Ppap Check List: Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik

Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
,Nasik
PPAP CHECK LIST
Part No. : Rev. No. : Customer : Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Description : Supplier :
Sample Labels Required : YES NO
Submission Level : 1 2 3 4 5
Sr.No Requirement Level 3 Remarks
1 Design records of saleable products S
- For Prorietary Components / Details R
- For All Other Components / Details S
2 Engineering Change Documents, if any S
3 Customer Engineering Approval if required S
4 Design FMEA ( See I.2.2.4) S
5 Process Flow Diagram * S
6 Process FMEA * S
7 Dimensional Results S
(Layout Inspection Results) ©
8 Material, Performance test results S
(For all the components) ©
9 Initial process study S
10 Measurement system analysis study S

Refer the MSA Acceptance guidelines in MSA Manual
Section D ©
11 Qualified laboratory documentation S
12 Control plan * S
13 Part submission warrant (PSW) * S
14 Appreance approval report, (AAR) if Applicable S
Bulk Material requirement checklist (For bulk material

15 PPAP only) R
16 Sample Product S
17 Master Sample (See I.2.2.17) R
18 Checking aids R
Record Of Compliance With Customer Specific

19 Requirement S
NOTE : Check for supplier PPAP completion
* - Need approval signature
APQP TIME PLAN
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd
Supplier Duroshox Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Customer Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Location Ranjangaon ,Pune Program MNAL W935
Supplier Code Model Year 2009
Part No. L0206690AA
ASM, ADJUSTER - 4 WAY MANUAL,
CENTER, HEIGHT
Part Name ADJUSTMENT,BS DR,RHD
Material
Build Required Qty. No. Of SC No. Of CC % PIST %PIPC
Date
VP Build 20.10.08 35
PP Build 25.03.09 50
SOP 10.05.09 50
Supplier
Programm Completion
Task Need Date
Commitment
Date
Responsibilty Comments
Date
Plan & Define
1 Business Plan/Marketing Strategy 30.08.08
2 Product/Process Benchmark Data NA
3 Product/Process Assumptions NA
4 Product Reliability Studies NA
5 Customer Inputs 01.09.08
6 Design Goals NA
7 Preliminary Bill of Materials 01.09.08
8 Preliminary Process Flow Chart 10.10.08
Preliminary Listing of Special Product &
9
Process Characteristics 05.10.08
10 Product Assurance Plan 10.10.08
Product Design & Development
Design Failure Mode & Effects Analysis
11
(DFMEA) NA
12 Design for Manufacturability & Assembly NA
13 Design Verification NA
14 Design Reviews Ongoing
Tasks 1-15 are optional, unless supplier is design responsible
15 Prototype Build - Control Plan 10.10.08
16 Engineering Drawings (including math data) 25.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
17 Engineering Specifications 25.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
18 Material Specifications 25.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
19 Drawing & Specifications 28.12.08 Final Release.Released for VP on 23.10.08
New Equipment, Tooling & Facilities
20
Requirements 03.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
21 Special Product / Process Requirements 06.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
22 Gages/Testing Equipment Requirements 06.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
23 Team Feasibility Commitment 10.01.09 This for Final release.For VP: 23.09.08
Process Design & Development
24 Packaging Standards 15.01.09
25 Process Quality System Review Ongoing
26 Process Flow Chart 20.01.09
27 Floor Plan Layout 25.01.09
28 Characteristics Matrix 28.01.09
Process Failure Mode & Effects Analysis
29
(PFMEA) 05.02.09
30 Pre-launch Control Plan 10.02.09
31 Process Instructions 15.02.09
32 Measurement System Analysis Plan 20.02.09
33 Preliminary Process Capability Study Plan 20.02.09
34 Packaging Specifications 28.02.09
Process & Product Validation
35 Production Trial Run (Run @ Rate) 15.03.08
36 Measurement Systems Evaluation 20.03.09
37 Preliminary Process Capability Study 20.03.09
38 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) 25.03.09
39 Production Validation Testing NA
40 Packaging Evaluation 25.03.09
41 Production Control Plan 25.03.09
42 Quality Planning Sign-Off & Mgmt. Support 30.03.09
(Supplier Document and Process Review)
Feedback, Assessment & Customer Approval
44 Customer Satisfaction
45 Delivery & Service
Additional Program Specific Items:
48 Program Timline
LN/TS/F-15 ( 00 200303 )
Supplier Team Members / Position / Telephone Number Customer Representative / Position / Telephone Number
Green = On Schedule / Minor Issues Red = Must Notify Customer
LN/TS/F-15 ( 00 200303 )
ease.Released for VP on 23.10.08
Final release.For VP: 23.09.08

LN/TS/F-15 ( 00 200303 )
Customer Input Requirements- Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.
Date (Org) 17.10.08

Part No. L0206690AA Change Letter : _____ Part Name :___ ASM, ADJUSTER - 4 WAY MANUAL, CENTER, HEIGHT Rev.No. 00
ADJUSTMENT,BS DR,RHD
Supplier : Duroshox Technologies Pvt. Ltd EN Ref.No. : __ Rev.Date:- 17.10.08
Supplier Code :__________________
Lear Requirements Existing Targets / Requirements Remarks
Functional Requirements
As per SOR
Quality Targets
Warranty Targets ( R/1000) 16R/1000 @ 12 MIS
PPM at Lear <1000 PPM at SOP
<750 PPM at SOP + 3 Months
<50 at SOP + 12 Months
PIST 100% PIST at PSW approval level.
PIPC Ppk>1.67 for achieve 100% PIPC.
Defect Ratio at the Trial Run Acceptance criteria 90%
PPM at Supplier's End <250 PPM
Reliability Targets Including Useful Life
3,00,000 km
Reliability Test Requirements

As per the DVP.
Fitment Trial
As per current practices. Fitment trial To check the clearance , gaps & flushness as per the Cad
must be approved prior to PSW layout & tool accessibility.Fitment trial by CFT.Inspection report
approval. must be assist the sample.
For list of functional parameters refer SOR.
Appearance
As per the SOR & Approved Master
As per the SOR & Approved Master Sample.
Sample.
Packaging Requirements
As per Lear Packing Std. As per Lear Packing Std.
Capacity Planning Volume 50,000 per annum(Peak) Capacity planning including tooling done are
N/A
(25,000-Base,20,000-Medium,5,000-Premium) based on 50,000 vehicles per annum.
Identification
Method Variant identification stickers. As defined in the drawing . Variant identification stickers.
Location
Supply Chain Agreement ( Bin Quantity)

As per Lear Packing Std. As per Lear Packing Std.
Self life ( if applicable ) Whenever applicable, item should not be deteriorate(eg.

N/A
Trim/Fabric/spring etc.)
Material Safety Data Sheet
MSDS is required for all hazardous materials(Twice in a Year)
(Mentioned any specific MSDS is required for all hazardous Damage material will not be accepted at M/S
supplied to M/S Lear. Special attention to be paid for material
requirement for handling, storage, materials supplied to M/S Lear. Lear end.
handing in order to avoid transit damage.
transportation etc.)
Operator Skill/Operator training 1.Evalution criteria must be clearly defined
N/A Must be qualified 4th Quarter
2.Training record must be available
Concerns management/SRS Score/PPM All Suppliers are required to Visit our plant for any concern as
well as send their action plan for raised concern , high PPM & Action plan should reach to M/S Lear within
low SRS score. the specfied time frame.
RPN Recommendation N/A Action plan is required if RPN is >50 .
Requirement from Sub Contractors PSW shall be done for all identified PSW shall be done for all identified Tier-2 suppliers and
( Tier 2 Suppliers ) Tier-2 suppliers. Warrant should be submitted to M/S Lear. For all major & Critical suppliers (agreed
Mutually)
Process Capability Requirements
For All CC/ SC charactristics Ppk>1.67 , Cpk>1.33 Ppk>1.67 , Cpk>1.33
For Geometrical Parameters
For Unilateral Tolerance Pp> 1.67 , Cp>1.33 Pp> 1.67 , Cp>1.33
Notification Requirement
Notification to Lear in case of changes as
Prior PPAP approval required for any Prior PPAP approval as well as after PPAP approval , Not applicable for Sub-Suppliers. Sub
per PPAP Guideline. change in product, Process , Layout , notification is required for all the changes stated in AIAG PPAP Suppliers are required to follow respective
Toolings & Fixture & Sub-Suppliers manual(4th Edition) Supplier PPAP guidelines.
PPAP Batch Quantity Requirement ( Qty &

50 nos. by PP Build
Date)
Any Other
Material Required Date ( MRD ) Quantity Date
VP 35 20.10.08
PP 50 25.03.09
SOP 50 10.05.09
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd: Supplier :
STA / SQE Product Development Purchase Name & Designation of Representative :
Signature :
Name :
LP/TS/F-40
Date : Date:
Date - 08/11/04
LP/TS/F-40
Commodity Launch Review
Milestone: <Prototype>
Drawing & ES Release Master Control List
Customer: Program(s):
Part Name: Part Number(s):
Supplier Name: Part Name:. Program Name:

Supplier Code: Part No. List Controller:
Drawing & ES No. Drawing & ES Received Engineering Engineering Level or Page
NO. 3D Mathdata Version Comments
Assembly Component Description Date Change Date Suffix Number
LP/STA/F-01 (00 091007) 8 of 73

DESIGN FMEA CHECKLIST
Person
Question Yes No Comment / Action Required Due Date
Responsible
1 Was the SFMEA and/or DFMEA prepared using the
DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors Potential
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) reference
manual?
2 Have historical campaign and warranty data been
reviewed?
3 Have similar part DFMEAs been considered?
4 Does the SFMEA and/or DFMEA identify Special
Characteristics?
5 Have design characteristics that affect high risk priority
failure modes been identified?
6 Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to
high risk priority numbers?
7 Have appropriate corrective actions been assigned to
high severity numbers?
8 Have risk priorities been revised when corrective actions
have been completed and verified?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
LP/STA/F-02 Page 9 of 73
POTENTIAL
FAILURE MODE EFFECT ANALYSIS
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd, Nashik ( PROCESS FMEA )
Item/Part Desc. Process Responsibility: FMEA Number :
Model Key Date : Prepared by:
Core Team: FMEA Date(Orig.): (Rev.): 00
C O D
S l c e R Responsibility
Sr. Process function/ Potential causes / Current Process Recommended
Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of failure e a c t P & Target Action Results
No. Requirements mechanism(s) of failure Controls Action(s)
v s u e N Completion Date
s r c
S O D R
Action taken e c e P
v c t N
LP/TS/F-05 10
DESIGN VERIFICATION PLAN & REPORT (DVP&R) DVP No. :
Author :
Compone SYSTEM : Plan Date : Approval :

nt /
Model : Source : Report Date : Reporting Engineer :
Assembl
TEST PLAN TEST REPORT
y No. :
Procedure
Test Responsibility
Number
/ Standard Description Test Requirements Acceptance Criteria
/ Organisation
Stage Sample Timing Sample Tested REMARKS
Number
Qty. Type Start Comp. Qty. Type Phase Result
LP/STA/F-03
CC/SC List and Plan
Process Control
Item CC/SC Customer Symbol Design Control Control Method CPk Result MSA Result Comment
Supplier Process Lear Process
LP/STA/F-04
Timing Plan - Facilities, Tooloing & Gauges
Part No Supplier Date (Orig)
Part Name Supplier Code Date (Riv.)

Designing. Manufacturing Try out & Approval
Source
Description Type No. of Start Target Respon- Min. Max. G/Y/R No. of Start Target Respon- Min. Max. G/Y/R No. of Start Target Respon- G/Y/R
Opn. No. & Description (Inhouse/
of F/T/G F/T/G Days Date Date sibility Qty Qty Status Days Date. Date. sibility Qty Qty Status. Days Date Date sibility Status.
Supplier)
LP/STA/F-05
Gage/Fixture Checking Plan
Certification/Cu
Design Concept Design Completion Build Completion
Item Gage/Checking Fixture Supplier Name stomer MSA Method MSA Result Responsible Comment
Approve Date Date Date
Approval Date
LP/STA/F-06
RISK ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST & ANALYSIS Page 1 of 1
Lear Automotive India Pvt Ltd.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS :- CUSTOMER :-
ASSESSMENT ITEMS YES NO CAUSE ACTION RESPONSIBILITY
1) QUALITY HISTORY :-
-Does the Similar Parts / Products have a History of High Warranty ?
-Are there Frequent Quality Rejections at the Customer Plant ?
-Was there a Recall Action due to a similar Component Or System ?
2) PROFILE :-
-Is the Product Or Manufacturing Technology is New to our Manufacturing Location ?
-Is there the Historic Launch Performance Poor ?
-Are the Resources Stretched due to Significant amount of New Business ?
-Are Overall Budget stretched due to New Business ?
3) ENGINEERING PROFILE :-
-Is it a New Design ?
-Are the Manufacturing Techniques New to the Industry ?
-Is there High Product Or Process Complexity ?

-Is the Product Strategically Important due to High Visibility Or Functional
Performance ?
4) PERFORMANCE v/s TARGETS :-
-Will the Deisgn Goals ( Weight,Material,Functional Performance, etc.) and Reliability
Goals be Difficult to achieve ?
-Will the Quality Goals ( Warranty,Scrap Ratio,Rework Ratio,PPM, etc.) be difficult to
achieve ?
-Is the Programme Timing Compressed ?
-Are the Cost Targets Aggressive ?
LP/EN/F-12
TEAM FEASIBILITY COMMITMENT DATE:
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd
CUSTOMER SUPPLIER :
PART NAME : PART NUMBER :
Feasibility Considerations
YES NO CONSIDERATION
Is product adequately defined to enable feasibility evaluation?
Can engineering Performance Specifications be met as written?
Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing ?
Can product be manufactured with Cpk,s that meet requirments ?
Is there adequate capacity to produce product ?
Does the design allow the use of efficient material handling techniques ?
Can the product be manufactured without incurring any unusual:
* Costs for capital equipment?
* Costs for tooling ?
* Alternative manufacturing methods ?
Is statistical process control required on product?
Is statistical process control presently used on similar products ?
Where statistical process control is used on similar products:
* Are the processes in control and stable ?
* Are Cpk's greater than 1.33 ?
Conclusion
Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.
Feasible Changes recommended
Not Feasible Design revision required to produce product within the specified requirments.
SIGN OFF
TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE TEAM MEMBER / TITAL / DATE
LP/TS/F-14
PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST
Question Yes No Comment / Action Required

1 Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production
and inspection stations?
2 Were all appropriate FMEA's (SFMEA, DFMEA)
available and used as aids to develop the process flow
chart?
3 Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in
the control plan?
4 Does the flow chart describe how the product will move,
i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?
5 Has the pull system/optimization been considered for
this process?
6 Have provisions been made to identify and inspect
reworked product before being used?
7 Have potential quality problems due to handling and
outside processing been identified and corrected?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Person
Due Date
Responsible
Process Flow Chart
Lear Automotive India Pvt.Ltd.,Nashik
Item/Part Desc. Process Resp. Prepared By :
SYMBOLS
Model Key Date TRANSPORTATION STORAGE
Core Team Date Original OPERATION INSPECTION
Document No: Date Revised OPN & INSP. TOGETHER DELAY
Process Description
(Operation/Inspection/ Incoming Source of Variation Process Flow Diagram Product Chararcteristics Process Chararcteristics
Transportation/Storage)
LN/TS/F-04
PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

1 Was the Process FMEA prepared using the Chrysler,
Ford, and General Motors guidelines?
2 Have all operations affecting fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been identified and
listed sequentially?
3 Were similar part FMEA's considered?
4 Have historical campaign and warranty data been
reviewed?
5 Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or
taken for high risk priority items?
6 Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or
taken for high severity numbers?
7 Were risk priorities numbers revised when corrective
action was completed?
8 Were high severity numbers revised when a design
change was completed?
9 Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the
subsequent operation, assembly, and product?
10 Was warranty information used as an aid in developing
the Process FMEA?
11 Were customer plant problems used as an aid in
developing the Process FMEA?
12 Have the causes been described in terms of something
that can be fixed or controlled?
13 Where detection is the major factor, have provisions
been made to control the cause prior to the next
operation?
LN/STA/F-02 Page 20 of 73
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Person Responsible Due Date
Person Responsible Due Date
POTENTIAL
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
Print # NUMBER Rev. ECL (PROCESS FMEA) FMEA Number: FILE.XLS
Item: NAME Process Responsibility: SUPPLIER Prepared by:
Model Year(s)/Vehicle(s) APPLICATION Key Date Page: of
Team: FMEA Date (Orig.) (Rev.)
Process C Potential O Current Current D

Function Potential Potential S l Cause(s)/ c Process Process e R. Recommended Responsibility Action Results
Failure Effect(s) of e a Mechanism(s) c Controls Controls t P. Action(s) & Target Actions S O D R.
Mode Failure v s of Failure u - Prevention - Detection e N. Completion Date Taken e c e P.
Requirements s r c v c t N.
Page 24 of 73
CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST

1 Was the control plan methodology referenced in Section
6 used in preparing the control plan?
2 Have all known customer complaints been identified to
facilitate the selection of special product/process
characteristics?
3 Are all special product/process characteristics included
in the control plan?
4 Were SFMEA, DFMEA, and PFMEA used to prepare
the control plan?
5 Are material specifications requiring inspection
identified?
6 Does the control pan address incoming
(material/components) through processing/assembly
including packaging?
7 Are engineering performance testing requirements
identified?
8 Are gages and test equipment available as required by
the control plan?
9 If required, has the customer approved the control plan?
10 Are gage methods compatible between supplier and

customer?
Revision Date
Prepared By:
Person
Due Date
Responsible
Person
Due Date
Responsible
CONTROL PLAN
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Nashik
Prototype Prelaunch Production Key contact/Phone : Date( Original) Date (Revision)
Control Plan Number:
Part Number/Latest Change level: Core team: Customer Engg. Approval/Date(If required)
Part Name/Description Supplier/Plant approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If required)
Supplier plant Supplier code Other Approval / Date(If required) Other Approval/Date(If required)
Part/ Process Name/ Machine, Device, Characteristics Special Method

Process Operation Description Jig, Tools No. Product Process Char. Product/Process Evaluation Sample Reaction Plan
Number For Mfg. Class Specification/ Measurement Control Method
Tolerance Technique Size Freq.
CHECKING AIDS LIST Date :
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd (For Gauges, Instruments & Testing Equipments)
CALIBRATION LEAST MSA

Sr No DESC I.D. NO.
FREQ. COUNT YES/NO/NR
A GAUGES
B INSTRUMENTS
C TESTING EQUIPMENTS
Prepared by :
LP/QA/F-13
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C
Lower Upper
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed
0 0 0
APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE

TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. A 1
2 2
3 3
4 AVE xa=
5 R ra=
6. B 1
7 2
8 3
9 AVE xb=
10 R rb=
11. C 1
12 2
13 3
14 AVE xc=
15 R rc =
16. PART X=
AVE ( xp ) Rp=
17 (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

18 (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=
19 R x D4* = UCLR=
20 R x D3* = LCLR=
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials; D3 = 0 for up to 7 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or dis-
card values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations.
Notes:
LP/STA/F-07
GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET
VARIABLE DATA RESULTS
Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A
NUMBER
Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B
NAME
Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C
Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed

0 0 0
Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV)

Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV)
= 2 4.56 =
= 3 3.05 =
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/TV)
= =
= Appraisers 2 3 =
K2 3.65 2.70 n = number of parts
Repeatability & Reproducibility (R & R) r = number of trials
R&R = {(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 Parts K3
= 2 3.65 % R&R = 100 (R&R/TV)

= 3 2.70 =
Part Variation (PV) 4 2.30 =
PV = RP x K3 5 2.08
= 6 1.93
= 7 1.82 % PV = 100 (PV/TV)
Total Variation (TV) 8 1.74 =
TV = {(R&R2 + PV2)}1/2 9 1.67 =
= 10 1.62
=
All calculations are based upon predicting 5.15 sigma (99.0% of the area under the normal distribution curve).
K1 is 5.15/d2, where d2 is dependent on the number of trials (m) and the number if parts times the number of operators (g) which is
assumed to be greater than 15.
AV - If a negative value is calculated under the square root sign, the appraiser variation (AV) defaults to zero (0).
K2 is 5.15/d2, where d2 is dependent on the number of operators (m) and (g) is 1, since there is only one range calculation.
K2 is 5.15/d2, where d2 is dependent on the number of parts (m) and (g) is 1, since there is only one range calculation.
d2 is obtained from Table D3, "Quality Control and Industrial Statistics", A.J. Duncan.
LP/STA/F-07
GAGE REPEATABILITY & REPRODUCIABILITY STUDY SUPPLIER NAME
FOR ATTRIBUTE DATA

Number of Parts 40 Nos. Project Name
PartPart
Details
Details Gauge Details Appraise Name
Part name : Gauge number: A:
Characteristic : Gauge name: B:
Specification: C:
Gauge Type : CORRECT DECISIONS
S.NO A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 Reference A B C
1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
3 0 0 0
4 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
6 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
8 0 0 0
9 0 0 0
10 0 0 0
11 0 0 0
12 0 0 0
13 0 0 0
14 0 0 0
15 0 0 0
16 0 0 0
17 0 0 0
18 0 0 0
19 0 0 0
20 0 0 0
21 0 0 0
22 0 0 0
23 0 0 0
24 0 0 0
25 0 0 0
26 0 0 0
27 0 0 0
28 0 0 0
29 0 0 0
30 0 0 0
31 0 0 0
32 0 0 0
33 0 0 0
34 0 0 0
35 0 0 0
36 0 0 0
37 0 0 0
38 0 0 0
39 0 0 0
40 0 0 0
Reference: 0
OK Component = 1 NG Component = 0
A B C
No. of correct decisions
Effectiveness %= Total opportunities for making decisions
0.00 0.00 0.00
A B C
No. of Ok decisions for NG parts
Miss Rate %= Total opportunities for finding NG parts
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
A B C
No. of NG decisions for OK Parts
False Alarm %= Total opportunities for finding OK parts
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Effectiveness % > 90% which is conforming to the specifications

Miss Rate % < 2% which is conforming to the specifications
False Alarm % < 5% which is conforming to the specifications
Result:
LP/STA/F-08
LP/STA/F-08
REPEATIBILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT重复性和再现性分析 ● Using TOLERANCE met
● Using Part to Part varia
NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST非破坏性测试
PLEASE SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS AND COMPLETE THE FORM ACCORDINGLY PARAMETERS ARE
K1 Number of Trials 测量次数 Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K2 Number of Operators 操作人数 Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K3 Number of Parts 零件数 Can be any value between 2 and 10 10 OK
'01 PS '01 PSW'!A6 '01 PSW'!A21 '01 PSW'!A54 '01 PSW'!H54
Part number零件号 Part name零件名称 xyz Plant工厂

Characteristic特征值 Gage number量具编号 334 Coord by协调人
Tolerance公差范围 Units单位 Gage name量具名称 sg Phone #电话
Tolerance (Tol) Gage ECL/revision量具更改等级/修订
a Date日期
OPERATOR P A R T RESULTS
TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 1 A1
2 A2
3 A3
Average XA
Range RA
B 1 B1
2 B2
3 B3
Average XB
Range RB
C 1 C1
2 C2
3 C3
Average XC
Range RC
Part Avg xPART =
Part Range RPART =
R= RA+ RB + RC / No of operators = + + / 3 R=
XDIFF= [Max (X)ABC] - [Min (X)ABC] = - XDIFF =
UCLR= R * D4 = * 2.580 UCLR =
LCLR= R * D3 = * 0.000 LCLR =
OPERATOR NAME NOTE: It has been statistically proven that the Tolerance Method is better
A to determine measurement equipment reliability. Even with negative
B Kurtosis data sets, the recorded measurements will be less than 1% away
C from the true value if GR&R is below 30%. Contact Quality Group if you
GOOD UNTIL GAGE ECL/revision CHANGE need more information.
FROM DATA SHEET: R= XDIFF = RPART =
Measurement Unit Analysis Based on the TOLERANCE Method
Repeatibility - Equipment Variation (EV)
EV = R * K1 % EV = 100[EV/Tol]
EV = Trials K1 % EV =
3 3.05
Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
AV= [ ( XDIFF * K2) - (EV / nr)]
2 2
(n parts, r trials) % AV = 100[AV/Tol]
AV= Oper K2 % AV =
3 2.70
Repeatibility & Reproducibility (R & R) % R&R = 100[R&R/Tol]
R&R= (EV2 + AV2) % R&R =
R&R=
Part Variation (PV)
PV= RPART * K3 Parts K3 % PV = 100[PV/Tol]
PV= 10 1.62 % PV =
Total Variation (TV) 1.62
TV= (R&R2 + PV2) #REF!
TV=
LN/STA/F-09 Filename: 529800452.xls / GRR ND Equivalent to NAP 4.5-1 F-GRR ND

12/1/99
REPEATIBILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT重复性和再现性分析 Using TOLERANCE met
Using Part to Part varia
NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST非破坏性测试
PLEASE SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING PARAMETERS AND COMPLETE THE FORM ACCORDINGLY PARAMETERS ARE
K1 Number of Trials 测量次数 Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K2 Number of Operators 操作人数 Must be either 2 or 3 3 OK
K3 Number of Parts 零件数 Can be any value between 2 and 10 10 OK
'01 PS '01 PSW'!A6 '01 PSW'!A21 '01 PSW'!A54 '01 PSW'!H54
Part number零件号 Part name零件名称 xyz Plant工厂

Characteristic特征值 Gage number量具编号 334 Coord by协调人
Tolerance公差范围 Units单位 Gage name量具名称 sg Phone #电话
Tolerance (Tol) Gage ECL/revision量具更改等级/修订
a Date日期
Guidelines for acceptance of gage repeatability and reproducibility (%R&R):

UNDER 10% ERROR: Gage system OK
10% to 30% ERROR: May be acceptable based upon importance of application. Calculate "breakpoint" = RPN x (% Gage R&R/100) and
check that is less than 37.8 and (% Gage R&R) less than 30%. See next page for conclusion of usage.
OVER 30% ERROR: Gage system needs improvement. Identify the problems and have them corrected.
DETERMINE THE RISK PRIORITY NUMBER (RPN) FROM THE FMEA ASSOCIATED BREAKPOINT = RPN # x
WITH THE DIMENSION BEING GAGED. TYPE THE RPN # UNDER THE RPN # FIELD
PROVIDED (RIGHT) AND FOLLOW INSTRUCTION OF USAGE IN NEXT ROW: = x
Range Chart by operator
12
10
8
Range
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Part
Row 24 Row 29 Row 34 UCLr
12
Average Run Chart
10
8
Average
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Part
Row 23 Row 28
Notes:

12/1/99
g TOLERANCE method用公差方式 Method used
Total count
g Part to Part variation用零件变差
Button K1 - 1 (trials)
Button K2 - 1 (appraisers)
Button K3 - 1 (parts)
K1 Trials
k2 Appraisers
K3 Parts
count
A1
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
AVG
Errors_sum
ethod

12/1/99
g TOLERANCE method用公差方式 Method used
Total count
g Part to Part variation用零件变差
Button K1 - 1 (trials)
Button K2 - 1 (appraisers)
Button K3 - 1 (parts)
K1 Trials
k2 Appraisers
K3 Parts
count
A1
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
%GRR/100
10
9 10
Row 28 Row 33

12/1/99
0.0000
0.022500823
Page 39
PART .NO. PART NAME SUPPLIER NAME
PARTS DELIVERY - PACKAGING STANDARD

Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,nashik
<PART SKETCH> <DELIVERY CONDITION - PACKING SYSTEM>
(Show actual part shape with L X W X H Dims or Photograph) Ilustrate packing with part keeping s.type & Qty. aspect on trolLey /Box / ….) LOT QTY.=
PACKAGING TYPE
DIMENSIONS
<SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS > TO SUPPLIER

1 ENSURE QUALITY OF PARTS TILL DELIVERY POINTS.
2 PART IDENTIFICATION CONTROL SHOULD BE EASY.
3 SAFETY FOR MATERIAL HANDLING.
4 PACKAGING TO BE COMPACT AND LIGHT.
PACKAGING EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE USER FRIENDLY& COST
EFFECTIVE. LOGISTICS/
5 STORES ENGG PUR Q.C. APPROVED CHECKED
6 NO SHARP EDGES. REV NO. DATE DETAILS LEAR SUPPLIER
Production Trial Run Summary Guidelines
Program Program assigned description.
Date Date of Production Trial Run.
Supplier Name Name of Supplier.
Location Location of facility (city and state) where Production Trial Run is conducted.
Part Number(s) List all Part Numbers that will be reviewed
Description Part Name.
Lean Capacity Requirement. Anticipated as the low annual volumes. Program volumes are documented on the
Quoted Annual Volume Rate (LCR) Request For Quote (RFQ). Note that program volumes can change from the initial RFQ to the time the Trial
Run is conducted. Program volumes must be
Maximum Capacity Requirement. This number is the high annual volume expected for the program. This
MCR (+15%)
number is calculated by increasing the LCR by 15%.
Estimated Program Production
Length
Duration of the program in years.
The quoted amount of weekly production required by the supplier to support annual volumes. Report number
Quoted Supplier Work Pattern of production days per week, number of shifts per day and number of hours per shift.(do not take time off for
breaks, lunch etc) , as this is calcula
Production Process Description of the production process being reviewed.
Number of Quoted Operators For Total number of operators that will be used during the normal production process. The Trial Run will include
Process this number of operators.
Shared Production Line Indicate if the production line is shared with another program.
Number of Production Lines Note the number of production lines used to produce program parts.
Multi Production Process Indicate if the production of program parts requires more than a single operation.
Number of Production Tools The number of production tools for the entire production process being rated.
Number of Cavities/Tool(s) Number of part cavities incorporated into the production tool.
Number of Fixtures Number of fixtures required for the production process.
Hours to Run Scheduled hours to perform the Trial Run.
Number of Shifts to Run Scheduled shifts to perform the Trial Run.
Quoted Parts / Hour Expected number of parts produced per hour (calculated automatically).
Quoted Parts / Shift Expected number of parts produced per shift (calculated automatically).
Quoted Parts / Day (QPDR) Expected number of parts produced per day (calculated automatically).
Planned Downtime Expected downtime during the Trial Run (ie., Lunch, breaks, etc.).
Actual Production Hours Exact production hours of the Trial Run.
Days/Year Number of days production is run (Lear constant = 240 days/yr).
Capability % Required First time capability with no repairs (95%for most processes).
Planned Run Time Total time planned for the production trial run less time allocated for planned downtime
Approved Parts / Hour Number of approved parts produced per hour during the Trial Run .
Approved Parts / Shift Number of approved parts produced per shift, based on the Quoted Work Pattern.
Approved Parts / Day Number of approved parts produced per day, based on the Quoted Work Pattern.
Unplanned Downtime Time the production trial line or process was down in which was unplanned (ex. Breakdowns).
Downtime Actual production downtime during the Trial Run.
Uptime Percentage Percentage of the time the process runs with no unplanned downtime (calculated).
Uptime Percentage Required The minimum time the production process must run according to Lear Corporation (90%).
Total Units Produced Total number of parts produced during the Trial Run.
Total Units Approved Number of approved parts produced during the Trial Run.
Total Units Rejected Number of rejected parts produced during the Trial Run.
Rate of the supplier’s ability to produce approved product. This percentage is calculated by dividing the
Percentage of Capability
amount of total units approved by the total units produced..
To pass Lear process audit, all three (Volume, Capacity, and Uptime Percentage) must indicate a pass. Any
REPORT CARD
failures will require corrective action(s) by the supplier.
Indicate if a return visit is required for further surveillance or an additional Trial Run. A follow up date is
Return Visit
needed.
Comments Enter comments as required.
Supplier Representative Name & Signature of Supplier Representative participating in the Trial Run.
Title Title of Supplier Representative.
Phone Telephone number of Supplier Representative.
Lear Representative Name & Signature of Lear Representative conducting the Trial Run.
Title Title of Lear Representative.
Phone Telephone number of the Lear Representative.
LP/STA/F-10
Production Trial Run Summary
Note: ALL CELLS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW MUST BE COMPLETED BY LEAR SQE
PROGRAM: DATE:
LOCATION
SUPPLIER NAME:
(CITY/STATE)
PART NUMBER(S): DESCRIPTION:
QUOTED ANNUAL VOLUME RATE

MCR (+ 15%): 0
(LCR):
DATE OF
ENGINEERING CHANGE LEVEL: ENGINEERING CHANGE:
ESTIMATED PROGRAM PRODUCTION LENGTH: ( YEARS )
QUOTED SUPPLIER WORK PATTERN: # DAYS PER WEEK: # OF SHIFTS # HOURS PER SHIFT
PRODUCTION PROCESS:
NO. OF QUOTED OPERATORS FOR PROCESS: NO. OF PRODUCTION LINES:
SHARED PRODUCTION LINE: Yes No NO. OF PRODUCTION TOOLS:
MULTI-SHARED PROCESS: Yes No NO. OF CAVITIES PER TOOL:
NO. OF GAGES:
NOTE: ALL PRODUCTION NUMBERS BELOW ARE BASED ON THE QUOTED SUPPLIER WORK PATTERN
DEMONSTRATION RUN GOAL DEMONSTRATION RUN RESULTS

HOURS TO RUN PLANNED RUN TIME(Scheduled-Planned Downtime) 0.000
NO. OF SHIFTS TO RUN PLANNED DOWNTIME (Breaks,PM, etc) 0.000
QUOTED PARTS PER HOUR #DIV/0! APPROVED PARTS PER HOUR #DIV/0!
QUOTED PARTS PER SHIFT #DIV/0! APPROVED PARTS PER SHIFT #DIV/0!
QUOTED PARTS PER DAY (QPDR) 0.00 APPROVED PARTS PER DAY #DIV/0!
PLANNED DOWNTIME (Breaks,PM, etc) UNPLANNED DOWNTIME (HRS)
DAYS/YEAR (LEAR CONSTANT) 240 UPTIME PERCENTAGE #DIV/0!
CAPABILITY % REQUIRED 95.00% APPROVED PARTS/YEAR #DIV/0! #DIV/0! % of Quoted
CAPABILITY RESULTS LEAR TEAM RECOMMENDATION RETURN VISIT

TOTAL UNITS PRODUCED REPORT CARD PASS/FAIL
TOTAL UNITS APPROVED QUOTED VOLUME #DIV/0! NO
TOTAL UNITS REJECTED 0 PERCENTAGE CAPABILITY(95%min) #DIV/0! YES
PERCENTAGE OF CAPABILITY #DIV/0! UPTIME PERCENTAGE #DIV/0! DATE:
COMMENTS:
SUPPLIER REPRESENTATIVE: TITLE PHONE
LEAR REPRESENTATIVE: TITLE PHONE

Note: Annual Volumes and Quoted Work Patterns are based on RFQ (Request For Quote) information.
LCR = Lean Capacity Requirement MCR = Maximum Capacity Requirement QPDR = Quoted Production Daily Requirement (240 days)
LP/STA/F-10
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE WORKSHEET
Supplier Name: SUPPLIER Part Number(s): NUMBER
RUN @ RATE REVIEW CONTENT

The Run @ Rate will verify that the results of the supplier's actual manufacturing process meet customer requirements for on-going quality, as
stated in PPAP, and quoted tooling capacity. Also it will verify that the supplier's actual process is to plan, as documented in PPAP, GP-12 and the
other documentation listed below.
During the Run @ Rate, the following will be reviewed: documentation; the manufacturing process and results; part quality requirements and
results; sub-supplier requirements and Run @ Rate results and packaging.
A. Documentation
At the time of the Run @ Rate, the following documentation should be available for review:
Available Y/N
1. PPAP package including: 1.
a) process flow diagram a.
b) process control plan, with reaction plan b.
c) DFMEA/PFMEA c.
d) Master part(s) d.
2. GP-12 (Pre-launch Control) plan 2.
3. Tool capacity information 3.
4. Operator/inspection instructions 4.
5. Prototype/pilot concerns (PR/R's) 5.
6. Sub-contractor control/capacity data 6.
7. Sub-contractor material schedules and transportation 7.
8. Packaging/labeling plan 8.
9. Acceleration plan 9.
Note: All documentation must be complete and correct.
B. MANUFACTURING PROCESS - ACTUAL TO PLAN
1. Is the product being manufactured at the production site using the production tooling, gaging, process, materials,
operators, environment, and process settings? Yes No
Comments:
2. Does the actual process flow agree with the process flow diagram, as documented in PPAP? (Review the facility plan
and layout. Walk the process with the flow diagram.) Yes No
Comments:
3. Are operator instructions/visual controls available and adhere to at each work station?
Yes No Comments:
4. Is all in-process documentation, such as process control charts, in place at the time of the Run @ Rate? Is the
documentation utilized to drive a defined reaction plan and corrective action process?
Yes No Comments:
5. When required, are production boundary samples available at the required work stations? Are the boundary samples
approved by GM? Yes No Comments:
6. Are maintenance plans in place? Are repair and maintenance parts available? Is there planned downtime for
preventive maintenance? Yes No Comments:
Note: All of the preceding requirements must be met to pass the Run @ Rate.
LP/STA/F-11
C. MANUFACTURING CAPACITY RESULTS

The following will be verified while the process is running.
1. Can net output from each operation support quoted capacity? Yes No
Comments:
Operation Quoted Capacity Rate
2. During the Run @ Rate, did the tooling meet the quoted up time requirements (net vs. gross quoted output)? Make note of
any unexpected downtime and corrective action plans required. Yes No
Comments:
3. Can all line changeovers, if any, be performed within the quoted tolling capacity requirements?
Yes No Comments:
4. Does the net through-put of good pieces (scrap taken out, ant allowable rework) meet daily quoted capacity?
Yes No Comments:
5. Is the acceleration plan sufficient to meet requirements? Yes No
Comments:
D. PART QUALITY PLAN TO ACTUAL

1. Are all Production checking fixtures complete, with acceptable measurement system studies (i.e, gage R and R)
performed, and operator instructions/visual aids available? Yes No
Comments:
2. Are all in process gaging and controls complete, functional and in place?
Yes No Comments:
3. Do the process control plans (normal and GP-12) agree with the actual process? Do production part checks and statistical
monitoring take place as outlined on the process control plan? Yes No
Comments:
LP/STA/F-11
D. PART QUALITY PLAN TO ACTUAL (CONTINUED)

4. Are potential failure modes, as identified in the PFMEA, addressed through error-proofing or the control plan?
Yes No Comments:
5. Do the process control plan reaction plan and the supplier's corrective actions ensure effective containment and
correction? Yes No Comments:
E. PART QUALITY RESULTS:

Note: The total number of parts produces, the pieces rejected and the pieces reworked must be documented on the
summary sheet
1. Do the parts produced off the production tooling during the Run @ Rate meet GM's requirements for on-going quality, as
stated in PPAP? Yes No Comments:
2. Is the manufacturing process in control? Yes No Comments:
3. Does the manufacturing process demonstrate the required capability? Yes No
Comments:
4. Is the process control plan sufficient to effectively meet the design record requirements, i.e., control points, frequency of
checks, etc.? Yes No Comments:
5. Nonconformances
a) Were nonconformances yielded by the process identified by the normal PPAP control plan?
Yes No If identified by the GP-12 Process Control Plan or an activity outside
documented plans, corrective action is required.
b) Did the PFMEA identify the potential failure modes? Yes No
If not, the PFMEA needs to be updated and corrective action put in place.
c) Do all the observed rework and repairs effectively correct the nonconformance(s)?
Yes No
d) Are there any open concerns from prototype or pilot (PR/R)? Yes No
Comments:
LP/STA/F-11
F. SUBCONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS
1. Were subcontractors' abilities to meet the customer's quality and capacity requirements confirmed by the supplier prior to
the Run @ Rate being conducted at the supplier's facility? Was verification of the subcontractors' manufacturing
processes accomplished through a Run @ Rate or similar process conducted by the supplier?
Yes No Comments:
2. Are controls in place to isolate incoming material until it has been approved?
Yes No Comments:
G. PACKAGING AND HANDLING

1. During the review of in process and final shipment packaging for preservation of part quality and ease of use by supplier's
operators loading and unloading parts, were any problems identified?
Yes No Comments:
2. Does the supplier's method for in process and final shipping packaging and handling effectively eliminate the potential for
process errors or mixed stock? Yes No Comments:
COMMENTS:
Completed by: Phone: Date:
LP/STA/F-11
RUN @ RATE GP-9 - RUN @ RATE SUMMARY
Part Description NAME
Supplier SUPPLIER Part # NUMBER
Mfg. Location Drawing #
Supplier Quoted Production Rate /Hr /Day Change Level ECL
Customer GM Buyer
Phone #
Planned Usage: Daily Weekly SQE

Phone #
Planned Run Date GOAL (net good parts)
Planned Hours To Run /Hour
Planned Shifts Planned Downtime /Shift
Reason for Planned Downtime: /Day
RESULTS
Actual Hours From To ACTUAL (net good parts)
Actual Shifts Date /Hour
Actual Downtime Hours (planned & unplanned) /Shift
/Day
Explain:
Total Produced - Total Rejected = Net
Comments/Open Issues:
Supplier Run At Rate Recommendation: PASS OPEN FAIL Rerun Date
Comments:
Supplier Signature Title Phone Date
Run At Rate Summary: PASS OPEN FAIL Rerun Date
Authorized Customer Supplier Quality Signature Title Date
LP/STA/F-11
STATISTICAL PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS - FOR VARIABLE DATA(Long Term) PROJECT NAME
PART NUMBER CHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION -> DATE OF DATA COLLECTION :-
UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT OPERATION :- SUPPLIER NAME
PART NAME MACHINE :- 2160 2140 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM :-
MATERIAL :- UNITS :- Gms. LEAST COUNT :-
Sample group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sample no.
X1 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2154.0 2148.0 2149.0 2151.0 2150.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2151.0 2153.0 2148.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2151.0 2152.0 2155.0 2150.0 2148.0
X2 2150.0 2152.0 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2148.0 2151.0 2154.0 2152.0 2153.0 2154.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2152.0 2148.0 2154.0 2153.0 2155.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0
X3 2149.0 2153.0 2148.0 2148.0 2150.0 2147.0 2153.0 2149.0 2148.0 2150.0 2152.0 2153.0 2149.0 2154.0 2153.0 2152.0 2148.0 2152.0 2154.0 2151.0 2152.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2153.0
X4 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2151.0 2153.0 2150.0 2149.0 2153.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0 2149.0 2148.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2151.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0
X5 2148.0 2149.0 2153.0 2150.0 2154.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2154.0 2150.0 2148.0 2152.0 2150.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2150.0 2154.0 2153.0 2150.0 2147.0 2150.0 2152.0 2152.0
X bar 2149.8 2151.2 2150.0 2150.6 2152.2 2149.6 2150.4 2150.8 2150.2 2151.4 2151.2 2151.0 2151.4 2151.8 2151.4 2151.4 2149.8 2149.6 2152.0 2151.6 2151.6 2150.4 2152.0 2151.6 2150.4
R 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Xbar Chart
2155.0
2154.0
2153.0
2152.0
2151.0
2150.0
X bar
2149.0
2148.0
2147.0
2146.0
2145.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Uclx 15 16 X bar 17 18
LCLx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sample group ---> Nom. X
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UCL-R R-bar R Mean
Short Term process capability Results REMARKS :-

Grand X bar = 2150.936 Average of all sample readings
R bar = 4.560 Average of indivisual ranges
Sigma(N) = 1.957 R bar/d2 = R bar/2.33
Sigma(N-1) = 1.983 Std. Dev. For Samples
UCLx = 2153.581 Grand X bar + (A2xR bar) 2153.5808
LCLx = 2148.291 Grand X bar - (A2xR bar) 2148.2912
(where A2 = 0.58 for 5 samples)
UCLr = 9.622 R bar x D4 9.6216
(where D4 = 2.11 )
LCLr = 0.000 --
Cp = 1.703 (USL-LSL) / (6xSigma)

Pp = 1.681 (USL-LSL) / (6xSigma)
Ppk-1 1.52 (USL-Xbar) / (3xSigma)

Ppk-2 1.84 (Xbar-LSL) / (3xSigma)
Ppk = 1.52 (Long Term Preliminary Process Capability)
LP/STA/F-12
STATISTICAL PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS - FOR VARIABLE DATA(Short Term) PROJECT
PART NUMBER CHARACTERISTIC SPECIFICATION -> DATE OF DATA COLLECTION :-
UPPER LIMIT LOWER LIMIT OPERATION :- SUPPLIER NAME
PART NAME MACHINE :- 2160 2140 MEASUREMENT SYSTEM :-
MATERIAL :- UNITS :- Gms. LEAST COUNT :-
Sample group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sample no.
X1 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2154.0 2148.0 2149.0 2151.0 2150.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2151.0 2153.0 2148.0 2150.0 2149.0 2152.0 2151.0 2152.0 2155.0 2150.0 2148.0
X2 2150.0 2152.0 2150.0 2153.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2148.0 2151.0 2154.0 2152.0 2153.0 2154.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2152.0 2148.0 2154.0 2153.0 2155.0 2150.0 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0
X3 2149.0 2153.0 2148.0 2148.0 2150.0 2147.0 2153.0 2149.0 2148.0 2150.0 2152.0 2153.0 2149.0 2154.0 2153.0 2152.0 2148.0 2152.0 2154.0 2151.0 2152.0 2152.0 2153.0 2153.0 2153.0
X4 2152.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2151.0 2153.0 2150.0 2149.0 2153.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0 2149.0 2148.0 2149.0 2149.0 2150.0 2151.0 2150.0 2154.0 2150.0
X5 2148.0 2149.0 2153.0 2150.0 2154.0 2149.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2154.0 2150.0 2148.0 2152.0 2150.0 2150.0 2153.0 2152.0 2150.0 2154.0 2153.0 2150.0 2147.0 2150.0 2152.0 2152.0
X bar 2149.8 2151.2 2150.0 2150.6 2152.2 2149.6 2150.4 2150.8 2150.2 2151.4 2151.2 2151.0 2151.4 2151.8 2151.4 2151.4 2149.8 2149.6 2152.0 2151.6 2151.6 2150.4 2152.0 2151.6 2150.4
R 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Xbar Chart
2155.0
2154.0
2153.0
2152.0
2151.0
2150.0
X bar
2149.0
2148.0
2147.0
2146.0
2145.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Uclx 15 16 X bar 17 18
LCLx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Sample group ---> Nom. X
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
UCL-R R-bar R Mean
Short Term process capability Results REMARKS :-

Grand X bar = 2150.936 Average of all sample readings
R bar = 4.560 Average of indivisual ranges
Sigma(N) = 1.957 R bar/d2 = R bar/2.33
UCLx = 2153.581 Grand X bar + (A2xR bar) 2153.5808
LCLx = 2148.291 Grand X bar - (A2xR bar) 2148.2912
(where A2 = 0.58 for 5 samples)
UCLr = 9.622 R bar x D4 9.6216
(where D4 = 2.11 )
LCLr = 0.000 --
Cp = 1.703 (USL-LSL) / (6xSigma)
Cpk-1 1.54 (USL-Xbar) / (3xSigma)

Cpk-2 1.86 (Xbar-LSL) / (3xSigma)
Cpk = 1.54 (Short Term Preliminary Process Capability)
LP/STA/F-12
PROCESS CAPABILITY CERTIFICATION REPORT过程能力研究
Two sided spec (bilateral)双侧 One sided (MIN)单侧 One sided (MAX)单侧 Number of readings per subgroup 每组数量 5 P R O C E S S I N F O R M A T I O N 过程信息
'01 PSW'!A21 '07 CAV'!A6 '01 PSW'!H6 '01 PSW'!A6 '01 PSW'!A14 '01 PSW'!D10 '01 PSW'!A8 Significant trends of data points: X Chart
LOCATION Plant工厂上海李尔汽车系统有限公司 Dept部门: 质量部 Date日期: Increasing RUN LENGTH
PART Part number零件号 T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Part description零件说明驾驶员、前座座椅总成 HOW MANY RUNS
Drawing No.图纸号 T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB ECL工程更改等级 Decreasing RUN LENGTH
TOOL Tool number工装号 # Cavities型腔编号 HOW MANY RUNS
DIMENSION Description说明 Units单位 Out of control limits
SPEC公称尺寸 28.0 PLUS上公差 3.0 MINUS下公差 3.0 Consecutive data points above avg. 1
Lwr Spec Li 25.0 NOMINAL 28.0 Upr Spec Li 31.0 Consecutive data points below avg. 1
12
Average (X chart)
Average
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2
Data Points
Data Values UCLx AveX LCLx
12
Range (R chart)
Range
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2
Data Values UCLr AveR LCLr Data Points
LP/STA/F-11
PROCESS CAPABILITY CERTIFICATION REPORT过程能力研究
LOCATION Plant 上海李尔汽车系统有限公司 Dept: 质量部 Date: 12/30/1899 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS VALUES
PART Part number: T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Part description 驾驶员、前座座椅总成 Number of readings
Drawing number T11-6800010TB, T11-6900010TB Eng. chg. level 0 Lower spec limit (LSL) 25.0000
TOOL Tool number 0 # Cavities 0 Nominal 28.0000
DIMENSION Description 0 Units 0 Upper spec limit (USL) 31.0000
SPEC 28.0 PLUS 3.0 MINUS 3.0 Total sum
Lwr Spec Li 25.0 NOMINAL 28.0 Upr Spec Li 31.0 Average readings ( X )
HISTOGRAM WITHOUT LIMITS HISTOGRAM WITH LIMITS Maximum
LSL USL Minimum
1 1 Readings below LSL
0.9
Readings above USL
0.9
25.0000 31.0000 Average Range (R)
0.8 0.8 D2 Value n= 5
0.7 0.7 Upper capability index (CPU)
Lower capability index (CPL)
0.6 0.6
Capability index (Cp)
0.5 0.5
Process Capability (Cpk)
0.4 0.4 Capability ratio (CR)
0.3 0.3 Std Deviation (n-1)
Std Deviation (n)
0.2
0.2 Variance (n-1)
0.1
0.1 Variance (n)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Performance index (PP)
0
Performance ratio (PR)
23.200
24.400
25.600
26.800
28.000
30.400
31.600
32.800
29.200
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Performance index (Ppk)
S U B G R O U P S
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1
R 2
E 3
A 4
D 5
I
N
G
S
Average
Range
n 21 22 23 24 25 N O T E S
1 Less than 25 subgroups, last data point on X & R chart are not actual readings
R 2
E 3
A 4
D 5
I
N
G
S
Average
Range
LP/STA/F-11
P R O C E S S I N F O R M A T I O N 过程信息
R Chart
1
1
Average (X chart)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Data Points
Range (R chart)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Data Points
LP/STA/F-11
VALUES
25.0000
28.0000
31.0000
20
LP/STA/F-11
Page 54 of 73 Pages
Production Part Approval - Dimensional Results

SUPPLIER PART NUMBER
SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME OF INSPECTION FACILITY PART NAME
NAME
NOT
ITEM DIMENSION/SPECIFICATION SUPPLIER MEASUREMENT RESULTS OK OK
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
LP/STA/F-13
Page 55 of 73 Pages
Production Part Approval - Dimensional Results

SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME OF INSPECTION FACILITY PART NAME
NAME
NOT
ITEM DIMENSION/SPECIFICATION SUPPLIER MEASUREMENT RESULTS OK OK
LP/STA/F-13
Page of Pages
Production Part Approval - Material Test Results

SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME OF LABORATORY PART NAME
NAME
TYPE OF NOT
TEST MATERIAL SPEC. NO./DATE/SPECIFICATION SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS OK OK
LP/STA/F-13
Page of Pages
Production Part Approval - Material Test Results

SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME
TYPE OF NOT
TEST MATERIAL SPEC. NO./DATE/SPECIFICATION SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS OK OK
LP/STA/F-13
Page 58 of 73 Pages
Production Part Approval - Performance Test Results

SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME
REF. TEST QTY. NOT
NO. REQUIREMENTS FREQ. TESTED SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS AND TEST CONDITIONS OK OK
LP/STA/F-13
Page 59 of 73 Pages
Production Part Approval - Performance Test Results

SUPPLIER NUMBER
NAME
REF. TEST QTY. NOT
NO. REQUIREMENTS FREQ. TESTED SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS AND TEST CONDITIONS OK OK
LP/STA/F-13
APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT
PART DRAWING APPLICATION
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES) APPLICATION
PART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE
NAME NAME CODE ECL
SUPPLIER MANUFACTURING ADDRESS SUPPLIER
NAME SUPPLIER LOCATION CITY STATE ZIP CODE CODE
REASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHER
SUBMISSION PRE TEXTURE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT ENGINEERING CHANGE
APPEARANCE EVALUATION
CUSTOMER
SUPPLIER SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION PRE-TEXTURE REPRESENTATIVE
EVALUATION SIGNATURE AND DATE
CORRECT
AND PROCEED
CORRECT AND
RESUBMIT
APPROVED TO
TEXTURE
COLOR EVALUATION
COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS METALLIC SHIPPING PART
SUFFIX NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE BRILLIANCE SUFFIX DISPOSITION
DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW
COMMENTS
LP/STA/F-14
SUPPLIER PHONE NO. DATE CUSTOMER DATE
SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE
LP/STA/F-14
Doc No.
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd , Nashik

QUALITY PLAN(FINAL) Rev. No.
Rev. Date
PART NO.: DRG.NO.
REV.NO.
PART NAME :
REV. DATE
<PART SKETCH>
SR.
CHARACTERSTICS CLASS SPECIFICATION INSPECTION METHOD FREQUENCY CONTROL METHOD
NO.
A. AESTHETICS
B. DIMENSIONAL
C. TESTING(IF ANY)
PREPARED BY(Supplier) CHECKED BY(Supplier) APPROVED BY(STA)
LP/QA/F-01
INSPECTION REPORT Date :
Lear Seating Pvt.Ltd.,Nashik
Customer / Supplier : Model : Inv./G.R.N.No.
Vendor code: Part No. : Lot Qty.
Part Description : Rev.No :- Sample Qty.
REASON FOR REPORT

New Product New Process Design Change First Run Production Regular Supply
Inspection Observations
Sr.No. Parametres Specification
Method
A B 3 4 5 Remark
Comments : Accept
Reject
Conditionally
Accept
PREPARED BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY
LP/QA/F-02
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik
PPAP CHECK LIST
Part No. : Rev. No. : Customer :
Description : Supplier :LEAR SEATING PVT LTD
Sample Labels Required : YES NO
Submission Level : 1 2 3 4 5
Sr.No Requirement Level 3 Remarks
1 Design records of saleable products S
- For Prorietary Components / Details R
- For All Other Components / Details S
2 Engineering Change Documents, if any S
3 Customer Engineering Approval if required S
4 Design FMEA ( See I.2.2.4) S
5 Process Flow Diagram * S
6 Process FMEA * S
7 Dimensional Results S
8 Material, Performance test results S
9 Initial process study S
10 Measurement system analysis study S
11 Qualified laboratory documentation S
12 Control plan * S
13 Part submission warrant (PSW) * S
14 Appreance approval report, (AAR) if Applicable S
Bulk Material requirement checklist (For bulk

15 material PPAP only) R
16 Sample Product S
17 Master Sample (See I.2.2.17) R
18 Checking aids R
Record Of Compliance With Customer Specific

19 Requirement S
NOTE : Check for supplier PPAP completion
* - Need approval signature
LN/TS/F-28(01 250804)
GPM 6.4.2
Attachment A
SUPPLIER DOCUMENT & PROCESS REVIEW RUN FORM AND REFERENCE GUIDELINES
DOCUMENT DATE: PART NO.
PROGRAM PART NAME
SUPPLIER REV. LEVEL/DATE
LOCATION PROGRAM MGR.
PLANT MGR. RELEASE ENG.
QUALITY MGR. S.Q. ENGINEER
PHONE NO. BUYER
FAX NO.
(D) Document Review - The following documentation shall be made available for review: 0 ACCEPT (A) X REJECT (R)
R D1 Engineering Specifications R D10 Capacity Studies / Production Trial Run
R D2 Process Controls / Control Plan R D11 Error / Mistake Proofing Plan
R D3 Process Flow Diagrams / Floor Plan R D12 Check Fixtures
R D4 Process FMEA / Design FMEA R D13 Product Specifications
R D5 Containment Plan R D14 Tooling / Facility Readiness
R D6 Material and Functional Testing R D15 Packaging & Shipping Specifications
R D7 Training / Operator Instructions R D16 Problem Solving
R D8 Preventive Maintenance Plan R D17 Sub-Contractor Procedures and Controls
R D9 Material Inspection / Lot Traceability R D18 PPAP Specific Requirements
(P) Process Review: 100% Acceptance Required 0 ACCEPT (A) 0 REJECT (R)
SCORING POLICY
0 = NO SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED 1 = PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM 2 = FULLY IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM
P 1. ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS:
a. Does supplier have latest engineering standards?
b. Have engineering standards been reviewed for safety or heat treatment requirements?
c. Is product adequately defined to enable feasibility evaluation?
d. Are specifications and requirements available and shared between Lear and supplier?
e. Are open engineering issues addressed?
COMMENTS: (ENTER BELOW)
P 2. PROCESS CONTROLS / CONTROL PLAN:

a. Have Process / Product Controls been agreed to by Lear and the supplier? (CRM)
b. Are the Process / Product Controls noted on the Control Plan?
c. Are Control / SPC charts posted?
d. Are charts utilized to drive a defined corrective action process?
P 3. PROCESS FLOW CHART / PROCESS CONTROL PLAN / FLOOR PLAN:

a. Are there any major differences between the Process Flow Chart and Control Plan to the actual Mfg. Process?
b. Lot traceability from receiving through shipment to customer?
c. Does the layout of facility match floor plan?
d. Are all the processes identified?
e. Is there a part identification system in place?
f. Does the supplier have APQP in place?
P 4. PROCESS FMEA / DESIGN FMEA:

a. Does PFMEA reflect entire process, is Buzz, Squeak, Rattle (BSR) addressed?
b. Has Process FMEA and DFMEA Checklists been completed?
c. Does PFMEA correlate with Control Plan?
d. Is the FMEA to the current AIAG revision, including current process corrective and preventative actions?
e. Are the Severity, Occurrence and Detection up-to-date with the current AIAG revisions for rating?
P 5. CONTAINMENT PLAN:
a. Is there an effective launch and production containment procedure written and in place?
b. Does it call out the requirements of the customer to exit containment?
c. Does the supplier use the containment findings to fine tune the process?
d. Does the supplier have adequate containment in-house; if not is there an external containment plan in place?
e. Are contingency plans up-to-date for emergencies and natural disasters, i.e. - weather related shutdowns, loss of power, etc.
P 6. MATERIAL & FUNCTIONAL TESTING:

a. Has the Test Plan been reviewed and approved, (i.e. DVP&R)?
b. Are accredited labs used to perform testing? Are lab certifications available? If in-house testing is conducted, is it included in the QS Scope.
c. Are laboratory reports available?
d. Are adequate controls in place for in-house testing?
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) 65 of 73

GPM 6.4.2
Attachment A
PROGRAM PART NAME
PHONE NO. BUYER
FAX NO.
P 7. TRAINING / OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS:

a. Are operation and inspection instructions posted at point of operations?
b. Do they adequately detail how to perform the operations and what to inspect?
c. Are visual aids on the product available and located in the production area?
d. Have program specific training needs been identified?
e. Has the Product / Process Quality Checklist been completed?
f. Does the supplier have a training plan?
g. Is there documented evidence of SPC training?
h. Does supplier have a staffing plan to manage product launch (including support at Lear plant)?
i. Is there a designated team for the program?
j. Are sufficient technical employees available to accommodate all aspects of product design and mfg?
k. Does the supplier have an employment plan for launch?
P 8. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN:

a. Does the Supplier have a documented Preventive Maintenance Program?
b. Does it include all machinery, tools and auxiliary equipment?
c. Are there sufficient spare parts?
P 9. MATERIAL INSPECTION / LOT TRACEABILITY:

a. Are procedures in place for receiving inspection and for outgoing products?
b. Do the procedures include sampling plans?
c. Does the supplier have a raw material requirement system in place?
d. Does the supplier have a finished goods inventory plan in place?
e. Does the supplier have a material procurement launch plan?
P 10. CAPACITY STUDIES / PRODUCTION TRIAL RUN:

a. Has initial process study been complete?
b. Have bottlenecks been identified and addressed?
c. Did Production Trial Run / Line Speed demonstration include simulated broadcast of requirements?
d. Is there adequate capacity to produce product?
P 11. ERROR / MISTAKE PROOFING:

a. Is there mistake proofing mechanisms in the production process?
b. Verify all mistake proofing is operational and functioning properly. Note mistake proofing methods.
c. Verify that operators can not override a mistake proofing system.
P 12. CHECK FIXTURES:

a. Have all checking fixtures been certified, prior to performing Gage R&R?
b. Are the checking fixtures near the production process?
c. If not, is certified inspection documentation maintained and current?
d. Do the instructions adequately describe use of the fixture?
e. Has the supplier issued purchase orders for check fixtures and gages?
f. Are capability indices the minimum of 1.67 on initial studies or 1.33 on long term studies?
P 13. PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS:

a. Verify the actual measurement process.
b. Is layout report complete and all dimensions within specifications?
c. Are material certifications available?
d. Can engineering performance specifications be met as written?
e. Will supplier be at full PPAP for production?
f. Has interim level of PPAP been approved?
g. Have PPAP deviations been approved, if applicable?
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) 66 of 73

GPM 6.4.2
Attachment A
PROGRAM PART NAME
PHONE NO. BUYER
FAX NO.
P 14. TOOLING / FACILITY READINESS:
a. Has all tooling/auxiliary equipment for this program been identified?
b. Is there a list of all tooling / auxiliary equipment dedicated and non-dedicated for the part or assembly.
c. Is there a production tooling timing schedule?
d. Is tooling available for PPAP?
e. Does production tooling match the latest engineering change level?
f. Does the supplier have an itemized equipment list and its timeline?
g. Have purchase orders been issued for all equipment?
h. Does the supplier have a facility preparation timeline?
i. Has Lear issued purchase orders to the supplier?
P 15. PACKAGING & SHIPPING SPECIFICATIONS:

a. Has the packaging been developed, tested and approved?
b. Is there adequate packaging/racks in the system?
c. Is Bar coding utilized?
d. Are the work in-process parts properly identified?
e. Is there a material plan in place to manage and segregate engineering change levels?
f. Has transportation been designated and shipment frequency been determined?
g. Does the supplier have the ability to receive material production schedules?
P 16. PROBLEM SOLVING:

a. Has supplier had root cause analysis training?
b. Does supplier have a documented system?
c. Review a sample of Supplier's corrective actions.
P 17. SUB-CONTRACTOR PROCEDURES & CONTROLS

a. Have all the purchased parts and materials been approved through the PPAP process?
b. Are controls in place to isolate incoming material until it has been approved?
c. Does the supplier have procedures in place for the control and monitoring of their sub-suppliers?
d. Have all sub-suppliers officially been identified and awarded business?
e. Does the supplier have an itemized tooling list for sub-suppliers?
f. Is tooling on time for PPAP?
P 18. PPAP SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

a. Submission Warrants
b. Acceleration / Ramp Up Plan
c. Color / Gloss / Appearance Report
d. Copies of Material Certifications & Compliance Letters on Restricted Substances (ISO 14001 & IMDS requirements)
e. Measurement System Studies / Gage R&R Report
f. Process Capability Studies
g. Product Specifications / Dimensional Part Layout Report
YES NO
Corrective Action Required? If yes, due date:

YES NO
Follow-up visit required? If yes, scheduled date:
REQUIRED SIGNATURES:
LEAR QUALITY DATE SUPPLIER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DATE
LEAR ENGINEERING DATE SUPPLIER ENGINEERING DATE
SUPPLIER PLANT MANAGER DATE
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) 67 of 73

LEAR SUPPLIER DOCUMENT / PROCESS REVIEW
Reference Guidelines
P1 ENGINEERING
The supplier should have the latest engineering standards on file.
A procedure must be in place to assure correct level of engineering standards are being used.
Is product adequately defined
P2 PROCESS CONTROLS
Verify that Process/Product Controls have been agreed to by Lear and the suppler. (CRM-Component Review Meeting)
The Process/Product Controls must be noted on the Control Plan.
Control / SPC charts posted / available near operation.
Charts should be utilized to drive a defined corrective action process.
Capability indices must meet the minimum of 1.67 on initial studies or 1.33 on long term studies.
Reference QS 9000 Element 4.9 / ISO/TS16949 4.9.1, Process Control
P3 PROCESS FLOW CHART / PROCESS CONTROL PLAN / FLOOR PLAN
Process Flow chart must include all production and inspection stations including rework.
Process Flow chart must correlate with the control plan.
All material specifications requiring inspection must be on the control plan.
Process Flow chart and control plan must address process from incoming material through shipping.
Engineering performance testing must be identified on the control plan.
All special product/process characteristics must be included in the control plan.
All processes and equipment must be identified on the floor plan.
Process Flow Chart, Floor Plan, and Control Plan Checklists should be completed.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Sections 5, 6 & 8 for checklists.
P4 PROCESS FMEA / DESIGN FMEA
The PFMEA will reflect the entire process.
Operations affecting fit, function, durability, governmental regulations and safety must be addressed.
Historical warranty information must be reviewed.
Corrective actions must be planned or implemented on high risk priority numbers.
Risk priority numbers must be revised after implementation of corrective action(s).
Design FMEA and Process FMEA checklist should be complete.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Sections 1, 2 & 7 for checklists.
P5 CONTAINMENT PLAN
There must be an effective containment procedure written and in place.
The procedure should specify the requirements of the customer to exit containment.
The supplier should use the containment findings to fine tune the process.
The supplier should have adequate containment in-house; if not they should have an external containment plan in place.
Dock Audits should be performed to insure conformance of product.
P 6 MATERIAL & FUNCTIONAL TESTING
Supplier must use parts from production tooling and production process for testing.
Annual validation must be done to insure continuing conformance.
P 7 TRAINING / OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS
Operation and inspection instructions need to be posted at the point of operation.
Operator instructions should adequately detail how to perform the operations and what to inspect.
Visual aids should be available and located in the production area.
Product / Process Quality Checklist should be completed.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Section 4 for checklist
Documented training records.
Training needs for each employee are to be documented.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949 , Element 4.18, Training
Staffing should include support at Lear plant for launch support
Team should include: eng, quality, materials, production
Manning plan needs to support ramp up plan
P 8 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN
Supplier must have a documented Preventive Maintenance Program with history.
PM Program should include all machines, tools and auxiliary equipment.
Perishable parts for equipment and tooling should be readily available.
P 9 MATERIAL INSPECTIN / LOT TRACEABILITY
The procedure must insure lot traceability, inspection sampling plans, and inspection test reports.
[Reference QS 9000 Element 4.10]
Labels are to include the correct revision level, part number, and manufacture date.
Lot traceability should be possible from the label information.
P 10 CAPACITY STUDIES / PRODUCTION TRIAL RUN
The supplier must be capable of producing acceptable parts at the quoted maximum tool capacity.
Run @ Rate must be run on production line per the floor plan layout using production tools, process and trained operators.
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) PAGE 68 OF 73

LEAR SUPPLIER DOCUMENT / PROCESS REVIEW
Reference Guidelines
The production time or amount of parts to be run for the Run @ Rate will be agreed to by the team prior to the Run @ Rate.
Form to be used is the Lear Production Trial Run form - "Supplier Run@Rate Calculation Summary".
P 11 ERROR / MISTAKE PROOFING
There must be evidence of a mistake proofing plan.
Verify effectiveness of plans and mistake proofing that has been implemented.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.14, Corrective & Preventative Action
P 12 CHECKING FIXTURES
Gauge R&R must be completed to the latest engineering change level.
Checking fixtures are to be located near the production process.
Gauge instructions must adequately describe use of the fixture.
Review gage sampling procedure.
Gage R & R is to be acceptable for the intended application per the AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning && Control Plan, 2nd
Printing, 2/95 MSA (AIAG) criteria.
P 13 PRODUCT SPECIFICATION(S)
Initial process study must be complete.
A full dimensional layout must be completed with all requirements within print specifications.
Material certifications must identify the material and the engineering specifications that the material is certified to.
The measurement process is to be witnessed by Lear personnel.
P 14 TOOLING / FACILITY READINESS
All tooling/auxiliary equipment for this program should be identified.
A tool management system is to be in place and implemented per QS 9000 4.2.6.
New equipment, tooling & test equipment checklist should be completed.
Reference AIAG, Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan, 2nd Printing, 2/95, Appendix A, Section 3 for checklist
P 15 PACKAGING MUST BE DEVELOPED, TESTED & APPROVED
Packaging must be developed, tested and approved.
There must be adequate packaging/racks in the system.
Back-up packaging must be approved.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.15, Handling, Storage, Packaging, Preservation & Delivery
P 16 PROBLEM SOLVING
Supplier must show training in problem solving.
Supplier is to show evidence of problem solving such as Root Cause Analysis, Charting, and DOEs.
[Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.14, Corrective & Preventative Action
P 17 SUB-CONTRACTOR PROCEDURES & CONTROLS
All the purchased parts must be approved through the PPAP process.
Controls must be in place to isolate incoming material until it has been approved.
The supplier must have procedures in place for the control and monitoring of their sub-suppliers.
Reference QS 9000/ISO/TS16949, Element 4.6,1, Purchasing
P 18 PPAP SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Reference AIAG, Production Part Approval Process Manual, 2nd Printing, 2/95 for Part Submission Warrant, Appearance Approval Report
& Dimensional Results Report
LN/STA/F-15 (00 091007) PAGE 69 OF 73

PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND SIGN-OFF
DATE:
PRODUCT NAME: NAME PART NUMBER: NUMBER
CUSTOMER: GM MANUFACTURING PLANT: CITY
1. PRELIMINARY PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY QUANTITY

REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
Ppk - SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS
2. CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required) APPROVED: YES / NO* DATE APPROVED
3. INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES

CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY QUANTITY
CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLES PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
DIMENSIONAL
VISUAL
LABORATORY
PERFORMANCE
4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS QUANTITY
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC
5. PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS
6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS
7. SIGN-OFF
TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE
* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.
LN/STA/F-16 (00 091007)

Part Submission Warrant
Part Name NAME Part Number NUMBER
Safety and/or Engineering Drawing

Government Regulation Yes No Change Level ECL Dated ECL DATE
Additional Engineering Changes Dated
Shown on Drawing Number Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
Checking Aid Number Engineering Change Level Dated
SUPPLIER MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SUBMISSION INFORMATION
SUPPLIER CODE ✘ Dimensional ✘ Materials/Function ✘ Appearance

Supplier Name
ADDRESS Customer Name/Division GM DIVISION

Street Address
Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY STATE ZIP
City State Zip Application APPLICATION
Note: Does this part contain any restricted or reportable substances? Yes No
Are plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? Yes No
REASON FOR SUBMISSION

Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify
REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer.
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufacturing location.
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
These results meet all drawing and specification requirements: YES NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, have been made to the applicable
Production Part Approval Process Manual 3rd Edition Requirements. I further warrant these samples were
produced at the production rate of ________ / 8 hours. I have noted any deviations from this declaration below.
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
Print Name Title Phone No. 555-555-5555 FAX No.
Supplier Authorized Signature Date
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)

Part Warrant Disposition: Approved Rejected Part Functional Approval: Approved
Other Waived
Customer Name Customer Signature Date
The original copy of this document shall remain at the supplier' location Optional: customer tracking
July 1999 CFG-1001 while the part is active (see Glossary). number: # ______________
Part Submission Warrant
Part Name: Part Number:-

Safety and/or
Government Regulation Yes ✘ No Engineering Drawing Change Level:- Dated
Additional Engineering Changes Dated
Shown on Drawing No. Purchase Order No. Weight: Kg
Checking Aid No. Engineering Change Level Dated
SUPPLIER MANUFACTURING INFORMATION SUBMISSION INFORMATION
✘ Dimensional ✘ Materials / Functional ✘ Appearance

Supplier Name & Supplier Code
Customer Name / Division:
Street Address Buyer / Buyer Code:
Application:
City State Zip
MATERIALS REPORTING
Has Customer reuired substances of concern information been reported. Yes No n/a
Sumitted by IMDS or any other Customer format __________________________________________________
Are Plastic parts identified with appropriate ISO Marking Codes
Yes No
REASON FOR SUBMISSION
Initial Submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Changes(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
✘ Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts Produced at Additional Location
(Inhouse mixing plant installed)
Tooling Inactive > Than 1 Year
Other - please specify
REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)
Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated apperance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer.
✘ Level 3 - Warrant with Product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at supplier's manufaturing location.
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for ✘ dimensional measurements ✘ material and functional tests and ✘ appearance criteria and ✘ statistical
process package These results meet all drawing and specification requirements : ✘ Yes No (If "No" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
I hereby affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts and have been made to the applicable
Production Part Approval process Manual 4th Edition Requirements.I further warrant these samples were
produced at the production rate _______/ 8Hours. I have noted any deviations fron this declaration below.
EXPLANATION / COMMENTS:
Print Name: Title: Phone No.: FAX NO.
Supplier Authorized Signature Date
FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)
Part Warrant Disposition Approved Rejected Part Functional Approval: Approved

Other WaivedOther
Customer Name Customer Signature Date
July
1999 CFG-1001 The original copy of this document shall remain at the Suppliers Original : Customer Tracking
Location While the Part is active (See Glossary).
LN/TS/F-07 ( 01 090707)
The original copy of this document shall remain at the Suppliers
Location While the Part is active (See Glossary). Number :
LN/TS/F-07 ( 01 090707)

Ppap Check List: Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ppap Check List: Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.,Nasik

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd.

PPAP CHECK LIST

Sample Labels Required : YES NO

Sr.No Requirement Level 3 Remarks

1 Design records of saleable products S

- For Prorietary Components / Details R

- For All Other Components / Details S

2 Engineering Change Documents, if any S

3 Customer Engineering Approval if required S

4 Design FMEA ( See I.2.2.4) S

5 Process Flow Diagram * S

10 Measurement system analysis study S

11 Qualified laboratory documentation S

13 Part submission warrant (PSW) * S

14 Appreance approval report, (AAR) if Applicable S

Bulk Material requirement checklist (For bulk material

17 Master Sample (See I.2.2.17) R

Record Of Compliance With Customer Specific

Green = On Schedule / Minor Issues Red = Must Notify Customer

Final release.For VP: 23.09.08

Date (Org) 17.10.08

Lear Requirements Existing Targets / Requirements Remarks

Reliability Test Requirements

Supply Chain Agreement ( Bin Quantity)

Self life ( if applicable ) Whenever applicable, item should not be deteriorate(eg.

PPAP Batch Quantity Requirement ( Qty &

Part Name: Part Number(s):

Supplier Name: Part Name:. Program Name:

LP/STA/F-01 (00 091007) 8 of 73

Part Name: Part Number(s):

Compone SYSTEM : Plan Date : Approval :

Part Name: Part Number(s):

Part Name Supplier Code Date (Riv.)

Part Name: Part Number(s):

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS :- CUSTOMER :-

ASSESSMENT ITEMS YES NO CAUSE ACTION RESPONSIBILITY

-Does the Similar Parts / Products have a History of High Warranty ?

-Are there Frequent Quality Rejections at the Customer Plant ?

-Was there a Recall Action due to a similar Component Or System ?

-Is the Product Or Manufacturing Technology is New to our Manufacturing Location ?

-Is there the Historic Launch Performance Poor ?

-Are the Resources Stretched due to Significant amount of New Business ?

-Are Overall Budget stretched due to New Business ?

-Is it a New Design ?

-Are the Manufacturing Techniques New to the Industry ?

-Is there High Product Or Process Complexity ?

-Are the Cost Targets Aggressive ?

PART NAME : PART NUMBER :

Is product adequately defined to enable feasibility evaluation?

Can engineering Performance Specifications be met as written?

Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing ?

Can product be manufactured with Cpk,s that meet requirments ?

Is there adequate capacity to produce product ?

Can the product be manufactured without incurring any unusual:

* Costs for capital equipment?

* Costs for tooling ?

* Alternative manufacturing methods ?

Is statistical process control required on product?

Is statistical process control presently used on similar products ?

Where statistical process control is used on similar products:

* Are the processes in control and stable ?

* Are Cpk's greater than 1.33 ?

Feasible Product can be produced as specified with no revisions.