7.2.

7 APQP Phase 2 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 the
3 element. Input evidence of the answer to the question (e.g.: document
Typical aspects of the deliverable to be reference) here. If an "X" is in the preceding N column (column
4 evaluated through the questions are: D) then describe the issue here including root cause in order to
1. Quality/availability of the inputs needed identify proper actions .
Y* - Put an "X" if complete and is OK or
5 to build the deliverable
2. Cross-functional approach to answer the
"IP" if in-progress as planned.
N - Put an "X" if it is Not OK .
deliverables N/A - Put an "X" if you have agreed with
6 3. Quality /conformity to a standard if any your customer that this question is Not
or to best practices Applicable.
7 4. control of the outcome of the deliverable RYG - Put an "R" here if the answer to the
(e.g. action plan) question is not acceptable and there is no
8 recovery plan. Put a "Y" here if there are
problems with the question but is
recoverable with an action plan inplace.
9 Put a "G" if it is on track or satisfactorily
complete. When you put an "R" or "Y"
10 you will need to complete the "Actions
Required" and subsequent columns.
11
12
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
75% R plans identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an
item is 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
Status (%): 25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified 100% Y will prevent impact on timing
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed 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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 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 the These are typical action management milestones .
3 element. The due date should be aligned with the closure date
Actions identified based on the root cause described of the deliverable as planned in the APQP timing. In
Typical aspects of the deliverable to be in the Evidence column when the RYG column is Red
4 evaluated through the questions are: or Yellow.
cases where the due date is not aligned with APQP
1. Quality/availability of the inputs needed timing, the RYG status is most likely Red .
5 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:

Reviewed by:
Date of revision for the
Status (%): 25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified provided status and
personnel involved Reviewed with:
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.01 Design Risk Analysis www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Have the product development Engineers been
1 trained to perform design risk analysis, including
DFMEA, design for six sigma, methodology? 
Was a cross-functional team used to perform the
design risk analysis: Project Management, Quality,
2 Design Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering?

Have best practices from similar part design risk

3 analysis been condsidered?
Have all functional requirements been included and
4 evaluated in the design risk analyis?
Does the design risk analysis reflect the latest design
5 solution (i.e.latest confiuration)?
Is risk analysis continually managed and updated with
6 each design modification?
Are all identified risks summarized for risk mitigation,
7 communication and knowledge sharing?
Is there a defined method for reducing identified risk,
8 i.e. are actions for handling high RPNs clear?
Are CIs and KCs identified for high severity and/or
9 RPNs that cannot be feasibly reduced through a
design change?
Have historical quality issues and warranty data from
similar products been reviewed to understand failure
10 modes?

Are risk analysis and DFMEA results part of the

11 reporting at Design Reviews?
Was the risk analysis updated after implementation
and validation of effectiveness of recommended
12 actions?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.01 Design Risk Analysis www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Have the product development Engineers been
1 trained to perform design risk analysis, including
DFMEA, design for six sigma, methodology? 
Was a cross-functional team used to perform the
design risk analysis: Project Management, Quality,
2 Design Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering?

Have best practices from similar part design risk

3 analysis been condsidered?
Have all functional requirements been included and
4 evaluated in the design risk analyis?
Does the design risk analysis reflect the latest design
5 solution (i.e.latest confiuration)?
Is risk analysis continually managed and updated with
6 each design modification?
Are all identified risks summarized for risk mitigation,
7 communication and knowledge sharing?
Is there a defined method for reducing identified risk,
8 i.e. are actions for handling high RPNs clear?
Are CIs and KCs identified for high severity and/or
9 RPNs that cannot be feasibly reduced through a
design change?
Have historical quality issues and warranty data from
similar products been reviewed to understand failure
10 modes?

Are risk analysis and DFMEA results part of the

11 reporting at Design Reviews?
Was the risk analysis updated after implementation
and validation of effectiveness of recommended
12 actions?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.1 Design Records www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Has the design been finalized and placed under
1 formal configuration control?
Have all outputs of the design process been
2 documented and made appropriately accessable?
Do the design records demonstrate that all alpplicable
3 product requirments are satisfied?
Have the design records been formally reviewed and
4 approved?
Have the appropriate design records been shared
5 and/or reviewed with the producer(s)?
Does the process ensure that pending and future
6 engineering changes are incorproated into the
deisgn?
Do the design records include pending engineering
7 changes?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.1 Design Records www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Has the design been finalized and placed under
1 formal configuration control?
Have all outputs of the design process been
2 documented and made appropriately accessable?
Do the design records demonstrate that all alpplicable
3 product requirments are satisfied?
Have the design records been formally reviewed and
4 approved?
Have the appropriate design records been shared
5 and/or reviewed with the producer(s)?
Does the process ensure that pending and future
6 engineering changes are incorproated into the
deisgn?
Do the design records include pending engineering
7 changes?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.2 Bill of Material (BOM) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RYG Evidence

Has the BOM been finalized and put under
1 configuration control?
Has the accuracy of the BOM been verified to the
2 drawing?
Has the BOM been reviewed by all stakeholders and
3 approved for release?
Is the BOM released?
4

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.2 Bill of Material (BOM) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Has the BOM been finalized and put under
1 configuration control?
Has the accuracy of the BOM been verified to the
2 drawing?
Has the BOM been reviewed by all stakeholders and
3 approved for release?
Is the BOM released?
4

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.3 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

Was a Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
1 standard process followed?
Did the team review defect data from the
2 manaufacture of similar parts?
Did the team review PFMEAs from the
3 manufacture/assembly of similar parts?
Is there a clear understanding of the design
4 requirements by the cross-functional team?
Have outputs of the design risk analysis been
5 considered for designing the manufacturing/assembly
process?
Did the team review each feature to understand how
6 they will be manufactured/assembled and inspected?
Are there any design solutions that could
7 mitigate/eliminate manufactuirng/assembly risks?
Are there any manufacturing solutions (state-of-the-
art technology, alternate manufacturing or inspection
8 aproaches, error proofing, etc) that could
mitigate/eliminate manufactuirng risks?

Are there any assembly solutions (state-of-the-art

technology, alternate manufacturing or inspection
9 aproaches, error proofing, etc) that could
mitigate/eliminate assembly risks?
Have features that drive out of cell process steps or
10 inefficient practices been removed or mitigated by
design?
Have known manufacturing or assembly hazards
11 been avoided?
Are processes that depend on toxic or hazardous
12 materials being removed by design where possible?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.3 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Was a Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
1 standard process followed?
Did the team review defect data from the
2 manaufacture of similar parts?
Did the team review PFMEAs from the
3 manufacture/assembly of similar parts?
Is there a clear understanding of the design
4 requirements by the cross-functional team?
Have outputs of the design risk analysis been
5 considered for designing the manufacturing/assembly
process?
Did the team review each feature to understand how
6 they will be manufactured/assembled and inspected?
Are there any design solutions that could
7 mitigate/eliminate manufactuirng/assembly risks?
Are there any manufacturing solutions (state-of-the-
art technology, alternate manufacturing or inspection
8 aproaches, error proofing, etc) that could
mitigate/eliminate manufactuirng risks?

Are there any assembly solutions (state-of-the-art

technology, alternate manufacturing or inspection
9 aproaches, error proofing, etc) that could
mitigate/eliminate assembly risks?
Have features that drive out of cell process steps or
10 inefficient practices been removed or mitigated by
design?
Have known manufacturing or assembly hazards
11 been avoided?
Are processes that depend on toxic or hazardous
12 materials being removed by design where possible?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.4 Design for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (DMRO) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

1 Was a Design for MRO standard process followed?
Has data from MRO history of similar products been
2 gathered?
Has each feature of the new product been reviewed
3 to understand how it will be maintained, restored by
repair and rebuilt into the overhauled assembly?
Is there a clear understanding of the design
4 requirements by the cross-functional team?
Has outputs of the design risk analysis been
5 considered for designing the MRO process?

Did the team review PFMEAs from the

6 manufacture/assembly of similar parts?
Did the team review PFMEAs from the MRO
7 processes of similar parts?
Are there any design solutions that could
8 mitigate/eliminate MRO risks?
Are there any MRO solutions (state-of-the-art
technology, alternate manufacturing or inspection
9 aproaches, error proofing, etc) that could
mitigate/eliminate MRO risks?
Have features that drive extra maintenance burden,
10 repair steps or other inefficient practices been
removed by design?
Have known MRO hazards been avoided, including
11 use of toxic or hazardous materials?

Are MRO time targets being met by the design?

12
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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.02.4 Design for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (DMRO) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
1 Was a Design for MRO standard process followed?
Has data from MRO history of similar products been
2 gathered?
Has each feature of the new product been reviewed
3 to understand how it will be maintained, restored by
repair and rebuilt into the overhauled assembly?
Is there a clear understanding of the design
4 requirements by the cross-functional team?
Has outputs of the design risk analysis been
5 considered for designing the MRO process?

Did the team review PFMEAs from the

6 manufacture/assembly of similar parts?
Did the team review PFMEAs from the MRO
7 processes of similar parts?
Are there any design solutions that could
8 mitigate/eliminate MRO risks?
Are there any MRO solutions (state-of-the-art
technology, alternate manufacturing or inspection
9 aproaches, error proofing, etc) that could
mitigate/eliminate MRO risks?
Have features that drive extra maintenance burden,
10 repair steps or other inefficient practices been
removed by design?
Have known MRO hazards been avoided, including
11 use of toxic or hazardous materials?

Are MRO time targets being met by the design?

12
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)
2.03 Special Requirments, including Product Critical Items(CIs) and 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
Key Characteristics(KCs) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

Is a standard process for identifying CIs and KCs
1 defined and has it been followed?
Have the preliminary list of CIs and KPs been
2 reviewed?

Have additional KCs been identified through the

3 design risk analysis/DFMEA?
Have all KCs been documented in the Design
4 Records where appropriate?
Is there a process for insuring that product CIs and
5 KCs are cascaded into the PFMEA?
Is there a process for insuring that CIs and KCs are
6 identified in the appropriate work station
documentation?

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)
2.03 Special Requirments, including Product Critical Items(CIs) and 7.2.7 APQP Phase 4 Checklist Rev October 2018
Key Characteristics(KCs) www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Is a standard process for identifying CIs and KCs
1 defined and has it been followed?
Have the preliminary list of CIs and KPs been
2 reviewed?

Have additional KCs been identified through the

3 design risk analysis/DFMEA?
Have all KCs been documented in the Design
4 Records where appropriate?
Is there a process for insuring that product CIs and
5 KCs are cascaded into the PFMEA?
Is there a process for insuring that CIs and KCs are
6 identified in the appropriate work station
documentation?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%): Date of
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
revision for Reviewed by:
the provided
status and
personnel Reviewed with:
involved
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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.04 Preliminary Risk Analysis of Sourcing Plan www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

1 Have all make/buy decisions been made?
Have key suppliers been identified?
2
Are selected suppliers capable of supporting the
3 development effort, i.e. lead time, capacity, capability,
etc.?
Have new suppliers been qualified and evaluated for
4 risk?
Has risk been evaluated for outsourced new and
5 unique designs?
Are design responsible suppliers engaged in the
6 organizations APQP activities?
Have design requirements been provided to design
7 responsible suppliers?
Have design responsible suppliers confirmed their
understanding and capability to meet the design
8 requirements?

Have the supplier risks been summarized in the

9 sourcing plan?
Have risk mitigation plans been established for the
10 identified risks?
Are the sourcing risks and mitigation plans reviewed
11 at the design reviews?
Is there a plan for transitioning hardware from
developmental suppliers to production suppliers when
12 developmental hardware is not procured from the
production suppliers?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.04 Preliminary Risk Analysis of Sourcing Plan www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date

1 Have all make/buy decisions been made?

Have key suppliers been identified?
2
Are selected suppliers capable of supporting the
3 development effort, i.e. lead time, capacity, capability,
etc.?
Have new suppliers been qualified and evaluated for
4 risk?
Has risk been evaluated for outsourced new and
5 unique designs?
Are design responsible suppliers engaged in the
6 organizations APQP activities?
Have design requirements been provided to design
7 responsible suppliers?
Have design responsible suppliers confirmed their
understanding and capability to meet the design
8 requirements?

Have the supplier risks been summarized in the

9 sourcing plan?
Have risk mitigation plans been established for the
10 identified risks?
Are the sourcing risks and mitigation plans reviewed
11 at the design reviews?
Is there a plan for transitioning hardware from
developmental suppliers to production suppliers when
12 developmental hardware is not procured from the
production suppliers?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%): Date of
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
revision for Reviewed by:
the provided
status and
personnel Reviewed with:
involved
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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.05 Packaging Specification www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

Do packaging standards exist?
1
Does the proposed design adhere to those
2 standards?
Does the proposed package design adhere to the
3 customer requirements?
Does the packaging meet all regulatory
4 requirements?
Has the packaging design been validated by all
5 stakeholders including the customer when
applicable?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.05 Packaging Specification www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Do packaging standards exist?
1
Does the proposed design adhere to those
2 standards?
Does the proposed package design adhere to the
3 customer requirements?
Does the packaging meet all regulatory
4 requirements?
Has the packaging design been validated by all
5 stakeholders including the customer when
applicable?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%): Date of
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
revision for Reviewed by:
the provided
status and
personnel Reviewed with:
involved
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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.06 Design Review Report www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

Are Design Reviews conducted in accordance with a
1 standard process using the latest design revision?
Are Design Review attendees appropriately qualified
2 to review and critique the design?
Are all functional stakeholders, including suppliers as
3 applicable, adequately represented at the Design
Reviews?
Is input for the Design Reviews captured from all
4 stakeholders?
Are open actions from previous reviews tracked
5 through to closure?

6 Are all inputs evaluated against the plan?

Are areas of concern highlighted for further
7 discussion and risk mitigation?
Are risk mitigation plans reviewed for progress and
8 effectiveness? Are the mitigation plans altered as
necessary?
Are stakeholders appraised of project progress and
9 status of risk mitigation plans?
Do open issues, risks and actions get tracked
10 through to closure?
Are reviews documented and shared with
11 stakeholders in a timely manner?
Are proposed design changes evaluated and
12 implemented as deemed appropriate by the design
team?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.06 Design Review Report www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Are Design Reviews conducted in accordance with a
1 standard process using the latest design revision?
Are Design Review attendees appropriately qualified
2 to review and critique the design?
Are all functional stakeholders, including suppliers as
3 applicable, adequately represented at the Design
Reviews?
Is input for the Design Reviews captured from all
4 stakeholders?
Are open actions from previous reviews tracked
5 through to closure?

6 Are all inputs evaluated against the plan?

Are areas of concern highlighted for further
7 discussion and risk mitigation?
Are risk mitigation plans reviewed for progress and
8 effectiveness? Are the mitigation plans altered as
necessary?
Are stakeholders appraised of project progress and
9 status of risk mitigation plans?
Do open issues, risks and actions get tracked
10 through to closure?
Are reviews documented and shared with
11 stakeholders in a timely manner?
Are proposed design changes evaluated and
12 implemented as deemed appropriate by the design
team?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
Status (%): Date of
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
revision for Reviewed by:
the provided
status and
personnel Reviewed with:
involved
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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.07 Development Product Build Plan www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

Was a cross-functional team used to perform the
development product build plan: Test Engineering,
1 Project Management, Quality, Design Engineering,
Manufacturing Engineering, Assembly Engineering,
Procurement?
Were current standards and work instructions used to
2 identify the tests, performance measurements, and
inspections needed to validate the product?
Does the the build plan align to the verification and
3 validation needs?
Were inspection requirements identified for new
4 and/or unique features, or difficult-to-measure
features?
Have all resources been incoprporated for: product
hardware, performance measurement sensors and
5 related equipment, inspection facilities, assembly
tooling? Include the necessary product maturity
levels needed for each build defined in the plan.
Does the build plan account for the necessary
6 product maturity levels and configuration needed for
each build?
Have test risks been identified and mitigated in the
build plan (new learning, hardware, measurement,
7 and test equipment failures or malfunctions plus other
unexpected test events)? Does it include
contingencies or scenario reaction plans?
Does a master build plan exist that defines the
8 timeline and resources for every validation event or
test?
Does the build plan include formal reporting to the
9 test's stakeholders?
Does the build plan account for possible
10 design/engineering changes?
Does the build plan provide for a cross-functional test
11 after-action review and documentation of test
lessons-learned?

X 25% N/A Deliverable RYG Rating

IP 50%

25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
Status (%): 75% R identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
100% Y Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
G prevent impact
Green: All on timing
questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.07 Development Product Build Plan www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Was a cross-functional team used to perform the
development product build plan: Test Engineering,
1 Project Management, Quality, Design Engineering,
Manufacturing Engineering, Assembly Engineering,
Procurement?
Were current standards and work instructions used to
2 identify the tests, performance measurements, and
inspections needed to validate the product?
Does the the build plan align to the verification and
3 validation needs?
Were inspection requirements identified for new
4 and/or unique features, or difficult-to-measure
features?
Have all resources been incoprporated for: product
hardware, performance measurement sensors and
5 related equipment, inspection facilities, assembly
tooling? Include the necessary product maturity
levels needed for each build defined in the plan.
Does the build plan account for the necessary
6 product maturity levels and configuration needed for
each build?
Have test risks been identified and mitigated in the
build plan (new learning, hardware, measurement,
7 and test equipment failures or malfunctions plus other
unexpected test events)? Does it include
contingencies or scenario reaction plans?
Does a master build plan exist that defines the
8 timeline and resources for every validation event or
test?
Does the build plan include formal reporting to the
9 test's stakeholders?
Does the build plan account for possible
10 design/engineering changes?
Does the build plan provide for a cross-functional test
11 after-action review and documentation of test
lessons-learned?

X
IP Location: / Site:
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified Date of
Status (%): revision for
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed Reviewed by:
the provided
status and Reviewed with:
personnel Date :
involved

© 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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.08 Design Verification and Validation Plans and Associated Results www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

Is development planning in accordance with a
1 standard process?

Does the plan anticipate parts made on non-

2 production tooling including rapid prototyping
technologies?
Does the plan include testing by the customer in the
3 customer's intended installion?
Is the plan aligned to the overall customer testing
4 requirements and timing?
Is high risk testing front end loaded to the maximum
5 extent possible?
Do stakeholders get updated on testing as the plan is
executed? Are stakeholders invloved in re-planning
6 based on V&V results?

Are specified test and inspection methods known to

7 adequately validate the product?
Are special tests or inspections required to address
8 new and unique product features?
Are test or inspection facility requirements clearly
9 defined?
Is a specific test requirement defined for each test
10 element?
Is the minimum acceptable standard of hardware
11 specified for each plan element?
Are the success criteria for each plan element spelled
12 out in advance of the element execution?
Are formal reports generated for each plan element?
13
Is there a fromal review at the end summarizing
14 performance to expectation and noting shortfalls and
remedial action?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.08 Design Verification and Validation Plans and Associated Results www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Is development planning in accordance with a
1 standard process?

Does the plan anticipate parts made on non-

2 production tooling including rapid prototyping
technologies?
Does the plan include testing by the customer in the
3 customer's intended installion?
Is the plan aligned to the overall customer testing
4 requirements and timing?
Is high risk testing front end loaded to the maximum
5 extent possible?
Do stakeholders get updated on testing as the plan is
executed? Are stakeholders invloved in re-planning
6 based on V&V results?

Are specified test and inspection methods known to

7 adequately validate the product?
Are special tests or inspections required to address
8 new and unique product features?
Are test or inspection facility requirements clearly
9 defined?
Is a specific test requirement defined for each test
10 element?
Is the minimum acceptable standard of hardware
11 specified for each plan element?
Are the success criteria for each plan element spelled
12 out in advance of the element execution?
Are formal reports generated for each plan element?
13
Is there a fromal review at the end summarizing
14 performance to expectation and noting shortfalls and
remedial action?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.09 Feasibility Assessment www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

# Question Y* N N/A RAG Evidences

Was a standard process used for the cross-functional
1 planning team to complete a thorough review of the
requirements?
Has the cross-functional planning team assessed the
2 feasibility of proposed design (including consideration
of newthe
Have materials, special
appropriate tooling,
functions new technology
(Engineering, or
Quality,
process, build variation, service and maintenance)?
3 Operations, etc.) provided input into the Team
Feasibility Commitment document?
Has design feasibility been established based on risk
evaluations (e.g. FMEA, Fault Tree Analysis (FTA),
4 FMECA, Design Review Based on Test Results
(DMBTR), Design Review Based on Failure Mode
DRBFM) Etc.).
Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified
5 in the design records?
Does the producer have adequate capacity to fulfill
6 the demand requirements?
Has the producer demonstrated process capability
7 with plans to apply statistical process control?
Does the planned manufacturing process support
product cost targets (e.g. considering alternate
8 manufacturing methods, material shortages,
obsolescence, etc.)?
Have the right management members been briefed
9 on the risks documented in the report?
Can identified design risks be mitigated and resolved
10 by the design authority?
Has the customer agreed to resolutions related to
11 design risk mitigation?
Can identified manufacturing risks be mitigated and
12 resolved by the production source?
Have the conclusions regarding feasibility been
13 documented and communicated?

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)
 7.2.7 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Rev October 2018
2.09 Feasibility Assessment www.iaqg.org/scmh Section 7.2

Open Due Status Actual End

# Question Actions Required Responsible Date Date % Date
Was a standard process used for the cross-functional
1 planning team to complete a thorough review of the
requirements?
Has the cross-functional planning team assessed the
2 feasibility of proposed design (including consideration
of newthe
Have materials, special
appropriate tooling,
functions new technology
(Engineering, or
Quality,
process, build variation, service and maintenance)?
3 Operations, etc.) provided input into the Team
Feasibility Commitment document?
Has design feasibility been established based on risk
evaluations (e.g. FMEA, Fault Tree Analysis (FTA),
4 FMECA, Design Review Based on Test Results
(DMBTR), Design Review Based on Failure Mode
DRBFM) Etc.).
Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified
5 in the design records?
Does the producer have adequate capacity to fulfill
6 the demand requirements?
Has the producer demonstrated process capability
7 with plans to apply statistical process control?
Does the planned manufacturing process support
product cost targets (e.g. considering alternate
8 manufacturing methods, material shortages,
obsolescence, etc.)?
Have the right management members been briefed
9 on the risks documented in the report?
Can identified design risks be mitigated and resolved
10 by the design authority?
Has the customer agreed to resolutions related to
11 design risk mitigation?
Can identified manufacturing risks be mitigated and
12 resolved by the production source?
Have the conclusions regarding feasibility been
13 documented and communicated?

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)