Full Ebook of Project Management For Mobility Engineers Principles and Case Studies 1St Edition Angelo Mago Online PDF All Chapter

Project Management for Mobility
Engineers: Principles and Case Studies

1st Edition Angelo Mago
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/project-management-for-mobility-engineers-principles
-and-case-studies-1st-edition-angelo-mago/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Practical Project Management for Engineers Nehal Patel
https://ebookmeta.com/product/practical-project-management-for-
engineers-nehal-patel/
Innovation Project Management: Methods, Case Studies,

and Tools for Managing Innovation Projects 2nd Edition
Harold Kerzner
https://ebookmeta.com/product/innovation-project-management-
methods-case-studies-and-tools-for-managing-innovation-
projects-2nd-edition-harold-kerzner/
Mechanizing Hypothesis Formation: Principles and Case

Studies 1st Edition Jan Rauch
https://ebookmeta.com/product/mechanizing-hypothesis-formation-
principles-and-case-studies-1st-edition-jan-rauch/
APM Project Management Qualification Study Guide 1st

Edition Association For Project Management
https://ebookmeta.com/product/apm-project-management-
qualification-study-guide-1st-edition-association-for-project-
management/
Starting Out in Project Management 3rd Edition
Association For Project Management
https://ebookmeta.com/product/starting-out-in-project-
management-3rd-edition-association-for-project-management/
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and

the Standard for Project Management 7th Edition Project
Management Institute
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-guide-to-the-project-management-
body-of-knowledge-and-the-standard-for-project-management-7th-
edition-project-management-institute/
Transfusion Medicine Case Studies and Clinical

Management Aleksandar Mijovic
https://ebookmeta.com/product/transfusion-medicine-case-studies-
and-clinical-management-aleksandar-mijovic/
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

PMBOK Guide Seventh Edition and The Standard for
Project Management ENGLISH Project Management
Institute
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-guide-to-the-project-management-
body-of-knowledge-pmbok-guide-seventh-edition-and-the-standard-
for-project-management-english-project-management-institute/
Project Design for Geomatics Engineers and Surveyors

2nd Edition Clement A. Ogaja
https://ebookmeta.com/product/project-design-for-geomatics-
engineers-and-surveyors-2nd-edition-clement-a-ogaja/
Project
Management
for Mobility
Engineers
Principles and Case Studies
An SAE Handbook
Angelo Mago
Project Management for
Mobility Engineers: Principles
and Case Studies
Project Management for
Mobility Engineers: Principles
and Case Studies
ANGELO MAGO
Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA

400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 USA
E-mail: CustomerService@sae.org
Phone: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Copyright © 2020 SAE International. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, distributed, or trans-
mitted, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of SAE International. For
permission and licensing requests, contact SAE Permissions, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale,
PA 15096-0001 USA; e-mail: copyright@sae.org; phone: 724-772-4028; fax: 724-772-9765.
Library of Congress Catalog Number 2018962425

SAE Order Number R-470
http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/R-470
Information contained in this work has been obtained by SAE International from sources believed
to be reliable. However, neither SAE International nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or
completeness of any information published herein and neither SAE International nor its authors
shall be responsible for any errors, omissions, or damages arising out of use of this information. This
work is published with the understanding that SAE International and its authors are supplying infor-
mation, but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services
are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought.
ISBN-Print 978-0-7680-9357-5
ISBN-PDF 978-0-7680-9361-2
ISBN-ePUB 978-0-7680-9359-9
ISBN-PRC 978-0-7680-9360-5
ISBN-HTML 978-0-7680-9358-2
To purchase bulk quantities, please contact: SAE Customer Service
E-mail: CustomerService@sae.org
Phone: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Visit the SAE International Bookstore at books.sae.org

contents
Foreword xv
CHAPTER 1
Project versus Program Management 1

1.1 Defining Project Success for Mobility-Based Projects 1
1.2 Issues Facing the Automotive Product Manager and the
Project Manager 3
1.3 Defining the Automotive Project 4
1.4 Beginning and End of the Automotive Project 6
1.5 “Beginning” Documentation Requirements for an Automotive
Project 7
1.5.1 Contract 7
1.5.2 Feasibility Assessment 8
1.5.3 System Level FMEA 10
1.5.4 QFD Matrix 12
1.5.5 Project Charter 12
1.6 “End” Documentation Requirements for an Automotive Project 12
1.6.1 Product 13
1.6.2 PPAP 13
1.6.2.1 They Begin the Process Too Late 13
1.6.2.2 The Delivered Product is Not a Fully
Production Intent Product 14
1.6.2.3 Lack of Understanding of the Term “Saleable Product” 14
1.6.3 Lessons Learned (LL) Report 15
1.7 Defining Project Management 15
1.8 Project Management Models 16
1.9 Project Manager Competencies 16
1.10 Governing Standards for Automotive Project Management 18
References 20
©2020 SAE International v

vi Contents
CHAPTER 2
Introduction to Project Management

Body of Knowledge 21
2.1 Life Cycle Models 21
2.2 PRODUCT Life Cycle 22
2.2.1 Conceptual Phase 22
2.2.2 Definition Phase 22
2.2.3 Production Phase 23
2.2.4 Operational Phase 24
2.2.5 Divestment Phase 24
2.3 PROJECT Life Cycle 24
2.4 Common PROJECT Life Cycle Models for Automotive 25
2.4.1 Concurrent Engineering Product Development 26
2.4.2 V-Model 27
2.4.3 Evolutionary prototyping (EP) 28
2.4.4 Spiral Model 29
2.4.5 Agile (SCRUM) 30
2.4.5.1 Components of Agile 31
2.4.5.2 The SCRUM Team 32
2.4.5.3 Challenges Associated with Agile 32
2.5 Project Management Life Cycle 33
CHAPTER 3
Introduction to Robust Design Techniques 37

3.1 Project Manager’s Guide to Robust Design 37
3.2 Why RDM? 38
3.2.1 Threshold Attributes 39
3.2.2 Performance Attributes 39
3.2.3 Delighter Attributes/Exciters 39
3.3 When RDM? 40
3.4 What Is RDM? 41
3.4.1 Quality Function Deployment (QFD) or House of
Quality 41
3.4.1.1 Benefits of QFD 41
3.4.1.2 Deployment of QFD 43
3.4.1.2.1 QFD Application Case Study 43
3.4.2 (Functional) Block Diagram 44
3.4.3 Parameter (P) Diagram 45
3.4.4 Interface Matrix 46
Contents vii
3.4.5 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) 48

3.4.5.1 FMEA as Risk Management 48
3.4.5.2 FMEA as Product Liability Protection 49
3.4.5.3 Types of FMEAs 49
3.4.5.4 When Is an FMEA Used? 49
3.4.5.5 FMEA Review of PMs 49
3.4.6 Design for Manufacturing/Assembly 51
3.4.6.1 What Is Design for Manufacture and Assembly? 52
3.4.6.2 Objectives and Benefits of a DFMA study 52
3.4.6.3 Types of Design for Manufacture and Assembly Methods 53
3.4.6.4 When Is DFMA Applied? 54
3.4.6.5 Challenges of Applying a Robust DFMA Process 54
References 56
CHAPTER 4
Managing Stakeholder Influence 57

4.1 Stakeholder Management 57
4.2 The Stakeholder Management Process 58
4.3 Identifying Stakeholder and Their Roles 58
4.3.1 Case Study 59
4.3.2 Stakeholder Members 59
4.3.3 Unique Role of the Project Sponsor 60
4.4 Stakeholder Management Techniques 61
4.4.1 The Stakeholder Register - Identification 61
4.4.2 The Stakeholder Engagement Matrix - Management 61
4.4.3 The Stakeholder Power/Interest Grid - Monitoring 63
CHAPTER 5
Project Integration 65
5.1 Introduction 65
5.2 Project Charter 67
5.3 Organizational Process Assets (OPA) 69
5.3.1 Case Study for Design Review as an OPA 69
5.4 TGR/TGW (Lessons Learned Database) 72
5.5 Engineering Change Management 74
5.5.1 Engineering Change Management as
a Line of Defense 75
References 75
viii Contents
CHAPTER 6
Project Scope Development 77

6.1 Introduction to Scope Planning and Development 77
6.2 Scope Planning and the Scope Management Plan 78
6.2.1 PM: Account Manager Project Transition Meeting 78
6.2.2 Automotive Project Contracting and Technical
Feasibility Assessment 80
6.2.3 Basic Contract Types Used in Automotive Scope
Development 81
6.2.3.1 PRODUCT Scope Definition Documents 82
6.2.3.1.1 Requirements and Traceability Matrix (RTM) 82
6.2.3.1.2 Product Definition Specification (PDS) 82
6.2.3.1.3 Statement of Requirements (SOR) 82
6.2.3.1.4 Statement of Work (SOW) 82
6.2.3.2 Letter of Intent–Letter of Agreement (LOI/A) 83
6.2.3.3 Relationship between Statement of Work (SOW) and
Statement of Requirements (SOR) 84
6.2.3.4 Case Study: Contrasting Use of the SOR versus SOW 85
6.2.3.4.1 Customer SOR 85
6.2.3.4.2 SOW Statement 85
6.2.3.4.3 WBS (Individual Task Statements) 85
6.2.3.4.4 SOW Statement 86
6.2.3.4.5 Individual Task Statements (WBS) 86
6.3 Detailing the Scope—Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 87
6.3.1 WBS Definition 87
6.3.2 WBS Purpose and Advantages 87
6.3.3 WBS Structure and Types 87
6.3.3.1 PRODUCT WBS 88
6.3.3.2 Organizational WBS (OWBS) 90
6.3.3.3 Hybrid WBS 91
6.3.3.4 Phase WBS 91
6.3.4 WBS Decomposition 92
6.3.5 WBS Levels 92
6.3.6 WBS Work Package Size 92
6.3.7 Assignment of WBS to Project Team Personnel 93
6.3.8 WBS: Additional Considerations 93
6.4 Scope Validation 94
6.5 Monitoring and Control of Project Scope Changes 94
References 97
CHAPTER 7
Design Review Process for Mobility 99

7.1 Introduction 99
7.1.1 Defining the Design Review Process 99
7.1.2 Why Have Design Reviews? 100
Contents ix
7.1.2.1 Customer and/or QMS Requirement 101

7.1.2.2 Low Cost Insurance Against Product Liability 101
7.1.2.3 Knowledge Transfer Leading to Best Practices 102
7.1.3 Design Review Process as Risk Management 102
7.1.4 Design Review Planning, Protocol,
and Roles 104
7.1.5 Design Reviews: Categories 106
7.1.5.1 Peer Reviews 106
7.1.5.2 Technical Design Review 107
7.1.5.3 Phase or Gate Review 107
7.1.5.4 Executive Review 109
7.1.6 Design Reviews: Types and Timing 109
7.1.6.1 SRR—System Requirements Review 110
7.1.6.2 PAO or Project Kick-Off Meeting 111
7.1.6.3 CDR: Critical Design Review 111
7.1.6.4 TRR: Test Readiness Review 111
7.1.6.5 PRR: Production Readiness Review 112
7.2 Case Study Design Review Issue: Challenger Mission 112
References 114
CHAPTER 8
Identifying and Managing Costs/Procurement

and Supplier Quality 115
8.1 Introduction and Overview 115
8.2 Cost Management Plan 117
8.2.1 Develop Project Cost Mapping 117
8.2.2 Selection and Administration of Supplier Contracts 118
8.2.2.1 Factors to Consider in Determining the Type of
Contract 119
8.2.2.2 Categories of Contracts 119
8.2.2.3 Sub-Categories of Contracts Specifically Used
in Automotive 119
8.2.2.3.1 Letter of Intent/Agreement (LOI/LOA) 119
8.2.2.3.2 Statement of Requirements (SOR) 120
8.2.2.3.3 Engineering Statement of Work (ESOW) 120
8.2.2.3.4 Special Case Contracts—BPA and BOA 120
8.2.3 Closing Thoughts on Contract Selection 121
8.3 Cost Estimation 122
8.4 Determination of Project Budget 123
8.5 Control of Project Costs 125
8.5.1 Documenting Cost Management 125
8.5.1.1 Project Budget Report Form 125
8.5.1.2 PM Dashboards 125
x Contents
CHAPTER 9
Communication Management 129

9.2 Case Study 130
9.3 Communication Planning 132
9.3.1 Inputs to Communication Planning 133
9.3.2 Outputs to Communication Planning 133
9.3.2.1 Communication Management Plan 133
9.3.2.2 Stakeholder Register and Engagement Matrix 134
9.3.2.3 Special Considerations for Communication Security 134
9.4 Managing Communications 135
9.5 Controlling and Monitoring Communications 136
9.5.1 The Four Areas to Monitor and Control 136
9.5.2 Hard vs Soft Communication – the Push – Pull System 137
9.5.3 Engineering Change Management (ECM) 137
CHAPTER 10
Human Resource Management 139

10.2 Organization Structures 139
10.2.1 Classical or Line Staff 140
10.2.2 Matrix 141
10.2.3 Projectized or Silo Structure 143
10.2.3.1 Spider Web 144
10.3 Acquiring and Staffing the Resources 145
10.3.1 Availability and Proficiency Matrix 146
10.3.1.1 Data Driven Request for Resources 148
10.3.2 Typical Automotive Project Team Makeup 149
10.3.2.1 PRE and POST Core Team 149
10.3.2.2 Account Manager to PM Transition Meeting Guidelines 150
10.4 Organizing the Project Team and Establishing Performance
Metrics 153
10.4.1 Roles and Responsibilities Matrix (RASI) 153
10.4.2 Establishing Team Performance Metrics 155
10.4.2.1 Team-Based Metrics 155
10.4.2.2 Individual-Based Metrics 155
10.5 Managing the Project Team 157
10.5.1 Understanding the Difference Between Leadership
and Management 157
10.5.2 Understanding the Management Continuum 158
10.5.3 159
10.5.4 Creating and Documenting Methods of Motivation 160
References 161
Contents xi
CHAPTER 11
Project/Product Risk Management 163

11.1 Introduction to Risk Management and Product Liability 163
11.2 Historical Background for Product Risk Management 164
11.3 Categories of Product Liability 165
11.4 Communication Protocols for Product Liability 166
11.5 Product Liability Terms 166
11.5.1 General Product Liability Terms 166
11.5.2 Automotive Specific Product Liability Terms 168
11.6 Project Team Responsibility with Regard to Product Liability 169
11.7 Risk Management in PMBOK 171
11.7.1 The Risk Management Plan (RMP) 171
11.7.1.1 Critical Risk Assessments During Scope Development 171
11.7.2 Risk Identification and Analysis—Basic but Effective
Methods 172
11.7.2.1 Product Risk Analysis Techniques 173
11.7.2.1.1 Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) 173
11.7.2.1.2 FMEA 173
11.7.2.1.3 Hazards Operability Analysis (HAZOP) 174
11.7.2.1.4 Case Study—Applying the FMEA and HAZOP
Process to an Automobile Battery 175
11.7.2.2 Project Risk Analysis Techniques 175
11.7.2.2.1 Checklists 175
11.7.2.2.2 Pros and Cons of Checklists 176
11.7.2.2.3 Case Study for Lessons Learned—ECM Checklist
Linkage Example 176
11.7.2.2.4 Risk Register and Quadrant Mapping 178
11.7.2.2.5 Probability–Impact Matrix (P–I Matrix) 180
11.7.3 Risk Response Planning 181
11.7.3.1 Risk Response Strategies 181
11.7.3.2 Risk Response Opportunities 182
11.7.4 Risk Control 183
11.7.4.1 Typical Risk Control Formats for Automotive 183
11.7.4.1.1 Comparison of Problem Solving Methods for Risk 183
11.7.4.1.2 Methods to Evaluate Risk Strategy Alternatives 184
11.7.4.1.3 Expected Value Matrix (EVM) 185
11.7.4.1.4 Production, Pre-Launch, and Prototype Control Plan 188
11.7.5 Writing Effective Corrective Action Statements 189
CHAPTER 12
Automotive Advanced Product Quality

Planning 191
12.1 APQP: Introduction 191
12.2 APQP: Background 193
xii Contents
12.3 APQP: Overview 194

12.3.1 Who Is Involved in APQP? 194
12.3.2 When Is APQP Applied? 195
12.3.3 Document Deployment of APQP 195
12.4 Phase-by-Phase Review of APQP 196
12.4.1 Concept Phase 196
12.4.1.1 Quantify Preliminary Voice of the Customer
Requirements 196
12.4.1.2 Establish Preliminary Targets and System Level Special
(Key) Characteristics 197
12.4.1.2.1 Special (KEY) Characteristics (SC) System 197
12.4.1.3 Identify Suitable Historical Product(s) 198
12.4.1.4 Conduct an Initial Assessment of Project
Feasibility and Risk 198
12.4.1.5 Investigate New Product Design and Processing
Technology 199
12.4.1.6 Identify All High-Risk Sub-Suppliers 199
12.4.1.6.1 Determine Product Confidentiality Requirements 200
12.4.2 Program Approval Phase 200
12.4.2.1 PROJECT Level Tasks 201
12.4.2.1.1 PRODUCT Level Tasks 201
12.4.3 Prototype Phase 202
12.4.4 Pilot Phase 203
12.4.5 Launch Phase 205
CHAPTER 13
Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) 207

13.1 PPAP: Overview 207
13.2 PPAP: Background 208
13.3 PPAP: Purpose 209
13.3.1 Purpose of Run @ Rate 210
13.3.2 Timing of the RUN @ RATE or LINE RATE Event 211
13.4 Know Your OEM Contacts for PPAP 211
13.4.1 CUSTOMER Design Release
Engineer/Lead Design Engineer 211
13.4.2 The OEM Level Purchasing Agent 212
13.4.3 Customer SQA/STA 212
13.5 Categories Requiring PPAP Submission 213
13.5.1 When a Formal PPAP Submission is Required 213
13.5.2 Situations When the Customer Should Be Notified 214
13.5.3 Special Case PPAP Submission 214
13.5.4 Situations Where Customer Notification or PPAP
Submission is Not Typically Required 215
Contents xiii
13.6 PPAP Submission Levels 215

13.6.1 Level 1 PPAP Submission 215
13.6.4 Submission Status 216
13.7 PPAP Record Retention Requirements 217
13.8 Discussion of Individual PPAP Requirements 218
13.8.1 Design Records 218
13.8.1.1 Saleable Product 218
13.8.1.2 What is “Black Box”? 219
13.8.1.2.1 A. Black Box 219
13.8.1.2.2 B. White Box 219
13.8.1.2.3 C. Gray Box 219
13.8.1.3 What is the Structure of a Design Record
FILE? 219
13.8.2 Qualified Laboratory Documentation 222
13.8.3 Appearance Approval Report (AAR) 222
13.8.4 Sample Product Versus Master Sample 222
Appendix A: Template for the Statement of Work (SOW)

Document 225
Appendix B: Sample Project Charter 237
Appendix C: CMP Sample 243
Appendix D: Requirements Traceability Matrix Sample 249
Appendix E: Design Review Types 253
About the Author 265
Index 267
foreword
One only needs to scan the shelves of most bookstores and will find there quite a few
textbooks that offer the generic “what” and “why” of Project Management (PM). This
handbook, however is meant to build on those generic techniques and tailor them to
the particularities of the Mobility Industry. The intended audience is the product or
design engineer with about 2-3 years of experience in the Mobility Industry, or a project
manager, design engineer, or manufacturing engineer who is new to this Industry. The
APQP and PPAP processes, which are central to the Mobility Industry, and specifically
the Automotive Industry, present unique challenges many of which do not become
truly apparent until the project manager or engineer experiences a complete project
life cycle, that is, from concept through production. The principles that will be presented
here are basic PM principles adapted to address the particularities of the Mobility
Industry. My experience as an engineer and project manager in the Department of
Defense (DoD) provided me a solid foundation in the operating principles of PM. When
I transitioned to Supplier Development for a large OEM responsible for managing and
developing suppliers to meet the rigors of the APQP and PPAP processes, I quickly
realized I was not prepared for flexibility and pace that PM is applied at the Automotive
(OEM) level. The methodologies, the terminology, and mainly the pace of the Automotive
Industry are distinct and unique. This handbook therefore is meant as a guide and a
template from lessons learned during seemingly endless days and nights in an Original
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) plant during a production launch ramp-up, cleaning
up problems that should have been solved at the design phase, or more correctly the
quote phase. Or knowing that a supplier will not be paid for large portions of the extra
“scope” they have done since the engineering change requests were not properly
processed. Add to this the fact that many automotive projects provide the supplier
with vague and constantly changing scope of work, which must be delivered against
often unrealistic schedules.
Having worked on a wide range of products and customers from weapon system
programs for DoD to automotive programs for major automotive OEMs, I have had
the opportunity to see first hand excellent PM accomplished by both large companies
(>1000 employees through small companies (<50 people). In both cases, PM was not
just about proper application of sound methods and techniques, but also about knowing
which tasks and techniques to apply and when is the right time to apply them and how
to “right size” these techniques for the size of the company, the size of the project, and
the profit margin desired. Good project managers are able to manage the project team.
Great PMs can also manage the organization they work for, the supply base and the
customer. They are adept at understanding evolving customer needs and are able to
guide them to the best solutions for the particular challenge. They are then able to
clearly and effectively communicate these needs and solutions to the appropriate project
persons in a timely fashion with feedback back to the customer.
The techniques presented in this handbook are based in the traditional principles
of PM presented in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) as published
by the Project Management Institute (PMI), which is globally recognized as the standard
for PM. The PMBOK presents ten distinct Bodies of Knowledge each of which any project
©2020 SAE International xv

xvi Foreword
manager should address during the course of any project. This handbook addresses each
of these Bodies of Knowledge from a Mobility perspective using techniques and docu-
mentation directly relevant to PM in the Mobility Industry. Each topic covered will
be addressed from the perspective of the Project Manager and his or her core membership
of the product development team, engineering, manufacturing, quality, human resources,
testing, purchasing, and the supplier. In addition, practical examples of learned concepts
will be presented and these will correlate directly to useable templates that can be incor-
porated and adapted for use within an organization.
Throughout this textbook I will use certain terms that have a particular meaning
within the automotive industry that might be different in other industries. The glossary
in Appendix A provides definitions for these terms and also provides a list of acronyms
unique to this industry. However, there are four terms I wish to define now that I will
use throughout this textbook and that have changed in meaning with the new edition
of the IATF-16949 specification:
Consumer: this refers to the end user of the product. This would be the operator
of the vehicle or equipment.
Customer: this refers to the OEM from where the final end product will
be delivered to the consumer. Examples would include FORD, GM,
Freightliner, John Deere, etc.
Organization: this is the company or the manufacturer that is providing
subsystems or subassemblies to the OEM for assembly into the final end item
or system. This company supplies products or services directly to the OEM.
Typically, the term refers to a company that has the capability to design,
develop, prototype, test, and manufacture the specific subsystem or
subassembly and is typically designated as the Tier 1 supplier.
Supplier: this refers to any company that is providing subsystems, subassemblies,
components, or raw materials to an organization (i.e., a Tier 2 and below).
These are lower-level tier suppliers and are fully capable of manufacturing the
product but do not necessarily have the capability to design or test their
product at the level required by the automotive industry.
1
CHAPTER 1
C H A P T E R
Project versus Program

Management
1.1 D
efining Project Success
for Mobility-Based Projects
The best place to begin when speaking about Mobility-Based projects such as Automotive
or Truck industries is to understand what this customer, that is, the Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM), views as the factors that define delivery of a successful project.
For traditional project-based companies, success is measured by things such as
1. On-time delivery of product
2. Minimal scope change
3. Project costs within the proposed budgets
These are classic Constraint Triangle factors (see Figure 1.1). With respect to on-time
delivery, in most Mobility industries and certainly in the automotive world, final delivery
of the contracted product is almost always a fixed date, meaning that a production vehicle
has an established launch date which is considered the start of vehicle production often
referred to as Start of Production (SOP), Job 1 (J1) or Full Scale Production (FSP). This
date is defined at the beginning of the vast majority of Mobility projects and unlike
construction, aerospace, or weapon systems would not be adjusted except in the case of
safety or legal issues. Even then, there have been cases where safety or legal issues were
discoverd prior to production launch and the timing of the product launch did not change.
Saleable vehicles were produced and distributed only to have Safety Recall Campaigns
issued at some later date, causing legal and financial repercussions all the way through
the supply chain. Excluding these rare scenarios, suppliers to a Mobility customer are
expected to manage the project life cycle to meet a fixed production launch date.
©2020 SAE International 1

2 Project Management for Mobility Engineers: Principles and Case Studies
FIGURE 1.1 On-time delivery is made much more complex since the
vast majority of automotive projects violate the second factor
minimal scope change. Most automotive projects today operate
from the viewpoint of an evolving design based on factors such
as emerging market trends, updates to Federal and State regula-
© SAE International. All rights reserved

tions such as emissions and safety goals, and advanced tech-
nology, which, at times, does not always prove out. The automo-
tive project manager is often faced with a wave of ongoing scope
changes with, some suppliers processing in excess of 80 engi-
neering changes per day. Any one of the factors listed could
result in a delay, which, if not anticipated with a robust risk
management plan, would (not could) lead to a total inability to
deliver the desired end product, resulting in significant cost
penalties in rework, revalidation testing, and expedited shipping
charges. In this respect, automotive suppliers, namely Tier 1, are in the unique situation
that they must be extremely adept at managing their customers so as to anticipate and
control excessive scope change. This topic of Customer Management will be addressed
in Chapter 6 Project Scope Management.
Lastly, from a budget perspective, automotive project success, unlike traditional
projects, is also determined by postproduction or out-year cost savings. This is similar
to the concept of VA/VE used on many Government projects which obligates the
supplier to incorporate future “value-added” technology for the ongoing improve-
ment of the product. Normally, these costs can be recouped by the supplier. The
automotive industry has transformed VA/VE into what is commonly termed the
“giveback” program, which decrements the out-year price to be paid for each product
delivered by a set percentage schedule. An example would be a 3% decrement of
piece-price for the second year after full-scale production, then 2%, 1%, and 1% for
the years following the first decrement. It is important to note however that these
costs are typically not reimbursed and will be recoverd from the supplier regardless
of their ability to generate engineering or manufacturing saving to offset these decre-
ments. Suppliers who do not plan accordingly during the product development process
can face the situation where the project comes in at budget but the out-year losses
make it unprofitable. This is one of the reasons why Lean Manufacturing became so
popular since the easiest place to obtain these savings was from improvement to the
assembly or production processes. However, now that most suppliers are fully “lean,”
these cost savings opportunities have mostly dried up. Additional saving must come
upstream of the production process. These upstream opportunities to reduce product
cost are mostly present in the Design and Development phase which occurs prior to
Prototype and includes:
•• Reducing waste and unnecessary design change iterations in the product

development life cycle
•• Add value to the customer’s product specification in areas that the OEM is willing
to pay for
True cost reduction happens through a thorough and effective application of both
Product Design (Robustness methods) and Project Management (PMBOK) principles.
Robust Product Development includes identification of manufacturing improvement
opportunities coupled with product design improvements.
CHAPTER 1
1.2 Issues Facing the Automotive Product Manager and the Project Manager 3
Finally it should be understood that project management implemented in a “top

down” approach by an executive level or consultant based initiative is rarely successful
as this provides some short term benefits but ends up becoming either a program of the
month or a bureaucratic overlay on top of work already being done by the organization.
Once the organizational culture understands how PM can benefit their organization,
they are in a better position to accept and adopt those principles.
1.2 I ssues Facing the Automotive

Product Manager and the
Project Manager
At the OEM and Tier 1 level Project Management operates in a traditional manner where
Product Design Engineering is separate from Project Management and each are full-time
roles. However, in the vast majority of Tier 2 and below suppliers, for reasons of main-
taining a lean workforce, the role of Project Manager is typically combined with the role
of Product Engineer or Manager. This position is often labeled Design Release Engineer
or Lead Product Engineer, which means that one individual is responsible to not only
ensure that the product is designed and tested correctly, both for functionality and for
ease of manufacture, but is also responsible for administrative issues (i.e., Project
Management issues) such as managing resources assigned to the project, maintaining
project schedules, engineering change management, conduct of Design and Phase (Gate)
reviews, and maintaining project documentation. In effect this person is responsible to
manage the entire Constraint Triangle (Figure 1.1). Most often, the leader of the engi-
neering project team (henceforth referred to as the Product Development Team—PDT)
has the skill set to engineer a successful product (the “performance” piece of the Constraint
Triangle), but is not skilled in advanced-level application of PM techniques (the “Time”
and “Cost” piece of the Constraint Triangle). This inability to successfully manage the
traditional PM aspects of a project adversely impacts the Team Leader’s (TL) ability to
properly manage the design process, especially in cases where the engineering scope of
the project is evolving and changing. Figure 1.2 highlights some of the challenges facing
the PDT from a project perspective, while Figure 1.3 highlights product-level issues
typical to many automotive-based projects. Each of these issues will be discussed in
further detail in the subsequent chapters.
At its core, Project Management is fundamentally the identification and management
of uncertainty (i.e., risk management) while balancing the Constraint Triangle to mitigate
the effects of that uncertainty. This is one of the most underdeveloped areas of automotive
project management, that is, a lack of sophistication in the application of sound risk
management techniques, both from a product and project perspective. Supplier risk
management, when performed in a subjective manner using input only from subject
matter experts without formal data, often fails to ensure that the full range of potential
product and project risks have been considered and properly addressed. While input
from Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) is important, their knowledge and experience needs
to be transferred and maintained in a retrievable format available to the organization.
This is vital to the organization since “company knowledge belongs to the company.”
Subsequent chapters will present some of the more essential techniques
for capturing this information.
FIGURE 1.2 Project Management Process.

FIGURE 1.3 Quality Functional Deployment Matrix.
1.3 Defining the Automotive Project

The opening chapter of PMBOK asks the question, “What is a Project?” The answer
given is as follows:
A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,
service, or result. The temporary nature of projects indicates that a project has a
definite beginning and end.
One word stands out as very important within the context of an automotive project
and this word is “temporary.” PMBOK goes on to define “temporary” as that which has a
definite beginning and end. In any industry, including the automotive, this temporary nature
is essential as the project team, at some point, MUST be released from project responsibility
CHAPTER 1
1.3 Defining the Automotive Project 5
so that they can move on to future projects. Without this release, the PDT is constantly at
the beck and call of the Production group. Since the PDT has not been formally released,
Production sees them as “production employees” available to assist in solving production-
level issues, which robs the PDT of the ability to dedicate the appropriate amount of time
to future projects. The limited amount of time translates into rushed designs, poor imple-
mentation of design for manufacture and assembly improvements, improper design veri-
fications, and lack of complete and well-documented design reviews, all of which dramati-
cally impacts future Engineering Research & Development (ER&D) as well as identification
of and consideration of VA/VE improvements for OEM giveback programs.
As was previously mentioned for most military programs, project timing is not as
“fixed” as in the mobility industry, so there is usually the ability to delay the production
launch date to ensure that all design issues are properly addressed and validated. For
military programs a fully functional and operational system is of primary importance,
above and beyond the delivery date. In the case of commercial mobility items such as
automobiles, trucks, snowmobiles, ATVs, etc, there are dealers waiting to fill customer
pre-orders so on-time delivery becomes paramount. It is therefore essential that an orga-
nization supplying subsystems and components to this market recognizes the importance
of the PMOK definition of the temporary nature of a project and establishes procedures
that formalize the release of the PDT to allow full scale production to begin. This then
leads to the next obvious question; “So, when should the PDT be released?” While each
organization is unique, a general definition of when to release the PDT is as follows:
Release of a project from Engineering (PDT) to Production ownership occurs

when the all project risks are mitigated to within the level of control of the organi-
zational Quality Management System (QMS).
This definition can be clarified by defining the term QMS. The vast majority of
suppliers to Mobility OEMs have some form of Quality Management System (QMS),
which are governed or certified to a particular quality standard that defines the policies
and procedures for day-to-day operation of all functional areas, such as Engineering,
Production, Purchasing, etc. In the past, this was QS-9000 but has now become either
ISO-9001 or IATF-16949 [1]. These standards “define” the processes of each of the func-
tional areas of the organization as it relates to the development and delivery of a product.
Each of these functional areas has the capability to manage certain risks associated with
a product development effort.
Project Management is required when the risks associated with the development of a
particular product are beyond the capabilities of the functional areas in the organization’s
QMS. An example of this would be the customer’s desire for a supplier to explore the
feasibility of using an alternate material, such as composites. In this example the assump-
tion is that the organization’s QMS is set up to design and develop steel and aluminum
products but has no expertise in composite design. The risk of a successful composite design
is outside the capabilities of the current QMS and therefore Project Management would
be instituted, temporarily, to build this capability. This might include the PDT contracting
several composite design engineers along with a composite manufacturing engineer who
can provide information on tooling and assembly methods and a test engineer to assist in
drafting a verification and validation test program for the composite project. At some point
in this development effort, the PDT would mitigate the project risks to a level that is
manageable by the organizational QMS. This could mean that the organization hires the
composite engineers into their engineering and manufacturing groups as a new capability
and the composites test engineer trains the existing Test Lab supervisor on test methods
and equipment particular to composites. Just prior to the Production Launch Ramp-up
FIGURE 1.4

event, the PDT and the Production representative would jointly review the remaining risks
and determine if these risks are within the control of the QMS. If not, then the PDT would
be retained until such time as these risks are properly mitigated. If on the other hand the
risks are determined to be within the capability of the QMS system then project responsi-
bility transfers to the organizational QMS and the PDT is disbanded to work on other
projects. Note that the PDT would continue to be an informational and historical resource
but no longer has primary responsibility for risk management and validation.
This definition and example help to answer another question that plagues automotive
suppliers: “How do we decide when Project Management (PM) should be implemented?”
The answer then is clear: when the QMS cannot adequately manage the project risks.
This means that implementation of PM is dependent upon the capabilities of the organi-
zational QMS. Identification of specific project risks that are not within the capability of
the QMS allows surgical assignment of PDT members with skill sets in these “gap” areas.
Figure 1.4 provides a graphic representation of this process. Notice that ALL projects
are subject to the “QMS test” and then PM is applied appropriately based on the risks
to the QMS system.
1.4 B
eginning and End of the
Automotive Project
So, this now brings us back to the original definition of a “project.” Recall that the defini-
tion of temporary was “a definite beginning and end.” In the automotive industry, this
“beginning and end” is composed of several distinct steps and associated d ocumentation.
Both beginning and end are phases of the Product Realization (or Development) Process
(PRP). The most common automotive PRP is the 5-Phase Advanced Product Quality
Planning Process (APQP) [2]. While we will discuss the specifics of each of these five
phases later, suffice it for now that we focus on this first phase that begins the PRP, the
Concept phase. The Concept phase comprises all the work done in preparation of
the Product Specification that will form the basis of the contract between the OEM and
the organization. The closing event of the Concept phase is the award of the contract.
CHAPTER 1
1.5 “Beginning” Documentation Requirements for an Automotive Project 7
1.5 “
Beginning” Documentation
Requirements for an Automotive
Project
The minimum mandatory documents that define the beginning of most automotive
project include:
1. Some type of Contract
2. Feasibility Assessment (engineering, manufacturing, and test)
3. System level FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis)
4. Quality Functional Deployment (QFD) Matrix (strongly suggested, but
not required)
5. Project Charter
1.5.1 Contract
While there are many contractual formats, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 8
Identifying and Managing Cost, the most common in the automotive industry
are the Engineering Statement of Work (ESOW), the Letter of Intent or Agreement (LOI/
LOA), and the Purchase Order (PO). A PO is an example of a contract issued when the
project is within the capabilities of the organizational QMS and does not require application
of formal PM since these are typically products from the organization’s catalog of existing
products. This contractual relationship represents the lowest risk to the supplier and the
greatest risk to the customer since the customer is agreeing to pre-established specifications.
An example of this would be a customer who orders standard electrical switches.
If the customer wants to modify the existing product to meet some new design
requirements, then this would take the form of an ESOW. The ESOW is a combination
of two specifications: a Statement of Requirements (SOR), which details the performance
requirements such as design functionality, test requirements, and prototyping sequence,
and a Statement of Work (SOW), which details project requirements such as timing,
delineation of Customer and Organization responsibilities, and documentation require-
ments. An example of this would be a customer who wants to modify the supplier’s
standard electrical switch to meet new design requirements (a sample outline for a typical
ESOW is provided in Appendix A). This contractual relationship represents a balance
of risk between the supplier and the customer.
The LOI/LOA is used in situations where the design details are vague or new tech-
nology is being implemented in the area of design, manufacturing, or both. LOI/LOAs
are used in many Research and Development projects, Next Generation market trends,
or emerging or stretch goals to meet updated vehicle regulations. If properly addressed,
the LOI/LOA can provide the highest degree of profit margin, as compared to a PO or
ESOW. However, due to the vague nature of the LOI/LOA, this type of contract can present
significant financial risks to the organization if not properly evaluated. These types of
agreements should therefore be reviewed by the legal department of the organization prior
to contract signature to provide language that limits the financial risks presented by this
type of contract. An example of this would be a customer who has a need for some type
of switch design that includes self-monitoring and self-maintaining functionality and
must be able to automatically reroute electrical paths based on user inputs. This would
certainly exceed the requirements of a standard switch PO and also goes beyond simple
adjustments to the standard switch design ESOW. In fact, this capability to design a radi-
cally new switch may be beyond the technical and manufacturing capabilities of the
standard switch supplier and might require a joint venture with a more experienced
supplier(s).
In the case of either an LOI/LOA or an ESOW the application of some degree of
formal PM would be necessary to ensure both design and project success, in terms of
achievement of customer requirements and profitability.
1.5.2 Feasibility Assessment

This is an assessment by the organization of both its Engineering and Manufacturing
capability to design, develop, test, and manufacture the product. While each OEM has
their own specific format for feasibility evaluation, Figure 1.5 shows a typical generic
Feasibility Assessment (FA) which is similar to the feasibility assessment format developed
by the North American automotive OEMs, namely, Ford, GM, and Chrysler. One of the
purposes of this form is to aid the organization in answering the question of whether or
not formal PM is necessary and, if so, what depth of PM application is warranted, espe-
cially in the case of an ESOW or LOI/LOA. This feasibility assessment must be completed
prior to contract award to allow negotiations to resolve concerns that arise between the
customer and the organization. These concerns could include whether certain risks can
be mitigated within the organizational QMS capability, is the contract pricing balanced
against the stated requirement, is there a need for additional outside resources. In short,
is there enough information to allow for preparing a proper business case for accepting
the proposed contract. In this regard, the first two statements on the Feasibility Assessment
are critical.
1. Is product adequately defined to enable feasibility evaluation?

2. Can Engineering Performance Specifications be met as specified in the Request
for Proposal (RFP)?
The first statement is meant to determine if the information provided is adequate

to allow for an effective analysis of the technical feasibility of the design and manufacture
of the proposed product. In the case of the PO, the answer in the majority of cases is
YES, since it is the organization that is providing the technical details. For an ESOW,
there are specifications and information that need to be provided by the customer to
allow for an effective assessment. Cost and pricing information aside, this would include
all information regarding the operating parameters of the product. This is where the use
of a Parameter Diagram (P-Diagram) is essential since it identifies required inputs and
outputs, noise factors and allowable design freedom of the organization and can help
identify “gaps” in the customer specification. The P-Diagram will be discussed in detail
in Chapter 3 Robust Design Techniques.
Once these “gaps” in the customer provided specification are identified, the
organization can answer question number 2: Can the specification be met? The s pecification
gap is filled either through negotiating revised parameters with the customer or
presenting design assumptions that are within the technical feasibility of the o rganization
while still meeting the customer intent.
The importance of accurately completing the feasibility assessment prior to contract
award becomes clear since issues raised by either question can only be negotiated before
the customer specification becomes a legally binding contract.
CHAPTER 1
FIGURE 1.5 Generic TFC.

All too frequently the organization’s sales group will superficially review the FA
and every project gets the green light as “Feasible” without the Engineering group having
had the opportunity to adequately review the technical portion of the quote package.
It is then after the contract is signed, and the organization’s Engineering group has
had a chance to review the Tech Package portion of the RFQ, now become a signed
contract, that significant challenges become evident. The first course of action then by
the Engineering group is to ask the OEM for technical relief from, or provide alterna-
tives to, the existing risks revealed by the feasibility review. Often times the answer from
the customer is NO since these discussions are expected to occur during the negotiation
phase. This puts Engineering in the difficult position of having to devote an extensive
amount of engineering manhours to develop a workable solution which ultimately will
result in a profit margin well below what was originally promised by Sales.
While time constraints during the quoting process often make it is unreasonable to expect
the Engineering group to conduct a full technical analysis on every proposal that is presented
to the organization, it is reasonable for the Engineering group to provide Sales with a format
that identifies necessary product parameter limits that, if met, provide sufficient information
to design and produce a product that will meet the customer’s requirements while still within
the technical ability of the organization. The issue with the generic Feasibility Assessment
form is that it is too general and allows for a “feasible” sign-off without consideration of key
parameters. The Engineering group would be responsible to customize the TFC to reflect
parameter limitations specific to each product line. Quotes which do not provide these neces-
sary design parameters would automatically bring Engineering into the negotiation process
to determine what possible workaround plans there are for either a lack of specifications or
specifications that fall outside the organization’s technical limitations. Figure 1.6 is an example
of a modified TFC specific to a supplier of Engine Control Modules that could be used by the
supplier’s Sales group with discrete questions that address Engineering’s key concerns. This
could then be extended to include questions that reflect manufacturing, processing, and testing
concerns. Since in most cases a PM is not assigned until the contract is signed, Top Management
has the responsibility to ensure that Sales reviews proposals against those limits.
1.5.3 System Level FMEA

So where does the data for all of these concerns come from? Now we come to the impor-
tance and value of the System FMEA. While the FMEA process will be discussed in
Chapter 3, it is important to note the necessity of the organization to receive a copy of
the customer level system FMEA as it applies to the proposed subsystem or component
being contracted. In most cases when working with automotive suppliers, I find that a
good deal of the problems encountered during prototype and launches have their root
cause in not having the complete picture of the Voice of the Customer (VOC). When
asked how they obtained the customer requirements, oftentimes the Engineering group
did not request a copy of the customer level FMEA or the customer did not have a system
level FMEA available, which forced the PDT to assume many of the operational param-
eters of the design. Relying solely on the customer ESOW can be dangerous since often-
times the ESOW is developed as a cut-and-paste from a prior product line and can
be missing new design parameters. If a customer FMEA is not available, then the orga-
nization, especially if they are Design Responsible, has the obligation and responsibility
to request a meeting with the customer to, at a minimum, jointly review the Function
and Requirements columns of the DFMEA and compare that with the baseline project
scope (ESOW), updating the ESOW as necessary. This also ensures that when the feasi-
bility study is performed all applicable data can be analyzed.
CHAPTER 1
FIGURE 1.6 TFC specific to a Product Line.

FIGURE 1.7
1.5.4 QFD Matrix
The use of a Quality Functional Deployment Matrix, also
known as the House of Quality (Figure 1.7) is another
extremely valuable tool to help organize the complete VOC
and is especially effective when performed together with the
customer’s engineering and assembly personnel. Even if the
matrix is not fully completed, the QFD can partition out and
organize the customer “must have,” “wants,” and “nice to
have,” which can then be translated into the corresponding
Engineering Voice. This offers the PDT a significant amount
of information for weighing out and prioritizing design alter
natives and preparing a complete test program.
© SAE International. All rights reserved 1.5.5 Project Charter

The last item in the list of documents necessary to “begin” a
project is the Project Charter. All projects are made up of two
“contracts”. There is the external contract between the
customer and the organization, which we have already
discussed, and there is also an internal contract that exists
between the PDT and the organization. This contract is the
Project Charter which serves to outline the responsibilities of
the Project Team to the organization as well as the support
required from the organization to the Project Team to allow
them to accomplish the objectives of both customer and organization. Organizational
objectives include items such as target profit margin, appropriate use of given resources,
and repeat business, while organizational support includes providing the resources
necessary for the PDT to accomplish their goals, such as funding, personnel, equipment
for design, testing, and manufacture, and the authority to task those resources. These
provisions are detailed in the Project Charter, which is typically written by the Project
Manager (PM) but is signed by the Project Sponsor. A Project Charter template is
provided in Appendix B and will be discussed in Chapter 5 Project Integration.
1.6 “End” Documentation

Requirements for an
Automotive Project
With these five documents in hand, the PDT is well prepared to begin work. Now we can
turn our attention to the documentation that is required to “end” an automotive project.
These include the following:
1. The product that was originally contracted to the latest engineering
revision level
2. PPAP warrant with accompanying 17 documents as applicable
3. Lessons Learned Summary Report to include customer concerns and
supplier issues
4. (Internal) Financial Analysis (not covered in this handbook)
CHAPTER 1
1.6 “End” Documentation Requirements for an Automotive Project 13
1.6.1 Product
While this seems simple enough, there are some points to consider here. The delivery
of the product typically takes several iterations. The first “product” is the technical
data package delivered to the customer in the second phase of APQP, Program Approval.
This contains specifications, drawings, GD&T profile outline, and data from simulation
studies, and possibly very early concept-based prototypes such as development or test
mules and Alpha and Beta Builds. The next product is the delivery of an actual prototype
that represents a working model which will be evaluated for functional performance and
for assembly trials both at the organization and at the customer plant. While more and
more customers are opting for fewer actual prototypes and more proof of principle through
simulation modeling, it seems that having actual prototypes to evaluate potential produc-
tion and processing issues will continue, at least for the time being.
1.6.2 PPAP
PPAP is an acronym that stands for Production Part Approval Process and is particular
to the automotive industry. Some customers use the term PAP (Part Approval Process);
however, this term does not capture the essence of what every automotive OEM
requires, which is approval of a production level part. Although PPAP was originally
created by Ford, GM, and Chrysler under the auspices of the Automotive IndustryAction
Group (AIAG), many other OEMS such as Truck Industry, Recreational Vehicles,
Agricultural and Mining are adopting this standard either in full or in part. Excluding
industries such as Medical Devices, Pharmaceutical, and Aerospace, the PPAP is one
of the best and most comprehensive processes in industry today for ensuring that
the delivered product will meet the contracted requirements. The PPAP has two
simple objectives:
1. Documented evidence that all CUSTOMER Engineering design records and
specification requirements are properly completed by the organization
2. Documented evidence that the organization’s production process has the
potential to produce a product that consistently meets all quality and
performance requirements during an actual production run at the quoted
production rate
Application of PPAP as well as a detailed review of each of the 18 elements of the

PPAP will be presented in Chapter 13; however, it is beneficial to present here several
potential pitfalls with respect to the PPAP that many PDTs fall into when preparing for
a PPAP review. Failure to successfully achieve full PPAP approval from the OEM directly
impacts the PDTs’ ability to “end” the project.
1.6.2.1 THEY BEGIN THE PROCESS TOO LATE

The expectation for most automotive OEMs is that at least a 50% of the required PPAP
documents should be available at the time that the quote package is returned to the
customer. Certainly, they do not expect the final version of the required documents but
typically new products are, to some extent, carryover designs modified from existing
models. The presence of certain PPAP documents as part of the quote package, such as
Design and Process FMEA, Test Plan (DVP&R), Process Flow Diagram, and Prototype
Control Plans modified from existing similar designs indicates that the supplier has a
viable and retrievable design documentation history from which to form a solid founda-
tion to build the proposed design. As the project moves forward, these PPAP documents
will continue to be updated reflecting more and more the final design. In this way, by
the time the PPAP is due it will be a simple process to ensure that all documentation is
present rather than trying to accurately produce these documents at the last minute.
1.6.2.2 T HE DELIVERED PRODUCT IS NOT A FULLY

PRODUCTION INTENT PRODUCT
This most often is a failure on the part of the PDT to appreciate the definition of produc-
tion intent. If the product fails to meet all the contractual requirements and fails to achieve
full PPAP approval status, then in most cases the customer will issue an Interim PPAP
approval that allows the organization to ship product usually under some type of controlled
conditions until the product can receive full PPAP approval. Figure 1.8 is a graphical view
of the meaning of production intent in the form of a fishbone diagram. For each of these
elements, what is on the production floor must match what is reflected in the associated
PPAP documentation. A mismatch in any of these areas could lead to an Interim approval
status and it is this status that forces the PDT to retain ownership of the project until such
time as the Interim status can be removed. If the PDT does not push for this full approval
from the beginning of the project, then they will find themselves unable to disband and
work on future projects. For this reason the PM must be alert throughout the project life
cycle to continually determine the PPAP status of the product, especially in organizations
that do not view an interim PPAP status in a negative light.
1.6.2.3 L
ACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE TERM
“SALEABLE PRODUCT”
On page 4 of the AIAG PPAP manual is the following sentence:
The organization shall have the design record for the saleable product/part
including components or details of the saleable product/part.
The term “saleable product” permits the organization to make the determination
of what level of detail is necessary to release to the OEM. Many suppliers have proprietary
designs that represent a technological advantage, either in the product design or manu-
facturing process. Release of this information to unauthorized sources could cause
significant damage to the organization’s technical or manufacturing market advantage.
These proprietary design records could be in the form of either Black Box or Gray
Box designs.
Black Box refers to documentation that provides no knowledge of the internals of
the delivered product or system. Only the final assembly level is visible to the customer,
FIGURE 1.8 Elements of a Production Intent Product.

CHAPTER 1
1.7 Defining Project Management 15
whereas Gray Box refers to documentation that provides limited knowledge of the inter-
nals of the product or system and customer access is available only to certain portions
of the lower-level subsystem and component design details.
During the quote phase of a project, it is the responsibility of the organization to identify
what the disclosure level of the design record should be. Since the Sales group often does
not have the technical expertise to make this determination for all aspects of the project,
the Engineering group should have sign-off authority for determining what the disclosure
level will be for release of any design records outside of the organization. For the automotive
industry, most products are Gray Box in nature, which means that certain lower-level
subsystems and components are authorized for release while other levels are not. Once these
Black and/or Gray areas are identified, the PDT must ensure that all design documents,
especially those that form part of the PPAP package are marked accordingly. Of course, this
is not possible if the PDT at the onset of the project fails to communicate what is and is not
“saleable” product. Also, the PM should ensure that all those who are involved in the PPAP
process, especially the PPAP administration clerk, are aware of the company procedures for
distribution of documentation to avoid unauthorized release of sensitive information.
1.6.3 Lessons Learned (LL) Report

Most organizations have some way of documenting lessons learned. Most times however,
this process is not companywide and is at the discretion of the PDT. Most troublesome is
that lessons learned (LL) information is personal in nature, meaning that each engineer
keeps their own personal files. When a new project is initiated and the PDT requests lessons
learned data, they must find the particular engineer (s) who has this data and then sift
through unorganized design files. This causes problems in the organization when various
departments within the organization wish to input new concerns into the LL database or
wish to extract data from the LL database. In order to be effective an LL database must
meet five criteria: accessible to all authorized users, easy to use, accurate, current, and are
updated at the end of each project phase. The lessons learned database (TGR/TGW to use
the automotive nomenclature) will be discussed in Chapter 5 Integration Management.
1.7 Defining Project Management

According to PMBOK, Project Management is defined as:
Application of knowledge, skills, methods, tools, and techniques to meet

(dynamic and undeveloped) project requirements through continuous identifica-
tion, analysis, and mitigation of risk.
The core of Project Management is risk management. As was mentioned previously,

one area where the automotive supply chain, and to some extent the OEMs, are weak is a
lack of sophistication in the application of risk management techniques as they apply directly
to the APQP process. Risk management techniques for Design and Process Development
are very well developed in industries such as the Military Industrial Complex, Aerospace
Industry, and Medical Devices, meaning that product and project risks are both qualified
and quantified. However, the automotive industry tends to rely heavily on the use of checklists
and SME input, which, at best, provides a subjective assessment of risk and is most often
dependent on the experience of the PDT, which can vary greatly from one product to another.
Many of the methods, tools, and techniques used in traditional PM apply equally
to the automotive industry and will be presented in the applicable sections of this
textbook. However, we will also identify specific methods, tools, and techniques unique
to automotive projects. Most of these are traditional techniques with an automotive flair.
For example, under the area of Design Verification, DoD uses a process called TEMP
(Test and Evaluation Master Plan), which identifies all testing requirements and test
resources needed. Automotive uses an abbreviated form of this referred to as DVP&R
(Design Verification Plan and Report). Both of these processes provide similar informa-
tion with the same goal: to identify the testing requirements necessary to verify the
design against established customer requirements.
1.8 Project Management Models

Although the traditional form of project management, as defined in the PMI PMBOK,
will be the model presented in this text and is the most commonly used, there are several
other models that offer advantages not available in the traditional model. These include
AGILE and SCRUM [3], which, as the names imply, are more agile in their deployment
and are useful in situations where only near term level of effort is defined with no real
or complete definition of the overall end product. AGILE is popular for software devel-
opment and many Research & Development (R&D) projects.
1.9 Project Manager Competencies

As mentioned earlier, many automotive project managers working in the lower Tier
levels do not possess the skills or training necessary to successfully manage projects.
Their skills are typically limited to simple leadership and management training without
a formal and in-depth training of core Project Management techniques and processes,
nor are they kept up to date with emerging techniques. Figure 1.9 speaks to the
FIGURE 1.9 Project manager competencies.

CHAPTER 1
1.9 Project Manager Competencies 17
knowledge and skills that are minimally essential for the automotive project manager.
A quick look at these competencies reveals that these are not skill sets that one is “born
with.” Also, since most PMs in the automotive industry are selected from the ranks
of Engineering, many of these competencies, specifically performance and personal
are not part of the normal curriculum of study in a university engineering program.
This means that there must be a formal and dedicated process for selection of viable
candidates for PM positions.
Another area that is extremely weak in the automotive supply chain is a mentoring
program for young or new engineers transitioning into Project Management. This
can be done through a process of identifying required skill sets that aspiring PMs
must possess prior to being considered for a PM position. From a motivational stand-
point, this could be a guided program from which the candidate must achieve an
established competency level by acquiring specific skill sets. Once this is accomplished
they would serve under a mentor for some period of time or on a set number of
projects, each one having a complexity level greater than the last. This process avoids
much of what today passes for “training” in that the PDT randomly select their own
courses based on their own personal interests and miss important and essential topics
vital to effective Project Management.
Figure 1.10 is a sample of a simple Competency Matrix that identifies the skill sets
or competencies necessary to be considered for the indicated position. For example, in
order to be considered for the position of PM, the candidate must be proficient in
Automotive PM, DFM/DFA, PPAP, Lean Manufacturing, Engineering Change
Management (ECM), and DVP&R.
FIGURE 1.10 Competency training matrix.

1.10 G
overning Standards
for Automotive Project
Management
As with every industry, there are standards specific to Automotive. These standards are
both regulatory and industry based. For the automotive industry, products designed
and manufactured for the domestic (U.S.) market are regulated through both govern-
mental regulations (CFR Title 49, Parts 500–599, which include the Federal Motor Vehicle
(FMVSS) Standards) and industry standards regulated through ISO, PMI, SAE, AIAG,
and NIST. A basic list of these requirements includes the following [4]:
1. International ISO standards
a. ISO-9001:2015 – Quality Management System
b. IATF-16949:2016—Particular requirements for the application of ISO 9001
for automotive production and relevant service part organizations
c. ISO-17025—Operation and accreditations of testing and calibration systems
and laboratories
d. ISO-14001—Specifies the requirements of an environmental management
system (EMS) and provides a systemic approach to handling environmental
issues within an organization
2. Project Management
a. PMI Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)
3. Regulatory (United States only)
a. CFR Title 49, PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARDS
b. CFR Title 49, PART 576—RECORDS RETENTION
c. CFR Title 49, PART 577—DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE
NOTIFICATION
4. Automotive Specific (AIAG)
a. Advance Product Quality Planning & Control Plan (APQP)
b. Production Part Approval Process (PPAP)
c. Potential Failure Mode & Effects Analysis (FMEA)
d. Machinery FMEA
e. Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA)
f. Statistical Process Control (SPC)
g. Design Verification Plan & Report (DVP&R) - Validation and Verification
These standards offer only guidelines, and in the case of regulatory requirements—
mandates, for design, development, testing, and manufacture of automobiles and
related subsystems and components. While industry-specific, these standards are not
product-specific, which means each organization must develop and maintain policies
and procedures that are based on these standards but address the specific concerns of
the organization. Figure 1.11 shows the major industry standards which serve as key
inputs to developing specific organizational standards for Mobility Project Management.
PMBOK provides the outline for structuring Project Management within an organiza-
tion but is generic to all industries and does not provide sufficient details with regard
to product development life cycle for the Mobility Industry. The IATF standard and the
CHAPTER 1
1.10 Governing Standards for Automotive Project Management 19
© SAE International. All rights reserved FIGURE 1.11 Inputs to organizational standards.
APQP manual are the automotive “overlay” that provide these product development
details but do not address Project Management specific techniques and procedures. It
is therefore important to realize that none of these standards are sufficient in themselves
to provide a structure for Mobility Project Management but together form a complete
baseline from which an organizational-specific PM and product development policy
can be developed. When these standards are combined with organization-specific
Lessons Learned then the organization can create policies and procedures that follow
the guidelines of the industry standards but are customized to reflect the uniqueness of
the organization and its products. This is represented in Figure 1.12.
A simple example is the requirement to conduct design reviews. PMBOK and IATF
state that design reviews should be conducted and these standards provide some general
information regarding conduct and content of a design review.
While this provides a generic overview, it does not provide sufficient detail for
an automotive Product Engineer (PE) who is faced with conducting automotive level
design reviews. The APQP manual offers more details which the PE can use to
formulate his or her design review; however, this is still not specific enough to
conduct an effective design review since none of these standards are product-specific.
The organization could use these standards (PMBOK, IATF, APQP, etc.) as a frame-
work from which to develop a Design Review Structure. Then, taking lessons learned
from previous products with respect to design, manufacturing, and testing concerns,
FIGURE 1.12

create a product-specific design review templates that canned be used to conduct
design reviews that address risks specific to the product being developed (recall the
Team Feasibility forms presented earlier as an example of this process). Keep in
mind that these templates must be living documents that are updated with new
lessons learned from each product launch. Chapter 7 provides more details on the
type, format, and content of automotive design reviews.
References
1. While ISO-9001 is a globally recognized QMS standard, each country typically has
their own unique supplemental specifications such as VDA for Germany, JIT for
Japan, DOD-5000 for U.S. military equipment, and CMMI for Software Development.
2. The 5-Phase APQP process is the general standard for the automotive industry
although many automotive OEMs and suppliers use additional phases such as GM
VCS, FORD GPDS, Chrysler 7 Phase, or Freightliner 10 Step.
3. See Chapter 2 for more information on the AGILE and SCRUM process.
4. These requirements do not reflect country-specific requirements for offshore design,
testing, manufacture, and distribution, or the associated requirements for product
homologation.
C H A P T E R
2
Introduction to Project Management
CHAPTER 2
Body of Knowledge
2.1 Life Cycle Models

Project Management, in every scenario and industry, operates within larger life cycles,
mainly the life cycle of the Product and the life cycle of the Product Development Model.
These two life cycles are important to understand since the vast majority of the historical
PRODUCT information is obtained from information collected though analysis the life
cycle of the Product while the majority of PROCESS information is obtained through
collection and analysis of production lessons learned from similar products. Figure 2.1
graphically displays the relationship between the three (3) Life Cycles: Product, Product
Development, and Project Management. The Project Team, operating within the Project
Management life cycle, organizes the data from both these sources to develop a product
which meets the functional requirements, while at the same time, allows for maximizing
ease and speed of manufacturing without sacrifice to quality. The Project Management
Life Cycle is the structure by which the Project team will collect, assemble, and analyze
the historical product information which will then be used as a platform to design,
develop, test, and manufacture the current product. While the Product Life Cycle is the
same for any project or organization the Project and Project Management life cycles are
unique to each organization. It is therefore appropriate to become familiar with what
each phase of the product life cycle offers in terms of information and what are some
typical Product Development models used in Automotive Product Development.
Figure 2.2 shows a typical life cycle that a product would go through regardless of whether
it is or is not automotive related.
©2020 SAE International 21

FIGURE 2.1 Nested Project life cycles.

2.2 P
RODUCT Life
Cycle
2.2.1 Conceptual Phase

This phase typically operates outside the standard project
cycle (the second life cycle) and occurs as Research and
Development. This is where new technologies are being
explored, typically in conjunction with governmental,
university, or private sector subsidizes, for the purpose of
advancing next generation VOC or meeting stretch goals
for regulatory compliance. For suppliers to DoD this is
very well integrated with Project Management to translate
this exploratory work into actual profit generating projects
allowing for multiple profit streams. Many DoD suppliers
FIGURE 2.2 Product life cycle.
operate dual contracts; one for R&D for exploration and
proof of concept and a second which are for full scale
production programs for CAT I-IV systems. The
Automotive industry, specifically the supply base, does

not generally take advantage of this dual profit opportu
nity, however more importantly they miss the opportunity
to lead the effort in developing the next generation
customer Request for Proposals (RFPs) and rather are
reacting to specifications for subsystems to components
written by customers who often do not understand the
subsystem and component complexities and design
opportunities that are well understood by the supplier
from whom the subsystem or component is being sourced.
For the Automotive Industry this is the emerging concept
of Customer Management which will be covered in Chapter 5 Project Scope Development.
At a minimum, the Project Manager of an Automotive supplier needs to ensure that his
Project Team is reviewing and bringing forward any mature R&D opportunities that
can add value to the project, whether for enhancing VOC or for value-added giveback.
Even pre-mature products which show promise can be developed by the project team
for further development and testing as long as a parallel technology timeline is developed
in the event that the new technology does not pan out. In this way there is always a direct
link between ongoing R&D and production efforts and also ensures that the R&D group
understands their role within the organization and are developing products that are
actually capable of meeting the organization’s strategic goals.
2.2.2 Definition Phase

This phase is what the Automotive Industry refers to as the Advanced Product Quality
Planning phase. This phase typically begins with the organization’s review of customer
bids (RFPs) with a technology and manufacturing feasibility assessment and ends with
PPAP approval, Volume Rate study, and a transition, or “hand-off” from the Project
Team to the Launch Ramp-up Team at the Pilot Phase. The Definition phase is a formal-
ization of the concepts identified in the Conceptual Phase and includes the development
of product specification documents (of varying degrees of completeness), resourcing
2.2 PRODUCT Life Cycle 23
requirements, and volume and delivery requirements. The in-depth application of both
Project Management and APQP principles and techniques occurs throughout this phase.
Once the contract has been awarded a transition occurs between the Account
Manager and an appointed Project or Program Manager. For most Automotive suppliers
the PM is not assigned until after the contract has been secured so that the Account
Manager typically negotiates product and project details with the customer. This discon-
CHAPTER 2
nect has led to significant issues of proper and complete communication of the Voice of
the Customer to the organization’s design and manufacturing group and the true capa-
bilities of the supplier to the customer. This is why a robust Feasibility Assessment process
is vital to ensure that the design and manufacturing voice of the organization is repre-
sented during the initial and ongoing contract negotiations. Attempting to make clari-
fications and changes to the signed contract after the fact often leaves a supplier in the
position that they are unable to provide the promised deliverables which can result in
monetary losses due to breach of promise potential or worse, potential loss of future
business due to eroding confidence on the part of the customer.
The end of the Definition Phase is marked by the supplier obtaining formal customer
approval authorizing full scale production. This formal approval takes the form of a
supplier submittal of a complete PPAP documentation package and a demonstration of
their production capability through either a Line Rate or Run@Rate study. While this
process is well understood by the supplier, what is often not so well understood is the
supplier’s equal responsibility to obtain the same PPAP and Line Rate formal assessment
and approval from their suppliers. This is critical since many of the problems that occur
on the OEM production floor are a result of issues not from the direct Tier 1 supplier to
the OEM, but from component issues occurring at sub-tier levels of the supply base.
These sub-tier level suppliers typically do not have the same level of Quality Management
and Control that Tier 1 and 2 suppliers have. Due to this, the project team needs to
ensure that a proper evaluation and verification of the entire supply bases conducted
and approved prior to the completion of the Definition Phase; i.e. transition of the project
to the production plant. A review of evaluation and verification techniques will be covered
in detail in the chapter on APQP application.
2.2.3 Production Phase

With the successful demonstration of production capability the Production Phase begins
with full scale production of the product or products. At this point the focus is on continual
improvement of the production process. Information collected from this phase will provide
future project teams with information such as “infant mortality” failures, potential design
and process improvements, production level lessons learned from corrective action reports,
including issues with packaging, logistics, exporting requirements, and/or testing shortfalls
on the production floor. Another important source of information during this phase is an
assessment of the level of support needed by the customer from the supplier for effective
and timely support of customer level production concerns. These concerns include volume
fluctuations, equipment changeovers, modifications due to recalls or campaigns, etc. The
totality of this data is captured as part of a Post-Production Lessons Learned Review which
normally occurs 60-90 days after the start of full scale production with the Project and
Launch Teams. This allows time for the production process to stabilize and for data from
infant mortality failures to occur. This review provides a significant amount of product
and project data that will assist future project teams to improve future project plans and
identify sources of continuous improvement. This information provides opportunities for
the organization to provide future Value-Added measures when the OEM initiates the
previously mentioned “Giveback” program.
2.2.4 Operational Phase

This represents the “useful life” of the product since it is now in the hands of the desig-
nated End Users. Data from this phase includes warranty returns, field-level servicing
issues, safety recalls or technical service bulletins. The Mobility PM must ensure that
the organization has mechanisms in place to capture this operational data so that it can
be organized and analyzed and made available to future project teams in such a way that
they are aware of the current concerns regarding their product and the severity of the
specific concerns. This way the Project team is able to make valid risk assessments of
existing concerns allowing for competent decisions regarding project resource allocations.
2.2.5 Divestment Phase

Also known as the obsolescence phase or market decline, this phase is concerned with
obligations of the customer and the suppliers after the vehicle completes its full scale
production life cycle. This includes considerations such as recyclability and reclaimability
of products used in the automobile and are covered under the heading of Design for the
Environment. Today, with the focus on environmental issues such as waste management
and landfill issues, these areas are important considerations for the Project team to
include during the Design and Development phase of the product to ensure meeting not
only the concerns of US environmental regulations but also market perception of the
responsiveness of Automobile manufacturers and suppliers to environmental issues.
Subaru and Honda lead the automotive industry with the marketing not only of their
company’s concern for the environment, but more importantly, actions taken to reduce
their environmental footprint.
In concert with these efforts is the responsibility of the Project Team, during the
early phase of the design process, to identify the elimination of hazardous raw materials,
such as known carcinogens, in the design or the manufacturing processes of the product
or it’s components. The Project team has the responsibility to provide not only for the
safety and welfare of the product users but also for the safety and welfare of the produc-
tion workers who assemble the products. This includes identification of protective equip-
ment during processing and elimination of hazardous chemicals or materials which an
operator can come in contact with during production.
Finally, this phase also involves a contentious point with some OEMs and suppliers
in that this phase “starts the clock” regarding the retention time for design and produc-
tion documentation which includes the Design History file, PPAP records, Production
Corrective Actions, etc. The QMS system, present in every organization, requires
procedures for development, collection, maintenance, revision and disposition of design
records. While the implications of retaining expired records will be covered later, suffice
it to say here that all organizations should indicate and follow through with disposition
of design records after a specified retention period. Guidelines for retention periods
for design records specific to manufacturers of automobiles or products which are used
in automobiles are outlined in Chapter 49, Part 576 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
2.3 PROJECT Life Cycle

Embedded within the PRODUCT life cycle just described resides the PROJECT Life
Cycle in which the Automotive Project Manager operates. This is also commonly
referred to as the Product Development Process or the Advanced Product Quality
Planning Process (APQP). According to the AIAG APQP manual, Project Life Cycle
is defined as follows:
1. A structured method of defining and establishing the steps necessary to assure
that a product satisfies the customer
2. A method to facilitate communication channels to assure all required steps are
CHAPTER 2
completed on time
3. An up-front planning process which utilizes the principles of Project Management
to maximize the success of developing and tracking a product or process through
it’s development life cycle
DoD Handbook 5000.2 entitled Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition
Programs identifies the Project Life Cycle model as Integrated Product and Process
Development (IPPD). The stated definition of purpose for IPPD is:
A [project] management technique that simultaneously integrates all essential
acquisition activities through the use of multidisciplinary teams to optimize the
design, manufacturing and supportability processes. IPPD facilitates meeting cost
and performance objectives from product concept through production, including
field support. One of the key IPPD tenets is multidisciplinary teamwork through
Integrated Product Teams (IPTs).
While both models have certain similarities they each include particular
c onsiderations not mentioned in the other description that are essential to provide the
“big picture” for successful project management. Both definitions provide a strategic
framework for the PDT to address all of the risk factors that could impede the delivery
of a product which meets all customer and organization objectives.
Successful Automotive project management requires a structured process, with
established communication channels accomplished through up-front planning,
management of simultaneous or concurrent engineering levels of effort, and optimiza-
tion of design and manufacturing processes all of which are hallmarks of the APQP
and IPPD processes. IPPD, however, also includes optimization of the support processes
such as packaging, logistics and service kits which must be in place once full scale
production begins. IPPD also identifies tracking of not only performance objectives
but also cost objectives. This is critical for the Automotive Project Team since the
initial contract was established with some identified project budget and an ROI expec-
tation from the organization of a product which meets both functional and
cost objectives.
Most importantly IPPD and the APQP handbooks make it clear that cultural
change in the organization is necessary to accomplish effective Product Development.
This is accomplished through leadership from all levels of management, from execu-
tive to functional-level. These handbooks, at best, can only offer methods and specific
tools and techniques that an organization can utilize to implement Product Development.
2.4 C
ommon PROJECT Life Cycle
Models for Automotive
It is important for the Automotive Project Manager to realize that no one Project Life
Cycle model is suitable for all products. There are several different models for managing
different categories of product development such as Systems Integration, Research &
Development, Component Development, Electronics, and Software and each have their
advantages and limitations. The types presented here were selected based on their appli-
cability to the Automotive Industry and include:
1. Predictive
a. Concurrent (APQP)
b. V-Model
2. Iterative
a. Evolutionary Prototyping
b. Spiral Model
3. Adaptive
a. Agile and SCRUM
2.4.1 C
oncurrent Engineering Product
Development
This model is the most common and is referred to as the APQP Product Development
model. This is used as a generic model for projects where the system requirements are
fairly well defined, there is substantial industry experience in the proposed technologies,
the product is not overly complex, or where software requirements do not exceed 50%
of the overall project requirements (that is the design is not software “heavy”) and
delivery of a full working system is the desired output of the project. A typical example
of this model is shown at Figure 2.3.
FIGURE 2.3 Example of a Concurrent Engineering Project life cycle.

This model normally has five (5) phases (as shown), which generically are referred
to as SRR, PDR, CDR, PRR, and SOPi. These terms align with terms used in the standard
APQP model which are Concept, Program Approval, Prototype, Pilot, and Launch. Each
of these phases has a particular set of objectives and requirements and are covered in
detail in Chapter 7. The APQP model has its basis in the 4-Phase model used by DOD
for large-scale projects but without the last phase of Operations and Supportii. The advan-
CHAPTER 2
tages of this model are simplicity, the ease of graphically comprehending the flow of the
project, and the ability to use a well established routine of scope development, project
team make-up, and template work descriptions.
2.4.2 V-Model
Figure 2.4 is another example of a Predictive Product Development model. This model
is mainly used when developing heavily integrated systems, software development, or
where test programs are phased with the design. The chief focus of the V-Model is to align
testing planning and testing activity to correspond directly with the design activity being
performed to obtain an informative and relevant assessment of the evolving design. The
left side of the V-Model identifies the flow down of the specification, design, and activities
from the highest level (vehicle) down to the lowest level (component) for the intended
system or software; whereas the right side indicates the accompanying test specification
and test design activities. The right side also identifies when the evaluation activities occur
that are involved with the execution and testing at various stages of the design.
FIGURE 2.4 Functional V-Model life cycle.

i
These acronyms are common across all industries and are defined as follows: SRR-System Requirements
eview, PDR-Preliminary Design Review, CDR-Critical Design Review, PRR-Production Readiness review,
R
and FSP-Full Scale Production. Each of these will be covered in the section on Design Review content.
ii
In DOD projects this last phase of Operations & Support (O&S) is essential since weapon systems require
extensive training and support upon delivery whereas the automotive Industry typically does not provide
operation and support training to the end user. However, the O&S phase is used for projects involving facil
ity construction or design and build of equipment for automotive production facilities.
This model is very effective when it is important for all levels of product designers,
from OEM down through the lowest level suppliers, to understand how their individual
efforts contribute and affect higher levels subsystems and systems. This also helps to
graphically synchronize the Test and Evaluation effort with the particular level of design
being performed. The FORD Product Development System (FPDS) is an example of a
V-Model structure. Notice the overlap of the Tier 1 supplier who serves as a bridge between
component level design and verification and system level design and validation. The
V-Model is typically used as a high level planning tool while a Concurrent Project Life
Cycle (i.e. APQP) is used to accomplish each of the specific scope activities within each
level of the “V”.
Significant increases in the use of electrical and electronic (E/E) systems which
monitor and/or control crash prevention, crash safety, energy management, adaptive
man-machine interface, and system-to-system networking in automobiles has
heightened the need for designing components and systems that can integrate accurately
and timely. Since these areas are safety-critical and demand high rate of reliability there
must be an ongoing test plan which can continuously assess the performance and
effectiveness of these safety critical systems throughout the project life cycle and provide
rapid feedback into the design process at appropriate times to allow redesigns as
required. The V-Model is a recognized model for software development to address the
requirements of the ISO 26262 standard which addresses this increasing complexity of
safety-critical E/E systems.
2.4.3 E
volutionary prototyping (EP)
Figure 2.5 is a simple and straightforward lifecycle model in which a system is
developed quickly and incrementally allowing for easy modification in response
to end-user and OEM feedback. While this model can be used as a stand-alone
FIGURE 2.5 Evolutionary Prototyping life cycle.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
jokaisen pitemmältä muisteltavan pispan elämäkerrassa, aina
paikallansa ja erittäin tietä annettava.
[11] Mitä tästä pispasta tulemma sanomaan, on otettu Professorin

Joh. Jaak. Tengströmin jutelmasta: De viris in Fennia peritia
literarum Græcarum claris, siv. 9-30.
[12] Katso tästä miehestä Professorin Joh. Jaak. Tengströmin

edellisessä meiltä osotettuun kirjaan, siv. 34-47.
[13] Nimeltä: Linguæ Fennicæ brevis Institutio, joka v. 1649

ensimmäisen Kirjanpränttääjän Pietari Waldin tykönä präntättiin.
14] Katso tästä miehestä pispavainajan Jaak. Tengströmin: Minne

öfver Johannes Elai Terserus; Turussa v. 1795.
[15] Eskillus Petreeus oli muutaman aikaa ollut hänen opettajana.
[16] Pitempiä tietoja saadaan tästä miehestä Professorin Joh.

Jaak. Tengströmin kirjassa: Biskopen i Åbo Stift Johan Gezelii den
äldres Minne; Turussa v. 1825.
[17] Tämäki laitos oli v. 1632 saanut suurelta Gustavi Adolphilta

alkunsa.
[18] Akademian kirjanpräntti oli hyvin rappiossa, ett'ei sillä saatettu

tarpeita täyttää.
[19] Tästä miehestä ja hänen merkillisistä ajoista löytään

opettavaisia tietoja Professorin Joh. Jaak. Tengströmin kirjassa:
Gezelii den yngres Minne; Helsingissä v. 1833.
[20] Tässä hiippakunnassa seurasivat Olaus Elimääusta, joka v.
1627 kuoli, Maisterit Nikolaus Maunuksenpoika, joka taisi kuolla v.
1632, Gabrieli Melartopääus (k. 1641), jonka perästä Inkerinmaa sai
omat Superintendentinsä, Petrus Juonaanpoika Biugge (k. 1657),
Nikolaus Laurinpoika Malmenius eli Nykopensis (k. 1664), Petrus
Laurinpoika Brommius (k. 1671). Sittä seurasi Doktori Abrahami
Thauvonius (k. 1679) ja Maisteri Henrikki Karstenius, joka kuoli
1683, oltuansa jo kaksi vuotta pispanvirasta vapaana. Näitten
perästä tulivat Doktorit Petrus Bongi, sangen vihainen oikioppinen (k.
1696), Petrus Laurbekkius (k. 1705) ja Davetti Lundi, joka
paettuansa tuli pispaksi Skaaraan. Näitten ja sittä Porvonki pispain
elämästä saadaan lyhykäisiä tietoja Rhytseliuksen kirjassa:
Episcoposcopia Suiogothica, ja aina nykyisiin aikoin asti kirjassa:
Förteckning på Biskopar i Sverige och Finland ifrån Reformationen
till närvarande tid; Khristiansstaassa v. 1830. Muuten on M. J.
Alopääuksen: Borgå Gymnasii Historia, tämän hiippakunnan asioita
paljon valaiseva kirja.
[21] Tästä ja seuraavista Turun pispoista saadaan vähän pitempiä

tietoja v. 1836 Helsingforsissa präntätystä kirjasta: Chronologiska
Förteckningar och Anteckningar öfver Finska Universitetets fordna
Procancellerer samt öfver Faculteternas Medlemmar och Adjuncter,
från Universitetets stiftelse inemot dess andra sekularår. Se kirja
pitää myös sisällänsä osotuksia Tiedon kasvamisesta Suomessa.
[22] Päällenluotettavia tietoja tästä meidän nykyisestä

kansallisesta tilasta saapi Lukija Professorin Gabr. Reinin kirjasta:
Statistische Darstellung des Gross-Fürstenthums Finnland;
Helsingforsissa 1839.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SUOMEN
HISTORIA ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Full Ebook of Project Management For Mobility Engineers Principles and Case Studies 1St Edition Angelo Mago Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Ebook of Project Management For Mobility Engineers Principles and Case Studies 1St Edition Angelo Mago Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Ebook of Project Management For Mobility Engineers Principles and Case Studies 1St Edition Angelo Mago Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Management for Mobility

Engineers: Principles and Case Studies

Practical Project Management for Engineers Nehal Patel

Innovation Project Management: Methods, Case Studies,

Mechanizing Hypothesis Formation: Principles and Case

APM Project Management Qualification Study Guide 1st

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge and

Transfusion Medicine Case Studies and Clinical

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

Project Design for Geomatics Engineers and Surveyors

Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA

Copyright © 2020 SAE International. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Catalog Number 2018962425

To purchase bulk quantities, please contact: SAE Customer Service

Visit the SAE International Bookstore at books.sae.org

Project versus Program Management 1

©2020 SAE International v

Introduction to Project Management

Introduction to Robust Design Techniques 37

3.4.5 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) 48

Managing Stakeholder Influence 57

Project Scope Development 77

Design Review Process for Mobility 99

7.1.2.1 Customer and/or QMS Requirement 101

Identifying and Managing Costs/Procurement

Communication Management 129

Human Resource Management 139

Project/Product Risk Management 163

Automotive Advanced Product Quality

12.3 APQP: Overview 194

Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) 207

13.6 PPAP Submission Levels 215

Appendix A: Template for the Statement of Work (SOW)

©2020 SAE International xv

Project versus Program

©2020 SAE International 1

© SAE International. All rights reserved

•• Reducing waste and unnecessary design change iterations in the product

Finally it should be understood that project management implemented in a “top

1.2 I ssues Facing the Automotive

FIGURE 1.2 Project Management Process.

© SAE International. All rights reserved

© SAE International. All rights reserved

1.3 Defining the Automotive Project

Release of a project from Engineering (PDT) to Production ownership occurs

© SAE International. All rights reserved

1.5.2 Feasibility Assessment

1. Is product adequately defined to enable feasibility evaluation?

The first statement is meant to determine if the information provided is adequate

FIGURE 1.5 Generic TFC.

© SAE International. All rights reserved

1.5.3 System Level FMEA

FIGURE 1.6 TFC specific to a Product Line.

© SAE International. All rights reserved

© SAE International. All rights reserved 1.5.5 Project Charter

1.6 “End” Documentation

Application of PPAP as well as a detailed review of each of the 18 elements of the

1.6.2.1 THEY BEGIN THE PROCESS TOO LATE

Project versus Program Management 1

Introduction to Robust Design Techniques 37

3.4.5 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) 48

Managing Stakeholder Influence 57

Project Scope Development 77

Design Review Process for Mobility 99

Communication Management 129

Human Resource Management 139

Project/Product Risk Management 163

12.3 APQP: Overview 194

Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) 207

13.6 PPAP Submission Levels 215

1.2 I ssues Facing the Automotive

1.3 Defining the Automotive Project

1.5.2 Feasibility Assessment

1.5.3 System Level FMEA

© SAE International. All rights reserved 1.5.5 Project Charter

1.6 “End” Documentation

1.6.2.2 T HE DELIVERED PRODUCT IS NOT A FULLY

1.7 Defining Project Management

1.8 Project Management Models

1.9 Project Manager Competencies

2.1 Life Cycle Models

2.2.2 Definition Phase

2.2.3 Production Phase

2.2.4 Operational Phase

2.2.5 Divestment Phase

2.3 PROJECT Life Cycle