MAN AFCC Handbook Supplier Quality Management External Edition

Transcription

1 AFCC Handbook Supplier Quality Management External Edition

2 Handbook Revision Record Rev ECN Description Revised by Date 0A ECN Initial Release Jeevan Samra Created by Date & Signature Matias Jow Kai Weyrauch Ian Archibald Ben Cyphery Tatyana Soboleva Peer Reviewed by Date & Signature Jason Birdsall Tobias Luckey Rob Holland Approved by Date & Signature Chris DiLello COPYRIGHT c 2014 AUTOMOTIVE FUEL CELL COOPERATION CORPORATION PUBLISHED BY AFCC SUPPLIER QUALITY THIS DOCUMENT, SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE, CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION WHICH SHALL NOT BE MODI- FIED, REPRODUCED OR TRANSFERRED TO OTHER DOCUMENTS OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED FOR MANUFACTUR- ING OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF AUTOMOTIVE FUEL CELL COOPERATION. THIS DOCUMENT IS VALID ONLY AT TIME OF PRINTING. ANY COPIES MADE ARE CONSIDERED UNCONTROLLED UNLESS STAMPED OTHERWISE IN RED. PRINTED ON MARCH 2, 2015

3 Contents Terminology Introduction Objective Commodity Quality Management The Evolution of Quality Summary of Supplier Quality Processes Cross Functional Teamwork Product Quality Planning - Plan Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) Quality to Product Development Quality to Supplier Selection Process Product Maturity Management Supplier Quality - Do Supplier Communication Supplier Visit Source Evaluation Supplier FMEA Review Supplier Audit

4 3.6 Supplier Characteristics Management Incoming Inspection Plan (IIP) Structure & Risk Analysis N-Tier Management Inspection & Characterization - Check First Article Inspection (FAI) Planning & Execution Prototype Part Submissions (PPSF) Incoming Quality Control (IQC) Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) Production Sign-off (PSO) Containment & Corrective Actions - Act Quality Containment Quality Change Requests (QCR) Supplier Performance Management A Appendix A.1 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part A.2 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part Bibliography Index

5 Terminology AFCC AIAG APEGBC APQP ASQ BOM Commodities CoC CRS DFSS DVP&R Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation - a joint venture of Daimler AG and Ford Motor Company, responsible for the research and product development of fuel cell stacks. Automotive Industry Action Group - a not-for profit association originally created to develop recommendations and a framework for the improvement of quality in the North American automotive industry. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC - licensing and regulatory body responsible for BC s professional engineers and geoscientists. Advanced Product Quality Planning - a framework of procedures and techniques used to develop products in industry, particularly the automotive industry. American Society for Quality - provides training, professional certifications, and knowledge to members of the global quality community. Bill of Material - a list of the raw materials, sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, parts and the quantities of each needed to manufacture an end product. Supplied goods which are similar in their material composition, method of development, and/or application in the fuel cell development process. Certificate of Conformance - a document that certifies that the supplied services or goods meet the required specifications. Component Requirement Specification Design For Six Sigma - a business-process management methodology related to traditional Six Sigma, with the objective of determining the needs of customers and the business, and driving those needs into the product solution. Design Verification Plan and Report - a form used for test planning and reporting purposes.

6 EOQ European Organization for Quality - European organization acting for the development and management of quality in its widest sense. FAI First Article Inspection - see Section 4.1. FIFO FMEA Fourth Shift Fuel Cell ISO MEFA MRB OEM PPAP First In, First out - a method of organizing incoming work where the oldest arrivals are dealt with first. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis - a systematic technique for potential failure analysis, involving the review of as many components, assemblies, and subsystems as possible to identify failure modes, and their causes and effects. AFCC s Enterprise Resource Planning system. A device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. International Organization for Standardization - an international standardsetting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.. Membrane Electrode Framed Assembly Material Review Board Original Equipment Manufacturer - manufacturer of products or components that are purchased by another company and retailed under that purchasing company s brand name. Production Parts Approval Process - a process designed to demonstrate that the commodity supplier has developed their design and production process to meet the client s requirements, minimising the risk of failure by effective use of APQP. PPSF Prototype Part Submission Form - see Section 4.2. QMS RASIC RFI RFQ SMEFA SMT Source Package Quality Management System - a collection of business processes focused on achieving quality policy and quality objectives, expressed as the organizational structure, policies, procedures, processes and resources needed to implement quality management. Responsible, Accountable, Supporting, Informed, Consulted - a responsibility assignment matrix describing the participation by various roles in completing tasks for a project or business process. Request for Information - a non-binding price indication. Request for Quote - a binding price commitment. Sealed Membrane Electrode Framed Assembly Senior Management Team - a team of individuals at the highest level of organizational management who have the day-to-day responsibilities of managing a company or corporation. Sourcing relevant specification package SQM Supplier Quality Management - a methodology that assures confidence in the supplier s ability to deliver goods or services that will satisfy the customer s needs. 6

7 SQL SR TQM Unit Cell VDA 8D Supplier Quality Lead - a member of the Supplier Quality team, tasked with the roles and responsibilities described in this handbook. Subject Responsible - team member of Research & Development Total Quality Management - an organization-wide effort to install and maintain a climate in which an organization continuously improves its ability to deliver high-quality products and services to customers. The smallest possible assembly of the fuel cell, consisting of one membrane electrode assembly surrounded by one cathode plate and one anode plate. Verband der Automobilindustrie - German quality management system for the automotive industry. Eight Disciplines (of Problem Solving) - a method used to identify, correct and eliminate recurring problems, and establishes a permanent corrective action based on statistical analysis of the problem (when appropriate) and focuses on the origin of the problem by determining its root cause(s). 7

8 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective AFCC s vision to put a Fuel Cell vehicle in every driveway depends highly on the success of our partners. We see our supplier as partners on this journey to transform vision into reality. Together, we share a commitment to competitive, defect-free, high performance products. We know that our joint success depends on meeting these criteria every day, in everything we do and deliver. In this handbook we describe strategies, tools and methods we are deploying in the area of Supplier Quality Management. The mission of AFCC s Supplier Quality Team is to: Accept nothing less than zero defects Lay the foundation for automotive standards in fuel cell commodities Systematically optimize supply chains towards quality and reliability 1.2 Commodity Quality Management Fuel cell materials are not only very different in their mechanical and chemical compositions, but also in the maturity levels of their development cycles. Most of the electrochemical materials are heavily influenced by fundamental research and need to be receptive to emerging technological developments. Mechanical parts, however, are made according to automotive industry standards and need to be guided by standard automotive quality processes. The quality management process for these parts is guided by the AIAG APQP Reference Manual [1] and/or VDA principles and guidelines [2]. The fundamental difference between these technologies, maturity levels and industry segments requires AFCC to adopt a commodity-focused quality management approach. This handbook defines the commodities as follows:

9 Introduction Electrochemical Materials. Electrochemical materials are the "heart" of the fuel cell. This is where the chemical reaction happens and where electrical current is generated. Examples include membranes, catalyst layers, and raw chemical materials. Thermodynamic Parts. The primary function of thermodynamic parts is to guide and distribute the flow of gases and coolant. Examples include bipolar plates, interface plates, seals, and gas diffusion layers. Mechanical Parts. The primary function of mechanical parts is to provide the framework and support needed for electrochemical materials and thermodynamic parts to form an assembly. Interfaces to the system are included in these parts. In general, the design and process technologies are carried over from standard automotive processes. Examples include straps, springs, endplates, bus plates and port seals. Assemblies. Parts that are typically made in-house and assemble different commodities together. Examples include MEFA, SMEFA and stack assemblies. 1.3 The Evolution of Quality The evolution of quality is happening in all industries as product designs and manufacturing processes become more mature, efficient and automated. Depending on the current state of the technologies available for a specific commodity, different approaches are brought into focus. Freely adapted from: David A. Garvin, Managing Quality [10] Quality Management QM tools & methods are integral to the organization Supplier Quality Management Customer satisfaction, TQM, etc. Quality Engineering DFSS FMEA, DVP&R, 8D, Characteristics Management Quality engineering influencing designs Supplier Quality Quality Assurance 0-Failures SPC (Statistical Process Control) SQA (Supplier Quality Assurance) Quality Control Quality inspections (incoming, outgoing, etc.) The task of AFCC Supplier Quality is to develop all commodities along this path to their respective next level by focusing on the important elements of each phase. The ultimate goal is to reach a state in which all commodities are fully rationalized for quality management. 9

10 Introduction 1.4 Summary of Supplier Quality Processes Supplier Quality Management evolves from the continuous iteration of the following four phases (Figure 1.1). This concept, originally introduced to industry by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, has been widely adopted by a broad range of industries for defining product development cycles and problem solving processes. AFCC deploys these concepts for its Supplier Quality process. Each phase is broken down into its essential elements and detailed methods in the following chapters. PLAN PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING 2.1 Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) 2.2 Quality to Product Development 2.3 Quality to Supplier Selection Process 2.4 Product Maturity Management ACT CONTAINMENT & CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 5.1 Quality Containment 5.2 Quality Change Requests (QCR) 5.3 Supplier Performance Management DO SUPPLIER QUALITY 3.1 Supplier Communication 3.2 Supplier Visit 3.3 Source Evaluation 3.4 Supplier FMEA Review 3.5 Supplier Audit 3.6 Supplier Characteristics Management 3.7 Incoming Inspection Plan (IIP) 3.8 Structure & Risk Analysis 3.9 N-Tier Management CHECK INSPECTION & CHARACTERIZATION 4.1 FAI Planning & Execution 4.2 Prototype Parts Submissions (PPSF) 4.3 Incoming Quality Control (IQC) 4.4 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) 4.5 Production Sign-off (PSO) Figure 1.1: Supplier Quality Management Cycle 10

11 Introduction 1.5 Cross Functional Teamwork Cloverleaf Supplier Communication The term Cloverleaf Supplier Communication is an approach for ensuring that communications with a supplier are always complete and consistent (minimal overlap, minimal gap, no mixed messages). The commodity cloverleaf (figure 1.2) contains representatives from: Research & Development Purchasing & Logistics Supplier Quality Strategic Sourcing Balanced Decision Making Effective supplier management and product development focuses on balanced decision making. Figure 1.2: Commodity Cloverleaf Roles & Responsibilities The methods described in this handbook will outline roles and responsibilities in a cross functional way, tying in resources from other departments across the company. This will be visualized in each section by a RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix. RASIC is a variation on the Responsibility Assignment Matrix, developed by Rose Hightower in her book Internal Controls Policies and Procedures [11]. It describes the participation by various team members in completing tasks for a project. It is useful in clarifying individual roles and responsi- 11

12 Introduction bilities and identifying gaps or redundancies in multi-departmental processes. RASIC is an acronym for: Responsible. Those who do the work to achieve the task. There is at least one responsible, although others can be delegated to assist in the work required. If no responsible is assigned to a task, the accountable is assumed to be responsible. Accountable. The one who ultimately owns the correct and thorough completion of the task, and the one who delegates the work to those responsible. An accountable must sign off on work that the responsible provides. There must be only one accountable specified for each task. If no accountable is assigned to a task, the responsible is assumed to be accountable. Supporting. Resources allocated to the responsible. Unlike the consulted, who may provide input to the task, the supporting help complete the task. Informed. Those who are kept up-to-date on progress, often only on completion of the task, and with whom there is just one-way communication. Consulted. Those whose opinions are sought, typically subject matter experts, and with whom there is two-way communication. The intent of the Responsibility Assignment Matricies is not to define the work of other AFCC team members but to create guidance in role play and cross functional teamwork that will be required to effectively manage AFCC s supplier accounts. 12

13 2 Product Quality Planning - Plan 2.1 Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) Quality to Product Development Quality to Supplier Selection Process Product Maturity Management

14 Product Quality Planning - Plan 2.1 Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) Program timing requirements Development concept Product Development Process OEM requirements Sourcing strategy Technology list Preliminary Bill of Material (BOM) High Level Program Quality Plan Program specific quality plan Sign off by SMT Execution & Follow-up and Change Management Plan changes depending on customer and supplier interactions Assignment of Commodities Break down BOM into commodities Assign commodities to SQLs APQP Status Report Generated as part of Supplier Performance Management Commodity/Supplier Specific Quality Plans Activities and documents needed to pass PPAP Define start and end dates Define inputs, outputs and relationships High-level program quality plan Commodity/Supplier specific quality plan Inspection strategy APQP Status Report Production Parts Approval (PPAP Sign-off) Process Flow Diagram Objective The intent of the APQP process is to enable the complex supply chains to stay synchronized over the course of a joint product development program. AFCC utilizes APQP to manage the interaction and sequencing of Supplier Quality methods along a predetermined product development milestone plan. By executing APQP with suppliers, the Supplier Quality Lead (SQL) is performing following activities: 1. Provide suppliers with a quality action plan and guidance (Supplier Qualification Plan) 2. Plan Supplier Quality methods over the course of a program (3-5 year timeframe) 3. Communicate planned supplier quality activities to other functions within AFCC and ensure alignment 4. Achieve expected results at pre-determined milestones 5. Manage risks Program timing requirements Development concept Product Development Process OEM requirements Technology list Preliminary Bill of Material (BOM) Process High-Level Program Quality Plan Based on the above mentioned inputs, a high-level, program specific quality plan is developed. The high level program plan is aligned with the OEM requirements. 14

15 Product Quality Planning - Plan Assignment of Commodities The Supplier Quality team breaks down the preliminary BOM into commodities and assigns individual SQLs. Note that a supplier sourcing decision is not required at this point. Commodity/Supplier specific Quality Plans The SQLs develop commodity and supplier specific quality plans. These plans include all activities, milestones and documents needed to qualify a specific supplier/commodity for a program and to lead to successful PPAP (Production Parts Approval Process). Some examples for these activities are: FMEA reviews Supplier visits First Article Inspections Supplier audits Each activity is defined with a start and an end date., outputs and relationships are defined. The content of the plan is aligned with the elements described in the AIAG Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) Reference Manual. Execution & Follow-up and Change Management During the course of the program the plan may change depending on customer and supplier interactions and the progress of the supplier qualification process. Change management and revision control of the plan will be maintained throughout the course of the development project. PPAP concludes the planning activity. APQP Status Report Status reports will be generated as part of the Supplier Performance Management process (Section 5.3). High-level program quality plan Commodity/Supplier specific quality plan Inspection strategy APQP Status Report Production Parts Approval (PPAP Sign-off) Generic Quality Plan The Generic Quality Plan (Figure 2.1) encompasses all Supplier Quality methods described in this handbook and maps the sequencing and relationship to sample phases based on a A-, B-, C-, D-Sample program (see PRC ). Other sample phase definitions may be used depending on OEM and customer requirements. 15

16 Product Quality Planning - Plan APQP STAGES CONCEPT APPROVAL PROGRAM APPROVAL PROGRAM DEFINITION PROTOTYPE PILOT LAUNCH SUPPLIER AWARD PPAP SOP EOP A-SAMPLE B-SAMPLE C-SAMPLE D-SAMPLE D-SAMPLE PRODUCTION AFTER SALES & REMANUFACTURING Quality Engineering Cycle A P D C A P D C A P D C A P D C First Article Inspection FAI RPT FAI RPT FAI RPT FAI RPT IQC INCOMING QUALITY CONTROL SHIP TO STOCK / JUST IN TIME DELIVERY Production Parts Approval Process Quality Input to Supplier Selection Process SSP SSP SSP PPAP PRODUCTION CONTRACT SPARE PARTS Structure & Risk Analysis STRUCTURE & RISK ANALYSIS Supplier Audits According to VDA VDA 6 PART 3 P1 POTENIAL ANALYSIS PLAN P2/3 REALIZATION P2/4 PRODUCTION P5/6/7 Production Sign-off PSO Supplier Performance Management FEEDBACK, ASSESSMENT & CORRECTIVE ACTION Figure 2.1: Generic Quality Plan Roles & Responsibilities APQP encompasses all functions and disciplines of AFCC. Since the success of APQP relies on many interdependencies and is seen as a joint effort of all program team members, it is not broken down to individual functional responsibilities. The following chapters will provide more detailed roles and responsibilities. References PRC Sample Definitions [22] AIAG, Advanced product Quality Planning (APQP) Reference Manual [1] PRC AFCC Release Milestone Criteria [17] 16

17 Product Quality Planning - Plan 2.2 Quality to Product Development Design concepts, drawings or specifications Design requirements Knowledge of manufacturing process and capabilities Design Review Ensure commodity quality requirements are understood and included Ensure design output documents are of high quality Manage any gaps between documented design and supplier capability Represent AFCC quality needs to the supplier, and supplier needs to AFCC Recommendations for improving design, drawings and specifications Approval of drawings and specification documents Process Flow Diagram Objective The Supplier Quality Lead (SQL) participates in the cross-functional product development process by representing quality requirements for the design. The SQL ensures that the design outputs can reasonably lead to certified, high quality products arriving from the supplier. Design requirements Design concepts, drawings, or specifications Knowledge of the manufacturing process and supplier capabilities Process Description Design Review The outputs of the product development process (part drawings, specifications, CAD models) become the inputs for subsequent supplier quality activities. As a customer of the product development process, the cloverleaf team is consulted during the design process. The SQL s role on the cloverleaf team is to ensure that quality requirements for each commodity are understood and included in the design, and that the design documents are of high quality. The cloverleaf team is the bridge between AFCC s product development and the supplier. The SQL is responsible for managing any gaps between the documented design and the supplied parts. As such, the SQL represents the quality needs of AFCC to the supplier, and the needs of the supplier to AFCC. The SQL reviews the outputs from the product development process at various stages and makes recommendations to improve quality. The commodity supplier may be consulted for their input during this process. The SQL is one of the approvers for the product development output documents (drawings and specifications) to confirm that quality requirements have been considered and appropriately met. Recommendations for design, drawings, and specifications to improve quality of supplied commodities Approval of drawings and specification documents 17

18 Product Quality Planning - Plan Roles & Responsibilities Roles Knowledge of MFG Process/Capability Design Requirements Design Concepts, Drawings, Specs Process Steps Review Designs Recommendations Document Approval SQL A R R R Design SR C R C I A Stack Architecture R Supplier C C I R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix 18

19 Product Quality Planning - Plan 2.3 Quality to Supplier Selection Process List of supplier candidates Program timing requirements Part specifications Supplier Evaluation Evaluate and rate supplier based on categories adapted from VDA 6 Part 3 Assign a total Quality Score Completed Supplier Selection Matrix Recommended supplier selected for component Process Flow Diagram Objective The Supplier Quality team influences the selection of AFCC s suppliers towards those demonstrating high quality standards. AFCC prefers suppliers with ISO TS16949 [9] certification. As part of a cloverleaf team (Section 1.5), the SQL evaluates suppliers on a variety of quality criteria. List of supplier candidates Program timing requirements Part specification (concept description, drawing and specification, and/or CRS) Process Description Supplier Evaluation Potential supplier candidates are evaluated and rated based on a list of questions related to quality. This process is repeated for all sample phases until a production contract is awarded. The question categories are adapted from VDA Volume 6.3 [3], particularly Section 5 - Potential Analysis, and Section 8 - Questionnaire. Each supplier receives a numerical rating for each category, which are multiplied by the category weighting and summed to produce a total quality score. This quality score is aggregated with technical, commercial, and strategic scores in the completed Supplier Selection Matrix for the overall supplier rating. Based on the initial supplier selection the cross-functional team decides on the further actions, such as the necessity for a formal source evaluation. The information to evaluate suppliers can be gathered from various sources including: past history on similar parts supplier visits teleconference calls supplier self assessments internet research Much of these activities are conducted in cross-functional cloverleaf teams. 19

20 Product Quality Planning - Plan Completed Quality section of Supplier Selection Matrix Completed Supplier Selection Matrix Proposed candidates for Source Evaluation Roles & Responsibilities SSM Blank Form Supplier Candidates Part Specification Process Step Evaluate Suppliers SSM - Quality Section SSM - Complete Recommend Supplier Roles SQL C R R S C Strategic Sourcing R R C I R C Purchasing & Logistics C C I S C Design SR C R C I S R R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References VDA, Volume 6, Part 3 - "Process Audit" [3] FRM VDA 6.3 Tool P1 [19] 20

21 Product Quality Planning - Plan 2.4 Product Maturity Management Communication Negotiation Agreement Program timing requirements Sample definitions Preliminary Source Package Initiate dialogue with potential vendors Negotiate sample maturity requirements Document agreement in writing Modify source package if needed Follow-up on changes or deviations Documented sustainable agreement between supplier and AFCC Process Flow Diagram Objective The objective of the Product Maturity Management process for purchased parts is to establish a common understanding of program specific sample phase definitions and maturity requirements between AFCC and suppliers. These maturity requirements cascade down from AFCC s customers to the internal design and manufacturing processes, and further to the supply chain. Supplier Quality Lead ensures that proper communication and agreement takes place between the supplier and the relevant functions within AFCC. Program timing requirements AFCC sample definitions Preliminary Source Package Process Description Communication The SQL initiates a dialog between representatives of the relevant functions within AFCC and potential suppliers to communicate AFCC s sample phase definitions and maturity requirements. Negotiation Agreement Based on the supplier s feedback, maturity requirements may be refined or adjusted by the SRs until agreement is reached. The SQL facilitates negotiation and ensures that requirements for manufacturability and quality are met. In case an agreement cannot be reached prior to the sourcing decision, refinements may be addressed through change management and deviations using Deviation Approval Process. The outcome is a sustainable agreement between AFCC and the supplier on sample phase deliverables and product maturity. The agreement is documented in the sourcing specification package (Source Package). 21

22 Product Quality Planning - Plan Roles & Responsibilities Program Timing Sample Definitions Source Package Process Steps Documented Agreement Roles Communication Negotiation Agreement SQL I I I R S R S Purchasing Lead I I R I S S S SR I R S I R S R Supplier I I A A A S R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References PRC Sample Definitions [22] 22

23 3 Supplier Quality - Do 3.1 Supplier Communication Supplier Visit Source Evaluation Supplier FMEA Review Supplier Audit Supplier Characteristics Management Incoming Inspection Plan (IIP) Structure & Risk Analysis N-Tier Management

24 Supplier Quality - Do 3.1 Supplier Communication Contact Supplier Hold Meeting Supplier contact information Discussion points List of affected parties Information Security guidelines Give 48 hours notice Provide adequate information Use secure communication channels Encrypt s Define agenda and discussion points Keep meeting minutes Assign actions Distribute meeting minutes Meeting agenda High-value discussions Meeting minutes Communication history Secure communication Process Flow Diagram Objective Clear communication is an important activity for AFCC Supplier Quality-Supplier discussions. Whether discussing a new product, an existing part concern, or any topic in general, certain information is provided, decisions are made and requests are committed to. It is therefore important to ensure that the correct preparation and follow-up takes place to document these discussions and to maximize their value both during and after. Information Security is also relevant to all communications and certain precautions should be taken. List of parties to share in / be informed of the discussions Refer to Section 1.6 (Cross Functional Teamwork) Meeting agendas AFCC IT Information Security guidelines Process Description Contact Supplier Hold Meeting When a discussion topic needs to be raised with a supplier, AFCC Supplier Quality aims to inform the supplier (and all necessary parties) at least 48 hours in advance of the discussion. AFCC Supplier Quality also works to ensure that the supplier receives adequate information related to the discussion points, which will allow the supplier time to research and prepare a response. In some cases, for urgent issues, this timeframe cannot be met but AFCC Supplier Quality will do its diligence to provide as much notice (and as much information) as possible beforehand. When contacting the supplier for a meeting, the meeting agenda will be clearly outlined with all discussion points and the purpose of the meeting / each discussion point will be evident. All important details discussed in the meeting (e.g. Actions / Information / Decisions) will be captured with clear meeting minutes (MoM s) via FRM *. This ensures that the information shared and the decisions made in the meeting are clearly documented and that the actions are properly assigned with person(s) responsible and due dates. After a meeting, the MoM s will be distributed to all necessary parties in a timely fashion typically within 24 hours. 24

25 Supplier Quality - Do *Informal discussions may also take place via , but detailed discussions are not recommended without documentation. If detailed discussions take place via , summaries will be added afterward into the MoM s. Information Security In the interests of Information Security, necessary precautions must be taken. As mistakes can be made with the auto-completing of addresses, using secure communication channels such as sftp (secure FTP) or SWAN is recommended for exchanging sensitive information. However, if must be used, the s should be encrypted. High-value discussions Meeting Minutes/MoM s (» Actions / Information / Decisions) Secure communication Roles & Responsibilities List of Affected Parties Meeting Agendas Information Security Guidelines Process Steps Contact Supplier Hold Meeting Meeting Minutes/M om's Secure Communication Roles SQL R R I R R R R Purchasing I C I I C C R Engineering I C I I C C R Strategic Sourcing I C I I C C R Supplier I C I I C C R IT R C R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References PRC AFCC Best Practices Guidelines for Meetings [8] FRM AFCC Minutes of Meeting Template [16] 25

26 Supplier Quality - Do 3.2 Supplier Visit Mandate for visit Request by crossfunctional project work group Request by AFCC mgmt team Supplier request Delivery performance issue Collect Information Supplier communicates with other departments Inform peers Get familiar with company, local conditions, cultural background, etc. Plan Visit Align agenda with supplier Align travel dates Make sure that the supplier is prepared Conduct Visit Professional Represent AFCC/Quality Share information on a need to know basis Visit Report Document action items, decisions and observations Supplier Visit report AFCC Internal Supplier Assessment (if required) Process Flow Diagram Objective Supplier visits are part of the day to day work of SQLs. It is important for AFCC to be closely connected with their supply chain and develop a comprehensive understanding of the manufacturing processes of their products. There are many reasons for supplier visits. Typical example for Supplier Quality driven visits are: Initial visit to talk about quality requirements for a potential future project Definition of quality acceptance criteria Development related quality topics, e.g. review of tolerances prior to drawing release Manufacturing process reviews Follow-up on non-conforming material Root cause investigations Task-force meetings Troubled supplier management The request for visiting a supplier can come from multiple sources, such as: Cross-functional project work group AFCC Management Team Supplier request Delivery performance issue The SQL must always have a clear mandate for a visit. Process Collect Information In preparation for the visit the SQL collects information related to the supplier, the purpose of the visit and other pending communications. Peers within AFCC will be informed about the upcoming visit and asked for their input. The SQL gets familiar with the local conditions, industry and cultural background of the supplier in case this is his/her first visit. Plan Visit Based on the collected information and the mandate (reason for the visit), the SQL drafts an agenda and suggests travel dates to the supplier. The agenda is aligned with the supplier. Key contributors at the supplier are aware of the visit. 26

27 Supplier Quality - Do Conduct Visit The visit is conducted in a professional and subject focused manner. The SQL is aware of his/her role and talks only about quality related subjects. Requests that affect other functions or departments within AFCC can be captured in the meeting minutes and are addressed after the visit. The SQL acts always in the interest of AFCC and discloses information only on a need to know basis. IP related information can only be exchanged according to AFCC policies. Visit Report & Follow-up A visit report is shared with the supplier. Depending on the mandate, the report can be formal or informal but will always be documented in writing (FRM ). Action items need to be assigned to owners and have due dates. Decisions need to be documented. Observations can be documented outside of the visit report and may not always be shared with the supplier. It is the responsibility of the SQL to follow up on open action items which have been assigned during the visit. Supplier Visit Report AFCC Internal Supplier Assessment (if required) Roles & Responsibilities Collect Information Process Steps Supplier Visit Report AFCC Internal Supplier Assessment Mandate Plan Visit Conduct Visit Visit Report Roles SQL R R R R R R R Purchasing Lead I C I I I I SR I C I I I I SQ Team Lead A C I S A A Program Manager I C I I I I Purchasing Manager I C I I I I Strategic Sourcing I C I I I I R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References FRM AFCC Minutes of Meeting Template [16] 27

28 Supplier Quality - Do 3.3 Source Evaluation Risk Classification Preliminary Supplier Selection Matrix Requirements per VDA 6.3 Source Evaluation Preparation Execution Assessment per VDA 6.3, Ch. 5 and 6. Potential Analysis (P1) [2]. Supplier Quality Release Audit report Evidence documentation Action Plan Input for the final Supplier Selection Matrix Process Flow Diagram Objective AFCC determines the necessity of a Source Evaluation based on the risk status in conjunction with the Supplier Selection Process. The evaluation process follows the general guidelines as described in VDA 6.3, Ch. 5 Potential Analysis (P1) [3]: A potential analysis is carried out in order to assess a new, not previously known potential supplier, new production locations and technologies as preparation for a decision on whether to place a contract. The potential analysis examines the parts specifically stated and the specific processes involved in the particular sourcing process. The assessment judges the experience of a potential supplier in the manufacture of similar products and their potential in the creation of such products and processes. An analysis for the supply market should be carried out beforehand, to reduce the number of potential suppliers to be investigated. The result of a potential analysis can result in any one of the following: A provisional release for the project A release with a time-limit, covering a product group A release for a restricted quantity for products / small-scale production A potential analysis with a positive outcome is not linked to a decision to place a contract with a certain supplier. A negative outcome eliminates the possibility of a contract. The Potential Analysis can be repeated after an initial assessment with negative outcome, if the supplier provides evidence of significant improvement. Risk Classification Preliminary Supplier Selection Matrix All requirements as described in VDA 6.3, Ch. 5 Potential Analysis (P1) [3], with following exceptions: AFCC does not mandate a self assessment by the supplier Third party agreements can be exempted if requested by the supplier 28

29 Supplier Quality - Do Process Description Source Evaluation The SQL leads the process in close cooperation with the cross functional team. Preparation, Execution and Assessment follow VDA 6.3, Ch. 5 and 6. Potential Analysis (P1) [3]. VDA 6.3 Tool P1 [19] is the tool for assessment and documentation of findings. The visit planning follows the general guidelines of a supplier visit (Section 3.2). Supplier Quality Release (with or without limitations) or veto for sourcing Audit report Evidence documentation Action plan Input for the final Supplier Selection Matrix Roles & Responsibilities Roles Risk Classification Supplier Selection Matrix Process Steps Other Requirements per VDA 6.3 Preperation Execution Assessment Supplier Quality Release Audit report Action Plan SQL R S R R R R R R S Purchasing Lead I R I S S S S S I SR I S I I S S S S I Program Manager I I I I I I I Purchasing Manager I A I I I C I I Supplier I S C S I I R R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References VDA, Volume 6, Part 3 - "Process Audit", Ch. 5 Potential Analysis (P1) [3] FRM VDA 6.3 Tool P1 [19] 29

30 Supplier Quality - Do 3.4 Supplier FMEA Review Arrange FMEA Review FMEA Review DFMEA with Component Characteristic Report [when AFCC is design responsible] RPT DFMEA Valuation Tables for CFCP Component Quality Plan Outline Requirements Schedule FMEA Reviews Review FMEA Process Review FMEA Content Review FMEA Action Plans DFMEA [when supplier is design responsible] PFMEA FMEA Action Plans Process Flow Diagram Objective Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is an analytical methodology used to ensure that potential problems have been considered and addressed throughout the product and process development process. In line with this, and dependent on project phase maturity, AFCC may require that suppliers develop a Process FMEA (PFMEA) and that suppliers with product design responsibility also develop a Design FMEA (DFMEA). Supplier FMEA Review outlines how AFCC plans to review these FMEA documents to ensure that a proper analysis has taken place and is a vital step in ensuring overall product quality. DFMEA with Component Characteristics Report [when AFCC is design responsible] RPT DFMEA Valuation Tables for CFCP AFCC Component Quality Plan Process Description Outline Requirements Suppliers will be informed if they are required to prepare and provide FMEA(s). AFCC s FMEA process follows AIAG guidelines (Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, Fourth Edition) and suppliers to AFCC should follow either this guidance or an equivalent methodology. AFCC s DFMEA Valuation Tables for CFCP can be seen in RPT and will be shared for aligning FMEA Severity Rankings. Lastly, the DFMEA Component Characteristics Report will be provided when AFCC is design responsible. Schedule FMEA Review(s) As part of standard quality planning activities (see Section 2.1 Advanced Product Quality Planning), each AFCC Component Quality Plan needs to account for Supplier FMEA Review while meeting the Project Timeline. Ideally, the DFMEA process should be initiated in the early stages of the design and the PFMEA before tooling or manufacturing equipment is developed and purchased. The supplier will be contacted to schedule these FMEA reviews along with being informed of the due date for sharing their FMEA(s). 30

31 Supplier Quality - Do Review FMEA Content Each FMEA itself should be completed in detail as per the AIAG (or equivalent) guidelines and the content will be reviewed with a cross-functional AFCC team whenever possible, to ensure accuracy of functions, requirements, specifications, failure modes, etc. The FMEA Valuation Tables (for Severity, Detection, and Occurrence Rankings) should be in agreement with AFCC s needs and the PFMEA severity rankings should be in alignment with the DFMEA severity rankings. For the PFMEA review, a Process Flow Diagram (PFD) should be made available. Review FMEA Action Plans Action Plans should be defined for each FMEA. Failure modes with the highest risk should be addressed first; i.e. failure modes with high severity (e.g. Severity 9/10) as well as those with high RPN values. There should be an emphasis on Prevention actions vs. Detection actions. DFMEA [when supplier is design responsible] PFMEA FMEA Action Plans Roles & Responsibilities Roles DFMEA with Component Characteristics Report [when AFCC is design responsible] RPT DFMEA Valuation Tables for CFCP Component Quality Plan Outline Schedule FMEA Requirements Reviews Review FMEA Process/Content /Actions Plans DFMEA [when supplier is design responsible] and PFMEA SQL C I R R R R C C Supplier I I S I C S R R Engineering R I C I C S S C Quality S R Process Steps FMEA Action Plans R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Fourth Edition [AIAG] [7] RPT DFMEA Valuation Tables for CFCP [12] VDA, Volume 4 - Quality Assurance in the Process Landscape [2] 31

32 Supplier Quality - Do 3.5 Supplier Audit APQP STAGES CONCEPT APPROVAL PROGRAM APPROVAL PROGRAM DEFINITION PROTOTYPE PILOT LAUNCH SUPPLIER AWARD PPAP SOP EOP A-SAMPLE B-SAMPLE C-SAMPLE D-SAMPLE D-SAMPLE PRODUCTION AFTER SALES & REMANUFACTURING POTENIAL ANALYSIS (Project)Planning Audit Product Realization Audit Production Audit Supplier Audits According to VDA 6.3 Evaluation of technology and development competence Auditing of the Planning Phase of product and process development. Auditing of the Realization Phase of product and process development Auditing of the Production Process and Startup. VDA6.3element P1 VDA 6.3 elements P2 / P3 VDA 6.3 elements P2/ P4 VDA 6.3 elements P5 / P6 / P7 Process Flow Diagram Objective AFCC s Supplier Qualification Program follows a three-step audit concept which is in line with the Commodity/Supplier specific Quality Plans, see (Section 2.1) - Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP). The Audits are based on the VDA 6.3 questionnaire and are carried out by the SQL and a selected team of project related AFCC and/or OEM employees. The objective is to provide the suppliers as well as AFCC s senior management with regular target-performance comparison updates of critical supplier projects. Each audit requires a detailed preparation by the AFCC supplier quality lead and the supplier. to the audit process are as follows (not limited to): High Risk Assessment or other reasons that justify a detailed assessment of a given supplier Results of the preliminary Supplier Selection Matrix - Quality to Supplier Selection Process Project related requirements (e.g. technical product specification, supplier specifications, AFCC general terms and conditions, legal requirements) Understanding of the current stage of the commercial agreement with the supplier (e.g. sample orders, contender for series production or production contract) Supplier history Results from previous audits and/or source evaluations Lessons Learned from previous similar projects Process Description The AFCC three-step audit concept* is divided into the following stages: 1. Planning Audit Auditing of the Planning Phase of product and process development. Questions out of VDA 6.3 Elements P2 and P3 are assessed. 2. Production Realization Audit Auditing of the Realization Phase of product and process development. Questions out of VDA 6.3 Elements P2 and P4 are assessed. 32

33 Supplier Quality - Do 3. Production Audit Auditing of the Production Process. Questions out of VDA 6.3 Elements P5, P6 and P7 are assessed. *Note that a Potential Analysis audits (P1) are conducted on all A- risk potential suppliers prior to the Sourcing Agreement and the Planning Audit. Audit report Evidence documentation Action plan Input for the final Supplier Selection Matrix (if applicable) Trigger for further supplier qualification measures Remarks Each audit follows a predetermined Audit Program as described in VDA 6.3, Ch. 4.1 Audit Program The SQL leads the program in close cooperation with the cross functional AFCC team. Preparation, execution, assessment and reporting follow VDA 6.3. The SQL can customize the questionnaire to reflect specific project needs. This might lead to a different selection of questions and/or sequencing. The SQL might also decide to not assess certain questions. The visit planning follows the general guidelines of a supplier visit as described in (Section 3.2) - Supplier Visit. For the sake of simplification it is assumed that all three audits require similar inputs and create similar outputs. In reality inputs and outputs for each audit are very different and need to reflect the current status of the project. Roles & Responsibilities Roles Risk Classification Supplier Selection Matrix Process Steps Other Requirements per VDA 6.3 Preperation Execution Assessment Supplier Quality Release Audit report Action Plan SQL R S R R R R R R S Purchasing Lead I R I S S S S S I SR I S I I S S S S I Program Manager I I I I I I I Purchasing Manager I A I I I C I I Supplier I S C S I I R R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References VDA, Volume 6, Part 3 - "Process Audit" [3] FRM VDA 6.3 Tool P2 - P7 [20] POL Standard Purchasing Terms and Conditions [21] 33

34 Supplier Quality - Do 3.6 Supplier Characteristics Management Component Characteristics Report Component Quality Plan Supplier Characteristics Management Contact Supplier Develop Special Characteristics Management Agreement Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement Report Process Flow Diagram Objective When AFCC is design responsible, Supplier Characteristics Management is required to ensure that all Potential Special Characteristics for a given component are shared with the supplier, and that each of these Potential Special Characteristics is being addressed by an adequate process control method. The status of Supplier Characteristics Management must be reported out to management with a standardized report, as determined by the maturity of the project. Component Characteristics Report Component Quality Plan Process Description Contact Supplier The supplier is informed of the activity & objective, the Component Characteristics Report is then shared. Timing for the activity is also provided correlating directly with the Component Quality Plan. Develop Special Characteristics Management Agreement The next step is to document the Special Characteristics Management Agreement in the Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement form. This form is pre-populated with Potential Special Characteristics within the Component Characteristics Report; the Component Characteristics Report is included with the DFMEA release package. Note: Depending on the maturity of the project, a PFMEA may or may not be required. Please see (Section 3.4) Supplier FMEA Review for more information on this task. The completion of the PFMEA allows for the confirmation of the classification of each Potential Special Characteristic. The vendor is requested to provide an update/response to the Component Characteristics Report, which is a further populated version of the file that now lists the PFMEA characteristic classification (as applicable), and the Process Control Method for each Potential Special Characteristic. This response is then the starting point for the Special Characteristics Management Agreement, which should be discussed and finalized in meetings with the vendor. 34

35 Supplier Quality - Do The finalized Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement is then released as a report in the PLM and shared with the Engineering and Quality teams. Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement Report Roles & Responsibilities Process Steps Roles Component Characteristics Report Component Quality Plan Contact Supplier Develop Special Characteristics Management Agreement Special Characteristics Communication and Agreement Report SQL I R R R R Supplier I S I S I Engineering R C I C I Engineering Manager I Quality Manager I R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix 35

36 Supplier Quality - Do 3.7 Incoming Inspection Plan (IIP) IQC flag set to YES Part drawing/spec Special characteristics Part history Knowledge of manufacturing Create Incoming Inspection Plan Consult with supplier, Design SR, and Quality Inspector Define specific PASS/FAIL criteria Define reference only measurements if necessary Incoming Inspection Plan Verify IQC flag status and lead time Process Flow Diagram Objective An Incoming Inspection Plan is required to direct any Incoming Quality Control (IQC) (Section 4.3) activity at AFCC. Part drawing and/or part specification Special (critical and significant) Characteristics from DFMEA Knowledge of manufacturing process Process Description If the Quality Plan for a part requires any IQC at AFCC then the IQC flag is set to YES in the purchasing database, and an Incoming Inspection Plan (IIP) is required to specify the activity. The SQL writes the IIP in consultation with the supplier, the design SR, and the quality inspector. The purpose of the IIP is to clearly define specific pass/fail criteria, although some reference-only information may be gathered at the same time. IIP line items may include any or all of the following: Check for required paperwork such as PPSF, CoC, inspection report, or material certificate. Visual inspection to check parts for cleanliness, part labeling, or surface finish. Paperwork audit to verify specific provided dimensions, material composition, or pass/fail criteria. Dimensional measurement of features. Functional tests such as leak testing, resistance measurement, or fit checks with mating parts. Reference information Incoming Inspection Plan Inspection Map if required 36

37 Supplier Quality - Do Roles & Responsibilities Part drawing/specification Special Characteristics Part history Knowledge of manufacturing Incoming Inspection Plan (and Inspection Map if required) Write IIP Roles SQL A R R R R Design SR R R C I OPD/Reliability S Quality Inspector C C I Supplier C S R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix. 37

38 Supplier Quality - Do 3.8 Structure & Risk Analysis This section reserved for completion at a later date. 38

39 Supplier Quality - Do 3.9 N-Tier Management This section reserved for completion at a later date. 39

40 4 Inspection & Characterization - Check 4.1 First Article Inspection (FAI) Planning & Execution Prototype Part Submissions (PPSF) Incoming Quality Control (IQC) Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) Production Sign-off (PSO)

41 Inspection & Characterization - Check 4.1 First Article Inspection (FAI) Planning & Execution Supplied materials Part specifications Quality plan First Article Inspection Ensure all parts meet all specifications Ensure manufacturing process and tools are correct for subsequent batches Can be done by the Supplier if trusted, or by AFCC when metrology is superior Certified materials Certified process & tools FAI Inspection Report Process Flow Diagram Objective The First Article Inspection (FAI) process ensures that the first batch of any new part meets all the specifications, and that the supplier s manufacturing process and tools are correct and capable of producing conforming products. Supplied materials Part specifications Quality plan Process First Article Inspection The FAI process occurs with the first new batch of parts supplied if either the part or supplier has changed, typically at the start of a new sample phase. FAI is a thorough and comprehensive inspection of the first produced parts. The inspection is not only to ensure that all parts meet all specifications, but also that the manufacturing process and all tools are correct for subsequent batches. FAI should be done by the supplier, but trust must be established in the supplier s inspection capability. FAI can be supplemented by measurements at AFCC if better metrology capability is available. After FAI, ongoing quality control ensures that the process and tools do not change for subsequent batches. Any significant changes require repeating FAI. Certified first articles Certified supplier s process, tools, and fixtures for current sample phase FAI Inspection Report 41

42 Inspection & Characterization - Check Roles & Responsibilities Roles Supplied Materials Process Steps Part Specifications Quality Plan First Article Inspection Certified Materials Certified Process & Tools FAI Inspection Report SQL A A A A A Design SR R I Supplier R R R R R R R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix. 42

43 Inspection & Characterization - Check 4.2 Prototype Part Submissions (PPSF) Incoming Inspection Plan Supplier visit Alignment of Inspection Criteria Review supplier inspection capability Agree on content of outgoing inspection Format of Submission PPSF/VMPB FAI Material certificate CoC Build Confidence Review PPSF reports Targeted incoming inspections Shipment quality documentation Increased confidence in supply chain Targeted inspection requests Process Flow Diagram Objective AFCC s Prototype Part Submission process allows the SQLs to receive prototype parts without performing a physical incoming inspection based on supplier inspection data. The PPS process regulates the preconditions that need to be fulfilled in order to replace AFCC s inspection with supplier data. Inspection Control Plan (Section 3.6) Supplier visit (Section 3.2) Process Alignment of Inspection Criteria Based on the inspection criteria identified in the Inspection Control Plan, the SQL reviews the inspection capability of his/her supplier. The SQL and the supplier agree on the content and reporting format of the outgoing inspection at the supplier. Format of Submission Each shipment of parts must include all of the following (unless otherwise specified on the purchase order): Prototype and Part Submission Form (FRM ) or equivalent automotive industry standard e.g. German Versuchsmusterprüfbericht (VMPB). First Article Inspection (FAI) report, including complete measurement data of first-off part(s), with inspection map if applicable, to confirm the correctness and validity of all CNC programs, tools, fixtures, processes, etc. Batch inspection report, including measurement data, as follows: 100% inspection of all Special Characteristics including critical and significant characteristics as identified on part drawing (ballooned drawing if applicable). 100% inspection to confirm each manual operation or process step where operator error could affect final part conformance. Sampling inspection as required to confirm lot conformance and establish process capability (eg. ANSI ASQ Z ) Indication of the measurement tool or method used for all measurements, including evidence that the method can adequately assess the characteristic. Material certificate for all raw materials included in supplied parts, with evidence of traceability to supplied parts. 43

44 Inspection & Characterization - Check Certificate of Conformance (CoC) for standardized processes including surface treatment (plating, coating, anodizing, etc) and heat treatment, including specific reference to part and lot numbers, and applicable national or international standards. In addition the CoC may also include results from tests which are necessary for the fulfillment of specifications, laws and regulations. The content of the CoC shall be coordinated with AFCC prior to the production and delivery of parts. Part tagging or labeling (or reference to serial numbers if available) to allow all reported measurements to be repeated. Build Confidence The SQL reviews the PPSF reports and decides on where secondary in-house inspections are required to gain confidence. The Inspection Control Plan will instruct the IQC inspector accordingly. Shipment quality documentation Increased confidence in supply chain Targeted inspection requests Roles & Responsibilities Roles Inspection Control Plan Supplier Visit Alignment of Inspection Criteria Format of Submission Build Confidence Shipment Quality Documentatio Increased Confidence in Supply Chain Targeted Inspection Requests SQL R R A A R A A A Quality Inspector Process Step Supplier C C R R I I R R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References FRM Prototype and Part Submission Form [14] WRK Prototype and Part Submission Work Instruction [15] 44

45 Inspection & Characterization - Check 4.3 Incoming Quality Control (IQC) Quality Inspection Engineering Review Incoming Inspection Plan Incoming parts Inspection follows the Incoming Inspection Plan Parts are labeled to indicate their inspection status Parts with non-conformances are held for Engineering Review Conducted by SQL in consultation with Design SR Upon completion, SQL updates inspection report and informs Quality Inspector Parts with no non-conformances bypass Engineering Review Inspection Report Labeled parts released to Stores Process Flow Diagram Objective The purpose of IQC is to ensure that only certified conforming materials are accepted into inventory. Incoming parts are inspected according to the ICP (Inspection Control Plan), the results are documented in an Inspection Report, and the parts are accepted into inventory or follow-up action is taken on any non-conformances. Inspection Control Plan (ICP) Incoming parts Process Quality Inspection The Quality Inspector completes the inspection activity as specified in the ICP, writes the Inspection Report, and labels the parts with stickers to indicate the inspection status and any known deviations. This process should be completed in a reasonable timeframe, within the inspection lead time (typically 5 days), and generally following FIFO. If there are no non-conformances then the parts can be accepted and released immediately to Stores. If non-conformances are found, the parts are held for engineering review by the SQL. Engineering Review Parts with minor or major non-conformances are dispositioned by the SQL, in consultation with the Design SR, and may be accepted, rejected, reworked, returned to supplier, accepted under deviation, or held in MRB for further review. The SQL then updates the inspection report and informs the Quality Inspector to update the part labels and release the parts. Inspection Report Labeled parts released to stores 45

46 Inspection & Characterization - Check Roles & Responsibilities Roles Inspection Control Plan Incoming Parts Received Inspection Activity Engineering Review (if required) Parts Correctly Labeled Inspection Report SQL R R C Quality Inspector Shipper / Receiver Stores Design SR Parts Released to Stores I R I R R R R Process Steps C I R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix. 46

47 Inspection & Characterization - Check 4.4 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) For series production approval the supplier must carry out a PPA (Production Process and Product Approval) per VDA Volume 2 or PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) per AIAG PPAP. In individual cases, a different process may be coordinated with the SQL. A more detailed description of the process is reserved for completion at a later date. References VDA, Volume 2 - Quality Assurance for Supplies [4] AIAG - Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) [6] 47

48 Inspection & Characterization - Check 4.5 Production Sign-off (PSO) This section reserved for completion at a later date. 48

49 5 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act 5.1 Quality Containment Quality Change Requests (QCR) Supplier Performance Management

50 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act 5.1 Quality Containment (0h) Manufacturing Supplier IQC Customer Testing Etc. Initial Assessment (+1h) Determine severity and effects Assess Critical Product Characteristics Emergency Action (+2h) Prevent spill / exposure Stop production Communication (+3h) Involving cross functional team The Material Review Board Management Supplier File Notification Quarantine Suspect Material (+4h) Label parts Screen Material (+12h) Document screening procedure PASS/FAIL sorting criteria Pictures or a description of the potential defect Good Parts identification Segregate parts according to Non-Conformance Process Establish Clean Point (+24h) Certified material is available Sufficient supply can be maintained Initiate Follow-up Quality Change Request (QCR) Sorting criteria (+12h) Clean Point (+24h) Follow-up Process Flow Diagram Objective The objective of the quality containment process is to provide SQLs with a seven step action plan for immediate quality containment. The goal is to limit AFCC s exposure to the consequences of unforeseen quality issues. Therefore, a tight decision timeline and predetermined reaction plan is required. The reaction times below are indicated in hours past the incident occurrence (0+Xh). The input to this process is a notification about a potential quality issue (0h). The notification can come from anyone who observes a quality issue and contacts the SQL. Typical sources are: Manufacturing Supplier IQC Customer Testing Etc. Process 1. Initial Assessment (+1h) The SQL determines the severity and potential effects of the quality issue. The SQL is familiar with all quality aspects and functions of his/her parts (e.g. Critical Product Characteristics) and is therefore able to carry out the initial assessment followed by an emergency action. 2. Emergency Action (+2h) Based on the initial assessment the SQL will decide if production has to stop in order to prevent further spill of the quality issue. The SQL has the authority to stop production but is also responsible to restore production as soon as possible. The SQL is not allowed to hand 50

51 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act the issue over to someone else or leave work after Step 2 until Step 6 is completed. In other words, once the Emergency Action has been taken, the Quality Containment has to be carried through and cannot stop until a Clean Point is established and production can be resumed. The exception to this rule is if the cross function team (Step 3) revises the SQLs initial assessment of severity and potential effects and takes the responsibility to resume production without Screening and Clean Point. 3. Communication (+3h) At this stage the SQL will start involving a bigger team into the problem resolution process. The intent is to validate his/her decisions, inform management, and get resources for help and inputs form subject matter expert. The communication should include, but is not limited to The Material Review Board Management Supplier A notification will be filed at this stage. The supplier has to be informed in case a purchased part caused the problem and may be asked to come on site to help to sort inventory. 4. Quarantine suspect material (+4h) The SQL will ask the respective logistic team member to quarantine all suspect material. The material needs be moved into a hold location to prohibit unintended use until a screening process has been established. Parts labeling shall be applied. 5. Screen material (+12h) Within 12 hours after the incident occurred the SQL has to start screening material according to a documented procedure that includes following information: Part number PASS/FAIL sorting criteria Pictures or a description of the potential defect Good Parts identification The procedure is developed on a best efforts basis with the inputs available. The goal is to be able to resume production with certified material at this stage. Failed parts need to segregated and will be handled according to the Non-Conformance Process. 6. Establish Clean Point (+24h) Production will be resumed as soon as a Clean Point can be established. A Clean Point has been reached if (a) certified material is available for production and (b) sufficient supply of certified material going forward can be maintained. The serial number, lot number, batch number or other unique parts identification of the first parts which are built with certified incoming materials is recorded. 7. Initiate Follow-up Once the Clean Point has been established and production is resumed, adequate follow-up action is initiated. See: PRC SCAR Process 51

52 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act Sorting criteria (+12h) Clean Point (+24h) Follow-up Roles & Responsibilities Process Steps Anyone Quarantine Initial Emergency Screen Estabilish Initiate Sorting Manufacturing Supplier IQC Customer Testing Observing a Clean Point Follow-up Communication Suspect Assessment Action Material Clean Point Follow-up Criteria Roles Quality Issue Material SQL A R R R S R(A)* R(A)* R(A)* R(A)* R(A)* R(A)* Design C S S SR R Purchasing & R C S S R S S S S Logistics Manufactering R S C R S S S S S S Supplier C (R)* (R)* (R)* (R)* (R)* (R)* R IQC C R Customer R Testing R I Anyone Observing a Quality Issue R C R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted : (_)* = if the issue is caused by the supplier and the supplier can be on-site within the available time RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References PRC SCAR Process [18] 52

53 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act 5.2 Quality Change Requests (QCR) Submit NTF (OPTIONAL) 8D Observed failure Reviewed by Failure Review Board If follow up action is recommended, move to QCR Can be skipped when clear action is required SCAR PAR Tracking QCR Select QCR type as appropriate Completed QCR Process Flow Diagram Objective The purpose of a QCR is to investigate an incident, issue, concern, failure, or non-conformance and prevent it from recurring. Observed failure or concern Process A QCR is the process to follow when a change is required, not to a product specification but to some aspect of its execution. It is a process for investigation and permanent corrective action. Submit NTF Any observed failure (which can include a non-conformance, incident, failure, or concern for possible failure) can initiate a Notification (NTF) to describe the issue. All NTF s are reviewed by the Failure Review Board (FRB) and if follow-up action is recommended, a QCR is initiated. Or, the NTF & FRB step can be skipped and a QCR can be initiated directly when it is clear what action is required. QCR types There are four types of QCR: 8D - 8 Disciplines detailed technical investigation and problem solving process SCAR - Supplier Corrective Action Request, for non-conforming supplied parts PAR - Preventive Action Request, for concerns when no failure has yet occurred Tracking QCR - to gather more data; can be converted to SCAR or 8D Each of these types has its own process, following a similar pattern. The SQL may perform any of several roles throughout a QCR: Observe a non-conformance or failure, and submit an NTF Participate as a team member on an 8D, PAR, or Tracking QCR team Lead a SCAR process The SCAR process is the only QCR process that is lead by the SQL. It is used when incoming parts have non-conformances (found during IQC or any time thereafter) and an 8D process is required at the supplier. The SQL provides guidance and leadership to ensure the process is correctly followed in a timely manner and the problem is permanently solved. 53

54 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act Completed QCR process with problem permanently solved Roles & Responsibilities Roles Observed Failure Submit NTF 8D SCAR PAR Tracking QCR Completed QCR SQL C R C C R* Design SR R C R C R* Reliability Engineer Other Team Members Supplier Anyone R R Process Steps C C C R R* C S C S I C R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted : * = R if responsible in Process Step RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References PRC SCAR Process [5] PRC SCAR Process [18] FRM SCAR Form [13] 54

55 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act 5.3 Supplier Performance Management Process Flow Diagram Objective AFCC s Supplier Performance Management provides regular, scorecard based feedback that s useful both to suppliers and to the AFCC Management Team. The scorecard combines input from a Crossfunctional Cloverleaf team together with measured performance metrics extracted from databases. To suppliers, the scorecard closes the loop on positive and negative performance, identifies improvement opportunities, and tracks progress. To AFCC, the scorecard allows data-based sourcing decisions, and the appropriate allocation of resources for supplier engagement and improvement. Performance Data Sales volume On-time delivery performance Deviations Supplier Quality Actions (SQAs) Supplier Corrective Action Requests (SCARs) Supplier Quality Assessment VDA Supplier Audit results VDA Maturity assessment PPAP completion status Qualitative assessment and rating Purchasing Assessment Qualitative assessment and rating Strategic Sourcing Assessment Tooling completion Program sales volume estimate Qualitative assessment and rating Engineering Assessment Technical capability Responsiveness and openness Qualitative assessment and rating 55

56 Containment & Corrective Actions - Act Process Description Generate a Supplier Scorecard A Supplier Scorecard contains a combination of performance data and qualitative assessments from four teams who rate the supplier s performance in categories relevant to each team. The SQL is responsible for coordinating this cross-functional input. When the SQL runs the Supplier Scorecard report, the qualitative assessments are combined with up-to-date performance data that is extracted from databases (Fourth Shift and Teamcenter) at the time the report is run. The scorecard is a snapshot in time for one supplier, and is re-generated at regular intervals. Scorecards follow a standard format, but information can be added or removed from a scorecard to tailor it for specific customers or uses. Supplier Feedback and Actions The SQL shares the scorecard with each supplier at regular intervals or in response to positive or negative supplier performance. Action items for the supplier are clearly identified, and progress can be tracked in subsequent scorecards. Supplier Readiness Report At regular intervals, a consolidated Supplier Readiness Report is published by the Supplier Quality Team. This report is a summary scorecard for all significant program suppliers that is tailored to the interests of Program Management and the SMT. Supplier Scorecards Supplier Readiness Report Roles & Responsibilities Roles Performance Data Supplier Purchasing Quality Assessment Assessment Strategic Engineering Sourcing Assessment Assessment Generate a Supplier Scorecard Supplier Actions & Feedback Generate a Supplier Readiness Report Supplier Scorecard SQL R R S S S R S R R R Purchasing & Logistics Strategic Sourcing Supplier Readiness Report R S S I I R S S I I Engineering R S S I I Program Management SMT Process Steps S I I Supplier R I I R = Responsible : A = Accountable : S = Supporting : I = Informed : C = Consulted RASIC Responsibility Assignment Matrix References FRM710XXXX Supplier Scorecard Template 56

57 A Appendix A.1 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part A.2 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part

58 Appendix A.1 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part 1 Figure A.1: AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part 1 58

59 Appendix A.2 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part 2 Figure A.2: AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part 2 59

60 Bibliography [1] Advanced product quality planning (APQP) and control plan: reference manual. Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation, Southfield, MI, 2 edition, [2] Verband der Automobilindustrie Volume 6 - Quality Assurance in the Process Landsape. Henrich Druck + Medien GmbH, Berlin, Germany, March [3] Verband der Automobilindustrie Volume 6 Part 3 - Process Audit: Product Development Process / Serial Production. Henrich Druck + Medien GmbH, Berlin, Germany, June [4] Verband der Automobilindustrie Volume 2 - Quality Assurance for Supplies - Production process and product approval (PPA). Henrich Druck + Medien GmbH, Berlin, Germany, November [5] R. Canizares and A. Pismenny. PRC SCAR Process. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, February Revision 0B. [6] G. M. C. Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company. Production Part Approval Process (PPAP). AIAG, March [7] G. M. C. Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company. Potential Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, June Fourth Edition. [8] M. Davies and G. Frenette. PRC AFCC Best Practices Guidelines for Meetings. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, February Revision 0A. [9] I. O. for Standardization. Iso/ts 16949: csnumber= Accessed: July 9, [10] D. A. Garvin. Managing quality : the strategic and competitive edge. Free Press, New York, [11] R. Hightower. Internal Controls Policies and Procedures. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2009.

61 BIBLIOGRAPHY [12] L. McHugh. RPT DFMEA Valuation Tables for CFCP. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, January Revision 0A. [13] A. Pismenny. FRM SCAR Form. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, November Revision 0B. [14] S. Salonen. FRM Supplier PPSF. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, February Revision 0A. [15] S. Salonen. WRK PPSF Work Instruction. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, February Revision 0A. [16] S. Salonen. FRM AFCC MoM Template. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, February Revision 0A. [17] M. Urban, Y. Gagnon, and R. Esterer. PRC AFCC Release Milestone Criteria. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, February Revision 0B. [18] K. Weyrauch. PRC SCAR Process. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, November Revision 0A. [19] K. Weyrauch. FRM VDA 6.3 Tool P1. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, July Revision 0A. [20] K. Weyrauch. FRM VDA 6.3 Tool P2 - P7 Process Audit Template. AFCC, September Revision 0A. [21] K. Weyrauch. POL Standard Terms. AFCC, February Revision 0F. [22] K. Weyrauch and R. Esterer. PRC Sample Definitions. Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation, December Revision 0B. 61

62 Index Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP), 14 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part 1, 58 AIAG vs VDA Comparison Part 2, 59 Cloverleaf Supplier Communication, 11 Commodity Cloverleaf, 11 Evolution of Quality, 9 First Article Inspection (FAI) Planning & Execution, 41 Structure & Risk Analysis, 38 Supplier Audit, 32 Supplier Characteristics Management, 34 Supplier Communication, 24 Supplier FMEA Review, 30 Supplier Performance Management, 55 Supplier Quality Management Cycle, 10 Supplier Visit, 26 Generic Quality Plan, 16 Incoming Inspection Plan (IIP), 36 Incoming Quality Control (IQC), 45 N-Tier Management, 39 Potential Analysis, 28 Product Maturity Management, 21 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP), 47 Production Sign-off (PSO), 48 Prototype Part Submissions (PPSF), 43 Quality Change Requests (QCR), 53 Quality Containment, 50 Quality to Product Development, 17 Quality to Supplier Selection Process, 19 RASIC, 11 Source Evaluation, 28 62