S
DESCRIPTION
NUMBER
MACHINE,
DEVICE
JIG, TOOLS
FOR MFG.
CHARACTERISTICS
NO.
PRODUCT
PROCESS
METHODS
SPECIA
L
PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/
SAMPLE
CHAR.
SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
CLASS
SIZE
FREQ.
TOLERANCE
TECHNIQUE
Page 44 of 100
CONTROL
METHOD
REACTION
PLAN
CONTROL PLAN SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Prototype
Pre-Launch
Control Plan Number
Production
Key Contact/Phone
Date (Orig.)
FILE.XLS
555-555-5555
Part Number/Latest Change Level
NUMBER
Date (Rev.)
1/1/1996
Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
Supplier/Plant Approval/Date
Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ECL
Part Name/Description
NAME
Supplier/Plant
SUPPLIER
No.
1/1/1996
Core Team
Supplier Code
CODE
Description/Rationale
Specification/Tolerance
Class
Page 45 of 100
Illustration/Pictorial
DATA POINT COORDINATES

Control Plan No.
Part Number
FILE.XLS
NUMBER
Part Name
Customer
NAME
Char. Point
No. Ident.
Char. Point
No. Ident.
1/1/1996
Supplier
#NAME?
Z
Date(Orig):
ECL
Date(Rev):
SUPPLIER
Y
Page 46 of 100
Char.
No.
1/1/1996
Point
Ident.
Dynamic Control Plan - Master Copy

Company/Plant
Department
Operation
SUPPLIER
Process
Station
Part Name
Machine
Part Number
Process sheet revision date
NUMBER
Characteristic
Char
Description
#
(Product &
Process)
Control Plan Revision Date
NAME
B/P revision date
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 47 of 100
Dynamic Control Plan - Operator Copy

Department
Operation
Part Name
Control Plan Revision Date
NAME
Process
Char
#
Machine
Characteristic
Description
Part Number
Spec
Process Sheet Revision Date
NUMBER
C
l
Control
a
Method
s
s
Page 48 of 100
B/P Revision Date
ECL DATE
Current
Controls
Gage desc,
master,
detail
Reaction
Plans
Page 49 of 100 Pages
Production Part Approval

Dimensional Test Results
ORGANIZATION:
SUPPLIER
CODE
PART NUMBER:
NUMBER
NAME
SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE:
PART NAME:
INSPECTION FACILITY:
DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL:
ECL
ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
ITEM
DIMENSION /
SPECIFICATION
SPECIFICATION /
LIMITS
TEST
DATE
QTY.
TESTED
ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT
RESULTS (DATA)
OK
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.

SIGNATURE
March CFG-1003
2006
TITLE
DATE
NOT
OK

Dimensional Test Results
ORGANIZATION:
SUPPLIER
CODE
PART NUMBER:
NUMBER
NAME
PART NAME:
INSPECTION FACILITY:
ECL
ITEM
DIMENSION /
SPECIFICATION
March CFG-1003
2006
SPECIFICATION /
LIMITS
TEST
DATE
QTY.
TESTED
ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT
RESULTS (DATA)
OK
NOT
OK
Page of Pages

Material Test Results
ORGANIZATION:
SUPPLIER
CODE
PART NUMBER:
NUMBER
NAME
PART NAME:
MATERIAL SUPPLIER:
*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE:

NAME of LABORATORY:
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.
MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE
SPECIFICATION /
LIMITS
ECL
TEST
DATE
QTY.
TESTED
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)
OK

SIGNATURE
March CFG-1004
2006
TITLE
DATE
NOT
OK
Page of Pages

Material Test Results
ORGANIZATION:
SUPPLIER
CODE
PART NUMBER:
NUMBER
NAME
PART NAME:
MATERIAL SUPPLIER:

NAME of LABORATORY:
MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE
March CFG-1004
2006
SPECIFICATION /
LIMITS
ECL
TEST
DATE
QTY.
TESTED
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)
OK
NOT
OK

Performance Test Results
ORGANIZATION:
SUPPLIER
CODE
PART NUMBER:
NUMBER
NAME
PART NAME:
NAME of LABORATORY:
ECL
TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE
SPECIFICATION /
LIMITS
TEST
DATE
QTY.
TESTED
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/

TEST CONDITIONS
OK

SIGNATURE
March CFG-1005
2006
TITLE
DATE
NOT
OK

Performance Test Results
ORGANIZATION:
SUPPLIER
CODE
PART NUMBER:
NUMBER
NAME
PART NAME:
NAME of LABORATORY:
ECL
TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE
March CFG-1005
2006
SPECIFICATION /
LIMITS
TEST
DATE
QTY.
TESTED
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/

TEST CONDITIONS
OK
NOT
OK
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT

PART
DRAWING
NUMBER
NUMBER
APPLICATION
NUMBER
PART
NAME
NAME
DATE
ECL
ADDRESS
CITY
MANUFACTURING
SUPPLIER
NAME
E/C LEVEL
CODE
ORGANIZATION
APPLICATION
(VEHICLES)
BUYER
LOCATION
SUPPLIER / VENDOR
STATE
ZIP
REASON FOR
PART SUBMISSION WARRANT
SPECIAL SAMPLE
RE-SUBMISSION
SUBMISSION
PRE TEXTURE
FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT
ENGINEERING CHANGE
CODE
CODE
OTHER
APPEARANCE EVALUATION
AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER
ORGANIZATION SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION
PRE-TEXTURE
REPRESENTATIVE
EVALUATION
SIGNATURE AND DATE
CORRECT AND
PROCEED
CORRECT AND
PROCEED
APPROVED TO
ETCH/TOOL/EDM
COLOR EVALUATION
METALLIC
COLOR
TRISTIMULUS DATA
MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER
DATE
TYPE
SOURCE
HUE
RED
YEL
GRN
VALUE
BLU
LIGHT
DARK
CHROMA
GRAY CLEAN
GLOSS
HIGH
LOW
COLOR
BRILLIANCE SHIPPING
HIGH
LOW
SUFFIX
COMMENTS
ORGANIZATION
SIGNATURE
March CFG-1002
2006
PHONE NO.
DATE
AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
DATE
PART
DISPOSITION
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT

ATTRIBUTE ANALYTICAL METHOD
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser
Gage Number
Date Performed
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Gage Type
ATTRIBUTE DATA
XT
P'a
a
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Upper Limit
Lower Limit
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
t0.025,19
31.3 IBI / R
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

ATTRIBUTE RISK METHOD
Part Number
Gage Name
Date Performed
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Gage Type
Appraiser B
Upper Specification
Lower Specification
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
1
0
0
1
1
A-2
0
0
0
1
1
A-3
1
0
0
1
0
B-1
1
0
0
1
1
B-2
1
0
0
1
1
B-3
1
0
0
1
1
C-1
1
0
0
1
0
C-2
0
0
0
1
1
Page 58 of 100
C-3
1
0
0
1
1
Reference
0
1
0
0
0
Reference
Value
1
0
1
1
1
Code
x
+
x

Part Number
Gage Name
Date Performed
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Gage Type
Appraiser B
Upper Specification
Lower Specification
Appraiser C
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
Risk Analysis
A * B Crosstabulation
B
0
A
1
Total
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
0
6
3.2
0
2.8
6
6.0
1
2
4.8
7
4.2
9
9.0
Total
8
8.0
7
7.0
15
15.0
B * C Crosstabulation
C
0
B
1
Total
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
0
6
3.2
2
4.8
8
8.0
Page 59 of 100
1
0
2.8
7
4.2
7
7.0
Total
6
6.0
9
9.0
15
15.0
Reference
Value
Code

Part Number
Gage Name
Date Performed
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Gage Type
Appraiser B
Upper Specification
Lower Specification
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
A * C Crosstabulation
C
0
A
1
Total
Kappa
A
B
C
0
7
4.3
1
3.7
8
8.0
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
A
0.74
0.73
B
0.74
0.74
1
1
3.7
6
3.3
7
7.0
Total
8
8.0
7
7.0
15
15.0
C
0.73
0.74
-
DETERMINATION
AxB
Good Agreement
AxC
Good Agreement
BxC
Good Agreement
Approved for Use
Page 60 of 100
Date
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET

VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification
Trials
Parts
1. A
2.
3.
4.
AVE
5.
6. B
7.
8.
9.
AVE
10.
11. C
12.
13.
14.
AVE
15.
Date Performed
PART
APPRAISER/
TRIAL #
Appraisers
AVERAGE
6
10
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
x c=
rc=
X=
16. PART
Rp=
AVERAGE
17.
(ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) =
18.
xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) =
19.
* UCLR =
R x D4 =
R=
xDIFF=
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
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
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Characteristic
Gage Type
Appraiser C
Trials
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
% Total Variation (TV)
Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)

EV
R x K1
Trials
K1
% EV
0.8865
0.5907
100 (EV/TV)
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)

AV
{(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2
% AV
n = parts
Appraisers
K2
0.7087
0.5236
r = trials
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR)

GRR
K3
0.7087
0.5236
0.4464
0.4032
0.3745
0.3534
0.3378
0.3247
10
0.3145
{(EV2 + AV2)}1/2
RP x K3
Total Variation (TV)

TV
% GRR
Parts
Part Variation (PV)

PV
=
=
=
{(GRR2 + PV2)}1/2
% PV
ndc
100 (AV/TV)
100 (GRR/TV)
100 (PV/TV)
1.41(PV/GRR)
=
=
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.

Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
APPRAISER/
TRIAL #
1
2.
3.
4.
AVE
5.
6. B
7.
8.
9.
AVE
10.
11. C
12.
13.
14.
AVE
15.
Date Performed
PART
1
1. A
Appraisers
AVERAGE
6
10
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
x c=
rc=
X=
16. PART
Rp=
AVERAGE
17.
(ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) =
18.
xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) =
19.
* UCLR =
R x D4 =
R=
xDIFF=
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
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
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Characteristic
Gage Type
Appraiser C
Trials
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
% Tolerance (Tol)
Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)

EV
R x K1
Trials
K1
% EV
0.8865
0.5907
100 (EV/Tol)
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)

AV
{(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2
% AV
n = parts
Appraisers
K2
0.7087
0.5236
r = trials
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR)

GRR
K3
0.7087
0.5236
0.4464
0.4032
0.3745
0.3534
0.3378
{(EV2 + AV2)}1/2
RP x K3
Tolerance (Tol)
Tol
% GRR
Parts
Part Variation (PV)

PV
Upper - Lower / 6
0.3247
( Upper - Lower ) / 6
10
0.3145
% PV
ndc
100 (AV/Tol)
100 (GRR/Tol)
100 (PV/Tol)
1.41(PV/GRR)
=
=
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.

ANOVA METHOD
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
APPRAISER/
TRIAL #
1
2.
3.
4.
AVE
5.
6. B
7.
8.
9.
AVE
10.
11. C
12.
13.
14.
AVE
15.
Date Performed
PART
1
1. A
Appraisers
AVERAGE
6
10
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
xc=
rc=
X=
16. PART
Rp=
AVERAGE
Anova Table
Source
DF
SS
MS
Sig
Appraiser
Parts
Appraiser-by-Part
Equipment
Total
* Significant at = 0.05 level
Page 65 of 100

ANOVA METHOD
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Anova Report
Trials
Parts
Standard
Deviation ()
Appraisers
% Total Variation
Date Performed
% Contribution
Repeatability (EV)
Reproducibility (AV)
Appraiser by Part (INT)
GRR
Part-to-Part (PV)
Note:
Tolerance =
Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =
Page 66 of 100
Total variation (TV) =

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
APPRAISER/
TRIAL #
1
2.
3.
4.
AVE
5.
6. B
7.
8.
9.
AVE
10.
11. C
12.
13.
14.
AVE
Date Performed
PART
1
1. A
Appraisers
AVERAGE
6
10
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
15.
R
16. PART
x c=
rc=
X=
AVE ( Xp )
Rp=
Note:
The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indication true bias.
Page 67 of 100

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 68 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Average
Average Chart -"Stacked"

12.00
10.00
Appraiser
A
Appraiser
B
Appraiser
C
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
10
Part Number
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Stacked"
Range
12.00
10.00
Appraiser
A
8.00
6.00
Appraiser
B
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
Part Number
Analysis:
Page 69 of 100
10

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 70 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Average
Average Chart -"Unstacked"

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
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
Appr A
Appr B
Appr C
Analysis:
Average
Range Chart -"Unstacked"

12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
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
Appr A
Appr B
Analysis:
Page 71 of 100
Appr C

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 72 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Run Chart
12.00
Value
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
6
Part
Analysis:
Page 73 of 100
10

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 74 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Scatter Plot
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
Part 4
Part 5
Part 9
Part 10
Part 3
Part 2
Part 1
0.00
Scatter Plot
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
Part 8
Part 7
Part 6
0.00
Analysis:
Page 75 of 100

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 76 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A

12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
10
10
10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B

12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C

12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
Analysis:
Page 77 of 100

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 78 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Error Chart
12
10
8
6
4
2
Part 4
Part 5
Part 9
Part 10
Part 3
Part 2
Part 1
Error Chart
12
10
8
6
4
2
Part 8
Part 7
Part 6
Analysis:
Page 79 of 100

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 80 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Normalized Histogram - Error

1
0.8
0.6
Appr A
0.4
0.2
0

1
0.8
0.6
Appr B
0.4
0.2
0

1
0.8
0.6
Appr C
0.4
0.2
0
Analysis:
Page 81 of 100

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 82 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
XY Plot of Averages by Size

12.00
10.00
8.00
Appr A
Appr B
6.00
Appr C
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Analysis:
Page 83 of 100
10.00
12.00

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 84 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Comparison XY Plot
Appr B
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Appr A
Comparison XY Plot
Appr C
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Appr A
Page 85 of 100
Appr C
10.00
8.00 REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
GAGE
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
6.00
Part Number
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
4.00
Gage Name
Appraiser A
2.00
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
Specification
0.00
Lower Upper
0.00
2.00
Trials
4.00
Parts 6.00
Appr A
Page 86 of 100
8.00
Appraisers
10.00
Date
Performed
12.00

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Appraisers
Date Performed
Comparison XY Plot
Appr C
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Appr B
Analysis:
Page 87 of 100
8.00
10.00
12.00

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number
Gage Name
Appraiser A
Gage Number
Appraiser B
Gage Type
Appraiser C
NUMBER
Part Name
NAME
Characteristic
Specification
Lower Upper
Trials
Parts
Page 88 of 100
Appraisers
Date Performed
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )
PART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION
NUMBER
PART NAME (Product)
CHART NO.
OPERATION (Process)
SPECIFICATION LIMITS
NAME
APPRAISER A
APPRAISER B
x=
APPRAISER C
UCL =
MACHINE
GAGE
UNIT OF MEASURE
ZERO EQUALS
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)
LCL =
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
r=
UCL =
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
RANGES (R CHART)
LCL =
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
APPRAISER A
PART
NUMBER
R
E
A
D
I
N
G
S
1
2
3
4
5
SUM
SUM
NUM
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPRAISER B
7
10
26
27
28
29
30
APPRAISER C
7
10
10
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )
PART NO.
NUMBER
PART NAME (Product)
OPERATION (Process)
CHART NO.
SPECIFICATION LIMITS
NAME
APPRAISER A
APPRAISER B
APPRAISER C
MACHINE
GAGE
UNIT OF MEASURE
ZERO EQUALS
HIGHLOW
** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL
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 = e =
CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT:

no
d2*
2
3
1.410
1.906
d2
r
2
3
4
1.126
1.693
2.059
2.326
Appraiser Averages
Number of Appraisers = nA =
Number of Samples = n =
Range of Appraiser Averages = RA =
Appraiser
A
B
C
Average
0.00
Appraiser Effect = RA / d2* = A =

CALCULATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION:
m
= SQRT ( e + A )
CALCULATIONS FOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO:

no
d2*
2
3
4
1.410
1.906
2.237
5
6
7
2.477
2.669
2.827
8
9
10
2.961
3.076
3.178
Sample Averages
Range for these Sample Averages = Rp =
0.00
Estimate Sample to Sample Standard Deviation:

p
Rp / d2* =
Signal to Noise Ratio:

p / m =
Sample
1
2
3
Average
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is:
ndc =
1.41 x p / m =
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.
PART NAME (Product)
CHART NO.
NUMBER
OPERATION (Process)
ZERO EQUALS
NAME
APPRAISER
MACHINE
GAGE
UNIT OF MEASURE
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)

x=
UCL =
UPPER SPECIFICATION
LOWER SPECIFICATION
LCL =
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
RANGES (R CHART)
r=
UCL =
10
LCL =
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
1
READING
10
n/a
VALUE
R
HIGHLOW
** = 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.
10
Bulk Materials Requirements Checklist
Project:
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
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
Comments /
Conditions
Approved
by / 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
DFMEA:
Engineering Approval
Control Plans
PFMEA:
Special Process Characteristics
Process Flow Diagram
Test results
Process Studies:
Measurement Systems Studies:
Dimensional Results
Master Sample
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 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)
PHONE:
DATE:
PHONE:
DATE:
INTERIM APPROVAL NUMBER:
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:
Customer:
Organization Part Number:
DIVISION
Engineering Revision Level:
NUMBER
Customer Part Number:
###
Purchase Order Number:
Dated:
ECL
Engineering Revision Level:
Dated:
ECL DATE
Safety and/or Government Regulation:
APPLICATION
Application:
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION

Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip:
CITY
SUPPLIER
ADDRESS
STATE
CODE
Code:
ZIP
Change Type (check all that apply)

Dimensional
Customer Plants Affected:
Design Responsibility:
Materials
Functional
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!
March
2006
THE-1220
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
NAME
Part Name
Customer Part Number
NUMBER
Rev.
If applicable
Tool PO Number
ECL
Engineering Drawing Change Level
Dated
Additional Engineering Changes
Dated
Shown on Drawing Number
Purchase Order No.
Checking Aid Number
Weight (kg)
SUPPLIER
Dated
SUBMISSION INFORMATION
CODE
###
Organization Name and Code
DIVISION
Customer Name/Division
ADDRESS
Street Address
Customer Contact
CITY
STATE
ZIP
APPLICATION
City
State
Zip
Application
Note:
Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances?
Yes
No
Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes?
Yes
No
REASON FOR SUBMISSION

Initial submission
Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s)
Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or Additional
Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy
Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling 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.
1
10
11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
(check)
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
Date
Print Name
Phone No.
Title
555-555-5555
E-Mail
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY
PPAP Warrant Disposition:
Customer Signature
Print Name
March
2006
THE-1001
Approved
Rejected
Interim Approval
Date
Comment:
Fax No.

NAME
Part Name
NUMBER
Cust. Part Number
Shown on Drawing Number
Orig. Part Number
ECL
Dated
Additional Engineering Changes
ECL DATE
Dated
Safety and/or Government Regulation
Yes
Checking Aid Number
Purchase Order No.
No
Weight (kg)
Checking Aid Eng. Change Level
SUPPLIER
Dated
CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
CODE
###
Organization Name & Supplier/Vendor Code
DIVISION
Customer Name/Division
ADDRESS
Street Address
Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY
City
STATE
ZIP
Region
Postal Code
APPLICATION
Country
Application
MATERIALS REPORTING
Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported?
Yes
No
n/a
Yes
No
n/a
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 Material
Engineering Change(s)
Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional
Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy
Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling 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 RESULTS
The results for
dimensional measurements
material and functional tests
appearance criteriastatistical process package
(If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Yes
NO
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:
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered?
Yes
No
n/a
Organization Authorized Signature
Date
Print Name
Phone No.
Title
555-555-5555
Fax No.
E-mail
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)
PPAP Warrant Disposition:
Approved
Rejected
Other
Customer Signature
Print Name
March
2006
CFG-1001
Date
Customer Tracking Number (optional)
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
D/P FMEA LISTS

1
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
8 Very High (Downtime - 8 hrs, Defects - 4
7 High (Downtime - 4-8 hrs, Defects - 2-4

6 Moderate (Downtime - 1-4 hrs, Defects
5 Low (Downtime - 0.5-1 hrs, Defects - 0-
4 Very Low (Downtime - 10-30 min., 0 De
3 Minor (Downtime - 0-10 min., 0 Defects

2 Very Minor (0 Downtime, 0 Defects)
1 None
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
6 1 in 350 hour, 1 in 180,000 cycle
5 1 in 1,000 hour, 1 in 270,000 cy
4 1 in 2,500 hour, 1 in 360,000 cy
3 1 in 5,000 hour, 1 in 540,000 cy
2 1 in 10,000 hour, 1 in 900,000 c
1 1 in 25,000 hour, 1 in >900,000
DETECTION SCALE
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
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
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
9 Very Remote
8 Remote
7 Very Low
5 Moderate
4 Moderately High
2 Almost Certain

4th Edition PPAP CVB

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 CVB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APQP/PPAP

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

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

A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST

Was the SFMEA and/or DFMEA prepared using

Have historical campaign and warranty data been

Comment / Action Required

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

Has assembly build variation analysis been

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

13 Is bill of material complete?

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

23 Can additional samples be tested when a

Will characteristics be checked in-house?

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

Is test equipment available?

l Will training be required to assure accurate

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

Comment / Action Required

Does the design require:

l New test equipment?

l New test equipment?

12 Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been

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

Comment / Action Required

13 Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Is the assistance of the customer's quality

Has the supplier identified who will be the quality

Comment / Action Required

Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:

Control plan requirements?

Engineering performance testing?

Problem resolution analysis?

Includes all employees?

Lists whose been trained?

Provides a training schedule?

Statistical process control?

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

Other topics as identified?

l Easily understood engineering performance

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

Dated and current?

31 Is there an effective root cause analysis system in

38 Have provisions been made to certify and

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

41 Are layout inspection equipment and facilities

Designated location for approved product?

48 Are rework/repair procedures available?

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST

Comment / Action Required

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST

Has sufficient space been allocated for all

Does the floor plan identify all required process

Comment / Action Required

Are inspection points logically located to prevent

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST