Core Tools Forms V5

Core Tools Forms Disc V5Copyright © 2008 March Quality Services

Part Name NAMEPart Number NUMBER

Engineering Change Level ECLEngineering Change Level Date ECL DATE

Organization Name ORGANIZATIONOrganization Code CODE

Street Address ADDRESSCity CITY

State STATEZip ZIP

Phone Number 555-555-5555

Customer Name CUSTOMERDivision DIVISION

Application 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 EDITION PRINTING

Second Jul-08

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS Third Mar-02POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS Fourth Jun-08PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL Fourth Mar-06

ADVANCED PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING AND CONTROL PLAN REFERENCE MANUAL

of 117

A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level

Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Revision Date:

Person Responsible

Was the DFMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference manual, and applicable customer specific requirements?

Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed?

Have best practices and lessons learned from similar part DFMEAs been considered?

Does the DFMEA identify Special Characteristics?

Have pass-through characteristics (glossary) been identified and reviewed with affected suppliers for FMEA alignment and appropriate controls in the supply base?

Have special characteristics designated by the customer or organization been reviewed with affected suppliers to assure FMEA alignment?

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?

of 117



Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson

ResponsiblePrepared By:

of 117


Due Date

of 117

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST



A. General

1 Does the design require:

a

b

c

2

3 Has Design of Experiments been considered?4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Person Responsible

l New materials?

l Special tooling?

l New technology or process?

Has assembly build variation analysis been considered?

Is there a plan for prototypes in place?

Has a DFMEA been completed?

Has a DFMA (Design For Manufacturability and Assembly) 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?

of 117




Responsible11

12

13

B. Engineering Drawings

14

15

16

17

18

C. Engineering Performance Specifications

19

20

Have Special Characteristics been selected? /

Is bill of material complete? /

Are Special Characteristics properly documented?

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?

Can existing and available inspection technology measure all design requirements?

Is the customer designated engineering change management process used to manage engineering changes?

Have special characteristics been identified?

Are test parameters sufficient to address required use conditions, i.e., production validation and end use?

of 117




Responsible21

22

23

24

25

D. Material Specification

26

27

28

29

30

Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specifications been tested as required?

Will all product testing be done in-house? /

If not, is it done by an approved supplier? /

Is the specified in-process performance test sampling size and/or frequency consistent with manufacturing volumes?

Has customer approval been obtained, e.g., for testing and documentation, as required?

Are special material characteristics identified? /

Where the organization is design responsible, are specified materials, heat treat and surface treatments compatible with the durability requirements in the identified environment?

Where required, are the material suppliers on the customer approved list?

Has the organization developed and implemented a process to control incoming material quality?

Have material characteristics requiring inspection been identified?If so,

of 117




Responsiblea

b

c

31

a

32

a

b

c

d

Revision Date

l Will characteristics be checked in-house? /

l If checked in house, is test equipment available?

l If checked in house, are competent people available to assure accurate testing?

Will outside laboratories be used? /

l Does the organization have a process in place to assure laboratory competency such as accreditation? NOTE: Competency needs to be assured, regardless of the organization's relationship with the laboratory.

Have the following material requirements been considered:

l Handling, including environmental aspects?

l Storage, including environmental aspects? /

l Have the materials/substance composition been reported in accordance with customer requirements e.g., IMDS?

l Have polymeric parts been identified/marked per customer requirements?

of 117




Responsible

Prepared By:

of 117


Due Date

of 117

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



1 Does the design require:

a

b

c

d

2

a

b

c

3

a

b

c

4

5

Person Responsible

l New materials? /

l Quick change? /

l Volume fluctuations? /

l Mistake proofing? /Have lists been prepared identifying (include all suppliers)?:

l New equipment? /

l New tooling? /

l New test equipment (including checking aids)?

Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for (include all suppliers):

l New equipment? /

l New tooling? /

l New test equipment (including checking aids)?

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

Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been established?

of 117




Responsible6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

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?

Has the measurement equipment been verified and documented showing qualification for the required scope of measurement and testing?

of 117


Due Date

of 117

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4

5 Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:

a

b

c

d

6 Is there a documented training program that:

a

b

c

7 Has training been completed for:

a

b

Person Responsible

Is customer assistance or approval required for the development of the control plan?

Has the organization identified who will be the quality liaison with the customer?

Has the organization identified who will be the quality liaison with its suppliers?

Has the quality management system been reviewed and approved per customer specific requirements?

l Control plan requirements? /

l Layout inspection? /

l Engineering performance testing? /

l Problem reaction and resolution analysis? /

l Includes all employees? /

l Lists whose been trained? /

l Provides a training schedule? /

l Statistical process control? /

l Capability studies? /

of 117




Responsiblec

d

e

f

8

9

10

11

12 Do inspection instructions include:

a

b

c

d

e

13 Are visual aids:

a

b

l Problem solving? /

l Mistake proofing? /

l Reaction plans?

l Other topics as identified? /

Is each operation provided with process instructions that are keyed to the control plan?

Are standard operator instructions accessible at each work station?

Do operator instructions include pictures ad diagrams?

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 requirements?

l Appropriate, easily understood and legible?

l Available? /

of 117




Responsiblec

d

e

14

15

16

a

17

18

a

b

c

d

l Accessible? /

l Approved? /

l Dated and current? /

Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and establish reaction plans for issues such as out of control conditions based on statistical process control?

Is there an identified problem solving process that includes root cause analysis?

Are the latest drawings and specifications available for the operator, in particular at the points of the inspection?

l Have engineering tests (dimensional, material, appearance, and performance) been completed and documented as required in accordance with customer requirements?

Are the current forms/logs available for appropriate personnel to record inspection results?

Are the following available and placed at the appropriate points of the operation?

l Monitoring and measurement devices?

l Gage instructions? /

l Reference samples? /

l Inspection logs? /

of 117




Responsible19

20

a

b

21

22

23

a

b

c

d

e

24

Have provisions been made to certify and calibrate gages and test equipment at a defined frequency that is appropriate?

Have required measurement system capability studies been:

l Completed? /

l Accepted?

Have initial process capability studies been conducted per customer requirements?

Are layout inspection equipment and facilities adequate to provide initial and ongoing layout of all details and components in accordance with customer requirements?

Is there a documented procedure for controlling incoming material that may include, for example, the following items:

l Characteristics to be inspected? /

l Frequency of inspection? /

l Sample size? /

l Designated location for approved product? /

l Disposition of nonconforming products? /

Have sample production parts been provided per customer requirements?

of 117




Responsible25

26

27

28

29 Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure?

30

31

32

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Is there a procedure to identify, segregate, and control nonconforming products to prevent shipment?

Are rework/repair procedures available to assure conforming product?

Is there a procedure to requalify repaired/reworked material?

Has a master sample, if required, been retained as part of the part approval process?

Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned and implemented?

Are periodic assessments of the quality system planned and implemented?

Has the customer approved the packaging and the packaging specification?

of 117


Due Date

of 117

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4

5 Are process and inspection areas:

a

b

6

7 Are there adequate:

a

b

8

9

10

Person Responsible

Have lean concepts been applied in considering material flow?

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 record storage?

l Staging areas? /

l Impound areas? /

Are inspection points located to prevent shipment of nonconforming products?

Are there controls for each process to eliminate contamination or inappropriate mixing of product?

Is material protected from overhead or air handling systems contamination?

of 117




Responsible11

12

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Have facilities been provided for final product audit?

Are facilities adequate to control movement of nonconforming incoming material?

of 117


Due Date

of 117

A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Person Responsible

Does the flow chart illustrate the entire process from receiving through shipping, including outside processes and services?

In the development of the process flow chart, was the DFMEA used, if available, to identify specific characteristics that may be critical?

Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in the control plan and PFMEA?

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?

Are material controls for movement and staging of product including appropriate identification properly defined and implemented? The controls should address incoming supplier product as well as subcontracted processes.

of 117

A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST

Due Date

of 117

A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4 Were similar part/process FMEA's considered?

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Revision Date

Person Responsible

Was the Process FMEA prepared by a cross functional team? Has the team taken into account all customer specific requirements, including FMEA methodologies as shown in the current edition of the FMEA?

Have all operations including subcontracted, or outsourced processes and services been considered?

Have all operations affecting customer requirements including fit, function, durability, governmental regulations and safety been identified and listed sequentially?

Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed and used in the analysis?

Have you applied the appropriate controls to address all of the identified failure modes?

Were severity, detection and occurrence revised when corrective action was completed?

Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the subsequent operation, assembly, and product?

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 corrected or controlled?

Have provisions been made to control the cause of the failure mode prior to subsequent or the next operation?

of 117




Responsible

Prepared By:

of 117


Due Date

of 117

A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10

12

Revision Date

Person Responsible

Was the control plan developed according to the methodology described in Chapter 6 of this APQP manual?

Have all the controls identified in the PFMEA been included in the control plan?

Are all special product/process characteristics included in the control plan?

Were DFMEA and PFMEA used to prepare the control plan?

Are material specifications requiring inspection identified?

Does the control plan address incoming (material/components) through processing/assembly including packaging?

Are engineering performance testing and dimensional requirements identified?

Are gages and test equipment available as required by the control plan?

If required, has the customer approved the control plan?

Are the gage methodology and compatibility appropriate to meet customer requirements?

Have measurement systems analysis been completed in accordance with customer requirements?

Are sample sizes based upon industry standards, statistical sampling plan tables, or other statistical process control methods or techniques?

of 117




ResponsiblePrepared By:

of 117


Due Date

TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENTCustomer: CUSTOMER Date:

Part Number: NUMBER Part Name: NAME

Revision Level ECL

Feasibility ConsiderationsOur product quality planning team has considered the following questions.

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 process capability that meet requirements?Is there adequate capacity to produce product?Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques?

- 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?- Does process capability meet customer requirements?

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.

Approval

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



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 the organization's concerns and/or proposed changes to enable the organization to meet the specified requirements.

Can the product be manufactured within normal cost parameters? Abnormal cost considerations may include:

PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND APPROVALS

DATE:

PRODUCT NAME: NAME PART NUMBER / REV: NUMBER ECL

CUSTOMER: CUSTOMER 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 QUANTITY

CHARACTERISTICS

SAMPLES PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PENDING*

DIMENSIONAL

VISUAL

LABORATORY

PERFORMANCE

4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS QUANTITY


SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC

5. PROCESS MONITORING

QUANTITY

PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*

PROCESS SHEETS

VISUAL AIDS

6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY


PACKAGING APPROVAL

SHIPPING TRIALS

7. Approvals

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



* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.

CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required)

of 117

PART HISTORY

Part Number Part Name

NUMBER NAME

Date Remarks

of 117

PROCESS / INSPECTION FLOWCHART

Product Program Issue Date ECL ECL

Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Part Name NAME

Supplier Location CITY STATE Part Number NUMBER

Legend:

Operation Transportation Inspection Delay Storage

ST

EP Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

Operation or Event and Analysis Methods

of 117

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

PART NUMBER: NUMBER DATE:PART DESCRIPTION: ECL: ECL

NAME PREPARED BY:

STEP FA

BR

ICA

TIO

N

MO

VE

ST

OR

E

INS

PE

CT

ITE

M #

ITE

M #

OPERATION DESCRIPTION

PRODUCT AND PROCESS

CHARACTERISTICSCONTROL METHODS

of 117

Process Flow DiagramDepartment

Prod/Serv NAME ID Number Date

Sources of VariationSources of Variation

Sources of Variation(Experience-Based) (Results of this Step)

Operation 100%Storage Delay

Operatoror Activity Inspection (Full time)

Operation/Activity with Inspection Transportation (Part time)

of 117

CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX

Part Number Engineering Change Level Part Name

NUMBER 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)

Pre

lim.

Spe

cial

Cha

ract

eris

tics

FA

ILU

RE

RO

BU

ST

TH

RE

SH

OLD

RA

NG

E

UN

ITS

AP

PE

AR

AN

CE

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E

PR

OC

ES

S A

BIL

ITY

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

CATEGORY / CHARACTERISTICS

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

of 117

System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Subsystem Prepared by:

Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)

Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)

Core Team:

Item /

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Function

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Requirements

POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS

(DESIGN FMEA)

Potential Failure Mode

Potential Effect(s) of Failure

Potential Causes(s)of Failure

CurrentDesign

ControlsPrevention

CurrentDesign

ControlsDetection

Recommended Action

Responsibility & Target

Completion Date

Actions Taken& Effective Date

of 117





Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N


(DESIGN FMEA)

Item

Function




CurrentDesign

ControlsPrevention

CurrentDesign

ControlsDetection

Recommended Action(s)


Completion Date


of 117





Core Team:

Item /

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Function

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Requirements


(DESIGN FMEA)




CurrentDesign

ControlsPrevention

CurrentDesign

ControlsDetection

Recommended Action


Completion Date


of 117





Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N


(DESIGN FMEA)

Item

Function




CurrentDesign

ControlsPrevention

CurrentDesign

ControlsDetection



Completion Date


of 117





Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

Cause Failure Mode


(DESIGN FMEA)

Item

Function




ControlsPrevention

Current DetectionDesign Controls Recommended

Action(s)


Completion Date


of 117

Action Results

RP

N

of 117





Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Re

spo

nsi

bili

ty Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N


(DESIGN FMEA)

Item

Function




CurrentDesign

ControlsPrevention

CurrentDesign

ControlsDetection


Tar

get

Com

plet

ion

Dat

e

ActionsTaken

EffectiveDate

of 117

FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Prepared by:

Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)


Core Team:

Process Step

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

/ Function

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Requirements


(PROCESS FMEA)




CurrentProcessControlsPrevention

CurrentProcessControlsDetection

Recommended Action


Completion Date


of 117


Prepared by:



Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N


(PROCESS FMEA)

ProcessStep

Function






Recommended Action


Completion Date


of 117


Prepared by:



Core Team:

Process Step

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

/ Function

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Requirements


(PROCESS FMEA)






Recommended Action


Completion Date


of 117


Prepared by:



Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N


(PROCESS FMEA)

ProcessStep

Function






Recommended Action


Completion Date


of 117


Prepared by:



Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Cause Failure Mode


(PROCESS FMEA)

ProcessStep

Function





Current DetectionProcess Controls Recommended

Action


Completion Date


of 117


Prepared by:



Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Re

spo

nsi

bili

ty Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N


(PROCESS FMEA)

ProcessStep

Function






Recommended Action

Tar

get

Com

plet

ion

Dat

e

ActionsTaken

EffectiveDate

of 117


Prepared by:



Core Team:

Requirements

Se

verit

y

Cla

ssifi

catio

n

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

Action Results

Se

verit

y

Occ

urr

en

ce

De

tect

ion

RP

N

ID Product Process


(PROCESS FMEA)

ProcessStep

Function






Recommended Action


Completion Date


of 117

System

Subsystem FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Component Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Prepared by:

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

Core Team: Date (Rev.)

C O Current DAction ResultsS l c Machinery e R.

e a c Controls t P. S O D R.v s u -Prevention e N. e c e P.

s r -Detection c v c t N.


(MACHINERY FMEA)

MachineryFunction /

Requirements



Potential Causes(s)/

Mechanism(s) of Failure



Completion Date

Actions Taken

of 117

System

Subsystem FMEA Number: FILE.XLS

Component Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Prepared by:

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

Core Team: Date (Rev.)

C O DAction ResultsS l c e R.

e a c t P. S O D R.v s u e N. e c e P.

s r c v c t N.


(MACHINERY FMEA)

MachineryFunction /

Requirements



Potential Causes(s)/

Mechanism(s) of Failure

CurrentProcessControls

Prevention




Completion Date

Actions Taken

of 117

CONTROL PLAN

Control 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 Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

NAMEOrganization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

ORGANIZATION CODE

CHARACTERISTICS METHODS

NO. PRODUCT PROCESS

PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLESPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT

SIZE FREQ.TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE

PART/ PROCESSNUMBER

PROCESS NAME/OPERATION

DESCRIPTION

MACHINE,DEVICE

JIG, TOOLSFOR MFG.

SPECIAL

CHAR.CLASS

REACTIONPLANCONTROL

METHOD

Prototype Pre-Launch Production

of 117

CONTROL PLAN SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Control 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 Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

NAMEOrganization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

ORGANIZATION CODENo. Description/Rationale Specification/Tolerance Class Illustration/Pictorial

Prototype Pre-Launch Production

of 117

DATA POINT COORDINATESControl Plan No. FILE.XLS

Customer CUSTOMER Date(Orig): 1/1/1996 Date(Rev): 1/1/1996

Char. PointX Y Z

Char. PointX Y Z

Char. PointX Y ZNo. Ident. No. Ident. No. Ident.

of 117 Pages

March CFG-1003 2006

Production Part ApprovalDimensional Test Results

ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEINSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: 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

of 117 Pages

March CFG-1003 2006

Production Part ApprovalDimensional Test Results

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

ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:

ITEM OKDIMENSION / SPECIFICATION


TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA)

NOT OK

Page of Pages

March CFG-1004 2006

Production Part ApprovalMaterial Test Results

ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEMATERIAL SUPPLIER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: 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 SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OK




TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

NOT OK

Page of Pages

March CFG-1004 2006

Production Part ApprovalMaterial Test Results

ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEMATERIAL SUPPLIER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: 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 SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OKSPECIFICATION / LIMITS

TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

NOT OK

of 117 Pages

March CFG-1005 2006

Production Part ApprovalPerformance Test Results

ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMENAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: 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




TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ TEST CONDITIONS

NOT OK

of 117 Pages

March CFG-1005 2006

Production Part ApprovalPerformance Test Results

ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMENAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: 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 OKSPECIFICATION / LIMITS

TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ TEST CONDITIONS

NOT OK

March CFG-1002 2006

APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORTPART DRAWING APPLICATION

NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) APPLICATIONPART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE

NAME NAME CODE ECLORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING ADDRESS SUPPLIER / VENDOR

NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CITY STATE ZIP CODE CODEREASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHER

SUBMISSION 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 PART

SUFFIX 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

of 117

ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORTANALYTICAL METHOD - LOW LIMIT

Part Number Gage Name Appraiser

NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Date Performed

NAMECharacteristic 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 Curve

2 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 Statistic

t = 31.3 IBI / R = 2.093==

Result

XT P'a

XT (P=.5) =

XT (P=.995) =

XT (P=.005) =

t0.025,19

of 117

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 Curve

2 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 Statistic

t = 31.3 IBI / R = 2.093==

Result

XT P'a

XT (P=.5) =

XT (P=.995) =

XT (P=.005) =

t0.025,19

of 117

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%

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

of 117

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD

Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A

NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B

NAMECharacteristic 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

of 117





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

of 117





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




of 117





B * REF Crosstabulation

REFTotal0 1

B




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

of 117





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:

of 117





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

improvement

Unacceptable for the appraiser - needs

improvement

False Alarm Rate

of 117

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETVARIABLE DATA RESULTS

Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A

NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B

NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C

Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed

APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE

TRIAL # 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

of 117




NAMECharacteristic 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.

of 117







TRIAL # 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


of 117




NAMECharacteristic 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.

of 117

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETANOVA METHOD






TRIAL # 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

Anova TableSource DF SS MS F Sig

Appraiser

Parts

Appraiser-by-Part

Equipment

Total

xa=

ra=

xb=

rb=

xc=

rc=

X=

Rp=

* Significant at a = 0.05 level

F12


of 117

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETANOVA METHOD





Anova Report % Total Variation % Contribution

Repeatability (EV)

Reproducibility (AV)

Appraiser by Part (INT)

GRR

Part-to-Part (PV)

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

Standard Deviation (s)

of 117

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS






TRIAL # 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

AVE ( Xp )

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

xa=

ra=

xb=

rb=

xc=

rc=

X=

Rp=

F12


C15

Values from GR&R VAR(Tol)

of 117






Analysis:

Analysis:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Average Chart -"Stacked"

Appraiser A

Appraiser B

Appraiser C

Upper Spec

Lower Spec

Part Number

Av

era

ge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Range Chart -"Stacked"

Appraiser A

Appraiser B

Appraiser C

Rucl

Part Number

Ran

ge

F12


of 117






F12


of 117






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

Av

era

ge

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

Av

era

ge

F12


of 117






F12


of 117






Analysis:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Run Chart

Part

Va

lue

F12


of 117






Analysis:

Pa

rt 1

Pa

rt 2

Pa

rt 3

Pa

rt 4

Pa

rt 5

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Scatter Plot

Pa

rt 6

Pa

rt 7

Pa

rt 8

Pa

rt 9

Pa

rt 1

0

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Scatter Plot

F12


of 117






Analysis:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C

F12


of 117






Analysis:

Pa

rt 1

Pa

rt 2

Pa

rt 3

Pa

rt 4

Pa

rt 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Error Chart

Pa

rt 6

Pa

rt 7

Pa

rt 8

Pa

rt 9

Pa

rt 1

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Error Chart

F12


of 117






Analysis:

-1.0

0

-0.9

0

-0.8

0

-0.7

0

-0.6

0

-0.5

0

-0.4

0

-0.3

0

-0.2

0

-0.1

0

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Normalized Histogram - Error

Appr A

-1.0

0

-0.9

0

-0.8

0

-0.7

0

-0.6

0

-0.5

0

-0.4

0

-0.3

0

-0.2

0

-0.1

0

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1


Appr B

-1.0

0

-0.9

0

-0.8

0

-0.7

0

-0.6

0

-0.5

0

-0.4

0

-0.3

0

-0.2

0

-0.1

0

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1


Appr C

F12


of 117






Analysis:

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

XY Plot of Averages by Size

Appr A

Appr B

Appr C

X=Y line

F12


of 117






0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Comparison XY Plot

Appr A

Ap

pr

B

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Comparison XY Plot

Appr A

Ap

pr

C

F12


of 117






0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Comparison XY Plot

Appr A

Ap

pr

C

F12


of 117






Analysis:

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Comparison XY Plot

Appr B

Ap

pr

C

F12


PART NO. CHART NO.

MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBERPART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS

NAMEAPPRAISER 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

VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )

x =

r =

PART NUMBER

EAD ING

SUM NUM

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

0

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 30

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

PART NO. CHART NO.

MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBERPART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS

NAMEAPPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS

VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )

R

** = APPRAISER OUT OF CONTROL

Computations for the Control Chart Method of Evaluating a Measurement Process

REPLICATION ERROR: r2 1.128

Number of replications = Subgroup Size = r = 3 1.6934 2.059

5 2.326

CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT: Appraiser Averages

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

C

0.00

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 3

5 2.477 = 46 2.669 57 2.827 Signal to Noise Ratio: 6

8 2.961 79 3.076 8

10 3.178 910

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.)

HIGH- LOW

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 NUMBERPART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) ZERO EQUALS

NAMEAPPRAISER 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 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

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

ORGANIZATIONPRODUCT NAME:

NAME

CODEENG. 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 Approval

Control Plans PFMEA: Special Process Characteristics Process Flow Diagram

Test results Process Studies: Dimensional Results Master Sample

Measurement 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 (VENDOR) 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: CUSTOMER 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: ORGANIZATION 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

Functional

Materials

AppearanceCustomer Organization

Product Change Engineering Drawing Change New or Revised Subcomponent

March THE-1001 2006

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

If applicable

Tool 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

ORGANIZATION CODE CUSTOMER 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 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.

(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. 555-555-5555 Fax No.

Title E-Mail

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY

PPAP 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

ORGANIZATION CODE CUSTOMER 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 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

These 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 criteriastatistical process package

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Approved Rejected Other

n/a

Yes No n/a

Core Tools Forms V5

Documents

Transcript of Core Tools Forms V5