ppap workbook (1)

UPPAP SUPPLIER EVIDENCE PACKAGE

Record of Revisions CURRENT REVISION 07/31/13, Revision C

REVISION NATURE OF CHANGE AUTHOR OF CHANGE TITLE DIVISION EMAIL PHONE

Revision A, 04/12 Peter E. Teti Pratt & Whitney (860) 557-4770

Revision B, 12/10/2012

Peter E. Teti Pratt & Whitney (860) 557-4770

Revision C, 7/31/2013Peter E. Teti Pratt & Whitney (860) 557-4770

Revision C, 7/31/2013Peter E. Teti Pratt & Whitney (860) 557-4770

Workbook Revision Date: July 31, 2013

Added the following Worksheets:Record of Revisions TabAppendix 1) Change Control Form 2Appendix 2) Capability CalculatorAppendix 3) Gage R&R Short FormAppendix 4) Gage R&R Short Form with 2 replicationsAppendix 5) Gage R&R Long FormAppendix 6) Gage R&R Attribute Study Instruction SheetAppendix 7) Gage R&R Attribute Study FormAll Appendexes hyperlinked from Cover & Index (Tab B)

Technical Fellow-Product Quality

[email protected]

1) Revised DFMEA and PFMEA worksheets to bring up to J1739 standard2) Added Appendix 8, "FMEA Risk Tables" which were derived from the J1739 standard3) Modified Tab 9, Initial Process Studies. Added Column called "Cpk Results" and provided conditional formatting for the column called "Cpk Action"4) Modified Tab 10- MSA with conditional formatting in column labelled "Gage R&R Result"5) Revised Tab 7, Process Control Plan, with a new template based on the AIAG format.


[email protected]

1) Revised DFMEA and PFMEA worksheets by adding "SO" columns for "Severity*Occurrence" risk calculation.


[email protected]

2) Revised nomenclature for DFMEA & PFMEA title blocks to go from "FMEA" to specifically DFMEA and PFMEA.


[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




UPPAP INPUT SHEET UTC DIVISION

Producer Name Producer Code Drawing Revision No.:

Producer Contact

Part Number Part Name

Engineering Change Level

UPPAP Level

UTC Contact E-Mail Address

Revision Control Table:Revision Date Submited by Description

INSTRUCTION : This document may be used to submit objective evidence of having met the requirements of ASQR-09.2

REVISION CONTROL INSTRUCTION:Any iteration and/or resubmission of this evidence package shall be documented in the revision table below.

Producer Contact Phone Number

Producer Contact Email Address

Reason for Submission

Level 3 - Form 1 with complete supporting data

First Production Delivery Date

UPPAP Initial Submission Date

UTC Member Focal Point (MFP)

UTC Contact Phone Number

Part Number: 0 Drawing Revision: ###Part Name: 0Supplying Quality Bushings

- On Time - With Zero Defects - Is Objective #1

UPPAP Review and Sign-Off

Formal Approval

Product Definition

Released Production DrawingsSMD/SPD/ SI sheetsProduction PO and Demand Fulfillment

DFMEAProcess Flow

PFMEA

Process Control Plan

Process Readiness Study (PRS)

Initial Process Studies

Measurement System Analysis (MSA)

Dimensional Report

UPPAP Core Elements

UPPAP Special Elements ActivitiesEFP / ESA

Production Verification Testing

Special Processes & NDT Required Approvals

Raw Material Approval

Parts Marking Approval

Packaging, Preservation and Labeling Approval

Appendix 1 - Form 2 Change Notice

Appendices

20

UPPAP Review and Sign-Off

Formal Approval

UPPAP Special Elements Activities

Production Verification Testing

Special Processes & NDT Required Approvals

Raw Material Approval

Parts Marking Approval

Packaging, Preservation and Labeling Approval

Appendix 1 - Form 2 Change Notice

Appendices

UPPAP EVIDENCE PACKAGE(ASQR 09.2)

OBJECTIVE (ASQR-09.2) :

UPPAP Checklist items:

1) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division drawings & specifications?2) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and specifications released (i.e. signatures applied)?

4) Validate if any Critical to Quality (CTQ) features called out.

Part Number: 0 Part Revision Level: 0Part Name: 0

Please insert PDF copy of Drawing Title Block in space below.

INSTRUCTIONS : A PDF copy of the product’s drawings (for Design Responsible Producers - min. Title Block and associated Word Drawing) shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. First page only to be able to confirm the product definition, revision, and that the drawing is fully released.

A copy of the product’s drawings shall be included in the UPPAP file. Design Responsible Party suppliers shall include in the UPPAP file the "Note Form Drawings" and its member approved DESIGN RESPONSIBLE PRODUCER drawings. Applicable internal and external specifications shall be readily available.NOTE: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts, refer to ASQR-09.1

3) Is producer working to correct drawing revisions, including all detail drawings (e.g. casting, forging, other detail parts) as indicated on the purchase order?

Index


Workbook Revision: 04/12

OBJECTIVE (ASQR 09.2) :


Part Number: 0 Dwg Revision Level: 0Part Name: 0

INSTRUCTIONS :

A PDF copy of the technical specification shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. First page only to be able to confirm the product definition (P/N & Rev.) and release. The following list shows the relevent documents for each division:PWC: SPD, SMD, SIPW: QAD, RCC, Service Bulletins, EA / LEAHS: N/ASAC:

The UPPAP file shall contain copies of all applicable production SPD/SMD and SI sheets, consistent with the part revision level and reflected on the release production drawing.

A) Verify that any supplemental customer requirements (Purchase Order, Quality or Engineering Notes/Documents) are incorporated into producer and subtier manufacturing processes and documents.

B) Verify that the producer is working to the correct released revision of any supplemental customer requirement documents as specified on the Purchase Order (e.g. Quality or Engineering Notes/Documents, other specifications).

Index

Please insert PDF copy of your 1st technical requirement page in space provided below.



A) Verify that the producer is working to a production purchase order?

B) Verify that the sub-tier PO documents flow down any UTC requirements per ASQR-01, ASQR-09.2 etc.

Part Number: 0 Dwg Revision Level: 0Part Name: 0

Please insert PDF copy of Purchase Order (P.O.) in space below.


INSTRUCTIONS :

A PDF copy of the Purchase Order shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. First page only to be able to confirm the product definition (P/N & Rev.)

A copy of the production product PO shall be included in the UPPAP file, along with the maximum expected volume as communicated by the member.NOTE: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts, refer to ASQR-09.1

C) Does the UPPAP package have evidence that the producer knows the latest demand schedule and is updating capacity and manufacturing plans accordingly.

D) Is there evidence that the producer flows down the latest demand schedule to subtier suppliers and is updating subtier management plans accordingly.

Index



B) Validate producer use of standardized format (e.g. SAE J1739 or as agreed to by UTC Member)

G) Validate linkage to PFMEA.

J) Evidence of inspection methods, validation and testing aligned with DFMEA identified risks.

Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) WorksheetPFMEA Revision: Original This document contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR

Product:

DFMEA Team:

Team Leader:

For instructions, slide cursor over column headings. For instructions to name and save the file, slide cursor over this cell.

Line Component & Function Requirements

1

2

3

4

5

INSTRUCTIONS : The complete DFMEA or a summary of results (e.g. list of recommended action items etc.) shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.

Design Responsible Party Suppliers shall develop a design FMEA per SAE J1739 or as defined by member specification.

A) Validate DFMEA exists for the part number and has established revision level and that DFMEA is a "living document" subject to ongoing revision.

C) Validate that the producer understands and has incorporated all product design requirements (e.g. performance, producibility, appearance, environmental, any other customer expectations)D) Validate that the producer has received any historical quality and or lessons learned data from the UTC member and has incorporated that learning into their DFMEA.E) Validate that the failure modes are be described in physical, technical and measurable terms. Validate that causes are described in terms of something that can be corrected or controlled.F) Validate recommended actions identified for high RPN and/or high Severity items are completed, or a plan with owners & dates exists.

H) Identification of CTQ Features (i.e., CTQC, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2). Ensure lower level key characteristics are defined that support UTC defined critical to quality features.I) Evidence of the use of risk mitigation strategies in the design (e.g. early warning, control, system redundancies and mistake-proof design features).

Index

Potential Failure Mode

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

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

B) Validate producer use of standardized format (e.g. SAE J1739 or as agreed to by UTC Member)

G) Validate linkage to PFMEA.

J) Evidence of inspection methods, validation and testing aligned with DFMEA identified risks.

Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) WorksheetThis document contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR


Se

veri

ty

Cla

ss

ific

ati

on

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e

6 2

6 4

6 3

6 5

4 3

The complete DFMEA or a summary of results (e.g. list of recommended action items etc.) shall be

Design Responsible Party Suppliers shall develop a design FMEA per SAE J1739 or as defined by

A) Validate DFMEA exists for the part number and has established revision level and that DFMEA is a "living document" subject to ongoing revision.

C) Validate that the producer understands and has incorporated all product design requirements (e.g. performance, producibility, appearance, environmental, any other customer expectations)D) Validate that the producer has received any historical quality and or lessons learned data from the UTC member and has incorporated that learning into their DFMEA.E) Validate that the failure modes are be described in physical, technical and measurable terms. Validate that causes are described in terms of something that can be corrected or controlled.F) Validate recommended actions identified for high RPN and/or high Severity items are completed, or a

H) Identification of CTQ Features (i.e., CTQC, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2). Ensure lower level key characteristics are defined that support UTC defined critical to quality features.I) Evidence of the use of risk mitigation strategies in the design (e.g. early warning, control, system redundancies and mistake-proof design features).

Potential Effect(s) of Failure

Potential Cause(s) of Failure

4 5

6 3

6 5

2 1

4 10

3 1

2 1

6 5

6 5

6 4

6 6

6 3

6 2

6 3

2 1

6 2

6 2

6 2

6 2

4 8

6 7

4 5

10 1

6 5

6 3

8 4

6 4

6 5

6 6

6 5

6 5

6 3

6 3

6 1

4 5

8 4

4 1

9 2

2 4

2 4

9 2

2 4

9 1

Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) WorksheetThis document contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR

DFMEA Number: 001DFMEA Date: (Original)

(Revised) -


De

tec

tio

n

RP

N

SD

SO

2 24 12 12

3 72 18 24

2 36 12 18

5 150 30 30

2 24 8 12

Current Process Controls (Prevention)

Current Process Controls

(Detection)

2 40 8 20

2 36 12 18

5 150 30 30

7 14 14 2

2 80 8 40

5 15 15 3

1 2 2 2

5 150 30 30

4 120 24 30

3 72 18 24

5 180 30 36

2 36 12 18

2 24 12 12

5 90 30 18

2 4 4 2

7 84 42 12

7 84 42 12

2 24 12 12

2 24 12 12

8 256 32 32

8 336 48 42

3 60 12 20

2 20 20 10

7 210 42 30

1 18 6 18

6 192 48 32

3 72 18 24

8 240 48 30

8 288 48 36

8 240 48 30

8 240 48 30

2 36 12 18

5 90 30 18

1 6 6 6

8 160 32 20

6 192 48 32

2 8 8 4

9 162 81 18

1 8 2 8

2 16 4 8

9 162 81 18

1 8 2 8

9 81 81 9

Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) Worksheet

001

-

Recommended Actions and Predicted Risk

Recommended Action

Se

veri

ty

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e

De

tec

tio

n

RP

N

SD

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

6 5 7 210 42

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

6 5 5 150 30

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

Largest RPN Value 336 Largest SD Value

Optional - For Business CaseAction Price Tag Action Results Achieved

SO Non-recurring Cost Recurring Cost

0

0

0

0

0

Champion

(Approval Authority)

Responsibility and Target

Completion Date

Action Taken

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

30

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

81 Largest SO Value 42

Optional - For Business CaseAction Results Achieved

Results

Se

veri

ty

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e

De

tec

tio

n

RP

N

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Process Flow

313983981.xlsx of 80


- Standard flowchart symbols shall be used.- Alternate process paths/formal rework loops should be documented as part of the main flow diagram.- Subsequent process changes shall be documented in the flow diagram.


C) Assure alignment with PFMEA and control plan.

D) Assure flowmap accounts for all outside operations and potential sources of variation.

E) Assure flowmap steps identify where CTQ features are produced.

Part Number: 0 Dwg. Revision Level: 12/30/1899Part Name: 0 0

Please insert PDF copy of Process Flowchart in space below.

INSTRUCTIONS :

A PDF copy of the flow chart of the part shall be included in the UPPAP file. Note: A section of the flow chart may be used as sample evidence where space is inadequate for the entire process.

The UPPAP file shall contain a copy of the process flow diagram that clearly describes the production process steps and sequences from receiving to shipment.

NOTE 1: Process flow diagrams for “families” of similar parts are acceptable if the new parts have been reviewed for identical processing.

NOTE 2: The supplier should consider the maximum expected volume as communicated by the member to define the proposed Process Flow.

NOTE 3: Adding characteristics produced at each step of the process flow, greatly facilitates the development of the PFMEA and control plan.

A) Validate that the process map exists for the actual production manufacturing process being used, has an established revision level, and that the process map is a "living document" subject to ongoing revision.

B) Validate producer uses standard flow diagram format including standard flowchart symbols, alternate formal and/or rework paths, wip storage, and covering all steps from receiving to inspection/testing and shipping.

Index

Process Flow

313983981.xlsx of 80

Part Number: 0 Dwg. Revision Level: 12/30/1899Part Name: 0 0



UPPAP Checklist items:A) Validate PFMEA exists for the part number and has established revision level and that PFMEA is a "living document" subject to ongoing revision.B) Validate producer use of standardized format (e.g. SAE J1739 or as agreed to by UTC Member)C) Where applicable, validate linkage to either the UTC Member or producer DFMEA.

H) Validate linkage to control plan.

J) Evidence of the use of risk mitigation strategies in the process (e.g. early warning, control, system redundancies and mistake-proof methods).K) Evidence of inspection methods, validation and testing aligned with PFMEA identified risks.

Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) WorksheetPFMEA Revision: Original This document contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR

Process:

PFMEA Team:

Team Leader:


Line Requirements

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

INSTRUCTIONS : The complete PFMEA shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. Where necessary for proprietary items, a summary of the analysis and results shall be included.

The supplier shall develop a process FMEA per SAE J1739.NOTE 1: A single process FMEA may be developed for a family of similar parts or materials provided that a formal review of

D) Validate that the producer has collected any historical quality and/or lessons learned data for the part and/or part family and has incorporated that learning into their PFMEA.E) Verify that the PFMEA addresses all steps, operations and sources of variation identified in the process flow map - scope/depth of PFMEA should be adequate to address all significant risksF) Validate that the failure modes are be described in physical, technical and measurable terms. Validate that causes are described in terms of something that can be corrected or controlled.G) Validate recommended actions identified for high RPN and high Severity score items are completed, or a plan with owners & dates exists.

I) Identification of Key Characteristics (i.e., CTQC, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2, KPCM). Ensure lower level Key Characteristics are defined that support UTC defined critical to quality features.

Index

Process Step No. & Process Name

Potential Failure Mode

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

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

A) Validate PFMEA exists for the part number and has established revision level and that PFMEA is a "living document" subject to ongoing revision.B) Validate producer use of standardized format (e.g. SAE J1739 or as agreed to by UTC Member)C) Where applicable, validate linkage to either the UTC Member or producer DFMEA.

H) Validate linkage to control plan.

J) Evidence of the use of risk mitigation strategies in the process (e.g. early warning, control, system redundancies and mistake-proof methods).K) Evidence of inspection methods, validation and testing aligned with PFMEA identified risks.

Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) WorksheetThis document contains no technical data subject to the EAR or the ITAR

PFMEA Number:

PFMEA Date: (Original)

(Revised)


Se

veri

ty

Cla

ss

ific

ati

on

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e

6 2

6 4

6 3

6 5

4 3

4 5

6 3

The complete PFMEA shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file. Where necessary for proprietary items, a summary of

NOTE 1: A single process FMEA may be developed for a family of similar parts or materials provided that a formal review of

D) Validate that the producer has collected any historical quality and/or lessons learned data for the part and/or part family and has incorporated that learning into their E) Verify that the PFMEA addresses all steps, operations and sources of variation identified in the process flow map - scope/depth of PFMEA should be adequate to F) Validate that the failure modes are be described in physical, technical and measurable terms. Validate that causes are described in terms of something that can be G) Validate recommended actions identified for high RPN and high Severity score items are completed, or a plan with owners & dates exists.

I) Identification of Key Characteristics (i.e., CTQC, CTSC, FSC, KPC1, KPC2, KPCM). Ensure lower level Key Characteristics are defined that support UTC defined

Potential Effect(s) of

Failure

Potential Cause(s) of

Failure

Current Process Controls (Prevention)

6 5

2 1

4 10

3 1

2 1

6 5

6 5

6 4

6 6

6 3

6 2

6 3

2 1

6 2

6 2

6 2

6 2

4 8

6 7

4 5

10 1

6 5

6 3

8 4

6 4

6 5

6 6

6 5

6 5

6 3

6 3

6 1

4 5

8 4

4 1

9 2

2 4

2 4

9 2

2 4

9 1

Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) Worksheet

001

-

For instructions, slide cursor over column headings. For instructions to name and save the file, slide cursor over this cell. Recommended Actions and Predicted Risk

De

tec

tio

n

RP

N

SD

SO

Se

veri

ty

2 24 12 12

3 72 18 24

2 36 12 18

5 150 30 30

2 24 8 12

2 40 8 20

2 36 12 18

Current Process Controls

(Detection)

Recommended Action

5 150 30 30

7 14 14 2

2 80 8 40

5 15 15 3

1 2 2 2

5 150 30 30

4 120 24 30

3 72 18 24

5 180 30 36

2 36 12 18

2 24 12 12

5 90 30 18

2 4 4 2

7 84 42 12

7 84 42 12

2 24 12 12

2 24 12 12

8 256 32 32

8 336 48 42 6

3 60 12 20

2 20 20 10

7 210 42 30

1 18 6 18

6 192 48 32

3 72 18 24

8 240 48 30

8 288 48 36 6

8 240 48 30

8 240 48 30

2 36 12 18

5 90 30 18

1 6 6 6

8 160 32 20

6 192 48 32

2 8 8 4

9 162 81 18

1 8 2 8

2 16 4 8

9 162 81 18

1 8 2 8

9 81 81 9

Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) Worksheet

Largest RPN Value

Optional - For Business Case

Recommended Actions and Predicted Risk Action Price Tag

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e

De

tec

tio

n

RP

N

SD

SO Recurring Cost

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

Non-recurring Cost

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

5 7 210 42 30

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

5 5 150 30 30

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

336 Largest SD Value 81 Largest SO Value 42

Optional - For Business CaseAction Price Tag Action Results Achieved

Results

Se

veri

ty

Oc

cu

rre

nc

e

De

tec

tio

n

Champion (Approval Authority)

Responsibility and Target Completion

Date

Action Taken

Optional - For Business CaseAction Results Achieved

RP

N

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

CONTROL PLAN Page: 39 of 80

A complete Process Control Plan shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.

UPPAP CHECKLIST ITEMS:

A) Verify requirements of UTCQR-09.1 are followed.

B) Ensure that the Control Plan includes controls for all UTC Member defined KCs and any producer identified KCs from the PFMEA.

D)Key Process Inputs, Settings, Control Methods, and SPC chart type are defined for each critical operation.

E) Control Plan accounts for outside/sub-tier processes.

G) Verify that the listed finish dimensional and tolerances matches the drawing.

H) Verify that defined inspection frequencies meet ASQR-20.1 requirements.

PROCESS CONTROL PLAN Page _____ of _____

PROTOTYPE PRE-SERIES PRODUCTION DATE ORIGINAL

CONTROL PLAN NUMBER DATE REVISED

PREPARED BY

APPROVED BY

DRAWING NUMBER DRAWING REV

SUPPLIER/PLANT SITE VENDOR CODE KEY CONTACT/PHONE/EMAIL

PART/ PROCESS NAME/ MACHINE,DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS SPECIAL METHOD

PROCESS OPERATION JIG,TOOLS CHAR. PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION SAMPLE CONTROL REACTION

NUMBER DESCRIPTION FOR MFG NO. SPECIFICATION MEASUREMENT SIZE FREQ. METHOD PLAN

TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE

INSTRUCTIONS :


The supplier shall develop a stand-alone Process Control Plan for the process being submitted, per UTCQR-09.1 and also include a comprehensive reaction plan. The producer may define different control plans for development, pre-production and full production phases

in order to adjust for increasing process maturity.If sampling is employed for quality acceptance of characteristics, the frequencies established in the control plan shall be aligned with

ASQR-20.1 requirements.Reaction Plans shall define actions for nonconforming conditions/out of control situations (e.g., containment, customer notification, stop

the process, contact the manufacturing engineer, etc.). NOTE 1: Control Plans for part families are acceptable if the additional parts have been reviewed for

manufacturing process commonality.NOTE 2: Reaction Plans should define actions to be taken for nonconforming conditions and/or out of control situations (e.g.,

containment, customer notification, stop the process, contact the manufacturing engineer, etc.).NOTE 3: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts.

C) Ensure that the Control Plan includes controls for any high severity and high RPN failure modes identified on the PFMEA (e.g. early warning, control, system redundancies and mistake-proof methods).

F) Verify reaction plans exist for nonconforming condition/out of control situations (e.g. containment, customer notification, recovery, communication, stop the process)

Index

CUSTOMER ENGINEERINGAPPROVAL/DATE (if required)

CUSTOMER QUALITYAPPROVAL/DATE (if required)

PART NUMBER/LATEST CHANGE LEVEL

OTHER APPROVAL/DATE(if required)

PART NAME/DESCRIPTION



PRODUCT FEATURES(KPOs)

PROCESS VARIABLES(KPIs)



Part Number: 0 Dwg. Revision Level: 0 ###Part Name: 0 0


INSTRUCTIONS :

A PDF copy of a Production Readiness Study should be included.E.g. PWC 10285, and/or PW Manufacturing or Repair Process Review Approval - Include summary of results (e.g score, action items etc.)

The UPPAP file shall contain a copy of the Process Readiness Study (PRS) performed on the production process and consider as a minimum, the production readiness level of:a. Manufacturing process steady state tools, fixtures, manufacturing equipment and gages.b. Operation work instructions.c. Process control methods.d. Gage suitability (i.e., discrimination, applicability). e. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) program.f. All levels of their supply chain.g. Prevention, detection and removal of foreign objects.A PRS may be performed with a member representative or as a self evaluation based on member guidelines. However, a PRS self evaluation must be reviewed by the MFP.

Verify that the PRS includes the following elements and that the results of the study show that for all elements, the producer is ready for production.A) Production Tooling, fixtures, manufacturing equipmentB) Operation Work InstructionsC) Process Control MethodsD) Gage SuitabilityE) Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) programF) Sub-tier Supplier flowdownG) Capacity AnalysisH) FOD prevention and controls

Index

Final sheet with action plan

Process ReadinessStudy Cover Sheet


Results Interpretation

Cpk ≥ 1.33

1.00 ≤ Cpk < 1.33

Cpk < 1.00

Process capability indices shall only be calculated after the process is determined to be stable.

NOTE: A normality test should be used when standard formulas for Cp/Cpk calculations are used.

Variable data shall be used wherever feasible. If using attribute data, DPPM calculations can be used (refer to UTCQR-09.1) to achieve identified results.


A) Evidence that SPC Control Charts and process capability indices are completed for 25 pcs, illustrating evidence of variation for all UTC Member and producer identified KCs.

B) Supplier action plan(s) in place to address unacceptable Process Capability results for all UTC defined or producer defined KCs.C) Verify that the producer has ensured that any UTC member or producer identified KCs manufactured by a subtier supplier meet UTCQR-09.1 requirements.

Part Number: 0 Dwg. Revision Level: 0Part Name: 0

Production Part Approval processInitial Process Study

GAP CLOSURE PLAN

Item # Feature Description CTQ Type Cpk Result Cpk Action Responsibility

1 Shaft inside diameter Customer KPC2 0.75 < 1.0 - Action Plan Required Change to harder tool Dec. 15, 2012 Joe Capozzi2 Shaft keyway width Customer KPC1 1.45 >= 1.33 - No action required3 Shaft outside diameter Supplier KPC2 1.24 Between 1.0 and 1.32 - Caution

45678910

Example of KPCd or KPCm Example of KPCd or KPCm


INSTRUCTIONS :

A complete listing of all KC's (Customer supplied and Supplier identified) shall be listed into the table with all appropriate required information.In addition a complete sample SPC Control Chart of one KC shall be added to demonstrate the result.

The UPPAP file shall include documented evidence that initial process studies have been conducted on twenty-five (25) parts all product & process KCs.NOTE: Provided that the same tooling and equipment intended for production is used, data collected from development or pre-production parts can be considered.

Acceptance Criteria:The supplier shall use the following as acceptance criteria for evaluating initial process study results.

The process currently meets requirements.After approval, begin volume production and follow Control Plan.

The process is currently acceptable, but may require some improvement.Contact the MFP and review results of the study.This shall require changes to the Control Plan, if not improved prior to start of volume production.

The process does not currently meet the acceptance criteria.Contact the appropriate member representative for a review of thestudy’s results.

Index

Customer or Supplier

Indentified KC

Comment and/orAction Item to

Close Gap

Target Completion

Date



A) Producer can demonstrate Gage Capability Studies completed for all UTC member and producer identified KC.B) Gage resolution specified meeting 10:1 rule-of-thumb.C) Supplier action plan(s) in place to address unacceptable Gage Capability results for UTC defined CTQ Features (i.e., > 20% of tolerance requires corrective action plan).

Part Number: 0 Dwg Revision Level: 0 12/30/1899Part Name: 0 0

MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE FOR PPAP

GAP CLOSURE PLAN

Item # Feature Description CTQ Type Gage R&R Type Responsibility

1 Inside Diameter KPC2 Gage R&R Short Form Study 62.0% Provide better gage for Operators 2/15/2013 M. Bonnell2 Slot width KPC2 Gage R&R Long-Form Study 10.0%345678910


INSTRUCTIONS :

A listing of all gage R&R shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.This table should be completed for each gage R&R.

a. The UPPAP shall contain copies of the gage Repeatability & Reproducibility (R&R) studies conducted on all instruments used for measuring KCs.b. Gage R&R studies shall have a Precision to Tolerance (P/T) ratio ≤ 20%. When not achieved, a corrective action plan shall be agreed to, with the MFP.c: The UPPAP file shall contain copies of the gage inspection and try-out reports for all special gaging (e.g., supplier designed, etc.). NOTE: When deficiencies are identified in bias, stability, linearity, repeatability, or discrimination they should be addressed.

Index

Gage R&R Result

Comment and/orAction Item to Close Gap

Target Completion Date

Correlation

Process Monitoring Pratt & Whitney Canada P&WC 5665-1 (10-97)

CORRELATIONGAUGE NO

Dimensions taken Dimensions taken

with the try out gauge with the approved method

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

totals

means

unit of measure 1=

tolerance

correlation 10 % maximum do not accept

10 % maximum do not accept

Range

Range

GR&R


MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY WORKSHEET PAGE #1

GAUGE PART NOCALIBRATION DATE PART NAMECALIBRATED BY CHARACTERISTICGAUGE NO SPECIFICATIONCODING ZERO GRADUATIONUNIT OF MEASURE 1= EVAL'S NAMETOLERANCE ===> ( ) DATE

DEPARTMENT : Machined Parts Sheet Metal Heat Treatment Assembly & Test Dept.:

OPER A: B: C: Sample REPLICATIONS REPLICATIONS REPLICATIONS number 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 R 1 2 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Totals - -

Means

X1 X2 X3 RA X1 X2 X3 RB X1 X2 X3

XA= XB= XC=

TEST FOR STATISTICAL CONTROLCONTROL OF RANGES Range max =

R1= UCLR =3.268

CAPABILITY REPEATABILITY REPRODUCEABILITY(MEASUREMENT VARIATION) (GAUGE VARIATION) (BETWEEN OPERATOR VARIATION)

1.128 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Smv= 6 Smv= Sgv= 6 Sgv= Sov= 6 Sov= 0.0000 1.908

ToleranceCapability %

ToleranceCapability %

ToleranceCapability % #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!

GR&R


Tolerance acceptable for Capability under 20%: Inches

GR&R


PAGE #1

R

-

RC

REPRODUCEABILITY(BETWEEN OPERATOR VARIATION)

GR&R


Correc_Action


Date:

Instrument summary

Gauge No : Indicator: Yes NoDigital: Yes No

Gauge type :

Graduation: Ex:.00001,.00005,.0001,.001

Part description

Part No. : Part name :

Characteristic :

Specification:

Instrument Capability

Repeatability Reproducteability

Classification of the measurement error : Mechanism Indicator All

Corrective action

MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY WORKSHEET PAGE #1

GAGE PART NOCALIBRATION DATE PART NAMECALIBRATED BY CHARACTERISTICGAGE NO SPECIFICATIONCODING ZERO GRADUATIONUNIT OF MEASURE 1= EVAL'S NAMETOLERANCE ===> ( ) DATE

OPER A: 3 B: C: Sample REPLICATIONS REPLICATIONS REPLICATIONS number 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 R 1 2 3 R

123456789

10 Totals 0.0 0.0 0.0 Means 0.00 0.00 0.00

X1 X2 X3 RA X1 X2 X3 RB X1 X2 X3 RC10

XA= X1+X2+X3 XB= X1+X2+X3 XC= X1+X2+X3REPLICATIONS REPLICATIONS REPLICATIONS

XA= ### XB= ### XC= ###

TEST FOR STATISTICAL CONTROL OF RANGES CONTROL

R1= RA+RB+RC = 0.00 ÷ = ### Range max = 0.00 OPERATORS

0.00 UCLR = D4*R1 = 2.574 * ### =

Le système de mesure est stable(USE D4 FOR n= NUMBER OF REPLICATIONS)

FACTORS n D4 d2 d02 3.268 1.128 1.410 3 2.574 1.693 1.908

REPEATABILITY (GAGE VARIATION) PAGE #2

Sgv= R1÷d2 = ### ÷ 1.693 = ###

(USE d2 FOR n= NUMBER OF REPLICATIONS)

PCT OF TOLERANCE CONSUMED BY GAGE

100*6*Sgv = = %TOLERANCE

REPRODUCEABILITY (BETWEEN OPERATOR VARIATION)

R2 = Xlargest of ABC - Xsmallest of ABC

R2 = ### - ### = ###

Sov= R2÷d0 = ÷ 1.908 = ###

(USE d0 FOR n= NUMBER OF OPERATORS)

PCT OF TOLERANCE CONSUMED BY OPERATOR VARIATIONS

100*6*Sov = = %TOLERANCE

COMBINED REPRODUCEABILITY & REPEATABILITY (MEASUREMENT VARIATION)

Smv = (Sov² + Sgv²) =

PCT OF TOLERANCE CONSUMED BY MEASUREMENT VARIABILITY

100*6*Smv = = %TOLERANCE

FACTORS n D4 d2 d02 3.268 1.128 1.410 3 2.574 1.693 1.908

CMM Gauge R&R on TP & Dia. (NoBonus)

Feature Information

CMM Type: LK Characteristic Type: True Position

CMM S/N: 7462-02 TP Tolerance: 0.0010

Part Number: 30C4745-01 FOS Dia. Tolerance: 0.0005

Operation: 1300 Date: 31-Oct-2005

Sequence: 25 Repetitions: 10

Notes:

Calculations X Value Y Value Resultant FOS Diameter

Mean 0.000002 -0.000064 0.000066 2.329945

0.000015 0.000021 0.000019 0.000016

Analysis

0.000124 0.000062 0.0005 0.000095 0.0005

True Position GR&R - Area Method FOS Diameter GR&R

1.54% 18.97%

Std. Deviation ()

Max 6(x,y)

TP Gauging Radius (Gr)

TP Tolerance Radius (TR) Diameter 6 FOS Diameter

Tolerance

-0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006-0.0006

-0.0004

-0.0002

0.0000

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

Tolerance Diameter (TR)

GR&R Diameter (Gr)

Actuals

True Position CMM GR&R Analysis

(TP|Dia .0005)

True Position GR&R (Area)

Feature (Diameter GR&R)

18.97%

1.54%

Data Points: 10

-0.0006 -0.0004 -0.0002 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006-0.0006

-0.0004

-0.0002

0.0000

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

Tolerance Diameter (TR)

GR&R Diameter (Gr)

Actuals

Data Points: 10

CMM Gauge R&R on 1 Sided Tolerance

Feature Information

CMM Type: LK Characteristic Type: FlatnessCMM S/N: 7462-02 USL: 0.0020Part Number: 30C4547-01 LSL: (ZERO) 0.0000Operation: 1300 Date: 31-Oct-2005Sequence: 25 Repetitions: 10Notes:

Calculations Data Moving Range Tolerance

Mean 0.000215 0.0000330.000145 0.0020

0.000024 0.000025

1 Sided CMM GR&R

7.25%

6

Std. Deviation ()

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 260.00000

0.00002

0.00004

0.00006

0.00008

0.00010

0.00012

CMM GR&R Moving Range Chart

Moving Range

UCL MR

MR Average

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 260.00000

0.00050

0.00100

0.00150

0.00200

0.00250

CMM GR&R Individuals Chart

ActualsUSL/LBLB+/- 3 Sigma-3 sigmaX Bar

NOTE: Only first points valid9

CMM Gauge R&R on 2 Sided Tolerance

Feature Information

CMM Type: LK Characteristic Type: DimensionCMM S/N: 7462-02 USL: 0.6533Part Number: 30C4745-01 LSL: 0.6513Operation: 1300 Date: 31-Oct-2005Sequence: 20 Repetitions: 10Notes:

Calculations Data Moving Range Tolerance

Mean 0.652280 0.0001220.000551 0.0020

0.000092 0.000067

2 Sided CMM GR&R

27.57%

6

Std. Deviation ()

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 260.00000

0.00005

0.00010

0.00015

0.00020

0.00025

0.00030

0.00035

0.00040

0.00045


Moving Range

UCL MR

MR Average

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 260.65000

0.65050

0.65100

0.65150

0.65200

0.65250

0.65300

0.65350

CMM GR&R Individuals Chart

ActualsUSL/LSLLB+/- 3 Sigma-3 sigma

NOTE: Only first points valid9

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 260.00000

0.00005

0.00010

0.00015

0.00020

0.00025

0.00030

0.00035

0.00040

0.00045


Moving Range

UCL MR

MR Average

A PDF copy of the ESA Confirmation first page shall be included in the UPPAP evidence file.



A) Evidence of EFP/ESA approval where required by drawing or process spec

Part Number: 0 Dwg. Revision Level: 0 ###Part Name: 0 0

Please insert copy of evidence of ESA approval in space below:


INSTRUCTIONS :

When EFP/ESA is invoked by a member EFP/ESA specification, the UPPAP file shall include the appropriate evidence showing conformance to the EFP/ESA condition(s) specified in the SMD/SPD as follows:a. For Process Sheet Approval Required or Summary of Operations Required, include a copy of the applicable approval form with objective evidence of that approval.b. For Process Sheet Approval Not Required, include a copy of the initially approved SPD/SMD.NOTE: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts, refer to ASQR-09.1

Index

Dimensional Report

ONLY form 1 signed Here, 5x Form 3




INSTRUCTIONS :

Provide copy below of evidence Acceptance Test Procedure was approved by Engineering and an example of at least one test data sheet.

OBJECTIVE (ASQR 09.2) : For Design Responsible Party parts, the file shall contain test results for the quantities required in the referenced specification. If quantity is not specified then a minimum of five (5) parts shall be tested, or agreater number as specified by the MFP.For UPPAP approval purposes nonconformances are not permitted.

A) Does functional test (i.e., ATP/PAT/PVT) meet UTC division drawing and/or Procurement Specification test requirements?

B) Has functional test been completed for at least 5 units or the minimum required by the UTC division specification?

Index

Please insert copy of Acceptence Test Procedure objective evidence (i.e., cover sheet with Revision Number/Letter, etc.) in the space below.

###0

Please insert copy of Acceptence Test Procedure objective evidence (i.e., cover sheet with Revision Number/Letter, etc.) in the space below.

Provide copy below of evidence Special Process/NDT was approved by MFP and/or Supplier with Design Authority.



A) Is the Special Process supplier listed on a UTC division member Approved Vendor list specifically for the subject specification?

C) Is the certificate of compliance included?


Please insert PDF copy of evidence of Special Process and NDT approvals here.

SPECIAL PROCESS APPROVAL HERE NDT APPROVAL HERE


INSTRUCTIONS :

The UPPAP file shall contain evidence of the following:

If a SPECIAL PROCESS is required on:- A member drawing (including drawing related documents) ---> Only member approved Special Process suppliers can be used. An excerpt of the member companies SQL/ASL referencing the special process supplier’s name and vendor code (with date processed), is sufficient evidence.- A Design Responsible Party drawings ----> A copy/excerpt of the Design Responsible Party supplier’s source qualification list, referencing the special process supplier’s name, is sufficient evidence.

If an NDT PROCESS is required on:- A member drawing (including drawing related documents) ---> UTC approved NDT suppliers shall be used.- A Design Responsible Party drawing ---> A copy/excerpt of the Design Responsible Party supplier’s NDT qualification list, referencing the NDT supplier’s name is sufficient evidence.NOTE 1: Reflect special processes requiring lab qualification and NDT approvals on the Certificates of Conformity (CofC).NOTE 2: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts, refer to ASQR-09.1

B) Did the product in question require special testing (i.e. grain size, microstructure), and if so is there evidence of completion and approval (i.e., is a control plan included as part of the objective evidence package that reflects any special testing requirements)?

Index

Provide copy below of evidence material was tested and approved by an MFP approved test facility.



A) Materials were procured from a UTC division approved source when required.

###Part Number: 0 Dwg. Revision Level: 0 0Part Name: 0

Please insert PDF copy of Cof C evidence of LCS or MCS in space provided below.


INSTRUCTIONS :

The UPPAP file shall contain:a. Documented evidence that material was purchased from member approved source, when required.b. For supplier designed parts, evidence that supplier approved sources for raw material is declared on the CofC. If material is from a non-approved source, provide copies of the material test reports and results obtained through an approved member test facility.

B) For Producers with design authority, materials were procured from the Producer's approved source and is stated on the C of C.

C) Materials from a non-approved sources (non LCS supplier) have material test reports from UTC division approved test facility.

Index

Note : Option to waived this requirement if the material supplier is LCS, ands then if the supplier is not LCS, then "copies of the material test reports and results" should be added into this location

A PDF copy of the MFP appproved layout report shall be included in the UPPAP file.




Please insert copy of layout approval in space provided below.


INSTRUCTIONS :

For member drawing defined raw material (e.g., castings, forgings, or other raw material defined by member drawing, etc.), the file shall contain a member specified approved layout report with no nonconformances. For UPPAP approval purposes, nonconformances are not permitted.

A) Ensure layout report is completed and approved by the UTC member division with zero nonconformances.

Index

INSTRUCTIONS : A PDF copy of the pre-approval signed form.


When ... Then …

2D Matrix is required by contractual documents.

NOTE: Additional documentation may be required for Flight Safety Parts

UPPAP Checklist items:A) Documented evidence of UTC division approval of part marking per the invoked part marking specification.



The UPPAP file shall contain:a. Documented evidence of member approval of part marking per the invoked part marking specification.b. The digital photo of the part marking of a part or other evidence that demonstrates the part has been marked per the drawing.

Serialization or unique identification is required by contractual documents, on items other than Specification Controlled or Source Control items.

Additional member company requirements may apply.

The UPPAP file shall have a:1. Copy of the members explicit approval of the 2D marking in question and2. Scanned print out of marking, displaying the human readable product of the scan.

B) A digital photo of part marking on a part or other evidence that demonstrates the part has been marked per the drawing.

Index

Please insert copy of evidence of Part Marking approval in space provided below:

A PDF copy of the pre-approval signed form.



A) Validate PP&L requirements are met per applicable UTC division drawing and/or specification.

B) In the event no UTC division specific PP&L requirements are specified, does packaging plan meet ASQR-15.1?


INSTRUCTIONS :

The UPPAP file shall contain documented evidence of member approval of packaging per the invoked packaging specification (Ref. ASQR 15.1)

Index

Please insert copy of evidence of Packaging, Preservation and Labelling approval in space provided below:

A PDF copy of the PPAP Form 1 completed and signed.



A) Ensure Form 1 is complete and includes producer Production/Quality Management signature



INSTRUCTIONS :

The supplier shall:a. Verify that all of the measurement and test results show conformance with member requirements. b. Ensure all required documentation is available within the UPPAP file.c. Review all the applicable data for content, accuracy, and process repeatability before submitting for approval.c. Upon a satisfactory internal review, complete a UPPAP Approval Form, ASQR-09.2 Form 1 (refer to Appendix 1), and submit to the MFP for approval.d. Complete a separate ASQR-09.2 Form 1, for each part number unless otherwise agreed to by the MFP.

B) For interim class approval levels, ensure an adequate gap closure plan is included to achieve full UPPAP approval with assigned owners and target dates for each action.

Index

PDF Form signedRef. ASQR 09.2 Form1


Index

Process Capability and Individuals & Moving Range (IX-MR) ChartPart Number: Drawing Number: Drawing Zone:

Part Name: CTQ Feature:

PROCESS CAPABILITY CALCULATIONS

Number of samples (<= 50) 0 Nominal specificationSample size for moving range(2 - 5) Upper tolerance limit

Lower tolerance limitGrand Average #DIV/0! D3 D4 d2Average Range 0.00000 #N/A #N/A #N/A Average #DIV/0!

Standard Deviation #DIV/0!Moving

Observation Value LCLx CLx UCLx Range LCLr CLr UCLr Cp #DIV/0!1 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A Cpl #DIV/0!2 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Cpu #DIV/0!3 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A Cpk #DIV/0!4 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A5 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A6 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A7 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A8 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A9 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A

10 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A11 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A12 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A13 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A14 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A15 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A16 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A17 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A18 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A19 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A20 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A21 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A22 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A23 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A24 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A25 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A26 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A27 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A28 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A29 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A30 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A31 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A32 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A33 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A34 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A35 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A36 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A37 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A38 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A39 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A40 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A41 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A42 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A43 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A44 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A45 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A46 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A47 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A48 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A49 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A50 #N/A #DIV/0! #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00000 #N/A

DO NOT MODIFY THIS TABLEControl Chart Factors

n A2 D3 D4 d2 A3 B3 B42 1.88 0 3.267 1.128 2.659 0 3.2673 1.023 0 2.574 1.693 1.954 0 2.5684 0.729 0 2.282 2.059 1.628 0 2.2665 0.577 0 2.114 2.326 1.427 0 2.0896 0.483 0 2.004 2.534 1.287 0.03 1.977 0.419 0.076 1.924 2.704 1.182 0.118 1.8828 0.373 0.136 1.864 2.847 1.099 0.185 1.8159 0.337 0.184 1.816 2.97 1.032 0.239 1.76110 0.308 0.223 1.777 3.078 0.975 0.284 1.716


Index

Enter data ONLY in yellow-shaded cells.This spreadsheet is designed for up to 50 observations and a moving range from 2 to 5.Enter the sample size in cell E10. Then enter your data in the "Value" Column beginning with Cell B17.

0.0000

2.0000

4.0000

6.0000

8.0000

10.0000

12.0000

Individuals (X) ChartIndividualsUpper control limitCenter lineLow er control limit

Observation number

Value

0.00000

0.10000

0.20000

0.30000

0.40000

0.50000

0.60000

0.70000

0.80000

0.90000

1.00000

Moving Range ChartMoving ranges

Lower control l imit

Center l ine

Upper control l imit

Observation number

Moving ranges

Gage R&R Short Form Study

Gage Name: Part Number: Performed By:Gage Number: Part Name: Operator A:

Graduations: Operation Number: Operator B:Zero Equals: Characteristic: Area:

Unit of Measure: Specification: Date:Total Eng. Tolerance:

Instructions:1) Type in shaded areas only.2) Select 5 parts at random and number them 1 through 5.2) Have two operators measure each part independently. Record results below.4) Analyze the results to determine variability due to both Repeatability and Reproducibility.

Operator A Operator B RangePart 0 0

1 0.0000002 0.0000003 0.0000004 0.0000005 0.000000

0.000000 0.000000 Sum of 5 ranges 0.0000000.000000 0.000000

NOTE: CV = Combined Variability used to calculate Process Tolerance

0.000000 0.000000

Gage R&R for Product Acceptance = 0.000000

0.00000 * 4.33 = 0.000000

1) GAGE CAPABILITY (GC) FOR PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE (% of Engineering Tolerance)

GC as a % of Eng. Tolerance = (Gage R&R / Total Eng. Tolerance Range) * 100 = #DIV/0!

new Gage File for any HS defined KPCs/TKCs. Enter the Product Sigma into the database field entitled "Gage RR Std Deviation".

2) GAGE CAPABILITY FOR CONTROL CHART PURPOSES (% of Process Tolerance)

#DIV/0!

LEGEND ACCEPTABLE MARGINAL UNACCEPTABLE


Index

RA (Range of 5 values) = RB (Range of 5 values) =

RbarCV

= (RA+R

B)/2 = Rbar

m = Sum/5

Product Sigma = Rbarm/1.19 = Process Sigma

CV = Rbar

CV/d

2 =

* See special Supplier Note below NOTE: d2 = 2.326 for n=5

Rbarm * 4.33 Process Tolerance = 6 * Sigma

CV =

* SPECIAL SUPPLIER NOTE: Supplier needs to enter "Product Sigma" into HS Process Certification Database when creating a

% of Process Tolerance = (R&R / 6 x SigmaCV

) * 100 =

Instructions: Enter total tolerance; enter data under 1st and 2nd Meas. columns for EACH operator.Units

Today's Date Gage # GageType Part # Total Tol. =Date of Study Op. # Dimension

OPERATOR A: 0 OPERATOR B: 0Performed By:

Operator A:

Sample 1st Meas. 2nd Meas. Range 1st Meas. 2nd Meas. Range Operator B:1 0.0000 0.0000 Area:2 0.0000 0.00003 0.0000 0.00004 0.0000 0.00005 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0

Sigma #DIV/0! #DIV/0! = Xbar of A #DIV/0! =Xbar of B

6-Sigma #DIV/0!

Within part variation Reproducibility - operator variation Repeatability - equipment variation Rbar = 0 Rbar = #DIV/0! Rbar = 0.000000 0 #DIV/0! 0

%OF TOL. #DIV/0! %OF TOL. #DIV/0!Test for Strays COMMENTS:UCL = 0

Reproducibility & Repeatability - operator & equipment variation combinedStd dev of Combined = #DIV/0!

USE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCEPercent of Spread/Tolerance Consumed by Gage R&R OR REJECTION OF THE MEASURING DEVICE.

% of Spread = NO VARIATION *% of Tol. = #DIV/0! ** ** Question results if > 20%

WORKSHEET FOR GAGE R&R WITH TWO REPLICATIONSPART NUMBER___________________ DIMENSION_____________________________________

OPERATION

INSTRUCTIONS1) SELECT FIVE PIECES OUT OF PRODUCTION. 2) OPERATOR "A" GAGE THE FIVE PIECES WHILE OPERATOR "B" RECORDS THE READINGS.3) OPERATOR "A" REGAGE THE SAME FIVE PIECES WHILE OPERATOR "B" RECORDS THE 2ND SET OF READINGS.

OPERATOR "A" OPERATOR "B"1ST READINGS 2ND READINGS 1ST READINGS 2ND READINGS

1 12 23 34 45 5


Index

OPERATOR "A"__________________________________________________________________________

OPERATOR "B"____________________________________________________________________________

**BEFORE CONDUCTING STUDY CHECK CALIBRATION DUE DATE AND MAKE SURE GAGE IS FREE FROM DIRT AND THAT THE GAGE IS IN GOOD CONDITION(ALL CLAMPS ARE IN PLACE, NO CHIPPED LOCATING SURFACES, ETC..**

4) OPERATOR "A" AND OPERATOR "B" REVERSE ROLES AND REPEAT STEPS 1 THROUGH 3. AFTER STUDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ENTER DATA INTO APPROPRIATE FIELDS ABOVE TO ANALYZE THE DATA.

Gage R&R Long Form Study

Instructions for this form:1) Type only in the shaded blocks.2) If using coded data, be sure to write in the "Total Eng. Tolerance" in coded form.3) If you have any questions or comments, call Pete Teti at (860) 654-4800.4) This spreadsheet is set up for either a 5-part or 10-part study. Do not use for any other quantity!!5) "Total Eng. Tolerance" and "Operator Names" MUST be filled in for the form to work properly!!

Gage Name: Part No.: Performed By:Gage No.: Part Name: Operator A:

Graduations: Operation No.: Operator B:Zero Equals: Characteristic: Operator C:

Unit of Measure: Specification: Area:Total Eng. Tolerance: Date:

Instructions:1) Select 10 parts at random and number them 1 through 10. (5 parts may be used if necessary)2) Have two or three operators measure each part independently, two or three times each. Record results below.3) Analyze the results to determine variability due to both Repeatability and Reproducibility.

Operator A: 0 Operator B: 0 Operator C: Sample Replications Sample Replications Sample ReplicationsNumber 1 2 3 R Number 1 2 3 R Number 1 2 3 R

1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10

Totals Totals Totals Means Means Means

Replications Replications Replications

Test for Statistical Control of Ranges

#VALUE! = #VALUE! Operators 2

2.574 * #VALUE! = #VALUE! = Range Upper Control Limit

Note: D4 is based on the number of Replications. (See table below)

Gage R&R Long Form Study AnalysisRepeatability (Gage Variation)

#VALUE! / 1.693 = #VALUE!

#VALUE!Percent of Engineering Tolerance Consumed by the Gage:

= #VALUE! = #VALUE!Eng. Tolerance 0.000000

Reproducibility (Between Operator Variation)

0.000000 - 0.000000 = 0.000000

0.000000 / 1.906 = 0.000000

Number of parts = 0Number of trials = 0

1.906

Percent of Engineering Tolerance consumed by Operator Variation: #VALUE!

= 0.000000 = #DIV/0!Tolerance 0.000000

Combined Reproducibility and Repeatability (Measurement System)

0.000000 + #VALUE! = #VALUE!

1) Percent of Engineering Tolerance consumed by measurement system:

= #VALUE! = #VALUE!Tolerance 0.000000

2) Percent of Process Tolerance (Combined Variability) consumed by measurement system:

#VALUE!

#VALUE! * 3.078 / 0.000000 = #VALUE!

Range of Observations Within Each Trial

Operator 1st trial 2nd Trial 3rd Trial TOTAL CAUTION: Percent Process Tolerance value is only valid for 5-part or 10-part studies.A 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000B 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000C 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000

Sum 0.00000

0

Gage R&R Long Form Study Evaluation Guideline

1) GAGE CAPABILITY (GC) FOR PRODUCT ACCEPTANCE (% of Engineering Tolerance)

GC as a % of Eng. Tolerance = (Gage R&R / Total Eng. Tolerance Range) * 100 = #VALUE!

new Gage File for any HS defined KPCs/TKCs. Enter the Product Sigma into the database field entitled "Gage RR Std Deviation".

2) GAGE CAPABILITY FOR CONTROL CHART PURPOSES (% of Process Tolerance)

#VALUE!

LEGEND ACCEPTABLE MARGINAL UNACCEPTABLE

Table of Factors used in calculations. n2 3.268 1.128 1.4143 2.574 1.693 1.9065 2.32610 3.078

Study Observation


Index

Xbar1 Xbar2 Xbar3 RbarA Xbar1 Xbar2 Xbar3 RbarB Xbar1 Xbar2 Xbar3 RbarC

XbarA = Xbar

1 + Xbar

2 + Xbar

3Xbar

B = Xbar

1 + Xbar

2 + Xbar

3Xbar

C = Xbar

1 + Xbar

2 + Xbar

3

XbarA = Xbar

B = Xbar

C =

Rbar1 = Rbar

A + Rbar

B + Rbar

C =

UCLR = D

4 * Rbar

1 =

SGV

= Rbar1 / d

2 =

Note: d2 is based on the number of Replications. (See table below)

Repeatability = 5.15 * SGV

100 * 5.15 * SGV

Rbar2 = XbarLargest of ABC - XbarSmallest of ABC =

SOV

= Rbar2 / d

2* =

Note: d2*

is based on the number of Operators. (See table)

d2* =

Reproducibility = {(Rbar2) X (5.15/d

2*)}2 - {(Repeatability)2 / (No. parts X No. trials)} =

100 * 5.15 * SOV

PRODUCT SIGMA - * See special Supplier Note belowS

MV = S

OV2 + S

GV2 =

* SPECIAL SUPPLIER NOTE: Supplier needs to enter "Product Sigma" into HS Process Certification Database when creating a new Gage File for any HS defined KPCs/TKCs. Enter the Product Sigma into the database field entitled "Gage RR Std Deviation".

100 * 5.15 * SMV

R&R = (Repeatability)2 + (Reproducibility)2 =

Percent Process Tolerance (Combined Variability) = (R&R)/(6/d2)*Rbar

CV =

RbarCV

(Sum/No. Trials)

* SPECIAL SUPPLIER NOTE: Supplier needs to enter "Product Sigma" into HS Process Certification Database when creating a

% of Process Tolerance = (R&R / 5.15 x SigmaCV

) * 100 =

D4

d2

d2*

INSTRUCTIONS: Please record any significant observations, such as Operator/Inspector methodical differences, environmental factors (i.e., lighting, temperature, vibration, distractions, etc.), difiiculties in using the measurement system (i.e., obtaining readings, gage readability, ability to easily hold gage and/or part, etc.) that could influence the study results.

? !

Gage Capability Attribute Study (Agreement between Assessors (AbA) Binary Study)Facility/Location: CSBU / Yondor City

KPI / O: Mounting hole

Key characteristic: Diameter

Inspection method: Plug gauge

Date of study: 5-Mar-07

Study manager: Ned Mooredadda

Ned MooredaddaNed MooredaddaNed MooredaddaNed MooredaddaNed MooredaddaComparison of performance Within Assessor Between Assessor Assessor / Expert Assessor / Expert Assessor / Expert###############

A1=A2 21 out of 25 or 84.0%Within assessor consistency

Consistency Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement###############B1=B2 15 " 25 " 60.0% 60.0%60.0%###############

A=B 10 " 25 " 40.0% Between assessor agreement Between assessor agreementBetween assessor agreement###############A=E 20 " 25 " 80.0%

Agreement with expertAgreement with expertAgreement with expert###############

B=E 11 " 25 " 44.0% 44.0%#################################

0 = "Bad", 1 = "Good" Assessor Assessor###############A1 A2 E B1 B2 A Marge Innoverra Marge InnoverraMarge Innoverra###############

PartAssessor A Expert Assessor B B Abe Normle Abe NormleAbe Normle###############

Obs. 1 Obs. 2 (Opt.) Obs. 1 Obs. 2 I. M. Wright I. M. Wright###############1 1 1 1 1 1 1###############2 0 0 0 0 0 Conclusions: Conclusions:###############3 1 1 1 1 0 A's consistency is poor (< 95%).

4 0 0 0 1 1 B's consistency is poor (< 95%). B's consistency is poor (< 95%).B's consistency is poor (< 95%).B's consistency is poor (< 95%).B's consistency is poor (< 95%).5 0 1 1 1 1 B's consistency is worse than A's. B's consistency is worse than A's.B's consistency is worse than A's.B's consistency is worse than A's.B's consistency is worse than A's.6 0 0 0 0 1 A to B agreement is poor (< 95%). A to B agreement is poor (< 95%).A to B agreement is poor (< 95%).A to B agreement is poor (< 95%).A to B agreement is poor (< 95%).7 0 0 0 0 0 A to E agreement is poor (< 95%). A to E agreement is poor (< 95%).A to E agreement is poor (< 95%).A to E agreement is poor (< 95%).A to E agreement is poor (< 95%).8 1 1 1 0 0 B to E agreement is poor (< 95%).

9 0 0 0 1 1 B to E agreement is worse than A's.

10 1 1 1 1 111 0 0 0 0 1 1############12 0 0 0 0 0 ############13 0 1 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 1 1#########15 0 1 0 0 1 #########16 0 0 0 0 017 0 0 0 0 0 0############18 0 0 0 0 1 1#########19 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0############21 0 0 0 0 0 #########22 1 1 0 1 023 0 0 0 0 124 1 0 1 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 1 126 2627 2728 2829 2930 3031

32

33

34

35 3536 ###############37 ###############38 ###############39 ###############40 ###############41 ###############42 ###############43 ###############44 ###############45 ###############46 ###############47 ###############48 ###############49 ###############50 ###############

######################################################################################################################################################


Index

E (opt.)

x = each assessor's average. I = 95% confidence bound.

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 1

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 2

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 3

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 4

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 5

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 6

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 7

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 8

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 9

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 10

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 11

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 12

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 13

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 14

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 15

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 16

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 17

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 18

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 19

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 20

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 21

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 22

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 23

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 24

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 25

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 26

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 27

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 28

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 29

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 30

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 31

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 32

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 33

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 34

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 35

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 36

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 37

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 38

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 39

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 40

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 41

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 42

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 43

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 44

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 45

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 46

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 47

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 48

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 49

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 50

% agree me nt wi th the mse lves % agreeme nt betwee n them% agre ement with e xpert

Header information

Assessor A Data entry.0 = Part failed1=Part passed

Assessor B Data entry.0 = Part failed1=Part passed

'Expert' opinion (optional).0 = Part failed1=Part passed

Performance results

summary

Results plots for each of the parts in the

study.

Comparisons, with 95% confidence intervals.

Conclusions

? !

Gage Capability Attribute Study (Agreement between Assessors (AbA) Binary Study)Facility/Location:

KPI / O:

Key characteristic:

Inspection method:

Date of study:

Study manager:

Study manager:Study manager:Study manager:Study manager:Study manager:Comparison of performance Within Assessor Between Assessor Assessor / Expert Assessor / Expert Assessor / Expert###############

A1=A2 0 out of 0 orWithin assessor consistency

Consistency Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement###############B1=B2 0 " 0 " ###############

A=B 0 " 0 " Between assessor agreement Between assessor agreementBetween assessor agreement###############A=E 0 " 0 "

Agreement with expertAgreement with expertAgreement with expert###############

B=E 0 " 0 " #################################

0 = "Bad", 1 = "Good" Assessor Assessor###############A1 A2 E B1 B2 A AA###############

PartAssessor A Expert Assessor B B BB###############

Obs. 1 Obs. 2 (Opt.) Obs. 1 Obs. 2 Obs. 2###############1 1###############2 Conclusions: Conclusions:###############3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 11############12 ############13

14 14#########15 #########16

17 17############18 18#########19

20 20############21 #########22

23

24 2425 2526 2627 2728 2829 2930 3031

32

33

34

35 3536 ###############37 ###############38 ###############39 ###############40 ###############41 ###############42 ###############43 ###############44 ###############45 ###############46 ###############47 ###############48 ###############49 ###############50 ###############

######################################################################################################################################################


Index

E (opt.)

x = each assessor's average. I = 95% confidence bound.

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 1

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 2

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 3

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 4

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 5

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 6

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 7

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 8

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 9

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 10

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 11

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 12

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 13

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 14

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 15

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 16

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 17

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 18

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 19

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 20

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 21

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 22

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 23

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 24

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 25

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 26

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 27

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 28

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 29

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 30

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 31

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 32

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 33

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 34

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 35

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 36

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 37

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 38

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 39

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 40

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 41

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 42

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 43

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 44

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 45

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 46

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 47

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 48

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 49

A1 A2 E B1 B2

0

1Part 50

% agr eem ent with themsel ves % a greement between them% agreement wi th expert

FMEA RISK TABLESSEVERITY RISK TABLE

Category (Product)Criteria: Severity of Effect

Rank(Effect on Product)

10

9

8 Major disruption

Essential 7

6

Convenient 5

Annoyance

4

3

2

No effect No discernible effect 1 No effect

DETECTION RISK TABLEPFMEA Criteria:

RankLikelihood of detection by process control

10 Almost impossible

9 Very remote

Category (Process)

Safety and/or regulatory

compliance

Potential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves noncompliance with

government regulation without warning Safety and/or regulatory

compliancePotential failure mode affects safe vehicle operation and/or involves noncompliance with

government regulation with warning

Primaryfunction

Loss of primary function (vehicle inoperable, does not affect safe vehicle operation)

Degradation of primary function (vehicle operable, but at reduced level of performance)

Significant disruption

Secondary function

Loss of secondary function (vehicle operable, but comfort / convenience functions inoperable)

Rework out of stationDegradation of secondary function (vehicle

operable, but comfort / convenience functions at reduced level of performance)

Appearance or audible noise, vehicle operable, item does not conform. Defect noticed by most

customers (> 75%) Rework instationAppearance or audible noise, vehicle operable,

item does not conform. Defect noticed by many customers (50%)

Appearance or audible noise, vehicle operable, item does not conform. Defect noticed by

discriminating customers (< 25%)

Minordisruption

Opportunity for Detection

Likelihood of Detection

No detection opportunity

No current process control; cannot detect or is not analyzed

Not likely to detect at any stage

Failure Mode and/or error (cause) is not easily detected (e.g. random audits)

8 Remote

7 Very low

6 Low

5 Moderate

4 Moderately high

3 High

2 Very high

1 Almost certain

Problem detection post processing

Failure Mode detection post-processing by operator through visual/tactile/audible means

Problem detection at source

Failure Mode detection in station by operator through visual/tactile/audible means or post-

processing through use of attribute gauging (go/no go, manual torque check/clicker wrench, etc)


Failure Mode detection post-processing by operator through the use of variable gauging or in-

station by operator through use of attribute gauging (go/no go, manual torque check/clicker

wrench, etc)


Failure Mode or Error (cause) detection in-station by operator through the use of variable gauging,

or by automated controls in-station that will detect discrepant part and notify operator (light, buzzer, etc.) Gauging performed on setup and first-piece

check (for setup causes only)


Failure Mode detection post-processing by automated controls that will detect discrepant part

and lock part to prevent further processing


Failure Mode detection in-station by automated controls that will detect discrepant part and

automatically lock part in station to prevent further processing

Error detection and/or Problem

prevention

Error (cause) detection in station by automated controls that will detect error and prevent

discrepant part from being made

Detection not applicable; error

prevention

Error (cause) prevention as a result of fixture design, machine design or part design.

Discrepant parts cannot be made because item has been error-proofed by process/product

design.

FMEA RISK TABLESSEVERITY RISK TABLE OCCURRENCE RISK TABLE

Criteria: Severity of EffectLikelihood of failure

(Effect on Process)

No discernible effect

May endanger operator (machine or assembly) without warning

Very HighFailure is almost inevitable

May endanger operator (machine or assembly) with warning

HighFailures occur almost

as often as not

100% of product may have to be scrapped. Line shutdown or stop ship

HighRepeated failures

A portion of the production rue may have to be scrapped. Deviation from primary process; decreased line speed or added manpower

HighFailures occur

often

100% of production run may have to be reworked off line and accepted

Moderate HighFrequent failures

A portion of the production run may have to be reworked off line and accepted

ModerateOccasional failures

100% of production run may have to be reworked in station before it is processed

Moderate LowInfrequent failures

A portion of the production run may have to be reworked in station before it is processed

LowRelatively few failures

Slight inconvenience to process, operation or operator

LowFailures are few and far

between

Very LowFailure is eliminated through prevention

controls

Index

FMEA RISK TABLESOCCURRENCE RISK TABLE

Time-based Scale Event-based Scale Rank

1 occurrence / shift Cpk < 0.33 10

1 occurrence / day Cpk » 0.33 9

1 per 2-3 days Cpk » 0.67 8

1 per week Cpk » 0.83 7

1 per 2 weeks Cpk » 1.00 6

1 per month Cpk » 1.17 5

1 per quarter Cpk » 1.33 4

1 per half-year Cpk » 1.67 3

1 per year Cpk » 2.00 2

<1 per year Cpk > 2.00 1

Criteria: Occurrence of cause - PFMEA

(incidents per 1000 items / vehicles)

100 per thousand>/= 1 in 10

50 per thousand1 in 20




0.5 per thousand1 in 2 000



0.001 per thousand1 in 1 000 000

Failure is eliminated through preventive control