Growing your business comes down to basic multiplication- -just make sure you add in the human factor.
By Robert Kiyosaki Entrepreneur Magazine - April 2008
One of the biggest dilemmas you will face after you get your business up and running is the decision to either grow or stay small. Obviously, most entrepreneurs opt to keep their businesses small because it's much easier to control and manage a small business. And that's because growth requires people. As my rich dad often said, "Business would be easy if not for people." If you choose to grow your business, being able to lead and manage people is one of the most important skills you can possess.
As the number of people grows, the number of relationships grows--and grows exponentially once you have four people in the business. For example, a one-person business has zero relationships; add a second person, and the relationship dynamic kicks in. Add another person: three people and three relationships. But look what happens with the fourth person: four people and six relationships. Visualize each person as a dot, and draw a connecting line between each of the dots. You'll see that with four people, you'll have six connecting lines. Take it a few steps further and do the math: Seven people equals 21 relationships; 100 people means 4,950 relationships!
Many businesses grow by adding employees, then contract because they fail to grow internal communications systems and procedures. Instead of employees working together as a team to serve their customers, the exponential number of relationships causes internal chaos.
One of the problems with exponential growth of relationships is that it requires managers and leaders with exceptional people skills. But many entrepreneurs make the mistake of hiring team members that have great technical skills but lack equally great people, communication and leadership skills.
A few years ago, I brought on a brilliant attorney who was great at practicing law but absolutely horrible when it came to working with people. It was soon obvious to me that this attorney should only be in a windowless, one-person office and kept far away from contact with any other living creature. It took nearly a year to repair the damage this single brilliant technician did in just four months.
Before adding employees, you must honestly answer the following questions:
How are my/their leadership skills?
How are my/their organizational skills?
How are my/their people skills?
Then it all comes back to the age-old question: "How do you find great people?"
To answer this, I turn to my good friend Donald Trump, who says, "Set the example and you will be a magnet for the right people." That means doing what you say you will do, holding yourself to the highest standards, working to exceed expectations, learning from your mistakes and then sharing those lessons with others.
Robert Kiyosaki(richdad. com), author of the Rich Dad series of books, is an investor, entrepreneur and educator whose perspectives have changed the way people think about money and investing.
Showing posts with label Production Engg.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Production Engg.. Show all posts
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Automotive Supply Chain Management: As Good As It Gets?
Many observers agree that the automotive industry is running its supply chain well. They also agree there's room for improvement.
By Larry Gould, Contributing Editor
The best Tier 1 suppliers, come "very, very close to 100% perfect orders," says Scott Lundstrom, chief technology officer, AMR Research (Boston, MA). They score perfect deliveries 98% to 99% of the time. Yet a 90% perfect-order score, unheard of in any other industry AMR surveyed, is considered a "failing grade" in automotive. Moreover, the difference in a supplier's "strong" performance versus another supplier's "weak" performance, as measured by perfect-order fulfillment, is a mere 6%. "That is the equivalent between an A+ and a C-. That's how demanding the automotive environment is." exclaims Lundstrom. "The demand is not so much about being an excellent supply chain company. The demand is about what's next."
Being "perfect"
In technological terms, according to AMR, the better automotive Tier 1 suppliers use more packaged software applications and system. They also use "slightly more" e-business, though Lundstrom admits this is deceiving because "automotive has shared data for many years to a degree that's unprecedented in most other industries."
More important, the major difference between "strong" and "weak"—"best" and "worst"—lies in the supplier's commitment to "best practices." The best suppliers are focused on process excellence. They insert technology where they've already improved processes to minimize costs. "Best practices are things that people do," says Lundstrom (emphasis added). Unfortunately, not everybody quite understands this. Too many suppliers struggling to better their perfect-order performance, continues Lundstrom, have "bought into the notion that somehow they can implement their way into a better supply chain. They can not. Technology helps, but technology does not fix fundamental, underlying business process problems in the supply chain."
So forget about silver-bullet software implementations.
"Best" suppliers are also focused on supplier integration, on what and how data are shared up and down the supply chain. For example, an OEM will fully disclose order information and inventory requirements to a Tier 1 as soon as the OEM knows those requirements. The Tier 1 will then fully disclose that information to its Tier 2 suppliers.
"Automotive is an anomaly. You don't find too many supply chains operating with the same purposefulness and degree of information exchange," says Lundstrom.
Of course, this all comes as a double-edged sword. Technology costs. Perfection has a price. There's a fine balance between retaining customers and destroying profit margins. AMR found that the difference in total supply chain management (SCM) costs between the "best" and "worst" automotive suppliers is half the cost. Expressed as a percent of revenue, 20% of the revenue of a Tier 1 automotive supplier is the difference in SCM costs between the best and worst performers.
Given such "perfection, " what should the automotive industry look for to improve its supply chain? "It's not so much whose supply chain automotive should model, but whose business model automotive should adopt," says Lundstrom. Which leads to a discussion about automotive's physical supply chain. But first, let's address two other automotive supply chains.
The design supply chain
According to Detroit-based CIMdata, the automotive industry has a design (or intellectual property) supply chain. There, says Ken Amann, CIMdata's director of research, the automotive industry is making progress in effective integration. But it still has a ways to go.
OEMs and Tier 1s are aggressively pursuing what CIMdata calls "collaborative product development"— collaborative product design and design chain management, which includes such basic issues as working with suppliers, sharing designs and design activities, and realizing that they're not going to do it all themselves. The larger issue in outsourcing design work is in bringing people together more effectively into the overall environment so that all can be managed more effectively.
Such collaboration is not just a technology issue. It's also an operational issue, which involves cultural, organizational, and ownership issues, says Amann. "The technologies provided by the product lifecycle management suppliers are the enablers that allow these collaborative environments to happen. You can't just put the environment out there and expect it to work." For example, how do OEMs and suppliers handle design review-and-approval processes, as well as security and privacy issues? Guaranteed, now that these processes involve different companies, organizational structures, and people, you can't assume the processes are going to work the way they have in the past.
The customer data supply chain
Another challenge, according to Bob Pethick, lead director for automotive and industrial for Pittiglio Rabin Todd & McGrath's at its Detroit office, is in accessing customer data that's meaningful to help drive the supply chain. To date, most automotive customer data reside in dealer management systems, which "are contracted, bought, and paid for by the dealers themselves," says Pethick. "Dealers have been very protective about their customer data, especially since the OEMs a few years ago announced they were going to try to disintermediate the dealer chain."
The solution here is basically to reengineer the entire OEM-to-dealer systems architecture. The goal is to enable better sharing and, adds Pethick, "to figure out how to create processes and data that will let [both OEMs and dealers] mine and use the data to gain competitive position."
Changing the supply chain model
Now for the big-ticket item ripe for change. The automotive industry runs its supply chain "relatively efficiently, " says Karen Peterson, vice president and research director at Stamford-based Gartner. However, she's quick to point out that "efficiently" does not necessarily equate to "well."
Therein lies the rub. The auto industry is very efficient at mass production, at pushing cars out to be sold. "That efficiency is no longer a competitive advantage. It no longer equates to growth," explains Peterson. Mass production is no longer a "best practice" when the goal is to service customers or, at the very least, to implement some form of mass customization.
Pethick states it another way. The automotive industry operates its supply chain well "given that they are limiting themselves to a very introspective model for supply chains—a ‘push' supply chain as opposed to a ‘pull' supply chain. They're very good at optimizing a suboptimal model."
Worse, notes Peterson, the industry might be "as effective as possible, but it also might be building things people don't want." The industry over builds and offers incentives—discounts and rebates—thereby losing money on each car that never should have built in the first place. "That's not very smart," laughs Peterson.
"The industry is paying customers to take the product at a discount because it's not exactly what the customer wanted," reiterates Pethick. He contrasts this to the build-to-order business: "Customers pay extra for product because they are so enthusiastic about the service."
Moving toward mass customization, though, is "causing huge challenges," says Peterson. The industry "has to change its entire perspective so that the pull signal is coming from the customer rather than from some way arbitrarily determined by the OEM." In short, says Peterson, the automotive industry has to change the whole way it operates its supply chain, including the industry's mindset toward customers. "Sure we're seeing information sharing in the automotive supply chain. It's just not being done to support new change processes," she says. For example, the industry needs to focus on building to, if not "Quantity One," at least to customer requirements. "We might not build to a ‘customer of one,' but let's have a better understanding of what the customers' requirements are and build to those requirements at some level of aggregation. " While today's locate-to-order is "a good step ahead," says Peterson, "it's not the end state."
A better way?
What would be a perfect end state? Think of the design-to-order program at Bob's Store, which lets you design your own chinos and jeans with the help of technology. Customer cost: Forty bucks. (Trawl over to http://www.bobsmade 2order.com/ cgi-bin/bobs. pl. For more details, go to the "tier 1"—Archetype Solutions, Inc. (Emeryville, CA)—at http://www.archetyp e-solutions. com/.) Lands' End has a similar program for chinos. And check out the Nike iD program (http://nikeid. nike.com) . There you can design a logo that Nike will fabricate onto your very own pair of Nike athletic shoes.
("That's the fashion industry," you huff. "Everyone knows that people will pay extra for good-looking, good-fitting clothes." Now think about all the people you know who consider their cars a fashion statement.)
What's a more realistic end state? "Move away from a single-mode mass production model to a more flexible manufacturing supply chain," suggests Pethick. "Maintain the mass production model for high-volume vehicles, but have separate supply chains, even separate types of plants, geared to lower-volume niche markets, niche-product supply chains." Of course, admits Pethick, this will involve reengineering the basic capability and flexibility of the automotive assembly process.
"You have to treat supply chain performance just like you treat manufacturing quality," concludes Lundstrom. "You have to create continuous improvement programs, meaning you have to monitor and manage and adapt yourself on an ongoing basis."
What Makes a "Perfect Order"?
A recent study by AMR Research defines several ways automotive orders can be "imperfect." They can be late, contain poor quality, damaged, or incorrect parts, contain the incorrect quantity, or they can be the correct parts but incorrectly labeled. A perfect order, says Scott Lundstrom, AMR's chief technology officer, "is absolutely exactly what the customer ordered. Right quality, right timing, right delivery.
"Anyone in the automotive industry that isn't [an excellent supplier] is already dead."
By Larry Gould, Contributing Editor
The best Tier 1 suppliers, come "very, very close to 100% perfect orders," says Scott Lundstrom, chief technology officer, AMR Research (Boston, MA). They score perfect deliveries 98% to 99% of the time. Yet a 90% perfect-order score, unheard of in any other industry AMR surveyed, is considered a "failing grade" in automotive. Moreover, the difference in a supplier's "strong" performance versus another supplier's "weak" performance, as measured by perfect-order fulfillment, is a mere 6%. "That is the equivalent between an A+ and a C-. That's how demanding the automotive environment is." exclaims Lundstrom. "The demand is not so much about being an excellent supply chain company. The demand is about what's next."
Being "perfect"
In technological terms, according to AMR, the better automotive Tier 1 suppliers use more packaged software applications and system. They also use "slightly more" e-business, though Lundstrom admits this is deceiving because "automotive has shared data for many years to a degree that's unprecedented in most other industries."
More important, the major difference between "strong" and "weak"—"best" and "worst"—lies in the supplier's commitment to "best practices." The best suppliers are focused on process excellence. They insert technology where they've already improved processes to minimize costs. "Best practices are things that people do," says Lundstrom (emphasis added). Unfortunately, not everybody quite understands this. Too many suppliers struggling to better their perfect-order performance, continues Lundstrom, have "bought into the notion that somehow they can implement their way into a better supply chain. They can not. Technology helps, but technology does not fix fundamental, underlying business process problems in the supply chain."
So forget about silver-bullet software implementations.
"Best" suppliers are also focused on supplier integration, on what and how data are shared up and down the supply chain. For example, an OEM will fully disclose order information and inventory requirements to a Tier 1 as soon as the OEM knows those requirements. The Tier 1 will then fully disclose that information to its Tier 2 suppliers.
"Automotive is an anomaly. You don't find too many supply chains operating with the same purposefulness and degree of information exchange," says Lundstrom.
Of course, this all comes as a double-edged sword. Technology costs. Perfection has a price. There's a fine balance between retaining customers and destroying profit margins. AMR found that the difference in total supply chain management (SCM) costs between the "best" and "worst" automotive suppliers is half the cost. Expressed as a percent of revenue, 20% of the revenue of a Tier 1 automotive supplier is the difference in SCM costs between the best and worst performers.
Given such "perfection, " what should the automotive industry look for to improve its supply chain? "It's not so much whose supply chain automotive should model, but whose business model automotive should adopt," says Lundstrom. Which leads to a discussion about automotive's physical supply chain. But first, let's address two other automotive supply chains.
The design supply chain
According to Detroit-based CIMdata, the automotive industry has a design (or intellectual property) supply chain. There, says Ken Amann, CIMdata's director of research, the automotive industry is making progress in effective integration. But it still has a ways to go.
OEMs and Tier 1s are aggressively pursuing what CIMdata calls "collaborative product development"— collaborative product design and design chain management, which includes such basic issues as working with suppliers, sharing designs and design activities, and realizing that they're not going to do it all themselves. The larger issue in outsourcing design work is in bringing people together more effectively into the overall environment so that all can be managed more effectively.
Such collaboration is not just a technology issue. It's also an operational issue, which involves cultural, organizational, and ownership issues, says Amann. "The technologies provided by the product lifecycle management suppliers are the enablers that allow these collaborative environments to happen. You can't just put the environment out there and expect it to work." For example, how do OEMs and suppliers handle design review-and-approval processes, as well as security and privacy issues? Guaranteed, now that these processes involve different companies, organizational structures, and people, you can't assume the processes are going to work the way they have in the past.
The customer data supply chain
Another challenge, according to Bob Pethick, lead director for automotive and industrial for Pittiglio Rabin Todd & McGrath's at its Detroit office, is in accessing customer data that's meaningful to help drive the supply chain. To date, most automotive customer data reside in dealer management systems, which "are contracted, bought, and paid for by the dealers themselves," says Pethick. "Dealers have been very protective about their customer data, especially since the OEMs a few years ago announced they were going to try to disintermediate the dealer chain."
The solution here is basically to reengineer the entire OEM-to-dealer systems architecture. The goal is to enable better sharing and, adds Pethick, "to figure out how to create processes and data that will let [both OEMs and dealers] mine and use the data to gain competitive position."
Changing the supply chain model
Now for the big-ticket item ripe for change. The automotive industry runs its supply chain "relatively efficiently, " says Karen Peterson, vice president and research director at Stamford-based Gartner. However, she's quick to point out that "efficiently" does not necessarily equate to "well."
Therein lies the rub. The auto industry is very efficient at mass production, at pushing cars out to be sold. "That efficiency is no longer a competitive advantage. It no longer equates to growth," explains Peterson. Mass production is no longer a "best practice" when the goal is to service customers or, at the very least, to implement some form of mass customization.
Pethick states it another way. The automotive industry operates its supply chain well "given that they are limiting themselves to a very introspective model for supply chains—a ‘push' supply chain as opposed to a ‘pull' supply chain. They're very good at optimizing a suboptimal model."
Worse, notes Peterson, the industry might be "as effective as possible, but it also might be building things people don't want." The industry over builds and offers incentives—discounts and rebates—thereby losing money on each car that never should have built in the first place. "That's not very smart," laughs Peterson.
"The industry is paying customers to take the product at a discount because it's not exactly what the customer wanted," reiterates Pethick. He contrasts this to the build-to-order business: "Customers pay extra for product because they are so enthusiastic about the service."
Moving toward mass customization, though, is "causing huge challenges," says Peterson. The industry "has to change its entire perspective so that the pull signal is coming from the customer rather than from some way arbitrarily determined by the OEM." In short, says Peterson, the automotive industry has to change the whole way it operates its supply chain, including the industry's mindset toward customers. "Sure we're seeing information sharing in the automotive supply chain. It's just not being done to support new change processes," she says. For example, the industry needs to focus on building to, if not "Quantity One," at least to customer requirements. "We might not build to a ‘customer of one,' but let's have a better understanding of what the customers' requirements are and build to those requirements at some level of aggregation. " While today's locate-to-order is "a good step ahead," says Peterson, "it's not the end state."
A better way?
What would be a perfect end state? Think of the design-to-order program at Bob's Store, which lets you design your own chinos and jeans with the help of technology. Customer cost: Forty bucks. (Trawl over to http://www.bobsmade 2order.com/ cgi-bin/bobs. pl. For more details, go to the "tier 1"—Archetype Solutions, Inc. (Emeryville, CA)—at http://www.archetyp e-solutions. com/.) Lands' End has a similar program for chinos. And check out the Nike iD program (http://nikeid. nike.com) . There you can design a logo that Nike will fabricate onto your very own pair of Nike athletic shoes.
("That's the fashion industry," you huff. "Everyone knows that people will pay extra for good-looking, good-fitting clothes." Now think about all the people you know who consider their cars a fashion statement.)
What's a more realistic end state? "Move away from a single-mode mass production model to a more flexible manufacturing supply chain," suggests Pethick. "Maintain the mass production model for high-volume vehicles, but have separate supply chains, even separate types of plants, geared to lower-volume niche markets, niche-product supply chains." Of course, admits Pethick, this will involve reengineering the basic capability and flexibility of the automotive assembly process.
"You have to treat supply chain performance just like you treat manufacturing quality," concludes Lundstrom. "You have to create continuous improvement programs, meaning you have to monitor and manage and adapt yourself on an ongoing basis."
What Makes a "Perfect Order"?
A recent study by AMR Research defines several ways automotive orders can be "imperfect." They can be late, contain poor quality, damaged, or incorrect parts, contain the incorrect quantity, or they can be the correct parts but incorrectly labeled. A perfect order, says Scott Lundstrom, AMR's chief technology officer, "is absolutely exactly what the customer ordered. Right quality, right timing, right delivery.
"Anyone in the automotive industry that isn't [an excellent supplier] is already dead."
PPAP Approval
The result of the PPAP process is a series of documents gathered in one specific location (a binder or electronically) called the "PPAP Package". The PPAP package is a series of documents which need a formal approval by the supplier and customer. The form that summarizes this package is called PSW (Part Submission Warrant). The approval of the PSW indicates that the supplier responsible person (usually the Quality Engineer) has reviewed this package and that the customer has not identified any issues that would prevent its approval.
The documentation on the PPAP package is closely related to the Advanced Product Quality Planning process (APQP) used during the design and development of new vehicles and component systems to reduce the risk of unexpected failure due to errors in design and manufacture. The PPAP manual is published by the Automotive Industrial Action Group (AIAG), [www.aiag.org] and specifies generic requirements for obtaining PPAP approvals. Additional customer specific requirements may be imposed by particular clients (vehicle manufacturers) and incorporated in the purchasing contracts. Details of 'customer specific' requirements may be found on the AIAG website http://www.aiag. org or supplier portals provided by the vehicle manufacturers.
Suppliers are required to obtain PPAP approval from the vehicle manufacturers whenever a new or modified component is introduced to production, or the manufacturing process is changed. Obtaining approval requires the supplier to provide sample parts and documentary evidence showing that:
1) The clients requirements have been understood2) The product supplied meets those requirements3) The process (including sub suppliers) is capable of producing conforming product4) The production control plan and quality management system will prevent non-conforming product reaching the client or compromising the safety and reliability of finished vehicles
Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) may be required for all components and materials incorporated in the finished product, and may also be required if components are processed by external sub-contractors.
PPAP Elements
Below is the list of all 18 elements, and a brief description of them.
1. Design Records A copy of the drawing. If the customer is design responsible this is a copy of customer drawing that is sent together with the Purchase Order (PO). If supplier is design responsible this is a released drawing in supplier's release system.
2. Authorized Engineering Change Documents A document that shows the detailed description of the change. Usually this document is called "Engineering Change Notice", but it may be covered by the customer PO or any other engineering authorization.
3. Engineering Approval This approval is usually the Engineering trial with production parts performed at the customer plant. A "temporary deviation" usually is required to send parts to customer before PPAP. Customer may require other "Engineering Approvals".
4. DFMEA A copy of the Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (DFMEA), reviewd and signed-off by supplier and customer. If customer is design responsible, usually customer may not share this document with the supplier. However, the list of all critical or high impact product characteristics should be shared with the supplier, so they can be addressed on the PFMEA and Control Plan.
5. Process Flow Diagram A copy of the Process Flow, indicating all steps and sequence in the fabrication process, including incoming components.
6. PFMEA A copy of the Process Failure Mode and Effect Analyis (PFMEA), reviewed and signed-off by supplier and customer. The PFMEA follows the Process Flow steps, and indicate "what could go wrong" during the fabrication and assembly of each component.
7. Control Plan A copy of the Control Plan, reviewed and signed-off by supplier and customer. The Control Plan follows the PFMEA steps, and provides more details on how the "potential issues" are checked in the incoming quality, assembly process or during inspections of finished products.
8. Measurement System Analysis Studies (MSA)) MSA usually contains the Gage R&R for the critical or high impact characteristics, and a confirmation that gauges used to measure these characteristics are calibrated.
9. Dimensional Results A list of every dimension noted on the balloned drawing. This list shows the product characteristic, specification, the measurement results and the assessment showing if this dimension is "ok" or "not ok". Usually a minimum of 6 pieces is reported per product/process combination.
10. Records of Material / Performance Tests A summary of every test performed on the part. This summary is usually on a form of DVP&R (Design Verification Plan and Report), which lists each individual test, when it was performed, the specification, results and the assessment pass/fail. If there is an Engineering Specification, usually it is noted on the print. The DVP&R shall be reviewed and signed off by both customer and supplier engineering groups. The quality engineer will look for a customer signature on this document.
In addition, this section lists all material certifications (steel, plastics, plating, etc), as specified on the print. The material certification shall show compliance to the specific call on the print.
11. Initial Process Studies Usually this section shows all Statistical Process Control charts affecting the most critical characteristics. The intent is to demonstrate that critical processes have stable variability and that is running near the intended nominal value.
12. Qualified Laboratory Documentation Copy of all laboratory certifications (e.g. A2LA, TS) of the laboratories that performed the tests reported on section 10.
13. Appearance Approval Report A copy of the AAI (Appearance Approval Inspection) form signed by the customer. Applicable for components affecting appearance only.
14. Sample Production Parts A sample from the same lot of initial production run. The PPAP package usually shows a picture of the sample and where it is kept (customer or supplier).
15. Master Sample A sample signed off by customer and supplier, that usually is used to train operators on subjective inspections such as visual or for noise.
16. Checking Aids When there are special tools for checking parts, this section shows a picture of the tool and calibration records, including dimensional report of the tool.
17. Customer Specific Requirements Each customer may have specific requirements to be included on the PPAP package. It is a good practice to ask the customer for PPAP expectations before even quoting for a job. North America auto makers OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) requirements are listed on http://www.iaob. org website.
18. Part Submission Warrant (PSW) This is the form that summarizes the whole PPAP package. This form shows the reason for submission (design change, annual revalidation, etc) and the level of documents submitted to the customer. There is a section that asks for "results meeting all drawing and specification requirements: yes/no" refers to the whole package. If there is any deviations the supplier should note on the warrant or inform that PPAP cannot be submitted.
The documentation on the PPAP package is closely related to the Advanced Product Quality Planning process (APQP) used during the design and development of new vehicles and component systems to reduce the risk of unexpected failure due to errors in design and manufacture. The PPAP manual is published by the Automotive Industrial Action Group (AIAG), [www.aiag.org] and specifies generic requirements for obtaining PPAP approvals. Additional customer specific requirements may be imposed by particular clients (vehicle manufacturers) and incorporated in the purchasing contracts. Details of 'customer specific' requirements may be found on the AIAG website http://www.aiag. org or supplier portals provided by the vehicle manufacturers.
Suppliers are required to obtain PPAP approval from the vehicle manufacturers whenever a new or modified component is introduced to production, or the manufacturing process is changed. Obtaining approval requires the supplier to provide sample parts and documentary evidence showing that:
1) The clients requirements have been understood2) The product supplied meets those requirements3) The process (including sub suppliers) is capable of producing conforming product4) The production control plan and quality management system will prevent non-conforming product reaching the client or compromising the safety and reliability of finished vehicles
Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) may be required for all components and materials incorporated in the finished product, and may also be required if components are processed by external sub-contractors.
PPAP Elements
Below is the list of all 18 elements, and a brief description of them.
1. Design Records A copy of the drawing. If the customer is design responsible this is a copy of customer drawing that is sent together with the Purchase Order (PO). If supplier is design responsible this is a released drawing in supplier's release system.
2. Authorized Engineering Change Documents A document that shows the detailed description of the change. Usually this document is called "Engineering Change Notice", but it may be covered by the customer PO or any other engineering authorization.
3. Engineering Approval This approval is usually the Engineering trial with production parts performed at the customer plant. A "temporary deviation" usually is required to send parts to customer before PPAP. Customer may require other "Engineering Approvals".
4. DFMEA A copy of the Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (DFMEA), reviewd and signed-off by supplier and customer. If customer is design responsible, usually customer may not share this document with the supplier. However, the list of all critical or high impact product characteristics should be shared with the supplier, so they can be addressed on the PFMEA and Control Plan.
5. Process Flow Diagram A copy of the Process Flow, indicating all steps and sequence in the fabrication process, including incoming components.
6. PFMEA A copy of the Process Failure Mode and Effect Analyis (PFMEA), reviewed and signed-off by supplier and customer. The PFMEA follows the Process Flow steps, and indicate "what could go wrong" during the fabrication and assembly of each component.
7. Control Plan A copy of the Control Plan, reviewed and signed-off by supplier and customer. The Control Plan follows the PFMEA steps, and provides more details on how the "potential issues" are checked in the incoming quality, assembly process or during inspections of finished products.
8. Measurement System Analysis Studies (MSA)) MSA usually contains the Gage R&R for the critical or high impact characteristics, and a confirmation that gauges used to measure these characteristics are calibrated.
9. Dimensional Results A list of every dimension noted on the balloned drawing. This list shows the product characteristic, specification, the measurement results and the assessment showing if this dimension is "ok" or "not ok". Usually a minimum of 6 pieces is reported per product/process combination.
10. Records of Material / Performance Tests A summary of every test performed on the part. This summary is usually on a form of DVP&R (Design Verification Plan and Report), which lists each individual test, when it was performed, the specification, results and the assessment pass/fail. If there is an Engineering Specification, usually it is noted on the print. The DVP&R shall be reviewed and signed off by both customer and supplier engineering groups. The quality engineer will look for a customer signature on this document.
In addition, this section lists all material certifications (steel, plastics, plating, etc), as specified on the print. The material certification shall show compliance to the specific call on the print.
11. Initial Process Studies Usually this section shows all Statistical Process Control charts affecting the most critical characteristics. The intent is to demonstrate that critical processes have stable variability and that is running near the intended nominal value.
12. Qualified Laboratory Documentation Copy of all laboratory certifications (e.g. A2LA, TS) of the laboratories that performed the tests reported on section 10.
13. Appearance Approval Report A copy of the AAI (Appearance Approval Inspection) form signed by the customer. Applicable for components affecting appearance only.
14. Sample Production Parts A sample from the same lot of initial production run. The PPAP package usually shows a picture of the sample and where it is kept (customer or supplier).
15. Master Sample A sample signed off by customer and supplier, that usually is used to train operators on subjective inspections such as visual or for noise.
16. Checking Aids When there are special tools for checking parts, this section shows a picture of the tool and calibration records, including dimensional report of the tool.
17. Customer Specific Requirements Each customer may have specific requirements to be included on the PPAP package. It is a good practice to ask the customer for PPAP expectations before even quoting for a job. North America auto makers OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) requirements are listed on http://www.iaob. org website.
18. Part Submission Warrant (PSW) This is the form that summarizes the whole PPAP package. This form shows the reason for submission (design change, annual revalidation, etc) and the level of documents submitted to the customer. There is a section that asks for "results meeting all drawing and specification requirements: yes/no" refers to the whole package. If there is any deviations the supplier should note on the warrant or inform that PPAP cannot be submitted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)