guardian tier 2 ppap guidelines. all submissions shall follow aiag 4th edition ppap submission...

GuardianGuardianTier 2 PPAP GuidelinesTier 2 PPAP Guidelines

All submissions shall follow AIAG 4TH All submissions shall follow AIAG 4TH Edition PPAP Submission guidelines Edition PPAP Submission guidelines with some exceptions.with some exceptions.

Customer Specific Requirements-Customer Specific Requirements-Dependent upon end customer Dependent upon end customer

Table of contents:Table of contents:

In AIAG format In AIAG format

GMX-215-XLR Decklid Assembly

P/N 10346850

1. Design Records 2. Engineering Change Documents 3. Customer Engineering Approval 4. Design FMEA 5. Process Flow Diagram 6. Process FMEA 7. Control Plan 8. Measurement System Analysis Studies 9. Dimensional Results 10. Material, Performance Test Results

a) GM7400M, GM7459M-SMC material requirements b) GM3059-Restricted reportable substances c) 4497-Exterior paint performance d) 9523P-Paint conductivity e) 4350M-Painted part performance f) 9984804- Primer conductivity g) 3629M-Adhesive requirements h) 3653-FRP bonding requirements

11. Initial Process Study 12. Qualified Laboratory Results 13. Appearance Approval Report 14. Sample Product 15. Master Sample 16. Checking Aids 17. Records of Compliance (Customer Specific) 18. Part Submission Warrant

Design records – Guardian approved print is Design records – Guardian approved print is required.required.

Engineering Change Documents - RequiredEngineering Change Documents - Required Customer Engineering Approval- Not Customer Engineering Approval- Not

RequiredRequired Design FMEA – Required- AIAG Current Design FMEA – Required- AIAG Current

EditionEdition Process Flow – Required –AIAG Current Process Flow – Required –AIAG Current

EditionEdition Process FMEA – Required -–AIAG Current Process FMEA – Required -–AIAG Current

EditionEdition

Dimensional results-Dimensional results-

A ‘ballooned’ print identifying points A ‘ballooned’ print identifying points inspected must be provided. inspected must be provided.

A CMM roadmap is acceptable for CMM A CMM roadmap is acceptable for CMM checks.checks.

All Engineering Specifications on the print All Engineering Specifications on the print must be provided along with the test data must be provided along with the test data verifying acceptability to the spec. verifying acceptability to the spec.

Material certifications must be provided for Material certifications must be provided for ALL components including, base material, ALL components including, base material, coatings, grease, wires, tape, etc. Certs coatings, grease, wires, tape, etc. Certs must be from PPAP submitted material, must be from PPAP submitted material, current and dated.current and dated.

All IMDS/MSDS information is to be All IMDS/MSDS information is to be included and submitted to IMDS site 9949.included and submitted to IMDS site 9949.

Initial Process Study-A summary with Initial Process Study-A summary with supporting charts and documentation supporting charts and documentation should be includedshould be included

MSA Results – Required – In AIAG MSA Results – Required – In AIAG Current EditionCurrent Edition

Qualified Laboratory Results-ISO/TS Qualified Laboratory Results-ISO/TS CertificationCertification

Control Plan-RequiredControl Plan-Required PSW-Required-Must be filled out PSW-Required-Must be filled out

completely! Run @ Rate (GP-9) must completely! Run @ Rate (GP-9) must have supporting documentation in –have supporting documentation in –AIAG Current EditionAIAG Current Edition

RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET

Supplier Name: SUPPLIER Part Number(s): NUMBER

RUN @ RATE REVIEW CONTENTThe Run @ Rate will verify that the results of the supplier's actual manufacturing process meet customer requirements for on-going quality, as

stated in PPAP, and quoted tooling capacity. Also, it will verify that the supplier's actual process is to plan, as documented in PPAP, GP-12 and

the other documentation listed below.

During the Run @ Rate, the following will be reviewed: documentation; the manufacturing process and results; part quality requirements and

results; sub-supplier requirements and Run @ Rate results and packaging.

A. DocumentationAt the time of the Run @ Rate, the following documentation should be available for review:

Available Y/N1. PPAP package including: 1.

a) process flow diagram a.b) process control plan, with reaction plan b.c) DFMEA/PFMEA c.d) Master part(s) d.

2. GP-12 (Pre-launch Control) plan 2. 3. Tool capacity information 3. 4. Operator/inspection instructions 4. 5. Prototype/pilot concerns (PR/R's) 5. 6. Sub-contractor control/capacity data 6. 7. Sub-contractor material schedules and transportation 7. 8. Packaging/labeling plan 8. 9. Acceleration plan 9.

Note: All documentation must be complete and correct.B. MANUFACTURING PROCESS - ACTUAL TO PLAN

1. Is the product being manufactured at the production site using the production tooling, gaging, process, materials,

operators, environment, and process settings? Yes No

Comments:

2. Does the actual process flow agree with the process flow diagram, as documented in PPAP? (Review the facility plan

and layout. Walk the process with the flow diagram.) Yes No

Comments:

3. Are operator instructions/visual controls available and adhere to at each work station?

Yes No Comments:

4. Is all in-process documentation, such as process control charts, in place at the time of the Run @ Rate? Is the

documentation utilized to drive a defined reaction plan and corrective action process?

Yes No Comments:

5. When required, are production boundary samples available at the required work stations? Are the boundary samples

approved by GM? Yes No Comments:

6. Are maintenance plans in place? Are repair and maintenance parts available? Is there planned downtime for

preventive maintenance? Yes No Comments:

Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.

RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET

Supplier Name: SUPPLIER Part Number(s): NUMBER

Appearance Approval Report-Required for Appearance Approval Report-Required for ‘A’ surface parts‘A’ surface parts

Bulk Material Requirements – Where Bulk Material Requirements – Where applicable -applicable -

Sample Product – Required – must be from Sample Product – Required – must be from PPAP submission trial runs and retained at PPAP submission trial runs and retained at the supplier location with PPAP the supplier location with PPAP documentationdocumentation

Master Sample – Required - Must be Master Sample – Required - Must be retained at Supplierretained at Supplier

Checking Aids – Required- IF you have any Checking Aids – Required- IF you have any part specific gauges and must include part specific gauges and must include gauge certification.gauge certification.

Record of Compliance with Customer-Record of Compliance with Customer-Specific Requirements - Specific Requirements -

Team Feasibility – Required –AIAG Team Feasibility – Required –AIAG Current EditionCurrent Edition

TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENTCustomer: GM Date:

Part Number: NUMBER Part Name: NAME

Feasibility ConsiderationsOur product quality planning team has considered the following questions, not intended to be all-inclusive inperforming a feasibility evaluation. The drawings and/or specifications provided have been used as a basis for analyzing the ability to meet all specified requirements. All "no" answers are supported with attached commentsidentifying our concerns and/or proposed changes to enable us to meet the specified requirements.

YES NO CONSIDERATIONIs product adequately defined (application requirements, etc. to enablefeasibility evaluation?Can Engineering Performance Specifications be met as written?Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing?Can product be manufactured with Cpk's that meet requirements?Is there adequate capacity to produce product?Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques?Can the product be manufactured without incurring any unusual:

- Costs for capital equipment?- Costs for tooling?- Alternative manufacturing methods?

Is statistical process control required on the product?Is statistical process control presently used on similar products?Where statistical process control is used on similar products:

- Are the processes in control and stable?- Are Cpk's greater than 1.33?

Conclusion

Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.

Feasible Changes recommended (see attached).

Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirements.

Sign-Off

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



Must include all –AIAG Current Must include all –AIAG Current Edition A1 through A8 formsEdition A1 through A8 forms

A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER

Question Yes No Comment / Action RequiredPerson

ResponsibleDue Date

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

2 Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed?

3 Have similar part DFMEAs been considered?4 Does the SFMEA and/or DFMEA identify

Special Characteristics?5 Have design characteristics that affect high risk

priority failure modes been identified?6 Have appropriate corrective actions been

assigned to high risk priority numbers?7 Have appropriate corrective actions been

assigned to high severity numbers?8 Have risk priorities been revised when corrective

actions have been completed and verified?

Revision Date:

Prepared By:

A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST



ResponsibleDue Date

A. General

Does the design require:

1 l New materials? /

2 l Special tooling? /

3 Has assembly build variation analysis been considered?

4 Has Design of Experiments been considered?5 Is there a plan for prototypes in place?

/6 Has a DFMEA been completed?

/7 Has a DFMA been completed?8 Have service and maintenance issues been

considered?9 Has the Design Verification Plan been

considered?10 If yes, was it completed by a cross functional

team?11 Are all specified tests, methods, equipment and

acceptance criteria clearly defined and understood?

12 Have Special Characteristics been selected? /

13 Is bill of material complete? /

14 Are Special Characteristics properly documented?

B. Engineering Drawings

15 Have dimensions that affect fit, function and durability been identified?

16 Are reference dimensions identified to minimize inspection layout time?

17 Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces identified to design functional gages?

18 Are tolerances compatible with accepted manufacturing standards?

19 Are there any requirements specified that cannot be evaluated using known inspection techniques?

C. Engineering Performance Specifications

20 Have all special characteristics been identified? /

21 Is test loading sufficient to provide all conditions, i.e., production validation and end use?

22 Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specifications been tested?

23 Can additional samples be tested when a reaction plan requires it, and still conduct regularly scheduled in-process tests?

24 Will all product testing be done in-house? /

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?

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



ResponsibleDue Date

Does the design require:

1 l New materials? /

2 l Quick change? /

3 l Volume fluctuations? /

4 l Mistake proofing? /

Have lists been prepared identifying:

5 l New equipment? /

6 l New tooling? /

7 l New test equipment? /

Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for:

8 l New equipment? /

9 l 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?

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:

A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST



ResponsibleDue Date

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

2 Has the supplier identified who will be the quality liaison with the customer?

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

4 Has the quality assurance system been reviewed using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors Quality System Assessment?

Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:

5 l Control plan requirements? /

6 l Layout inspection? /

7 l Engineering performance testing? /

8 l Problem resolution analysis? /

Is there a documented training program that:

9 l Includes all employees? /

10 l Lists whose been trained? /

11 l Provides a training schedule? /

Has training been completed for:

12 l Statistical process control? /

13 l Capability studies? /

14 l Problem solving? /

15 l Mistake proofing? /

16 l 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 l Easily understood engineering performance specifications?

21 l Test frequencies? /

22 l Sample sizes? /

23 l Reaction plans? /

24 l Documentation? /

Are visual aids:

25 l Easily understood? /

A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST



ResponsibleDue Date

1 Does the floor plan identify all required process and inspection points?

2 Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools, and equipment at each operation been considered?

3 Has sufficient space been allocated for all equipment?

Are process and inspection areas:

4 l Of adequate size? /

5 l Properly lighted? /

6 Do inspection areas contain necessary equipment and files?

Are there adequate:

7 l Staging areas? /

8 l Impound areas? /

9 Are inspection points logically located to prevent shipment of nonconforming products?

10 Have controls been established to eliminate the potential for an operation, including outside processing, to contaminate or mix similar products?

11 Is material protected from overhead or air handling systems contamination?

12 Have final audit facilities been provided?13 Are controls adequate to prevent movement of

nonconforming incoming material to storage or point of use?

Revision Date

Prepared By:

A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST



ResponsibleDue Date

1 Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production and inspection stations?

2 Were all appropriate FMEA's (SFMEA, DFMEA) available and used as aids to develop the process flow chart?

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

4 Does the flow chart describe how the product will move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?

5 Has the pull system/optimization been considered for this process?

6 Have provisions been made to identify and inspect reworked product before being used?

7 Have potential quality problems due to handling and outside processing been identified and corrected?

Revision Date

Prepared By:

A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST



ResponsibleDue Date

1 Was the Process FMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors guidelines?

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

3 Were similar part FMEA's considered?4 Have historical campaign and warranty data

been reviewed?5 Have appropriate corrective actions been

planned or taken for high risk priority items?6 Have appropriate corrective actions been

planned or taken for high severity numbers?7 Were risk priorities numbers revised when

corrective action was completed?8 Were high severity numbers revised when a

design change was completed?9 Do the effects consider the customer in terms of

the subsequent operation, assembly, and product?

10 Was warranty information used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA?

11 Were customer plant problems used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA?

12 Have the causes been described in terms of something that can be fixed or controlled?

13 Where detection is the major factor, have provisions been made to control the cause prior to the next operation?

Revision Date

Prepared By:

A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST



ResponsibleDue Date

1 Was the control plan methodology referenced in Section 6 used in preparing the control plan?

2 Have all known customer complaints been identified to facilitate the selection of special product/process characteristics?

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

4 Were SFMEA, DFMEA, and PFMEA used to prepare the control plan?

5 Are material specifications requiring inspection identified?

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

7 Are engineering performance testing requirements identified?

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

9 If required, has the customer approved the control plan?

10 Are gage methods compatible between supplier and customer?

Revision Date

Prepared By:

All pre-production and initial job All pre-production and initial job launch components must have GP-12 launch components must have GP-12 inspection. A review of the GP-12 inspection. A review of the GP-12 inspection process may be inspection process may be requested.requested.

A separate APQP file must be A separate APQP file must be obtained prior to PPAP and include obtained prior to PPAP and include the following documents.the following documents.

REQUIREDAPQP Open Issues 1927-5REQUIRED Lessons Learned Process Overview 1927-10SQE High Impact Assesment/Supplier Assessment HIAREQUIRED APQP Kick-off Meeting Checklist 1927-14REFERENCEProcess Control Plan Audit Worksheet 1927-16REQUIREDGuardian and Supplier Program Contacts 1927-16REQUIREDRPN Reduction Summary Chart 1927-21REQUIRED Directed Buy/Directed Source Checklist] 1927-23REQUIRED Subcontractor Program Status Matrix 1927-25SQE Subcontractor Detailed Status Matrix 1927-26REFERENCE Fixture Design Matrix 1927-27REQUIRED Packaging approval PPPA

APQP Open Issues

Supplier/ Mfg Location:

Part Number(s):

Duns Number:

Supplier Contact: Program(s): GM SQE Contact: Part Name:

*Type Key: S = Design-Supplier T = Tooling M = Manufacturing/Process R = Production Control I - Logistics G = Design-GM C = Capacity O = Other :_ _ A - Appearance F = Facilities L = Late Release P = Purchasing K – Packaging Engineering Issue No.

Issue Date

Severity Issues

Description and/or Sketch

Person Responsible

(Name)

* Type

Action Plan &

Progress to Plan

Forecast Completion

Date

Status

Status: 25% Issue Identified 75% Action Plan Implemented 50% Action Plan Proposed 100% Issue Resolved

Severity: 1 - Director Support 2 - Manager/Supervisor Support

3 - SQE Support Reviewed by __________________ Date __________

Program 0 Date:

Commodity Gate 6 Meeting Attendees

Customer 0

Program Team

Issues ResponsesResponsible

Dept/GroupRecommended and Corrective Actions

Gate 1 Lessons Learned

DATE: PROJECT/PROGRAM: PART NO: SUPPLIER:

PART DESCRIPTION:

MANUFACTURING LOCATION MANUFACTURING LOCATION DUNS # Guardian SQE to confirm manufacturing location is the same as stated on the supplier RFQ response and Guardian contract.

Prior to the Kick Off Meeting supplier should ensure full understanding of the APQP Project Plan (1927-1) and all related procedures. Any issue requiring clarification needs to be addressed to Guardian SQE.

Section 1. Customer Requirements - All unresolved items must be added to Open Issues List 1. Does the supplier have and understand the latest information about program timing (e.g. Design release, Tooling Order,

Prototype, Matching, PPV, MVBns, MVBs, SORP)? Is the supplier familiar with the quality requirements by build level? Yes No Explain:

Review Program Milestones with supplier. Key Project Milestones Dates Key Project Milestones Dates

2. Does the supplier have a clear understanding which GM receiving plant(s) he will supply? Are there any requirements for

supplier support at a GM location other than the receiving location? E.g. remote Pilot Line. Yes No Explain:

Review GM Receiving plants with supplier. Ensure relevant Guardian plant contacts are included in Guardian & Supplier Program Contacts.

Guardian Receiving Plant Guardian Receiving Plant

3. Does the supplier have a clear understanding of the Guardian receiving plant GCA standards?

If “no”, the supplier shall review with the plant? Yes No Explain:

4. Is contact established between supplier and Guardian supply chain? Review packaging or shipping open issues.

Yes No Explain: 5. Does supplier understand that APQP performance is linked to the bidders list? For example Program Management SCAR’s.

Yes No Explain: Section 2. Product Design & Development - All unresolved items must be added to Open Issues List 6. Does the supplier have and understand all of the latest drawings and specifications including Statement of Requirements (SOR),

Sub System Technical Specification (SSTS), Component Technical Specification (CTS) and all Guardian Standards (STD)? Yes No Explain plans to obtain:

7. Specify who is responsible for design, Guardian or supplier.

GM Supplier Comments:

Part Name: Part Number:Program: Model Year:Supplier Name: Duns #Manufacturing Location Address: PhoneManufacturing Manager: Phone

Position Position

GUARDIAN AND SUPPLIER PROGRAM

CONTACTS

GUARDIAN SUPPLIER

SQEProj/Prog Manager

Buyer

Design EngineerValidation Engineer

VLE/PPM

Mfg EngineerGuardian Plant Rep

GD&T

Containerization

Logisitics

Proj/Prog Manager

Sales Mgr

Sales Mgr

Design EngineerQuality

ManagerQuality

EngineerManufact

uring

Lab Spv

Pkg Engineer

2nd shift contact3rd shift contact

Logistics

1st shift contact

E-mailPhone Name E-mail Name Phone

Process Capability Over Time Supplier Name: ____________________________________ Date Revised: _________________________ Supplier DUNS No.: ____________________________________ Program: _________________________ Commodity: ____________________________________________________ Model Year: _________________________ Part Description: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Part number: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Drawing Date: _________________________ Engineering Change Level:_________________________ EWO #________________________

KPC PQC

Product Characteristic

Selection Rational

DIM. SPEC.

TOLERANCE Supplier Program Review 3

PPAP APPROVAL

Supplier Program Review 4

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

GP-8 Avg Std Ppk

Dev Avg Std Ppk Dev

Avg Std Ppk Dev

Avg Std Cpk Dev

1

2

3

Directed Buy / Directed Source ChecklistComplex System/Sub-assembly: Date:Guardian SQE: Manufacturing Location:Guardian Buyer: Directed Buy Subcontractor:Guardian Product Engineer: Sub Components:

Type Name

Tier I GA Directed Supplier

Design Responsibility Is there any problem with the tier I supplier gaining access to

APQP Responsibility directed supplier's manufacturing location, to review manufacturing

Tooling Payment and quality processes due to proprietary or competitor reasons?

Production / Functional / FMVSS Testing

Technical Specifications If so, How do we handle these?

Quality Issues Ownership at

Assembly Plant

Scheduling Responsibility

Packaging Responsibility

PPAP Responsibility Ensure all issues are resolved by the GM Buyer, Tier I, and the Directed

Run @ Rate Responsibility Supplier.

Engineering Change Coordination Additional Comments:

Support During Build and Launch

at Assembly Plant

DFMEA / PFMEA / SFMEA Complete the Checklist during the Commodity Sourcing Strategy meeting and review it during the APQP Kick-Off meeting - Supplier Gate Review #1.

Signature Date Signature Date

Directed Buy Program Manager:

Directed Supplier President/CEO/Owner

Signature

Tier I Program Manager:

Subcontractor Program Status Matrix

System/Sub-assembly: Programs:

SQE: Date: Revision:

Tier 1 Supplier / Plant: Tier 1 Supplier Key Contact:

Directed Buy (yes/no) Subcontractor Subcomponent S

tatu

s /

GY

R

Fac

ilitie

s:

Gre

enfie

ld /

T

rans

plan

t Y

/N

If Y

es,

%

Com

plet

e

Prod. Tooling

Complete Date

% Prod. Tool

CompletePPAP Date

PPAP Status & Comments

Run @ Rate Date

Run @ Rate

Status

* This document should be reviewed at all Gate Reviews for all sub components.

GuardianGuardianTier 2 SuppliersTier 2 Suppliers

Thank You!Thank You!

guardian tier 2 ppap guidelines. all submissions shall follow aiag 4th edition ppap submission...

Documents

aiag current edition

aiag format slide

end customer slide

aiag current edition

ppap guidelines

base material

material certifications

ballooned print