Ppap Check List: Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik
Ppap Check List: Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik
Ppap Check List: Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik
,Nasik
Part No. : Rev. No. : Customer : Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Description : Supplier :
Submission Level : 1 2 3 4 5
6 Process FMEA * S
7 Dimensional Results S
(Layout Inspection Results) ©
8 Material, Performance test results S
(For all the components) ©
9 Initial process study S
12 Control plan * S
16 Sample Product S
18 Checking aids R
Material
Build Required Qty. No. Of SC No. Of CC % PIST %PIPC
Date
VP Build 20.10.08 35
PP Build 25.03.09 50
SOP 10.05.09 50
Supplier
Programm Completion
Task Need Date
Commitment
Date
Responsibilty Comments
Date
Plan & Define
1 Business Plan/Marketing Strategy 30.08.08
2 Product/Process Benchmark Data NA
3 Product/Process Assumptions NA
4 Product Reliability Studies NA
5 Customer Inputs 01.09.08
6 Design Goals NA
7 Preliminary Bill of Materials 01.09.08
8 Preliminary Process Flow Chart 10.10.08
Preliminary Listing of Special Product &
9
Process Characteristics 05.10.08
10 Product Assurance Plan 10.10.08
Product Design & Development
Design Failure Mode & Effects Analysis
11
(DFMEA) NA
12 Design for Manufacturability & Assembly NA
13 Design Verification NA
14 Design Reviews Ongoing
Tasks 1-15 are optional, unless supplier is design responsible
15 Prototype Build - Control Plan 10.10.08
16 Engineering Drawings (including math data) 25.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
17 Engineering Specifications 25.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
18 Material Specifications 25.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
19 Drawing & Specifications 28.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
New Equipment, Tooling & Facilities
20
Requirements 03.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
21 Special Product / Process Requirements 06.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
22 Gages/Testing Equipment Requirements 06.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
23 Team Feasibility Commitment 10.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
Process Design & Development
24 Packaging Standards 15.01.09
25 Process Quality System Review Ongoing
26 Process Flow Chart 20.01.09
27 Floor Plan Layout 25.01.09
28 Characteristics Matrix 28.01.09
Process Failure Mode & Effects Analysis
29
(PFMEA) 05.02.09
30 Pre-launch Control Plan 10.02.09
31 Process Instructions 15.02.09
32 Measurement System Analysis Plan 20.02.09
33 Preliminary Process Capability Study Plan 20.02.09
34 Packaging Specifications 28.02.09
Process & Product Validation
35 Production Trial Run (Run @ Rate) 15.03.08
36 Measurement Systems Evaluation 20.03.09
37 Preliminary Process Capability Study 20.03.09
38 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) 25.03.09
39 Production Validation Testing NA
40 Packaging Evaluation 25.03.09
41 Production Control Plan 25.03.09
42 Quality Planning Sign-Off & Mgmt. Support 30.03.09
(Supplier Document and Process Review)
Feedback, Assessment & Customer Approval
44 Customer Satisfaction
45 Delivery & Service
Additional Program Specific Items:
48 Program Timline
LN/TS/F-15 ( 00 200303 )
Supplier Team Members / Position / Telephone Number Customer Representative / Position / Telephone Number
LN/TS/F-15 ( 00 200303 )
ease.Released for VP on 23.10.08
ease.Released for VP on 23.10.08
ease.Released for VP on 23.10.08
ease.Released for VP on 23.10.08
LN/TS/F-15 ( 00 200303 )
Customer Input Requirements- Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Functional Requirements
As per SOR
Quality Targets
Warranty Targets ( R/1000) 16R/1000 @ 12 MIS
PPM at Lear <1000 PPM at SOP
<750 PPM at SOP + 3 Months
<500 PPM at SOP + 6 Months
<250 PPM at SOP + 9 Months
<50 at SOP + 12 Months
PIST 100% PIST at PSW approval level.
PIPC Ppk>1.67 for achieve 100% PIPC.
Defect Ratio at the Trial Run Acceptance criteria 90%
PPM at Supplier's End <250 PPM
Reliability Targets Including Useful Life
3,00,000 km
Fitment Trial
As per current practices. Fitment trial To check the clearance , gaps & flushness as per the Cad
must be approved prior to PSW layout & tool accessibility.Fitment trial by CFT.Inspection report
approval. must be assist the sample.
For list of functional parameters refer SOR.
Appearance
As per the SOR & Approved Master
As per the SOR & Approved Master Sample.
Sample.
Packaging Requirements
As per Lear Packing Std. As per Lear Packing Std.
Capacity Planning Volume 50,000 per annum(Peak) Capacity planning including tooling done are
N/A
(25,000-Base,20,000-Medium,5,000-Premium) based on 50,000 vehicles per annum.
Identification
Method Variant identification stickers. As defined in the drawing . Variant identification stickers.
Location
Notification Requirement
Notification to Lear in case of changes as
Prior PPAP approval required for any Prior PPAP approval as well as after PPAP approval , Not applicable for Sub-Suppliers. Sub
per PPAP Guideline. change in product, Process , Layout , notification is required for all the changes stated in AIAG PPAP Suppliers are required to follow respective
Toolings & Fixture & Sub-Suppliers manual(4th Edition) Supplier PPAP guidelines.
LP/TS/F-40
Date : Date:
Date - 08/11/04
LP/TS/F-40
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
Drawing & ES Release Master Control List
Customer: Program(s):
Drawing & ES No. Drawing & ES Received Engineering Engineering Level or Page
NO. 3D Mathdata Version Comments
Assembly Component Description Date Change Date Suffix Number
Person
Question Yes No Comment / Action Required Due Date
Responsible
1 Was the SFMEA and/or DFMEA prepared using the
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference
manual?
2 Have historical campaign and warranty data been
reviewed?
3 Have similar part DFMEAs been considered?
4 Does the SFMEA and/or DFMEA identify Special
Characteristics?
5 Have design characteristics that affect high risk priority
failure modes been identified?
6 Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to
high risk priority numbers?
7 Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to
high severity numbers?
8 Have risk priorities been revised when corrective actions
have been completed and verified?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
LP/STA/F-02 Page 9 of 73
POTENTIAL
FAILURE MODE EFFECT ANALYSIS
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd, Nashik ( PROCESS FMEA )
Item/Part Desc. Process Responsibility: FMEA Number :
Model Key Date : Prepared by:
Core Team: FMEA Date(Orig.): (Rev.): 00
C O D
S l c e R Responsibility
Sr. Process function/ Potential causes / Current Process Recommended
Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of failure e a c t P & Target Action Results
No. Requirements mechanism(s) of failure Controls Action(s)
v s u e N Completion Date
s r c
S O D R
Action taken e c e P
v c t N
LP/TS/F-05 10
DESIGN VERIFICATION PLAN & REPORT (DVP&R) DVP No. :
Author :
LP/STA/F-03
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
CC/SC List and Plan
Customer: Program(s):
Process Control
Item CC/SC Customer Symbol Design Control Control Method CPk Result MSA Result Comment
Supplier Process Lear Process
LP/STA/F-04
Timing Plan - Facilities, Tooloing & Gauges
Part No Supplier Date (Orig)
LP/STA/F-05
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
Gage/Fixture Checking Plan
Customer: Program(s):
Certification/Cu
Design Concept Design Completion Build Completion
Item Gage/Checking Fixture Supplier Name stomer MSA Method MSA Result Responsible Comment
Approve Date Date Date
Approval Date
LP/STA/F-06
RISK ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1
Lear Automotive India Pvt Ltd.
1) QUALITY HISTORY :-
2) PROFILE :-
3) ENGINEERING PROFILE :-
LP/EN/F-12
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT DATE:
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd
CUSTOMER SUPPLIER :
Feasibility Considerations
YES NO CONSIDERATION
Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques ?
Conclusion
Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirments.
SIGN OFF
LP/TS/F-14
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Customer: Program(s):
Revision Date
Prepared By:
LP/STA/F-02 Page 17 of 73
Person
Due Date
Responsible
LP/STA/F-02 Page 18 of 73
Process Flow Chart
Lear Automotive India Pvt.Ltd.,Nashik
Item/Part Desc. Process Resp. Prepared By :
SYMBOLS
Model Key Date TRANSPORTATION STORAGE
Core Team Date Original OPERATION INSPECTION
Document No: Date Revised OPN & INSP. TOGETHER DELAY
Process Description
(Operation/Inspection/ Incoming Source of Variation Process Flow Diagram Product Chararcteristics Process Chararcteristics
Transportation/Storage)
LN/TS/F-04
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
Customer: Program(s):
LN/STA/F-02 Page 20 of 73
Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
Revision Date
Prepared By:
LN/STA/F-02 Page 21 of 73
Person Responsible Due Date
LN/STA/F-02 Page 22 of 73
Person Responsible Due Date
LN/STA/F-02 Page 23 of 73
POTENTIAL
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Print # NUMBER Rev. ECL (PROCESS FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Item: NAME Process Responsibility: SUPPLIER Prepared by:
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) APPLICATION Key Date Page: of
Team: FMEA Date (Orig.) (Rev.)
Page 24 of 73
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
Customer: Program(s):
LP/STA/F-02 Page 25 of 73
Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
Revision Date
Prepared By:
LP/STA/F-02 Page 26 of 73
Person
Due Date
Responsible
LP/STA/F-02 Page 27 of 73
Person
Due Date
Responsible
LP/STA/F-02 Page 28 of 73
CONTROL PLAN
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik
Prototype Prelaunch Production Key contact/Phone : Date( Original) Date (Revision)
Control Plan Number:
Part Number/Latest Change level: Core team: Customer Engg. Approval/Date(If required)
Supplier plant Supplier code Other Approval / Date(If required) Other Approval/Date(If required)
B INSTRUMENTS
C TESTING EQUIPMENTS
Prepared by :
LP/QA/F-13
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
0 0 0
20 R x D3* = LCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials; D3 = 0 for up to 7 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 dis-
card values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
LP/STA/F-07
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
All calculations are based upon predicting 5.15 sigma (99.0% of the area under the normal distribution curve).
K1 is 5.15/d2, where d2 is dependent on the number of trials (m) and the number if parts times the number of operators (g) which is
assumed to be greater than 15.
AV - If a negative value is calculated under the square root sign, the appraiser variation (AV) defaults to zero (0).
K2 is 5.15/d2, where d2 is dependent on the number of operators (m) and (g) is 1, since there is only one range calculation.
K2 is 5.15/d2, where d2 is dependent on the number of parts (m) and (g) is 1, since there is only one range calculation.
d2 is obtained from Table D3, "Quality Control and Industrial Statistics", A.J. Duncan.
LP/STA/F-07
GAGE REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIABILITY STUDY SUPPLIER NAME
A B C
No. of correct decisions
Effectiveness %= Total opportunities for making decisions
0.00 0.00 0.00
A B C
No. of Ok decisions for NG parts
Miss Rate %= Total opportunities for finding NG parts
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
A B C
No. of NG decisions for OK Parts
False Alarm %= Total opportunities for finding OK parts
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Result:
LP/STA/F-08
LP/STA/F-08
REPEATIBILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT重复性和再现性分析 ● Using TOLERANCE met
● Using Part to Part varia
NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST非破坏性测试
PLEASE SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS AND COMPLETE THE FORM ACCORDINGLY PARAMETERS ARE
OPERATOR P A R T RESULTS
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 A1
2 A2
3 A3
Average XA
Range RA
B 1 B1
2 B2
3 B3
Average XB
Range RB
C 1 C1
2 C2
3 C3
Average XC
Range RC
Part Avg xPART =
Part Range RPART =
R= RA+ RB + RC / No of operators = + + / 3 R=
XDIFF= [Max (X)ABC] - [Min (X)ABC] = - XDIFF =
UCLR= R * D4 = * 2.580 UCLR =
LCLR= R * D3 = * 0.000 LCLR =
OPERATOR NAME NOTE: It has been statistically proven that the Tolerance Method is better
A to determine measurement equipment reliability. Even with negative
B Kurtosis data sets, the recorded measurements will be less than 1% away
C from the true value if GR&R is below 30%. Contact Quality Group if you
GOOD UNTIL GAGE ECL/revision CHANGE need more information.
FROM DATA SHEET: R= XDIFF = RPART =
Measurement Unit Analysis Based on the TOLERANCE Method
Repeatibility - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R * K1 % EV = 100[EV/Tol]
EV = Trials K1 % EV =
3 3.05
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV= [ ( XDIFF * K2) - (EV / nr)]
2 2
(n parts, r trials) % AV = 100[AV/Tol]
AV= Oper K2 % AV =
3 2.70
Repeatibility & Reproducibility (R & R) % R&R = 100[R&R/Tol]
R&R= (EV2 + AV2) % R&R =
R&R=
Part Variation (PV)
PV= RPART * K3 Parts K3 % PV = 100[PV/Tol]
PV= 10 1.62 % PV =
Total Variation (TV) 1.62
TV= (R&R2 + PV2) #REF!
TV=
PLEASE SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS AND COMPLETE THE FORM ACCORDINGLY PARAMETERS ARE
DETERMINE THE RISK PRIORITY NUMBER (RPN) FROM THE FMEA ASSOCIATED BREAKPOINT = RPN # x
WITH THE DIMENSION BEING GAGED. TYPE THE RPN # UNDER THE RPN # FIELD
PROVIDED (RIGHT) AND FOLLOW INSTRUCTION OF USAGE IN NEXT ROW: = x
12
10
8
Range
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
Row 24 Row 29 Row 34 UCLr
12
Average Run Chart
10
8
Average
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Part
Row 23 Row 28
Notes:
k2 Appraisers
K3 Parts
count
A1
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
AVG
Errors_sum
ethod
k2 Appraisers
K3 Parts
count
A1
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
%GRR/100
10
9 10
Row 28 Row 33
0.022500823
Page 39
PART .NO. PART NAME SUPPLIER NAME
(Show actual part shape with L X W X H Dims or Photograph) Ilustrate packing with part keeping s.type & Qty. aspect on trolLey /Box / ….) LOT QTY.=
PACKAGING TYPE
DIMENSIONS
LP/STA/F-10
Production Trial Run Summary
Note: ALL CELLS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LEAR SQE
PROGRAM: DATE:
LOCATION
SUPPLIER NAME:
(CITY/STATE)
QUOTED SUPPLIER WORK PATTERN: # DAYS PER WEEK: # OF SHIFTS # HOURS PER SHIFT
PRODUCTION PROCESS:
NO. OF GAGES:
NOTE: ALL PRODUCTION NUMBERS BELOW ARE BASED ON THE QUOTED SUPPLIER WORK PATTERN
COMMENTS:
LP/STA/F-10
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
During the Run @ Rate, the following will be reviewed: documentation; the manufacturing process and results; part quality requirements and
results; sub-supplier requirements and Run @ Rate results and packaging.
A. Documentation
At the time of the Run @ Rate, the following documentation should be available for review:
Available Y/N
1. PPAP package including: 1.
a) process flow diagram a.
b) process control plan, with reaction plan b.
c) DFMEA/PFMEA c.
d) Master part(s) d.
2. GP-12 (Pre-launch Control) plan 2.
3. Tool capacity information 3.
4. Operator/inspection instructions 4.
5. Prototype/pilot concerns (PR/R's) 5.
6. Sub-contractor control/capacity data 6.
7. Sub-contractor material schedules and transportation 7.
8. Packaging/labeling plan 8.
9. Acceleration plan 9.
Note: All documentation must be complete and correct.
B. MANUFACTURING PROCESS - ACTUAL TO PLAN
1. Is the product being manufactured at the production site using the production tooling, gaging, process, materials,
operators, environment, and process settings? Yes No
Comments:
2. Does the actual process flow agree with the process flow diagram, as documented in PPAP? (Review the facility plan
and layout. Walk the process with the flow diagram.) Yes No
Comments:
3. Are operator instructions/visual controls available and adhere to at each work station?
Yes No Comments:
4. Is all in-process documentation, such as process control charts, in place at the time of the Run @ Rate? Is the
documentation utilized to drive a defined reaction plan and corrective action process?
Yes No Comments:
5. When required, are production boundary samples available at the required work stations? Are the boundary samples
approved by GM? Yes No Comments:
6. Are maintenance plans in place? Are repair and maintenance parts available? Is there planned downtime for
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
LP/STA/F-11
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
2. During the Run @ Rate, did the tooling meet the quoted up time requirements (net vs. gross quoted output)? Make note of
any unexpected downtime and corrective action plans required. Yes No
Comments:
3. Can all line changeovers, if any, be performed within the quoted tolling capacity requirements?
Yes No Comments:
4. Does the net through-put of good pieces (scrap taken out, ant allowable rework) meet daily quoted capacity?
Yes No Comments:
Comments:
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
2. Are all in process gaging and controls complete, functional and in place?
Yes No Comments:
3. Do the process control plans (normal and GP-12) agree with the actual process? Do production part checks and statistical
Comments:
LP/STA/F-11
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
Yes No Comments:
5. Do the process control plan reaction plan and the supplier's corrective actions ensure effective containment and
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
Comments:
4. Is the process control plan sufficient to effectively meet the design record requirements, i.e., control points, frequency of
checks, etc.? Yes No Comments:
5. Nonconformances
a) Were nonconformances yielded by the process identified by the normal PPAP control plan?
Yes No If identified by the GP-12 Process Control Plan or an activity outside
documented plans, corrective action is required.
b) Did the PFMEA identify the potential failure modes? Yes No
If not, the PFMEA needs to be updated and corrective action put in place.
c) Do all the observed rework and repairs effectively correct the nonconformance(s)?
Yes No
d) Are there any open concerns from prototype or pilot (PR/R)? Yes No
Comments:
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
LP/STA/F-11
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
F. SUBCONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS
1. Were subcontractors' abilities to meet the customer's quality and capacity requirements confirmed by the supplier prior to
the Run @ Rate being conducted at the supplier's facility? Was verification of the subcontractors' manufacturing
processes accomplished through a Run @ Rate or similar process conducted by the supplier?
Yes No Comments:
2. Are controls in place to isolate incoming material until it has been approved?
Yes No Comments:
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
2. Does the supplier's method for in process and final shipping packaging and handling effectively eliminate the potential for
COMMENTS:
LP/STA/F-11
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE SUMMARY
Customer GM Buyer
Phone #
RESULTS
/Day
Explain:
Comments/Open Issues:
Comments:
LP/STA/F-11
STATISTICAL PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS - FOR VARIABLE DATA(Long Term) PROJECT NAME
PART NUMBER CHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION -> DATE OF DATA COLLECTION :-
UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT OPERATION :- SUPPLIER NAME
PART NAME MACHINE :- 2160 2140 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM :-
MATERIAL :- UNITS :- Gms. LEAST COUNT :-
Sample group
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
Sample no.
X1 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2154.0 2148.0 2149.0 2151.0 2150.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2151.0 2153.0 2148.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2151.0 2152.0 2155.0 2150.0 2148.0
X2 2150.0 2152.0 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2148.0 2151.0 2154.0 2152.0 2153.0 2154.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2152.0 2148.0 2154.0 2153.0 2155.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0
X3 2149.0 2153.0 2148.0 2148.0 2150.0 2147.0 2153.0 2149.0 2148.0 2150.0 2152.0 2153.0 2149.0 2154.0 2153.0 2152.0 2148.0 2152.0 2154.0 2151.0 2152.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2153.0
X4 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2151.0 2153.0 2150.0 2149.0 2153.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0 2149.0 2148.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2151.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0
X5 2148.0 2149.0 2153.0 2150.0 2154.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2154.0 2150.0 2148.0 2152.0 2150.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2150.0 2154.0 2153.0 2150.0 2147.0 2150.0 2152.0 2152.0
X bar 2149.8 2151.2 2150.0 2150.6 2152.2 2149.6 2150.4 2150.8 2150.2 2151.4 2151.2 2151.0 2151.4 2151.8 2151.4 2151.4 2149.8 2149.6 2152.0 2151.6 2151.6 2150.4 2152.0 2151.6 2150.4
R 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Xbar Chart
2155.0
2154.0
2153.0
2152.0
2151.0
2150.0
X bar
2149.0
2148.0
2147.0
2146.0
2145.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Uclx 15 16 X bar 17 18
LCLx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sample group ---> Nom. X
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
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
UCL-R R-bar R Mean
LP/STA/F-12
STATISTICAL PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS - FOR VARIABLE DATA(Short Term) PROJECT
PART NUMBER CHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION -> DATE OF DATA COLLECTION :-
UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT OPERATION :- SUPPLIER NAME
PART NAME MACHINE :- 2160 2140 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM :-
MATERIAL :- UNITS :- Gms. LEAST COUNT :-
Sample group
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
Sample no.
X1 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2154.0 2148.0 2149.0 2151.0 2150.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2151.0 2153.0 2148.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2151.0 2152.0 2155.0 2150.0 2148.0
X2 2150.0 2152.0 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2148.0 2151.0 2154.0 2152.0 2153.0 2154.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2152.0 2148.0 2154.0 2153.0 2155.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0
X3 2149.0 2153.0 2148.0 2148.0 2150.0 2147.0 2153.0 2149.0 2148.0 2150.0 2152.0 2153.0 2149.0 2154.0 2153.0 2152.0 2148.0 2152.0 2154.0 2151.0 2152.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2153.0
X4 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2151.0 2153.0 2150.0 2149.0 2153.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0 2149.0 2148.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2151.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0
X5 2148.0 2149.0 2153.0 2150.0 2154.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2154.0 2150.0 2148.0 2152.0 2150.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2150.0 2154.0 2153.0 2150.0 2147.0 2150.0 2152.0 2152.0
X bar 2149.8 2151.2 2150.0 2150.6 2152.2 2149.6 2150.4 2150.8 2150.2 2151.4 2151.2 2151.0 2151.4 2151.8 2151.4 2151.4 2149.8 2149.6 2152.0 2151.6 2151.6 2150.4 2152.0 2151.6 2150.4
R 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Xbar Chart
2155.0
2154.0
2153.0
2152.0
2151.0
2150.0
X bar
2149.0
2148.0
2147.0
2146.0
2145.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Uclx 15 16 X bar 17 18
LCLx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sample group ---> Nom. X
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
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
UCL-R R-bar R Mean
LP/STA/F-12
PROCESS CAPABILITY CERTIFICATION REPORT过程能力研究
Two sided spec (bilateral)双侧 One sided (MIN)单侧 One sided (MAX)单侧 Number of readings per subgroup 每组数量 5 P R O C E S S I N F O R M A T I O N 过程信息
'01 PSW'!A21 '07 CAV'!A6 '01 PSW'!H6 '01 PSW'!A6 '01 PSW'!A14 '01 PSW'!D10 '01 PSW'!A8 Significant trends of data points: X Chart
LOCATION Plant工厂 上海李尔汽车系统有限公司 Dept部门: 质量部 Date日期: Increasing RUN LENGTH
PART Part number零件号 T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Part description零件说明 驾驶员、前座座椅总成 HOW MANY RUNS
Drawing No.图纸号 T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB ECL工程更改等级 Decreasing RUN LENGTH
TOOL Tool number工装号 # Cavities型腔编号 HOW MANY RUNS
DIMENSION Description说明 Units单位 Out of control limits
SPEC公称尺寸 28.0 PLUS上公差 3.0 MINUS下公差 3.0 Consecutive data points above avg. 1
Lwr Spec Li 25.0 NOMINAL 28.0 Upr Spec Li 31.0 Consecutive data points below avg. 1
12
Average (X chart)
Average
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2
Data Points
Data Values UCLx AveX LCLx
12
Range (R chart)
Range
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2
LP/STA/F-11
PROCESS CAPABILITY CERTIFICATION REPORT过程能力研究
LOCATION Plant 上海李尔汽车系统有限公司 Dept: 质量部 Date: 12/30/1899 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS VALUES
PART Part number: T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Part description 驾驶员、前座座椅总成 Number of readings
Drawing number T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Eng. chg. level 0 Lower spec limit (LSL) 25.0000
TOOL Tool number 0 # Cavities 0 Nominal 28.0000
DIMENSION Description 0 Units 0 Upper spec limit (USL) 31.0000
SPEC 28.0 PLUS 3.0 MINUS 3.0 Total sum
Lwr Spec Li 25.0 NOMINAL 28.0 Upr Spec Li 31.0 Average readings ( X )
HISTOGRAM WITHOUT LIMITS HISTOGRAM WITH LIMITS Maximum
LSL USL Minimum
1 1 Readings below LSL
0.9
Readings above USL
0.9
25.0000 31.0000 Average Range (R)
0.8 0.8 D2 Value n= 5
0.7 0.7 Upper capability index (CPU)
Lower capability index (CPL)
0.6 0.6
Capability index (Cp)
0.5 0.5
Process Capability (Cpk)
0.4 0.4 Capability ratio (CR)
0.3 0.3 Std Deviation (n-1)
Std Deviation (n)
0.2
0.2 Variance (n-1)
0.1
0.1 Variance (n)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Performance index (PP)
0
Performance ratio (PR)
23.200
24.400
25.600
26.800
28.000
30.400
31.600
32.800
29.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Performance index (Ppk)
S U B G R O U P S
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1
R 2
E 3
A 4
D 5
I
N
G
S
Average
Range
n 21 22 23 24 25 N O T E S
1 Less than 25 subgroups, last data point on X & R chart are not actual readings
R 2
E 3
A 4
D 5
I
N
G
S
Average
Range
LP/STA/F-11
P R O C E S S I N F O R M A T I O N 过程信息
R Chart
1
1
Average (X chart)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Data Points
Range (R chart)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Data Points
LP/STA/F-11
VALUES
25.0000
28.0000
31.0000
20
LP/STA/F-11
Page 54 of 73 Pages
LP/STA/F-13
Page 55 of 73 Pages
LP/STA/F-13
Page of Pages
LP/STA/F-13
Page of Pages
LP/STA/F-13
Page 58 of 73 Pages
LP/STA/F-13
Page 59 of 73 Pages
LP/STA/F-13
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT
PART DRAWING APPLICATION
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) APPLICATION
PART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE
NAME NAME CODE ECL
SUPPLIER MANUFACTURING ADDRESS SUPPLIER
NAME SUPPLIER 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
CUSTOMER
SUPPLIER SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION PRE-TEXTURE REPRESENTATIVE
EVALUATION SIGNATURE AND DATE
CORRECT
AND PROCEED
CORRECT AND
RESUBMIT
APPROVED TO
TEXTURE
COLOR EVALUATION
COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS METALLIC SHIPPING PART
SUFFIX NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE BRILLIANCE SUFFIX DISPOSITION
DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW
COMMENTS
LP/STA/F-14
SUPPLIER PHONE NO. DATE CUSTOMER DATE
SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
LP/STA/F-14
Doc No.
<PART SKETCH>
SR.
CHARACTERSTICS CLASS SPECIFICATION INSPECTION METHOD FREQUENCY CONTROL METHOD
NO.
A. AESTHETICS
B. DIMENSIONAL
C. TESTING(IF ANY)
LP/QA/F-01
INSPECTION REPORT Date :
Inspection Observations
Sr.No. Parametres Specification
Method
A B 3 4 5 Remark
Comments : Accept
Reject
Conditionally
Accept
LP/QA/F-02
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik
Submission Level : 1 2 3 4 5
6 Process FMEA * S
7 Dimensional Results S
12 Control plan * S
16 Sample Product S
18 Checking aids R
LN/TS/F-28(01 250804)
GPM 6.4.2
Attachment A
SUPPLIER DOCUMENT & PROCESS REVIEW RUN FORM AND REFERENCE GUIDELINES
DOCUMENT DATE: PART NO.
PROGRAM PART NAME
SUPPLIER REV. LEVEL/DATE
LOCATION PROGRAM MGR.
PLANT MGR. RELEASE ENG.
QUALITY MGR. S.Q. ENGINEER
PHONE NO. BUYER
FAX NO.
(D) Document Review - The following documentation shall be made available for review: 0 ACCEPT (A) X REJECT (R)
R D1 Engineering Specifications R D10 Capacity Studies / Production Trial Run
R D2 Process Controls / Control Plan R D11 Error / Mistake Proofing Plan
R D3 Process Flow Diagrams / Floor Plan R D12 Check Fixtures
R D4 Process FMEA / Design FMEA R D13 Product Specifications
R D5 Containment Plan R D14 Tooling / Facility Readiness
R D6 Material and Functional Testing R D15 Packaging & Shipping Specifications
R D7 Training / Operator Instructions R D16 Problem Solving
R D8 Preventive Maintenance Plan R D17 Sub-Contractor Procedures and Controls
R D9 Material Inspection / Lot Traceability R D18 PPAP Specific Requirements
(P) Process Review: 100% Acceptance Required 0 ACCEPT (A) 0 REJECT (R)
SCORING POLICY
0 = NO SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED 1 = PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM 2 = FULLY IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM
P 1. ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS:
a. Does supplier have latest engineering standards?
b. Have engineering standards been reviewed for safety or heat treatment requirements?
c. Is product adequately defined to enable feasibility evaluation?
d. Are specifications and requirements available and shared between Lear and supplier?
e. Are open engineering issues addressed?
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 5. CONTAINMENT PLAN:
a. Is there an effective launch and production containment procedure written and in place?
b. Does it call out the requirements of the customer to exit containment?
c. Does the supplier use the containment findings to fine tune the process?
d. Does the supplier have adequate containment in-house; if not is there an external containment plan in place?
e. Are contingency plans up-to-date for emergencies and natural disasters, i.e. - weather related shutdowns, loss of power, etc.
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
YES NO
REQUIRED SIGNATURES:
P5 CONTAINMENT PLAN
There must be an effective containment procedure written and in place.
The procedure should specify the requirements of the customer to exit containment.
The supplier should use the containment findings to fine tune the process.
The supplier should have adequate containment in-house; if not they should have an external containment plan in place.
Dock Audits should be performed to insure conformance of product.
P 6 MATERIAL & FUNCTIONAL TESTING
Supplier must use parts from production tooling and production process for testing.
Annual validation must be done to insure continuing conformance.
P 7 TRAINING / OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS
Operation and inspection instructions need to be posted at the point of operation.
Operator instructions should adequately detail how to perform the operations and what to inspect.
Visual aids should be available and located in the production area.
Product / Process Quality Checklist should be completed.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Section 4 for checklist
Documented training records.
Training needs for each employee are to be documented.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949 , Element 4.18, Training
Staffing should include support at Lear plant for launch support
Team should include: eng, quality, materials, production
Manning plan needs to support ramp up plan
P 8 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN
Supplier must have a documented Preventive Maintenance Program with history.
PM Program should include all machines, tools and auxiliary equipment.
Perishable parts for equipment and tooling should be readily available.
P 9 MATERIAL INSPECTIN / LOT TRACEABILITY
The procedure must insure lot traceability, inspection sampling plans, and inspection test reports.
[Reference QS 9000 Element 4.10]
Labels are to include the correct revision level, part number, and manufacture date.
Lot traceability should be possible from the label information.
P 10 CAPACITY STUDIES / PRODUCTION TRIAL RUN
The supplier must be capable of producing acceptable parts at the quoted maximum tool capacity.
Run @ Rate must be run on production line per the floor plan layout using production tools, process and trained operators.
2. CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required) APPROVED: YES / NO* DATE APPROVED
5. PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS
6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS
7. SIGN-OFF
Note: Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances? Yes No
Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? Yes No
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
These results meet all drawing and specification requirements: YES NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, have been made to the applicable
Production Part Approval Process Manual 3rd Edition Requirements. I further warrant these samples were
produced at the production rate of ________ / 8 hours. I have noted any deviations from this declaration below.
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
The original copy of this document shall remain at the supplier' location Optional: customer tracking
July 1999 CFG-1001 while the part is active (see Glossary). number: # ______________
Part Submission Warrant
Application:
City State Zip
MATERIALS REPORTING
Has Customer reuired substances of concern information been reported. Yes No n/a
Sumitted by IMDS or any other Customer format __________________________________________________
Are Plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO Marking Codes
Yes No
REASON FOR SUBMISSION
Initial Submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Changes(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
(Inhouse mixing plant installed)
Tooling Inactive > Than 1 Year
Other - please specify
Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated apperance 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 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufaturing location.
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for ✘ dimensional measurements ✘ material and functional tests and ✘ appearance criteria and ✘ statistical
process package These results meet all drawing and specification requirements : ✘ Yes No (If "No" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
I hereby affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts and have been made to the applicable
Production Part Approval process Manual 4th Edition Requirements.I further warrant these samples were
produced at the production rate _______/ 8Hours. I have noted any deviations fron this declaration below.
EXPLANATION / COMMENTS:
July
1999 CFG-1001 The original copy of this document shall remain at the Suppliers Original : Customer Tracking
Location While the Part is active (See Glossary).
LN/TS/F-07 ( 01 090707)
The original copy of this document shall remain at the Suppliers
Location While the Part is active (See Glossary). Number :
LN/TS/F-07 ( 01 090707)