Core Tools Forms V5
-
Upload
hudelvillar -
Category
Documents
-
view
471 -
download
14
Transcript of Core Tools Forms V5
Core Tools Forms Disc V5Copyright © 2008 March Quality Services
Part Name NAMEPart Number NUMBER
Engineering Change Level ECLEngineering Change Level Date ECL DATE
Organization Name ORGANIZATIONOrganization Code CODE
Street Address ADDRESSCity CITY
State STATEZip ZIP
Phone Number 555-555-5555
Customer Name CUSTOMERDivision DIVISION
Application APPLICATION
File Name FILE.XLS
For sales and technical support contact AIAG at 1-248-358-3570
THE FOLLOWING LEVELS OF DOCUMENTS WERE USED TO PREPARE THIS WORKBOOK.
DOCUMENT EDITION PRINTING
Second Jul-08
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS Third Mar-02POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS Fourth Jun-08PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL Fourth Mar-06
ADVANCED PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING AND CONTROL PLAN REFERENCE MANUAL
Page 3 of 117
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Revision Date:
Person Responsible
Was the DFMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference manual, and applicable customer specific requirements?
Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed?
Have best practices and lessons learned from similar part DFMEAs been considered?
Does the DFMEA identify Special Characteristics?
Have pass-through characteristics (glossary) been identified and reviewed with affected suppliers for FMEA alignment and appropriate controls in the supply base?
Have special characteristics designated by the customer or organization been reviewed with affected suppliers to assure FMEA alignment?
Have design characteristics that affect high risk priority failure modes been identified?
Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to high risk priority numbers?
Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to high severity numbers?
Have risk priorities been revised when corrective actions have been completed and verified?
Page 4 of 117
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
ResponsiblePrepared By:
Page 5 of 117
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 6 of 117
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 7 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
A. General
1 Does the design require:
a
b
c
2
3 Has Design of Experiments been considered?4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Person Responsible
l New materials?
l Special tooling?
l New technology or process?
Has assembly build variation analysis been considered?
Is there a plan for prototypes in place?
Has a DFMEA been completed?
Has a DFMA (Design For Manufacturability and Assembly) been completed?
Have service and maintenance issues been considered?
Has the Design Verification Plan been considered?
If yes, was it completed by a cross functional team?
Are all specified tests, methods, equipment and acceptance criteria clearly defined and understood?
Page 8 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible11
12
13
B. Engineering Drawings
14
15
16
17
18
C. Engineering Performance Specifications
19
20
Have Special Characteristics been selected? /
Is bill of material complete? /
Are Special Characteristics properly documented?
Are reference dimensions identified to minimize inspection layout time?
Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces identified to design functional gages?
Are tolerances compatible with accepted manufacturing standards?
Can existing and available inspection technology measure all design requirements?
Is the customer designated engineering change management process used to manage engineering changes?
Have special characteristics been identified?
Are test parameters sufficient to address required use conditions, i.e., production validation and end use?
Page 9 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible21
22
23
24
25
D. Material Specification
26
27
28
29
30
Have parts manufactured at minimum and maximum specifications been tested as required?
Will all product testing be done in-house? /
If not, is it done by an approved supplier? /
Is the specified in-process performance test sampling size and/or frequency consistent with manufacturing volumes?
Has customer approval been obtained, e.g., for testing and documentation, as required?
Are special material characteristics identified? /
Where the organization is design responsible, are specified materials, heat treat and surface treatments compatible with the durability requirements in the identified environment?
Where required, are the material suppliers on the customer approved list?
Has the organization developed and implemented a process to control incoming material quality?
Have material characteristics requiring inspection been identified?If so,
Page 10 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsiblea
b
c
31
a
32
a
b
c
d
Revision Date
l Will characteristics be checked in-house? /
l If checked in house, is test equipment available?
l If checked in house, are competent people available to assure accurate testing?
Will outside laboratories be used? /
l Does the organization have a process in place to assure laboratory competency such as accreditation? NOTE: Competency needs to be assured, regardless of the organization's relationship with the laboratory.
Have the following material requirements been considered:
l Handling, including environmental aspects?
l Storage, including environmental aspects? /
l Have the materials/substance composition been reported in accordance with customer requirements e.g., IMDS?
l Have polymeric parts been identified/marked per customer requirements?
Page 11 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 12 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 13 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 14 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 15 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 16 of 117
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 17 of 117
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
1 Does the design require:
a
b
c
d
2
a
b
c
3
a
b
c
4
5
Person Responsible
l New materials? /
l Quick change? /
l Volume fluctuations? /
l Mistake proofing? /Have lists been prepared identifying (include all suppliers)?:
l New equipment? /
l New tooling? /
l New test equipment (including checking aids)?
Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for (include all suppliers):
l New equipment? /
l New tooling? /
l New test equipment (including checking aids)?
Will a preliminary capability study be conducted at the tooling and/or equipment manufacturer?
Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been established?
Page 18 of 117
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for equipment and tooling?
Are setup instructions for new equipment and tooling complete and understandable?
Will capable gages be available to run preliminary process capability studies at the equipment supplier's facility?
Will preliminary process capability studies be run at the processing plant?
Have process characteristics that affect special product characteristics been identified?
Were special product characteristics used in determining acceptance criteria?
Does the manufacturing equipment have sufficient capacity to handle forecasted production and service volumes?
Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate testing?
Has the measurement equipment been verified and documented showing qualification for the required scope of measurement and testing?
Page 19 of 117
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 20 of 117
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 21 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
1
2
3
4
5 Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:
a
b
c
d
6 Is there a documented training program that:
a
b
c
7 Has training been completed for:
a
b
Person Responsible
Is customer assistance or approval required for the development of the control plan?
Has the organization identified who will be the quality liaison with the customer?
Has the organization identified who will be the quality liaison with its suppliers?
Has the quality management system been reviewed and approved per customer specific requirements?
l Control plan requirements? /
l Layout inspection? /
l Engineering performance testing? /
l Problem reaction and resolution analysis? /
l Includes all employees? /
l Lists whose been trained? /
l Provides a training schedule? /
l Statistical process control? /
l Capability studies? /
Page 22 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsiblec
d
e
f
8
9
10
11
12 Do inspection instructions include:
a
b
c
d
e
13 Are visual aids:
a
b
l Problem solving? /
l Mistake proofing? /
l Reaction plans?
l Other topics as identified? /
Is each operation provided with process instructions that are keyed to the control plan?
Are standard operator instructions accessible at each work station?
Do operator instructions include pictures ad diagrams?
Were operator/team leaders involved in developing standard operator instructions?
l Easily understood engineering performance specifications?
l Test frequencies? /
l Sample sizes? /
l Reaction plans? /
l Documentation requirements?
l Appropriate, easily understood and legible?
l Available? /
Page 23 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsiblec
d
e
14
15
16
a
17
18
a
b
c
d
l Accessible? /
l Approved? /
l Dated and current? /
Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and establish reaction plans for issues such as out of control conditions based on statistical process control?
Is there an identified problem solving process that includes root cause analysis?
Are the latest drawings and specifications available for the operator, in particular at the points of the inspection?
l Have engineering tests (dimensional, material, appearance, and performance) been completed and documented as required in accordance with customer requirements?
Are the current forms/logs available for appropriate personnel to record inspection results?
Are the following available and placed at the appropriate points of the operation?
l Monitoring and measurement devices?
l Gage instructions? /
l Reference samples? /
l Inspection logs? /
Page 24 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible19
20
a
b
21
22
23
a
b
c
d
e
24
Have provisions been made to certify and calibrate gages and test equipment at a defined frequency that is appropriate?
Have required measurement system capability studies been:
l Completed? /
l Accepted?
Have initial process capability studies been conducted per customer requirements?
Are layout inspection equipment and facilities adequate to provide initial and ongoing layout of all details and components in accordance with customer requirements?
Is there a documented procedure for controlling incoming material that may include, for example, the following items:
l Characteristics to be inspected? /
l Frequency of inspection? /
l Sample size? /
l Designated location for approved product? /
l Disposition of nonconforming products? /
Have sample production parts been provided per customer requirements?
Page 25 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible25
26
27
28
29 Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure?
30
31
32
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Is there a procedure to identify, segregate, and control nonconforming products to prevent shipment?
Are rework/repair procedures available to assure conforming product?
Is there a procedure to requalify repaired/reworked material?
Has a master sample, if required, been retained as part of the part approval process?
Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned and implemented?
Are periodic assessments of the quality system planned and implemented?
Has the customer approved the packaging and the packaging specification?
Page 26 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 27 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 28 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 29 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 30 of 117
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 31 of 117
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
1
2
3
4
5 Are process and inspection areas:
a
b
6
7 Are there adequate:
a
b
8
9
10
Person Responsible
Have lean concepts been applied in considering material flow?
Does the floor plan identify all required process and inspection points?
Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools, and equipment at each operation been considered?
Has sufficient space been allocated for all equipment?
l Of adequate size? /
l Properly lighted? /
Do inspection areas contain necessary equipment and record storage?
l Staging areas? /
l Impound areas? /
Are inspection points located to prevent shipment of nonconforming products?
Are there controls for each process to eliminate contamination or inappropriate mixing of product?
Is material protected from overhead or air handling systems contamination?
Page 32 of 117
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible11
12
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Have facilities been provided for final product audit?
Are facilities adequate to control movement of nonconforming incoming material?
Page 33 of 117
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 34 of 117
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 35 of 117
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Person Responsible
Does the flow chart illustrate the entire process from receiving through shipping, including outside processes and services?
In the development of the process flow chart, was the DFMEA used, if available, to identify specific characteristics that may be critical?
Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in the control plan and PFMEA?
Does the flow chart describe how the product will move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?
Has the pull system/optimization been considered for this process?
Have provisions been made to identify and inspect reworked product before being used?
Are material controls for movement and staging of product including appropriate identification properly defined and implemented? The controls should address incoming supplier product as well as subcontracted processes.
Page 36 of 117
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 37 of 117
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
1
2
3
4 Were similar part/process FMEA's considered?
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Revision Date
Person Responsible
Was the Process FMEA prepared by a cross functional team? Has the team taken into account all customer specific requirements, including FMEA methodologies as shown in the current edition of the FMEA?
Have all operations including subcontracted, or outsourced processes and services been considered?
Have all operations affecting customer requirements including fit, function, durability, governmental regulations and safety been identified and listed sequentially?
Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed and used in the analysis?
Have you applied the appropriate controls to address all of the identified failure modes?
Were severity, detection and occurrence revised when corrective action was completed?
Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the subsequent operation, assembly, and product?
Were customer plant problems used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA?
Have the causes been described in terms of something that can be corrected or controlled?
Have provisions been made to control the cause of the failure mode prior to subsequent or the next operation?
Page 38 of 117
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 39 of 117
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 40 of 117
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 41 of 117
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
Revision Date
Person Responsible
Was the control plan developed according to the methodology described in Chapter 6 of this APQP manual?
Have all the controls identified in the PFMEA been included in the control plan?
Are all special product/process characteristics included in the control plan?
Were DFMEA and PFMEA used to prepare the control plan?
Are material specifications requiring inspection identified?
Does the control plan address incoming (material/components) through processing/assembly including packaging?
Are engineering performance testing and dimensional requirements identified?
Are gages and test equipment available as required by the control plan?
If required, has the customer approved the control plan?
Are the gage methodology and compatibility appropriate to meet customer requirements?
Have measurement systems analysis been completed in accordance with customer requirements?
Are sample sizes based upon industry standards, statistical sampling plan tables, or other statistical process control methods or techniques?
Page 42 of 117
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action RequiredPerson
ResponsiblePrepared By:
Page 43 of 117
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
Page 44 of 117
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Due Date
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENTCustomer: CUSTOMER Date:
Part Number: NUMBER Part Name: NAME
Revision Level ECL
Feasibility ConsiderationsOur product quality planning team has considered the following questions.
YES NO CONSIDERATIONIs product adequately defined (application requirements, etc. to enablefeasibility evaluation?Can Engineering Performance Specifications be met as written?Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing?Can product be manufactured with process capability that meet requirements?Is there adequate capacity to produce product?Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques?
- Costs for capital equipment?- Costs for tooling?- Alternative manufacturing methods?
Is statistical process control required on the product?Is statistical process control presently used on similar products?Where statistical process control is used on similar products:
- Are the processes in control and stable?- Does process capability meet customer requirements?
Conclusion
Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.
Feasible Changes recommended (see attached).
Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirements.
Approval
Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date
Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date
Team Member/Title/Date Team Member/Title/Date
The drawings and/or specifications provided have been used as a basis for analyzing the ability to meet all specified requirements. All "no" answers are supported with attached comments identifying the organization's concerns and/or proposed changes to enable the organization to meet the specified requirements.
Can the product be manufactured within normal cost parameters? Abnormal cost considerations may include:
PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND APPROVALS
DATE:
PRODUCT NAME: NAME PART NUMBER / REV: NUMBER ECL
CUSTOMER: CUSTOMER MANUFACTURING PLANT: CITY
1. PRELIMINARY PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
Ppk - SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
2. APPROVED: YES / NO* DATE APPROVED
3. INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES
CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY QUANTITY
CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLES PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
DIMENSIONAL
VISUAL
LABORATORY
PERFORMANCE
4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC
5. PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS
6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS
7. Approvals
TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE
TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE
TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE
* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.
CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required)
Page 47 of 117
PART HISTORY
Part Number Part Name
NUMBER NAME
Date Remarks
Page 48 of 117
PROCESS / INSPECTION FLOWCHART
Product Program Issue Date ECL ECL
Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Part Name NAME
Supplier Location CITY STATE Part Number NUMBER
Legend:
Operation Transportation Inspection Delay Storage
ST
EP Operation or Event Description of Evaluation
Operation or Event and Analysis Methods
Page 49 of 117
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
PART NUMBER: NUMBER DATE:PART DESCRIPTION: ECL: ECL
NAME PREPARED BY:
STEP FA
BR
ICA
TIO
N
MO
VE
ST
OR
E
INS
PE
CT
ITE
M #
ITE
M #
OPERATION DESCRIPTION
PRODUCT AND PROCESS
CHARACTERISTICSCONTROL METHODS
Page 50 of 117
Process Flow DiagramDepartment
Prod/Serv NAME ID Number Date
Sources of VariationSources of Variation
Sources of Variation(Experience-Based) (Results of this Step)
Operation 100%Storage Delay
Operatoror Activity Inspection (Full time)
Operation/Activity with Inspection Transportation (Part time)
Page 51 of 117
CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX
Part Number Engineering Change Level Part Name
NUMBER ECL NAME
C = Characteristic at an operation used for clampingL = Characteristic at an operation used for locatingX = Characteristic created or changed by this operation should match the process flow diagram form
DIMENSION OPERATION NUMBERNUMBER DESCRIPTION TOLERANCE
DESIGN MATRIX -Product Code / Description: Project #:
POTENTIAL CAUSES FUNCTION - DESIRED ATTRIBUTES (POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES)
Pre
lim.
Spe
cial
Cha
ract
eris
tics
FA
ILU
RE
RO
BU
ST
TH
RE
SH
OLD
RA
NG
E
UN
ITS
AP
PE
AR
AN
CE
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E
PR
OC
ES
S A
BIL
ITY
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NT
AL
CATEGORY / CHARACTERISTICS
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS: HIGH = 3; MED = 2; LOW = 1; NONE = 0; UNKNOWN = ?
Page 53 of 117
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Subsystem Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Item /
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Function
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Requirements
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(DESIGN FMEA)
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentDesign
ControlsPrevention
CurrentDesign
ControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 54 of 117
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Subsystem Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(DESIGN FMEA)
Item
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentDesign
ControlsPrevention
CurrentDesign
ControlsDetection
Recommended Action(s)
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 55 of 117
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Subsystem Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Item /
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Function
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Requirements
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(DESIGN FMEA)
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentDesign
ControlsPrevention
CurrentDesign
ControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 56 of 117
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Subsystem Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(DESIGN FMEA)
Item
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentDesign
ControlsPrevention
CurrentDesign
ControlsDetection
Recommended Action(s)
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 57 of 117
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Subsystem Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
Cause Failure Mode
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(DESIGN FMEA)
Item
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
ControlsPrevention
Current DetectionDesign Controls Recommended
Action(s)
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 58 of 117
Action Results
RP
N
Page 59 of 117
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Subsystem Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Re
spo
nsi
bili
ty Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(DESIGN FMEA)
Item
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentDesign
ControlsPrevention
CurrentDesign
ControlsDetection
Recommended Action(s)
Tar
get
Com
plet
ion
Dat
e
ActionsTaken
EffectiveDate
Page 60 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Process Step
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
/ Function
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Requirements
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 61 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
ProcessStep
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 62 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Process Step
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
/ Function
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Requirements
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 63 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
ProcessStep
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 64 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Cause Failure Mode
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
ProcessStep
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
Current DetectionProcess Controls Recommended
Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 65 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Re
spo
nsi
bili
ty Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
ProcessStep
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Tar
get
Com
plet
ion
Dat
e
ActionsTaken
EffectiveDate
Page 66 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
ID Product Process
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
ProcessStep
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 67 of 117
FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Requirements
Se
verit
y
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
Action Results
Se
verit
y
Occ
urr
en
ce
De
tect
ion
RP
N
ID Product Process
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA)
ProcessStep
Function
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)of Failure
CurrentProcessControlsPrevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken& Effective Date
Page 68 of 117
System
Subsystem FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Component Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Prepared by:
Program(s) / Plant(s) Key Date Date (Orig.)
Core Team: Date (Rev.)
C O Current DAction ResultsS l c Machinery e R.
e a c Controls t P. S O D R.v s u -Prevention e N. e c e P.
s r -Detection c v c t N.
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(MACHINERY FMEA)
MachineryFunction /
Requirements
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)/
Mechanism(s) of Failure
Recommended Action(s)
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken
Page 69 of 117
System
Subsystem FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Component Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Prepared by:
Program(s) / Plant(s) Key Date Date (Orig.)
Core Team: Date (Rev.)
C O DAction ResultsS l c e R.
e a c t P. S O D R.v s u e N. e c e P.
s r c v c t N.
POTENTIALFAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(MACHINERY FMEA)
MachineryFunction /
Requirements
Potential Failure Mode
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Potential Causes(s)/
Mechanism(s) of Failure
CurrentProcessControls
Prevention
CurrentProcessControlsDetection
Recommended Action(s)
Responsibility & Target
Completion Date
Actions Taken
Page 70 of 117
CONTROL PLAN
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/1996 1/1/1996Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER ECLPart Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NAMEOrganization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ORGANIZATION CODE
CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
NO. PRODUCT PROCESS
PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLESPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
SIZE FREQ.TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE
PART/ PROCESSNUMBER
PROCESS NAME/OPERATION
DESCRIPTION
MACHINE,DEVICE
JIG, TOOLSFOR MFG.
SPECIAL
CHAR.CLASS
REACTIONPLANCONTROL
METHOD
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Page 71 of 117
CONTROL PLAN SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/1996 1/1/1996Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER ECLPart Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NAMEOrganization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ORGANIZATION CODENo. Description/Rationale Specification/Tolerance Class Illustration/Pictorial
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Page 72 of 117
DATA POINT COORDINATESControl Plan No. FILE.XLS
Customer CUSTOMER Date(Orig): 1/1/1996 Date(Rev): 1/1/1996
Char. PointX Y Z
Char. PointX Y Z
Char. PointX Y ZNo. Ident. No. Ident. No. Ident.
Page 73 of 117 Pages
March CFG-1003 2006
Production Part ApprovalDimensional Test Results
ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEINSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL
ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
ITEM OK
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
DIMENSION / SPECIFICATION
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS
TEST DATE
QTY. TESTED
ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA)
NOT OK
Page 74 of 117 Pages
March CFG-1003 2006
Production Part ApprovalDimensional Test Results
ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEINSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL
ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
ITEM OKDIMENSION / SPECIFICATION
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS
TEST DATE
QTY. TESTED
ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA)
NOT OK
Page of Pages
March CFG-1004 2006
Production Part ApprovalMaterial Test Results
ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEMATERIAL SUPPLIER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code. NAME of LABORATORY:
MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OK
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS
TEST DATE
QTY. TESTED
NOT OK
Page of Pages
March CFG-1004 2006
Production Part ApprovalMaterial Test Results
ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMEMATERIAL SUPPLIER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code. NAME of LABORATORY:
MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OKSPECIFICATION / LIMITS
TEST DATE
QTY. TESTED
NOT OK
Page 77 of 117 Pages
March CFG-1005 2006
Production Part ApprovalPerformance Test Results
ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMENAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.
TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE OK
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
SPECIFICATION / LIMITS
TEST DATE
QTY. TESTED
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ TEST CONDITIONS
NOT OK
Page 78 of 117 Pages
March CFG-1005 2006
Production Part ApprovalPerformance Test Results
ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBERSUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAMENAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.
TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE OKSPECIFICATION / LIMITS
TEST DATE
QTY. TESTED
SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ TEST CONDITIONS
NOT OK
March CFG-1002 2006
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORTPART DRAWING APPLICATION
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) APPLICATIONPART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE
NAME NAME CODE ECLORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING ADDRESS SUPPLIER / VENDOR
NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CITY STATE ZIP CODE CODEREASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHER
SUBMISSION PRE TEXTURE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT ENGINEERING CHANGE
APPEARANCE EVALUATION AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER
ORGANIZATION SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION PRE-TEXTURE REPRESENTATIVE
EVALUATION SIGNATURE AND DATE
COLOR EVALUATIONMETALLIC COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS BRILLIANCE SHIPPING PART
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW SUFFIX DISPOSITION
COMMENTS
ORGANIZATION PHONE NO. DATE AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER DATE
SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
CORRECT AND PROCEED
CORRECT AND PROCEED
APPROVED TO ETCH/TOOL/EDM
Page 80 of 117
ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORTANALYTICAL METHOD - LOW LIMIT
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Date Performed
NAMECharacteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked1 0.000 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.000
FROM THE GRAPHENTER THE FOLLOWING:
Measurement Unit Analysis Bias Repeatability
B = R == =
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R = 2.093==
Result
XT P'a
XT (P=.5) =
XT (P=.995) =
XT (P=.005) =
t0.025,19
Page 81 of 117
ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORTANALYTICAL METHOD - HIGH LIMIT
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Date Performed
NAMECharacteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked1 0.025 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.000
FROM THE GRAPHENTER THE FOLLOWING:
Measurement Unit Analysis Bias Repeatability
B = R == =
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R = 2.093==
Result
XT P'a
XT (P=.5) =
XT (P=.995) =
XT (P=.005) =
t0.025,19
Page 82 of 117
ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORTANALYTICAL METHOD - GAGE PERFORMANCE CURVE
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Date Performed
NAMECharacteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
LOW LIMIT RESULTS* HIGH LIMIT RESULTS*
Bias BiasGRR GRR
*Curve can be generated from low or high limit results if symmetry is assumed.
REMARKS
Signature
Title Date
sGRR sGRR
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.0000%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Directions for Gage Performance Curve for Attribute Analytical Method Form
1) Click Tools - Data Analysis - Regression (If Data Analysis is not available load Analysis Tool Pak from the Add-Ins menu)2) In the box for Input Y Range select the cells ATT BIAS(Analytic)!D14:D223) In the box for Input X Range select the cells ATT BIAS(Analytic)!B14:B224) In the box for Output range select the cells below A23:M605) Check Line Fit Plots6) Press OK7) Copy the Line Fit plot graph to the space on the Analytic sheet8) Change the graph title to GPC - Low Side Normal Prob Paper9) Change the x axis to Xt10) Change the y axis to Probability11) Repeat for high side data
Page 84 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
DATA TABLE
PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Code123456789
10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Reference Value
Page 85 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
DATA TABLE CONTINUED
PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Code41424344454647484950
Risk Analysis
A * B Crosstabulation
BTotal0 1
A
0 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
1 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
TotalCount 0 0 0Expected Count
B * C Crosstabulation
CTotal0 1
B
0 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
1 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
TotalCount 0 0 0Expected Count
Reference Value
Page 86 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
A * C Crosstabulation
CTotal0 1
A
0 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
1 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
TotalCount 0 0 0Expected Count
Kappa A B CA -B -C -
DETERMINATIONA x B 0.75 or higher indicates good agreementA x C Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreementB x C Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement
A * REF Crosstabulation
REFTotal0 1
A
0 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
1 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
TotalCount 0 0 0Expected Count
Page 87 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
B * REF Crosstabulation
REFTotal0 1
B
0 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
1 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
TotalCount 0 0 0Expected Count
C * REF Crosstabulation
REFTotal0 1
C
0 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
1 Count 0 0 0Expected Count
TotalCount 0 0 0Expected Count
A B CKappa
DETERMINATIONA x REF 0.75 or higher indicates good agreementB x REF Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreementC x REF Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement
Page 88 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
Source Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser CTotal Inspected# Matched 0 0 0 0 0 0False Positive (appraiser biased towards rejection) 0 0 0False Negative (appraiser biased towards acceptance) 0 0 0Mixed
Calculated Score
Total Inspected# in Agreement 0 0
Calculated Score
Notes:
(1) Appraiser agress with themself on all trials
(2) Appraiser agrees on all trials with the known standard
(3) All appraisers agreed within and between themselves
(4) All appraisers agreed within and between themselves and with the reference
(5) UCI and LCI are the upper and lower confidence internval bounds, respectively (Wilson score method)
The effectiveness of both appraisers is the same (Null hypothesis)
The effectiveness of both appraisers is not the same (Alternative Hypothesis)
Acceptance criteria: The calculated score of the appraiser falls between the confidence interval of the other.
EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATIONAppraiser A vs. Appraiser B Reject Null Hypothesis Accept AlternativeAppraiser A vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept AlternativeAppraiser B vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative
% Appraiser1 % Score vs. Attribute2
95% UCI5
95% LCI5
System % Effective Score3 System % Effective Score vs. Reference4
95% UCI5
95% LCI5
H0:
HA:
Page 89 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
Second Analysis
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Effectiveness Miss Rate
Acceptable for the appraiser >90% <2% <5%
>80% <5% <10%
<80% >5% >10%
RESULTS SUMMARY
Appraiser Effectiveness Miss Rate
A
B
C
Final Analysis
Approved for use as isNot approved for use as is
Signature Title
Measurement System Decision
False Alarm Rate
Marginally acceptable fo the appraiser - may need
improvement
Unacceptable for the appraiser - needs
improvement
False Alarm Rate
Page 90 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETVARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE
5 R
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE
10 R
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE
15 R
16. PART
AVERAGE
17
18
19
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
Notes:
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
xc=
rc=
X=
Rp=
(ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=
xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
* UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Page 91 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETVARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV) Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV)
= 2 0.8865 =
= 3 0.5907 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = % AV = 100 (AV/TV)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials 0.7087 0.5236
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/TV)
GRR = Parts =
= 2 0.7087 =
= 3 0.5236
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464
PV = 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/TV)
= 6 0.3745 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Total Variation (TV) 8 0.3378
TV = 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= 10 0.3145 =
= =
R x K1
{(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2
K2
{(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 K3
RP x K3
{(GRR2 + PV2)}1/2
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
Page 92 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETVARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE
5 R
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE
10 R
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE
15 R
16. PART
AVERAGE
17
18
19
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
Notes:
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
xc=
rc=
X=
Rp=
(ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=
xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
* UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Page 93 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETVARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Measurement Unit Analysis % Tolerance (Tol) Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/Tol)
= 2 0.8865 =
= 3 0.5907 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = % AV = 100 (AV/Tol)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials 0.7087 0.5236
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/Tol)
GRR = Parts =
= 2 0.7087 =
= 3 0.5236
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464
PV = 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/Tol)
= 6 0.3745 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Tolerance (Tol) 8 0.3378
Tol = Upper - Lower / 6 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= ( Upper - Lower ) / 6 10 0.3145 =
= =
R x K1
{(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2
K2
{(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 K3
RP x K3
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
Page 94 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETANOVA METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE
5 R
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE
10 R
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE
15 R
16. PART
AVERAGE
Anova TableSource DF SS MS F Sig
Appraiser
Parts
Appraiser-by-Part
Equipment
Total
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
xc=
rc=
X=
Rp=
* Significant at a = 0.05 level
Page 95 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETANOVA METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Anova Report % Total Variation % Contribution
Repeatability (EV)
Reproducibility (AV)
Appraiser by Part (INT)
GRR
Part-to-Part (PV)
Note:Tolerance = Total variation (TV) =Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =
Standard Deviation (s)
Page 96 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE
5 R
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE
10 R
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE
15 R
16. PART
AVE ( Xp )
Note: The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indicating true bias.
xa=
ra=
xb=
rb=
xc=
rc=
X=
Rp=
Page 97 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
Analysis:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
2
4
6
8
10
12
Average Chart -"Stacked"
Appraiser A
Appraiser B
Appraiser C
Upper Spec
Lower Spec
Part Number
Av
era
ge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
2
4
6
8
10
12
Range Chart -"Stacked"
Appraiser A
Appraiser B
Appraiser C
Rucl
Part Number
Ran
ge
Page 98 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Page 99 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
Analysis:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
2
4
6
8
10
12
Average Chart -"Unstacked"
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Av
era
ge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
Range Chart -"Unstacked"
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Av
era
ge
Page 100 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Page 101 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
2
4
6
8
10
12
Run Chart
Part
Va
lue
Page 102 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
Pa
rt 1
Pa
rt 2
Pa
rt 3
Pa
rt 4
Pa
rt 5
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Scatter Plot
Pa
rt 6
Pa
rt 7
Pa
rt 8
Pa
rt 9
Pa
rt 1
0
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Scatter Plot
Page 103 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C
Page 104 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
Pa
rt 1
Pa
rt 2
Pa
rt 3
Pa
rt 4
Pa
rt 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Error Chart
Pa
rt 6
Pa
rt 7
Pa
rt 8
Pa
rt 9
Pa
rt 1
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Error Chart
Page 105 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
-1.0
0
-0.9
0
-0.8
0
-0.7
0
-0.6
0
-0.5
0
-0.4
0
-0.3
0
-0.2
0
-0.1
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Normalized Histogram - Error
Appr A
-1.0
0
-0.9
0
-0.8
0
-0.7
0
-0.6
0
-0.5
0
-0.4
0
-0.3
0
-0.2
0
-0.1
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Normalized Histogram - Error
Appr B
-1.0
0
-0.9
0
-0.8
0
-0.7
0
-0.6
0
-0.5
0
-0.4
0
-0.3
0
-0.2
0
-0.1
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Normalized Histogram - Error
Appr C
Page 106 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
XY Plot of Averages by Size
Appr A
Appr B
Appr C
X=Y line
Page 107 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Comparison XY Plot
Appr A
Ap
pr
B
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Comparison XY Plot
Appr A
Ap
pr
C
Page 108 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Comparison XY Plot
Appr A
Ap
pr
C
Page 109 of 117
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBERPart Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAMECharacteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
Analysis:
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Comparison XY Plot
Appr B
Ap
pr
C
PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBERPART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS
NAMEAPPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
UCL = LCL = AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)
UCL = LCL = RANGES (R CHART)
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
R 1
2
3
4
S 5
SUM
x
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )
x =
r =
PART NUMBER
EAD ING
SUM NUM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBERPART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS
NAMEAPPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R )
R
** = APPRAISER OUT OF CONTROL
Computations for the Control Chart Method of Evaluating a Measurement Process
REPLICATION ERROR: r2 1.128
Number of replications = Subgroup Size = r = 3 1.6934 2.059
5 2.326
CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT: Appraiser Averages
0 Appraiser Average2 1.410 A3 1.906 Number of Samples = n = 0 B
C
0.00
CALCULATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION:
=
CALCULATIONS FOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO: Sample Averages
0.00 Sample Average2 1.410 13 1.906 Estimate Sample to Sample Standard Deviation: 24 2.237 3
5 2.477 = 46 2.669 57 2.827 Signal to Noise Ratio: 6
8 2.961 79 3.076 8
10 3.178 910
Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is:
ndc =
This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals that will span the range of product variation. (A 97% confidenceinterval centered on a single measurement would contain the actual product value that is represented by that measurement 97%of the time.)
HIGH- LOW
Average Subgroup Range = r = d2
Estimate Replication Standard Deviation r / d2 = se =
no d2* Number of Appraisers = nA =
Range of Appraiser Averages = RA =
Appraiser Effect = RA / d2* = sA =
sm SQRT ( se + sA )
no d2* Range for these Sample Averages = Rp =
sp Rp / d2* =
sp / sm =
1.41 x sp / sm =
GAGE R STUDY PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBERPART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) ZERO EQUALS
NAMEAPPRAISER MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE UPPER SPECIFICATION LOWER SPECIFICATION
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)UCL = LCL =
RANGES (R CHART)UCL = LCL =
READING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VALUE
R n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
** = POINT OUT OF CONTROL
GAGE R ANALYSIS
Data in control? % Repeatability =
This method CANNOT be used for final gage acceptance without other complete and detailed MSA methods.
x =
r =
HIGH- LOW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Bulk Materials Requirements Checklist Project:Required / Primary Responsibility Comments / Approved
Target Date Customer Supplier Conditions by / date
Product Design and Development Verification
Design Matrix
Design FMEA
Special Product Characteristics
Design Records
Prototype Control Plan
Appearance Approval Report
Master Samples
Test Results
Dimensional Results
Checking Aids
Engineering Approval
Process Design and Development Verification
Process Flow Diagrams
Process FMEA
Special Product Characteristics
Pre-launch Control Plan
Production Control Plan
Measurement System Studies
Interim Approval
Product and Process Validation
Initial Process Studies
Part Submission Warrant
Elements to be Completed as Needed
Customer Plant Connection
Customer Specific Requirements
Change Documentation
Supplier Considerations
Plan agreed to by: Name / Function Company / Title / Date
BULK MATERIAL INTERIM APPROVAL FORM
ORGANIZATIONPRODUCT NAME:
NAME
CODEENG. SPEC.:
MANUF. SITE: CITY PART #:ENG. CHANGE #: ECL FORMULA DATE:RECEIVED DATE: RECEIVED BY:SUBMISSION LEVEL: EXPIRATION DATE:TRACKING CODE: RE-SUBMISSION DATE:
Design Matrix DFMEA: Special Product Characteristics Engineering Approval
Control Plans PFMEA: Special Process Characteristics Process Flow Diagram
Test results Process Studies: Dimensional Results Master Sample
Measurement Systems Studies: Appearance Approval Report
SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MATERIAL AUTHORIZED (IF APPLICABLE):PRODUCTION TRIAL AUTHORIZATION #:
REASON(S) FOR INTERIM APPROVAL:
ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED, EXPECTED COMPLETION DATE
(CLASSIFY AS ENGINEERING, DESIGN, PROCESS, OR OTHER):
ACTIONS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED DURING INTERIM PERIOD, EFFECTIVE DATE:
PROGRESS REVIEW DATE: DATE MATERIAL DUE AT PLANT:WHAT ACTIONS ARE TAKING PLACE TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE SUBMISSIONS WILL CONFORMTO BULK MATERIAL PPAP REQUIREMENTS BY THE SAMPLE PROMISE DATE?
PHONE:
(PRINT NAME) DATE:
CUSTOMER APPROVALS (as needed): PHONE: DATE:
PRODUCT ENG. (SIGNATURE)
(PRINT NAME)
MATERIALS ENG. (SIGNATURE)
(PRINT NAME)
QUALITY ENG. (SIGNATURE)
(PRINT NAME)
INTERIM APPROVAL NUMBER:
ORGANIZATION (VENDOR) NAME:
ORGANIZATION (VENDOR) CODE:
STATUS: (NR - Not Required, A - Approved, I - Interim)
SUPPLIER (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE)
March THE-1002 2006
PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE NOTIFICATION
To: Customer: CUSTOMER DIVISION
Organization Part Number: Engineering Revision Level: Dated:
Customer Part Number: NUMBER Engineering Revision Level: ECL Dated: ECL DATE
Purchase Order Number: Safety and/or Government Regulation:
Application: APPLICATION
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION
Name: ORGANIZATION Code: CODEStreet Address: ADDRESSCity, State, Zip: CITY STATE ZIP Change Type (check all that apply)
Customer Plants Affected:
Design Responsibility:
Organization Change That May Affect End Item:
Expected PPAP Completion / Submission Date:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE:
Planned Date of Implementation:
DECLARATION:
Explanation/Comments:
NAME: TITLE:
BUSINESS PHONE NO: FAX NO:
E-MAIL: DATE:
NOTE: Please submit this notification at least 6 weeks prior to the planned change implementation!
Contact your customer to determine if this form is available in an electronic format or if this form should be faxed.
Complete this form and e-mail to your customer organization whenever customer notification is required by the PPAP Manual in Table 3.1. Your customer will respond back with an acknowledgement and may request additional change clarification or PPAP submission requirements.
I hereby certify that representative samples will be manufactured using the revised product and/or process and verified, where appropriate, for dimensional change, appearance change, physical property change, functionally for performance and durability. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for customer review.
Dimensional
Functional
Materials
AppearanceCustomer Organization
Product Change Engineering Drawing Change New or Revised Subcomponent
March THE-1001 2006
Truck Industry Part Submission WarrantPart Name NAME Customer Part Number NUMBER Rev.
If applicable
Tool PO Number Engineering Drawing Change Level ECL Dated
Additional Engineering Changes Dated
Shown on Drawing Number Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
Checking Aid Number Engineering Change Level Dated
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SUBMISSION INFORMATION
ORGANIZATION CODE CUSTOMER DIVISIONOrganization Name and Code Customer Name/Division
ADDRESSStreet Address Customer Contact
CITY STATE ZIP APPLICATIONCity State Zip Application
Note: Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances?
Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes?
REASON FOR SUBMISSION
Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or Additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify
REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)
Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer.
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
(check)
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufacturing location.
DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts and have been made to the applicable customer
drawings and specifications and are made from specified materials on regular production tooling with no operations other than the regular
production process. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for review.
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
List Molds / Cavities / Production Processes
Organization Authorized Signature Date
Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.
Title E-Mail
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY
PPAP Warrant Disposition:
Comment:
Customer Signature Date
Print Name
Approved RejectedInterim Approval
Yes No
Yes No
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
March CFG-1001 2006
Part Submission WarrantPart Name NAME Cust. Part Number NUMBER
Shown on Drawing Number Org. Part Number
Engineering Change Level ECL Dated ECL DATE
Additional Engineering Changes Dated
Safety and/or Government Regulation Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
Checking Aid Number Checking Aid Eng. Change Level Dated
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
ORGANIZATION CODE CUSTOMER DIVISIONSupplier Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Customer Name/Division
ADDRESSStreet Address Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY STATE ZIP APPLICATIONCity Region Postal Code Country Application
MATERIALS REPORTING
Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported?
Submitted by IMDS or other customer format:
Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes?
REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one)
Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify
REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)
Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer.
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at organization's manufacturing location.
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for
These results meet all design record requirements: (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered?
Organization Authorized Signature Date
Print Name Phone No. 555-555-5555 Fax No.
Title E-mail
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)
PPAP Warrant Disposition:
Customer Signature Date
Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, which were made by a process that meets all Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples were produced at the production rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your review. I have noted any deviation from this declaration below.
Yes NOdimensional measurementsmaterial and functional testsappearance criteriastatistical process package
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Approved Rejected Other
n/a
Yes No n/a