IATF 16949 IA

["Case Study (Delegate) Production Part Approval: Performance Test Results Organization: Auto Precision Pressings Part number: 12345 Ltd Supplier\/vendor code: 12345 Part name: Hinge LH Name of laboratory: Design record change level: 2 *customer specified supplier\/vendor code: Engineering change documents: *If source approval is required, include the supplier (source) and customer assigned code. Test spec.\/rev.\/ Specification\/ Test Qty. Supplier test results date tested (data)\/test conditions Ok Not Ok date limits Not Applicable for submission Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 47 of 59","Capability study: Variable data results Customer: Automotive Customer X BA Part number: 123456 UCL Description: Hinge LH LCL Issue level: 1 R BA Dimension\/feature: Flange height \/ 30.75 \u00b11.25mm UCL Capability indices Proces Cp Pp Ppk U Cpk UPPER 1.9789 STAND DEV (n-1) 0.36704 Ppk L Cpk LOWER 3.3251 STAND DEV (n-1) x 3 1.10112 Ppk Cpk 1.9789 STAND DEV (n-1) x 6 2.20224 AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British","Case Study (Delegate) AR 31.0038 Nominal 30.75 LX 31.1539 Upper size limit 31.75 LX 30.8537 Lower size limit 29.75 0.2588 Stand dev. (R-Bar\/d2) 0.12569 AR 0.546068 Stand dev. (R-Bar\/d2) x 3 0.37708 LR Stand dev. (R-Bar\/d2) x 6 0.75415 ss indices 0.9082 UPPER 0.6777 LOWER 1.1387 0.6777 Standards Institution 2017 48 of 59","Sample 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 31.30 30.94 31.40 30.90 30.79 31.50 3 31.50 30.76 31.67 30.80 30.92 31.40 4 31.70 30.91 31.55 30.95 30.60 31.44 31.50 30.87 31.63 30.90 30.80 31.45 Means Range 31.5000 30.8700 31.5625 30.8875 30.7775 31.447 X Bar 0.4000 0.1800 0.2700 0.1500 0.3200 0.1000 UCLX 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.003 LCLX 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.153 UCLR 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.853 R Bar 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.5460 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 Sample 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 3 31.30 30.85 30.87 30.98 30.86 31.30 4 31.50 30.79 30.80 30.92 30.83 31.28 31.70 30.89 30.80 30.70 30.76 31.60 Means 31.50 30.96 30.90 31.05 30.87 31.50 Range X Bar 31.5000 30.8725 30.8425 30.9125 30.8300 31.420 UCLX 0.4000 0.1700 0.1000 0.3500 0.1100 0.3200 LCLX 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.003 UCLR 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.153 R Bar 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.853 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.5460 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British","7 8 9 10 11 Case Study (Delegate) 31.20 31.10 31.30 30.70 30.35 30.93 31.40 31.50 30.87 30.29 12 30.83 31.30 31.70 30.90 30.18 30.21 30.82 31.00 31.50 30.74 30.17 31.25 30.15 30.9450 31.2000 30.19 0.3800 0.4000 75 31.0038 31.0038 31.5000 30.8025 30.2475 30.4500 0 31.1539 31.1539 0.4000 0.2000 0.1800 1.1000 38 30.8537 30.8537 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 39 0.54607 0.54607 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 37 0.2588 0.2588 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 07 0.546068 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 8 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30.86 30.83 30.81 30.87 31.30 30.79 30.78 30.87 30.88 30.83 30.85 31.40 30.77 30.84 30.86 30.98 30.84 30.87 31.60 30.92 30.90 30.83 30.81 30.75 30.92 31.50 30.78 30.87 00 30.8550 30.8750 30.8075 30.8775 31.4500 30.8150 30.8475 0 0.0400 0.1700 0.0900 0.0700 0.3000 0.1500 0.1200 38 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 39 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 37 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 068 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 8 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 Standards Institution 2017 49 of 59","X-Bar C 32.0000 31.5000 31.0000 30.5000 30.0000 29.5000 456 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 23 1.2000 Range C 1.1000 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000 1 2 3 45 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British","Case Study (Delegate) Chart Means X BAR UCLX LCLX 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Chart Range UCLR R BAR 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Standards Institution 2017 50 of 59","Case Study (Delegate) Gage repeatability and reproducibility data sheet: Variable data results Part Number: NUMBER Gage Name Appraiser A John Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B Bill Specification Gage Type Appraiser C Bobby Characteristic 29.75 31.75 Characteristic Classification Trials 3 Parts 10 Appraisers 3 Date Performed Appraiser\/ Part 3 4 Average Trial # 12 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. A 1 31.65 30.94 31.30 30.90 30.79 31.50 29.75 31.45 31.65 29.80 30.973 2. 2 31.60 30.95 31.35 30.93 30.92 31.55 29.80 31.40 31.71 29.85 31.006 3. 3 31.70 30.91 31.41 30.95 30.85 31.53 29.83 31.30 31.70 29.75 30.993 4. AVE 31.65 30.93 31.35 30.93 30.85 31.53 29.79 31.38 31.69 29.80 xa= 30.991 5. R 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.15 0.06 0.10 ra= 0.087 6. B 1 31.70 30.94 31.30 30.90 30.79 31.90 29.75 31.10 31.70 30.60 31.068 7. 2 31.65 30.96 31.35 30.90 30.80 31.95 29.85 31.40 31.60 30.65 31.111 8. 3 31.70 30.95 31.41 30.95 30.70 31.85 29.83 31.30 31.70 30.60 31.099 9. AVE 31.68 30.95 31.35 30.92 30.76 31.90 29.81 31.27 31.67 30.62 xb= 31.093 10. R 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.05 rb= 0.098 11. C 1 31.65 30.90 31.39 30.90 30.79 31.50 29.75 31.10 31.70 29.80 30.948 12. 2 31.70 30.95 31.40 30.95 30.75 31.49 29.77 31.40 31.65 29.85 30.991 13. 3 31.70 30.91 31.41 30.93 30.70 31.48 29.83 31.30 31.70 29.95 30.991 14. AVE 31.68 30.92 31.40 30.93 30.75 31.49 29.78 31.27 31.68 29.87 xc= 30.977 15. R 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.30 0.05 0.15 rc= 0.086 16. PART X= 31.020 AVERAGE 31.67 30.93 31.37 30.92 30.79 31.64 29.80 31.31 31.68 30.09 Rp= 1.883 17. (ra + rb + rc) \/ (# OF APPRAISERS) = R= 0.090 18. xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = 19. * UCLR = R x D4 = APPRAISER B C OUT OF CONTROL UCLR= 0.233 * 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. Notes: AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 51 of 59","Case Study (Delegate) Gage repeatability and reproducibility data sheet: Variable data results Part Number: NUMBER Gage Name: Appraiser A: Part Name: Appraiser B: Characteristic: Gage Number: Appraiser C: Characteristic Classification: Appraisers: 3 Date Performed: Gage Type: Trials: 3 Parts: 10 Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV) Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV) EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV\/TV) = 100(0.053\/0.598) = 0.090 x 0.5908 2 0.8862 = 0.053 3 0.5908 = 8.93 Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV) % AV = 100 (AV\/TV) AV = {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2\/nr)}1\/2 = 100(0.060\/0.598) = {(0.12 x 0.5231)^2 - (0.05 ^2\/(10 x 3))}^1\/2 = 0.060 = 10.02 n = parts r = trials Appraisers 2 3 = 100 (GRR\/TV) K2 0.7071 0.5231 = 100(0.080\/0.598) = 13.42 Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) Parts K3 % GRR 2 0.7071 GRR = {(EV2 + AV2)}1\/2 = {(0.053^2 + 0.060^2)}^1\/2 = 0.080 3 0.5231 Part Variation (PV) Gage system may be acceptable PV = RP x K3 4 0.4467 = 1.883 x 0.3146 5 0.4030 % PV = 100 (PV\/TV) 6 0.3742 = 100(0.592\/0.598) = 0.592 7 0.3534 = 99.10 Total Variation (TV) 8 0.3375 TV = {(GRR2 + PV2)}1\/2 9 0.3249 ndc = 1.41(PV\/GRR) = {(0.080^2 + 0.592^2)}^1\/2 10 0.3146 = 1.41(0.592\/0.080) = 0.598 = 10 Gage discrimination acceptable For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition. AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 52 of 59","Case Study (Delegate) Part Submission Warrant Part Name Hinge Cust. Part Number 12345 LH Org. Part Number 20\/11\/XX Shown on Drawing 12345 Dated Number 123456 Dated N\/A Engineering Change 2 Level Purchase Order No. Checking Aid Eng. Additional Engineering N\/A Change Level Changes Safety and\/or Yes \uf06f Weight (kg) 0.6000 Government Regulation No \uf0fe Checking Aid Number N\/A Dated N\/A ORGANIZATION 12345 CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL N\/A MANUFACTURING INFORMATION INFORMATION Supplier name and Supplier\/ Orbit manufacturing limited Vendor Code Willbourne West 12N12M Automotive street Street address Region Postal Country Application code MATERIALS REPORTING Yes \uf06f No \uf0fe IMDS Submitted previously Has customer-required Substances of Concern Yes \uf06f No \uf06f N\/A \uf0fe information been reported? Submitted by IMDS or other customer format: Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one) \uf06f Change to Optional Construction or Material \uf0fe Initial submission \uf06f Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change \uf06f Engineering Change(s) \uf06f Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, \uf06f Change in Part Processing or additional \uf06f Parts produced at Additional Location \uf06f Correction of Discrepancy \uf06f Other - please specify __________________________________ \uf06f Tooling Inactive > than 1 year AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 53 of 59","Case Study (Delegate) REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one) \uf06f Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer. \uf0fe Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer. \uf06f Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer. \uf06f Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer. \uf06f Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at organization's manufacturing location. SUBMISSION RESULTS The results for: \uf0fe dimensional measurements \uf06f \uf06f material and functional tests appearance criteria \uf0fe statistical process package These results meet all design record requirements: Yes \uf0fe No \uf06f (If \\\"NO\\\" - Explanation Required) Mold \/ Cavity \/ Production Process __________________________________ DECLARATION I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, which were made by a process that meets all Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples were 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: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered? Yes \uf06f No \uf06f N\/A \uf0fe Organization Authorized Signature: Bill Baker Date: 27\/11\/XX Print Name: Bill Baker Phone No.: 123456-12345 Fax No.: Title: Quality Manager E-mail: [email protected] FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE) PPAP Warrant Disposition: \uf0fe Approved \uf06f Rejected \uf06f Other ____________________________________________________ Customer Signature: Roy Thomas Date: 27\/11\/XX Print Name: Roy Thomas Customer Tracking Number (optional): N\/A AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 54 of 59","Case Study (Delegate) Extract from monthly operations meeting (supplier performance metrics) June 20XX Supplier OTIF 100.0% Supplier On Time Delivery 90.0% 80.0% On Time 70.0% Delivery 60.0% Target Supplier on time delivery below target only meeting target during April. Action: continue to review performance monthly, Responsible: John Philips Completion date: Ongoing Supplier PPM Supplier PPM Parts Per Million 600 (PPM) 500 Target 400 300 200 100 0 Supplier PPM achieving minimum target. Action: None - continue to review performance monthly. Responsible: John Philips AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 55 of 59","Supplier Incidents of premium freight Case Study (Delegate) Incidents of Premium Freight Incidents of premium 7 freight 6 Target 5 4 3 2 1 0 Supplier Incidents of premium freight not achieving target. Action: Continue to review performance monthly, responsible: John Philips Supplier CARs Supplier CARs 4 3 2 Supplier 1 CARs Target 0 Supplier CARs on target over the past 12 months. Action: No action continue to review performance monthly AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 56 of 59","Case Study (Delegate) PO errors 8 PO Errors PO Errors 7 Target 6 Q2 Q3 5 Q4 4 3 2 1 0 Q1 Purchase order errors over target over the past year Action: Continue to review quarterly Out of date certificates Out of Date Certificates Out of Date Certs 10 9 Target 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Out of date certificates are still a problem as suppliers do not respond in a timely manner Action: Continue to monitor certificates. Responsible: John Phillips AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British Standards Institution 2017 57 of 59","KPI matrix Process Freq. Owner Source KPI\/obj. Measure Monthl y Buyer ERP Suppl Process Monthl y (John To On time delivery KPI Monthl y Philips) performance Monthl y To (OTIF) Process Monthl y Buyer Incidents of KPI Quart erl y (John Incident premium freight Quart erl y Philips) log Process PPM by Supplier KPI Buyer ERP (Roy Formal supplier Process Thomas) CAR Log N corrective actions KPI Buyer PPAP Nu Supplier PPAP Objecti ve (Roy Log Num RFT Thomas) Objecti ve ERP Po errors QA Objecti ve (Roy Approved Currency of Thomas) supplier Supplier List certificates Buyer (John Philips) Buyer (John Philips) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British S","Case Study (Delegate) Method of calculation Target Type of Where reported > 99.5% chart lier KPI's <3 \/ month Monthly operations otal number of deliveries made - Bar meeting Bar incorrect deliveries x 100 Bar Monthly operations otal number of deliveries made Bar meeting Bar No. of incidents Bar Monthly operations Bar meeting Parts rejected x 1,000,000 < 500 Parts delivered < 3 month Monthly operations meeting Number of Supplier corrective 98.50% action reports raised < 3\/quarter Monthly operations < 5\/quarter meeting PPAP Rejected x 100 PPAP submitted Quarterly item at the monthly umber of Purchase order errors detected after issue operations meeting Quarterly item at mber of supplier certificates out the monthly of date operations meeting Standards Institution 2017 58 of 59","Customer satisfaction Customer Number of Communication Customer P Reports Customer 1 7 Responsiveness Customer 2 1 10 Customer 3 1 10 10 Customer 4 1 7 8 Customer 5 1 7 Customer 6 3 5 10 Customer 7 3 7 7 Customer 8 2 7 8 Customer 9 3 7 5 2 7 5 7 Excellent Good Average 10 7 5 Customer satisfaction \u2013 there are a number of poor customer perception scores t need to be more diligent in the future and work on getting better. [END OF CASE STUDY] AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 \u00a9The British S","Case Study (Delegate) Perception On-time Quality Average Satisfaction Delivery Rating Accuracy 7 8.4 9 7 8.2 Good 9 9 7 8.6 Good 7 9 7 7.6 Good 7 9 8 Good 8 8 0 8 Good 9 0 0 2 Poor 0 0 0 2.8 Poor 0 0 7 2.4 Poor 0 9 8 Good 10 Poor 0 these are to be expected as we work in a very technical sector, therefore we Standards Institution 2017 59 of 59"]