7.2.

8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018

User Guide www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

1
2 The questions are used to evaluate the
quality of the deliverable attached to Input evidence of the answer to the
3 the element. Y* - Put an "X" if complete question (e.g.: document reference) here.
Typical aspects of the deliverable to be and is OK or "IP" if in- If an "X" is in the preceding N column
4 evaluated through the questions are: progress as planned. (column D) then describe the issue here
1. Quality/availability of the inputs N - Put an "X" if it is Not OK . including root cause in order to identify
N/A - Put an "X" if you have proper actions .
5 needed to build the deliverable
2. Cross-functional approach to answer agreed with your customer
the deliverables that this question is Not
6 3. Quality /conformity to a standard if Applicable.
any or to best practices RYG - Put an "R" here if the
answer to the question is
7 4. control of the outcome of the not acceptable and there is
deliverable (e.g. action plan) no recovery plan. Put a "Y"
8 here if there are problems
with the question but is
9 recoverable with an action
plan inplace. Put a "G" if it
10 is on track or satisfactorily
complete. When you put an
"R" or "Y" you will need to
11 complete the "Actions
Required" and subsequent
12 columns.

13
14
15
X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating
IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G
development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)\
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
User Guide www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date

1
2 The questions are used to evaluate the
quality of the deliverable attached to These are typical action management milestones .
3 the element. Actions identified based on the root cause The due date should be aligned with the closure date
Typical aspects of the deliverable to be described in the Evidence column when the of the deliverable as planned in the APQP timing. In
4 evaluated through the questions are: RYG column is Red or Yellow. cases where the due date is not aligned with APQP
1. Quality/availability of the inputs timing, the RYG status is most likely Red .
5 needed to build the deliverable
2. Cross-functional approach to answer
the deliverables
6 3. Quality /conformity to a standard if
any or to best practices
7 4. control of the outcome of the
deliverable (e.g. action plan)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Date of revision for Reviewed by:
the provided status
and personnel
involved Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)\
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.01.1 Measuring Performance www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

1 Is variation reduction incorporated into standard work?
2 Is the variability of Key Characteristics monitored?
Have appropriate corrective actions been identified for
3 those features which are not meeting required capability
targets?
Is there a methodology to monitor product
4 nonconformances during production?
Are internal quality metrics reviewed as a normal
5 business practice?
Is there a methodology to monitor product
6 nonconformances reproted by the customer (quality
escapes)?
Are external quality metrics reviewed as a normal
7 business practice?
In those cases where nonconformances are detected
8 has root cause(s) been determined?
Have corrective actions been implemented where
9 nonconformances are detected?

10 Is corrective action effectiveness demonstrated?

Is there a methodology to ensure corrective actions are
11 taken across all designs / production lines as applicable?
Is there a methodology to monitor on time delivery
12 metrics?
Are product delivery metrics review as a normal
13 business practice?
If demand exceeds capacity is there a action plan to
14 achieve the required capacity?
Are all of the various types of demand taken into account
15 including, all customers, original equipment, spare parts,
samples, internal use, etc.?
Are the external factors that may influence the forecasts
16 taken into account, including, economic cycles, market
shares, connected businesses?
Are the process and product improvement changes
incorporated into the relevant documentation (i.e.
17 Process Design Risk Analysis, Process Flow Diagram,
Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA),
Control Plan, Work Station Documentation…)?

Deliverable RYG Rating

Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
G Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
IP development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.01.1 Measuring Performance www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
1 Is variation reduction incorporated into standard work?
2 Is the variability of Key Characteristics monitored?
Have appropriate corrective actions been identified for
3 those features which are not meeting required capability
targets?
Is there a methodology to monitor product
4 nonconformances during production?
Are internal quality metrics reviewed as a normal
5 business practice?
Is there a methodology to monitor product
6 nonconformances reproted by the customer (quality
escapes)?
Are external quality metrics reviewed as a normal
7 business practice?
In those cases where nonconformances are detected
8 has root cause(s) been determined?
Have corrective actions been implemented where
9 nonconformances are detected?

10 Is corrective action effectiveness demonstrated?

Is there a methodology to ensure corrective actions are
11 taken across all designs / production lines as applicable?
Is there a methodology to monitor on time delivery
12 metrics?
Are product delivery metrics review as a normal
13 business practice?
If demand exceeds capacity is there a action plan to
14 achieve the required capacity?
Are all of the various types of demand taken into account
15 including, all customers, original equipment, spare parts,
samples, internal use, etc.?
Are the external factors that may influence the forecasts
16 taken into account, including, economic cycles, market
shares, connected businesses?
Are the process and product improvement changes
incorporated into the relevant documentation (i.e.
17 Process Design Risk Analysis, Process Flow Diagram,
Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA),
Control Plan, Work Station Documentation…)?

Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:
Date :
IP

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.01.2 MRO KPIs and plan(s) to reach the established targets www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Are Customer MRO requirements communicated to all
1 stakeholders?
Is there a process in place to set MRO requirements?
2
Does the plan address validation of facilities readiness?
3
Does the plan address validation of all maintenance and
4 repair documentation?
Does the plan address validation of maintenance and
5 repair training?
Does the plan address validation of tooling / testing
6 gear?
Does the plan address validation of maintenance or
7 repair sequences?
Does the plan address validation of "Pass Off" limits or
8 "Return to Use" protocols?
Are key metrics being tracked that properly assess MRO
9 service performance against requirements?

10 Are MRO metrics tracked against goals?

Have lessons learned been passed on from those items
needing repair / service for corrective actions for like and
11 future product?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G
development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.01.2 MRO KPIs and plan(s) to reach the established targets www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Are Customer MRO requirements communicated to all
1 stakeholders?
Is there a process in place to set MRO requirements?
2
Does the plan address validation of facilities readiness?
3
Does the plan address validation of all maintenance and
4 repair documentation?
Does the plan address validation of maintenance and
5 repair training?
Does the plan address validation of tooling / testing
6 gear?
Does the plan address validation of maintenance or
7 repair sequences?
Does the plan address validation of "Pass Off" limits or
8 "Return to Use" protocols?
Are key metrics being tracked that properly assess MRO
9 service performance against requirements?

10 Are MRO metrics tracked against goals?

Have lessons learned been passed on from those items
needing repair / service for corrective actions for like and
11 future product?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.02 Continuous improvement actions www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Have quality, performance, delivery and cost targets
1 been met for the product?
Have action plans been developed where quality,
2 performance, delivery or cost targets have not been
met?
Is corresponding data collected by a cross functional
3 team in a timely and systematic manner?
Is there a methodology to monitor product performance
4 after delivery to the customer?
Have improvement actions been formalized and
5 proposed to the customer (when needed)?
Is there a process to monitor actions for continuous
6 improvement for cost, delivery and/or lead-time?
Are there feedback loops in place to verify that the
7 implemented actions are providing the expected
benefits?
Is there a method in place to review changes to
8 determine if customer approval, new FAI/PPAP
submission is required?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G
development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.02 Continuous improvement actions www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Have quality, performance, delivery and cost targets
1 been met for the product?
Have action plans been developed where quality,
2 performance, delivery or cost targets have not been
met?
Is corresponding data collected by a cross functional
3 team in a timely and systematic manner?
Is there a methodology to monitor product performance
4 after delivery to the customer?
Have improvement actions been formalized and
5 proposed to the customer (when needed)?
Is there a process to monitor actions for continuous
6 improvement for cost, delivery and/or lead-time?
Are there feedback loops in place to verify that the
7 implemented actions are providing the expected
benefits?
Is there a method in place to review changes to
8 determine if customer approval, new FAI/PPAP
submission is required?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.03 Lessons learned www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Is there a formal process for gatheing, documenting and
1 ensuring that lessons are encorproated into future
products?
Is everyone aware of the process for capturing lessons
2 learned? Is there evidience that it is being used?
Is there evidence that the cross functional project team
3 memebers participated in a review of the lessons
learned for the project?
Have “Things Gone Right” been incorporated into the
4 appropriate quality documentation?
Have appropriate actions been implemented for those
5 items identified as opportunities for improvement?
Have lessons learned been incorporated in similar parts
6 and processes?
Are improvement opportunities proposed to the
7 customer?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
Status (%): 75% R
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
100% Y prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
G
development

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 7.2.8 APQP Phase 5 Checklist Rev October 2018
5.03 Lessons learned www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Is there a formal process for gatheing, documenting and
1 ensuring that lessons are encorproated into future
products?
Is everyone aware of the process for capturing lessons
2 learned? Is there evidience that it is being used?
Is there evidence that the cross functional project team
3 memebers participated in a review of the lessons
learned for the project?
Have “Things Gone Right” been incorporated into the
4 appropriate quality documentation?
Have appropriate actions been implemented for those
5 items identified as opportunities for improvement?
Have lessons learned been incorporated in similar parts
6 and processes?
Are improvement opportunities proposed to the
7 customer?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%):
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
Reviewed by:

Reviewed with:

Date :

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)