Você está na página 1de 66

Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

,Nasik
Sample Labels Required :
Sr.No Requirement Level 3 Remarks
1 Design records of saleable products S
- For Prorietary Components / Details R
- For All Other Components / Details S
2 Engineering Change Documents, if any S
3 Customer Engineering Approval if required S
4 Design FMEA ( See I.2.2.4) S
5 Process Flow Diagram * S
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
10 Measurement system analysis study S
Refer the MSA Acceptance guidelines in MSA Manual
Section D
11 Qualified laboratory documentation S
12 Control plan * S
13 Part submission warrant (PSW) * S
14 Appreance approval report, (AAR) if Applicable S
15
Bulk Material requirement checklist (For bulk material
PPAP only) R
16 Sample Product S
17 Master Sample (See I.2.2.17) R
18 Checking aids R
19
Record Of Compliance With Customer Specific
Requirement S
NOTE : Check for supplier PPAP completion
* - Need approval signature
Submission Level :
PPAP CHECK LIST
Part No. : Rev. No. : Customer : Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Description : Supplier :
YES
NO
1 4 3 2 5
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd
Supplier Customer
Location Program
Supplier Code Model Year
Part No.
Part Name
Build
Material
Required
Qty. No. Of SC No. Of CC % PIST %PIPC
VP Build 20.10.08 35
PP Build 25.03.09 50
SOP 10.05.09 50
Programm
Need Date
Supplier
Commitment
Date
Completion
Date
Responsibilty
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
9
Preliminary Listing of Special Product &
Process Characteristics 05.10.08
10 Product Assurance Plan 10.10.08
Product Design & Development
11
Design Failure Mode & Effects Analysis
(DFMEA) NA
12 Design for Manufacturability & Assembly NA
13 Design Verification NA
14 Design Reviews Ongoing
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
20
New Equipment, Tooling & Facilities
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
29
Process Failure Mode & Effects Analysis
(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)
44 Customer Satisfaction
45 Delivery & Service
Additional Program Specific Items:
48 Program Timline
Supplier Team Members / Position / Telephone Number Customer Representative / Position / Telephone Number
Comments
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
MNAL W935
2009
L0206690AA
ASM, ADJUSTER - 4 WAY MANUAL,
CENTER, HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT,BS
DR,RHD
Task
Tasks 1-15 are optional, unless supplier is design responsible
Feedback, Assessment & Customer Approval
APQP TIME PLAN
Duroshox Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Ranjangaon ,Pune
LN/TS/F-15 ( 00 200303 )
Date (Org) :__________ 17.10.08
Part No. :____________________ L0206690AA Change Letter : _____ Part Name :______________________ Rev.No. 00
Supplier : __________________________________________ Duroshox Technologies Pvt. Ltd EN Ref.No. : ________________ Rev.Date:- 17.10.08
Supplier Code :__________________
VP
Date - 08/11/04
Acceptance criteria 90%
Functional Requirements
As per SOR
Customer Input Requirements- Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Lear Requirements Existing Targets / Requirements Remarks
ASM, ADJUSTER - 4 WAY MANUAL, CENTER, HEIGHT
ADJUSTMENT,BS DR,RHD
Quality Targets
Warranty Targets ( R/1000) 16R/1000 @ 12 MIS
PIST 100% PIST at PSW approval level.
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
PPM at Supplier's End <250 PPM
PIPC Ppk>1.67 for achieve 100% PIPC.
Defect Ratio at the Trial Run
Reliability Test Requirements
As per the DVP.
Reliability Targets Including Useful Life
3,00,000 km
Appearance
As per the SOR & Approved Master
Sample.
As per the SOR & Approved Master Sample.
Fitment Trial
As per current practices. Fitment trial
must be approved prior to PSW
approval.
To check the clearance , gaps & flushness as per the Cad
layout & tool accessibility.Fitment trial by CFT.Inspection
report must be assist the sample.
For list of functional parameters refer SOR.
Capacity Planning Volume
N/A
50,000 per annum(Peak)
Capacity planning including tooling done are
based on 50,000 vehicles per annum. (25,000-Base,20,000-Medium,5,000-Premium)
Packaging Requirements
As per Lear Packing Std. As per Lear Packing Std.
Supply Chain Agreement ( Bin Quantity)
As per Lear Packing Std. As per Lear Packing Std.
Identification
Method
Location
Variant identification stickers. As defined in the drawing . Variant identification stickers.
Self life ( if applicable )
N/A
Whenever applicable, item should not be deteriorate(eg.
Trim/Fabric/spring etc.)
Material Safety Data Sheet
(Mentioned any specific requirement for
handling, storage, transportation etc.)
MSDS is required for all hazardous
materials supplied to M/S Lear.
MSDS is required for all hazardous materials(Twice in a Year)
supplied to M/S Lear. Special attention to be paid for material
handing in order to avoid transit damage.
Concerns management/SRS Score/PPM
All Suppliers are required to Visit our plant for any concern as
well as send their action plan for raised concern , high PPM &
low SRS score.
Action plan should reach to M/S Lear within
the specfied time frame.
Damage material will not be accepted at M/S
Lear end.
Operator Skill/Operator training
N/A Must be qualified 4th Quarter
1.Evalution criteria must be clearly defined
2.Training record must be available
RPN Recommendation N/A Action plan is required if RPN is >50 .
Requirement from Sub Contractors
( Tier 2 Suppliers )
PSW shall be done for all identified
Tier-2 suppliers.
PSW shall be done for all identified Tier-2 suppliers and
Warrant should be submitted to M/S Lear.
For Geometrical Parameters
For Unilateral Tolerance Pp> 1.67 , Cp>1.33 Pp> 1.67 , Cp>1.33
For all major & Critical suppliers (agreed
Mutually)
Process Capability Requirements
For All CC/ SC charactristics Ppk>1.67 , Cpk>1.33 Ppk>1.67 , Cpk>1.33
Notification Requirement
Notification to Lear in case of changes as
per PPAP Guideline.
Prior PPAP approval required for
any change in product, Process ,
Layout , Toolings & Fixture & Sub-
Suppliers
Prior PPAP approval as well as after PPAP approval ,
notification is required for all the changes stated in AIAG
PPAP manual(4th Edition)
Material Required Date ( MRD ) Quantity Date
Not applicable for Sub-Suppliers. Sub
Suppliers are required to follow respective
Supplier PPAP guidelines.
PPAP Batch Quantity Requirement ( Qty &
Date)
50 nos. by PP Build
10.05.09
PP 50 25.03.09
35 20.10.08
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd: Supplier :
STA / SQE Product Development Purchase Name & Designation of Representative :
Date:
Name :
Any Other
Date :
Signature :
SOP 50
LP/TS/F-40
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name: Part Number(s):
Part Name:. Program Name:
Supplier Code: Part No. List Controller:
Assembly Component
Engineering Level or
Suffix
Page
Number
Drawing & ES
Description
3D Mathdata Version
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
Drawing & ES Release Master Control List
Supplier Name:
Drawing & ES No.
NO. Comments
Received
Date
Engineering
Change Date
LP/STA/F-01 (00 091007) 4 of 67
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name: Part Number(s):

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
Person
Responsible
Due Date
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:
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
LP/STA/F-02 Page 5 of 66
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
Sr.
No.
Process function/
Requirements
Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of failure
S
e
v
C
l
a
s
s
Potential causes /
mechanism(s) of failure
O
c
c
u
r
Current Process
Controls
D
e
t
e
c
R
P
N
Recommended
Action(s)
Responsibility
& Target
Completion Date
Action taken
S
e
v
O
c
c
D
e
t
R
P
N
Action Results
LP/TS/F-05 6
Compone
nt /
Test
Number
Procedure
/ Standard
Number
Description Acceptance Criteria Stage Timing REMARKS
Qty. Type Start Comp. Qty. Type Phase Result
Model : Source : Report Date : Reporting Engineer :
DESIGN VERIFICATION PLAN & REPORT (DVP&R) DVP No. :
Author :
Plan Date : Approval : SYSTEM :
TEST PLAN TEST REPORT
Sample Sample Tested Test Requirements
Responsibility
/ Organisation
LP/STA/F-03
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name: Part Number(s):
Supplier Process Lear Process
CC/SC Design Control Control Method CPk Result MSA Result Customer Symbol
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
CC/SC List and Plan
Item Comment
Process Control
LP/STA/F-04
Part No Date (Orig)
Part Name Date (Riv.)
Opn. No. &Description
Description
of F/T/G
Type
F/T/G
No. of
Days
Start
Date
Target
Date
Respon-
sibility
Min.
Qty
Max.
Qty
G/Y/R
Status
No. of
Days
Source
(Inhouse/
Supplier)
Start
Date.
Target
Date.
Respon-
sibility
Min.
Qty
Max.
Qty
G/Y/R
Status.
No. of
Days
Start
Date
Target
Date
Respon-
sibility
G/Y/R
Status.
Supplier Code
Timing Plan - Facilities, Tooloing & Gauges
Try out & Approval Manufacturing Designing.
Supplier
LP/STA/F-05
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name: Part Number(s):
Item Gage/Checking Fixture
Design Concept
Approve Date
Design Completion
Date
Build Completion
Date
Supplier Name
Certification/Cu
stomer
Approval Date
MSA Method MSA Result Responsible Comment
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
Gage/Fixture Checking Plan
LP/STA/F-06
RISK ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1
Lear Automotive India Pvt Ltd.
YES NO CAUSE ACTION RESPONSIBILITY
2) PROFILE :-
-Is there the Historic Launch Performance Poor ?
-Is there High Product Or Process Complexity ?
-Are the Manufacturing Techniques New to the Industry ?
CUSTOMER :- PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS :-
-Are Overall Budget stretched due to New Business ?
ASSESSMENT ITEMS
-Does the Similar Parts / Products have a History of High Warranty ?
-Are there Frequent Quality Rejections at the Customer Plant ?
-Was there a Recall Action due to a similar Component Or System ?
1) QUALITY HISTORY :-
-Is the Product Or Manufacturing Technology is New to our Manufacturing Location ?
-Are the Resources Stretched due to Significant amount of New Business ?
-Are the Cost Targets Aggressive ?
3) ENGINEERING PROFILE :-
4) PERFORMANCE v/s TARGETS :-
-Will the Deisgn Goals ( Weight,Material,Functional Performance, etc.) and Reliability
Goals be Difficult to achieve ?
-Will the Quality Goals ( Warranty,Scrap Ratio,Rework Ratio,PPM, etc.) be difficult to
achieve ?
-Is the Product Strategically Important due to High Visibility Or Functional
Performance ?
-Is it a New Design ?
-Is the Programme Timing Compressed ?
LP/EN/F-12
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT DATE:
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd
CUSTOMER SUPPLIER :
PART NAME : PART NUMBER :
Feasibility Considerations
YES NO CONSIDERATION
Conclusion
Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.
Feasible Changes recommended
Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirments.
SIGN OFF
TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE
TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE
TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE
Where statistical process control is used on similar products:
* Costs for tooling ?
* Alternative manufacturing methods ?
Is statistical process control required on product?
Is statistical process control presently used on similar products ?
* Are the processes in control and stable ?
* Are Cpk's greater than 1.33 ?
Is product adequately defined 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 Cpk,s that meet requirments ?
Is there adequate capacity to produce product ?
Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques ?
Can the product be manufactured without incurring any unusual:
* Costs for capital equipment?
LP/TS/F-14
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name:
Part Number(s):

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
1 Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production
and inspection stations?
2 Were all appropriate FMEA's (SFMEA, DFMEA)
available and used as aids to develop the process flow
chart?
3 Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in
the control plan?
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 Have potential quality problems due to handling and
outside processing been identified and corrected?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
LP/STA/F-02 Page 13 of 66
Person
Responsible
Due Date
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
LP/STA/F-02 Page 14 of 66
Process Flow Chart
Lear Automotive India Pvt.Ltd.,Nashik
Model TRANSPORTATION STORAGE
Core Team INSPECTION
Document No: OPN & INSP. TOGETHER DELAY
Process Description
(Operation/Inspection/
Transportation/Storage)
Product Chararcteristics Process Chararcteristics
SYMBOLS
Prepared By :
OPERATION
Process Resp. Item/Part Desc.
Date Original
Date Revised
Key Date
Process Flow Diagram Incoming Source of Variation
LN/TS/F-04
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name:
Part Number(s):

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
1 Was the Process FMEA prepared using the Chrysler,
Ford, and General Motors guidelines?
2 Have all operations affecting fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been identified and
listed sequentially?
3 Were similar part FMEA's considered?
4 Have historical campaign and warranty data been
reviewed?
5 Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or
taken for high risk priority items?
6 Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or
taken for high severity numbers?
7 Were risk priorities numbers revised when corrective
action was completed?
8 Were high severity numbers revised when a design
change was completed?
9 Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the
subsequent operation, assembly, and product?
10 Was warranty information used as an aid in developing
the Process FMEA?
11 Were customer plant problems used as an aid in
developing the Process FMEA?
12 Have the causes been described in terms of something
that can be fixed or controlled?
13 Where detection is the major factor, have provisions
been made to control the cause prior to the next
operation?
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
LN/STA/F-02 Page 16 of 66

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
Revision Date
Prepared By:
LN/STA/F-02 Page 17 of 66
Person Responsible Due Date
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST
LN/STA/F-02 Page 18 of 66
Person Responsible Due Date
LN/STA/F-02 Page 19 of 66
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.)
Process C Potential O Current Current D
Function Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Process Process e R. Recommended Responsibility Action Results
Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.
Mode Failure v s of Failure u - Prevention - Detection e N. Completion Date Taken e c e P.
Requirements s r c v c t N.
Page 20 of 66
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name:
Part Number(s):

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
1 Was the control plan methodology referenced in Section
6 used in preparing the control plan?
2 Have all known customer complaints been identified to
facilitate the selection of special product/process
characteristics?
3 Are all special product/process characteristics included
in the control plan?
4 Were SFMEA, DFMEA, and PFMEA used to prepare
the control plan?
5 Are material specifications requiring inspection
identified?
6 Does the control pan address incoming
(material/components) through processing/assembly
including packaging?
7 Are engineering performance testing 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 gage methods compatible between supplier and
customer?
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
LP/STA/F-02 Page 21 of 66

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required
Revision Date
Prepared By:
LP/STA/F-02 Page 22 of 66
Person
Responsible
Due Date
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST
LP/STA/F-02 Page 23 of 66
Person
Responsible
Due Date
LP/STA/F-02 Page 24 of 66
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)
Part Name/Description Supplier/Plant approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If required)
Supplier plant Supplier code Other Approval / Date(If required) Other Approval/Date(If required)
Part/ Special
Process No. Product Char.
Number Class
Size Freq.
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik
CONTROL PLAN
Tolerance Technique
Evaluation Operation Description Process Product/Process Sample
Process Name/ Machine, Device, Characteristics Method
Reaction Plan
For Mfg. Specification/ Measurement Control Method
Jig, Tools
LP/TS/F-06
Date :
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd
Sr No DESC I.D. NO.
CALIBRATION
FREQ.
LEAST
COUNT
MSA
YES/NO/NR
A GAUGES
B INSTRUMENTS
C TESTING EQUIPMENTS
Prepared by :
CHECKING AIDS LIST
(For Gauges, Instruments & Testing Equipments)
LP/QA/F-13
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS 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
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. AVE x
a
=
5. R
r
a
=
6. B 1
7. 2
8. 3
9. AVE x
b
=
10. R
r
b
=
11. C 1
12. 2
13. 3
14. AVE x
c
=
15. R
r
c
=
16. PART X=
AVE ( xp ) R
p
=
17. (r
a
+ r
b
+ r
c
) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=
18.
(Max x - Min x) = x
DIFF
=
19. R x D
4
* = UCL
R
=
20.
R x D
3
* = LCL
R
=
* D
4
=3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials; D
3
= 0 for up to 7 trials. UCL
R
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
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
0 0 0
Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV)
Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K
1
Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV)
= 2 4.56 =
= 3 3.05 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV =
{(x
DIFF
x K
2
)
2
- (EV
2
/nr)}
1/2
% AV = 100 (AV/TV)
= =
= Appraisers 2 3 =
K
2
3.65 2.70 n = number of parts
Repeatability & Reproducibility (R & R) r = number of trials
R & R =
{(EV
2
+ AV
2
)}
1/2
Parts
K
3
= 2 3.65 % R&R = 100 (R&R/TV)
= 3 2.70 =
Part Variation (PV) 4 2.30 =
PV = R
P
x K
3
5 2.08
= 6 1.93
= 7 1.82 % PV = 100 (PV/TV)
Total Variation (TV) 8 1.74 =
TV =
{(R&R
2
+ PV
2
)}
1/2
9 1.67 =
= 10 1.62
=
All calculations are based upon predicting 5.15 sigma (99.0% of the area under the normal distribution curve).
K
1
is 5.15/d
2
, where d
2
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).
K
2
is 5.15/d
2
, where d
2
is dependent on the number of operators (m) and (g) is 1, since there is only one range calculation.
K
2
is 5.15/d
2
, where d
2
is dependent on the number of parts (m) and (g) is 1, since there is only one range calculation.
d
2
is obtained from Table D
3
, "Quality Control and Industrial Statistics", A.J. Duncan.
LP/STA/F-07
Part name : A:
Characteristic : B:
Specification: C:
CORRECT DECISIONS
S.NO A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference A B C
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
8 0 0 0
9 0 0 0
10 0 0 0
11 0 0 0
12 0 0 0
13 0 0 0
14 0 0 0
15 0 0 0
16 0 0 0
17 0 0 0
18 0 0 0
19 0 0 0
20 0 0 0
21 0 0 0
22 0 0 0
23 0 0 0
24 0 0 0
25 0 0 0
26 0 0 0
27 0 0 0
28 0 0 0
29 0 0 0
30 0 0 0
31 0 0 0
32 0 0 0
33 0 0 0
34 0 0 0
35 0 0 0
36 0 0 0
37 0 0 0
38 0 0 0
39 0 0 0
40 0 0 0
Reference: 0
OK Component = 1 NG Component = 0
No. of correct decisions
Total opportunities for making decisions
No. of Ok decisions for NG parts
Total opportunities for finding NG parts
No. of NG decisions for OK Parts
Total opportunities for finding OK parts
Effectiveness % > 90% which is conforming to the specifications
< 2% which is conforming to the specifications
< 5% which is conforming to the specifications
Miss Rate %
False Alarm %
Result:
A B C
False Alarm %= #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
0.00
A B C
Miss Rate %= #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Effectiveness %= 0.00 0.00
A B
Gauge Type :
SUPPLIER NAME
GAGE REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIABILITY STUDY
FOR ATTRIBUTE DATA
C
Gauge name:
Number of Parts
Gauge number:
Part Details Appraise Name Gauge Details
40 Nos. Project Name
Part Details
LP/STA/F-08
LP/STA/F-08
LP/STA/F-08
REPEATIBILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT
NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST
PLEASE SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS AND COMPLETE THE FORM ACCORDINGLY PARAMETERS ARE
K
1 Number of Trials Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K
2 Number of Operators Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K
3 Number of Parts Can be any value between 2 and 10 10 OK
'01 PSW'!H6 '01 PSW'!A6 '01 PSW'!A21 '01 PSW'!A54 '01 PSW'!H54
Part number Part name xyz Plant
Characteristic Gage number 334 Coord by
Tolerance Units Gage name sg Phone #
Tolerance (Tol) Gage ECL/revision/ a Date
OPERATOR P A R T RESULTS
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 A
1
2 A
2
3 A
3
Average X
A
Range R
A
B 1 B
1
2 B
2
3 B
3
Average X
B
Range R
B
C 1 C
1
2 C
2
3 C
3
Average X
C
Range R
C
Part Avg x
PART
=
Part Range
R
PART
=
R = R
A
+ R
B
+ R
C
/ No of operators = + + / 3 R =
X
DIFF
= [Max (X)
ABC
] - [Min (X)
ABC
] = - X
DIFF
=
UCL
R
= R * D
4
= * 2.580 UCL
R
=
LCL
R
=
R *
D
3
=
* 0.000
LCL
R
=
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 =
X
DIFF
= R
PART
=
Measurement Unit Analysis Based on the TOLERANCE Method
Repeatibility - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R * K
1 % EV = 100[EV/Tol]
EV = Trials K
1
% EV =
3 3.05
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV= [ ( X
DIFF
* K
2
)
2
- (EV
2
/ nr)] (n parts, r trials) % AV = 100[AV/Tol]
AV= Oper K
2
% AV =
3 2.70
Repeatibility & Reproducibility (R & R) % R&R = 100[R&R/Tol]
R&R= (EV
2
+ AV
2
) % R&R =
R&R=
Part Variation (PV)
PV= R
PART
* K
3 Parts K
3 % PV = 100[PV/Tol]
PV= 10 1.62 % PV =
Total Variation (TV) 1.62
TV= (R&R
2
+ PV
2
) #REF!
TV=
Using TOLERANCE method
Using Part to Part variation
LN/STA/F-09
Filename: 230217172.xls.ms_office / GRR ND Equivalent to NAP 4.5-1 F-GRR ND
12/1/99
REPEATIBILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT
NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST
PLEASE SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS AND COMPLETE THE FORM ACCORDINGLY PARAMETERS ARE
K
1 Number of Trials Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K
2 Number of Operators Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K
3 Number of Parts Can be any value between 2 and 10 10 OK
'01 PSW'!H6 '01 PSW'!A6 '01 PSW'!A21 '01 PSW'!A54 '01 PSW'!H54
Part number Part name xyz Plant
Characteristic Gage number 334 Coord by
Tolerance Units Gage name sg Phone #
Tolerance (Tol) Gage ECL/revision/ a Date
Using TOLERANCE method
Using Part to Part variation
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
Notes:
Guidelines for acceptance of gage repeatability and reproducibility (%R&R):
UNDER 10% ERROR: Gage system OK
10% to 30% ERROR: May be acceptable based upon importance of application. Calculate "breakpoint" = RPN x (% Gage R&R/100) and
check that is less than 37.8 and (% Gage R&R) less than 30%. See next page for conclusion of usage.
OVER 30% ERROR: Gage system needs improvement. Identify the problems and have them corrected.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

Part
Average Run Chart
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
R
a
n
g
e

Part
Range Chart by operator
UCLr
LN/STA/F-09
Filename: 230217172.xls.ms_office / GRR ND Equivalent to NAP 4.5-1 F-GRR ND
12/1/99
AVG
Based on the TOLERANCE Method
Using TOLERANCE method
Using Part to Part variation
LN/STA/F-09
Filename: 230217172.xls.ms_office / GRR ND Equivalent to NAP 4.5-1 F-GRR ND
12/1/99
Using TOLERANCE method
Using Part to Part variation
%GRR/100
10
10
LN/STA/F-09
Filename: 230217172.xls.ms_office / GRR ND Equivalent to NAP 4.5-1 F-GRR ND
12/1/99
<PART SKETCH> <DELIVERY CONDITION - PACKING SYSTEM>
(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
<SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS > TO SUPPLIER
1 ENSURE QUALITY OF PARTS TILL DELIVERY POINTS.
2 PART IDENTIFICATION CONTROL SHOULD BE EASY.
3 SAFETY FOR MATERIAL HANDLING.
4 PACKAGING TO BE COMPACT AND LIGHT.
5
LOGISTICS/
STORES ENGG PUR Q.C. APPROVED CHECKED
6 NO SHARP EDGES. REV NO. DATE DETAILS
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,nashik
LEAR SUPPLIER
PACKAGING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE USER FRIENDLY& COST
EFFECTIVE.
PARTS DELIVERY - PACKAGING STANDARD
SUPPLIER NAME PART NAME PART .NO.
LP/TS/F-17
Program Program assigned description.
Date Date of Production Trial Run.
Supplier Name Name of Supplier.
Location Location of facility (city and state) where Production Trial Run is conducted.
Part Number(s) List all Part Numbers that will be reviewed
Description Part Name.
Quoted Annual Volume Rate (LCR)
Lean Capacity Requirement. Anticipated as the low annual volumes. Program volumes are documented on the
Request For Quote (RFQ). Note that program volumes can change from the initial RFQ to the time the Trial
Run is conducted. Program volumes must be
MCR (+15%)
Maximum Capacity Requirement. This number is the high annual volume expected for the program. This
number is calculated by increasing the LCR by 15%.
Estimated Program Production
Length
Duration of the program in years.
Quoted Supplier Work Pattern
The quoted amount of weekly production required by the supplier to support annual volumes. Report number
of production days per week, number of shifts per day and number of hours per shift.(do not take time off for
breaks, lunch etc) , as this is calcula
Production Process Description of the production process being reviewed.
Number of Quoted Operators For
Process
Total number of operators that will be used during the normal production process. The Trial Run will include
this number of operators.
Shared Production Line Indicate if the production line is shared with another program.
Number of Production Lines Note the number of production lines used to produce program parts.
Multi Production Process Indicate if the production of program parts requires more than a single operation.
Number of Production Tools The number of production tools for the entire production process being rated.
Number of Cavities/Tool(s) Number of part cavities incorporated into the production tool.
Number of Fixtures Number of fixtures required for the production process.
Hours to Run Scheduled hours to perform the Trial Run.
Number of Shifts to Run Scheduled shifts to perform the Trial Run.
Quoted Parts / Hour Expected number of parts produced per hour (calculated automatically).
Quoted Parts / Shift Expected number of parts produced per shift (calculated automatically).
Quoted Parts / Day (QPDR) Expected number of parts produced per day (calculated automatically).
Planned Downtime Expected downtime during the Trial Run (ie., Lunch, breaks, etc.).
Actual Production Hours Exact production hours of the Trial Run.
Days/Year Number of days production is run (Lear constant = 240 days/yr).
Capability % Required First time capability with no repairs (95%for most processes).
Planned Run Time Total time planned for the production trial run less time allocated for planned downtime
Approved Parts / Hour Number of approved parts produced per hour during the Trial Run .
Approved Parts / Shift Number of approved parts produced per shift, based on the Quoted Work Pattern.
Approved Parts / Day Number of approved parts produced per day, based on the Quoted Work Pattern.
Unplanned Downtime Time the production trial line or process was down in which was unplanned (ex. Breakdowns).
Downtime Actual production downtime during the Trial Run.
Uptime Percentage Percentage of the time the process runs with no unplanned downtime (calculated).
Uptime Percentage Required The minimum time the production process must run according to Lear Corporation (90%).
Total Units Produced Total number of parts produced during the Trial Run.
Total Units Approved Number of approved parts produced during the Trial Run.
Total Units Rejected Number of rejected parts produced during the Trial Run.
Percentage of Capability
Rate of the suppliers ability to produce approved product. This percentage is calculated by dividing the
amount of total units approved by the total units produced..
REPORT CARD
To pass Lear process audit, all three (Volume, Capacity, and Uptime Percentage) must indicate a pass. Any
failures will require corrective action(s) by the supplier.
Return Visit
Indicate if a return visit is required for further surveillance or an additional Trial Run. A follow up date is
needed.
Comments Enter comments as required.
Supplier Representative Name & Signature of Supplier Representative participating in the Trial Run.
Title Title of Supplier Representative.
Phone Telephone number of Supplier Representative.
Lear Representative Name & Signature of Lear Representative conducting the Trial Run.
Title Title of Lear Representative.
Phone Telephone number of the Lear Representative.
Production Trial Run Summary Guidelines
LP/STA/F-10
# OF SHIFTS
NO. OF QUOTED OPERATORS FOR PROCESS:
Yes No
Yes No
#DIV/0! % of Quoted
NO
YES
DATE:
TITLE
TITLE
QPDR = Quoted Production Daily Requirement (240 days)
NO. OF PRODUCTION LINES:
SHARED PRODUCTION LINE:
MULTI-SHARED PROCESS:
Production Trial Run Summary
Note: ALL CELLS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LEAR SQE
NO. OF PRODUCTION TOOLS:
PROGRAM: DATE:
# HOURS PER SHIFT
SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE:
Note: Annual Volumes and Quoted Work Patterns are based on RFQ (Request For Quote) information.
PHONE
PHONE
0.000
0.000
PLANNED RUN TIME(Scheduled-Planned Downtime)
QUOTED PARTS PER DAY (QPDR)
PLANNED DOWNTIME (Breaks,PM, etc)
0.00
#DIV/0!
TOTAL UNITS PRODUCED
TOTAL UNITS APPROVED
TOTAL UNITS REJECTED
COMMENTS:
DEMONSTRATION RUN RESULTS
MCR = Maximum Capacity Requirement LCR = Lean Capacity Requirement
LEAR REPRESENTATIVE:
APPROVED PARTS PER DAY
QUOTED VOLUME
DEMONSTRATION RUN GOAL
PERCENTAGE OF CAPABILITY
0
NO. OF SHIFTS TO RUN
#DIV/0!
UNPLANNED DOWNTIME (HRS)
UPTIME PERCENTAGE
RETURN VISIT CAPABILITY RESULTS
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
PERCENTAGE CAPABILITY(95%min)
PASS/FAIL
DAYS/YEAR (LEAR CONSTANT) 240
QUOTED ANNUAL VOLUME RATE
(LCR):
MCR (+ 15%):
ENGINEERING CHANGE LEVEL:
DATE OF
ENGINEERING CHANGE:
QUOTED SUPPLIER WORK PATTERN:
SUPPLIER NAME:
LOCATION
(CITY/STATE)
DESCRIPTION:
ESTIMATED PROGRAM PRODUCTION LENGTH:
PART NUMBER(S):
NO. OF CAVITIES PER TOOL:
PLANNED DOWNTIME (Breaks,PM, etc)
#DIV/0!
0
( YEARS )
# DAYS PER WEEK:
QUOTED PARTS PER SHIFT
#DIV/0! QUOTED PARTS PER HOUR
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0!
APPROVED PARTS PER HOUR
APPROVED PARTS PER SHIFT
PRODUCTION PROCESS:
#DIV/0!
NO. OF GAGES:
NOTE: ALL PRODUCTION NUMBERS BELOW ARE BASED ON THE QUOTED SUPPLIER WORK PATTERN
UPTIME PERCENTAGE
#DIV/0!
HOURS TO RUN
LEAR TEAM RECOMMENDATION
REPORT CARD
CAPABILITY % REQUIRED 95.00% APPROVED PARTS/YEAR
LP/STA/F-10
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
Supplier Name: SUPPLIER Part Number(s): NUMBER
RUN @ RATE REVIEW CONTENT
The Run @ Rate will verify that the results of the supplier's actual manufacturing process meet customer requirements for on-going quality, as
stated in PPAP, and quoted tooling capacity. Also it will verify that the supplier's actual process is to plan, as documented in PPAP, GP-12 and the
other documentation listed below.
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
preventive maintenance? 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
Supplier Name: SUPPLIER Part Number(s): NUMBER
C. MANUFACTURING CAPACITY RESULTS
The following will be verified while the process is running.
1. Can net output from each operation support quoted capacity? Yes No
Comments:
Operation Quoted Capacity Rate
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:
5. Is the acceleration plan sufficient to meet requirements? Yes No
Comments:
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
D. PART QUALITY PLAN TO ACTUAL
1. Are all Production checking fixtures complete, with acceptable measurement system studies (i.e, gage R and R)
performed, and operator instructions/visual aids available? Yes No
Comments:
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
monitoring take place as outlined on the process control plan? Yes No
Comments:
LP/STA/F-11
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
Supplier Name: SUPPLIER Part Number(s): NUMBER
D. PART QUALITY PLAN TO ACTUAL (CONTINUED)
4. Are potential failure modes, as identified in the PFMEA, addressed through error-proofing or the control plan?
Yes No Comments:
5. Do the process control plan reaction plan and the supplier's corrective actions ensure effective containment and
correction? Yes No Comments:
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
E. PART QUALITY RESULTS:
Note: The total number of parts produces, the pieces rejected and the pieces reworked must be documented on the
summary sheet
1. Do the parts produced off the production tooling during the Run @ Rate meet GM's requirements for on-going quality, as
stated in PPAP? Yes No Comments:
2. Is the manufacturing process in control? Yes No Comments:
3. Does the manufacturing process demonstrate the required capability? Yes No
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
Supplier Name: SUPPLIER Part Number(s): NUMBER
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.
G. PACKAGING AND HANDLING
1. During the review of in process and final shipment packaging for preservation of part quality and ease of use by supplier's
operators loading and unloading parts, were any problems identified?
Yes No Comments:
2. Does the supplier's method for in process and final shipping packaging and handling effectively eliminate the potential for
process errors or mixed stock? Yes No Comments:
COMMENTS:
Completed by: Phone: Date:
LP/STA/F-11
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE SUMMARY
Part Description NAME
Supplier SUPPLIER Part # NUMBER
Mfg. Location Drawing #
Supplier Quoted Production Rate /Hr /Day Change Level ECL
Customer GM Buyer
Phone #
Planned Usage: Daily Weekly SQE
Phone #
Planned Run Date GOAL (net good parts)
Planned Hours To Run /Hour
Planned Shifts Planned Downtime /Shift
Reason for Planned Downtime: /Day
RESULTS
Actual Hours From To ACTUAL (net good parts)
Actual Shifts Date /Hour
Actual Downtime Hours (planned & unplanned) /Shift
/Day
Explain:
Total Produced - Total Rejected = Net
Comments/Open Issues:
Supplier Run At Rate Recommendation: Rerun Date
Comments:
Supplier Signature Title Phone Date
Run At Rate Summary: Rerun Date
Authorized Customer Supplier Quality Signature Title Date
PASS OPEN FAIL
PASS OPEN FAIL
LP/STA/F-11
UNITS :-
Sample group
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
Short Term process capability Results
Grand X bar = Average of all sample readings
R bar = Average of indivisual ranges
Sigma(N) = R bar/d2 = R bar/2.33
Sigma(N-1) = 1.983 Std. Dev. For Samples
UCLx = Grand X bar + (A2xR bar) 2153.581
LCLx = Grand X bar - (A2xR bar) 2148.291
(where A2 = 0.58 for 5 samples)
UCLr = R bar x D4 9.6216
(where D4 = 2.11 )
LCLr = --
Cp = (USL-LSL) / (6xSigma)
Pp = (USL-LSL) / (6xSigma)
Ppk-1 1.52 (USL-Xbar) / (3xSigma)
Ppk-2 1.84 (Xbar-LSL) / (3xSigma)
Ppk = (Long Term Preliminary Process Capability)
2160 2140
6 7
UPPER LIMIT
PROJECT NAME
SUPPLIER NAME
1.703
1.681
2153.581
2148.291
9.622
0.000
MACHINE :-
MATERIAL :-
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
STATISTICAL PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS - FOR VARIABLE DATA(Long Term)
CHARACTERISTIC
LOWER LIMIT
DATE OF DATA COLLECTION :- SPECIFICATION ->
25
2150.936
4.560
21 22 23 24 17 18 20
LEAST COUNT :-
8 9 10 11 19
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM :-
Gms.
OPERATION :-
1.52
5 14 15 16 12 13
REMARKS :-
1.957
1 2 3 4
2145.0
2146.0
2147.0
2148.0
2149.0
2150.0
2151.0
2152.0
2153.0
2154.0
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
X
b
a
r

Sample group --->
Xbar Chart
Uclx X bar LCLx Nom. X
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
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
UNITS :-
Sample group
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
Short Term process capability Results
Grand X bar = Average of all sample readings
R bar = Average of indivisual ranges
Sigma(N) = R bar/d2 = R bar/2.33
UCLx = Grand X bar + (A2xR bar) 2153.581
LCLx = Grand X bar - (A2xR bar) 2148.291
(where A2 = 0.58 for 5 samples)
UCLr = R bar x D4 9.6216
(where D4 = 2.11 )
LCLr = --
Cp = (USL-LSL) / (6xSigma)
Cpk-1 1.54 (USL-Xbar) / (3xSigma)
Cpk-2 1.86 (Xbar-LSL) / (3xSigma)
Cpk = (Short Term Preliminary Process Capability)
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM :-
1 2 3 4
REMARKS :-
1.957
1.54
5 19 14 15 16 10 11 12 24 17 18 20 13 6 7 8 9
2153.581
2148.291
9.622
0.000
25
2150.936
4.560
21 22 23
1.703
MACHINE :-
MATERIAL :-
PART NUMBER
PART NAME
STATISTICAL PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS - FOR VARIABLE DATA(Short Term)
OPERATION :-
PROJECT
SUPPLIER NAME
DATE OF DATA COLLECTION :-
UPPER LIMIT
SPECIFICATION ->
Gms.
2160 2140
CHARACTERISTIC
LOWER LIMIT
LEAST COUNT :-
2145.0
2146.0
2147.0
2148.0
2149.0
2150.0
2151.0
2152.0
2153.0
2154.0
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
X
b
a
r

Sample group --->
Xbar Chart
Uclx X bar LCLx Nom. X
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
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
Number of readings per subgroup 5
P R O C E S S I N F O R M A T I O N
'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

Dept:

Date:
Increasing RUN LENGTH
PART Part number T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Part description HOW MANY RUNS
Drawing No.
T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB
ECL
Decreasing RUN LENGTH
TOOL
Tool number # Cavities
HOW MANY RUNS
DIMENSION
Description Units
Out of control limits
SPEC 28.0 PLUS 3.0 MINUS 3.0 Consecutive data points above avg. 1
Lwr Spec Limit 25.0 NOMINAL 28.0 Upr Spec Limit 31.0 Consecutive data points below avg. 1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

Data Points
Average (X chart)
Data Values UCLx AveX LCLx
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
R
a
n
g
e

Data Points
Range (R chart)
Data Values UCLr AveR LCLr
Two sided spec (bilateral) One sided (MIN) One sided (MAX)
LP/STA/F-11
PROCESS CAPABILITY CERTIFICATION REPORT
LOCATION Plant Dept: Date: 1/0/1900 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS VALUES
PART Part number: T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Part description 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 Limit 25.0 NOMINAL 28.0 Upr Spec Limit 31.0 Average readings ( X )
HISTOGRAM WITHOUT LIMITS HISTOGRAM WITH LIMITS Maximum
LSL USL Minimum
Readings below LSL
Readings above USL
25.0000 31.0000 Average Range (R)
D
2
Value n = 5
Upper capability index (CPU)
Lower capability index (CPL)
Capability index (C
p
)
Process Capability (C
pk
)
Capability ratio (CR)
Std Deviation (n-1)
Std Deviation (n)
Variance (n-1)
Variance (n)
Performance index (P
P
)
Performance ratio (PR)
Performance index (P
pk
)
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
2
3
4
5
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
2
3
4
5
Average
Range
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
2
3
.
2
0
0
2
4
.
4
0
0
2
5
.
6
0
0
2
6
.
8
0
0
2
8
.
0
0
0
2
9
.
2
0
0
3
0
.
4
0
0
3
1
.
6
0
0
3
2
.
8
0
0

R
E
A
D
I
N
G
S

R
E
A
D
I
N
G
S
LP/STA/F-11
R Chart
1
1
24 25
24 25
LP/STA/F-11
VALUES
25.0000
28.0000
31.0000
20
LP/STA/F-11
Page 50 of 66 Pages
Production Part Approval - Dimensional Results
SUPPLIER PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME OF INSPECTION FACILITY PART NAME
NAME
NOT
ITEM DIMENSION/SPECIFICATION SUPPLIER MEASUREMENT RESULTS OK OK
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
LP/STA/F-13
Page 66 of 51 Pages
Production Part Approval - Material Test Results
SUPPLIER PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME OF LABORATORY PART NAME
NAME
TYPE OF NOT
TEST MATERIAL SPEC. NO./DATE/SPECIFICATION SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS OK OK
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
LP/STA/F-13
Page 52 of 66 Pages
Production Part Approval - Performance Test Results
SUPPLIER PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME OF LABORATORY PART NAME
NAME
REF. TEST QTY. NOT
NO. REQUIREMENTS FREQ. TESTEDSUPPLIER TEST RESULTS AND TEST CONDITIONS OK OK
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
LP/STA/F-13
Page 53 of 66 Pages
Production Part Approval - Performance Test Results
SUPPLIER PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME OF LABORATORY PART NAME
NAME
REF. TEST QTY. NOT
NO. REQUIREMENTS FREQ. TESTEDSUPPLIER TEST RESULTS AND TEST CONDITIONS OK OK
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
SUPPLIER PHONE NO. DATE CUSTOMER DATE
LP/STA/F-14
SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
LP/STA/F-14
Doc No.
Rev. No.
Rev. Date
<PART SKETCH>
SR.
NO.
CHARACTERSTICS CLASS SPECIFICATION INSPECTION METHOD FREQUENCY CONTROL METHOD
A. AESTHETICS
B. DIMENSIONAL
C. TESTING(IF ANY)
QUALITY PLAN(FINAL)
APPROVED BY(STA) PREPARED BY(Supplier)
DRG.NO.
REV.NO.
PART NAME :
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd , Nashik
PART NO.:
CHECKED BY(Supplier)
REV. DATE
LP/QA/F-01
Lear Seating Pvt.Ltd.,Nashik
Customer / Supplier : Model : Inv./G.R.N.No.
Vendor code: Part No. : Lot Qty.
Part Description : Rev.No :- Sample Qty.
New Product New Process Design Change First Run Production Regular Supply
A B 3 4 5 Remark
Comments : Accept
Reject
Conditionally
Accept
APPROVED BY CHECKED BY
Date :
INSPECTION REPORT
REASON FOR REPORT
Sr.No.
Inspection
Method
Observations
Specification Parametres
PREPARED BY LP/QA/F-02
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik
Sample Labels Required :
Sr.No Requirement Level 3 Remarks
1 Design records of saleable products S
- For Prorietary Components / Details R
- For All Other Components / Details S
2 Engineering Change Documents, if any S
3 Customer Engineering Approval if required S
4 Design FMEA ( See I.2.2.4) S
5 Process Flow Diagram * S
6 Process FMEA * S
7 Dimensional Results S
8 Material, Performance test results S
9 Initial process study S
10 Measurement system analysis study S
11 Qualified laboratory documentation S
12 Control plan * S
13 Part submission warrant (PSW) * S
14 Appreance approval report, (AAR) if Applicable S
15
Bulk Material requirement checklist (For bulk
material PPAP only) R
16 Sample Product S
17 Master Sample (See I.2.2.17) R
18 Checking aids R
19
Record Of Compliance With Customer Specific
Requirement S
NOTE : Check for supplier PPAP completion
* - Need approval signature
Submission Level :
PPAP CHECK LIST
Part No. : Rev. No. : Customer :
Description : Supplier :LEAR SEATING PVT LTD
YES
NO
1 4 3 2 5
LN/TS/F-28(01 250804)
FALSE X REJECT (R)
R D1 Engineering Specifications R D10
R D2 Process Controls / Control Plan R D11
R D3 Process Flow Diagrams / Floor Plan R D12
R D4 Process FMEA / Design FMEA R D13
R D5 Containment Plan R D14
R D6 Material and Functional Testing R D15
R D7 Training / Operator Instructions R D16
R D8 Preventive Maintenance Plan R D17
R D9 Material Inspection / Lot Traceability R D18
0 0 REJECT (R)
0 = NO SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED 1 = PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Is there an effective launch and production containment procedure written and in place?
Does the supplier have adequate containment in-house; if not is there an external containment plan in place?
P 1. ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
PART NO.
PART NAME
REV. LEVEL/DATE
DOCUMENT DATE:
PROGRAM MGR.
RELEASE ENG. PLANT MGR.
PROGRAM
SUPPLIER
LOCATION
ACCEPT (A)
BUYER
QUALITY MGR.
PHONE NO.
FAX NO.
(D) Document Review - The following documentation shall be made available for review:
S.Q. ENGINEER
Capacity Studies / Production Trial Run
Error / Mistake Proofing Plan
Check Fixtures
Are there any major differences between the Process Flow Chart and Control Plan to the actual Mfg. Process?
Is the FMEA to the current AIAG revision, including current process corrective and preventative actions?
Does the supplier use the containment findings to fine tune the process?
Are accredited labs used to perform testing? Are lab certifications available? If in-house testing is conducted, is it included in the QS Scope.
Are laboratory reports available?
Does it call out the requirements of the customer to exit containment?
Are contingency plans up-to-date for emergencies and natural disasters, i.e. - weather related shutdowns, loss of power, etc.
P 5. CONTAINMENT PLAN:
Does the supplier have APQP in place?
Are specifications and requirements available and shared between Lear and supplier?
Are open engineering issues addressed?
P 2. PROCESS CONTROLS / CONTROL PLAN:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
(P) Process Review: 100% Acceptance Required
Product Specifications
Are the Severity, Occurrence and Detection up-to-date with the current AIAG revisions for rating?
Does PFMEA reflect entire process, is Buzz, Squeak, Rattle (BSR) addressed?
Have Process / Product Controls been agreed to by Lear and the supplier? (CRM)
Are the Process / Product Controls noted on the Control Plan?
Are Control / SPC charts posted?
Are charts utilized to drive a defined corrective action process?
Does supplier have latest engineering standards?
Have engineering standards been reviewed for safety or heat treatment requirements?
ACCEPT (A)
Is product adequately defined to enable feasibility evaluation?
Tooling / Facility Readiness
Packaging & Shipping Specifications
Problem Solving
SCORING POLICY
2 = FULLY IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM
Sub-Contractor Procedures and Controls
PPAP Specific Requirements
P 3. PROCESS FLOW CHART / PROCESS CONTROL PLAN / FLOOR PLAN:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Are all the processes identified?
Is there a part identification system in place?
Lot traceability from receiving through shipment to customer?
Does the layout of facility match floor plan?
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 6. MATERIAL & FUNCTIONAL TESTING:
Has the Test Plan been reviewed and approved, (i.e. DVP&R)?
P 4. PROCESS FMEA / DESIGN FMEA:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Has Process FMEA and DFMEA Checklists been completed?
Does PFMEA correlate with Control Plan?
Are adequate controls in place for in-house testing?
GPM 6.4.2
Attachment A
SUPPLIER DOCUMENT & PROCESS REVIEW RUN FORM AND REFERENCE GUIDELINES
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) 59 of 66
PART NO.
PART NAME
REV. LEVEL/DATE
DOCUMENT DATE:
PROGRAM MGR.
RELEASE ENG. PLANT MGR.
PROGRAM
SUPPLIER
LOCATION
BUYER
QUALITY MGR.
PHONE NO.
FAX NO.
S.Q. ENGINEER
GPM 6.4.2
Attachment A
SUPPLIER DOCUMENT & PROCESS REVIEW RUN FORM AND REFERENCE GUIDELINES
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
a.
b.
c.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Does the supplier have an employment plan for launch?
Does the Supplier have a documented Preventive Maintenance Program?
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Do the instructions adequately describe use of the fixture?
Has the supplier issued purchase orders for check fixtures and gages?
Are the checking fixtures near the production process?
If not, is certified inspection documentation maintained and current?
Do they adequately detail how to perform the operations and what to inspect?
Have program specific training needs been identified?
Does the supplier have a training plan?
Does supplier have a staffing plan to manage product launch (including support at Lear plant)?
Is there a designated team for the program?
Are sufficient technical employees available to accommodate all aspects of product design and mfg?
Is there documented evidence of SPC training?
P 8. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 7. TRAINING / OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS:
Are there sufficient spare parts?
Does it include all machinery, tools and auxiliary equipment?
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Can engineering performance specifications be met as written?
Have PPAP deviations been approved, if applicable?
Will supplier be at full PPAP for production?
Have bottlenecks been identified and addressed?
Are procedures in place for receiving inspection and for outgoing products?
Has initial process study been complete?
Are capability indices the minimum of 1.67 on initial studies or 1.33 on long term studies?
Is there mistake proofing mechanisms in the production process?
Verify all mistake proofing is operational and functioning properly. Note mistake proofing methods.
Verify that operators can not override a mistake proofing system.
Are material certifications available?
P 9. MATERIAL INSPECTION / LOT TRACEABILITY:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Did Production Trial Run / Line Speed demonstration include simulated broadcast of requirements?
Is there adequate capacity to produce product?
Do the procedures include sampling plans?
Does the supplier have a raw material requirement system in place?
Are operation and inspection instructions posted at point of operations?
Are visual aids on the product available and located in the production area?
Verify the actual measurement process.
Does the supplier have a finished goods inventory plan in place?
Does the supplier have a material procurement launch plan?
Is layout report complete and all dimensions within specifications?
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Has interim level of PPAP been approved?
P 11. ERROR / MISTAKE PROOFING:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 12. CHECK FIXTURES:
Have all checking fixtures been certified, prior to performing Gage R&R?
Has the Product / Process Quality Checklist been completed?
P 10. CAPACITY STUDIES / PRODUCTION TRIAL RUN:
P 13. PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) 60 of 66
PART NO.
PART NAME
REV. LEVEL/DATE
DOCUMENT DATE:
PROGRAM MGR.
RELEASE ENG. PLANT MGR.
PROGRAM
SUPPLIER
LOCATION
BUYER
QUALITY MGR.
PHONE NO.
FAX NO.
S.Q. ENGINEER
GPM 6.4.2
Attachment A
SUPPLIER DOCUMENT & PROCESS REVIEW RUN FORM AND REFERENCE GUIDELINES
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
a.
b.
c.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
YES NO
Corrective Action Required?
YES NO
Follow-up visit required?
LEAR QUALITY SUPPLIER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DATE
LEAR ENGINEERING DATE
SUPPLIER PLANT MANAGER DATE
Is there adequate packaging/racks in the system?
Is tooling available for PPAP?
Does production tooling match the latest engineering change level?
Does the supplier have a facility preparation timeline?
Is there a production tooling timing schedule?
Have purchase orders been issued for all equipment?
Is Bar coding utilized?
Has transportation been designated and shipment frequency been determined?
Has all tooling/auxiliary equipment for this program been identified?
Has Lear issued purchase orders to the supplier?
Does the supplier have an itemized equipment list and its timeline?
Is there a list of all tooling / auxiliary equipment dedicated and non-dedicated for the part or assembly.
Does the supplier have the ability to receive material production schedules?
If yes, due date:
Color / Gloss / Appearance Report
Copies of Material Certifications & Compliance Letters on Restricted Substances (ISO 14001 & IMDS requirements)
DATE
DATE SUPPLIER ENGINEERING
If yes, scheduled date:
REQUIRED SIGNATURES:
Submission Warrants
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Have all the purchased parts and materials been approved through the PPAP process?
P 14. TOOLING / FACILITY READINESS:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 16. PROBLEM SOLVING:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 15. PACKAGING & SHIPPING SPECIFICATIONS:
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Are the work in-process parts properly identified?
Is there a material plan in place to manage and segregate engineering change levels?
Has the packaging been developed, tested and approved?
Does supplier have a documented system?
Are controls in place to isolate incoming material until it has been approved?
Process Capability Studies
Is tooling on time for PPAP?
Does the supplier have an itemized tooling list for sub-suppliers?
Have all sub-suppliers officially been identified and awarded business?
P 18. PPAP SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Has supplier had root cause analysis training?
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 17. SUB-CONTRACTOR PROCEDURES & CONTROLS
Review a sample of Supplier's corrective actions.
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
Measurement System Studies / Gage R&R Report
Product Specifications / Dimensional Part Layout Report
Acceleration / Ramp Up Plan
Does the supplier have procedures in place for the control and monitoring of their sub-suppliers?
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) 61 of 66
P 1 ENGINEERING
The supplier should have the latest engineering standards on file.
A procedure must be in place to assure correct level of engineering standards are being used.
Is product adequately defined
P 2 PROCESS CONTROLS
Verify that Process/Product Controls have been agreed to by Lear and the suppler. (CRM-Component Review Meeting)
The Process/Product Controls must be noted on the Control Plan.
Control / SPC charts posted / available near operation.
Charts should be utilized to drive a defined corrective action process.
Capability indices must meet the minimum of 1.67 on initial studies or 1.33 on long term studies.
Reference QS 9000 Element 4.9 / ISO/TS16949 4.9.1, Process Control
P 3 PROCESS FLOW CHART / PROCESS CONTROL PLAN / FLOOR PLAN
Process Flow chart must include all production and inspection stations including rework.
Process Flow chart must correlate with the control plan.
All material specifications requiring inspection must be on the control plan.
Process Flow chart and control plan must address process from incoming material through shipping.
Engineering performance testing must be identified on the control plan.
All special product/process characteristics must be included in the control plan.
All processes and equipment must be identified on the floor plan.
Process Flow Chart, Floor Plan, and Control Plan Checklists should be completed.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Sections 5, 6 & 8 for checklists.
P 4 PROCESS FMEA / DESIGN FMEA
The PFMEA will reflect the entire process.
Operations affecting fit, function, durability, governmental regulations and safety must be addressed.
Historical warranty information must be reviewed.
Corrective actions must be planned or implemented on high risk priority numbers.
Risk priority numbers must be revised after implementation of corrective action(s).
Design FMEA and Process FMEA checklist should be complete.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Sections 1, 2 & 7 for checklists.
P 5 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.
The production time or amount of parts to be run for the Run @ Rate will be agreed to by the team prior to the Run @ Rate.
Form to be used is the Lear Production Trial Run form - "Supplier Run@Rate Calculation Summary".
LEAR SUPPLIER DOCUMENT / PROCESS REVIEW
Reference Guidelines
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) PAGE 62 OF 66
LEAR SUPPLIER DOCUMENT / PROCESS REVIEW
Reference Guidelines
P 11 ERROR / MISTAKE PROOFING
There must be evidence of a mistake proofing plan.
Verify effectiveness of plans and mistake proofing that has been implemented.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.14, Corrective & Preventative Action
P 12 CHECKING FIXTURES
Gauge R&R must be completed to the latest engineering change level.
Checking fixtures are to be located near the production process.
Gauge instructions must adequately describe use of the fixture.
Review gage sampling procedure.
Gage R & R is to be acceptable for the intended application per the AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning && Control Plan, 2nd
Printing, 2/95 MSA (AIAG) criteria.
P 13 PRODUCT SPECIFICATION(S)
Initial process study must be complete.
A full dimensional layout must be completed with all requirements within print specifications.
Material certifications must identify the material and the engineering specifications that the material is certified to.
The measurement process is to be witnessed by Lear personnel.
P 14 TOOLING / FACILITY READINESS
All tooling/auxiliary equipment for this program should be identified.
A tool management system is to be in place and implemented per QS 9000 4.2.6.
New equipment, tooling & test equipment checklist should be completed.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Section 3 for checklist
P 15 PACKAGING MUST BE DEVELOPED, TESTED & APPROVED
Packaging must be developed, tested and approved.
There must be adequate packaging/racks in the system.
Back-up packaging must be approved.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.15, Handling, Storage, Packaging, Preservation & Delivery
P 16 PROBLEM SOLVING
Supplier must show training in problem solving.
Supplier is to show evidence of problem solving such as Root Cause Analysis, Charting, and DOEs.
[Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.14, Corrective & Preventative Action
P 17 SUB-CONTRACTOR PROCEDURES & CONTROLS
All the purchased parts must be approved through the PPAP process.
Controls must be in place to isolate incoming material until it has been approved.
The supplier must have procedures in place for the control and monitoring of their sub-suppliers.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.6,1, Purchasing
P 18 PPAP SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Reference AIAG, Production Part Approval Process Manual, 2nd Printing, 2/95 for Part Submission Warrant, Appearance Approval
Report & Dimensional Results Report
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) PAGE 63 OF 66
PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND SIGN-OFF
DATE:
PRODUCT NAME: NAME PART NUMBER: NUMBER
CUSTOMER: GM 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
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC
5. PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS
6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS
7. SIGN-OFF
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.
LN/STA/F-16 (00 091007)
Part Submission Warrant
Part Name Part Number
Dated ECL DATE
Additional Engineering Changes Dated
Shown on Drawing Number Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
Checking Aid Number Engineering Change Level Dated
SUPPLIER MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SUBMISSION INFORMATION
SUPPLIER CODE
Supplier Name
ADDRESS Customer Name/Division GM DIVISION
Street Address
Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY STATE ZIP
City State Zip Application 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.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufacturing location.
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
These results meet all drawing and specification requirements: (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:
Print Name Title 555-555-5555 FAX No.
Supplier Authorized Signature Date
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)
Part Warrant Disposition: Part Functional Approval:
Customer Name Customer Signature Date
Safety and/or
Government Regulation
Engineering Drawing
Change Level
Phone No.
NAME NUMBER
ECL
Dimensional Materials/Function Appearance
YES NO
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Approved Rejected
Other
Approved
Waived
July 1999 CFG-1001
The original copy of this document shall remain at the supplier' location
while the part is active (see Glossary).
Optional: customer tracking
number: # ______________
Part Name: Part Number:-
Safety and/or
Government Regulation Engineering Drawing Change Level:- Dated
Additional Engineering Changes Dated
Shown on Drawing No. Purchase Order No. Weight: Kg
Checking Aid No. Engineering Change Level Dated
SUPPLIER MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SUBMISSION INFORMATION
Supplier Name & Supplier Code
Customer Name / Division:
Street Address Buyer / Buyer Code:
Application:
City State Zip
MATERIALS REPORTING
Has Customer reuired substances of concern information been reported.
Sumitted by IMDS or any other Customer format __________________________________________________
Are Plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO Marking Codes
REASON FOR SUBMISSION
(Inhouse mixing plant installed)
REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for
process package These results meet all drawing and specification requirements :
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:
Print Name: Title: Phone No.: FAX NO.
Supplier Authorized Signature Date
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)
Part Warrant Disposition Part Functional Approval:
Customer Name Customer Signature Date
July
1999 CFG-1001
Number :
The original copy of this document shall remain at the Suppliers
Location While the Part is active (See Glossary).
Original : Customer Tracking
Part Submission Warrant
No Yes
Dimensional Materials / Functional Appearance
Initial Submission
Engineering Changes(s)
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional
Change to Optional Construction or Material
Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Change in Part Processing
Parts Produced at Additional Location
Level 3 - Warrant with Product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
dimensional measurements material and functional tests and appearance criteria and statistical
Yes No (If "No" - Explanation Required)
Approved Rejected
Yes
No
Other - please specify
Other
Approved
WaivedOt
No Yes
Dimensional Materials / Functional Appearance
Initial Submission
Engineering Changes(s)
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional
Correction of Discrepancy
Change to Optional Construction or Material
Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Change in Part Processing
Level 3 - Warrant with Product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
dimensional measurements material and functional tests and appearance criteria and statistical
Yes No (If "No" - Explanation Required)
Approved Rejected
Yes
No
Tooling Inactive > Than 1 Year
Other
Approved
WaivedOt
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 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufaturing location.
Yes No
n/a
LN/TS/F-07 ( 01 090707)