APQP Revisited

8/19/2019 APQP Revisited

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/apqp-revisited 1/5

There is no excuse for not having pro-fessional looking documentation thatis organized and easy to produce.

A thorough review can and shouldbe conducted with virtual parts usingthe latest computer-aided design andanalysis tools.

If suppliers do not have the propertools, they should nd the people atthe OEM that have this capability.

TECH TIPS

38 QUALI TY | February 2010 www.qualitymag.com

When is the last time you thoughtabout APQP/PPAP? Advanced

Product Quality Planning and ControlPlan (APQP) was originally printed in1994 with the second edition in 2008.Production Part Approval Process(PPAP) was originally issued in 1993,the second edition in 1995 and thethird edition in 1999.

In the past 17 years, from 1993 tothe present, computer technology hasdone amazing things. Basic ofce soft-ware has done wonders to help ll outand standardize documents. There isno excuse for not having professionallooking documentation that is orga-nized and easy to produce.

First, assume the following:1. You have read and understood the

latest document.

2. Your organization has a quality sys-tem with documented procedures.

3. You can map your processes to thelatest APQP and PPAP documents.

4. You understand the requirementsand documents required regardingAPQP and PPAP from customers.

5. You have standard tests that aredone as part of the product and pro-cess development process.

6. You have a good relationship withthe customer.

If this is not true, please take thesteps to remedy this. Engage the wholeorganization.

Over the years, PPAP has become morewidely known than APQP. However, inauditor talk, PPAP is really the evidencethat APQP has been executed. APQPstates “Product quality planning is astructured method of dening and estab-lishing the steps necessary to assure that aproduct satises the customer.”

APQP includes sections on the following:1. Plan and dene program2. Product design and development3. Process design and development4. Product and process va lidation5. Feedback, assessment and corrective

action6. Control plan methodology

| QUALITY SOFTWARE & ANALYSIS |

S o u r c e :

T o y o t a M o

t o r

C o r p .

PQP REVISAPQP REVIDo you remember what APQP and PPAP stand for?B Y L O U A N N L AT H R O P

038 QM0210soft.indd 38038-QM0210soft.indd 38 1/20/10 12:31:05 PM1/20/10 12:31:05 PM



www.qualitymag.com February 2010 | QUALITY 39

WARRANTY

How does one test that the product satis-es the customer? Start with the things-gone-wrong category rst: warranty.

Get the warranty data for the prod-ucts in question and look at warranty

from the paradigm of every warrantyissue is an unhappy customer.When one looks at every data point

as one unhappy customer, the data isstaggering. Act as if that customer is yourself or a family member. Now actas if you are the owner of the company:how can you react to help prevent theproblem from ever happening again?

A lot of data, and relatively recentdata, is available. Get all of the datapossible. Get every part back and runthrough a standard and rigorous failureanalysis as new model years are star ted.Do this for the entire model year. Gettrend data on a regular, monthly basisand review. Understand the data, andwhat affects it. Learn what is drivingthe numbers. Understand the conceptsof statistical process control.

Compare the warranty data of all thecompany’s products against each other,compare and contrast the data, andgure out why some products are betterthan others. This fullls the require-ment of benchmarking.

Understand and Pareto the causesof warranty issues. Do deep dives tond permanent and irreversible correc-

tive action. Predict the improvementin warranty by understanding currentwarranty and what is driving it. Look atall upcoming changes that will addresswarranty concerns to predict a projected warranty. Implement as soon aspossible—the sooner the better. Makesure all appropriate change manage-ment procedures are followed.

Warranty is a huge line item onannual reports. Preventing warrantyissues or quickly addressing them putsmoney right to the bottom line.

VALIDATION PROCESSES

Another area that has had increasedvisibility and produced good resultsis having robust and standard valida-tion procedures. The denitions ofvalidation have shifted from a nalinspection to a built-in quality—orengineered in—perspective. What isthe particular test validating? Is it forquality, reliability and durability and/or performance and function? Analysis,

Part XXXXXXX MY 09

12 MO IPTV

1 IPTV

Engineering Change Started May 07 25% minus .25

Part XXXXXXX MY 10 Projected .55 IPTV

Engineering Change 1 Start for MY 09 10% minus .1

Process Change 1 Start for MY 09 10% minus .1

Engineering Change 2 Start MY09 -10% plus .1

Engineering Change 3 MY 10 10% minus .1Projected MY 11 Warranty 0.35

Part xxxxxx Benchmark 2009 .7 IPTV

% I m p r o v e m e n t

As this warranty projection chart shows, warranty is a huge line item on annual reports.IPTV stands for incident per thousand vehicles. Quickly addressing and preventing war-ranty issues puts money right to the bottom line. Source: Lou Ann Lathrop

CPK PPM IPTV YIELD% OF

TOLERANCE

.33 317,310 317 68% 303

.5 133,614 133 200

.66 45,500 45 95% 152

.83 12,419 12 121

1.00 2,700 2.7 99.73% 1001.17 465 .47 86

1.33 64 .064 99.99% 75

1.5 6.8 .0068 67

1.66 .6 .0006 60

2 50

It is important to understand the concepts of statistical process control (SPC). SPC is acritical, often overlooked and forgotten knowledge. Source: Lou Ann Lathrop

C u

m u

l a t i v e I n c i d e n t p e r T h o u

s a n d V e h i c l e s ( I P T V )

Months in Service

This is an example of a warranty chart comparing model years. Manufacturers woulddo well to learn what is driving the numbers and understand the concepts of statisticalprocess control. Source: Lou Ann Lathrop




1. Does top management feel that a problem caused by hissubordinate is his problem?

2. Does top management reprimand the subordinate causingthe problem from the standpoint of a customer?

3. Has top management directly talked to the person causingthe problem or his superior on the cause of the failure—atthe work site, with the actual part in hand?

4. Has top management discussed the cause of failure withthe person in charge from the standpoint of an engineer?

5. Does top management praise those responsible when thecause analysis and measures to correct the failure weregood?

6. Has top management made it a routine practice to discussexamples of how he learned from the past failures with hissubordinates?

7. Does the company have a process to make failure exam-ples a corporate asset?

TATSUHIKO YOSHIMURA’S CLIMATE OF SHARING FAILURE INFORMATION CHECKLIST

40 QUALI TY | February 2010 www.qualitymag.com

| QUALITY SOFTWARE & ANALYSIS |

development and validation (ADV) isGeneral Motors Corp. (GM)’s interpre-tation of A PQP.

Setting a rigid time in the programfor validation test complete dates canhelp drive the entire organization toa new level of performance. Just wait-ing for PPAP deadlines is not enough.Documentation for tests, or the evi-dence of, also should be completed.

One may hear the terms: validationtesting complete (VTC) and validationdocumentation complete (VDC). All

supplier testing, a ll component test-ing, all sub system testing completedand all vehicle level testing are rigor-ously tracked for completion. Everytest result from validation testingshould be rigorously reviewed andscrutinized. There are very few testproperties these days, so every testand test result counts.

The tests are run, so it would be awaste if the results were not studied toevery last detail. The test propertiesshould be autopsied in detail.

Over time in every commodity, aspecialist should gather criteria, withpictures of what is good, bad and inbetween. This could be called end oftest criteria; years ago in electronicsmanufacturing it was called workman-ship standards. It could include picturesand measurements of what makes agood solder joint, a marginally accept-able solder joint and bad solder joints.Having detailed criteria and adding tothis documented criteria helps to cap-ture lessons learned over time.

High Quality Low Prices Large SelectionSame Day Shipping Satisfaction Guaranteed

Styli and Accessoriesfrom Carl Zeiss

Carl Zeiss IMT CorporationVisit www.zeissmetrology.comor call us at (800) 327-9735.

QLT10094Carl indd 1 9/15/09 11:45:37 AM

Quality Quick Clicks 419 at qualitymag.com

Fast, Accurate Inspection of Small Parts100% Inspection•Up to 10,000 Parts/Hour•Optical Measurements to ±0.0001”•Flexibility for Different Parts•Easy to Operate•Low Cost Benchtop Units•

RESEC SYSTEMS, INC.Precision Sorting Equipment

93-A South Railroad Avenue - Bergeneld, NJ - 07621Phone: (800) 394-6758 www.resecsystems.com

QLT02101resec indd 1 1/20/10 12:27:40 PM

Quality Quick Clicks 413 at qualitymag.com

038 QM0210soft.indd 40038-QM0210soft.indd 40 1/22/10 9:48:50 AM1/22/10 9:48:50 AM



www.qualitymag.com February 2010 | QUALITY 41

In 2003, GM hired retired Toyotaexecutive Tatsuhiko Yoshimura, anexpert in vehicle durability, to cr itiqueGM’s procedures.

Yoshimura, in his writings to lead-ership, would say any meeting where

there were no parts to look at is a wasteof time. He extolled his concept ofwhat he called GD3: good design, gooddiscussion and good d issection.

Good dissection was embodied bythe process of DRBTR: design reviewbased on test results. He wanted every-one on the team to see the test proper-ties and have a good discussion aroundthem. Discussion and actions are tobe documented in a report. Issues andbuds of problems are summarized anddocumented.

The same type of review can andshould be conducted with virtual partsusing today’s latest computer-aideddesign (CAD) and analysis tools. Stack-up analysis of parts also should be partof the standard process. If suppliers donot have these tools, they should nd thepeople at the OEM that have this capa-bility and responsibility. Maybe they can

run the analysis and provide the supplierwith the detai led information.

Lastly, Yoshimura required a climateof sharing failure information andhad a seven-item checklist to assess acompany. (See Checklist on pg. 40).The checklist is to assess the climateof sharing failure information. Isthe environment a learning environ-ment, or is the system closed down tosharing? This is similar to one of Dr.Deming’s 14 points to “Drive out fear,so that everyone may work effectivelyfor the company.” This type of culture

has always been implied and requiredfor both APQP and PPAP; withoutthis, APQP and PPAP processes will becumbersome rather than the corporatestrength that it could be. Q

Lou Ann Lathrop worked for General Motors Corp.(GM) for more than 26 years in quality engineer-ing, manufacturing engineering, manufacturingand product engineering. Lathrop, a seniormember, is past chair for the American Societyfor Quality - Automotive Division and is a currentmember of ASQ’s board of directors. She can becontacted at [email protected].

Now! The Most AccurateForce Calibrations Ever From

A Commercial Lab!0.002% of load through 120,000 lbf● A true primary standard● Every weight calibrated directly by NIST● Accredited to ISO 17025● Calibrating load cells, proving rings,

force gauges-- in compression or tension-- kilograms or Newtons, too

● Calibrations also available from 0.1 to1,000,000 lbf

INSTRUMENT CO.1742 Sixth Avenue • York, PA 17403-2675

Want your own dead weight force machine?We’ll build one for you--from 50 to 120,000 lbf

For complete details,call 1-717-843-0081

QLT10094More indd 1 9/17/09 1:48:03 PMQuality Quick Clicks 414 at qualitymag.com

Over the years, PPAP has become more widely known than APQP. However,

in auditor talk, PPAP is really the evidencethat APQP has been executed.




Copyright of Quality is the property of BNP Media and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple

sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,

download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

APQP Revisited