PFMEA scope + PFMEA is available with all processes included and K. Witsanu developed by cross functional team. PFMEA scope + Repair is considered in the PFMEA. K. Witsanu SFI: Consider also failure mode like \"missing rework\". For PFMEA scope process flow chart, the flow to repair should be a sub branch K. Witsanu instead of direct flow. + Contamination is considered in the PFMEA at the EDP. Eg, part oily. - Contamination at Phosphate and ED bath is not included. Process Failure Mode Effect Analysis ( PFMEA ) + All field in the PFMEA is correct according to the AIAG K. Witsanu handbook. Review risk evaluation / improve for high risk reduction - High risk and high severity is not managed with continuous K. Witsanu recommended action to reduce the risk. Eg, OP60, several RPN is 160 with severity of 160, and there is no Review RPN score recommended action. Also in OP60, after recommended K. Witsanu action, the severity is still 8 (or above) or RPN is high, but there is no further action defined. Review PFMEA K. Witsanu + Responsible for recommended action is defined. - Recommended action does not specified with completion date. - For QA-D23 LCP-0222-016-FRAME-ASSY, PFMEA is updated with mixed part, but gage check is not included in the detection method. Review PFMEA - Occurrence rating does not depends on rejection % or PPM, K. Witsanu eg, OP20, after recommended action, failure of welding line not conform is having O rating of 4 but there is no reference. Review PFMEA - Detection rating is inconsistant and inaccurate. Eg, OP140 K. Witsanu the D rating is 7 & 4 at the same time when they are both visual check. Reserve PFMEA is not performed. 4M change document , syteline 9, store management + WI-QC-010 4M Change Management. K. Tinnagorn , K. Akekachai - IT system change is not in the scope of change management.
ECR/ ECN Track sheet (FR-QC-047 Rev00) is available, however, it does K. Witsanu not track the full event, eg, customer approval for the change, PPAP date, etc. ECR/ ECN K. Witsanu + PCR-PD-PA-001, customer approval record. MT organization / PM plan + Maintenance resources are identified and covers all area. K. Panumas Eg, maintenance organization chart is available, covering all processes and all shifts. Preventive maintenance plan , risk evaluation, machine check sheet record + Risk classification is established for all machines. K. Panumas - Criteria of risk classification is not established. - Planning of preventive maintenance does not refer Preventive maintenance plan , risk evaluation, different approach when the risk level is difference, eg, machine check sheet record Robot is class A, Hoist is class B, but there is no difference for K. Panumas the maintenance frequencies. Spare part list - Records are available, however, the date of the K. Panumas maintenance is not recorded. Eg, CO2 welding manual #01R , Electric Chain Hoist. Control stock of spare part Max-Min K. Panumas + Spare parts list is established. - Critical spare parts are not identified. 5s area to control spare parts K. Panumas + Spare parts stock min/max level is established and monitored. - System stock & location does not match with physical, eg, MT-E10002, location is B-1, but it cannot be found. + Spare parts are stored appropriately. SFI: Long term stored items needs to be inspected periodically. Update OEE rates, capacity of machine, Syteline 9 system, + MPS is established with inclusion monthly production plan, Control Max-Min + OEE Oct H60A is 85.58%, the calculation method is K.Siripong, K. Petcharat availability%xrejection%xperformance%.
Weekly Production Plan + Daily production planning is available, established every K.Aphirat, K.Petcharat Tuesday for 1 week. Weekly Meeting, refer Daily Production Plan - Planning and output overview does not match daily record. K.Petcharat Reason of dviation is not record, action plan is not recorded. Eg, for 30/11, the actual was recorded as 161 in overview Material Storage / Tag Identification sheet, but recorded as 75-10 in the hand written daily record. K. Apisara + work station supply is established. WI - FIFO + FIFO and part numbers are respected. K. Apisara + Replenishment rules are established and execute by Route for Supply Part to Production Line runners. K. Apisara Part Delivery Standard, Delivery Layout, WI : Part Delivery + SWI is available for receiving, inspection and storage K.Rapatsa process. - SWI does not include scanning of delivery sheet. - Layout is established and it is not visually physically. - Location \"waiting inspection\" is not labelled. - Visual monitoring for receiving status is not established. WI : Part Receiving by PC + Internal procedure is established between logistic and WI : Incoming Quality Inspection by QC quality, eg, only parts that are stamped can be stored. K.Apisara, K.Wannipa Criteria for Sampling refer AQL Chart + Control is established for incoming inspection. Eg, direct K.Wannipa parts, part 0 defect, 100%. Refer CMP33. How to receive Electronics data from customer. + SYTELINE9 is used to generate PO and order that - Web partner. (Flow of Receiving an order to sale) automatically send to supplier. Supplier will generate K. Petcharat , K. Rapatsa delivery sheet for delivery and TSPKK will scan them upon receiving. Transportation is all owned by supplier.
Supplier assessment - risky supply monitoring meeting or Tracking sheet / -Risk assessment on Deliverly (an example for summary sheet of risky supply is not defined and established. improvement) K. Apisara Supplier delivery manual + When system down, the solution is to use email for the PO. K. Aphirat SFI: Agreement/ validation is not in place for the back-up solution. No validation of different system is required. WI : FG Part Storage, Incharge Person , Flow storage + Storage standard and organization are established and K. Rapasa implemented. Check sheet for Stock Control + Min/max is established for all part numbers. K.Rapatsa + Stock count is performed quarterly. + Chemical storage expiry date are monitored. + FIFO is controlled by using FIFO decanting system. Refer to Production Plan for Control Stock, Counting Stock + Min/max is displayed at all racking. FG Part - Physical does not tally with minimum quantity, eg, 54346- K.Petcharat 4JA0C, minimum is 400 pcs but physically there is none. In-coming/Out going Part + Process to follow shipping is established. 1. Manage part delivery / part receiving Procedure - Visual management is not implemented to monitor shipping 2. Show delivery result status. 3. Lay out of working area , cleanliness , safety at delivery area. - Advanced shipping notice is not established and practiced. 4. Show part delivery and part receiving information K. Rapatsa Process and systems for accepting and managing immediate delivery problems. 1.Shipping mangement route. 2. Shipping procedure. K. Rapatsa Does current customer have Delivery manual? - Key points of logistic requirement from customer is not - Do we follow as customer's requirement? established in SWI, eg, label requirement, stacking K. Rapatsa requirement. Control re-truned packaging , Packaging management + Process to manage empty packaging with customer is Is document for controlling returned packaging available? established and implemented. K. Rapatsa
Re-turning packaging from customer , Internal re-turning + Minimum stock of empty packaging is established, 2 days packaging tspk-bp. stock minimum is required. K. Rapatsa - Control of packaging quantity is not implemented. Condition for checking Packaging status \"OK\" - Contamination process is not established for NOK In case of Packaging NG, how to manage? packaging. Eg, identification of NOK packaging while K. Rapatsa repairing. - SWI is not established for containment/inspection process From Shiping -----> Customer (Is risk evaluation to identify, quarantine, re-inspect for empty packaging. performed?) K. Rapatsa - Flow FMEA is not available. Procedure of packaging for each Model (SD Section) + Sequence flow is to be respected by a sub-body of TSPKK K. Rapatsa within customer warehouse and they will respect to Kanban. - No audit/control implemented to ensure sequence flow standard is respected and no risk. FMEA (SD Section) Refer OLG31. - Undreadable Label issue. - Delivery issue. K. Rapatsa 1. Top management audit by Waste wlak activity. - LPA process is not established. (K. Warachai SF) 2. Leader audit by job observation audit refer to NMT systems. (K. Matree , K. Siripong) 1. Top management audit by Waste wlak activity. - LPA process is not established. (K. Warachai SF) 2. Leader audit by job observation audit refer to NMT systems. (K. Matree , K. Siripong) 3. Prepare WI , Skill Matrix , Safety , Org. PD (K. Matree , K. Siripong) 1. Weekly meeting all Section. - LPA process is not established. 2. Monthly Mangement review. K. Nanitha
Layer audit is communicated to all sections. - LPA process is not established. Audit result - LPA process is not established. Set plan for Layer audit - LPA process is not established. 1. New Employee Recruitment Procedure + Qualification level is established and competent person is 2. Selection of training topics for employees Procedure working in the station. 3. Methods for reporting training results and training - Qualification criteria is not established, there is not evaluation justification on how operators is reach the skill level required. K. Chainarin 4. Skill matrix PD Section. K. Matree , K. Siripong 1. Results of the annual employee leveling exam + Flexibility chart available. (Staff -----> Leader , Staff -----> Chief staff , AMGR. ------> - Min competent person required for each process is not MGR.) established. K. Chainarin 2. Is the skill matrix PD Section evaluation result passed? K. Matree , K. Siripong Training workers K. Chainarin + Competency is reviewed every month, or, if there is 1. Competency design/process change, or customer complaint. 2. Fuctional Standard for revising FMEA K. Witsanu
QIP V3.1 : Management Deviation identified during the customer audit #Criteria Criteria requirement Comment Criteria - MMOGLE yearly self-assessment is not performed. Quotation (OK / NOK) CMP12 Yearly MMOGLE self evaluation is done and shared with PSA. All actions are NOK K. Pongsakorn managed. -Make training plan CMP22 The risks and the associated plans are periodically reviewed based on the plant, + Annual review is in place. NOK K. Nanitha corporate and external lessons learnt and evolution in activities. - Review based on frequency is not evident as the risk priorization -Make procedure CMP33 is only based on impact, not occurrence. An incoming inspection is performed and managed. The frequency is in line NOK K. Wannipa CMG11 with supplier KPI. + Sep PPM is 2.3. Contributed by TAP, there was claim. Part -Revise WI, specify quantity lot CMG12 Only approved (PPAP/EI and incoming inspection released) number causing the problem from TAP is 50396 4JJ5B P60A Frame, CMG13 components/material are used for assembled parts. 1 rejection, on 23/9. CMG21 + Inspection report showed 1/200 pc NG with crack. - Inspection size and frequency does not align with the supplier CMG22 performance. In the next incoming on 26/9, sampling size maintained the same with 3 pcs. Quantity of lot is not specified. The manufacturing site is involved in new projects since advanced stages, at + Project organization chart is available and including NOK K. Nanitha least project team includes staff from manufacturing site. manufacturing members. NOK -Make training plan - Project manager is not well versed in AIAG APQP. NOK Supplier project management takes into account all tasks and is aligned with + Project schedule is available and incorporated with customer NOK K. Panithi the customer project timing/approach. In case of any delay/deviation, action milestone. -Make flow and action plan plans are implemented and notified to the customer - There is project delay but there was not open issue list maintained to mitigate and report the risk. K. Mathee There is a formalized process to identify new skills/ people needed : - to - There is no formalized process to identify new man/skill. -Refer WI identify new man/ skill manage the project. - to manufacture parts in the workshop for SOP - No process qualification buy off or self-assessment implemented. K. Nanitha Manufacturing process development and qualification includes PCPA self- Process audit assessment and, if required by PSA, any process-specific audits (such as PSA process check-lists), Qualification process includes all outsourced manufacturing processes or tier 2 - Supplier APQP is not well managed within TSPKK APQP. Eg, the NOK Is this item concerned to purchase dept? Wha component. MRD of supplier direct material is not specified. - Supplier APQP and project follow up is not in place. The follow up is focus on tooling development. CMG31 Customer approved drawings and PSA PCP (CSE) are available at production - 2D drawing control is not established. There is no masterlist or NOK K. Panithi, facility with the latest change level. document control for drawing revisions. NOK -Make log sheet for control drawing revisions - IR revisions control is not established. NOK K. Chavalit NOK - Make log book for control IR and add revision FR11 There is Fast Response, leadership meeting (kind SQCDML) led by - Daily leadership meeting is not implemented. There is only a NOK FR12 manufacturing and supported by cross functional, attendees. weekly meeting on Wednesday. NOK K. Mathee FR13 NOK -Make board control and set daily mee ng by a FR21 There is a tracking board /screen with all major concerns and followed with - Fast response tracking board is not established. NOK FR22 appropriate timing and exit criteria. Represent the core 6 Steps of problem K. Mathee FR23 solving : 1. Define 2. Contain 3. Root cause 4. Correct 5. Validate 6. + Main information board is available. NOK -Make board control and set daily mee ng by a FR31 Institutionalize (Lesson learn). - Production achievement from the previous day was not displayed. - Current day production plan was not displayed. It was still NOK K. Siripong FR32 In each significant zone (line, machine, …) there are boards with main showing Jun 2022 information. -Update daily production report information (forecast production/realised; scrap rate; last claim; alarm limits are NOK -Update produciton plan to be current (board) FR33 set based on type and number of defect found). NOK -K. Akekachai PPC11 Escalation process is clearly defined for both internal and external issues and - Escalation process is not clearly defined for internal, external, -Add escalation process in procedure non conf implemented at all levels. category, level, time limit, and method of escalation. NOK -Make escalation flow board ( customer + Inho PPC13 - Visual board for escalation flow is not in place. K. Akekachai -Make escalation reaction plan PPC21 Reaction process/plans are clearly defined (documented) and contain - Escalation reaction plan is not defined. K. Siripong - shift book is avaible mandatory action for verification to close issue. K. Chavalit - Method of communicating is not clearly established. There is no - Make WI for replying 8D report A method of communicating problems to all key stakeholders is defined. logbook/ shift book available to communicate and monitor each K. Chavalit - Review and Revise 5why analysis for 4m conce escalation. K. Chavalit + 8D report is used and the deadline is specified by customer, eg, -Add in WI by set plan for audit to monitor the For internal and external issues, standard process methodology is applied across Nxxxxn. K. Panithi -Review and revise control plan and compare w the plant. + Weekly report is sented for top management follow up. K. Panithi - Tracking of deadline is not established. -Review and revise control plan by adding NC p + QA-D23 LCP-0222-016-FRAME-ASSY, complaint started 21/2, P/N K. Wannipa, -Make gauge R&R for welding length 50100 6KG0D. K. Boonsong -Retraining on MSA and rule of GRR + 5 why analysis is conducted. -Revise excel formula Standard tools (5 Why , Fishbone Diagram etc. ) are used systematically and - 5 why analysis is not fully effective. Eg, occurrence cause is only effectively to identify the root causes for occurrence and non detection. targeting man problem, while there is a underlying problem with method in 4th why, \"Q-gate inspector walked into production line to replace part but took parts with wrong model and pack in the box\" can also be caused by poor layout or poor labelling. In case of reoccurrence or 'Top Pareto' issues, a deep analysis (such as A3 - Repeated issue is not monitored and identified systematically. format) is done to identify why the previous analysis and actions were not effective. + SC points are inspected according to the control plan frequency and size. Eg Macro cut inspection is scheduled every 6 month and Control Plan checks are performed at the correct frequency and sample size. monitored. The last result was all OK. - Inspection of 26-29 is not available for Chassis Frame. It is an inspection for hole concentricity with specification of 0.0±1 mm. SFI: the control has to specified the frequency same as CSR, eg, instead of 3 pcs for dimension check, it should be written F, M and E at the \"size\" column. In case of non-conformity, actions are implemented in accordance with - Reaction plan does not specify segregation if NOK are found for reac on plan defined in the Control Plan. SC points. Capability (e.g. gage R&R, bias, linearity, stability, etc.) of measuring equipment + GRR is performed for CMM, PQM-104 with inspector Sumat for is determined and the equipment are certified/calibrated at a scheduled overall dimensions. frequency. - GRR is not performed for caliper, PQA-454, with inspector Ninai & Tom for welding length. + GRR is performed on yearly basis. - The acceptance criteria for >10% & <30% is depends on RPN# from FMEA, but the number f RPN is not extracted but it is a constant number between different gages. The number is always 0.2. SFI: To use ANOVA method for MSA. The know how of MSA is limited as the performer does not know the rule of GRR acceptance and only rely on excel formula.
t of supplier action plan Supplier Action Plan ACTION PLAN VALIDATION PSA approval Supplier action plan Pilot Enclosure date 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEW STATUS Comment Training will be required and you will need to get the template from MMOGLE. Refer to your internal plant which supplying to Ford, they should know this requirement. Refer to CMP material. at does MRD stand for? Which point should be improved? MRD = Material Requested Date. in IR There should be a APQP follow up with supplier, and established a follow up all sec ons mechanism. all sec ons And supplier APQP status should be aligned and incorporated in your APQP. Refer to IATF clause 8.4.2.1. forming product Refer to CMG material. ouse) erns problem with DWG procedure document number
QIP V3.1 : Management + Special caused is defined and monitored. Reaction plan is not defined. K. Chavalit -Monitor all points of SC PPC23 Process stability is monitored, a reaction plan for non capable process is - Process stability is not monitored for all points of SC, only point NOK -Review and Update UCL, LCL by weekly PPC31 implemented 30. - UCL = 0.598, LCL=-0.586 for Nov22 and they are updated on monthly basis. + Strategy in place for reinforced control for ramp-up preliminary control by following customer requirement to be implemnted for 3 months and until customer agrees its removal. A strategy to implement reinforced controls is defined and used to improve the - Customer approval to removal the activity is not evident. NOK K. Panithi current manufacturing process and existing controls - Upstream reaction process is not well defined, there was no -Revise length control for ramp up investigation report equivalent to 8D when there is NOK parts -Ram up internal improvement for each sec on found during this period in the preliminary control. PPC32 The procedure/instruction of reinforced controls is standardised. - Check sheet is not established to be used for preliminary control. NOK K. Panithi SP&EP11 NOK -Make check sheet for preliminary control SP&EP12 Start-up process is defined, applied at the main event of the line and - Start-up is not performed before shift start, eg, OP #200-80 and NOK K. Siripong SP&EP21 documented (beginning of shift, part number change, tool change, #200-90. NOK -Prepare start up check sheet SP&EP22 maintenance, significant line stop and another event…). - Start-up frequency does not include shift start check. NOK - Prepare start up frequency SP&EP23 Start up is recorded and documented after main events. - Record is empty after start of production. NOK WIM11 Traceability of start up is ensured until validation is completed (first-off parts) NOK K. Siripong and reactivity is applied in case of any deviation. -Prepare check sheet after start of production SW11 NOK All the expected error-proofing devices are in place and managed for each part - Pokayoke for OP #200-0 for nut presence check between K. Siripong -Add pokayoke check sheet OP 200-0 reference. 2WD/4WD is not established in the checksheet. K. Siripong -Make Check sheet during start up Error proofing Devices are checked at all start-ups, including main line events - Pokayoke for OP #200-0 for nut presence check between -SCADA monitoring K. panumas (such as part number changes, maintenance intervention and significant 2WD/4WD is not verified during start-ups. -Specify incharge person at manmap by zone produc on stops) and according to the process control plan. - Sensor check at installation jig is not available. K. Siripong - Pokayoke is not verified at all start-ups/daily. -Make document for pokayoke check and refer All the EP failures have to be documented and the reaction plan includes who is - Pokayoke checks are not documented and reaction plan is not K. Choetsak, K. Akekachai -Define timeline in procedure after receiving w notified and what actions must be taken. established. -Make warranty procedure + Warranty management flow in place with timeline for pre- K. Panida -Revise WI by adding visitor WI-SF-009 A process exists to effectively manage final customer warranty claims according analyse. to customer requirements within time limits and is supported by warranty KPI - Overall timeline is not defined together with investigation timing tracking. after receiving the warranty part. - Warranty procedure is not established. + Safety helmet is provided to visitor upon entry to the shopfloor. All people are trained for safety based on the safety policy including visitors and + Safety PPE is respected by operators and employees. relevant safety standards are applied for each workstation - Safety briefing is not provided to visitors. Systematic approach for all the workplaces organization is implemented and + Layout is clear. NOK 'K. Apisara maintained to respect FIFO, visual management, cleanliness, and also project + 5S audit is carried out. Action plan and follow up is established. -Add and identify wip part label confidentiality. - WIP product is not labelled. SW12 If clean room / area is required (due to sediment or painting requirement), - Layout and identification is not fully established and labelled, eg, special rules are utilized in order to minimalize risk of contamination. NOK area for NOK frame, storage area for different groups of components for different productions, eg, component for H60A or P60A. SW21 Standardized Work Instruction (SWI) covering all the produced references are - SWI are not placed near the workstations. Eg, SWI for Repair of NOK K. Mathee available for all operations and are placed near the workstation. welding after EDP is not displayed at the repair station. -Make label for NOK area SW22 - SWI for receiving at CIC is not established. K. Chavalit SW31 -Make WI for repair of welding a er EDP CNC11 SWI shall contain at minimum : - SWI does not fully captures all work elements and quality control NOK K. Siripong CNC12 - Work elements including quality controls and their sequence, requirement and description. Eg, OP #200-90. NOK -Prepare WI OP200-90 CNC13 - Operator movement with sketch of work flow, - The sequence and workflow does not tally with SWI. -Make sequence and workflow to tally with WI CNC21 - Takt/Cycle time CNC31 - Standard in-process stock, + Calibration schedule and master list is available and updated. K. Wannipa RR13 - Required PPE and safety requirement if applicable, + Calibration report is available for PAQ-434. -Share certificate ISO/IEC17025 RR22 - Support description with pictures, sketches and images, - Calibration report is available for PQM-104, but it is not calibrated RR23 - Reference to product/process/control standards. by a certified company with ISO/IEC17025, OEM approval is not evident. RR32 All the gages are periodically calibrated and recorded according to procedures, ensured that only calibrated gages are in use. RR33 MC11 Consistent marking & visual management (floor marking , labels, specific boxes + NOK parts are segragated. NOK K. Mathee MC12 etc.) procedure is defined and implemented across the entire organization to - Location is not identified with label, eg, \"NOK Area\"/\"Quarantine -Make label for NOK area ensure that identification and handling of NOK or suspected material is in place Zone\". NOK to avoid mixing with conform parts. NOK K. Chalermpol - Quarantine / containment till the last known status part is not NOK -Make flow to quarantine product when NG pa If after parts check (e.g.: hourly sample product audit) NOK parts have been aware by inspectors. NOK -Retraining inspectors to be aware of quarantin found, it is necessary to ensure that all the parts produced from last known NOK K. Wannipa good parts are handled as suspected parts. -Part at quarantine area was marked and stick p - Make log sheet for NOK parts NOK parts are segregated, recorded and their storage is managed including NOK - Incoming quarantine area is not secured with limited access. boxes, Quarantine area which has secured access and quantities in quarantine - Records/lists are not available for NOK parts. K. Wannipa are managed. -Make log sheet for containment Containment process includes securing of stock and pipeline, separated from - Containment worksheet is not established. K Siripong production line in order to guarantee breakpoint, including the supplier's -Add WI repair wedling after EDP components. - Repair of welding after EDP does not flow the part back to the K. Mathee, K. Montree Any Rework / repair / re-use operations must be included in the process flow, EDP as per process flow chart (PF-PE-EP-003). -Add PFMEA by adding contamination FMEA, SWI and the control plan to be PPAP'd as part of the standard manufacturing process or by specific PSA authorisation. + Contamination is considered in the PFMEA at the EDP. Eg, part oily. All areas/operations that could be affected by contamination and failure modes - Contamination at Phosphate and ED bath is not included. related to contamination are Identified and considered in PFMEA. For high severity rankings or high risk items, FMEA team ensures that the risk is - High risk and high severity is not managed with continuous NOK K. Montree, K. Panithi addressed continuously through existing design controls or recommended recommended action to reduce the risk. Eg, OP60, several RPN is -Review and revise FMEA OP60 actions. 160 with severity of 160, and there is no recommended action. Also in OP60, after recommended action, the severity is still 8 (or above) or RPN is high, but there is no further action defined. Recommended actions are documented into P-FMEA with responsible and due + Responsible for recommended action is defined. NOK K. Montree date - Recommended action does not specified with completion date. -Specify completion date at FMEA PFMEA reviews are based on process capability, process/product changes, etc… - Occurrence rating does not depends on rejection % or PPM, eg, NOK K. Montree, K. Panithi, which cover: OP20, after recommended action, failure of welding line not -Review and revise FMEA - All processes (production, logistics, maintenance...) and their controls are conform is having O rating of 4 but there is no reference. included, - Detection rating is inconsistant and inaccurate. Eg, OP140 the D - Detection ratings are accurate, rating is 7 & 4 at the same time when they are both visual check. - Occurrence ratings are analysed using data (SPC, FTQ, ppm, scrap data, Verification Station results etc.). - Results of LPA audits. A schedule of reverse PFMEA is implemented and regularly updated by the Reserve PFMEA is not performed. NOK K. Nanitha plant management (timing for review with prioritization of operation and its NOK -Schedule for reviewing PFMEA status /planned-done/). + WI-QC-010 4M Change Management. NOK - IT system change is not in the scope of change management. Which type of 4m for IT system should be adde Management of changes (Product, Process, tier n and IT Systems) are defined and applied for both planned and emergency changes . K. Chavalit track sheet is internally used but we use anothe A change form is utilized to document all changes and controlled through a Track sheet (FR-QC-047 Rev00) is available, however, it does not Document Control Process (e.g. tracking log sheet, revision numbering system, track the full event, eg, customer approval for the change, PPAP approval process, etc.). date, etc.
t of supplier action plan n r WI-PD-007 warranty part art was found. ERP and MRP system. ne and containment action pink tag ed? Kindly give us an example er sheet to track the full event. (PCR)
QIP V3.1 : Management MAI12 The planning of the preventive maintenance takes into account risk + Risk classification is established for all machines. NOK K. Panumas classification of the equipment and corrective maintenance recurring issues. Its - Criteria of risk classification is not established. NOK MAI13 execution is managed. - Planning of preventive maintenance does not refer different NOK - Define criteria of risk classificaion at WI (WI-M MAI21 approach when the risk level is difference, eg, Robot is class A, NOK - Add risk level and PM frequencies in WI (WI-M MAI22 Records of all maintenance activity and results are formalized and accurately Hoist is class B, but there is no difference for the maintenance NOK filled in. frequencies. K. Panumas c MMFM13 NOK -Add date of maintenance - Records are available, however, the date of the maintenance is K. Panumas not recorded. Eg, CO2 welding manual #01R , Electric Chain Hoist. - Critical spare parts are not identified.\" A list of critical spare parts is defined and managed. + Spare parts list is established. K. Panumas - Critical spare parts are not identified. - Relayout and identify physical to match with s A spare parts stock is available with a minimum stock level for critical spare parts. Spare parts tracking system is combined with maintenance system in + Spare parts stock min/max level is established and monitored. K.Petcharat order to control physical inventory. - System stock & location does not match with physical, eg, MT- -Record reason of deviation and action plan in s E10002, location is B-1, but it cannot be found. K.Aphirat Deviations between forecast and current production are followed and - Planning and output overview does not match daily record. -Make WI by adding scanning of delivery sheet. controlled on a daily basis at production line level. An escalation process is Reason of dviation is not record, action plan is not recorded. Eg, for -Make warehouse layout. defined (e.g. Escalation to FR meeting) 30/11, the actual was recorded as 161 in overview sheet, but -Make check sheet for daily receiving. recorded as 75-10 in the hand written daily record. ILG11 A process to follow deliveries is formalized and applied. Related operations are + SWI is available for receiving, inspection and storage process. standardized and a visual management is implemented. - SWI does not include scanning of delivery sheet. - Layout is established and it is not visually physically. - Location \"waiting inspection\" is not labelled. - Visual monitoring for receiving status is not established. Components/materials which are risky to supply are identified and addressed to - risky supply monitoring meeting or Tracking sheet / summary NOK K.Apisara NOK -Make check Sheet : Supplier Delivery Confirma ILG22 daily supply operations/logistics meeting. Countermeasures and corrective sheet of risky supply is not defined and established. NOK ILG33 NOK K.Apisara OLG11 plans are established and followed with tier N. NOK -Add Max-Min quanitity identification at workin OLG12 NOK K. Rapatsa OLG13 A system of visual management is in place to support control of inventory levels + Min/max is displayed at all racking. -Add delivery status OLG22 NOK and stock levels are periodically verified - Physical does not tally with minimum quantity, eg, 54346-4JA0C, K. Rapatsa OLG23 NOK -Make delviery board to show advanced shippin minimum is 400 pcs but physically there is none. K. Rapatsa A process to follow shipping is formalized and applied. Related operations are + Process to follow shipping is established. -Add Packing STD in WI and show at working ar standardized and visual management is implemented. - Visual management is not implemented to monitor shipping status. K. Rapatsa Key milestones are set in order to alert the customer in good time in response -Add stock balance of packaging quan ty to any issue. - Advanced shipping notice is not established and practiced. K. Rapatsa The following milestones are tracked : AVIEXP - Despatch advice sent by EDI -Separate Area for NOK packaging and identify -Add WI for quarantine, reinspect for empty pa connection and ASN - Advanced shipping notice. - Key points of logistic requirement from customer is not List of PSA Logistics manual (MLP) key points, is available to guarantee the established in SWI, eg, label requirement, stacking requirement. K. Panithi respect of the \"logistics requirements customers\" (e.g. labelling, rule -Add flow FMEA for sequence flow and logistic palletization…). + Minimum stock of empty packaging is established, 2 days stock Error proofing strategy is implemented. (e.g. double scan) minimum is required. The empty serial and temporary packaging is available and properly stored. - Control of packaging quantity is not implemented. - Contamination process is not established for NOK packaging. Eg, Empty packaging which are not meeting customer requirements are contained identification of NOK packaging while repairing. (e.g.: cleanliness, functional state of packaging...) and corrective actions are - SWI is not established for containment/inspection process to defined (e.g.: identification, alternative packaging...). identify, quarantine, re-inspect for empty packaging. OLG31 A Flow FMEA is available for each JIT / Sequenced flow (customer plants). It - Flow FMEA is not available. NOK K. Rapatsa OLG32 takes into account the overall flow from supplier end of line to customer NOK -Share TOBE INVOICE (TSPK-BP system) reception. The Flow FMEA is reviewed and updated for each logistic or quality + Sequence flow is to be respected by a sub-body of TSPKK within LPASK11 issue detected by customer. customer warehouse and they will respect to Kanban. K. Nanitha - No audit/control implemented to ensure sequence flow standard -Share training plan for LPA The sequence required by the customer is strictly complied with until reception is respected and no risk. of the finished product at customer facility. Control operations are implemented at each step in the flow. Written Procedure which contains the rules of LPA, in particular : - LPA process is not established. - Scope (operational areas : Manufacturing, logistic, maintenance...) - Sampling criteria (frequency, process, operator…) - Standard sequence description. - Description of different management levels involved (from team leader to top management) Layered Audit Check Sheet is developed and applied. - LPA process is not established. K. Nanitha Check sheet to verify compliance of the following items : -Share training plan for LPA - safety LPASK12 - skills matrix NOK - work instruction including specific control LPASK13 - start-up standard LPASK21 - workplace organization LPASK22 LPASK23 LPA schedule is established . - LPA process is not established. K. Nanitha LPASK31 It takes into account sampling criteria (what, who, when) and different layers. -Share training plan for LPA LPA schedule is regularly updated NOK LPASK32 NOK K. Nanitha LPA process is performed across all operations (Manufacturing, supply chain... ) - LPA process is not established. NOK -Share training plan for LPA LPA are performed regularly by TOP MANAGEMENT (Plant manager, NOK manufacturing manager …). NOK K. Nanitha -Share training plan for LPA LPA records: All the LPA results are documented including - LPA process is not established. - no deviation found, K. Nanitha -Share training plan for LPA - deviation found / not corrected during audit, K. Siripong - deviation corrected during audit, -Revise procedure for skill level required (WI-P - not applicable. - LPA process is not established. The countermeasure Sheet is managed in order to define corrective action plans and to ensure the full implementation of all corrective actions. + Qualification level is established and competent person is Qualification levels are established. For each one of them, measurable criteria working in the station. - Qualification criteria is not established, there is not justification are defined. 'only identified and qualified people are performing work. on how operators is reach the skill level required. Flexibility Chart or equivalent posted at all operations or work area which: + Flexibility chart available. NOK K. Siripong - contains number of qualified people for each workstation as well as - Min competent person required for each process is not -Revise procedure for skill level required (WI-P workstation per person are targeted; associated action plans are implemented, established. - indicates the steps in training & skill qualification level achieved for each job, - has been updated.
t of supplier action plan Refer to LPASK material or CQI 27. MT-019) MT-019) system stock standard form. . ation ng area. ng notice rea y status while repairing ackaging c PD-016) PD-016)
Audit instruction and Material Training Quality and Industrial Performance (QIP) audit sheet is a common questionnaire includes 3 types of audit: Training to training material 1) NSA New Supplier Assessment Key Element (Chapter of the QIP Audit) 00 – Introduction Train the trainer Complete system assessment to evaluate potential supplier's manufacturing system. 01 - Corporate Management Plant Need to assess supplier readiness for each 'Requirement'. 02 - Corporate Management Group - (To be created) Result is a risk assessment, affects to sourcing decision. 03 - Fast Response 04 - Part and Process Control 2) QSB+ Quality Systems Basics Plus 05 - Start of production&Error proofing management 06 - Warranty Issues Management Complete manufacturing system assessment to focus and verify implementation of QSB+ 'Requirement' on shop 07 - Standardized Work floor level. 08 - Control of Non Conforming Product All the 'Criteria of Requirement' of questionnaire need to be assessed. 09 - Risk Reduction - (To be created) Result affects to QSB+ certification status and Bidlist performance. 10 - Managing Change - (To be created) 3) PCPA Process Control Plan Audit 11 - Maintenance 12 - Manufacturing & Material Flow Management Product specific audit to verify that processes and controls are in place to ensure that final product 13 - Inbound Logistic - (To be created) is according to requirements. 14 - Outbound Logistic 'Requirements' which are linked to product and its processes or scope of audit, need to be 15 - Layered Process Audit assessed. Result can affect Bidlist performance. With clicking on button of audit type on Header Sheet audit questionnaire will be created automatically with 'Requirements' which are applicable. Audit fields 01 01 Requirement 01 01 General definition of the intent of requirement. 01 01 Criteria of Requirement 01 01 Detailed deployment of 'Requirement' in bullet points. 01 01 Basic criteria/metrics are identified with Bold type, cover basic key requirements (must have). 01 01 Additional criteria/metrics are identified with unbold type, cover additional requirements (recommended best practice). 01 01 Description and examples can be found in presentations and training material. 01 01 Look for Auditor hints and techniques how and what need to be checked besides 'Criteria of Requirement'. Comment Notes for evidences and non-conformances, should be updated for each criteria (evidences, context ….) Scoring : Generic rules Each criteria is evaluated individually. Scoring for effectiveness Status Scoring for implementation of requirement Metric is defined, targeted & followed. OK Criteria met (standardized and fully implemented) Deviations are managed by action plans NOK Criteria not met (not standardized and / or not fully implemented) Metric not in place (not defined or not followed) NR Criteria not reviewed (to be evaluated during next PSA review) Criteria not reviewed (to be evaluated during next PSA review) NA Criteria not applicable (should be justified) Criteria not applicable (should be justified) ROAD Only for NSA in case of critical situation identified (no resource or no Not applicable for effectiveness BLOCK decision to implement the action plan) Requirement scoring is calculated automaticaly (see below) Important : - For all QIP evaluation, at least 90% of the \"REQUIREMENT\" need to be implemented in order to have a relevant scoring (for Yellow and Green status). - In case of scoring not relevant, a new evaluation need to be planned. Scoring for NSA Pts Basic Criteria Status Addtional Criteria Status 0 Number of \"Road Block\" >1 1 Number of \"OK\" < 50% of Total 2 Number of \"OK\" >= 50% of Total No impact on requirement scoring 3 Number of \"OK\" = 100% of Total NR Number of \"NR\">= 1 NA Number of \"NA\"> 50% No impact of additionnal criteria in NSA scoring. But they can be evaluated in order to prepare next PCPA & QSB+ audits.
Reference 1601_13_00335 1601_13_00342 1598_21_03251 1601_13_00115 1598_17_00486 1601_13_00117 1598_20_06338 1601_13_00119 1601_13_00116 1601_13_00123 1601_13_00155 1601_13_00125 1601_13_00157 1601_13_00158 1598_21_03264 1601_13_00154
Audit Result of NSA Red/Yellow/Green visualization applied. Thresholds for result calculation are defined on 2 levels: 1) Threshold on Requirement level If a Requirement is scored by 0 overall result will go to Red. 2) Threshold on Key Element level Green : If a Key element is scored 80% or greater with no 0 score on Requirement level. Yellow : If a Key element is scored less than 80% with no 0 score on Requirement level. Red : If a requirement is scored by 0. 3) Threshold on overall level (audit to be used for RFQ on non safety part) Green : 80% or greater with No 0 score ==> Recommended Yellow : > = 60 % or < 80% with non 0 score ==> Recommended with action plan Red : < 60% or / and a 0 score ==> Not Recommended 4) Threshold on overall level (audit to be used for RFQ on safety part) ==> Recommended Green : 90% or greater with No 0 score ==> Recommended with action plan Yellow : > = 70 % or < 90% with non 0 score ==> Not Recommended Red : < 70% or / and a 0 score Scoring for PCPA Available for each key elements and total summary score : %= Number of OK / (Number criteria – Number of NA) NA = Number of NA criteria status =>50% Status Basic Criteria Status Addtional Criteria Status OK Compliant NOK NR Not compliant NA Not evaluated Not applicable With the progressive PCPA we measure the progress of each phase For each phases the total scoring to be achieved is 100% Red : < 75% ==> Fail Yellow : >85% < 75% Green : ≥ 85% ==>Pass phase Recommendation: Link with APQP Grid (APQP grid is the critical path of the project). PCPA assessment can help rating the key deliverables of the APQP grid (ensure consistency) It is strongly recommended in case of doubt to applied this rules below Scoring for QSB+ 1) Scoring for Implementation of Requirement and effectiveness Pts Basic Criteria Status Addtional Criteria Status 0 Number of \"OK\"= 0 1 Number of \"OK\" > 0 2 Number of \"OK\" >= 50% of Total No impact on requirement scoring 3 Number of \"OK\" = 100% of Total Number of \"OK\" = 0 of Total 4 Number of \"OK\" = 100% of Total Number of \"OK\" > 0 of Total NR Number of \"NR\">= 1 No impact on requirement scoring NA Number of \"NA\"> 50% Audit Result of QSB+ & PCPA Red/Yellow/Green visualization applied. Thresholds for result calculation are defined on 3 levels: 1) Threshold on Requirement level If a Requirement or Effectiveness is scored by 0 or 1 Key Element will go Red. 2) Threshold on Key Element level Green : If a Key element is scored 85% or greater with no 0 or 1 score on Requirement level. Yellow : If a Key element is scored >= 75% or < 85% with no 0 or 1 score on Requirement level. Red : If a key element is scored < 75% or Red on requirement level (score 0 or 1). 3) Threshold on overall level (gives audit result) Green : 85% or greater with No Red Key Element ==> Pass Yellow : >= 75% or < 85% with No Red Key Element ==> Conditionnal Pass - Follow up needed Red : < 75% or / and a Red Key Element ==> Fail - Workshop/training needed
Action plan instruction After each QIP audits (NSA, or QSB+) : 1) An action plan need to be proposed by the supplier for each criteria \"NOK\". 2) The action plan need to be implemented in the specific sheet \"action plan instruction\" of the full report communicated by the QIP auditor : - Action plan sheet will be created by clicking on the specific button on header sheet questionnaire. - Action plans are to be addressed for each deviation listed. - The description of the action, the pilot, the timing and the \"6 core steps\" status need to be fulfilled. 3) The full action plan is to communicate to PSA, at least 4 weeks after the communication of the report. 4) The action plan will be evaluated and statused by PSA, at least 2 weeks after the communication of the full action plan. 3 status are possible : - Accepted : in line to permit to reach or to maintain the certification / qualification level. - Temporary accepted : Few modifications expected by PSA. Level of action plan close to the target. - Refused : The action plan can't permit to reach the certification / qualification level. Strong update needed. 5) The real implementation of the action plan will be checked by PSA during next on-site QIP review : - NSA action plan will be evaluated during the PCPA audits (input). - QSB+ action plan will be evaluated during QSB+ audits or PCPA audits.
New Supplier Assessment instruction 1) The NSA is a questionnaire used, in sourcing context, to provide objective evidence that satisfies PSA's Supplier Quality Expectations. 2) Supplier is required to read through NSA presentation before filling Audit form in order to understand NSA expectation. 3) Note that in some emergency condition, self-assessment step can be avoided by the QIP auditor. 4) Suppliers are required to keep completed copies of the NSA, and accompanying corrective action plans as described in \"action plan instruction sheet\". Latest audit shall be forwarded to PSA SQME responsible for the plant. 5) For NSA in red Status, the validation of the action plan is mandatory in order to avoid the \"road block status\" (Sourcing and Transfer conditions). 6) Full implementation of the action plan will be evaluated during next on-site QIP Review (e.g. PCPA audit). 7) NSA result is valid for a 12 months. 8) On RFQ for safety part : • Threshold is raised 10% • NSA cannot performed by service providers (It is prohibited) 9) Any questions about audit or audit procedure should be addressed to responsible PSA SQME. Steps of the evaluation :
Search
