Core Tools Forms V5d

Core Tools Forms Disc V5d
Copyright © 2010 March Quality Services
Part Name NAME

Part Number NUMBER
Engineering Change Level ECL
Engineering Change Level Date ECL DATE
Organization Name ORGANIZATION

Organization Code CODE
Street Address ADDRESS
City CITY
State STATE
Zip ZIP
Phone Number 555-555-5555
Customer Name CUSTOMER

Division DIVISION
Application APPLICATION
File Name FILE.XLS
For sales and technical support contact AIAG at 1-248-358-3570

THE FOLLOWING EDITIONS OF CORE TOOLS MANUALS WERE USED TO PREPARE THIS FILE
MANUAL FORMS FROM MANUAL EDITION PRINTING

ADVANCED PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING AND CONTROL PLAN Second Jul-08
REFERENCE MANUAL
A-1 Design FMEA Checklist
A-2 Design Information Checklist
A-3 New Equipment, Tooling, and Test Equipment Checklist
A-4 Product /Process Quality Checklist
A-5 Floor Plan Checklist
A-6 Process Flow Chart Checklist
A-7 Process FMEA Checklist
A-8 Control Plan Checklist
Team Feasibility Commitment
Product Quality Planning and Approvals
Control Plan
Control Plan Special Characteristics
Data Point Coordinates
Characteristics Matrix
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS Fourth Jun-10
Attribute Gage Bias Report
GR&R Attribute Hypothesis Test Method
GR&R Variable TV Method
GR&R Variable Tolerance Method
GR&R Anova Method
GR&R Graphical Analysis
GR&R X-Bar & R Method
Gage R Study
POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS Fourth Jun-08
DFMEA Form A
DFMEA Form B
DFMEA Form C
DFMEA Form D
DFMEA Form E
DFMEA Form F
PFMEA Form A
PFMEA Form B
PFMEA Form C
PFMEA Form D
PFMEA Form E
PFMEA Form F
PFMEA Form G
PFMEA Form H
Flow Chart (Version 3)
PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL Fourth Mar-06
Design Matrix
Dimensional Test Results
Material Test Results
Performance Test Results
Appearance Approval Report
Bulk Materials Requirements Checklist
Bulk Material Interim Approval Form
Truck - Product/Process Change Notification
Truck - Part Submission Warrant
Part Submission Warrant
ADDITIONAL FORMS
MFMEA Format 1
MFMEA Format 2
Part History
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer or Internal Part No. NUMBER Revision Level
Person
Question Yes No N/A Comment / Action Required
Responsible
1 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?
2 Have historical campaign and warranty data been

reviewed?
3 Have best practices and lessons learned from
similar part DFMEAs been considered?
4 Does the DFMEA identify Special
Characteristics?
5 Have pass-through characteristics (glossary)
been identified and reviewed with affected
suppliers for FMEA alignment and appropriate
controls in the supply base?
6 Have special characteristics designated by the
customer or organization been reviewed with
affected suppliers to assure FMEA alignment?
7 Have design characteristics that affect high risk
priority failure modes been identified?
8 Have appropriate corrective actions been
assigned to high risk priority numbers?
9 Have appropriate corrective actions been
assigned to high severity numbers?
10 Have risk priorities been revised when corrective
actions have been completed and verified?
Revision Date:
Page 3 of 119
A-1 DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 4 of 119
DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 5 of 119
DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 6 of 119
A-2 DESIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
A. General
1 Does the design require:
a l New materials?
b l Special tooling?
c l New technology or process?
2 Has assembly build variation analysis been

considered?
3 Has Design of Experiments been considered?
4 Is there a plan for prototypes in place?
5 Has a DFMEA been completed?
6 Has a DFMA (Design For Manufacturability and

Assembly) been completed?
7 Have service and maintenance issues been
considered?
8 Has the Design Verification Plan been
considered?
9 If yes, was it completed by a cross functional
team?
10 Are all specified tests, methods, equipment and
acceptance criteria clearly defined and
understood?
Page 7 of 119
Person
Responsible
11 Have Special Characteristics been selected?
/
12 Is bill of material complete?
/
13 Are Special Characteristics properly
documented?
B. Engineering Drawings
14 Are reference dimensions identified to minimize
inspection layout time?
15 Are sufficient control points and datum surfaces
identified to design functional gages?
16 Are tolerances compatible with accepted
manufacturing standards?
17 Can existing and available inspection technology
measure all design requirements?
18 Is the customer designated engineering change
management process used to manage
engineering changes?
C. Engineering Performance Specifications
19 Have special characteristics been identified?
20 Are test parameters sufficient to address required

use conditions, i.e., production validation and end
use?
Page 8 of 119
Person
Responsible
21 Have parts manufactured at minimum and
maximum specifications been tested as required?
22 Will all product testing be done in-house?

/
23 If not, is it done by an approved supplier?
/
24 Is the specified in-process performance test
sampling size and/or frequency consistent with
manufacturing volumes?
25 Has customer approval been obtained, e.g., for
testing and documentation, as required?
D. Material Specification
26 Are special material characteristics identified?
/
27 Where the organization is design responsible, are
specified materials, heat treat and surface
treatments compatible with the durability
requirements in the identified environment?
28 Where required, are the material suppliers on the
customer approved list?
29 Has the organization developed and implemented
a process to control incoming material quality?
30 Have material characteristics requiring inspection

been identified?
If so,
Page 9 of 119
Person
Responsible
a l Will characteristics be checked in-house?
/
b l If checked in house, is test equipment
available?
c l If checked in house, are competent people
available to assure accurate testing?
31 Will outside laboratories be used?
/
a 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.
32 Have the following material requirements been
considered:
a l Handling, including environmental aspects?
b Storage, including environmental aspects?

l
/
c l Have the materials/substance composition
been reported in accordance with customer
requirements e.g., IMDS?
d l Have polymeric parts been identified/marked
per customer requirements?
Revision Date
Page 10 of 119
Person
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 11 of 119
SIGN INFORMATION CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 12 of 119
Due
Date
Page 13 of 119
Due
Date
Page 14 of 119
Due
Date
Page 15 of 119
Due
Date
Page 16 of 119
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
1 Does the design require:
a l New materials?
/
b l Quick change?
/
c l Volume fluctuations?
/
d Mistake proofing?
l
/
2 Have lists been prepared identifying (include all
suppliers)?:
a l New equipment?
/
b l New tooling?
/
c l New test equipment (including checking
aids)?
3 Has acceptance criteria been agreed upon for
(include all suppliers):
a l New equipment?
/
b l New tooling?
/
c l New test equipment (including checking
aids)?
4 Will a preliminary capability study be conducted at
the tooling and/or equipment manufacturer?
Page 17 of 119
A-3 NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
5 Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been
established?
6 Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for
equipment and tooling?
7 Are setup instructions for new equipment and
tooling complete and understandable?
8 Will capable gages be available to run preliminary
process capability studies at the equipment
supplier's facility?
9 Will preliminary process capability studies be run
at the processing plant?
10 Have process characteristics that affect special
product characteristics been identified?
11 Were special product characteristics used in
determining acceptance criteria?
12 Does the manufacturing equipment have
sufficient capacity to handle forecasted
production and service volumes?
13 Is testing capacity sufficient to provide adequate
testing?
14 Has the measurement equipment been verified
and documented showing qualification for the
required scope of measurement and testing?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 18 of 119
TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 19 of 119
TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 20 of 119
A-4 PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
1 Is customer assistance or approval required for
the development of the control plan?
2 Has the organization identified who will be the
quality liaison with the customer?
3 Has the organization identified who will be the
quality liaison with its suppliers?
4 Has the quality management system been
reviewed and approved per customer specific
requirements?
5
Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:
a l Control plan requirements?

/
b l Layout inspection?
/
c l Engineering performance testing?
/
d l Problem reaction and resolution analysis?
/
6 Is there a documented training program that:
a l Includes all employees?
/
b l Lists whose been trained?
/
c l Provides a training schedule?
/
7 Has training been completed for:
a l Statistical process control?
/
b l Capability studies?
/
Page 21 of 119
Person
Responsible
c l Problem solving?
/
d l Mistake proofing?
/
e l Reaction plans?
f Other topics as identified?

l
/
8 Is each operation provided with process
instructions that are keyed to the control plan?
9 Are standard operator instructions accessible at
each work station?
10 Do operator instructions include pictures ad
diagrams?
11 Were operator/team leaders involved in
developing standard operator instructions?
12 Do inspection instructions include:
a l Easily understood engineering performance
specifications?
b l Test frequencies?
/
c l Sample sizes?
/
d l Reaction plans?
/
e l Documentation requirements?
13 Are visual aids:

a l Appropriate, easily understood and legible?
b l Available?
/
Page 22 of 119
Person
Responsible
c l Accessible? /
d l Approved?
/
e lDated and current?
/
14 Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and
establish reaction plans for issues such as out of
control conditions based on statistical process
control?
15 Is there an identified problem solving process that
includes root cause analysis?
16 Are the latest drawings and specifications
available for the operator, in particular at the
points of the inspection?
a l Have engineering tests (dimensional,
material, appearance, and performance) been
completed and documented as required in
accordance with customer requirements?
17 Are the current forms/logs available for
appropriate personnel to record inspection
results?
18 Are the following available and placed at the
appropriate points of the operation?
a l Monitoring and measurement devices?
b l Gage instructions?
/
c l Reference samples?
/
d l Inspection logs? /
Page 23 of 119
Person
Responsible
19 Have provisions been made to certify and
calibrate gages and test equipment at a defined
frequency that is appropriate?
20 Have required measurement system capability
studies been:
a l Completed?
/
b l Accepted?
21 Have initial process capability studies been

conducted per customer requirements?
22 Are layout inspection equipment and facilities
adequate to provide initial and ongoing layout of
all details and components in accordance with
customer requirements?
23 Is there a documented procedure for controlling
incoming material that may include, for example,
the following items:
a l Characteristics to be inspected?
/
b l Frequency of
inspection? /
c l Sample size? /
d Designated location for approved product?

l
/
e l Disposition of nonconforming products?
/
24 Have sample production parts been provided per
customer requirements?
Page 24 of 119
Person
Responsible
25 Is there a procedure to identify, segregate, and
control nonconforming products to prevent
shipment?
26 Are rework/repair procedures available to assure
conforming product?
27 Is there a procedure to requalify
repaired/reworked material?
28 Has a master sample, if required, been retained
as part of the part approval process?
29 Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure?
30 Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned

and implemented?
31 Are periodic assessments of the quality system
planned and implemented?
32 Has the customer approved the packaging and
the packaging specification?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 25 of 119
CT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 26 of 119
Due
Date
Page 27 of 119
Due
Date
Page 28 of 119
Due
Date
Page 29 of 119
Due
Date
Page 30 of 119
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
1 Have lean concepts been applied in considering
material flow?
2 Does the floor plan identify all required process
and inspection points?
3 Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools,
and equipment at each operation been
considered?
4 Has sufficient space been allocated for all
equipment?
5 Are process and inspection areas:
a
l Of adequate
size? /
b l Properly lighted?
/
6 Do inspection areas contain necessary
equipment and record storage?
7 Are there adequate:
a
l Staging
areas? /
b l Impound
areas? /
8 Are inspection points located to prevent shipment
of nonconforming products?
9 Are there controls for each process to eliminate
contamination or inappropriate mixing of product?
10 Is material protected from overhead or air

handling systems contamination?
Page 31 of 119
A-5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
11 Have facilities been provided for final product
audit?
12 Are facilities adequate to control movement of
nonconforming incoming material?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 32 of 119
5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 33 of 119
5 FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 34 of 119
A-6 PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
1 Does the flow chart illustrate the entire process
from receiving through shipping, including outside
processes and services?
2 In the development of the process flow chart, was
the DFMEA used, if available, to identify specific
characteristics that may be critical?
3 Is the flow chart keyed to product and process
checks in the control plan and PFMEA?
4 Does the flow chart describe how the product will
move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?
5 Has the pull system/optimization been considered

for this process?
6 Have provisions been made to identify and
inspect reworked product before being used?
7 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.
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 35 of 119
CESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 36 of 119
A-7 PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
1 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?
2 Have all operations including subcontracted, or
outsourced processes and services been
considered?
3 Have all operations affecting customer
requirements including fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been
identified and listed sequentially?
4 Were similar part/process FMEA's considered?
5 Have historical campaign and warranty data been
reviewed and used in the analysis?
6 Have you applied the appropriate controls to
address all of the identified failure modes?
7 Were severity, detection and occurrence revised
when corrective action was completed?
8 Do the effects consider the customer in terms of
the subsequent operation, assembly, and
product?
9 Were customer plant problems used as an aid in
developing the Process FMEA?
10 Have the causes been described in terms of
something that can be corrected or controlled?
11 Have provisions been made to control the cause
of the failure mode prior to subsequent or the
next operation?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Page 37 of 119
PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 38 of 119
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
1 Was the control plan developed according to the
methodology described in Chapter 6 of this APQP
manual?
2 Have all the controls identified in the PFMEA
been included in the control plan?
3 Are all special product/process characteristics
included in the control plan?
4 Were DFMEA and PFMEA used to prepare the
control plan?
5 Are material specifications requiring inspection
identified?
6 Does the control plan address incoming
(material/components) through
processing/assembly including packaging?
7 Are engineering performance testing and
dimensional requirements identified?
8 Are gages and test equipment available as
required by the control plan?
9 If required, has the customer approved the
control plan?
10 Are the gage methodology and compatibility
appropriate to meet customer requirements?
10 Have measurement systems analysis been
completed in accordance with customer
requirements?
12 Are sample sizes based upon industry standards,
statistical sampling plan tables, or other statistical
process control methods or techniques?
Revision Date
Page 39 of 119
A-8 CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Person
Responsible
Prepared By:
Page 40 of 119
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 41 of 119
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Due
Date
Page 42 of 119
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT
Customer: CUSTOMER Date:
Part Number: NUMBER Part Name: NAME
Revision Level ECL
Feasibility Considerations
Our product quality planning team has considered the following questions.
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.
YES NO CONSIDERATION
Is product adequately defined (application requirements, etc. to enable
feasibility 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?
Can the product be manufactured within normal cost parameters? Abnormal cost
considerations may include:
- 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

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. CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required) APPROVED: YES / NO* DATE APPROVED
3. INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES

CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY QUANTITY
CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLES PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
DIMENSIONAL
VISUAL
LABORATORY
PERFORMANCE
4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS QUANTITY
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC
5. PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS
6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS
7. Approvals
TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE
* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.

PART HISTORY
Part Number Part Name
NUMBER NAME
Date Remarks
Page 45 of 119
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
Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

STEP
Operation or Event and Analysis Methods
Page 46 of 119
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
Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

STEP
Operation or Event and Analysis Methods
Page 47 of 119
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
PART NUMBER: NUMBER DATE:
PART DESCRIPTION: ECL: ECL
NAME PREPARED BY:
FABRICATION
INSPECT
STORE
MOVE
PRODUCT AND
ITEM #
ITEM #
OPERATION PROCESS CONTROL
STEP DESCRIPTION CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
Page 48 of 119
Process Flow Diagram
Department
Prod/Serv NAME ID Number Date
Sources of Variation Sources of Variation

(Experience-Based)
Sources of Variation (Results of this Step)
Operation 100% Operator

Storage Delay
or Activity Inspection (Full time)
Operation/Activity with Inspection Transportation (Part time)
Page 49 of 119
CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX
Part Number Engineering Change Level Part Name
NUMBER ECL NAME
C = Characteristic at an operation used for clamping

L = Characteristic at an operation used for locating
X = Characteristic created or changed by this operation should
match the process flow diagram form
DIMENSION OPERATION NUMBER

NUMBER DESCRIPTION TOLERANCE
Page 50 of 119
DESIGN MATRIX -
Product Code / Description: Project #:
POTENTIAL CAUSES FUNCTION - DESIRED ATTRIBUTES (POTENTIAL FAILURE MODES)
ROBUST THRESHOLD RANGE

Prelim. Special Characteristics
PROCESS ABILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL
FAILURE
UNITS
PERFORMANCE
CATEGORY /
APPEARANCE
CHARACTERISTICS
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS: HIGH = 3; MED = 2; LOW = 1; NONE = 0; UNKNOWN = ?

System POTENTIAL FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Subsystem (DESIGN FMEA) Prepared by:
Component; Design Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date FMEA Date (Rev.)
Core Team:
Item / Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Function
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Design Design Recommended & Target
RPN
Severity
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action Completion
Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Prevention Detection Date
Requirements
Page 52 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Item Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Detection
RPN
Severity
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Taken
RPN
Controls Controls Action(s) Completion
Function Prevention Detection Date
Page 53 of 119
Core Team:
Item / Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Function
Severity
Occurrence
Detection
RPN
Severity
RPN
Requirements
Page 54 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Item Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Detection
RPN
Severity
RPN
Controls Controls Action(s) Completion
Function Prevention Detection Date
Page 55 of 119
POTENTIAL
System FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Core Team:
Action Results
Current Detection
Classification
Occurrence
Item Responsibility
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Potential Potential Potential Design Controls
Detection
Controls Recommended & Target
RPN
Severity
Prevention Action(s) Completion
Function Date
Cause Failure Mode
Page 56 of 119
Action Results
RPN
Page 57 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Responsibility
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Completion
Item
Detection
Severity
Occurrence
Detection
Target
Design Design Recommended
Date
RPN
Severity
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Effective
RPN
Controls Controls Action(s)
Mode of Failure of Failure Taken Date
Function Prevention Detection
Page 58 of 119
POTENTIAL FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
(PROCESS FMEA) Prepared by:
Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION FMEA Date (Orig.)
Core Team:
Process Step Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
/ Function
Occurrence
Severity
Detection
Process Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
RPN
Requirements
Page 59 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential
Detection
Severity
RPN
RPN
Function
Page 60 of 119
Core Team:
Process Step Action Results
Classification
Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
/ Function
Occurrence
Severity
Detection
Severity
RPN
RPN
Requirements
Page 61 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Detection
Severity
RPN
RPN
Function
Page 62 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Current Current Detection
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Step Potential Potential Potential Process Controls
Detection
Process Recommended & Target
Severity
RPN
RPN
Controls Action Completion
Prevention Date
Function Cause Failure Mode
Page 63 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Responsibility
Classification
Occurrence
Completion
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Detection
Target
Process Process Recommended
RPN
Severity
Date
Requirements Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Actions Effective
RPN
Controls Controls Action
Mode of Failure of Failure Taken Date
Function Prevention Detection
Page 64 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Requirements Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Detection
Severity
RPN
RPN
ID Product Process Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Function
Page 65 of 119
Core Team:
Action Results
Classification
Process Requirements Current Current
Occurrence
Responsibility
Detection
Occurrence
Severity
Detection
Severity
RPN
RPN
ID Product Process Mode of Failure of Failure & Effective Date
Function
Page 66 of 119
System POTENTIAL
Subsystem (MACHINERY FMEA) 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 D
S l Potential c Machinery e R. Responsibility Action Results
Machinery Potential Potential
e a Causes(s)/ c Controls t P. Recommended & Target S O D R.
Function / Failure Effect(s)
v s Mechanism(s) u -Prevention e N. Action(s) Completion Actions e c e P.
Requirements Mode of Failure
of Failure Date Taken
s r -Detection c v c t N.
Page 67 of 119
System POTENTIAL
Subsystem (MACHINERY FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Component Supplier Name ORGANIZATION Prepared by:
Program(s) / Plant(s) Key Date Date (Orig.)
Core Team: Date (Rev.)
C O D
S l Potential c Current Current e R. Responsibility Action Results
Machinery Potential Potential
e a Causes(s)/ c Process Process t P. Recommended & Target S O D R.
Function / Failure Effect(s)
v s Mechanism(s) u Controls Controls e N. Action(s) Completion Actions e c e P.
Requirements Mode of Failure
of Failure Prevention Detection Date Taken
s r c v c t N.
Page 68 of 119
CONTROL PLAN
Prototype Pre-Launch ✘ Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone
FILE.XLS EUNICE 555-555-5555
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team
APLICATION Victor (Ingenieria) , Jaime (Produccion) , Ricardo (Materiales), Alberto(Mantenimiento)
Part Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date
APLICATION
Organization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
IBERO TOOLS 12345
MACHINE, CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
PART/ PROCESS NAME/ SPECIAL
DEVICE PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/
PROCESS OPERATION CHAR.
JIG, TOOLS
NUMBER DESCRIPTION NO. PRODUCT PROCESS CLASS SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
FOR MFG.
TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE
Instalación de Equipo de audio fijo

1 Equipo de Audio
N/A 1 N/A
en tablero base.
De acuerdo a Hoja de Proceso Visual
Conectividad de
Prueba de Control control remoto con
2 Remoto
N/A 2
direccion
N/A SC Alcance >10 mts. Prueba de Conectividad
electronica.
Page 69 of 119
CONTROL PLAN
Prototype Pre-Launch ✘ Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone
FILE.XLS EUNICE 555-555-5555
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team
APLICATION Victor (Ingenieria) , Jaime (Produccion) , Ricardo (Materiales), Alberto(Mantenimiento)
Part Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date
APLICATION
Organization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
IBERO TOOLS 12345
MACHINE, CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
PART/ PROCESS NAME/ SPECIAL
DEVICE PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/
PROCESS OPERATION CHAR.
JIG, TOOLS
NUMBER DESCRIPTION NO. PRODUCT PROCESS CLASS SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
FOR MFG.
TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE
Page 70 of 119
Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
1/1/2013 1/1/2013
Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
METHODS
SAMPLE REACTION
CONTROL PLAN
SIZE FREQ. METHOD
Cada
Hoja de Proceso
100% Equipo de
DPM-55-20
Audio
Procedimiento
Control de Material
No conforme DPM-
3312
De acuerdo a
descripcion de Cada control Registro de liberacion de
metodo DPM- remoto prueba DPM-32043
3385
Page 71 of 119
Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
1/1/2013 1/1/2013
Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
METHODS
SAMPLE REACTION
CONTROL PLAN
SIZE FREQ. METHOD
Page 72 of 119
CONTROL PLAN SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/2013 1/1/2013
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER ECL
Part Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NAME
Organization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ORGANIZATION CODE
No. Description/Rationale Specification/Tolerance Class Illustration/Pictorial
Page 73 of 119
DATA POINT COORDINATES
Control Plan No. FILE.XLS
Customer CUSTOMER Date(Orig): 1/1/2013 Date(Rev): 1/1/2013
Char. Point Char. Point Char. Point

X Y Z X Y Z X Y Z
No. Ident. No. Ident. No. Ident.
Page 74 of 119
Production Part Approval Page 75 of 119 Pages

ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZATION PART NUMBER: NUMBER
SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE:CODE PART NAME: NAME
INSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL
ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
DIMENSION / SPECIFICATION / TEST QTY. ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT NOT

ITEM OK
SPECIFICATION LIMITS DATE TESTED RESULTS (DATA) OK
Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
March CFG-1003
2006

SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE:CODE PART NAME: NAME
INSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL
ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:
DIMENSION / SPECIFICATION / TEST QTY. ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT NOT

ITEM OK
SPECIFICATION LIMITS DATE TESTED RESULTS (DATA) OK
March CFG-1003
2006

SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: CODE PART NAME: NAME
MATERIAL 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:
SPECIFICATION / TEST QTY. NOT
MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OK
LIMITS DATE TESTED OK
March CFG-1004
2006

MATERIAL SUPPLIER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code. NAME of LABORATORY:
SPECIFICATION / TEST QTY. NOT
MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OK
LIMITS DATE TESTED OK
March CFG-1004
2006

NAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.
SPECIFICATION / TEST QTY. SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ NOT

TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE OK
LIMITS DATE TESTED TEST CONDITIONS OK
March CFG-1005
2006

NAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL: ECL
*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.
SPECIFICATION / TEST QTY. SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ NOT

TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE OK
LIMITS DATE TESTED TEST CONDITIONS OK
March CFG-1005
2006
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT
PART DRAWING APPLICATION
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) APPLICATION
PART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE
NAME NAME CODE ECL
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING ADDRESS SUPPLIER / VENDOR
NAME ORGANIZATION LOCATION CITY STATE ZIP CODE CODE
REASON 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
CORRECT AND
PROCEED
CORRECT AND
PROCEED
APPROVED TO
ETCH/TOOL/EDM
COLOR EVALUATION
METALLIC 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
March CFG-1002
2006
ATTRIBUTE GAGE BIAS REPORT
ANALYTICAL METHOD - LOW LIMIT
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Date Performed
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# XT a P'a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked
1 0.000 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.000
3 0.000
4 0.000
5 0.000
6 0.000
7 0.000
8 0.000
9 0.000
FROM THE GRAPH

ENTER THE FOLLOWING:
XT (P=.5) =
XT (P=.995) =
XT (P=.005) =
Measurement Unit Analysis

Bias Repeatability
B = R =
= =
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R t0.025,19 = 2.093
=
=
Result
Page 82 of 119
ANALYTICAL METHOD - HIGH LIMIT
NUMBER
NAME
ATTRIBUTE DATA
# XT a P'a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked
1 0.025 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve
2 0.000
3 0.000
4 0.000
5 0.000
6 0.000
7 0.000
8 0.000
9 0.000
FROM THE GRAPH

ENTER THE FOLLOWING:
XT (P=.5) =
XT (P=.995) =
XT (P=.005) =
Measurement Unit Analysis

Bias Repeatability
B = R =
= =
t Statistic
t = 31.3 IBI / R t0.025,19 = 2.093
=
=
Result
Page 83 of 119
ANALYTICAL METHOD - GAGE PERFORMANCE CURVE
NUMBER
NAME
LOW LIMIT RESULTS* HIGH LIMIT RESULTS*

Bias Bias
GRR GRR
sGRR sGRR
*Curve can be generated from low or high limit results if symmetry is assumed.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000
REMARKS
Signature
Title Date
Page 84 of 119
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:D22
3) In the box for Input X Range select the cells ATT BIAS(Analytic)!B14:B22
4) In the box for Output range select the cells below A23:M60
5) Check Line Fit Plots
6) Press OK
7) Copy the Line Fit plot graph to the space on the Analytic sheet
8) Change the graph title to GPC - Low Side Normal Prob Paper
9) Change the x axis to Xt
10) Change the y axis to Probability
11) Repeat for high side data
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORT
ATTRIBUTE HYPOTHESIS TEST METHOD
Part Number Gage Name Date Performed Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Gage Type Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Upper Specification Lower Specification Appraiser C
DATA TABLE
Reference
PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Value Code
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
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Page 86 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
DATA TABLE CONTINUED

Reference
PART A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference Value Code
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Risk Analysis
A * B Crosstabulation
B
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
B * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
B
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Page 87 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
A * C Crosstabulation
C
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Kappa A B C
A -
B -
C -
DETERMINATION
AxB 0.75 or higher indicates good agreement
AxC Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreement
BxC Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement
A * REF Crosstabulation
REF
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
A
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
Page 88 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
B * REF Crosstabulation
REF
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
B
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
C * REF Crosstabulation
REF
Total
0 1
0 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
C
1 Count 0 0 0
Expected Count
Count 0 0 0
Total
Expected Count
A B C
Kappa
DETERMINATION
A x REF 0.75 or higher indicates good agreement
B x REF Between 0.40 and 0.75 indicates some agreement
C x REF Less then 0.40 indeicates poor agreement
Page 89 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
% Appraiser1 % Score vs. Attribute2

Source Appraiser A Appraiser B
Appraiser C Appraiser A Appraiser B Appraiser C
Total Inspected
# Matched 0 0 0 0 0 0
False Positive (appraiser biased towards rejection) 0 0 0
False Negative (appraiser biased towards acceptance) 0 0 0
Mixed
95% UCI5
Calculated Score
95% LCI5
System % Effective Score3 System % Effective Score vs. Reference4

Total Inspected
# in Agreement 0 0
95% UCI5
Calculated Score
95% LCI5
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)
H0: The effectiveness of both appraisers is the same (Null hypothesis)

HA: 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 EVALUATION
Appraiser A vs. Appraiser B Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative
Appraiser A vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative
Appraiser B vs. Appraiser C Reject Null Hypothesis Accept Alternative
Page 90 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
Second Analysis
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Measurement System False
Effectiveness Miss Rate
Decision Alarm Rate
Acceptable for the appraiser >90% <2% <5%
Marginally acceptable fo the

appraiser - may need >80% <5% <10%
improvement
Unacceptable for the
appraiser - needs <80% >5% >10%
improvement
RESULTS SUMMARY
False
Appraiser Effectiveness Miss Rate
Alarm Rate
A
Final Analysis
Approved for use as is

Not approved for use as is
Signature Title
Page 91 of 119
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
APPRAISER/ appraiser
PART analysis when AVERAGE
possible
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
17 (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

18 xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
19 * 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
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
Page 92 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV)
= 2 0.8862 =
= 3 0.5908 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/TV)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials K2 0.7071 0.5231
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/TV)
GRR = {(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 Parts K3 =
= 2 0.7071 =
= 3 0.5231
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4467
PV = RP x K3 5 0.4030 % PV = 100 (PV/TV)
= 6 0.3742 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Total Variation (TV) 8 0.3375
TV = {(GRR2 + PV2)}1/2 9 0.3249 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= 10 0.3146 =
= =
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Fourth edition.
Page 93 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
APPRAISER/ appraiser
PART analysis when AVERAGE
possible
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
17 (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

18 xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
19 * 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
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
Page 94 of 119
NUMBER
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Measurement Unit Analysis % Tolerance (Tol)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/Tol)
= 2 0.8862 =
= 3 0.5908 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/Tol)
= =
= =
Appraisers 2 3
n = parts r = trials K2 0.7071 0.5231
Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/Tol)
GRR = {(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 Parts K3 =
= 2 0.7071 =
= 3 0.5231
Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4467
PV = RP x K3 5 0.4030 % PV = 100 (PV/Tol)
= 6 0.3742 =
= 7 0.3534 =
Tolerance (Tol) 8 0.3375
Tol = Upper - Lower / 6 9 0.3249 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)
= ( Upper - Lower ) / 6 10 0.3146 =
= =
For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Fourth edition.
Page 95 of 119
ANOVA METHOD
NUMBER
NAME
lower upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
APPRAISER/ PART analysis when
appraiser AVERAGE
possible
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVERAGE Rp=
Anova Table
Source DF SS MS F Sig
Appraiser
Parts
Appraiser-by-Part
Equipment
Total
* Significant at a = 0.05 level
Page 96 of 119
ANOVA METHOD
NUMBER
NAME
lower upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
appraiser analysis when
possible
Standard
% Total Variation % Contribution
Anova Report Deviation (s)
Repeatability (EV)
Reproducibility (AV)
Appraiser by Part (INT)
GRR
Part-to-Part (PV)
Standard
Anova Report % Tolerance % Contribution
Deviation (s)
Repeatability (EV) n/a
Reproducibility (AV) n/a
Appraiser by Part (INT) n/a
GRR n/a
Part-to-Part (PV) n/a
Note:
Tolerance = Total variation (TV) =
Number of distinct data categories (ndc) =
Page 97 of 119
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
APPRAISER/ PART analysis when
appraiser AVERAGE
possible
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Values from GR&R
1. A 1 VAR(Tol)
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc=
16. PART X=
AVE ( Xp ) Rp=
Note: The REFERENCE VALUE can be substituted for PART AVE to generate graphs indicating true bias.
Page 98 of 119
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Average Chart -"Stacked"
Average
12.00
10.00
Apprais
8.00 er A
Apprais
6.00 er B
Apprais
4.00 er C
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Stacked"
12.00
Range
10.00
8.00 Apprais
er A
6.00 Apprais
er B
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part Number
Analysis:
Page 99 of 119
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Page 100 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Average Chart -"Unstacked"
Average
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
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
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Analysis:
Range Chart -"Unstacked"

Average
12.000
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
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
Appr A Appr B Appr C
Analysis:
Page 101 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Page 102 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Run Chart
12
10
Value
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
Analysis:
Page 103 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Scatter Plot
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Scatter Plot
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Part 7
Part 9
Part 6
Part 8
Part 10
Analysis:
Page 104 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser A
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser B
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Whiskers Chart - Appraiser C
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Analysis:
Page 105 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Error Chart
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Part 4
Part 5
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Error Chart
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Part 6
Part 9
Part 7
Part 8
Part 10
Analysis:
Page 106 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Normalized Histogram - Error
0.8
0.6
Appr A
0.4
0.2
0
-0.90
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.30
0.20
0.30
0.80
0.90
1.00
-1.00
-0.70
-0.50
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 Appr B
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-1.00
-0.90
-0.80
-0.70
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.8
0.6
Appr C
0.4
0.2
0
-0.90
-0.80
-0.70
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.30
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
-1.00
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.40
Analysis:
Page 107 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
XY Plot of Averages by Size

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
Appr A
0.60
Appr B
Appr C
0.50
X=Y
line
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Analysis:
Page 108 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Comparison XY Plot
1.00
Appr B
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Appr A
Comparison XY Plot
1.00
0.90
Appr C
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Appr A
Page 109 of 119

Appr C
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
Part Number0.40 Gage Name Appraiser A
0.30NUMBER
Part Name 0.20 Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
0.10
0.00 Lower Upper
0.00 0.10 0.20 Trials
Characteristic Classification 0.30 0.40Parts0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Appraisers 0.90 1.00
Date Performed
Appr A 3
MSA recommends
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Page 110 of 119

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS
NUMBER
NAME
Lower Upper
MSA recommends 3
trail, 10 part, 3
possible
Comparison XY Plot
1.00
Appr C
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Appr B
Analysis:
Page 111 of 119

VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R ) PART NO. CHART NO.
MEASUREMENT EVALUATION NUMBER
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS
NAME
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
x= UCL = LCL = AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
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
r= UCL = LCL = RANGES (R CHART)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
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
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C
PART
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
NUMBER
R 1
E
2
A
D
3
I
N
4
G
S 5
SUM
SUM
x
NUM
VARIABLES CONTROL CHART ( x & R ) PART NO. CHART NO.
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) SPECIFICATION LIMITS
NAME
APPRAISER A APPRAISER B APPRAISER C MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE ZERO EQUALS
HIGH-
R
LOW
** = APPRAISER OUT OF CONTROL
Computations for the Control Chart Method of Evaluating a Measurement Process

REPLICATION ERROR: Average Subgroup Range = r = r d2
2 1.128
Number of replications = Subgroup Size = r = 3 1.693
4 2.059
Estimate Replication Standard Deviation r / d2 = se = 5 2.326
CALCULATION FOR APPRAISER EFFECT: Appraiser Averages
no d2* Number of Appraisers = nA = 0 Appraiser Average

2 1.410 A
3 1.906 Number of Samples = n = 0 B
C
Range of Appraiser Averages = RA = 0.00
Appraiser Effect = RA / d2* = sA =
CALCULATIONS FOR MEASUREMENT ERROR STANDARD DEVIATION:
sm = SQRT ( se + sA )
CALCULATIONS FOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO: Sample Averages
no d2* Range for these Sample Averages = Rp = 0.00 Sample Average

2 1.410 1
3 1.906 Estimate Sample to Sample Standard Deviation: 2
4 2.237 3
5 2.477 sp = Rp / d2* = 4
6 2.669 5
7 2.827 Signal to Noise Ratio: 6
8 2.961 sp / sm = 7
9 3.076 8
10 3.178 9
10
Thus the number of distinct categories that can be reliably distinguished by these measurements is:
ndc = 1.41 x sp / sm =
This is the number of non-overlapping 97% confidence intervals that will span the range of product variation. (A 97% confidence
interval centered on a single measurement would contain the actual product value that is represented by that measurement 97%
of the time.)
GAGE R STUDY PART NO. CHART NO.
PART NAME (Product) OPERATION (Process) ZERO EQUALS
NAME
APPRAISER MACHINE GAGE UNIT OF MEASURE UPPER SPECIFICATION LOWER SPECIFICATION
AVERAGES (X BAR CHART)

x= UCL = LCL =
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RANGES (R CHART)
r= UCL = LCL =
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
READING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
VALUE
HIGH-
R n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LOW
** = 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.
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

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
ORGANIZATION PRODUCT NAME:

ORGANIZATION NAME
(VENDOR) NAME:
ORGANIZATION ENG. SPEC.:
CODE
(VENDOR) CODE:
MANUF. SITE: CITY PART #:
ENG. CHANGE #: ECL FORMULA DATE:
RECEIVED DATE: RECEIVED BY:
SUBMISSION LEVEL: EXPIRATION DATE:
TRACKING CODE: RE-SUBMISSION DATE:
STATUS: (NR - Not Required, A - Approved, I - Interim)

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 CONFORM
TO BULK MATERIAL PPAP REQUIREMENTS BY THE SAMPLE PROMISE DATE?
SUPPLIER (AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE) 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:
PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE NOTIFICATION
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.
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: CODE

Street Address: ADDRESS
City, State, Zip: CITY STATE ZIP Change Type (check all that apply)
Dimensional
Customer Plants Affected: Materials
Functional
Design Responsibility: Customer Organization Appearance
Organization Change That May Affect End Item:

Product Change Engineering Drawing Change New or Revised Subcomponent
Expected PPAP Completion / Submission Date:
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT / PROCESS CHANGE:
Planned Date of Implementation:
DECLARATION:
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.
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.
March THE-1002
2006
Truck Industry Part Submission Warrant
Part 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 DIVISION

Organization Name and Code Customer Name/Division
ADDRESS
Street Address Customer Contact
Yes No
CITY STATE ZIP APPLICATION
Yes No
City 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.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
(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.
Approved Rejected
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
Interim Approval
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
March THE-1001
2006
Part Name NAME Cust. Part Number NUMBER
Shown on Drawing Number Org. Part Number
Engineering Change Level ECL Dated ECL DATE

Yes No
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 DIVISION

Supplier Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Customer Name/Division
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code
Yes No
CITY STATE ZIP APPLICATION
City Region Postal Code Country Application
Yes No n/a
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
Toolingdimensional measurements
Inactive > than 1 year material and functional
appearance
tests criteria
statistical
Other -process package
please specify
Yes NO
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 Yes No n/a

The results for
These results meet all design record requirements: (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
Approved Rejected Other
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.
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)
March CFG-1001
2006

Core Tools Forms V5d

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Core Tools Forms V5d

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Core Tools Forms Disc V5d

Copyright © 2010 March Quality Services

Part Name NAME

Organization Name ORGANIZATION

Customer Name CUSTOMER

File Name FILE.XLS

For sales and technical support contact AIAG at 1-248-358-3570

MANUAL FORMS FROM MANUAL EDITION PRINTING

2 Have historical campaign and warranty data been

c l New technology or process?

2 Has assembly build variation analysis been

5 Has a DFMEA been completed?

6 Has a DFMA (Design For Manufacturability and

20 Are test parameters sufficient to address required

22 Will all product testing be done in-house?

30 Have material characteristics requiring inspection

b Storage, including environmental aspects?

a l Control plan requirements?

f Other topics as identified?

13 Are visual aids:

21 Have initial process capability studies been

d Designated location for approved product?

30 Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned

10 Is material protected from overhead or air

5 Has the pull system/optimization been considered

Part Number: NUMBER Part Name: NAME

Revision Level ECL

Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.

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

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

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

PRODUCT NAME: NAME PART NUMBER / REV: NUMBER ECL

CUSTOMER: CUSTOMER MANUFACTURING PLANT: CITY

1. PRELIMINARY PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY QUANTITY

3. INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES

4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT

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.

Product Program Issue Date ECL ECL

Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

Operation or Event and Analysis Methods

Product Program Issue Date ECL ECL

Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

Operation or Event and Analysis Methods

Prod/Serv NAME ID Number Date

Sources of Variation Sources of Variation

Operation 100% Operator

Operation/Activity with Inspection Transportation (Part time)

C = Characteristic at an operation used for clamping

DIMENSION OPERATION NUMBER

ROBUST THRESHOLD RANGE

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

Item / Action Results

Item / Action Results

Process Step Action Results

Process Step Action Results

Instalación de Equipo de audio fijo

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

Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

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

Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)