Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supplier APQP Process Training (In-Depth)
Supplier APQP Process Training (In-Depth)
Supplier APQP Process Training (In-Depth)
Leadership
1 Engagement is Critical
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved. 12
APQP Benefits:
Manufacturing process functions that are clearly planned,
validated, documented and communicated that result in:
Robust and reliable designs
Reduced process variation
CONC
Enhanced confidence in suppliers
capabilities
Better controlled process changes
New part
Engineering change(s)
Durable Tooling: transfer, replacement, refurbishment,
or additional
Tooling inactive > one year
Correction of discrepancy
Change to optional construction or material
Sub-supplier or material source change
Change in part processing
Parts produced at a new or additional location
Approved
The part meets all Eaton requirements
Supplier is authorized to ship production quantities of
the part
Interim Approval
Permits shipment of part on a limited time or piece
quantity basis
Rejected
The part does not meet Eaton requirements, based on
the production lot from which it was taken and/or
accompanying documentation
Production quantities shall
not be shipped before Eaton
Approval
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved. 26
Eaton PPAP Process
Includes:
Component drawings
Assembly drawings
Bill of Materials
Referenced engineering specifications
Material specifications
Performance or test specifications
Ensures manufacturer has the complete design record
at the correct revision levels
This requirement may be satisfied by attaching the
ballooned design record to the Production Feasibility
Agreement (PFA) located in the PPAP Workbook
Some Eaton businesses may use an alternate approach
Legend:
Team Effort:
Engineers
Operators
Supervisors
Maintenance
Supply Chain
Possible Inputs to Mapping:
Engineering specifications
Lead time requirements
Target manufacturing costs
Operator experience
Observation
Brainstorming
Reviewers Checklist
Process Flow must include all phases of the process
Receiving
Storage/ material handling
Manufacturing
Offline inspections and checks
Assembly
Testing
Shipping
Should include abnormal handling processes
Scrap
Rework
Extended Life Testing
May also include Transportation
A tool used to identify and prioritize risk Item: Process Responsibility ORGANIZATION
Model Year(s)/Program(s) APPLICATION Key Date
areas and their mitigation plans. Core Team:
Process Step
Classification
Occurrence
Objective or Purpose
Current Current
Detection
/ Function
Severity
Potential Potential Potential
RPN
Process Process
Failure Effect(s) Causes(s)
Mode of Failure of Failure Controls Controls
Prevention Detection
controls.
Function.
Customer unable to
Assemble Hardware Kit Bad seal (B) install product, due 8 Bagger error 2 Work Instructions Visual Inspection 8
to missing hardware.
List all credible failure modes or ways the process/operation can fail in
the PFMEA document before addressing failure effects and failure
causes
In each instance, the assumption is made that the failure could occur, but
will not necessarily occur
The failure mode:
is the manner in which the process could potentially fail to meet the process
requirements and/or design intent.
Is a description of nonconformance
Assumes incoming parts are correct
Considers subsequent operations
Typical failure modes could be, but are not limited to:
Bent Cracked Tool worn
Open circuited Improper setup Handling Damage
Dirty Burred
Binding Deformed
TIPS
There should be at least one failure effect for each failure mode.
Effects should be specific, clear, and leave no doubt to the uninformed reviewer.
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved. 49
Potential Effect(s) of Failure
Class
Identify special product
or process
characteristics
Potential Causes
For each Failure Mode,
determine the possible
cause of the failure.
TIP
There should be at least one potential cause for each failure mode.
Current Controls
For each potential
cause, list the current
method used for
preventing and/or
detecting failure.
TIPS
This step in the FMEA begins to identify initial shortcomings or gaps in the current control plan.
If a procedure exists, enter the document number.
If no current control exists, list as none. There may not be both preventive and detection controls.
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved. 54
PFMEA - Step 6
Assign Detection
Assign Severity (How easily can the
(How serious is the cause or failure
effect if it fails?) mode be detected?)
Assign
Occurrence
(How likely is
the cause to
occur?)
Criteria: Criteria:
Rank Effect Severity of Effect on Product Effect Severity of Effect on Process
(Customer Effect) (Manufacturing / Assembly Effect)
Failure to Meet Potential failure mode affects safe Product operation and/or involves Failure to Meet May Endanger Operator (machine or assembly)
10
Safety and/or noncompliance with government regulation without warning Safety and/or without warning
Regulatory Potential failure mode affects safe Product operation and/or involves Regulatory May Endanger Operator (machine or assembly) with
9 Requirements Requirements
noncompliance with government regulation with warning warning
Loss of primary function (Product inoperable, does not affect safe 100% of product may have to be scrapped. Line
8 Loss or Major Disruption
Product operation) shutdown or stop ship.
Degradation of
A portion of the production run may have to be
Primary Degradation of primary function (Product operable, but at reduced Significant
7 scrapped. Deviation from primary process including
Function level of performance) Disruption
decrease line speed or added manpower.
Loss or Loss of secondary function (Product operable, but comfort / 100% of production run may have to be reworked off
6
Degradation of convenience functions inoperable) line and accepted
High Disruption
Secondary Degradation of secondary function (Product operable, but comfort / A portion of production run may have to be reworked
5 Function convenience functions at reduced level of performance) off line and accepted
Appearance or audible Noise, Product operable, item does not 100% of production run may have to be reworked in
4
conform and noticed by most customers (>75%) Moderate station before it is processed.
Appearance or audible Noise, Product operable, item does not Disruption A portion of production run may have to be reworked
3 Annoyance
conform and noticed by most customers (50%) in station before it is processed.
Appearance or audible Noise, Product operable, item does not
2 Minor Disruption Slight inconvenience to process operation or operator.
conform and noticed by most customers (<25%)
Criteria:
Likelihood of
Rank Occurrence of Cause - DFMEA
Failure
(Incidents per Item / Products)
2 per Thousand
6
1 in 500
0.5 per Thousand
5 Moderate
1 in 2,000
0.1 per Thousand
4
1 in 10,000
0.01 per Thousand
3
1 in 100,000
Low
=< 0.001 per Thousand
2
1 in 1,000,000
9 Very Remote Not Likely to Detect at any Stage X Failure Mode and/or Error (Cause) is not easily detected (eg random audits)
Controls will probably not detect. Failure Mode detection post processing by operator through visual tactile audible
8 Remote X
Problem detection post processing. means
Failure Mode detection in-station by operator through visual tactile audible means or
Controls have poor chance of detection
7 Very Low X X post processing through use of attribute gauging (go/no go, manual torque check /
Problem detection at source.
clicker wrench etc.)
Failure Mode detection post processing by operator through variable gauging or in-
Controls might detect.
6 Low X X station by operator through the use of attribute gauging (go/no go, manual torque
Problem detection post processing.
check / clicker wrench etc.)
Failure Mode or Error (Cause) detection in-station by operator through the use of
Controls might detect. variable gauging or by automated controls in-station that will detect discrepant part
5 Moderate X X
Problem detection at source. and notify operator (light buzzer etc.). Gauging performed on set-up and first piece
check (for set-up causes only)
Moderately Controls may detect. Failure Mode detection post processing by automated controls that will detect
4 X X
High Problem detection post processing. discrepant part and lock part to prevent further processing.
Controls have a good chance to detect. Failure Mode detection in-station by automated controls that will detect discrepant
3 High X
Problem detection at source. part and automatically lock part in station to prevent further processing.
Controls almost certain to detect. Error (Cause) detection in-station by automated controls that will detect error and
2 Very High X
Error detection and or problem prevention. prevent discrepant part from being made.
Error (Cause) prevention as a result of fixture design, machine design or part design.
Almost
1 Detection not applicable, error prevention. X discrepant parts cannot be made because item has been error proofed by
Certain
process/product design.
Customer unable to
Assemble Hardware Kit Bad seal (B) install product, due 8 Bagger error 2 Work Instructions Visual Inspection 8 128
to missing hardware.
Higher RPNs are flags to take effort to reduce the calculated risk
Current Controls
D R S O D R
E P Actions E C E P
Prevent Detect T N Recommended Responsible Actions Taken V C T N
Actions Taken
As actions are identified
and completed, document SEV, OCC, DET, RPN
in the Actions Taken As actions are complete
column. reassess Severity,
Occurrence, and Detection
and recalculate RPN.
C
S l Potential O Current PROCESS Current PROCESS D R S O D R
Process Potential Potential Actions
E a Causes(s) C Controls Controls E P Resp. Actions Taken E C E P
step/Input Failure Mode Failure Effects s Recommended
V s of Failure C - Prevention - - Detection - T N V C T N
Add message to
prompt the
operator that the BPB. October
New prompt and
Operator turns off grease is off. Add 2004 8 3 5 120
sensor
grease, grease not sensor to grease Completed
7 5 Visual inspection 8 280 valve to sense that
pumping, or barrel
Sleeve/bearing empty it is firing.
No grease in
wears out -
bearing sleeve Add new sensors
warranty claim PT. October 2010
to detect pumping New sensors added 8 3 4 96
Completed
of air
Add sensors to Modified equipment
Impropoer grease confirm correct PT. October 2010 and changed
7 2 Visual inspection 8 112 8 2 4 64
volume block used voume block is Completed program to look at
used sensors
Op 35.
Grease not Add new sensors
Test and PT. October 2010
7 pumping or barrel 2 Visual inspection 8 112 to detect pumping New sensors added 8 2 4 64
grease No grease in Premature Completed
empty of air
bearing bearing/sleeve
Add sensors to Modified equipment
(Product Z failure - warranty
Impropoer grease confirm correct PT. October 2010 and changed
only) claim 7 2 Visual inspection 8 112 8 2 4 64
volume block used voume block is Completed program to look at
used sensors
Customer will
Wrong bearing TP- 100% inspection of
not be able to 6 Wrong set-up 2 4 48 0
housing 12 housing in tester
install
Modify program to
PT. December
cosmetic issue prompt operator to Modified program 5 3 7 105
Damage to 2010 Completed
and potential Part mislocated in check orientation
mounting 5 3 100% visual check 8 120
effect on bolt tester fixture Change design of
holes PT. February Installed March
torque fixture and 5 2 7 70
2011 Completed 2011
locators
Reviewers Checklist
Verify risks are prioritized and high risk items have
identified improvement actions
Make sure that high risk process concerns are carried
over into the control plan
Make sure that all critical failure modes are addressed
Safety
Form, fit, function
Material concerns
What is It?
A document that describes
how to control the critical
inputs (FMEA) to continue to
meet customer expectations
Objective? - Planning
Needed gaging, testing, error
proofing
Sampling and frequencies
How to react when something
fails a test or inspection
When to Use It Since processes are expected to be continuously
updated and improved, the control plan
Implementing a new process
is a living document!
Implementing a process
change
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved. 68
Control Plan
Tool Interaction
6 Sigma Project Project Idea Department/Group Project
High Level Process Map
High Level Process Map Key S O D R E
Potential Potential Actions
Process Step Process E Potential Causes C Current Controls E P O
Fill Out Master Failure Mode Failure Effects Recommended
Form
with Initial
Input V C T N C
Information
6 Sigma Assigns
Signatures:
Segment CEO
Signatures:
Champion: Group Assigns Get DLN
Receive Checks Delay internal AR balance does Inadequate None Investigate mail room
Get WO Assigned
Project Number Champion Process Owner Project Number Assigned
Process Owner
BB or GB No
Prefer to work
this project
Project Owner
Dept GB/BB/MBB
Payment mail not go down staffing in mail staffing and associated
within your
7 room 7 10 490 processes
Process Steps
area?
Monitor Progress
Begin/Work Yes Monitor Progress Begin/Work
through Power
Project through Bi- Project
Steering and Finance Approval
Weekly Updates
Monthly and Signature Finance Approval
Follow DMAIC or and Monthly Follow DMAIC or
Financial and Signature
DFSS process Do you Reviews DFSS process
Reviews
No have BB/GB to
Assist/Work the
Identify Wire Information not AR balance is Customer or bank Acct identifies problem Poka-Yoke wire transer
Master Form Will
project?
Customer Transfer supplied past due did not include when trying to apply process
Complete Project Yes Complete Project
(Has to be fully
Documented
Generate
Contract Master Form Will (Has to be fully
Documented)
reference name and/or payment
Generate
Contract
line 10 account info on 5 5 250
Yes Is Hard
Savings > $???
wire transfer
Enter Remaining
Final Project 6 Sigma Final Project
Information on No
Review Project Review
Master Form
Does the
Project Involve Yes
Department Enter Remaining
Identify Invoice Checks Incorrect Invoice shows Customer error Customer might catch Provide payment stub
or Group Information on
Finance Approval
Only Your
Group? Project Master Form
Finance Approval
invoice outstanding (AR it when reviewing the with statement for each
and Signature and Signature
supplied balance does go 5 5 next statement 10 250 invoice
New/Revised Process
No
down)
Other Required Does the Other Required
Project Involve No
Signatures:
Champion: Dir T&E
Process Owner
>2 Groups in
Eng?
Signatures:
Champion: Dir T&E
Process Owner
Identify Invoice Checks Invoice number Invoice shows Customer error Acct identifies problem Provide payment stub
Steps
Project Owner
Dept BB or MBB Yes
Project Owner
Dept BB or MBB not supplied outstanding (AR when trying to apply with statement for each
balance does go 5 10 payment 5 250 invoice
Complete all Complete all
Does the
Documentation
including a
(1) Page Close-
Close
Project
Yes Project Involve
>3 Depts.
No Close
Project
Documentation
including a
(1) Page Close-
down)
outside Eng?
out Sheet out Sheet
Process FMEA
Process Flowchart
Control Plan
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved. 69
The Control Plan Form
CONTROL PLAN
Prototype Pre-Launch Production
Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)
FILE.XLS 555-555-5555 1/1/1996 1/1/1996
Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NUMBER ECL
Part Name/Description Organization/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
NAME
Organization/Plant Organization Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)
ORGANIZATION CODE
MACHINE, CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
PART/ PROCESS NAME/ SPECIAL
DEVICE REACTION
PROCESS OPERATION CHAR. PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE
CONTROL
JIG, TOOLS PLAN
NUMBER DESCRIPTION NO. PRODUCT PROCESS CLASS SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
FOR MFG. SIZE FREQ. METHOD
TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE
Administrative Section
Identifies part number and description,
supplier, required approval signatures,
and dates.
3 Distinct Phases
1. Prototype a description of the dimensional measurements and material
and performance tests that will occur during Prototype build.
2. Pre-Launch a description of the dimensional measurements and material
and performance tests that will occur after Prototype and before full
Production.
3. Production a comprehensive documentation of product/process
characteristics, process controls, tests, and measurement systems that will
occur during mass production
Automated
Wave Wave Sensor inspection
Soldering solder solder continuity (error Adjust and
2 Connections machine height 2.0 +/- .25 mc check 100% Continuous proofing) retest
Flux Test sampling
concen - lab Segregate
tration Standard #302B environment 1 pc 4 hours x-MR chart and retest
Precision Repeatability
(Variability)
Reproducibility
Measurement
System
Variation
Linearity
Observed Accuracy
(Central Bias
Variation Location)
Stability
Process
Variation Calibration helps address accuracy
Resolution
Error in Resolution
The inability to detect small
changes.
Possible Cause
Wrong measurement device
selected - divisions on scale
not fine enough to detect
changes.
Possible Cause
Lack of standard operating
procedures (SOP), lack of
training, measuring system
variablilty.
Equipment Variation
Possible Cause
Lack of SOP, lack of training.
Appraiser Variation
2. 2 = 2 0.8862 =
3. 3 = 3 0.5908 =
4. AVE xa= Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)
5. R ra= AV = {(xDIFF x K 2)2 - (EV 2/nr)}1/2 % AV = 100 (AV/Tol)
6. B 1 = =
7. 2 = =
Automatically calculates x
8. 3 A p p r aiser s 2 3
9. AVE b= n = parts r = trials K2 0.7071 0.5231
10.
11. C
R
1
%GRR, %PV, ndc r b= Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR)
=
100 (GRR/Tol)
12. 2 = 2 0.7071 =
13. 3 = 3 0.5231
14. AVE xc = Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4467
15. R rc = PV = RP x K3 5 0.4030 % PV = 100 (PV/Tol)
= =
* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are
beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or
discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations. For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual , Fourth edition.
Notes:
1. Select 10 items that represent the full range of long-term process variation
2. Identify the appraisers they should be operator who normally use the gage
3. If appropriate, calibrate the gage or verify that the last calibration date is valid
4. Open the GR&R VAR(Tol) worksheet in the AIAG Core Tools file to record data, or use
MiniTab
5. Have each appraiser assess each part 3 times preferably in random order (Minitab can
generate a random run order)
Objective or Purpose
What is It?
To show conformance to the
Evidence that dimensional customer part print on dimensions
verifications have been completed and all other noted requirements
and results indicate compliance with
specified requirements When to Use It
For each unique manufacturing
process (e.g., cells or production
lines and all molds, patterns, or
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved.
dies
97
Dimensional Results
Reviewers Checklist
All design record specifications (notes, referenced specifications,
etc.) shall be included in the Dimensional Results
Material and performance specifications results can be reported on the
separate Material, Performance Test Results
Results shall include samples from each tool cavity,
manufacturing line, etc.
Data points should come from PPAP samples included with
PPAP submission
The agreed upon # of parts from the production run must be shipped to
the customer for verification of form, fit, and function
Supplier must clearly identify PPAP samples used for dimensional results
Results that do not meet the design specification shall be
addressed prior to PPAP submission
Not OK results typically require changes to the manufacturing process
prior to PPAP submission. In some cases the customer may agree to
engineering changes.
Product produced
Product produced Product produced
beyond both
above the below the
Upper and Lower
Upper Spec Limit. Lower Spec Limit.
Spec Limits.
13
12
X=12.64
time during which extraneous
11 LCL=11.10 sources of variation have been
10
excluded. (Guideline: 30-50
9
0 50 100 150 data points.)
Observation Number
13
12
X=12.64
which there is more chance for a
11 LCL=11.10
process shift. (Guideline: 100-200
10
9
data points.)
0 50 100 150
Observation Number
Frequency
10
If not, investigate.
5
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Mfg Hours
Bimodal Data
Histogram of Mfg Hours Histogram of Mfg Hours
The shape of your data is 25
Mean
StDev
19.98
1.713
20 Mean
StDev
20.19
18.87
Frequency
Analysis applies. If the 15
10
statistics reference. 0
16 18 20 22 24
0
-15 0 15 30 45 60 75
Mfg Hours Mfg Hours
Capable, Capable,
Centered Not Centered
Green (Good)
>1.67 >1.33
criteria
NAME LOCATION CODE
REASON FOR PART SUBMISSION WARRANT SPECIAL SAMPLE RE-SUBMISSION OTHER
SUBMISSION PRE TEXTURE FIRST PRODUCTION SHIPMENT ENGINEERING CHANGE
APPEARANCE EVALUATION
AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER
ORGANIZATION SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION PRE-TEXTURE REPRESENTATIVE
EVALUATION
CORRECT AND
SIGNATURE AND DATE Objective or Purpose
PROCEED
CORRECT AND
PROCEED
To demonstrate that the part has
APPROVED TO
ETCH/TOOL/EDM
met the appearance requirements
COLOR EVALUATION on the design record
METALLIC COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS BRILLIANCE SHIPPING PART
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW SUFFIX DISPOSITION
When to Use It
Prior to tooling for production
IMPORTANT!
Only applies for parts with color, grain,
or surface appearance requirements
COLOR EVALUATION
METALLIC COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE
Administrative Section
MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL
SOURCE RED YEL
HUE
GRN BLU
VALUE CHROMA
LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN
GLOSS
HIGH LOW
BRILLIANCE SHIPPING
HIGH LOW SUFFIX
PART
DISPOSITION
COLOR EVALUATION
METALLIC COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS BRILLIANCE SHIPPING PART
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW SUFFIX DISPOSITION
Appearance Evaluation Details
Identifies supplier sourcing, texture
information and submission customer
signature.
2014 Eaton. All Rights Reserved. 116
COMMENTS
Appearance Approval Report
COLOR EVALUATION
METALLIC COLOR
COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIAL MATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS BRILLIANCE SHIPPING PART
SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW SUFFIX DISPOSITION
COMMENTS
What is It?
Actual samples that reflect the parts
documented in the PPAP.
Objective or Purpose
Confirm cosmetic or functional
part approval.
When to Use It
Sample parts should be delivered
WITH the PPAP submission
to ensure the
(Yes / No) Change Required
- Require to fill in all the Print requirements following by the Ballooned prints with numbering.
- For complicated or family parts, only listing the exceptional dimensions or requirements is acceptable. But Ballooned prints are necessary to be attached to show all the
Print requirements have been reviewed.
1
2
3
4
5
supplier clearly
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
5
design requirements
Eaton Agrees Specification
IMPORT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: Add rows as required. Please refer to the Supplier Excellence Manual for further clarifications of governing requirements. Comment
(Yes / No) Change Required
Material COA Requirement Please identify material standard and where The test will Be
1 (Raw Material Composition done (3rd party lab / supplier plant lab / material supplier)
Test)
Material Performance Test Please identify which test can be done and where (3rd party
2
lab / supplier plant lab / material supplier)
Product safety requirement For material part or Casting process part, please identify
whether the product's radiation conforms with all specific
3 national standards. List who completed the radiation testing
It also provides a
(supplier plant lab or 3rd party). For other material or
process part, fill "NA" in the item
4
5
Team Feasibility Commitment Questions
Lessons Learned
# Consideration Yes / No Comments
Caliper 1 Is product adequately defined (application requirements, etc. to enable feasibility evaluation?
CMM 2 Can Engineering Performance Specifications be met as written?
3
Color Chip Can product be manufactured to tolerances specified on drawing?
Spectrophotometer
Texture Plaques
Thread Gage
Supplier comments for Cost improvement (Ideals for recommendation, Ex. VA/VE, substitute material, tooling, process, etc.)
By signing this document you (supplier) confirm that at the time of mass production you can achieve all print requirements unless otherwise noted "No" in column F above
Supplier Representative Signature and Date Eaton SDE/SQE Name & Signature Date Eaton Engineering Name & Signature Date
and track supplier
design input
Visual x Sign Here X Sign Here X Sign Here
Type/Print name here Type/print name here Type/print name here
Type/Print Title Here
Suppliers: Type name on each page Eaton Purchasing Name & Signature Date
x Sign Here
Type/print name here
Comments from Eaton Design Engineering or Purchasing
Evaluation
Special Confirm supplier (you) Measure and input at
Print Requirements Measurem
Characteristics are capable of the completion of
(Including all Dimensions, ent
# / Critical To manufacture and meet PPAP run Supplier Comments
Notes and Specifications or Technique
Quality (CTQ) the require specification
as instructed by Eaton) (Gage
(Yes or No) (Yes / No)
used) SPC PpK / CpK
- Require to fill in all the Print requirements following by the Ballooned prints with numbering.
- For complicated or family parts, only listing the exceptional dimensions or requirements is acceptable. But Ballooned prints are necessary to be attached to show
all the Print requirements have been reviewed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
By signing this document you (supplier) confirm that at the time of mass production you can achieve all print requirements unless otherwise noted "No" in column F
Texture Plaques
Supplier Representative Signature and Date Eaton SDE/SQE Name & Signature Date
x Sign Here X Sign Here
Type/Print name here Type/print name here
Type/Print Title Here
Suppliers: Type name on each page Eaton Purchasing Name & Signature Date
x Sign Here
Type/print name here
% of tolerance
Eaton Bonus Supplier
Print feature Sample Eaton Measuring (if value is > or = to 25% or -25%,
part/Assembly Upper Tolerance (+) Lower Tolerance (-) Total Tolerance Nominal target Tolerance Eaton reading Measuring Supplier reading Delta
name Number equipment type correlation improvement
number Y/N equipment type
is recommended)
Example Ball diameter 1 0.0025 0.0025 0.005 5.556 N Beta laser mic 5.5592 Non contact laser 5.5586 0.00063 13%
Example Ball diameter 5 0.0025 0.0025 0.005 5.556 N Beta laser mic 5.5612 Non contact laser 5.5601 0.00113 23%
Example Ball diameter 2 0.0025 0.0025 0.005 5.556 N Beta laser mic 5.5595 Non contact laser 5.5581 0.00142 28%
Example Ball diameter 4 0.0025 0.0025 0.005 5.556 N Beta laser mic 5.5597 Non contact laser 5.5582 0.00151 30%
Validates APQP Process was followed & checks other important factors for
success
Dated
What is It?
Safety and/or Government Regulation
Dated
Required document in which the
ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION
Customer Name/Division
supplier confirms the design and
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code validation of manufacturing
City
MATERIALS REPORTING
Region Postal Code Country Application
processes that will produce parts
Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported?
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant w ith product samples and complete supporting data review ed at organization's manufacturing location.
SUBMISSION RESULTS
declare that the parts meet
The results for dimensional measurements
These results meet all design record requirements:
material and functional tests
Yes NO
appearance criteria statistical process package
(If "NO" - Explanation Required)
specification
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this w arrant are representative of our parts, w hich w ere made by a process that meets
all Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples w ere produced at the
When to Use It
Prior to shipping production parts
production rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your
review . I have noted any deviation from this declaration below .
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
Safety and/or Government Regulation Yes No Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
Safety and/or Government Regulation Yes No Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY
City
Part Submission
STATE ZIP
Warrant (PSW)
APPLICATION
Region Postal Code Country Application
MATERIALS REPORTING
Are polymeric parts identified w ith appropriate ISO marking codes? Yes No n/a
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY
City
Part Submission
STATE ZIP
Warrant (PSW)
APPLICATION
Region Postal Code Country Application
MATERIALS REPORTING
Are polymeric parts identified w ith appropriate ISO marking codes? Yes No n/a
SUBMISSION RESULTS The supplier indicates the reason for the PPAP
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
submission
These results meet all design record requirements: Yes NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
ADDRESS
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code
CITY
City
Part Submission
STATE ZIP
Warrant (PSW)
APPLICATION
Region Postal Code Country Application
MATERIALS REPORTING
The
Has customer-required Substances supplier
of Concern indicates
information the PPAP
been reported? level
Yes and No
line,at etc.
REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check least one)
Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
These results meet all design record requirements: Yes NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
These results meet all design record requirements: Yes NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this w arrant are representative of our parts, w hich w ere made by a process that meets
all Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples w ere produced at the
production rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your
review . I have noted any deviation from this declaration below .
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package
record
These results meet all design Priorrequirements: Yesthe
to submitting NO
PPAP, the
(If "NO"supplier
- Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process
representative signs the warrant, indicating the
DECLARATION part meets Eaton requirements
I affirm that the samples represented by this w arrant are representative of our parts, w hich w ere made by a process that meets
all Production Part Approval Process
The customer then
Manual 4th Edition approvesI further
Requirements. or rejects the
affirm that these samples w ere produced at the
production rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your
PPAP and signs to confirm the decision
review . I have noted any deviation from this declaration below .
The customer approved PSW is a prerequisite
EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:
for production shipments
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered? Yes No n/a
Reviewers Checklist
Must be completely filled out
Must be signed by the supplier
P/N must match the PO
Product family submissions allowed
Submitted at the correct revision level
Submitted at the correct submission level
Specify the reason for submission
Include IMDS, RoHS, etc. as required
Clearly state the production rate used for validation