2020 - Together - On - The - Road - of - Quality - 2.0

GEMEINSAM AUF QUALITÄTSKURS 2.0.
TOGETHER ON THE ROAD OF QUALITY 2.0.

INFORMATIONSVERANSTALTUNG FÜR LIEFERANTEN DER BMW GROUP.
INFORMATIVE MEETING AND TRAINING FOR BMW GROUP SUPPLIERS.
2020
THE ICEBERG MODEL.
1 1 official complaint.
25 25 dissatisfied customers with no official complaint.
26 These 26
customers will share their experience with an
average of 12 other people.
312 These 312

people in turn will share their negative
experience with an average of 5 other people.
1560 This means that 1,560

other people will find out about the
negative experience through word of mouth.
Source: Market Analysis BMW Group Corporate Quality 2015
Together on the road of Quality 2.0 | supplier training | 2020 IMPORTANT NOTE: All rights reserved. Distribution only with approval of information owner. Page 2
In case of doubt always use the Group Standard 95004 as a valid document!
OUR MISSIONS IN THE FIELD OF PURCHASING & CORPORATE QUALITY.
„ Quality begins Christian Dr. Philip BMW Group Partner Portal:
in your Head“ Jakob Heinemann ”Supplier Warranty Status“
Marc Markus
Kühn Kratz
Usage of
Gunter GS95004-07/2018
Borgdorf during defective
parts analysis
Warranty & Recourse

Thomas “Quality
Process Defect Parts Process
Meiler requires Mindset”
TRAINING OBJECTIVE.
 You will understand how defect field parts will be returned to you from
the dealer through the warranty parts centres.
 You will understand the requirements of our Group Standard 95004

regarding failure analysis and will apply these to your process.
 You will understand the different accounting methods:

Teileprüfvergütung (TPV = payment for parts tested by supplier),
Jahresendabrechnung (JEA = years end invoice), Serienschaden
(serial defect) & Technische Aktionen (TA = technical campaigns).
 You will know how the “SWS” IT system is structured, which data you
will be receiving and how to document the failure analysis in the
system.
TRAINING STRUCTURE.
Process
SWS system
TOGETHER ON THE ROAD TO QUALITY 2.0.
CONTENTS – DAY 1.
Process
SWS system
AGENDA DAY 1.
Start Topic Duration
Come Together – breakfast
09:30 a.m. Welcome and general information about the training 50 min.
10:20 a.m. Defect Parts Process: From the customer through the warranty parts centres to the supplier 50 min.
Break
11:35 a.m. Usage of GS 95004 during defective part analysis Part I: Introduction & planning 70 min.
Lunch
02:00 p.m. Usage of GS 95004 during defective part analysis Part II: Defect part submission & Test Stage 1 105 min.
Break
04:15 p.m. Usage of GS 95004 during defective part analysis Part III: Test Stage 2 & summary part analysis 60 min.
05:15 p.m. End of training
From 06.15
BMW plant tour (optional, registration needed) 120 min.
p.m.
CONTENTS – DAY 2.
Process
SWS system
AGENDA DAY 2.
09:00 a.m. Welcome 5 min.
09:05 a.m. Usage of GS 95004 during defective part analysis Part IV: NTF-process & problem management 90 min.
Break
11:00 a.m. Usage of GS 95004 during defective part analysis Part V: Reporting 75 min.
Lunch
01:15 p.m. The Warranty process, defective part table & self-audit 70 min.
Break
02:50 p.m. SWS system: Warranty status worldwide and layer lines 50 min.
03:40 p.m. The quality control loop 15 min.
03:55 p.m. Goodbye 5 min.
From 04:00
p.m.
SUPPLIER WARRANTY STATUS (SWS).
SWS system
THE CENTRAL SYSTEM FOR SUPPLIER RECOURSE.
SWS system
ACCESS VIA THE B2B PORTAL.
1. You may access the system via the

BMW Partner Portal (B2B).
1 URL: https://b2b.bmw.com
2. Open the “Supplier Warranty

Status” under “Application
Finder”. Access will be enabled by
the master administrator of your
company. He/she will request the
“SWS Basic Role” for you.
2 NOTE:
In order to enable you to
additionally create and edit 8D
Reports, you will furthermore
require “roles” for the “TQP”
system.
SWS system
START PAGE.
1 1. Menu structure.
2. Supplier user logged-in with name
and BMW supplier number.
3. Current information.
4. Relevant documents and training
material.
3 4
SWS system
PROVISION OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL.
1. The currently released version of

Group Standard 95004 as well as
1 the evaluation catalogue pertaining
to it may be accessed under the
GS 95004 - 2018-07
menu item “Requirements Failure
Evaluation of the failure analysis”.
analysis process
SWS system
2. Refer to the menu item “Brief

instructions feedback of analysis
results” for the summary
“Reporting for diagnosis on
components regarding GS95004”
and the “Template quarterly
2 Template report”.
quarterly report
SWS system
3. The training material is currently

available under “Supplier Training”.
Training material
for suppliers
SWS system
4. The following is available under

“Additional information”:
 Current Defect Code catalogue for
BMW Automobiles and BMW
Motorrad.
 Overview of all German subsidiaries
and the applicable USA Sampling
Dealers.
 ZIP file with current XML diagrams
4
for automated part analysis and
Excel macro for the conversion of
XML data to Excel and vice-versa.
SWS system
LAYOUT AND MENU STRUCTURE.
1. Warranty Status
1
Overview of all warranty costs

incurred worldwide that were
allocated to the supplier by the
system.
NOTE:
The allocation is performed on the

basis of the serial component.
The costs are thus always allocated
to the 1st-tier supplier who has a
direct supply relationship with
BMW.
SWS system
2. Defect Parts Process
Overview of all defect parts under

warranty that were submitted to the
supplier in the framework of the
returning market parameters.
DEFECT PARTS PROCESS.
Process
CUSTOMER COMPLAINT.
 The point of departure for the

defect parts process is always a
negative customer experience.
 The customer complaint will
trigger the activation of the
downstream processes in the
retail organisation up to the
availability of the defect part for
analysis.
Process
WORKSHOP PROCESS AND PART EXCHANGE.
 The objective of the workshop

process is to solve the customer’s
complaint as quickly as possible.
 The defect code always specifies
the part causing the defect.
 If this may not be identified
beyond doubt, the perception of
the customer will be the basis of
the analysis.
 A part exchange will be avoided
to the extent possible in the
sense of damage mitigation.
Software updates will also occur in
this context.
Process
PROCESS IN THE RETAIL ORGANISATION.
Vehicle Handover conversation between dealer and

handover customer. Creation of the customer comment.
Trouble- Simulation of the defect and identification of the

 The process steps are performed
shooting root cause by the dealer. by different persons.
Vehicle repair.  The defect code is selected at the

Repair end of the process and encrypts
Creation of the dealer comment.
the part that is responsible for the
Settling warranty Settling of the warranty application between dealer defect or the customer’s
application and BMW. perception.
Confirmation
warranty Confirmation of the cost coverage by BMW.
application
Process
REPAIR WITH AND WITHOUT PART REPLACEMENT.
Vehicle Handover conversation between dealer and

handover customer. Creation of the customer comment.
Trouble- Simulation of the defect and identification of the

shooting root cause by the dealer.
without part
exchange
Vehicle repair.
Repair
Creation of the dealer comment.
with part Dispatch of
exchange defect part
Settling warranty Settling of the warranty application between dealer
application and BMW.
Confirmation
warranty Confirmation of the cost coverage by BMW.
application
Process
FROM CUSTOMER COMPLAINT TO SUPPLIER.
 Explanation of the logistics flow of

the part from BMW to the supplier.
 All defect parts of the returning
market Germany will be made
available to the supplier by the retail
organisation through the GWTZ
(warranty parts return centre) in
Munich.
 The defect parts of the USA will be
dispatched through the WPRC.
Process
WARRANTY PARTS RETURN CENTRE – GER & US.
Dispatch to test facilities

 approx. 85% ECE
 approx. 10 % NA
GWTZ
 approx. 5% RoW
At the WPRC, the parts will be

The defective parts of the
received, allocated to a
random sample will be shipped to
supplier test facility, and
the Warranty Parts Return
shipped to the supplier in
Centre.
regular intervals.
Dispatch to test facilities
WPRC  approx. 26% NAFTA
 approx. 32 % DE
 approx. 42% RoW
Process
LOGISTICS FLOW OF PARTS.
Market D  On average, suppliers with a

10% war. cases SWS DC GWTZ German or US random sample will
receive approx. 14 % of the defect
100% warranty cases (with part exchange)
Subsidiary 20 % parts rejected in the field and

removed for analysis.
Market USA
34 % war. cases
Partner Portal
BMW Group  Defect parts will only be dispatched
(B2B - Portal) RDC WPRC if their value exceeds a certain
Sampling dlrs.
36 % threshold.
Supplier
 The recourse specialist shall decide
Market CN
16 % war. cases
on the return obligation for all part
numbers.
Verification and Parts sorting based Parts sorting per
RoW
40 % war. cases definition of the on commodities supplier  The market USA covers all
return obligation and warranty worldwide specifics regarding
period weather or road conditions.
Source: Warranty cases of BMW AG in 2018
Process
EXAMPLE: WARRANTY PARTS TAG – GER & US.
DEFECT PARTS PROCESS: SUPPLIER WARRANTY STATUS (SWS).
SWS system
PROVISION OF DEFECT PARTS DATA BY BMW.
SWS system
RETRIEVAL OF DEFECT PARTS INFORMATION.
Deliveries of defect parts may be

retrieved by the supplier via the menu
item “Search & Edit” as soon as
shipping has been triggered by the
system at one of BMW’s parts
centres (GWTZ, WPRC).
SWS system
1. The unambiguous Part-Ident

Number in the format
1
“C001234567” allows you to
2 retrieve precisely one specific
defect part.
2. The AQ or UQ number in the format

“AQ-12345” – valid until October
2018 – that is unambiguous per
supplier number, allows you to
retrieve all defect parts belonging
to a specific defect parts shipment.
AQ = returning market Germany

UQ = returning market USA
Since October 2018, AQ or UQ

numbers are no longer assigned for
defect parts shipments.
SWS system
3. The unambiguous shipment

number in the format “1234567”
(until September 2018) and
3 “DE12345678” (since October
4
2018) allows you to retrieve all
defect parts of a specific defect
5
parts shipment.
4. The shipment date in the format

“MM/DD/YYYY” allows you to
retrieve all defect parts with their
shipping date within the period
specified.
5. The selection of the returning

market allows you to retrieve all
defect parts of the returning
markets Germany or USA.
SWS system
6. The 17-digit vehicle identification

number (VIN) allows you to retrieve
all defect parts of one specific VIN.
7. The spare part number in the

format “1234567” or “A123456”
6
allows you to retrieve all defect
parts of one specific part number.
7 NOTE:
The spare part number is the part

number of the defect part that was
submitted to the supplier for
analysis.
SWS system
8. The unified parts group (UPG) in

the format “1234” signifies a
specific parts family
(e.g. 6111 – wiring harness).
The UPG allows you to retrieve all

defect parts the spare part numbers
of which are to be allocated to this
specific parts family.
9. The “Product Type” allows you to

8 retrieve all defect parts of the BMW
brands “Automobile” (BMW, BMW
i, MINI), “Motorcycle” or “Rolls
9
Royce”.
SWS system
10. “Processing Status” allows you to

separately retrieve all defect parts
for which no analysis result has
been saved.
(Option “Show not processed”)
10
SWS system
The “Search & Edit” function allows

you to check the system for new
NOTE:
There will be no information output

about defect parts shipped to the
supplier!
This is the reason why we
recommend a regular check of the
system (e.g. 1 x week) via the portal.
SWS system
1. Ticking the option “Show not

processed” of the filter
“Processing Status” will select all
defect parts data records for which
3 a feedback of the supplier is still
open.
2. Optionally, the filter “Shipment

Date” allows you to narrow down
the search to newly dispatched
shipments based on a defined
period (e.g. input of today’s date).
SWS system
CHECK FOR NEW DEFECT PARTS SHIPMENTS.
06/05/2019 C001234567
06/05/2019 C001234568
06/05/2019 C001234569
06/05/2019 C001234570
FAULT ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO GS 95004.
FAILURE ANALYSIS.
ACCORDING TO GS 95004.
FAILURE ANALYSIS – GS 95004.
QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY.
The Group Standard 95004 is a detailed BMW

requirement for failure analysis.
Requirements specification for failure analysis
Customer requirements BMW Group Standard

VDA volume VDA volume
95004
Failure Analysis Field (SAF) SAF
VDA 6.3 Audit
IATF 16949 Process audit QM standard
QM System in the Automotive Industry
DIN EN ISO 9001
Quality
Management
(QM)
Number of requirements for failure analysis

EDITION 2018-07 - BMW GROUP STANDARD - GS 95004.
Amendments and supplements

 Based on valid automotive standards
(e.g. VDA Failure Analysis Field, IATF 16949 standard).
 Failure analysis planning in the framework of the product creation
process.
 Expansion of the analysis in view of making plausible the customer
complaint.
 Substantiation of the NTF process with data analysis, verification,
and system test.
 Focussing the failure analysis on the root cause analysis.
 Detailing of the requirements on the documents of evidence and the
reporting system.
 Integration of the auditing.
THERE ARE SPECIALISTS FOR JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING …
….ISO 9001 ….production planning ….certification ….failure analysis GS 95004 ….FMEA

….documents management ….logistics projects ….problem-solving process
….planning of audits ….IATF 16949
….project
….VDA Standards
….8D method
….project planning ….quality methods
….VDA Volume ….software projects
….test processes ….CIP ….project management
….quality management ….VDA 6.3
….failure analysis field
….vehicle project ….NTF process
….project realisation
…and that includes
….PDCA cycle
…. audit performance
….problem management process failure analysis. ….development projects
….diagnosis ….fault elimination process

….Group Standards ….change management
….manufacturing processes ….process audits ….V model
….planning failure analysis
DEMING CIRCLE: FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESS AS A CONTROL LOOP.
Start Planning of test stages 1, 2 and Performance of the failure

1 Topic of the tests required for the NTF analysis process in accordance
process. with the planning.
Plan
Do
Failure analysis 2 3
process as a CIP
control loop 5 4
Act
Check Actual/target
Elimination of the deviations comparison to identify
identified and introduction of measures deviations and potentials
Effect 6 for optimising the analysis and the NTF for improvement.
process.
LAYOUT AND PERFORMANCE. 1 2
3
Structuring 4
Planning the failure analysis process. 5
Part Analysis 6
Performing the failure analysis.
No trouble found
Starting the NTF process.
Defect found
Initiating the problem management
process.
STRUCTURING.
ANALYSIS OF FIELD COMPLAINTS.
PLANNING THE
FAILURE ANALYSIS FAILURE ANALYSIS
PROCESS.
FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESS – STRUCTURING.
PURPOSE.
 Minimum requirement of the BMW specifications

 Generic process
 Standardisation in the test concept
 Process for defect identification
 Standardised and systematic approach
 Comparability of analysis results
 Product and process improvement
 Efficiency verification and risk minimisation
The implementation ensures a standardised, comprehensible, and

efficient approach for the entire failure analysis process.
STRUCTURING.
WITH WHAT? WHO?

INPUT • Resources • Responsibility OUTPUT
• Equipment • Capabilities
• Machines • Competence
• Tools • Training
WHAT?
PLANNING AND
STRUCTURE
• Targets • Methods
• Indicators • Instructions
• Performance indicators • Processes
• Documentation
FOR WHAT? HOW?
RESPONSIBILITY.
GS 95015 3.12 Requirements on the analysis

0–KM The general test strategy and test parameters shall be submitted to the
responsible QMT for adjustment in the framework of the Q-planning of the series
production process. Generally, the responsibility for the test equipment lies with
the supplier (procurement, maintenance, care, update, etc.).
GS 95004 5.1 Planning of the failure analysis process

The supplier is responsible for the concept planning, establishing, and performance
FELD
of the failure analysis process prior to the SoP as well as for its continuous evolution.
Prior to the SoP, the supplier shall perform a self-assessment based on the
evaluation catalogue and submit it to the relevant specialist departments of the BMW
Group on request.
These documents are applicable documents in all product specifications.
PLANNING PHASE.
 Early planning.
 Appoint qualified employees.
 Define and describe processes.
 Concept planning and structure.
 Identify and plan capacities.
 Procure equipment and plants.
 Consider differences of the components.
 Take into account the different locations.
 Include the delivery chain into the planning
(subcontractors and service providers).  Continuous evolution
 Establish quality oriented workflows.  Self-assessment (evaluation catalogue)
 Steering of documents in acc. with IATF 16949.  Implementation in line with the standards
(auditing)
PROCESS.
THE FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESS.

The failure analysis process analyses the parts that are subject to a customer complaint to
identify and eliminate defects and to continuously improve product quality.
INPUT
INPUT Process! OUTPUT
OUTPUT
Warranty Failure Analysis FEEDBACK

PARTS Analysis of field complaints ANALYSIS
Warranty acc. to Group Standard 95004 RESULT
DATA
PROCESS DESCRIPTION.
Global Processes
 Process instructions from goods receiving to feedback.
 Reference to related processes (defect parts logistics, PMP etc.).
 Definition of unambiguous responsibilities.
 Multi-stage analysis (failure analysis in PS 1 and PS 2).
 Criteria for the NTF process (activation criterion).
 Description of the NTF process (data analysis,
verification test, and system test).
Product-specific detail descriptions are

subordinate to this documentation.
PRODUCT-SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS.
Test specification Work instructions

 test steps.  analysis process.
 test criteria.  approach to the NTF process.
1  test parameters / lim. val. 3  integration in the PMP.
 load profiles.  connection and maint. sched.
 meas. method / instruments.  handling the golden sample etc.
Test structure Feedback and evidence

 test station description.  8D Report.
 layout and configuration.  meas. reports / test overview.
2  test equipment and 4  photo docum. / checklist.
machines used.  lab report / spec. analyses.
 comparison with 0km.
CONCEPT.
STRUCTURE OF THE TEST CONCEPT.

The layout and the related responsibilities for the analysis, in the NTF process, and in problem
management are to be defined unambiguously by the supplier.
INPUT
INPUT OUTPUT
OUTPUT
ANALYSIS NTF NTF PROCESS
AC
Warranty FEEDBACK
PARTS
DEFECT ANALYSIS
Warranty RESULT
PROBLEM
DATA MANAGEMENT
EMBEDDING WITHIN THE ENTERPRISE.
Define responsibilities
 For the planning and layout.
 For performance of the analysis.
 For performance of the NTF process.
Challenge
 Create a process description or process
instructions.
 Elaboration of a meaningful test level.  Integration into the management system.
 Harmonisation of the failure analysis at  Implementation of the failure analysis
all sites for shared parts. process within the corporate process.
 Continuous reporting in the entire  Adjustment with the specialist departments
delivery chain. of the BMW Group.
DEFECT PART SUBMISSION.
PARTS DELIVERY / DATA PROVISION.
INPUT
INPUT
Warranty PERFORMING THE

PARTS ANALYSIS FAILURE ANALYSIS.
Warranty
DATA
IDENTIFICATION OF DEFECT PART.
Traceability
 Ensured by the Part-Ident Number of the BMW Group.
 It is found on the warranty part tag (barcode).
 This provides a direct reference to the B2B Portal.
 Allows you to access further information on the B2B
Portal.
 Establishes a connection with the information provided
by the supplier.
Defect part  Will have to be attached to the defect part for returns.
Continuous identification of the parts and of
information provided with the parts needs to
be ensured.
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION.
Info flow
Data on the defect part
 Bi-directional exchange through the B2B Portal.
INPUT OUTPUT
SWS
INPUT OUTPUT
 Accompanying information on the warranty parts.
Warranty FEEDBACK  Feedback of the analysis results with
DATA documents of evidence.
on the
ANALYSIS  8D Reports on the root cause analysis.
defect part
RESULTS
Warranty data worldwide
 Warranty defects and warranty costs.
 Top defects for the respective components.
Information is exchanged through the

https://b2b.bmw.com
Partner Portal of the BMW Group.
SWS system
DATA PROVISION VIA SWS SYSTEM.
INPUT
Warranty application data
 Dlr. analysis catalogue
 Workshop/cstmr. comm.
 Mileage
 Engine type The data will be made
 Vehicle type available in the system
 VIN, etc. whenever the defect
part is dispatched from
Additional information the warranty parts
 Fault memory inform. centres.
 Diagnostic report
 Activation codes
DEFECT PART SUBMISSION: SUPPLIER WARRANTY STATUS (SWS).
SWS system
The search may be rendered more

flexible and combined on the basis of
different limitation parameters - from
the input of a specific Part-ident
number up to the retrieval of the
shipments of one or of several
calendar years.
SWS system
1. Three possible options for the

retrieval of defect parts data are
described in the following:
1
a a) Output via user interface
b) Output as an XML data record
c) Download via the I-Point interface
SWS system
RETRIEVAL OF DEFECT PARTS INFORMATION VIA USER INTERFACE.
1. One data record will be output per

defect part via the user interface.
2. All warranty data of the defect parts

1 data record are accessed via
“Details”.
2
C001234567
C001234568
C001234569
C001234570
C001234571
C001234572
C001234573
SWS system
US00003192
1
C001234567 1. Information on the defect part
12/03/2019 01/31/2020 Direct data reference to the defect
02/01/2020 part in question:
 Part number and designation
1234 2447939 MINI Cooper S Pull Back F56
1B2A Cooper S
2
 Unambiguous Part-Ident number
F56 N56T
 Unambiguous shipment number
24 - plant Dingolfing 11 - plant München
12/15/2017 12/18/2017
11/15/2019 23 2. Information on the warranty
2061 1234
application
Accompanying information on the
00082 123456
defect part such as e.g.:

8000121500 Pullback rough running
WBA6B2C56EJP83114
SPRING SLIPPS OVER THE GEAR BOX.  Mileage and operating time
 Vehicle and engine type
SPRING SLIPPS OVER THE GEAR BOX.
C/S WHEN RELEASE THE CAR AND IT DRIVES STAIGHT AHEAD MINI IS NOISY  Production date
 Repair date
 Analysis number and -description
SWS system
US00003192
C001234567 3. Information on the customer
12/03/2019 01/31/2020 complaint
02/01/2020
1234 2447939 MINI Cooper S Pull Back F56 All information provided and
available shall be used for data
1B2A Cooper S
evaluation – if available.
This includes:
F56 N56T
24 - plant Dingolfing 11 - plant München
12/15/2017 12/18/2017  Defect descriptions

11/15/2019 23
 Comments
2061 1234
00082 123456  Fault memory entries
8000121500 Pullback rough running  Diagnostic reports
WBA6B2C56EJP83114

 Activation codes
3

C/S WHEN RELEASE THE CAR AND IT DRIVES STAIGHT AHEAD MINI IS NOISY
SWS system
3. Information on the customer

complaint
Example - fault memory:
The fault memory information is

read out from the vehicle at the
beginning of the workshop stay. It
thus documents the status of the
vehicle before any activities (e.g.
diagnostic operations,
programming) are being
undertaken by the dealership.
51
SWS system
3. Information on the customer

complaint
Example - diagnostic report:
All information of the off-board

diagnosis is made available in a pdf
file after the read-out process.
SWS system

1
a) Output via user interface

b
SWS system
RETRIEVAL OF DEFECT PARTS INFORMATION AS XML DATA RECORD.
1. “Requested XML-Downloads” will

be made available asynchronously
1
and are accessible via the related
menu.
625141
2
2. The status of the download
625141
operation is indicated under
“Action”. The download data will be
accessible via this icon after the
625141 download process has been
completed.
Download gets provided
Download is available
Delete Download manually
Download could not be provided
SWS system
RETRIEVAL OF DEFECT PARTS INFORMATION AS XML DATA RECORD.
XML allocation by BMW The XML data records may be

processed as follows:
SWS
1. Conversion of the XML data and
1 2
import into Microsoft Excel using
the macro provided on the START
XML - Excel - conversion XML processing supplier page.
2. Direct processing of the XML data

in the QM system of the supplier.
NOTE:
Usage of XML-file for Usage of XML-file for
partially electronically completely electronically The conversion of the XML data in
supported processing processing Microsoft Excel is described in the
following.
SWS system
CONVERSION OF THE XML DATA IN MICROSOFT EXCEL.
2
1. Utilisation of the XML file for

partially electronically
supported processing.
2. The tab “Add-Ins” provides access

to the import function required to
edit the BMW defect part data.
SWS system
CONVERSION OF THE XML DATA IN MICROSOFT EXCEL.
2
3
1. Utilisation of the XML file for
partially electronically
supported processing.
2. The tab “Add-Ins” provides access

to the import function required to
edit the BMW defect part data.
3. The “Import” function converts and

imports the data into the Excel file.
SWS system

1
a) Output via user interface
Individual interface for automated

XML data exchange.
FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESS – PART ANALYSIS.
STRATEGY.
PERFORMING THE ANALYSIS.

The test strategy is to be adapted to the operating conditions that are
critical for and overlap with customer utilisation.
INPUT
INPUT OUTPUT
OUTPUT
AC
Warranty FEEDBACK
PARTS
DEFECT ANALYSIS
Warranty RESULTS
PROBLEM
DATA MANAGEMENT
PART ANALYSIS IN TWO STAGES.
Analysis in two test stages

 Show permanent and temporary defects.
 Provide a reliable statement on the properties and functions of
the rejected parts in the vehicle application in accordance with
the applicable specifications.
 The analysis is performed in two escalating test stages.
 A rejected part may display several defects.
 Parts that do not display any defect in Test Stage 1 will have to
enter Test Stage 2.
 Only those parts where no defect may be detected in Test Stage
2 are classified as NTF after analysis.
NTF = No Trouble Found
DESIGN OF TEST STAGE 1.
Properties and functions

 The testing depth in Test Stage 1 must be designed to where
any and all properties and functions may be evaluated based
on the specification.
 This test stage must be capable of identifying all defects that
are permanently present.
 This applies to known and unknown defects.
 This is the reason why this test must be performed with an
original vehicle mock-up to the extent possible.
PERFORMANCE OF TEST STAGE 1.
Test Stage1
Standard test Performance of Test Stage 1
 The tests performed in the standard test scope are guided.
Test 1.1
 The individual tests (1-n) are performed completely.
Test 1.2  The tests feature a defined sequence.
Test 1.n  The tests are not repeated as often as desired.
- defined
 Abortion after a defect has occurred is not permissible.
- not aborted
- to be completed
 Performed at ambient temperature and/or operating
temperature.
DESIGN OF TEST STAGE 2.
Overlapping fault mechanisms

 Verification of all properties and functions under load as per
the specification.
 This test stage is to uncover those fault mechanisms that are
activated only under specific environmental and ambient
conditions.
 Sporadically occurring defects may occur while driving,
during the utilisation or in the service case.
 This is the reason why the operating conditions will have to be
applied in an overlapping approach and in combination to
ensure that the critical load profile of the component is
simulated.
CUSTOMER COMPLAINT.
Test sequence for Test Stage 2

 Fault description of the customer and
 Notes of the retail organisation are to be taken into
account (additional information).
 This allows for an adaptation of the test sequence in
Test Stage 2.
The test sequence is modified whenever the

complaint on the defect part is plausible and
comprehensible.
PERFORMANCE OF TEST STAGE 2.
Performance of Test Stage 2

Test Stage 2
Load test
 The tests performed in the load test are guided.
 An evaluation of the customer complaint enables a targeted

Test 2.1 test sequence (1-n).
Test 2.2  Simulation under reinforced environmental conditions.
F Test 2.n
 Tests up to the specification limits.
 Operation of the component required over a defined period

- tests defined that represents utilisation by the customer.
- omission of tests
- prioritisation possible  Only if the notified defect is identified, may the further defined
tests of Test Stage 2 be omitted.
MEASURED VALUES AND TEST CRITERIA.
Recording and Measurement and

documentation evaluation
The result of the failure

analysis process provides
information if this specific
component displays a
defect. Deviation between
actual condition
and target
condition
PROGRAMMABILITY OF DEFECT PARTS.
Diagnostic capability and fault memory

 The internal diagnostic functions of ECUs with diagnostic
capability must be included in the test stages.
 Verify complaints that result from aborted programming
attempts for programming capability of the defect part in
line with the specification.
 Implementation of a process for evaluation of the fault
memory entries of the product under complaint is
mandatory for the analysis.
PROCESS FOR PART ANALYSIS.
Warr. parts ANALYSIS

and data
Test Stage 1 yes Test Stage 2
Standard no Load test
PRIO?
test defined defined prioritised
no
Test 2.1 2.2 DETECT?
Test 1.1
yes
NTF NTF yes START
Test 1.2 Test Stage Test 2.2 2.n after AC? NTF
1 analysis no process
AC: Random
Test 1.n Test 2.n 2.1 sample reached
with the defined
Completion activation criteria
Completion If defect is not
required! ?
required! detected!
END
DEFECT DEFECT analysis
IMPORTANT NOTE: All rights reserved. Distribution only with approval of information owner.
Together on the road of Quality 2.0 | supplier training | 2020
NTF = No Trouble Found AC = Activation Criteria Page 82
TERMINATION OF PARTY ANALYSIS FOR NO TROUBLE FOUND.
NTF validation with the help of the failure

condition
 Verify the note if the defect may be detected with the analysis
defined.
 If it is obvious that the test stages and/or test steps are not
capable of this, the NTF process will have to be started for
validation of the analysis.
Testing the activation criteria (random sample)

Otherwise, the NTF will follow on the basis of the
defined activation criteria (AC).
GEMEINSAM AUF QUALITÄTSKURS 2.0.
INFORMATIONSVERANSTALTUNG FÜR LIEFERANTEN DER BMW GROUP.
INFORMATIVE MEETING AND TRAINING FOR BMW GROUP SUPPLIERS.
SECOND TRAINING DAY.
2020
CONTENTS – DAY 2.
Process
SWS system
AGENDA DAY 2.
09:00 a.m. Welcome 5 min.
09:05 a.m. Usage of GS 95004 during defective part analysis Part IV: NTF- process & problem management 90 min.
Break
11:00 a.m. Usage of GS 95004 during defective part analysis Part V: Reporting 75 min.
Lunch
01:15 p.m. The Warranty process, defective part table & self-audit 70 min.
Break
02:50 p.m. SWS system: Warranty status worldwide and layer lines 50 min.
03:40 p.m. The quality control loop 15 min.
03:55 p.m. Goodbye 5 min.
From 04:00
p.m.
RESULT AFTER ANALYSIS
NO TROUBLE FOUND
START THE
NTF PROCESS NTF
AC
PROCESS.
FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESS – NO TROUBLE FOUND.
STRATEGY.
START THE NTF PROCESS.

Effective NTF processes are essential management tasks within enterprises and serve for
identification of the root causes of a problematic issue that was not identified in the analysis.
INPUT
INPUT OUTPUT
OUTPUT
AC
Warranty FEEDBACK
PARTS
DEFECT ANALYSIS
Warranty RESULT
PROBLEM
DATA MANAGEMENT
NTF-PROCESS.
NTF process with random sample from the analysis

 Defects are identified that are either not visible or not
apparent in the analysis.
 Sound data analysis.
 Targeted selection of the parts to be tested.
 Determination of the proper test method.
 Newly identified defects will be processed in the framework of
the problem management process (PMP).
 Continuous verification of the efficiency in Test Stages 1 and
2.
 Test Stages 1 and 2 are to be optimised accordingly.
 Making plausible the NTF quota.
ACTIVATOR FOR NTF-PROCESS.
NTF minimum requirements

AC  A random sample of Test Stage 2 shall be subject to the
verification test.
= one out of five  Activation criterion per part family.
NTF per part family  At least one out of five NTF parts continuously (20 %).
Define/describe additional activation criteria

 Detailed customer complaint w/o suitable test in the analysis.
 Accumulation of identical or similar customer complaints.
 Safety-critical complaint.
 Critical occasions such as e.g. start-up, product modifications,
safety-relevant, breakdowns, board member complaints.
Test specification AC = Activation Criteria
DATA ANALYSIS.
Sound data analysis and derivation of correlations

 Data from production or manufacturing.
 Findings from customer complaints and diagnostic logs.
 Findings from 0km complaints.
 Findings from a comparison with process, product or system FMEA.
 Findings from the analysis (reporting/ plausibility).
 Failures through mileage, per markets, seasonal etc..
All information supplied and available must be used for

data evaluation.
VERIFICATION TEST.
Verification test
Verification test  The test specification must very considerably.
 Test criteria are either new or are aggravated.
Modification of the test specifications

 Modification of parameters (e.g. temp. cycles, start-up behaviour).
Test V.3
 If necessary, also beyond the specification limits.
Test V.5  Continuous operation, simultaneous application of varying loads
(e.g. electrical, mechanical, thermal).
- Create test  Test of open equipment (destructive testing).
- Select parts
 Irradiation and line-conducted interference.
 Limit position assessment (mechanical/electrical interfaces).
 Component testing on part or system test stations.
COMPILATION OF TESTS.
Pool of Overlap and combine Overlap and combine

tests tests loads
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
SYSTEM TEST.
System test System test in the vehicle

in the vehicle
Limit position
 Verification test performed without fault.
assessment  Investigation on the vehicle level.
 NTF parts from the verification test or with other suitable
NTF parts from the analysis.
 Vehicle identical or nearly identical in construction with
the vehicle from which the defect part was removed.
 Specific sequence tests are intended to reveal defects that
are caused by the interaction of several components.
- Create tests  A limit position assessment is to be taken into account
- Select parts
when investigating the interfaces.
SEQUENCE NTF-PROCESS.
START NTF NTF-PROCESS

process
Verification test System test
Random sample
With adjustment in the vehicle
Pool of BMW! Limit position
tests assessment
END of
Test V.1 NTF process
Test V.2
Test V.3
Test V.3 NTF System
yes NTF
Test V.4 After
verification test? NTF
Test V.5
Test V.5 process
Test V.n no
Create and combine

tests
DEFECT DEFECT
EVIDENCE.
Documentation during NTF-Process

 Targeted tests will have to be established for
unknown fault mechanisms.
 They are to be based on up-to-date requirements
and evolved.
 These tests must also be subject to permanent
monitoring and recording.
The document of evidence for the NTF

process shall also be uploaded on the
B2B Portal as an “annex” to the
respective defect part data record.
REGULATION OF CHANGES.
Reportable modifications
 Omission of test steps, test contents and test
methods.
 Site relocation of the failure analysis process.
Non-reportable modifications
 Parameter adjustments after product
modifications.
 Supplementing additional test content.
RESULT AFTER THE FAILURE
ANALYSIS PROCESS.
DEFECT FOUND.
INITIATE THE
PROBLEM PROBLEM
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
PROCESS.
FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESS – FOUND A DEFECT.
STRATEGY.
INITIATE THE PROBLEM SOLUTION

Effective problem-solving is an essential management task on all levels within enterprises and –
among others – is a method within failure analysis to achieve a sustainable improvement.
INPUT
INPUT OUTPUT
OUTPUT
ANALYSIS NTF NTF PROCES
AC
Warranty FEEDBACK
PARTS
DEFECT ANALYSIS
Warranty RESULTS
PROBLEM
DATA MANAGEMENT
PROBLEM SOLUTION.
Problem management process (PMP)

 All defects (J, B, W) are forwarded to the PMP.
 Show and initiate sustainable actions for continuous product
improvement from the findings obtained in the analyses.
 Confirm elimination actions by performing an efficiency test.
 Responsibility classification (J, B, W) will be possible only after
performance of a root cause analysis.
Problem-solving competencies must be

established in the enterprises together with the
respective problem-solving culture.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION.
Problem analysis
 If a defect was identified in the analysis, the problem
analysis will derive a problem description for the
problem management process and will verify if the
confirmed defect is known.
 A plausibility check will have to be performed
subsequently within the problem analysis.
A technical evaluation is required here to what extent the
detected defect matches the complaint.
FROM ROUGH TO DETAIL.
standardised methodical &

complex, if
Start
required
Part NTF-
analysis Process Problem analysis is the key to an
efficient and effective root cause
PROBLEM ANALYSIS analysis.
defect defect
?
plausible known
Root cause
analysis
Corrective action methodical &

also complex
Effectiveness
test
Stop
DEFECT CLASSIFICATION.
Start
3-way decision
Part NTF-
analysis Process
1 Referencing to a root cause analysis
The complaint matches the identified defect,
D1 PROBLEM ANALYSIS
D2 defect defect the root cause is known and has been
3 ?
1
D3
plausible known
eliminated.
Root cause 2
D4 analysis 2 Initiate root cause analysis
The complaint matches the identified defect,
D5 Corrective action the root cause is – however – not known.
D6
3 Continue analysis or initiate NTF process
D7 Effectiveness
D8 test The complaint does not match the identified
defect.
Stop
THE 8 DISCIPLINES OF PROBLEM MANAGEMENT.
Root cause analysis (8D Report)

 Preparation of an 8D Report is mandatory for every
defect part submitted.
 For this report, fill the 8 disciplines (D1 through D8) with
informative contents.
 Actions for problem elimination shall be addressed,

followed-up, and documented accordingly.
Q method(s)
 The reference 8D Report may at maximum be applied to

one component family and only in case of an identical
proven root cause.
8D/4D REPORTS.
Expectations on 8D/4D Reports
 The complete 8D Report shall be prepared for
J BWK V acknowledged parts (“J” and “V”).
 For all other responsibility allocations (“B”/”W”/”K”
except “T” and “A”), completion of the 8D process is to be
made to the extent possible.
 With identical fault patterns and root causes
(“B”/”W”/”K”), reference may be made to a Master 8D
Report.
 In case of No Trouble Found (“K”), a Master 8D Report
may be created, which describes the basic procedure
and the activation criteria defined for the NTF process.
 For parts w/o feedback (“O”), an 8D Report may also be
filed in the system subsequently.
HARMONISATION OF RESULTS ….
8D-Report Error code supplier and 8D-Report for analysis result K and V
Error code: 98 00
K Fault description:
8D (Master):
after analysis NTF
564504 (activation critirias)
Analysis result: K (prior to NTF-process )
Part Analysis
Error code: 98 00
V Fault description:
8D (Master):
after analysis NTF
564504 (activation critirias)
Analysis result: V (start NTF-process)
Error code: 99 00
NTF-
process V Fault description:
8D (Single):
after NTF process NTF
564505 (performed tests) K
Analysis result: V (K = document of evidence + info @ BMW) Analysis result
not changeable
Error code: 60 31
PROBLEM Fault description: MC elec. defect
MANAGEMENT V 8D (Single): 567513 (root cause 5 after NTF-process) J
Analysis result: V (J = document of evidence)
FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESS - FOUND A DEFECT.
HARMONISATION OF RESULTS ….
8D-Report Error code supplier and 8D-Report for
Part Analysis
analysis result J, B and W
Error code:: 60 31 Consistency between
PROBLEM Fault description: MC elec. defect
Analysis J 8D (Master): 567513 (root cause 5)
analysis result, error
Analysis result: J code, and 8D Report
will have to be ensured
Error code: 50 11 across all report types
B Fault description:
8D (Single):
Anchor noise
134324 (root cause 2)
and proven on the
Analysis result: B basis of the document
Error code: 50 13 of evidence.
PROBLEM Fault description: Carbon brush torn
MANAGEMENT W 8D (Single): 568433 (root cause 3)
Analysis result: W
Document of evidence
Error code: 50 12
Fault description: Anchor sticks
 failure analysis FA
J 8D (Single): 223234 (root cause1)
 root cause analysis
Analysis result: J RA
PROCESS DESCRIPTION ON THE EXAMPLE OF A TREND LINE.
Warr. parts Analysis & Problem Warr. parts
PMP
and data NTF process analysis and data
Products supplied
Root Cause
Each defect part submitted
Number of defective products during the billing month

Fault ident. Action may constitute a potential
Defective products from warranty cases
Introduction of action Computation line serial defect.

per 100 products supplied
Layer lines/
isochrones
Efficiency Quick problem elimination

reduces the warranty costs
and increases customer
satisfaction.
Production month 60 months 36 months 12 months Billing month

48 months 24 months 6 months
OUTPUT OF THE FAILURE ANALYSIS PROCESSES.
“escalating test path”
3 OUTPUT
Reporting
11. The defect may be
allocated to a known root
cause and established
action J.
“Analysis path”
1 22. The defect may be

allocated to an action
after performance of a
root cause analysis J/ B/
W.
2 33. No defects were found K/
V.
REPORTING.
COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENTS.
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
FEEDBACK
 Analysis of results (WHAT)
 Responsibilities (WHO) ANALYSIS
 Report type (HOW) RESULT
 System for communication (WHERE)
 Time limits (WHEN)
FAILURE ANALYSIS – GS 95004: REPORTING.
ANALYSIS RESULTS (WHAT).
 The defect parts are made
BMW warranty
parts centre
available through the warranty parts
return centres (GWTZ/WPRC).
Failure analysis with the  Analysis of the defect parts acc. to

supplier acc. to GS 95004
Dealership return mandatory GS 95004 by the supplier.
Responsibility DE: BMW subsidiaries
supplier USA: selected dealers  Failure analysis within the test
Responsibility periods (automatic debiting).
BMW
No Trouble - Defect found - J / B / W
 Complete feedback of analysis
Found - No Trouble Found - K
results:
Responsibility GS 95004 - NTF process - V
- root cause
cstmr. / dealer - Submission error - T / A
---------------------------------------------- - elimination action
NTF process - category of the test result
(verification) Failure analysis
- quality under customer condition
Logistic error is more than an
outside of warr. analysis result!
RESPONSIBILITIES (WHO).
Data BMW
The BMW Group makes available. The supplier makes available.
 The data will be made available in
defect Documents per the SWS system as soon as the
part defect part
defect part is dispatched from the
warranty parts centres.
Warranty applic. data SYSTEM Feedback (cf. Defect Parts Process – Parts Testing
“Show not processed”)
 Dealer analysis catalogue  Responsibility classification
 Comment workshop/cstmr. ”SWS” with analysis result (J,B,..)
 Mileage  Part manufacturing date Documents supplier
 Engine type
Supplier  Supplier defect code and
Warranty defect description
 The feedback must be provided
 Vehicle type
 Root cause analysis w. 8D within the time limit (until the
 VIN, etc. Status automatic debiting date).
 Defect parts without feedback are
Additional information Document of evidence for marked as O = w/o feedback in case
 Fault memory information  Test Stage 1 and 2
of timeout.
 Diagnostic report  The NTF process
 Activation codes  Further analyses/root causes
REPORT TYPES (HOW).
Analysis feedback, NTF process and  Feedback Partner Portal

root cause analysis. Consistency regarding analysis
All documents of the analysis per defect part
result, error code, and 8D report
that are required for reproduction of the
SWS DETAILS identified root cause.
shall be ensured across all report
types and proof provided by way of
1.
A Docum. of evidence Must
If required for reproduction document of evidence.
of root cause. System: Supplier Warranty Status (SWS)
2.
B 8D Report Measurement report
a) Analysis result
b) Manuf. date Photo documentation  Quarterly report
c) Error code supplier e.g. in case of visual defects The quarterly report is an
d) 8D Report
Lab reports aggregated presentation per part
Overview of main faults and e) Proof of tests/ family and shall be filled
measurem. 0km comparison
efficiency of actions. continuously with the information
performed/ (annex Specific analyses reported via the B2B Portal and thus
e.g. test overview, Verification test and
checklist)
provides an overview of the main
system test
faults and efficiency of actions.
3.
C Quarterly report Distribution: supplier recourse, quality,
development
REPORTING: SUPPLIER WARRANTY STATUS (SWS).
SWS system
ANALYSIS FEEDBACK VIA INTERFACE.
1. Three possible options are

provided for the feedback of the
analysis results, similar to those for
retrieving the defect parts data:
a) Input via interface
2a b) Upload as XML data record

C001234567
C001234568 c) Upload via I-Point interface

C001234569
C001234570
C001234571
C001234572
C001234573
SWS system
FEEDBACK OF THE ANALYSIS RESULT.
1. The analysis result shall be

selected in accordance with the
responsibility classification of the
1
supplier and may be set only
once.
SWS system
FEEDBACK OF THE ANALYSIS RESULT.
1. The analysis result shall be

selected in accordance with the
responsibility classification of the
1 supplier and may be set only
once.
SWS system
INPUT OF THE PART MANUFACTURING DATE.
2. The part manufacturing date of the

component under complaint shall
be documented.
NOTE:
2 If the part manufacturing date may
not be identified, input
01.01.1900.
SWS system
CREATION OF AN ERROR CODE.
3. The error code serves for

unambiguous identification of a
standardised fault pattern.
NOTE:
Error codes are created once by the
supplier and will then be available
for referencing.
3
SWS system
a. The error code is represented by an

unambiguous numbering. Each
numbering reflects a specific fault
a
pattern and consists of the typical
encodings of the fault type and fault
location used by the supplier.
SWS system
b. The error label is the

comprehensible brief description
of the fault.
NOTE:
It is mandatory that the error label

be specified in one of the two
languages “German” or “English”.
b
SWS system
c. The error description precisely

describes the fault pattern in detail.
NOTE:
The error description may be

specified optionally in one of the
two languages “German” or
“English”.
SWS system
d. If you click on “Select”, the newly

created error code will be allocated
to the currently processed defect
part.
SWS system
e. Reference to the newly created

error code will thus be saved with
the defect part.
SWS system
MAKING REFERENCE TO AN EXISTING ERROR CODE.
f. Error codes that have already been

allocated to a defect part with the
same spare part number will
directly be offered as reference in
the selection list.
f 56 01 - Pullback function noise

56 02 - Pullback function rough running
56 04 - Pullback function mechanical defect
56 13 - Pullback function sticking/jammed
57 01 - Directional stability - pulls to left-hand side
58 01 - front passenger seat wiggles
58 03 - front passenger seat loose
59 01 - tailgate stiff to move
59 02 - tailgate loose
SWS system
g. Reference to the already existing

error code will thus be saved with
the defect part on the basis of the
selection made.
SWS system
h. Error codes that are not mentioned

in the selection list since they have
not yet been allocated to the spare
part number may separately be
selected via the search function.
SWS system
h. Error codes that are not mentioned

in the selection list since they have
not yet been allocated to the spare
part number may separately be
selected via the search function.
SWS system
MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING ERROR CODE.
i. Error codes may additionally be

modified via the “Search & Edit”
function.
SWS system
MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING ERROR CODE.
j. Modifications of the label and/or of

the description of existing error
codes, however, take effect on all
previous feedback provided
where reference was made to this
specific error code.
SWS system
DISABLING OF AN EXISTING ERROR CODE.
k. Error codes may additionally be

disabled via the “Search & Edit”
function.
SWS system
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (8D REPORT).
4. For each defect part submitted, the

supplier shall create an 8D Report
in accordance with VDA Volume 4.
SWS system
CREATION OF AN 8D REPORT.
1. An 8D Report may have 4 statuses

assigned by the system:
BMW AG 625141
2447939-00/ MINI Cooper S Pull Back F56 1
000001 a. created
b. interim report
c. final report not evaluated
d. final report evaluated*
*The status “final report evaluated”

is not applied to defective
components coming from the field.
Evaluation of the 8D Report is

overall and performed in the context
of the evaluation of the analysis
feedback by the “final test result”.
SWS system
a. Status “created”:
BMW AG 625141 The status of an 8D Report will

always be “created” whenever it is
2447939-00/ MINI Cooper S Pull Back F56
000001 a
prepared.
Contents of 8D Reports with the

“created” status may be modified
by the supplier at any point in
time.
SWS system
a. Status “created”:
The contents of an 8D Report with

the “created” status are, however,
not visible for BMW.
This fact needs to be taken into

consideration for the feedback of
the analysis result.
SWS system
b. Status “interim report”
BMW AG 625141 b To set the status of an 8D Report to

000001 “interim report”, please use the
icon .
Whenever the “interim report”

status is set, the contents of an 8D
Report will be “frozen” and may
thus no longer be modified by the
supplier.
SWS system
BMW AG 625141 b 8D Reports with the “interim

000001 report” status are visible for BMW
and enable BMW to view the
current state of editing of the 8D
Report.
SWS system
BMW AG 625141 b The “interim report” status,

000001 however, indicates the fact that the
final editing of the 8D Report has
not yet been completed.
SWS system
c. Status ”final report not evaluated”:
BMW AG 625141 c To set the status of an 8D Report to

000001 ”final report not evaluated”, please
use the icon .
100000001
Whenever the “final report not

evaluated” status is set, the
contents of an 8D Report will be
“frozen” (in analogy to the “interim
report” status) and may thus no
longer be modified by the
supplier.
SWS system
BMW AG 625141 c 8D Reports with the “final report

000001 not evaluated” status are visible
for BMW and enable BMW to view
100000001 the final state of editing of the 8D
Report.
SWS system
BMW AG 625141 c The “final report not evaluated”

000001 status, (contrary to the “interim
report” status) indicates the fact
100000001 that the final editing of the 8D
Report has been completed.
SWS system
STATUS OVERVIEW OF 8D REPORTS.
Created Interim report Final report not evaluated
Changeable anytime Not changeable Not changeable

Editing
Not visibile Visibile Visibile

Visibility for BMW
Not completed Not completed completed

Status
SWS system
CREATION OF A NEW 8D REPORT VERSION.
In order to again “unlock” the editing

of an 8D Report in the “interim report”
BMW AG 625141 and “final report not evaluated”
000001 status, the icon may used to
create a new 8D Report version.
In our example, a new Version 2 is

created from Version 1 of the 8D
Report with the “interim report”
status.
SWS system
The new Version 2 of the 8D Report

will initially again have the “created”
BMW AG 625141 status assigned. This enables the
editing of the 8D Report.
000001
Whenever the new version is created,

all inputs of the predecessor version
will be copied.
After revision of the new Version 2, it

will again have to be set to the “interim
report” or “final report not evaluated”
status in order to ensure its visibility
for BMW.
SWS system
In our example, Version 1 with the

“interim report” status was revised by
BMW AG 625141 creation of Version 2 and set to the
000001 “final report not evaluated” status. In
this case, Version 2 of the 8D Report
will be cleared for final viewing by
BMW.
SWS system
DEFECT PART VIEW AFTER CREATION OFF AN 8D REPORT.
After its creation, the 8D Report will

be visible in the selection list of the
SWS with the consecutive number
assigned by the system and the root
cause description of the “D4. Root
Causes”.
! 000001 - mechanical fail of Pullback function because of
SWS system
MAKING REFERENCE TO AN EXISTING 8D REPORT.
NOTES:
Reference may be made to existing 8D

Reports to allow for a more efficient
feedback. Such an 8D Report may be
applied at maximum to the component
family and only for proven identical
root causes.
All 8D Reports that have previously

already been allocated to a defect part
! 000001 - mechanical fail of Pullback function because of of the same spare part number are
000002 - Outside mirror cracked due to changes of accessible via the selection list.
000003 - Unpleasent noises of tailgate due to sporadic
000004 - Tailgate stiff to move due to increased pressure of
000005 - Impairment of directional stability due to wrong
000006 - Paintwork engine hood peels off due to fluctuations
SWS system
MAKING REFERENCE TO AN EXISTING 8D REPORT.
NOTE:
8D Reports that are not mentioned in

the selection list may be selected
separately via the search function.
8D Report search is possible by using

the search function on the defective
part as well as via a separate menu
item (see next slide).
000002 - Outside mirror cracked due to changes of
SWS system
SEARCHING AN 8D REPORT.
The search for an 8D Report is

possible by utilising various limitation
parameters, similar to the search for
From input of the creation date on to

the 8D Report numbers, error codes,
the status of the 8D Report, and the
part numbers of the spare part
allocated, the search may be
performed flexibly and in combination.
SWS system
SEARCHING AN 8D REPORT.
The 8D Reports are output in

ascending order according to the
BMW 8D Report number.
The 8D Report number may be used

to access and edit the 8D Report.
Provided that you have accessed the

8D Report search via the search
000001
000002
17.02.2019
17.02.2019
56 01
56 13
2447939
2447940
function on the defect part, you
000003 17.02.2019 56 14 2447950 additionally have the option* to save
000004 17.02.2019 65 01 2447941 the desired 8D Report with the defect
part by clicking on “Select”.
* this option is not shown in the screenshot
SWS system
MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING 8D REPORT.
NOTE:
Should modifications of the 8D Report be

required on account of the referencing, the
report needs to be accessed via the “Show
& Edit” function.
It is important that modifications made all

refer to all defect parts that have been
allocated to this specific 8D Report.
The need for modifications may arise in the

following situations:
000002 - Outside mirror cracked due to changes of • New findings on the root cause
• Expansion of the production period
concerned
!
• …
SWS system
ALLOCATION OF THE ROOT CAUSE.
5 5. For acknowledged parts

Supplier (classification “J”), the supplier
shall allocate the root cause either
to himself or to his sub-supplier.
SWS system
6. The supplier shall furthermore

Supplier allocate the root cause to one of
6 four areas.
SWS system
7. The comment field additionally

Supplier allows for an individual description
regarding the allocation of the root
cause.
SWS system
DOCUMENT OF EVIDENCE PER DEFECT PART.
8. All documents that serve for

Supplier transparency that are required as
proof for the tests performed are
recorded as annex.
SWS system
DOCUMENT OF EVIDENCE PER DEFECT PART.
9. These e.g. are:

• Checklists
Supplier
• Measurement reports
NOTE:
The document of evidence of a defect
part shall be uploaded with the defect
parts transaction and not with the
associated 8D Report.
SWS system
ANALYSIS FEEDBACK VIA XML FILE UPLOAD.
1. Three possible options are

provided for the feedback of the
analysis results, similar to those for
retrieving the defect parts data:
a) Input via interface
b) Upload as XML data record
b
c) Upload via I-Point interface
NOTE:
The requirements in accordance with
Group Standard 95004 apply to the
electronic analysis feedback with XML
data records in analogy to the analysis
feedback via the application.
SWS system
The analysis feedback via XML data

Usage of XML-file for Usage of XML-file for record may be performed as
partially electronically completely electronically follows:
supported processing processing
1. Input of the analysis results in Excel
and subsequent conversion of the
Excel data to XML. The XML file
Excel - XML - conversion XML processing supplier upload to the SWS concludes the
process.
2. Input of the analysis results in the

supplier’s QM system and
subsequent upload to the SWS.
1 XML upload by supplier NOTE:
1 2
The conversion of XML data in
SWS
Microsoft Excel is outlined in the
following.
SWS system
ANALYSIS FEEDBACK VIA EXCEL AND XML FILE UPLOAD.
1. Utilisation of the XML file for a

partially electronically supported
analysis feedback.
SWS system
2. The analysis feedbacks are first

2 manually entered into the Excel file.
SWS system
NOTE REGARDING THE

MANUFACTURING DATE:
The manufacturing date is input in the

format “YYYY-MM-DD”.
SWS system
NOTE 1 REGARDING THE ERROR

CODE:
In order to make reference to an

existing error code, only the error
code number without error label will
have to be specified.
SWS system

CODE:
In order to create a new error code via

XML file upload, specification of the
error label* in addition to the
numbering is mandatory, that of the
fault description* is optional.
* both columns are not illustrated in

this screenshot.
SWS system

CODE:
In order to modify the error label

and/or the error description of an
existing error code via XML file upload,
specification of the existing error code
number and of the modified error label
is mandatory, that of the modified
error description* is optional.
* both columns are not illustrated in

this screenshot.
SWS system
NOTE 1 REGARDING THE 8D

REPORT:
In order to make reference to an

existing 8D Report, only the BMW 8D
Report number will have to be
specified.
This supplements the reference of the

new defect part in the existing 8D
Report.
SWS system
NOTE 2 REGARDING THE 8D

REPORT:
Creation of a new 8D Report will not

be possible via this XML file upload!
Advance creation of the 8D Report

will be required manually via interface
or via 8D XML file upload with a
separate XML scheme (cf. chart 61).
Subsequently, reference will be made

to the newly created 8D Report in this
XML file upload.
SWS system
3 3. The “Export” function completes

2 the conversion and exports the data
to an XML file.
SWS system
4. The XML file will ultimately by

transferred to the SWS system via
the “XML file upload” button.
4
SWS system
Upload successfully processed 5. After the upload, the user will be

informed about the successful
transfer by a message.
6. In analogy to the feedback via

6
interface, potential input errors will
be made transparent by a message.
NOTE:
C001234567
C001234568
If feedbacks contain severe errors
C001234569 (illustration 6), the defect parts
C001234570 will not be analysed.
SWS system
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (8D REPORT) VIA XML FILE UPLOAD.
1. The XML file upload of 8D Reports

will occur separately from the
defect part analysis (cf. chart 57).
625141
2. With this upload, existing 8D

Reports may be updated and/or
modified as well as new 8D Reports
created.
1 2 NOTES:
The upload will always occur in
connection with a defect part. The
link between defect part and 8D
Report is called “Complaint Item
Reference”.
Several defect parts may be
allocated to one 8D Report.
SWS system
3. Two upload options exist for

updating an 8D Report regarding
the “Complaint Item Reference”.
625141
Add new references:

A new defect part is allocated to the
8D Report. Already existing defect
part allocations are retained.
Delete old references and adopt

new ones :
3 A new defect part is allocated to the
8D Report. Additionally, all existing
defect part allocations will be
deleted.
SWS system
4. In analogy to the XML file upload of

defect parts, input errors or
mandatory fields not filled in will
625141
625141
also be made transparent by a fault
message in this case.
4
5. Otherwise, the user will be informed
about the successful transfer after
the upload by a message.
Upload successfully processed 5
SYSTEM FOR COMMUNICATION (WHERE).
A Document of evidence via the SWS system for failure analysis. Application of “Part Testing”
Manual input possible via Partner
a) Analysis result Portal or data exchange via XML file
(may be set only once) (download/upload).
b) Part manuf. date
(MM.DD.YYYY)  XML file “Part Testing”
c) Error description and Download: via “Table XML File”
error code supplier Upload: via “XML file upload”
d) Root cause Help file: Excel Tool for XML FA
Reference 8D/4D Report
Process: With “Create”  Document of evidence as annex
Supplier
or “Show” Annex: via “Add new File”

Status: created, interim
---------------------------------------
and final report.
Allocation of  Create and edit 8D Report
root cause Create: “Create new Report”
e) Annexes are documents of Process: “Show & Edit”
FA failure analysis (FA)  Referencing 8D Reports
Reference: via BMW 8D Report no.
B 8D Report through the SWS System for root cause analysis. Application of “8D Reports”
For structured problem-solving.
Determination of the root cause and
implementation of sustainable action.
 XML file via “8D Report”

Create: “XML file upload 8D”
Process: “Search & Edit”“
RA
Attachment RA
 Annex to an 8D Report
Annexes to 8D Reports are
additional documents for the root
cause analysis (RA).
C The Quarterly Report with consolidated findings from the analysis Quarterly Report
process. Information
 on the root cause
 on the fault pattern with fault
location / fault type
 on the elimination actions including
roll-out dates
Results
 of all parts analysed during the last 5
years of production
 on the categories “J, B, W, K u. V”
Instrument
 for efficiency verification
 with all actions and findings
TIME LIMITS (WHEN).
Extension of the time limits for

the test time Information
 They will have to be submitted at the latest 1  Supplier no. / Delivery note no.
week prior to the expiration of the  Part-Ident number (barcode).
automatic debiting date (cf. SWS).
 Time and reason for the extension of the
 Extensions are to be addressed to the time limit (root cause analysis,
Recourse Specialist in writing. shutdown etc.).
NTF-Process
Feedback V and
performance of the NTF process Quarterly Report
 The findings must be updated in the B2B Portal within a  Within the month following a
period of 3 months. quarter.
 An invoice correction may be requested if the final  To the “Development”, “Quality”
analysis result is not under the responsibility of the
and “Supplier Recourse”
supplier.
specialist departments.
THE RECOURSE PROCESS.
TOGETHER ON THE ROAD TO QUALITY 2.0.
 The creation of warranty
applications was explained in the
framework of the defect parts
process.
 The total warranty costs are the
point of departure for the recourse
processes and an appropriate and
just cost distribution.
CONTRACTUAL BASIS.
THE WARRANTY AGREEMENT.
Basis for recourse processing is the Warranty Agreement (WA) entered into between the supplier and BMW.
It governs the various warranty cases and the scope/companies it covers.
The terms of claims processing are also defined in it …
… as well as are the conditions (time limits, cost types, etc.) that apply to recourse processing.
The Warranty Agreement furthermore regulates the fact that the analysis of defect field parts shall be performed
subject to application of the Group Standard 95004.
In addition to the time limits/times for claims processing defined in the WA, the “legal or other sovereign
stipulations” apply (particularly in case of an exhaust gas-, emission- or safety-relevant product or deficiency)” 
(example: Clean Air Act; 5 years of legal warranty in Norway).
Process
DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN 3 RECOURSE PROCESSES.
1. During the year, the so-called

3 “background noise” (normal level of
Key: defects) is processed by the supplier
Background noise: through a reference market process
TPV and JEA / IKA process
with a continuous flow of parts and
Serial defect failure analysis (process of payment
for parts tested by supplier “TPV”).
Failures [%]
2. Additionally, a years end invoice

“JEA” (actual cost settling [IKA]) will
be performed for a defined accounting
period (usually accounting year).
3. An accumulation of failures (also

1 & 2 preventive service campaigns and
recalls) refer to a serial defect, which
will be processed on a per case basis.
Vehicle production date (MM.YYYY)
Process
PAYMENT FOR PARTS TESTED BY SUPPLIER (TPV).

“background noise” (normal level of
Serial defect failure analysis (process of payment
for parts tested by supplier “TPV”).
Failures [%]
2. Additionally, a years end invoice “JEA”

(actual cost settling [IKA]) will be
performed for a defined accounting

1 preventive service campaigns and
Process
THE PROCESS.
Worldwide failure occurrences Random sample for failure analysis
 Dependent on the Warranty Agreement, the supplier
will receive a random sample of the failed defect
parts from the returning markets:
DE and /or US
 Analysis of defect parts acc. to GS 95004.

 Setting of a test result:
 No Trouble Found (NTF)  Supplier fault (J)
Symbolise defect cases of one part family  Logistics fault (T)  BMW damage (B)
Commercial settling
 The commercial settling will  Acknowledged defect parts will
occur after feedback of the test Payment for parts tested by
be settled.
result by the supplier and supplier (TPV) = part price
verification by BMW. of acknowledged part
x debit factor
Process
FACTOR CALCULATION – EXAMPLE FOR RETURNING MARKET GER.
The debit factor derives from the supplier‘s warranty costs within one accounting period and is composed from the correlation
between:
Supplier-specific BMW-specific
factor extrapolation for returning
 Correlation market Germany
1,00 1,00 Replaced part (1 piece)
material cost to incidental cost
0,05 0,05 Cost replacement delivery/return freight
4,52 4,52 Cost incidental expenses (salary, handling)
Sum: 5,57 5,57 Factor on basis correlation material cost to

incidental cost
 Correlation of warranty-net-cost 1,00 x 65,18 (1) 265,18 Replaced part (1 piece)
returning market to non-returning market 0,025 x 65,18 (1) 231,63 Cost replacement delivery/return
4,52 x 65,18 (1) 294,61 Cost incidental expenses (salary, handling)
RoW Sum: 5,55 361,42 Factor on basis correlation returning

GER
market to non-returning market
Total: 366,99 Factor per part from returning market GER
(1) Extrapolation factor for parts, freight and incidental expenses from markets, from which Products do not need to be returned (Non-Returning Markets):
The basis for determining the "extrapolation" is the ratio of the worldwide failures in the field or costs in Non-Returning Markets to the total in Returning Markets of the
respective previous year. BMW shall check the "extrapolation" once per annum and shall, if appropriate, make an adjustment.
CALCULATION EXAMPLE.
Part price x Debit factor = Payment for parts tested

by supplier (TPV)
Process
YEARS END INVOICE (JEA).

“background noise” (normal level of
Serial defects failure analysis (process of payment for
parts tested by supplier “TPV”).
Failures [%]
2. Additionally, a years end invoice

“JEA” (actual cost settling [IKA]) will
be performed for a defined accounting

2 preventive service campaigns and
Process
THE PROCESS.
Worldwide failure occurrences Creation of shopping baskets
 The JEA establishes a transparent settling on the basis
of the costs actually incurred during an accounting
period (usually calendar year).
 The WaG cases are summarised in so-called shopping
baskets that are adjusted with the supplier.
Symbolise defect cases of one part family
Determination of responsibility quota Commercial settling

 A quota is determined per shopping basket on the basis
of the defect parts submitted, in order to define an
appropriate and just cost distribution. Years end invoice (JEA) = xx
worldwide WaG costs x responsibility quota – TPV paid
75% 40% 83% 50% 50%
Process
DETERMINATION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY QUOTA.
 LVQ: Supplier responsibility quota

Analysis result results from the continuous feedback of the supplier on each individual defect
supplier part during the year.
Verification of  tVQ: technical responsibility quota (TPV)

analysis result
results from the continuous verification of the supplier feedback by BMW during
the year.
Verification of
analysis results
 kVQ: commercial responsibility quota
in the framework of the preparation of the years end invoice, BMW again verifies
the totality of supplier feedback of the relevant yearly tranche regarding
Negotiation
consistency and plausibility.
Process
COST STATUS.
State of costs – Supplier A

Years end invoice 20xx
WaG net costs WaG net costs

LVQ tVQ kVQ
(incl. additional (incl. additional
Sum total WaG (supplier (technical (commercial
# Shopping basket removals) removals) Claim TPV effected Open claim
net costs responsibility responsibility responsibility
quota) quota) quota)
in warranty in goodwill
1 Shopping basket 1 900,000 € 70,000 € 970,000 € 50 % 75 % 75 % 727,500 € 327,500 € 400,000 €
2 Shopping basket 2 1,500,000 € 250,000 € 1,750,000 € 23 % 43 % 40 % 700,000 € 100,000 € 600,000 €
3 Shopping basket 3 300,000 € 50,000€ 350,000 € 83 % 83 % 83 % 290,500 € 90,500 € 200,000 €
4 Shopping basket 4 750,000 € 50,000 € 800,000 € 20 % 50 % 50 % 400,000 € 500,000 € - 100,000 €
5 Shopping basket 5 25,000 € 5,000 € 30,000 € - - 50 % 15,000 € 0€ 15,000 €
Sum total: 3,475,000 € 425,000 € 3,900,000 € 2,133,00 € 1,018,000 € 1,115,000 €
Process
SERIAL DAMAGES.

3 “background noise” (normal level of
Serial defect failure analysis (process of payment for
parts tested by supplier “TPV”).
Failures [%]
2. Additionally, a years end invoice “JEA”

(actual cost settling [IKA]) will be
performed for a defined accounting

preventive service campaigns and
recalls) refers to a serial defect, which
SERIAL DEFECTS.
Process
THE PROCESS.
Worldwide failure occurrences Definition serial damages
 Serial defects are an ”accumulation of failures of a

product”.
 Preventive actions such as technical campaigns or
service campaigns also count as serial damages.
Symbolise defect cases of one part family
Creation of a separate shopping basket Commercial settling

 The cases of one serial damage are collected in a
separate shopping basket and are settled
separately. serial defect settling = xx
worldwide WaG costs x responsibility quota
- TPV paid - JEA paid
Process
INTERACTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL SETTLING TYPES.
Continuously during Defined Specific defects

the year settling period occurrence
Payment for parts Years end invoice Serial defects
tested by supplier = settling
= worldwide costs =
part price of x responsibility quota worldwide costs
acknowledged part
- TPV x responsibility quota
x debit factor
- TPV
- JEA
serial defects serial defects
 The three different recourse processes allow for an appropriate and just distribution of warranty costs.
DEFECTIVE PART TABLE & SELF-AUDIT.
POSSIBILITY FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS AND TO ENSURE COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF GS 95004.
DEFECTIVE PART TABLE.
Process
POSSIBILITY FOR FURTHER PARTY ANALYSIS.
„Talk to the parts, they are smarter

than the engineers.“
Dorian Shainin
* 26.09.1914
 07.01.2000
Process
GENERAL INFORMATION.
Defective part table as possibility for further analyses:
What is the objective:

 Joint evaluation of the defect part, if required with the assistance of test equipment supplier / BMW.
 Joint analysis of the vehicle data incl. history.
What may be tested:

 Defect field parts from the returning markets.
 Defect field parts from non-returning markets (special defect parts).
General conditions:
 Handling through the competent recourse contact.
 Apart from recourse contact, participants as required (e.g. development department, quality, lab, …).
 Takes place at the warranty parts centres of BMW AG, may – in exceptional case – also take place on site at the supplier’s
premises.
Process
LOCATION.
GWTZ München
1
2
WPRC Easton
(PA, USA)
SELF-AUDIT.
SWS system
GS 95004 – CATALOGUE OF EVALUATIONS.
Access is via the BMW Partner Portal

(B2B).
1. Download of the evaluation form.
SELF-AUDIT.
Process
SELF-AUDIT.
Process
GS 95004 figure 5
SELF-AUDIT.
Process
TO ENSUE COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF GS 95004.
Self-audit as a sensor to ensure complete implementation of GS 95004 :
1. Test concept and documentation.

2. Reporting.
3. Part analysis: Test Stage 1.

4. Part analysis: Test Stage 2.
5. NTF-process: Verification test.

6. NTF-process System test.
7. Implementation and data analysis.
SELF-AUDIT.
Process
CONCLUSION.
Planning Performance
of the analysis process. of the self-audit.
Plan
Do
KVP
Act
Check
Elimination Target/actual
implement actions for comparison
optimisation. identify deficits.
SELF-AUDIT.
Process
DECERTIFICATION.
 Clarifies the consequences of repeated non-fulfillment of our Group Standard 95004.
 Admitted to the GS and based on the “IATF certification requirements to the 16949 standard”.
 Possibility of objectifying the BMW audit result.
 Serves the protection of our customers.
SUPPLIER WARRANTY STATUS.
SWS SYSTEM.
PROVISION OF WAG INFORMATION BY BMW.
VON GWK-INFORMATIONEN DURCH BMW.
SWS system
1. Warranty Status
1
Overview of all warranty costs

incurred worldwide that were
allocated to the supplier by the
system.
NOTE:
The allocation is performed on the

basis of the serial component.
The costs are thus always allocated
to the 1st-tier supplier who has a
direct supply relationship with
BMW.
SWS system
2. Defect parts process
Overview of all defect parts that

were submitted to the supplier in
the framework of the agreed return
parameters.
SWS system
OVERVIEW THROUGH THE WORDLWIDE WARRANTY STATUS.
02/28/2020
02/27/2020
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
SWS system
1
02/28/2020 1. Header line with supplier data and
02/27/2020 current date.
2018 2019 2020
NOTE:
For reasons of clarity, 3 instead of

the standard 5 calendar years will
be shown on the following charts.
2018 2019 2020
SWS system
02/28/2020 2. Calculation date of the warranty

02/27/2020 2 data loaded.
2018 2019 2020
NOTES:
The warranty data are uploaded

every weekend from the WaG
application system of the BMW
Group.
2018 2019 2020 During the week, allocation of the

WaG data to the respective supplier
will occur on a daily basis.
WaG cases are taken into

consideration as of production year
2002.
SWS system
02/28/2020 3. The upper part of the WaG status

02/27/2020 provides an overview of the
warranty costs incurred during the
2018 2019 2020
3 last 5 calendar years that were
allocated to the supplier, broken
4
down into “own serial parts” and
“supplier content”.
5
4. “Own serial parts” are direct
2018 2019 2020
delivery contents to BMW. The
supplier is 1st-tier supplier.
5. “Supplier content” are deliveries to

other suppliers. The supplier is the
2nd-tier supplier.
SWS system
02/28/2020 6. The lower part of the WaG status

02/27/2020 provides an overview of the
warranty costs paid by the supplier
2018 2019 2020
during the last 5 calendar years.
7. The payment for parts tested by

supplier for acknowledged defect
parts is separately shown per
returning market.
2018 2019 2020
6
8. Special payments on serial
damages, technical campaigns, and
years end invoices are separately
7 shown.
SWS system
DETAILS THROUGH THE TOP WARRANTY DRIVERS.
02/28/2020
01/01/2020 - 02/27/2020 02/27/2020

2020
2447939 MINI Cooper MINI Cooper S F56 blue

2447940 MINI Cooper MINI Cooper S F56 yellow
2447950 BMW i8 BMW i8 Pull Back black
2447942 MINI Countryman MINI Countryman red
2447941 MINI Cooper MINI Cooper S F56 red
2447951 BMW i8 BMW i8 Pull Back white

2447943 MINI Countryman MINI Countryman black
2447944 MINI Cooper MINI Cooper S F56 green
2447960 BMW i3 BMW i3 Pull Back blue

2447961 BMW i3 BMW i3 Pull Back white
SWS system
02/28/2020
The TOP warranty drivers provide a
quick top-down overview of the
components of the delivery range of
01/01/2020 - 02/27/2020 02/27/2020
2020
one calendar year that are responsible
for WaG.
SWS system
02/28/2020
1. Grouping of the TOP warranty
drivers is possible on several
aggregation levels:
01/01/2020 - 02/27/2020 02/27/2020
1 2020
 Parts groups
Aggregation via the drawing
number
 Serial parts
Aggregation via the part number
 Delivery modules
Aggregation via serial parts with
identical JIT label
SWS system
02/28/2020
2. The TOP warranty drivers are
available for the last 5 calendar
years (in analogy to the worldwide
01/01/2020 - 02/27/2020 02/27/2020
warranty status).
2 2020 3
3. It is furthermore possible to limit

the components responsible for
WaG on the basis of their delivery
status:
 All parts
 Active parts
Delivery content currently
supplied to BMW
 Phased-out parts
Delivery content no longer
supplied to BMW
SWS system
02/28/2020
4. 95 % of the TOP warranty drivers
are shown based on the respective
aggregation level selected in
01/01/2020 - 02/27/2020 02/27/2020
2020
descending order and sorted
according to warranty costs.
4
NOTE:
The remaining 5 % are not shown
in this overview for performance
reasons, but will be available as
individual data by way of CSV
download.
SWS system
02/28/2020
5. One parts layer line will be available
for each TOP warranty driver.
01/01/2020 - 02/27/2020 02/27/2020
2020
The incoming goods of the serial
parts of the respective warranty
driver are the basis for the parts
layer line.
SWS system
PARTS LAYER LINE: DESCRIPTION.
Parts delivered
2
1
4
Production month standardises according to incoming goods
SWS system
PARTS LAYER LINE: COMPUTATION LINE.
Parts delivered
Number of defect parts during the accounting month

3
2
240
04/2016

1 Accounting month
SWS system
TEIPARTS LAYER LINE: SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LINES.
2 Parts delivered
7.092
60
24 months
Monate 36 months 12 months
48 months 24 months 6 months
213
Warranty cases per 100 parts
3 3,0%
07/2014
1 Production month
SWS system
PARTS LAYER LINE: LATE PRODUCT FAILURES.
Parts delivered
20
Defect serial parts from warranty cases per 100 delivered serial parts
17,5
15 48 months
12,5
10,0% 10
7,5
2,5
0,08% 0
6 months
Production month standardises according to incoming goods Accounting month
SWS system
PARTS LAYER LINE: EARLY PRODUCT FAILURES.
Parts delivered
20
17,5
15 48 months
12,5
6 months
10,0% 10
7,5% 7,5
2,5
SWS system
PARTS LAYER LINE: EARLY FAILURE VS. LATE FAILURE.
Parts delivered
20
17,5
15
12,5
10
7,5 Late failure Early failure

5
2,5
SWS system
PARTS LAYER LINE: FORECAST (WEIBULL).
Parts delivered
20
17,5
15
12,5
10 Valid ACTUAL data Extrapolation

7,5
2,5
Production month standardises according to incoming goods Accounting month

08/2016 09/2018
SWS system
PARTS LAYER LINE: FORECAST (WEIBULL).
Failures
SWS system
02/28/2020
6. Downloading of all individual case
data for all warranty cases is
possible via the button “Details for
01/01/2020 - 02/27/2020 02/27/2020
all parts as csv file ”.
! 2020
NOTES:
The download will be available only
in the “Part Groups” (!) view and
only for the calendar year selected.
The download includes all quality-

relevant information (w/o costs of
the warranty cases).
The download will be

synchronous.
SWS system
 Provides the basis for your management reports.
 Points out deficits for defect parts from returning markets.
 Enables detailed analysis of abnormalities in parts with the help of layer lines (drawing number  spare part number).
 Delivers a daily overview of the non-returning markets and thus the worldwide default events.
THE QUALITY CONTROL LOOP.
Everyone knows what quality is, ...
… until asked to give a definition.
Nobody seems to know.
(OLD) Quality acc. to
(NEW) Quality acc. to
DIN EN ISO 8402:1995-08:
DIN EN ISO 9000:2015-11:
“Quality is the totality of features and
“Quality is the degree to which a
characteristics of a product or
set of inherent characteristics meets
service that bear on its ability to satisfy
the requirements.”
stated or implied needs.”
The term “quality” originates

WHAT IS from the Latin term:
qualitas =
QUALITY? condition, feature, state,
properties
The user-based quality The manufacturing-based

Harvard professor The product-based quality
understanding defines quality quality understanding defines
David A. Garvin understanding results from the
as the perfect realisation of all quality as the compliance with
Differentiates between 5 compliance with generally
customer demands on a drawing data, specifications,
understandings of quality.. defined requirements.
product. agreements and standards.
The value-based quality The transcendent quality

understanding takes into understanding is based on a
account to which extent the subjective experience of a
product may be purchased at an person in view of compliance
appropriate price in view of the with particular, unique
features realised. properties
IMPORTANT NOTE: All rights reserved. Distribution only with approvalof the product.
of information owner. Page 227
SUCCESS. DEPENDABILITY. PERFORMANCE. INNOVATION.
What is associated
OBJECTIVITY. with the term COSTS.
Quality?
SPECIFICATION. COMFORT. ISO. REQUIREMENT.
CUSTOMER. PERFECTION. SAFETY.
“Quality has much in common with sex. “Quality may be argued “Quality is never an accident;
Everyone is for it. Everyone feels they
understand it. Everyone thinks execution marvellously. One thing is it is always the result of high “Quality means that the
is only a matter of following natural clear, however: The bait must intention, sincere effort, customer and not the product
inclinations. And, of course, most people attract the fish, not the intelligent direction and skilful will return.”
feel that all problems in these areas are
caused by other people.” fisherman.” execution.” Hermann Tietz
Philip B. Crosby Helmut Thoma John Ruskin
WHAT DO THINKERS “Quality means doing it right

“Quality is the best recipe.”
Dr. Oetker AND INVENTORS SAY when no one is looking.”
Henry Ford
ABOUT QUALITY?
“Quality begins with the idea

“Quality is the passion for “The quality will remain when “Quality is the decent thing to
and is a permanent process on
perfection!” the price is forgotten.” do.”
the road to the optimum.”
Ernst Muellner Henry Royce Theodor Heuss
Hermann Danek
“Quality begins by placing “Quality must be produced, it “The mediocre clap each other
“When you’re out of quality,
customer satisfaction at the cannot be achieved by on the shoulders where the
you’re out of business.”
centre of our thinking.“ testing.” artists begin their work.”
Philip B. Crosby
John F. Akers Werner Niefer Matthias Scharlach
WHAT IS THE
CONTRIBUTION OF
GS 95004 TO
QUALITY?
Failure analysis according to GS 95004 is an essential constituent of

the permanent evolution of processes and products and leads to an
increase in quality and customer satisfaction.
100
AUDIT EVALUATION [%]

CAN THE
CONTRIBUTION BE
MEASURED?
WARRANTY COSTS / TURNOVER [%] 0
BMW observes a connection between audit findings according to GS

95004 and the relation between warranty costs and turnover.
Enterprises with a qualified failure analysis process tend to incur
lower warranty costs in relation to their turnover.
IMPORTANT NOTE: All rights reserved. Distribution only with approval of information owner. Page 231
„Quality begins in your Head.“ & „ Quality requires a Mindset.“
Together on the Road of Quality 2.0
Thank you for your attention!

CONTACT DETAILS.
Gunter Borgdorf Markus Kratz Marc Kühn

AQ-820 AQ-820 MK-10
Gunter.Borgdorf@bmw.de Markus.Kratz@bmw.de Marc.Kuehn@bmw.de
Dr. Philip Heinemann Christian Jakob Thomas Meiler

MA-101 MA-101 MA-100
Philip.Heinemann@bmw.de Christian.Jakob@bmw.de Thomas.Meiler@bmw.de

2020 - Together - On - The - Road - of - Quality - 2.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2020 - Together - On - The - Road - of - Quality - 2.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

2020 - Together - On - The - Road - of - Quality - 2.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEMEINSAM AUF QUALITÄTSKURS 2.0.

TOGETHER ON THE ROAD OF QUALITY 2.0.

312 These 312

1560 This means that 1,560

Source: Market Analysis BMW Group Corporate Quality 2015

Warranty & Recourse

 You will understand the requirements of our Group Standard 95004

 You will understand the different accounting methods:

1. You may access the system via the

2. Open the “Supplier Warranty

1. The currently released version of

2. Refer to the menu item “Brief

3. The training material is currently

4. The following is available under

Overview of all warranty costs

The allocation is performed on the

2. Defect Parts Process

Overview of all defect parts under

 The point of departure for the

 The objective of the workshop

Vehicle Handover conversation between dealer and

Trouble- Simulation of the defect and identification of the

Vehicle repair.  The defect code is selected at the

Vehicle Handover conversation between dealer and

Trouble- Simulation of the defect and identification of the

 Explanation of the logistics flow of

Dispatch to test facilities

At the WPRC, the parts will be

Market D  On average, suppliers with a

Subsidiary 20 % parts rejected in the field and

Source: Warranty cases of BMW AG in 2018

Deliveries of defect parts may be

1. The unambiguous Part-Ident

2. The AQ or UQ number in the format

AQ = returning market Germany

Since October 2018, AQ or UQ

3. The unambiguous shipment

4. The shipment date in the format

5. The selection of the returning

6. The 17-digit vehicle identification

7. The spare part number in the

The spare part number is the part

8. The unified parts group (UPG) in

The UPG allows you to retrieve all

9. The “Product Type” allows you to

10. “Processing Status” allows you to

The “Search & Edit” function allows

There will be no information output

1. Ticking the option “Show not

2. Optionally, the filter “Shipment

The Group Standard 95004 is a detailed BMW

Customer requirements BMW Group Standard

Number of requirements for failure analysis

Amendments and supplements

….ISO 9001 ….production planning ….certification ….failure analysis GS 95004 ….FMEA

….problem management process failure analysis. ….development projects

….diagnosis ….fault elimination process