7 Quality Basics In Development 656i4g

Standardization & Training (coaching) 7 Quality basics in Dev - FES School Mandatory Program Deliverables

Check

Do

Audit FES Program Audit

Implementation Excellent Program Plan KPI - Reporting System

10

Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

Objective

Confirm rigor and discipline in programs. – Level of execution must be deep enough – Timing of execution must be respected System audit for Programs after GR3, GR 2B and GR1 from each R&D center (Start from 1/2008). – Check evidences : real documents, real processes, real products – Check organization, timing of implementation, level of evidence

11

Scope

Mandatory Program Deliverables & Reporting – –

Level of completion of the 72 PMS Key Deliverables Program reporting system

Seven Quality Basics in Development – – – – – – –

Capitalization and Transversalization Key Characteristics FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) Strict Control Plan Validated Engineering Change Program QRCI Functional Milestones, Program Steering Committee and Gate Reviews


Acquisition Process –

Target definition with PLM, Acquisition phase staffing, Concept validation, Costing robustness, Program Quote Review, Program Kick-off meeting with Core Team staffing, Acquisition debriefing, Operating Margin.

12

Example: results summary It’s “Good” level overall. But, some of deliverables in “Product validation” are not so good. (For example, (1).”Design FMEA actions” were not well implemented before 2b (2)”Results of DVP tests” were not formalized before RO) 100% 80%


PROCESS INDICATOR

76%

77%

72%

PROC

COST

70% 53%

60% 40% 20% 0% TOTAL

PROG

PROD

13


Example of “Bad” answer for “Program Quote Review”

14


Example of “Good” answer for “Program Quote Review”

15

15 items of "Good & Bad answers on Faurecia Intranet through PMS Portal →Good&Bad examples PMS Portal

Intranet

Bad Answer Asnwer for Program Quote review Example of“ Bad” answer for“ Program Quote Review ”

“ Do you organize internal “ Program Quote Review” with your top managements before RFQA submission to customer ?”

- There is only “

Price estimation with assumptions”

Description of vehicle & targeted business” no “ Competitor - There is no “ study”, no “ Customer decision making timeline” no “ Business plan (OI, IRR)”, no “ Risk analysis” -

Good Answer for Program Quote Review

Finally, RFQA submission without top managements approval

Example of “Good” answer for “Program Quote Review” “ Do you organize internal“ Program Quote Review” with your top managements before RFQA submission to customer ”?

Price estimation with assumptions base-price add. Value expected Target

VW 250

AU353

AU210

90,00 €

120,00 €

90,00 €

120,00 €

170,00 €

tbd


acc. group values (3,7% SG&A) long distance JIT price Brussels

107,00 €

155,80 Audi € A3

RFQA submission with top managements approval by clear presentat ion base-price add. Value

Price estimation with assumptions

First BP Sittard

expected Target

Description of vehicule & targeted business Market Code: AU353

Neuburg

EOP:

90,00 €

AU353

Complete Seat

Metal incl. Mechanisms

()

2004

Prod. Volume total:

AU210

120,00 €

Current Production (Faurecia) location: SOP:

AU353

90,00 €

Targeted business

n.a.

OEM: Audi AG

VW 250

2011

VW250

RFQ

Competitor study

!

JCI JCI

CS Polo / A3 Comments

market position

w 18/07

CS - JCI is very aggressive because they w 20/07 A1 want to cover the lost Golf business - JCI is current supplier of VW

- CS

Front seats

PQ35

PQ25

PQ25

Rear seats

AU350

PQ25

PQ25

- CS

Intier Intier

- CS

Sitech Sitech

- CS

excellent

COP Magna-Intier /Sitech

First

Expected

Offer

Award

Business plan

w 34/07

(OI,IRR)

w 22/07

w 24/07

Turnover OI IRR CAPEX R&D Tooling Launch cost

136.180 k€ 6.918€ 5,0% 70,30% 1.361 k€ 300 k€cash payment 200 k€ cash payment 943 k€

w 34/07

The TOP Risks, if we are awarded

Risks analysis

Brussels - Audi requests to keep the current supplier-structure --> no JCI business

Lear Lear

comments

770.000

Customer decision making timeline

will be competitor on

AU210

targeted from Sittardor long distance JIT

- no signals for aggressive behaviour due to low volume - generally very agressive behaviour - but not appreciate due to bad R&D performance and to low volume

MTP and target low in TBL

problems in long-distance JIT concept (120kmSittard

Higher requirements on quality than Mitsubishi Colt

Brussels)

- no signals for aggressive behaviour due to low volume

good

average

limited

Capacities for additional AU210 project is not part of Faurecia

16

1

Program Z X

A: Excellent

2

80%

B: Satisfactory

60%

C: Marginal ok

Program Y X

3

•FR1t •Red Alert S/R •Warranty •PPM •Customer Quality indicators •Misdeliveries •IRR •Operating Income

100%

40%

D: Not ok

4

Result Indicators

better

Results (Image)

0%

c

d 0%

60%

a

b 70%

80%


Process Indicators (Checked by FES program audit) •Program Management •Product Validation •Process validation •Cost Management

better 100%


5 Mandatory Rules added to the 15 existing MRs

18


5 Mandatory Rules added to the 15 existing MRs

19


Machine Evaluation Form

20


2. 2011 Plan

21

Overall 2011 Plan

3 Programs after GR3, GR2b and GR1 2 days per site => 93 programs

Brieres

System audits

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0 Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

Méru

GR1

GR2

Shanghaï

Toledo

GR3

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0

0 GR1

GR2

GR3

0 GR1

GR2

GR3

GR1

GR2

GR3

22

2011 plan: R&D centers involved


Sites Jan : Feb: March: April: May: Jun: Jul : Sep: Oct: Nov: Dec:

Shanghaï (S), Peine-Hagenbach Stadthagen, Neuburg, Bavans Méru, Shanghaï(FIS), Brieres Columbus, Auburn hills, Troy Augsburg, Audincourt, Gamersheim-Weissenburg Neuburg, Mouzon, Stadthagen Brieres, Peine-Hagenbach Bavans, Méru, Limeira Quatro-Barras, Diadema, Augsburg, Audincourt, Gamersheim-Weissenburg Troy, Columbus, Auburn Hills, Stadthagen, Neuburg Mouzon 23

2010 Certified Auditors

Netwk

PG

Group FAS FIS

PMS FECT FAE

FAS


Program Quality

FIS

FECT FAE

Name

Certified

SATO Kiichiro SOULA Paul-Louis YGOUT Jacques BROGNIART Eric CANIVAL J. Sebastien MAJCHROWICZ Christian ROTHAN Marie-Noelle KLINGAUF Lutz KUSIAK Jacek THURET Gauthier GIELATA Pawel

Yes Yes

MESNARD Pierre KWIATKOWSKI Frank LACOUX Philippe BECKER Rolf MANSKE Carsten REBOURS Olivier JACQUOT Eric PATA Martial

Yes Yes 1 1

Netwk

US

PG

Name

Certified

FAS

DUDDLES Mark KERSUZAN Olivier HAWLEY Brian OBERHAUS Serena HACK Thomas MURRAY Todd OLIVEIRA Clodoaldo VILLARINHO Elessandra

Yes

FIS FECT

1 2

Brazil China

1 Yes

FIS FAS FECT FAS-FIS FECT

2

LI Li LEE YW GAO FENG Eva

Legend: 1: Only for GR1 2: For GR1 and 2

24

7 Quality Basics in Development


Agenda 7:45 8:00 8:20 8:35 9:00 10:10 11:10 11:25 12:05 12:45 15:45 16:00 16:55 17:00

Welcoming coffee Opening comments Introduction Capitalization & Tranversalization Key Characteristics & Strict Control Plans FMEA Break Validated Engineering Changes Lunch Program QRCI Break Functional Milestones & Gate Reviews Conclusion End

J.M. Renaudie K.Sato K.Sato V.Garcia Parra PL.Soula E.Jacquot J.Burke PL.Soula K.Sato

25


Functional Milestones, Program Steering Committee and Gate Reviews

Program QRCI


Capitalization & Transversalization

Let’s start! FMEA

Validated Strict Control Engineering Changes Plans

Key Characteristics 26



Ken SATO



Program QRCI



FMEA




Examples

29

2.1 Example (Blockage 1.1)

- Mistake the connection of harness Bad Terminal (A) Harness (2.5mm) Same color

Same size

- Risk the immobility of the vehicle due to the problem of injection pump

Harness (0.5mm)

Terminal (B)


OK

Terminal (A)

• Check similar problem of all harness - Same size of terminals

Harness (0.5mm)

- Same color of harness Harness (2.5mm)

Terminal (B)

30


• Ask to check, not only exact same problem, but also similar potential risk - Found 11 exact same problems & 45 similar problems and took countermeasure - Capitalization : Change “Design Standard” - Transversalization : Apply all same products (programs, plants) C ar m aker

U n it

A


R E NA ULT

...

T y p e o f p ro b l e m

H a rn e s s 1

2

3

4

5

6

a

OK

OK

OK

B ad

OK

OK

b

B ad

c

B ad

d

OK

C o u n te rm e a s u re

D a te

B

...

...

...

...

C

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

31


• Mistake of parts drawing, after design change

• Heater of seat doesn’t work properly Over heat

= Bad

No heat


SEAT = OK • Standardize the validation process after design change


- Capitalization : Validation Process Standard for Design Change - Transversalization : Apply to all programs (products, plants) Design Review by past quality concerns Not OK


Design Supplier Change Validation

Check Parts design

Production Validation for Mass production

Design Validation for the trial parts OK

OK

OK delivery

Renault ANPQP

Design change Request

Parts submission warrant

Good parts



34

Turning PDCA for Capitalization & Transversalization Lessons Learned is source of Standards >Each function department is able of Lessons Learned in its respective area


1-B

2. Program Quality Program Program Management Management System System

2-D

Acquisition

Tools

1-A Quality System System Standard Standard Quality

(Lessons Learned ) (Lessons

1. Group Quality

Design

Validation

Production

2-A

Design Design Standard Standard

2-B

Process Process Engineering Engineering Manual Manual

2-C

Supplier Supplier Management Management System System

3. Customer Quality

(Lessons Learned )

3-A

Customer Customer Quality Quality Standard Standard

3-B

Customer Customer PPM PPM Data Data base base (8D) (8D)

3-C

S S& &R R Alert Alert // Warranty Warranty Data Data base base (8D) (8D)

35

8D and Lessons learned


8D – problem solving report for Quality D1. Description & Sketch

_

D2. Risk on similar products and processes

_

D3. Containment

In 1 day

D4. Root cause of non detection

_

D5. Root cause of non conformance

_

D6. Countermeasure to non detection and non conformance

In 10 working days

D7. Effectiveness of action plan

_

D8. Lessons learned

In 60 working days

> Access through Faurecia intranet ● Group Intranet Homepage -> Quality -> 8D – S&R Logistics -> FAU-F-LSG-0230 ● Lessons Learned Template is the last sheet of standard 8D 36

Lessons Learned: Practice


<4 Key points for Before/After> 1).Need picture, drawing or photo 2).Need quantitative value 3). needs to prevent same or similar problem beforehand 4).Need to understand easily even by your wife, husband (or partner)

All BGs use the Spider System under names of LOLA, I-Know & Knowledge Mgt

37

Lessons Learned: 2 examples

LESSON LEARNED SHEET

LESSON LEARNED SHEET Application date : UAP 1 / AU 716

Author :

Willibald Dimpfl

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? (5W + 2H)

Application date :

Detection

Logistics

BG/Div/Site:

SMPG, Wałbrzych Frames

Occurrence

Internal

UAP/Line:

Wojciech Mazgis

Management

Suppliers

Author :

Wojciech Mazgis

WHAT IS THE CAUSE?


Buckling of Boomerang door- and tunnelside ECE-R14 test on rear seat 2nd row high variante NOK on fixed All materials inside drawing specifications Why it is a problem? Materials in N.O.K validation ca. 10%-15% weaker Seat is on the borderline between dynamic and static requirements The side (bumerang) were deformed under laod and so that horizontal displacement of the H-point was not Parameters of materials are changing meeting specification When did it happen ? Boomerang must absorb the energy in crash test Jan 24th 06 Who has detected it ? DIN allowed these changes SDS Validation Stadthagen and Design Engineering

What happened?

Where has it been detected ?

How has it been detected?

What happened?

Boomerang must be weak to fullfill the dynamic specification

Faurecia Stadthagen / Validation

Internal

Management

Suppliers

WHAT IS THE CAUSE? Sensors NOK, Uncontrolled resetting

Wrong position of parts When did it happen ?

4.11.2005 Who has detected it ?

Customer JCI Geel Where has it been detected ?

At Customer site Visually How many ?

1 piece

BEFORE

AFTER

Workstation could have been reset by conventional key by anyone who copied it.

Workstation can be reset only by electronic key which cannot be copied without controll.

Bucket position sensor allowes to start process even when was out of order

Bucket position sensor allowes to start process only when position OK.

Possible uncontrolled unscrew operation (quick rework)

Unscrew operation not possible. This function is blocked in screwdriver.

How many ?

AFTER

Logistics

Occurrence

Why it is a problem?

ECE-R14 test

BEFORE

8.05.2006

Detection

Gap between side member and crossmember

How has it been detected?

1 part

Type

SMPG /Frames-Div. / Geiselhöring

Type

BG/Div/Site: UAP/Line:

08/02/2006

ET 4448124 A

ZSB


4448718 A

without additional wire

WHAT WE LEARNED

with additional wire

FACTOR

WHAT WE LEARNED FACTOR

Relevant factors of ECE-R14 test

CONTROL POINT (What to do?, how?, when?, who?)

what: SDS Validation Stadthagen how: ECE-R14 test when: see crash-test schedule who: SDS Validation Stadthagen

UAP 1 AU 716 2nd row Plant Geiselhöring SMPG / Frames / Plant Geiselhöring

(What to do?, how?, when?, who?)

STANDARD / REACTION RULES

STANDARD / REACTION RULES

Following NOK procedure countinously result crash test (COP)

NOK procedure audit for every employee Every 3 months Done by Quality Inspector Confirmed in Training Records

"Confirm'"is when bad part is proceed by operator according NOK procedure "Not Confirm" is when it is not proceed acurately

Potential Applicability

Potential Applicability Plant: Division: BG's/Group:

CONTROL POINT

Plant: Division: BG's/Group:

Aplicable N/A N/A

38


FAS

39


FIS

40

7 Quality basics in Development Evaluation form NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________ Value added of the module 1 2 3 4

Comments

Introduction

Capitalization & Transversalisation

Key Characteristics

FMEA

Evaluation Form to fill in

Strict control plans

Program QRQC

Validated Engineering Changes


Functional milestones & Progr Steering Com & Gate Reviews How to accelerate

Conclusion Rating: 1 = Poor

2=Average

General Appraisal

1

2

3=Good 3

4= Excellent

4 Comments:

41


Key Characteristics & Strict Control Plans Victor GARCIA PARRA



Program QRCI



FMEA



Key Characteristics

Agenda


How to manage Key characteristics How to build a Control Plan Workshop Debriefing

20 mn 20 mn 25 mn 5mn

44

Introduction Critical dimension “X” = S/R = 1 Which dimension is critical as well? A±a

B±b

C±c

=> A, B, C, D or All ? D±d

“Sub-Assy”


X±y

1

“Slide” 45

Introduction For an appropriate answer => apply Key Characteristics Management:

• Objective: determine which dimensions are critical and which have to be kept under control!

• Use Tolerance Chain Management (TCM)


X±y A±a

B±b

C±c

1

D±d

“Assy” 46


Introduction

Reality is more complex

47

Objectives

• Transform key customers requirements into a manageable list of key characteristics

• Drive focus on priorities during product & process development

• Allow early warning for non quality due to capabilities not met on customers priorities Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

• Key characteristics management is a process which contributes to build an efficient control plan A±a

B±b

C±c

D±d

48

How to manage “Key Characteristics”

• Understand interactions between product and process characteristics.

• Know guidelines to minimize the initial control size.


• Implement 3 step process to define & monitor Key Characteristics.

49






50

Product & Process Characteristics

Product Characteristics

Non-Key Product Characteristics

Characteristics

Process Characteristics Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

Key Product Characteristics KPC

Key Control * Characteristics KCC Non-Key Control Characteristics

Product Characteristic which affects 1

2

Process Characteristic which affects 1

2

Need to be controlled to ensure minimized variation of product characteristics * “Key Process Characteristics” = “Key Control Characteristics” / KCC

51

Interactions between KPC & KCCs

EFFECT

CAUSE Material

Method

Manpower

KCC KCC

KCC

KCC

KCC

KPC

KCC KCC KCC


Machine

Measure

KCC

Environment

Many KCCs KCCs factors can affect KPC Ongoing of is required KCCs are determined Once Control ofcontrol KCCs are defined willKPC ensure and that in aplace, theifvariation KPC checks of not themay related be reduced KPC is minimized and performed during validation => e.g. changes in material candesign affect or theproduction KPC 52

Interactions between KPC & KCCs

EFFECT

CAUSE Method

Material

Manpower

Suspension Deflection

Qualified operator

Inspection measurement

Cushion foam density

Mannequin

Test Protocol

Metrology hard & software

Training

KPC

Humidity

H - Point Conditioning V


Machine

Measure

Environment

Y

E M P C G

Example : H-Point / Seat

H Ch D

53 S






54

Guidelines to minimize control size 1.KPC KPCwhich which can is validated and fulfill automatically the requirements through inits DV KCC &isPV because (e.g. ECE, 3.2. needs tocontrolled be controlled regularly there no related “Control ofbe Process Characteristics ( because KCC) will ensure that the The series control size of KPC can be reduced or eliminated along the FMVSS, etc) can beof reduced to zero or few numbers of the “Continuous or Poka-Yoke in place. The control hascontrolled) tominimized” be defined variation the Characteristics is • KCC Its process is stable (process variation issize under development phases asProduct following: ComplianceisTesting” • accordingly. Poka-Yoke in placeRequirements Design

Pre-Series/

Verification

Series Production

KPC KPC

Initial

KPC

KPC KPC

KPC

Control PMS

KCC

Size Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

KPC

KPC

KCC

KPC

KPC

KCC KCC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KCC

Customer’s called volume

KCC KCC Control

Size KPC

KCC

Series

KPC

KPC

Non Conformity Cost = ppm x called volume 55



• Know guidelines to minimize the initial control size. • Implement 3 step process to define & monitor Key Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

Characteristics.

56

3 step process Program award

Customer Inquiry

1

2 a&b

G R 1: Designate KPCs Step1 Management decisions

QUOTATION

GO / NO GO

DECISION

GR 2

DRAWINGS S R

PROGRAM CONFIRMATION

FIT FUNCTION

Non-KPCs

PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS


Customer production part approval

Customer tool release

KPC SPECS

INVESTMENT APPROVAL

3

INPUTG R

SOP

4 GR 4

3

5

KPC’s list Cust. requirements (CtC) Warranty data Suppliers concerns

OUTPUT Control Plans Process Flow Diagram Record KPCs Record KCCs

Responsible: R&D Engineer : Program/Acquisition Manager, PQL, Buyer, Supplier, Quality, Sales, Product Manager

PROPOSAL

Recommended Tools: FA, D-FMEA, PRODUCTION SET- UP TCM, FEA PRODUCT & PROCESS LAUNCH & PRE-SERIES DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT T DEVELOPMEN C.t.C = Critical to customer lists, TCM = Tolerance Chain Management, FEA = Finite Element Analysis Max 2 Months

SERIES PRODUCTION

Min 3 Months Max 6 Months

57

3 step process

Customer Inquiry

1

Program award

2 a&b

GO / NO GO

3

G R 1 Step1 : Designate KPCsG R 2

QUOTATION DECISION

S R

Step2 : Monitor KPCs,KCCs GR 3 KCC

DRAWINGS

Management decisions



KCC

KPC

SPECS

Non-KPCs

5

KP C

INVESTMENT APPROVAL

KCC

FIT FUNCTION

4 GR 4

KCC

PROGRAM CONFIRMATION

SOP

KCC

KCC

Cause

Input

Effect

PROCESS CONTROL PLAN KPC

KCC

Output

CONTROL

PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS


S/R list Fit & Function list Product Drawings Industrial Drawings Product Specs.

Control Plans Process Flow Diagram Record KPCs Record KCCs

Responsible : PQL : Program Manager, Supplier Quality, Validation Engineer, Proto Lab, Plant Quality, R&D, Process Pilot, Plant Launch team (Launch Mgr.)

Recommended Tools: P-FMEA, Process Flow Diagram, Control Plan, DoE, PRODUCTION SET- UP PRODUCT & PROCESS SERIES Cause-Effect Diagram, Pareto Analysis, Capability Study LAUNCH PROPOSAL & PRE-SERIES DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMEN T

DoE = Design of Experiment Max 2 Months

PRODUCTION

58


Action steps along PMS

Customer Inquiry

Program award

GR 1 Step1 : Management decisions

GO / NO GO

QUOTATION DECISION

2 a&b

DRAWINGS

S R Designate

FIT FUNCTION

KPCs KPC SPECS DRAWINGS

KPC

PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS FIT FUNCTION


Control Plans PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS Process Flow Diagram Record KPCs Record KCCs

KCC

GR 2

KCC

KCC

GR 3 3 Step2 : Plan & Apply control KP duringC the

4 GR 4

5

1st :Designate KPCs system KPCs,KCCs ph.1 & 2 KCC KCC team collects input data/Lessons learned - KCCDesign KCC KCC KCC Effect Caus of relevant characteristics, e.g. customer KPC list, e PROCESS CONTROL KP Spec., PLAN C KP KCC.t.C, CONTRO Warranty, supplier concerns,… L C KCCC KCC KCC - Define KPCs, Non-KPCs of designed product Effect Cause - Step3 The respective team (R&D, PQL, : Improve program KPCs,KCCs Buyer, …) controls PROCESS CONTROL PLAN KCC KCC KPC identify KPC Series the S/R or Fit/Function INVESTMENT APPROVAL

S Non-KPCs PROGRAM CONFIRMATION R

INPUT Non-KPCs

SOP

Step2 : Monitor KPCs,KCCs

Step1 : Designate KPCs

1



SPECS KPC

Initial

KPC

KCC

CONTROL

KCC

KCC

VARIABLES CONTROL CHART

OUTPUT

Step3 : Improve KPCs,KCCs controls KPC 2nd:Plan & Apply control systems KPCs/KCCs during the Instructions ph. 2 & 3 KCC Initial KCC KPC KPC Series - Reduction Each KPC’s related KCCs are determined (shown in cause-effect of Variation Control records KCC diagram) VARIABLES CONTROL - Planning ways to control KCCs or KPCs KCCs are KCCif no related CHART 3rd :Improve KCCs controls during the ph. 3&4 (&5) identified Responsible : Plant Launch Team Leader (Launch Manager) - Planning methods for reducing the - Record the tests results (dimension, functional, …) : Program Manager, variation within the targetedPlant value Manager, PQL, Supplier Quality, Plant Quality, Process Pilot - Monitoring the results Reduction of Variation - Maintain/improve control planSPC, size & DVP&R, P-FMEA, Recommended Tools: DoE, Control Plan, QRCI, QSE, R@R frequency PRODUCTION SET- UP

PRODUCT & PROCESS DoE = Design of Experiment, SPC = Statistical Process Control, DVP&R = Design Verification Plan & Report, LAUNCH PROPOSAL & PRE-SERIES DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMEN T

SERIES PRODUCTION

QRCI = Quick Reaction Quality Control, R@R = Run at Rate Max 2 Months


59

Key Messages: Key Characteristics:

• Improves better understanding of customer


requirements • Helps to focus on product & process priorities to reduce & permits control size reduction • Allows early warning on capabilities not met & prevents S/R issues in the field & customer recalls • Can ensure robust designs Is a prerequisite to define efficient control plans 60



Program QRCI



FMEA



Key Characteristics

Agenda


How to manage Key characteristics How to build a Control Plan Workshop Debriefing

20 mn 20 mn 25 mn 5mn

62

Introduction: Session Objectives Ensure a Global Understanding of Control Plans Improve the Content and Execution of Control Plans


Clarify the Contribution of each Function Be aware of incurred risks if not properly deployed and applied 63

Bad Control Plan can kill People!

Renault Vel Satis


Red alert NOK COP test Field campaign

Root cause 1. Why: IP insert broken 2. Why: Material brittel

Aug/2003:

3. Why: NOK glass fiber and PU rate

16 cars NOK/400 in the field.

4. Why: Not checked at OK first part 5. Why: Not a KPC (absent in drawing & control plan) 64

Introduction: Control Plan Objectives Protect Internal & External Customers (Safety / Fit & Finish / Function) Efficiently ensure Product Conformity in spite of Supplier and Process Variability,


Define Reaction Rules in case of deviations Reduce Variability 65

Introduction: Control Plan Definition

• •

Written Description of Activities for Process Controlling List of Planned Tasks to be applied by Defined Responsible People People (Operators, GAP Leaders, Maintenance, Quality, Lab …) to ensure Product Conformity => Who does what, when, where and why ? • Control Plan lists all Process Parameters and Product Characteristics Characteristics that require Specific Quality Actions ⇒ 3 levels exist according to the Programs Phases


GR1

1 ACQUISITION

GR2A

2A DESIGN

Prototype Control Plan

GR2B

2B DESIGN VERIFICATION

GR3

3 PRODUCTION SET-UP

PreProduction Control Plan

GR4

5 4 LAUNCH PRODUCTION

Production Control Plan

66

Prototype Control Plan Layout

Prototype Phases

PT

Prototype Shop

Suppliers


•100% Visual Inspection •100% Measurement on Key Characteristics

0p 1

0p 2

0p 3

100% Visual Inspection

100% KC Measurement

100% Visual Inspection & Measurement of Key Characteristics @ Supplier & Faurecia Locations Complete Design Validation Plan Initiate Production Validation Plan

Customer Internal & External Customer Satisfaction

67

Pre-Production Control Plan Layout Target: achieve 15 Ppm & 100% Efficiency @ SOP

PT

Manufacturing Plant

Sorting of Finished Goods on selected Key Characteristics Quality Wall

Supplier


Sorting of BOP on selected Key Characteristics

Quality Wall

Incoming Goods Inspection

0p 1

0p 2

0p 3

Final Inspection

Quality Wall @ Supplier & Faurecia Locations

Incoming Goods Inspection Higher Frequency & Sampling Size on Key Characteristics Monitoring Initiate SPC on Key Characteristics Complete Production Validation Plan


No Non-Conformity on Critical Characteristics allowed on Saleable Cars

S R 68

Production Control Plan Layout Target: achieve 15 Ppm & 100% Efficiency @ SOP

Manufacturing Plant

0p 1

Supplier


BOP delivered in Self-Certification Status

0p 2

0p 3

Final Inspection

Adjust Frequency & Sampling Size on Key Characteristics monitoring according to Product & Process Variability Drive Continuous Improvement through SPC on Key Characteristics Product Audit Lessons Learned to Programs


69

How to apply Control Plan ? (Sample Check) Clear decision rules Process No is stable

Natural Process Limits

Need 100% check for Key Control Characteristics

Natural Process Limits

Yes Could be checked by sampling with basic rules:


: Suspected lot must be checked 100% with traceability OK Lot

Suspected Lot

OK

OK

OK

OK

OK

NOK

OK

OK

OK

100% check Time

: SPC control with action rule UPR limit

X

Action limit

X

ACTION !!

X

Nominal Action limit

X

LWR limit 70

How to apply Control Plan ? (Instructions Sheet) Parts name (process : final check) N°

Check point

By

Frequency

Criteria

If not OK

1

Deformation

Visual

100%

OK - NOK sample

Repair

2

Dimension A

Micro meter

1/120

+ 0,2 mm

Scrap

3

Dimension B

Gauge

100%

Go - No go gauge

Scrap

4

...

...

...

...

5

...

...

...

6

...

...

...

7

...

...

8

...

...

9


10

No Subjective Criteria

...

...

Clear Decision Rules ...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

... ... ... ... ... Maxi 10 Points to be Checked per Work Station ... ... ... ... ...

4

7

8

Pictures or Schemes5 to position the Criteria

1 3

10 2

9

6 71

Control Plan – Good Practices Pre-Production

Reaction Rules defined

Key Characteristics defined with Nominal + Tolerances


Production

Higher Sampling Size

72


Responsibilities

Actor

Validator

Prototype Control Plan

Product Development Leader + Program Quality Leader

Program Manager

PrePre-Production Control Plan

Program Manufacturing Leader+ Program Quality Leader + Plant Quality Manager

Program Manager Plant Manager

Production Control Plan

Program Manufacturing Leader + Plant Quality Manager

Plant Manager

Program Managers and Plant Managers are responsible for the strict application of the Control Plans Control Plan is the “Safety Belt” to protect us about “Past Quality Concerns” 73

How to write a control plan ?


General Information

Product characteristics only: -dimension, -appearance, -function, -part number -physical & chemical properties (temperature, fiber glass content, porosity, crack, adhesion, etc.)

Process parameters only: -temperature -pressure -velocity -torque -force -handling -positioning -labeling -scanning -packaging -etc. Poka-yoke identification nber

Process / ToolsKPC KCC To be Monitored Description

Checking / Monitoring Reaction Rules Methods

74

Workshop : Practical exemple (30’)


Built production control plan related to shoot channel 8 nuts screwing operation : Documents provided: Drawing KPC/KCC Ishikawa diagram DFMEA/PFMEA SR fastening mandatory points Blank control plan format Share by table conclusions 75

Interactions between KPC & KCCs Proposed answer CAUSE Material

Method

EFFECT Manpower

Ergonomics Backup (tools angle, procedure if overview, ...) Training Poka Yoke Nut Alloy S/R rules Inoperative Faurecia (eg : 2 Self-locking remaining nut P/N threads / stud Poka Yoke …) part blocked at Torque & angle Grease Torque Station Calibration free Torque range Dirt or painting Screwdriver accuracy Maintenance free in acc. with torque. Stud Alloy


Machine

Speed / Angle / Torque ramp-up programming method

Measure

KPC Torque (6+/-1 Nm)

Environment

Example : Chute channel assembly to Airbag Flap Reinforcement 76

T5 Airbag shoot channel assembly control plan

Prototype

Pre-launch

Key / Telephone Demmy Yoosuf / 0044 7787 516731

Production

Date (Original) 12/03/03

Signature (Quality)

Date (Revision) 17/03/2005

Part Number / Latest Change Level FAB500150XXX (LHD NoNav), FAB500140XXX (RHD NoNav) FAB500160XXX (RHD Nav), FAB500170XXX (LHD Nav)

Core Team D. Yoosuf, T. Giraud, L. David, Richard Cornick Stephane Beaupere, Michael Levasseur, Fadel Wade, , Manuel Ventura, Dave Herrington

Customer Engineering Approval / Date (If Required) 28/11/03

Part Name / Discription TOPPER PAD ASSY NO NA V & NO NAV LH&RH

Supplier / Plant Approval / Date

Customer Quality Approval / Date (If Required) 28/11/03

Other Approval / Date (If Required)

Other Approval / Date (If Required)

Supplier Code CXVNA

Supplier / Plant Faurecia / FRADLEY


Part/ Process Number

Process Name/ Operation Description

Characteristics

Machine, Device Jig, Tools for Mfg.

No.

Product

Specia Process

Char. Class.

Product / Process Specifications / Tolerance

Sample

Evaluation/ Measurement Technique

Size

Frequence

Control Method

Reactio Plan

Resp.

77

T5 Airbag chute channel assembly control plan 300

300

300


310

Assembly Line - Post-Welding

Fixation of Airbag Chute to Georges Renault Driver Topper Pad Assembly System

Fixation of Airbag Chute to Georges Renault Driver Topper Pad Assembly System

Traceability Recording

Scanner, Manual backup

1

-

2

-

3

Airbag Chute Batch, Chute fixation nuts batch number

Torque

Torque

-

CC

6NM +/- 1NM

Screw driver with inbuilt torque transducer

1

a) Follow Poka Yoke validation Instruction b) Record results on Poka Yoke Shift Start Up validation record sheet c) Record on start up sheet set & actual torque for 1st off part

CC

6NM +/- 1NM

Screw driver with inbuilt torque transducer

1

Every Part a) Automated check.

CC

Critical components are traceable to manufacturing batch

Recorded electronically or manually held logs

1

Every Part

a) Follow Standard Operation FIS-F-PS-241/EN V2

a) Inform GAP Leader & Supervisor if Poke Yoke system fails. b) Inform maintenance to rectify problem.

a) Inform GAP Leader & Supervisor if Poke Yoke system fails part. b) Inform maintenance to rectify problem. c) Backup driver to be used if original cannot be repaired otherwise stop production.

a) Record batch information on manual traceability sheets.

…and additionally , electrical fastener initial torque calibration and then …regular checking ! 78


Key Messages

Control Plan is a living document! Continuously upgraded Information should be shared

Control Plan is a contractual document! Strict application is mandatory Any deviation or modification must be submitted to Customer before release

Control Plan is a confidential document!

Control Plan is requested also from our Suppliers! 79


Comments

Introduction


Key Characteristics

FMEA



Program QRQC





2=Average

General Appraisal

1

2

3=Good 3

4= Excellent

4 Comments:

80



Agenda 7:45 8:00 8:20 8:35 9:00 10:10 11:10 11:25 12:05 12:45 15:45 16:00 16:55 17:00



81

FMEA Training Module Paul-Louis SOULA



Program QRCI



FMEA



Failure Mode and Effect Analysis

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

6.

Reasons for FMEAs Objective of FMEAs Types of FMEAs How to build a Design FMEA How to build a Process FMEA Workshop

84

Red Alert with Customer impact Defect: No-relocking of one of the 2 slides. Bad hafting of the handle bar inside the slide : handle bar assembly inside the leg for recall of the handle bar. LESSON LEARNED SHEET

D5 - Root Causes of Occurrence Applica tion da te :

No g en t s ur Ve rn iss on

U AP/Line: A uthor :

Qua li ty De pa rt

Type

B G/D iv/Site :

All a n GOUR ET

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? (5W + 2H) What happ ened? Bad hafting of the handle bar inside the slide : handle bar assembly inside the leg for r ecall of the handle bar. Why it is a p ro blem? No-relocking of one of the 2 slides.

nov- 09

Detection

Lo gistics

Occu rre nce

Internal

Manag ement

Supp liers

1. No product poka yoke ; estimated nonnecessary by mechanisms 2. New operator (2 days of experience) without the good sensibility

WHAT IS THE CAUSE? Possibility to assembly the handle bar in the slides but in a bad position in the slide's locking spring.

Sl ide Fema le pro file

When did it happ en ? Detected the 29th Apr il of 2009. Cr eated the 24th April of 2009 at 12AM07. Loc k

Who has det ect ed it ? Detected by operator in SOT EXO . Where has it b een det ect ed ? Detected dur ing tr iming of the seat in Ho w h as it been d etected ? Detected during triming of the seat : not

Gu idi ng at 22°5

Male p rofil e

Ho w m any ? 1 case

BEFORE

In stall ation o f the h an dle b ar

AFTER

Possibility to put the handle bar in this hole of the locking spr ing

New design of the locking spring with adding of a product's poka-yoke


D4 - Root Causes of Non-Detection No specific inspection concerning this point in the control plan and FMEA cotation at 32. 1. Assembly of the handle bar without visibility 2. FMEA Gravity at 8 : Missing of hierarchisation at 1 on the drawing and preconisation from Flers 3. FMEA detection and occurence at 2 : No case before this one. 4. Detection : potentialy sensitive but depending of the operator ITEM (Control Factor)

WHAT WE LEARNED METHOD

CRITERIA

D:\maniae\A Perso\ D:\maniae\A Perso\ SRC\Alerte s Qualité\X95\JR95\Mauv SRC\Alertesais Qualité\X95\JR95\Mauv ass palonnier gliss ièreai s\Workshop s ass palonnier R ed ga

Assembly in t he good hole of the slide's locking spring

Product poka yoke

I mpossibility of assembling the handle bar in another hole t hat necessary to it s function

9700 slides checked out of which 2000 vehicles checked at customer place 85

Background # 6442

SR Alert Re-Occurrence prevention Memo Application date :

26-oct

BG/Div/Site:

SMPG Nompatelize

UAP/Line:

Backrest T7

Author :

T.Delattre/A.Moussaïd


Design Process Mix OK/NOK Testing Supplier

Link to AMS 6442

Cause

NC freeplay on backrest and potential recliner Unclear definition of cable tension neither unlcking. efficient tool to set it right (gap setting) 36 NC parts segregated on July 12th by resident at customer PSA during function test. Not OK (Before)

No clear instruction for the operator who was left alone to decide correct fitting

OK (After)

Gages in place to garantee repeatable cable and recliner positionning as well as proper cable tension

D 5 Root cause of non conformance The backrest unlocking cable was set up too short. Consequently the backrest was partially unlocked and there was a noticeable freeplay D 4 Root cause of non Detection

Control method was not defined with clear criteria Risk was wrongly evaluated during FMEA Study and no precise action was defined to prevent defect to be stopped


Defect detected during Preproduction, 405 seats checked at customer

86

Before to start… 1 Proposal

At which stage of the PMS

2A Design

should be performed:


2B Design Verification

A Design FMEA ? A Process FMEA ?

3 Production SetSet-up 4 Launch 87

5 Sé Séries Production 87

FMEA: At what stage of PMS ? 1 Proposal

FUNCTIONAL Analysis KPC (Key Product Characteristics) Characteristics) identified from customer Requirements


continuus updating

2A Design

Product FMEA initiation KPC list completed Expert/Designer suppliers product KPCs identified on 2D and BOM Process FMEA initiation KCC List identified

2B Design Verification

Product FMEA completed Expert/Designer suppliers KPCs validated KPC/KCC included in Pre-production control plan BOPs, BOPs, tools, gauges, equipments ordered

3 Production SetSet-up

Process FMEA completed Pre--Production Control Plan Implemented Pre PVP tests results successful Mass Production Trial Successful Process Capability achieved

4 Launch 5 Sé Séries Production

Production Control Plan Implemented Lessons learned Product and Process FMEAs review and feed back 88


FMEA Objectives

1.

Reduce risks related to the Product and the process definition and improve reliability and be documented

2.

Drive focus on priorities (Safety, reliability and functionality) during product & process development after criticality ranking

3.

Identify the key needed verifications during the product/process development phase and during the production cycle

4.

Reduce costs and Development time

5.

D-FMEAs and PP-FMEAs are the links between Key Characteristics and Control Plans

Risks

89

FMEA Definitions

Failure Mode & Effect Analysis

Ref: FAU-S-DSG-3040

The FMEA is a preventive analysis tool aimed at

reducing risk during definition and validation of the Product and the Process designs against a

functional specification. It is a way of improving product reliability

Design FMEA identifies potential failures of the product design during the complete life cycle of the product ( part manufacturing,

The

subcomponents assembly, part handling, car assembly, final customer use, product end of life etc…) It applies to all products designed by and for Faurecia. After program is completed, the Design FMEA is updated every time there is a change in product design that could affect the validation of the product.


The Process FMEA identifies potential failures of the product due to the manufacturing process from raw material transformation up to customer use i.e. subcomponent manufacturing ( press, injection, machining etc…), subcomponents assembly, transportation, part handling, car assembly etc… It applies to all products manufactured inside or outside Faurecia. After program is completed, the process FMEA is updated every time there is a change in product or process that could affect quality of the product. 90

REDUCE THE COST OF MODIFICATIONS Tooling modifications


Drawing modifications

Slide version 02

91

The FMEA Types and Teams

Object

Design-FMEA (Product-FMEA)

Process-FMEA


Product Design

When

Responsible Product Design engineer or System architect

Product (System, Component)

Starts at End of Concept Phase

Production process

After first process definition

Process & Tool Engineer

Product Design

Quality

Quality

Teams Design-FMEA Team Functions

Validation Process Engineering

Process-FMEA Team Functions

Manufacturing

People with experience

Process Engineering 92

How to perform a FMEA

D-FMEA or P-FMEA

FMEA Number:

PROCESS

DESIGN

FMEA Date: Engineering level/index:

PILOT-leader :

EFFECT

MODE

S:

Severity

D : Detectability

Potential Cause of failure

O:

Design validation (D-FMEA) Process controls (P-FMEA) Prevention

Occurence

Detection

RPN :

RPN

(DFMEA)

Detection

(PFMEA)

Life situation (DFMEA):

POTENTIAL FAILURE

KCC nb

Product Function definition studied

Class

Part or Device or Item :

Process Step definition

Class can be S/R ( or "1") or "2" (function) or no value


Updated on :

Product :

KPC nb

N°

Drawing reference :

Severity

Line and Plant (PFMEA) :

Type of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en

Occurrence

Design FMEA

Recommended Corrective Actions Responsible N°

Description

Target completion date

Forecasted new RPN Action taken S

O

D

RPN

RPN checked after actions implemented S

O

Risk Priority Number

1- Product function (DFMEA) or Process step (PFMEA) 2- Potential failure Mode 1- Potential cause of failure + occurence 3- Potential Effect 2- Key Characteristics number 4- Severity 3- Design Validation (DFMEA) 4- Process control (PFMEA) + Detection 5- RPN calculation 1- Recommended Corrective Actions 2- Responsible & target date 3- Action taken 4- Forecasted RPN 5- RPN checked after actions implemented 93

D

RPN

1st Step: Identify Failure mode (1/2) D-FMEA or P-FMEA

1- Which function to study (DFMEA) Process Step definition


(PFMEA)

(DFMEA)

POTENTIAL FAILURE MODE

EFFECT

KPC nb

N°

Part or Device or Item : Class


FAU-f-DSG-4040/en

Severity

(for each life situation)

Type of vehicle or device : Product :


2 - What can go wrong? - No function - Partial/over function or degraded over time - Intermittent function - Unintended function

3 - What are the worst effects for each failure mode?

4 – How bad is it ? Identify a severity rating

94


“S” : SEVERITY GRADING CHART (Design and Process)

95

2nd step: Evaluate Root cause and Current Controls (1/2)

PROCESS

DESIGN

Drawing reference : Engineering level/index:

Prevention

Detection

RPN

Design validation (D-FMEA) Process controls (P-FMEA)

Detection


KCC nb

Life situation (DFMEA): Occurrence

1- Identify the associated cause (first level and root) 2- The estimated occurrence

DFMEA


3- The actions already performed during Product design Prevention: Which checks have been made or standards used in order to make the design more robust Detection: Which checks or tests are currently included in the DVP design validation plan

4- Detection rating: How confindent are we with current definition of the DVP to detect a potential defect 5- RPN calculation 96

1st Step: Identify Failure mode (2/2) D-FMEA or P-FMEA Type of vehicle or device : Product :

1- Which process to study (PFMEA) Product Function definition studied

(PFMEA)

(DFMEA)


EFFECT

KPC nb


Class

N°

Part or Device or Item : Severity


FAU-f-DSG-4040/en


2 - What can go wrong? See below types of defects (for function consider degraded or intermittent due to process)

3 - What are the worst effects for each failure mode?

4 – How bad is it ? Identify a severity rating? Is it a KPC ?

97


“O” : OCCURRENCE GRADING CHART (Design & Process)

98


“D” : DETECTION GRADING CHART (Design)

99

2nd step: Evaluate Root cause and Current Controls (2/2)

PROCESS

DESIGN

Drawing reference : Engineering level/index:

Prevention

Detection

RPN


Detection


KCC nb

Life situation (DFMEA): Occurrence

1- Identify the associated cause (first level and root) 2- The estimated occurrence

KCC identified as a contributor to achieve the KPC

PFMEA


3- The actions already performed during Process design Prevention: Which controls are included in the process in order to reduce the defect to occur Detection: Which controls are included in the process in order to detect the defect when it occurs

4- Detection rating: How confindent are we with current definition of the Process to detect a potential defect 5- RPN calculation 100

“D” : DETECTION GRADING CHART (Process)


If a later operation (same plant) can stop a defect like a double visual check, rating could be reduced by 1

101

Risk priority number ( or RPN)


RPN= : S x O x D

Severity or Probability that the failure will be serious

Probability that the cause/mode will occur

Probability that it won't be detected

Slide version 02

102

3rd step: Corrective Actions 1- Recommended Corrective Actions for Prevention and Detection: What can be done for - Design changes, - Standard changes, - Process changes - Special controls ?

FMEA Number: FMEA Date: Updated on : PILOT-leader :


Description



O

D

RPN


O

D

RPN


2- Responsible & target date

3- Forecasted new RPN Action taken ? Is action sufficient ?

4- When action has been taken ( if action is different from initial, please mention it) 5- New RPN after actions are implemented Is action sufficient ? 103

PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

Once critical failures are identified preventive or corrective actions are decided for the highes highest RPNs RPN > allowable limit (*) => ACTION


The future of our company depends on risk control

Once actions are in place the RPN should be recalculated it becomes: RPN' RPN' Faurecia urecia rules (*) may depend on customer requirement if more stringent than Fa Slide version 01

104

What have we learned on Design FMEA OUTPUTS

INPUTS

Design validation plan (product tests)

Product requirement Functional analysis Warranty, returns and rejects


modifications Programme goals (ppm, ppm, reliability, maintainability,… maintainability,…

Regulations

Formalise a critical examination of product design Ensure that the product design conforms to customer and legislative requirements

Design Poka Yoké Yoké Prototype control plan List of product special characteristics Corrective actions plan Measurement concepts, gages and instructions

FAU--S-PMFAU PM-3040 Slide version 02

105

What have we learned on Process FMEA Inputs

Outputs

DFMEA Process flow chart Process functional analysis Process assumptions Plant Lay out


Capitalization Warranty, returns and rejects Modifications Program goals (ppm, reliability, maintainability,…)

Formalise a critical examination of process design Ensure that the process design allows products made conforming to customer and legislative requirements ensure that products are not damaged in handling (transports, storage, …) including on and off site

Assembly and use instructions Serie control plan (included Process Poka Yoké) Corrective actions plan List of process special caracteristics Measurement and checking instructions FAU--S-PMFAU PM-3042 Slide version 02

106


8 Quality Basics in Development Group owners & PG Referent / Experts

March 18th, 2011

7 Basics

FAS

FIS

FAE

FECT

Group

Key characteristics

L.Klingauf

Ph.Lalaguë

P.Renoit/ R.Mary

F.Lueder

P.Mesnard

FMEA

M.Jordan

C.Desplanque

F.Selb/R.Mary/M. Stefan-Weber

V.Gosatti

PL. Soula

Strict Control Plans

TBD

P.Mesnard

Y.Schneider/ JF.Wyrwas

V.Gosatti

E.Jacquot

Validated Engg changes

TBD

R.Hilpert

JP.Gehin/ M.Kherbache

F.Abadie

E.Jacquot

QRCI

L.Klingauf

P.Mesnard

Y.Schneider/ JF.Wyrwas

E.Jacquot

L.Klingauf

Funct Milestone Program Stg & Gate Reviews

J.Ygout

E.Brogniart

MN.Rothan

Ch.Majchrowicz

PL. Soula

Ph.Lalaguë

F.Selb/ M.StefanWeber

Ch.Sarda

P.Mesnard

A. Selbach/ M.Schafbauer

Th.Rochard

J.Burke

Cap & Trans

TBD

Supplier Quality

Ph.Cossonnièr e

J.Robineau

107

Workshop on P-FMEA – 20 mn

1. Choose 3 failure modes 2. Establish a P-FMEA for these 3 failure modes 3. Each group to report D-FMEA or P-FMEA

FMEA Number:

PROCESS

DESIGN

FMEA Date: Engineering level/index:

EFFECT

MODE

S:

Severity

D : Detectability

PILOT-leader :

O:


Occurence

Detection

RPN :

RPN


Detection

(DFMEA)


POTENTIAL FAILURE

Occurrence

(PFMEA)


108

Drawing reference :

Product :

Class

N°


Updated on :

Type of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en Part or Device or Item :


KPC nb


KCC nb

Design FMEA

Severity


Nut and L-profile assembly by resistance welding


Description



O

D

RPN


O

D

RPN


Slide version 02

108

Nut & L-profile assembly by resistance welding

L-profile


Nut M10

After electrical welding

109


D-FMEA or P-FMEA

Engineering level/index:

G

PILOT-leader :

ME / YOKE P.


Nut and L-Profile assembly


-


EFFECT

Missing NUT

No welding possible, machine stop, fastening operation stopped if by , process interuption


1

8

Potential Cause of failure NUT forgotton to insert (Operator failure)

4


Detection

Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop or higher during clamping operation (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)

RPN

Resistance welding of NUT on L-PROFILE

Rear Seat Metal Structure

KCC nb

(DFMEA)

16/03/2010

Product :

O c c u rre n c e

(PFMEA)

Updated on :

C la s s


15/07/2004

5155436/38

D e t e c t io n

40


J84-P-RSS-G

FMEA Date: Drawing reference :

KPC nb

N°

FMEA Number:

Type of vehicle or device : J84 Renault Megane Scenic

S e v e r ity

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : UAP 3 / Nogent

PROCESS

DESIGN

1

32


Description

RPN checked after Forecasted new RPN Target completion actions implemented Action taken date S O D RPN S O D RPN

110


Resistance welding of NUT on L-PROFILE



-


EFFECT

Missing NUT

No welding possible, machine stop, fastening operation stopped if by , process interuption

1 Missing L-PROFILE

1 Wrong NUT (material, diameter, threat,....)

2 Wrong PROFILE (LH/RH)

2 NUT turned by a few degrees

3

8

No welding possible, machine stop, process interuption

6

No Belt Buckle fastening possible (threat diameter too small)

8

Wrong assembly reference produced but part is Ok

6

Insufficient torque resistance, risk of stability loss during final assembly and endurance

10

Machine stop, no welding possible

6


10

NUT forgotton to insert (Operator failure)

1 2

2 1

To be confirmed NUT assembled from wrong side

4 Bad welding connection (insufficient penetration)

1

3

5 5

Threat of NUT or PROFILE damaged

No Belt Buckle assembly possible

8

2

4

Welding spatters in threat of NUT



NUT not correctly clamped Insufficient torque resistance, / gap between nut and risk of stability loss during final profile assembly and endurance 7


S:

Severity

7

10

2

1

4

L-PROFILE forgotton to insert (Operator failure)

2

Wrong NUT reference at welding station (Logistical failure)

2

Wrong welding fixation plate used (Tool change failure)

Detection

Operator qualification level L or higher

Automatic machine stop during clamping operation (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)

1

32


Description



1

12

1st piece OK check

2

32

4


1st piece OK check

2

48

NUT incorrect inserted in fixation plate (Operator failure)

4



1

40

Preventive Maintenance plan no. J84/40)

1st piece OK check

2

40



1

24

To be confrimed

Restricted machine & parameter access, parameter change documentation

1st piece OK check (resistance torque measurement)

2

40

Do we need to do something else can we let Firs part Ok at 1 JY Loreau what can vwe do more ?


1st piece OK check

2

40

Yearly supplier part requalification


4

160


1st piece OK check

2

32



4

128


1st piece OK check

2

14

Do we keep it or not ?


1st piece OK check

2

40

Defect on part geometry considered ?

Tooling damaged / worn out (Maintenance failure)

2

NUT incorrect inserted in L-PROFILE (Operator failure)

4

Wrong welding parameter (technician failure)

2

Machine defect or tooling defect ( tips not Ok) (Equipment failure)

2

Changed material properties (Supplier failure)

4

Machine defect (Equipment failure)

2 4

4


1

3


2

D : Detectability


Label scan of every new box with NUTs at welding station

Damaged delivered part (Supplier failure)

6

6 (defect for example)


Need to have a picture of the machine and how it works

FMEA Number:

J84-P-RSS-G

FMEA Date:

15/07/2004

Updated on :

16/03/2010

PILOT-leader :

ME / YOKE P.

er Jean-Yves Loreau

KCC nb

Nut and L-Profile assembly

Occurrence

(DFMEA)

G

Class


(PFMEA)

5155436/38

Engineering level/index:

RPN

40


Drawing reference :

KPC nb

N°

Type of vehicle or device : J84 Renault Megane Scenic Product : Rear Seat Metal Structure

Severity

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : UAP 3 / Nogent

PROCESS

DESIGN

Detection

D-FMEA or P-FMEA

1

2

3, 4, 5

6, 7

8

9

O:

Occurence

RPN :


Forecasted new RPN Action taken

RPN checked after actions implemented

S

O

D

RPN

S

O

D

RPN

To be confirmed

Jean-Yvs is it Ok ?

40-1

Check of Supplier measurement protocols (material properties) for every NUT and L-PROFILE batch within incoming inspection

Q / SERIOUS V.

18/09/2004

100% protocol 10 check for NUT and L-PROFILE integrated in J84RSS-G at 20.09.2004

2

2

40

10

2

2

40

40-1

Check of Supplier measurement protocols (material properties) for every NUT batch within incoming inspection

Q / SERIOUS V.

18/09/2004

100% protocol check for NUT integrated in J84RSS-G at 20.09.2004

2

2

28

7

2

2

28


7

111

RPN

4



1

32

Transfer the detection on machine stop

No welding possible, machine stop, process interruptionframe cannot be assembled

6

L-PROFILE forgotten to insert (Operator failure)

2



1

12

Transfer the detection on machine stop

No Belt Buckle fastening possible (threat diameter too small)

8

Wrong NUT reference at welding station (Logistical failure)

2

1st piece OK check

5

80

Label scan of every new box with NUTs at welding station

Wrong assembly reference produced but part is Ok

6

Wrong welding fixation plate used (Tool change failure)

4


1st piece OK check

2

48


10

NUT incorrect inserted in fixation plate (Operator failure)

4



1

40

Tooling damaged / worn out (Maintenance failure)

2


1st piece OK check

2

40

1 Missing L-PROFILE

1 Wrong NUT (material, diameter, threat,....)

2 Wrong PROFILE (LH/RH)

2 NUT turned by a few degrees


3

1 2

2 1

KCC nb

NUT forgotten to insert (Operator failure)


Occurrence

Detection

8

KPC nb

Prevention

No welding possible, machine stop, fastening operation stopped if by , process interruption

Class

EFFECT

Missing NUT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Severity

MODE

Detection



1

2

Recommended Corrective Actions N°

Description

112


10

4 Cold Weld (insufficient penetration)

1

3

5 5

Threat of NUT or PROFILE damaged


8

2

6

4

RPN

12

Prevention

Detection

Detection

6

NUT incorrect inserted in L-PROFILE (Operator failure)

4



1

24

Wrong welding parameter (technician failure)

2

3, 4, 5 Welding parameters vaidated with 30 parts


2

40

Restricted machine & parameter access, parameter change documentation

Machine defect or tooling defect ( capsnot Ok) (Equipment failure)

2


1st piece OK check

2

40

Imporved Preventive Maintenance plan by checking nets and pipes

Changed material properties (Supplier failure)

1



4

40


2


1st piece OK check

2

32

Damaged delivered part (Supplier failure)

4



4

128


KCC nb

Class

Machine stop, no welding possible

Occurrence

EFFECT

NUT assembled from wrong side

POTENTIAL FAILURE

KPC nb

MODE

Severity


6, 7

Recommended Corrective Actions Responsible


N°

Description

8



Forecasted new RPN Action taken

Recommended Corrective Actions N°

Description

40-1


40-1


RPN checked after actions implemented

S

O

D

RPN

S

O

D

RPN

Restricted machine & parameter access, parameter change documentation Imporved Preventive Maintenance plan by checking nets and pipes

40-1


Q / SERIOUS V.

18/09/2004

10 100% protocol check for NUT and L-PROFILE integrated in J84RSS-G at 20.09.2004

1

2

20

10

2

2

40

40-1


Q / SERIOUS V.

18/09/2004

100% protocol check for NUT integrated in J84RSS-G at 20.09.2004

2

2

32

7

2

2

28

8

113



Agenda 7:45 8:00 8:20 8:35 9:00 10:10 11:10 11:25 12:05 12:45 15:45 16:00 16:55 17:00



114


Comments

Introduction


Key Characteristics

FMEA



Program QRQC





2=Average

General Appraisal

1

2

3=Good 3

4= Excellent

4 Comments:

115


Break

116


Validated Engineering Changes Eric JACQUOT



Program QRCI



FMEA




Agenda

Introduction 15 mn Module objectives Validated Engineering Change 3 examples of Engineering Changes

Workshop

15 mn

Debriefing

5 mn

Key messages

5 mn

119

Why this basic ?

If not validated Engineering Change, potential disturbances …

repeat tests with additional prototypes due to test test failures creation of a new problem to solve due to lack of impact analysis rework even line stoppage due to non compatibility with overall system (other parts, BOPs, gauges, manufacturing system, packaging,… packaging,…) Severe human injuries in case of accidents recall + Business hold => Any short-cut in Engineering Change Process will sooner or later cost the company ! => Validated Engineering Change is a basic


120


Module objectives

Understand the sequence of the various steps to achieve a proper validation.

Better understand consequences and causes of non validated engineering change.

Know the contributors for the validation of engineering changes.

121

Engineering Change by Customer, supplier or internal QCD assessment *

EC validation

Less than 5 days

Change Submitted

Assess ECR *

ECO

Define EC +DVP & PVP Design Review


Reject

Execute DVP & PVP

Implement EC

Design Production Validation Validation

Reject

ECR : Engineering Change Request

ECO : Engineering Change Order

* Use of checklist enables being exhaustive enough in the assessment 122

Engineering Change in PMS phases

Tool Launch 1 ACQUISITION

Design 2BDesign 2A Review DESIGN Validation DESIGN VERIFICATION

ECO

Define EC +DVP & PVP ECO

Customer PPAP SOP

3 Production 4 PRODUCTION Validation LAUNCH SET-UP

Define EC +DVP & PVP

Execute DVP ECO


5 PRODUCTION

Define EC +DVP & PVP

Execute DVP & PVP

Implement EC

The later it happens, the more it costs and the higher the risk is for bad launch 123


Example 2 : wiring fixture of ECS Before modification

Customer request

Two plastic binders

OEM : metal clips Instead of plastic binders

After modification

Two metal clips but not positioned as requested

Consequences : Car recall due to radiator leakage (1 M€) Causes ?

Design review : lack of design review (“only 2 binders to change”) Design validation : lack of prototype (Customer platform solution). Production validation : no PPAP (by customer and Faurecia)

124

Example 3 : Seat locking mechanism


Before modification

Locking mechanism secured by a washer

After modification

No more washer

Consequences : failure in rear crash test very close to 1520 cars recall

Causes ? Design review : lack of robust standards Design validation : test done too late (during launch phase) 125

Example 4 : YA5 headrest insert spring Before


Spring

After

⇒

noise, scratches, sliding effort

Spring with Rilsan Coating + bigger bending

Consequences : ejection of headrest during ECE 17 test 35,000 vehicles to rework = ? M€ + 2 months task force + a lot of additional tests Causes ? Design review : risk underestimated (“small” modification) Production validation : no ECE 17 test performed Supplier : lack of capitalization and transparency 126

Validated Engineering change

Workshop ECR based on internal VA VE in Serial Phase


enger Airbag Chute Channel Material change from PA 6 30% GF to 10%GF

127

WORKSHOP : Define DVP and PVP

Define the tests of the DESIGN VALIDATION PLAN and the PRODUCTION VALIDATION PLAN Select the tests to be performed to validate the change taking into : Is it relevant with the change ? Is it necessary to do the test in DVP (prototype or virtual CAE , test criticality ) Is it relevant to do the test in PVP ? Is the set of tests adequate to represent the failure mode ? Is it necessary to produce additional test even if not in Customer specs ( Faurecia component test / guide lines )?


20 min

Let’s do it!!!

128

ECR process : Design & Production Validation Plan Faurecia

SUPPLIER

PART NUMBER FAB10172PVJ + FAB10162PVJ + FAB500052PVJ + FAB500042PVJ

NAME OF LABORATORY

Faurecia Meru

PART NAME

FACIA ASSY COVERED UPPER

TYPE OF

TEST

TEST

METHOD

REQUIREMENT

Fogging

DVMDVM-00160016-MA/ SAE J1756

MA0019

X

Flammability

Taiwan specification

RES 30 MS 302

X

Odor

DVMDVM-00140014-MA/ SAE J1351

MA0018 (rating 2 max)

X

Airbag deployment

SDS PBPB-0028v2

No bag damage

X

X

Airbag deployment

DVMDVM-00520052-AB / SDS PBPB-0025v2

deployment trajectory ( +/up+/- 9°up up-down) (+/side to side) (+/- 4°side

X

X

DVP

PVP

DEVIATION NUMBER

Topper Pad Foam


COCKPIT

Airbag deployment

Airbag deployment

Airbag deployment

ESES-F2DBF2DB-54044A7454044A74-AA

Module requirement (fragment compliant with DVM 24331)

PBPB-0004v2

No sharp edge

X

X

No bag damage

X

X

SDS PBPB-0028v2

129

Organization, tool and documents

Weekly reviews of the ECRs and ECOs by ECM workgroup


Product Data Management (PDM) = ECM tool DESIGN REVIEW ”Design Approved” Approved” status in PDM DESIGN VALIDATION ”Engineering Approved” Approved” status in PDM PRODUCTION VALIDATION (Off Tool / Off Process) ”Manufacturing Approved” Approved” status in PDM

New version of all related documents based on ECO results:

Drawings, BOM, FMEAs, KPCs , KCCs, control plan, suppliers documents, End of Life Vehicle Regulations… 130

NO COMPROMISES

No trade-off with S/R validation even despite Customer Always PPAP even if not requested by the customer


No “small change” rigorous assessment :

Sales,

Product performance,

Bought Out Parts,

Production performance,

Production Control & Logistics… Logistics…

131

Example of “Bad” and “Good” answer


“ Engineering Change Management ”

132

Example of “Bad” answer for “Engineering Change Management” “How do you manage your Engineering changes with the customer ?” - There is no “single list” to manage ECR - Ex 1 : Separate tables to monitor the various aspects of the technical changes - Ex 2 : One table for the customers changes and one for the internal changes - Ex 3 : Part price modification and tooling costs are monitored separately

- There is an incomplete “ single list” to manage ECR: Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

-Ex 1 : There is no link between ECR customer number and internal number -Ex 2 : The three steps of validation ( Design Review, Design Verification Plan and Production Validation Plan) are monitored in a separate tables

133

Example of “Good” answer for “Engineering Change Management” “How do you manage your Engineering changes with the customer ?” -There is a “single list” to manage ECR

Technical changes in process

AFTER TOOL ORDER

Technical changed closed Request Number

Date received

Part

Mold number

Modification

37993M- Customer Design wants to modify the two bases after tools 59220/5922 debugging

00C250098IP 04/05/2006

J. BARON

Mail

30/09/2006

00C250100IP 04/05/2006

J. BARON

Mail

14/05/2006 Platic cover of electrical plug

00C250101IP 04/05/2006

J. BARON

Mail

05/05/2006

IP+ Module

39012M59031

On cost for multi-graining - add-on separate tool drawer

00C250112IP 11/10/2006

A. CHOPLIN

Mail

18/10/2006

Façade a2/a3

37342X

Mistake on ATAX staples hangers: hangers are too thick and prevent to perform the isostatism study for z axis.

00C250176IP 14/10/2006

COUPE C

letter

03/11/2006

Fuse drawer

Customer Agreement

Feasability and Quotation


Customer Return date request requested reference

Sender

Feasability and Quotation

Base VU / VP

Tooling has been worn out after a fire. Tooling is not able to deliver the expected quality. Quotation for refubishing of the tool.

One signle table for Add a fuse compartment coverpliers various aspects

Technical change release

Part price

Date for quotation

Customer reference

Quotation

Requested date for implementon

DR:Design Launching Review date date

Purchasing request number

NA

16/10/06

FEX61-IP98

Agreed

30/11/2006

02/11/2006 05/12/2006

DA 10062929

0€

05/06/06

FEX61-IP84

Refused

3,35 €

05/05/06

FEX61-IP81

Agreed

0,80 €

16/11/06

FCIA

N/A

5,45 €

20/01/07

FE X61-IPNegociation 118

Feasabil GO / noGO

Requested date for quotation

Tool cost

Part price

GO

19/09/06

250k€

NA

no GO

14/05/06

35k€

0€

GO

05/05/06

330k€

3,35 €

no GO

18/10/06

45k€

0,80 €

GO

15/01/07

85k€

5,45 €

Technical change validation Delivery Drawing date and index batch A

RDV 2 07/02/07

FMEA update

DVP=Design PVP= on Production Validat on Plan Valid Plan

NA

20/12/2006 20/01/2007

Closing date

Comments Waiting from RSA on final graining spec- Caution: New quotation could be necessary - Wk 47

15/09/2006

01/01/07

01/01/07

Not done

---

RDV 3

NA

Not done

Not done

N/A Wk06

Waiting for JB supplier quotation S01/07

Redesign the ATAX staple

3 steps validation 134


Comments

Introduction


Key Characteristics

FMEA



Program QRQC





2=Average

General Appraisal

1

2

3=Good 3

4= Excellent

4 Comments:

135


Lunch

136



Agenda 7:45 8:00 8:20 8:35 9:00 10:10 11:10 11:25 12:05 12:45 15:45 16:00 16:55 17:00



137

Program Quick Response Continous Improvement (QRCI)

John BURKE



Program QRCI



FMEA



Program QRCI - Agenda


• Presentation and video • Workshop Practical QRCI Debriefing

30 mn 2 h 30 mn 2h 30 mn

140

Let’s start to be PRACTICAL !

Watch the VIDEO


Compare the BAD to the GOOD

141

Observation Part 1 – What went wrong? Detection – no real place (talking mainly in the office) – no real parts (no parts in hand,….) – no quick response ( “We ‘ll look into it on Monday” , 2 months for solving issue at SOP period)


Communication – Insufficient real data (testing conditions ?, dimension ?,…) Analysis – Insufficient in depth logical thinking (“I think it’s the spring that’s…” ,…) Verification – Insufficient verification (successive test failures) Management: Insufficient on-the-job coaching (No quick communication , no regular review , no involvement , no team work , no risk monitoring ,…) 142

Observation Part 2 – What contributed to this success? Detection –

Failures observed on the Gemba

Communication – – – – –

“Bad event” immediately displayed on board and introduced in Single List of Issues Where and when it happens (16.11 in Lab , at end of cycle,…) Real parts available in QRCI review No bla-bla and fact based (data collection) Data (Testing conditions records ,photo , radius measurements,…) shared with all team the day after problem raised)

Analysis – – – –

What is the problem? (use of 5W 2H) What are the countermeasures and risks on similar programs? (PDCA approach) What is the root cause? (use of FICS , OK/ NOK parts 5Why , ,…) How do I prevent reoccurrence? (capitalization through lessons learned and guidelines review )


Verification –

Real place verification through testing in laboratory

Management – – –

Quick escalation Monitoring and Effective Recognition 143

What is QRCI ?

A MANAGEMENT attitude to solve ANY KIND OF PROBLEM On the REAL PLACE


By Focusing on Our Priorities

Quick Response Continous Improvement 144

QRCI foundation: the 3 REALS

San means "3" – Gen means "real" or "actual" Shugi means "ideology" San Gen Shugi Understand what is behind 1. Real Place (Gen-ba) Where is Genba? Where it happens, when it happens


2. Real Parts (Gen-butsu) What is Genbutsu? Objects which we compare: bad and good 3. Reality (Gen-jitsu) What is Genjitsu? Speak the facts with data

145

The basic tools….


What are the Most important Quality Tools

My eyes and my legs to….

see/ measure/ observe/ analyze/ record… 146

Example of “GOOD”” answer for “Single List of Issues (SLI)” (SLI)” How do you manage the important issues of your program ? Before Gate 1

Not various lists

PROGRAM QRQC

DIVISION QRQC SLI

Single List of Issues (SLI) Division: PSA Customer Division Dev./Prod. Site (s): Méru GR1 NA (Div SLI)

Problem description ( 5W = 2 H ?)

Quality

Supplier issues

Feuille d'étanchéité fournisseur DANA toujours état WE1

N

1

Process

PRC

Relevés de temps de maquettage pas remontés par les usines (réel/prévisionnel + pareto)

N

1

Quality

PRC

Difficulté de lisibilité des indicateurs validation et CTF sur PNO

N

Product / R&D Project organisation / Project

Function review

TF1 et TF1-GR1 toujours rouges

N

PRC

Absence de suivi TTP pour clôture des jalons PMS

A76 DP

24-11-06

1

Division

3

T7 IP/DP

24-11-06

2

Division

T7 IP/DP

24-11-06

3

Division

Tous programmes

24-11-06 24-11-06

4 5

Division

2

Division

1

24-11-06

7

Division

3

Quality

Customer issues

Reconception vide-poche

N

A76 DP

24-11-06

9

Product Group

3

Economics

Function review

Certification CE (360€) exigée par outillage

N

Priorities defined

GR3

PPAP

QRQC number or NA

Root Causes

SOP

Countermeasure (C/M)

Leader

Updated frequently

Proposition de synthèse jalon + status + TTP/target Div Décision sur communication client de l'engagement réflexion sur reconception VA/VE Note cosignée FS/JPS vers Lansade/Leroy copie JMV/I. Interprétation de la Directive Européenne par les Autorités Lopez/C. Alberte sur fait que pas Espagnoles possible prendre en compte à posteriori

If applicable QRCI reference

List updated

24-11-06 20. december 2006

NA (Div SLI)

Demander appui équipe Q-Achats J. CABERO pour accélérer la MC. ILUNGA clôture et la levée des derniers points durs Faire mettre à jour les indicateurs de convergence temps de E. PINTO maquettage avec décroissance prévisionnelle en temps Faire regrouper les indicateurs PNO par silhouette + clarification pour P. LABORDE lisibilité Visibilité sur clôture / gate review à R. TOMCZAK assurer

N

B58 IP/GLC

Program risk level 4: S/R 3: High 2: Medium 1: Low

Program mgr: SCHMITT Jean-Pierre SLI creation date

NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) Les évolutions apparaissent en bleu, les sujets clos sont hachurés sur la prochaine diffusion puis masqués

Needed Experts

No

A515 IP

GR2b

GR2a

Program Responsibility / Impacted risk level Escalation level Area 4: S/R ( Program Core Function - Pb 3: High team or Division 2: Medium category or PRC) 1: Low

Opening Date (DD.MM.YY)

( If several within the SLI )


Award NA (Div SLI)

Program: Product Ref.:

Deep analysis document number

Program concerned

Customer: PSA Platform/Model (s): PSA Programs - all platforms

Scheduled End (Check) date

Real Check Date

PDCA Action Planned Action Done Success Checked by evidence Activity for capitalization done (LL)

06-12-06

11-12-06

Soldé au niveau Division Do le 15/12/06

22-12-06

Check

22-12-06

Check

18-12-06

Plan

MC. ILUNGA

22-12-06

05-12-06

Check

R. TOMCZAK

21-12-06

Plan

JP. SCHMITT

22-12-06

Plan

Closing Date All S/R issues to be closed before Gate 3 147

What is a red bin in programs ? Typical unsolved issues for Program QRCI

Customer complaint FMEA Design review Prototypes Initial samples PVP Run and rate Supplier Tooling / gages

product not meeting expectation unsolved critical issue unsolved critical issue unexpected test failure QRCI subjects not right first time Link with SLI not ed PT / MPT / EMPT failed IS rejected not specified or not ready at due date


Program QRCI issues are: ABNORMALITIES/ UNEXPECTED EVENTS within program time frame And not all Program Open points 148

QRCI Organization: All levels contribute Program Risk level 4

Group/PG Steering Committee Monthly

3

PG Program Regional QRCI Weekly meeting Leader : Region customer VP

2

Division Program QRCI


Daily Leader : Customer Division Director

1

0

If unsolved issues, action assigned to management

Top 5 daily Core team meting Escalated to QRCI Leader : Program manager

Permanently , every Core team member (PQL, PDL, Buyer,….) will raise issues and disclose them in SLI at Core team level if unsolved.

Immediate action mandatory 149


Conclusion – Key messages

Quick reaction/ Daily meeting/ Logical thinking

3 Reals: Real part/ Real data/ Real Place

Red bin is abnormalities versus program schedule

Escalation to require appropriate management and awareness

Get the right people assigned - cross functional actions

Visual display area- Single List of Issues (SLI)

Lessons learned are used as input for Control Plans, Core Procedures, Standards and Guidelines to prevent reoccurence 150

Exercice Logical thinking is essential What is the problem?

QRCI-8D Ref: Ref: FAU-F-PSG-0287 FAU-F-PSG-0287

Quick Response Continuous Improvement

What What is is the the problem problem (customer (customer view): view):

Team: Team:

Opened: Opened:

Steps Steps

Meeting Meeting dates dates

D1 D1 to to D3 D3 (24 (24 hh in in case case Customer Customer exist exist** & & HSE) HSE)

D6: QRCI QRCI Pilot: UAP Mgr. / HSE Mgr. /Logistic Mgr. etc. Name/ Signature (In (In case case customer customer does does not not exist exist & & Program Program early early phase, phase, no no time time limit) limit) D8: Responsible Mgr: Plant / Program etc. Name/ Signature (In (In case case customer customer does does not not exist exist & & Program Program early early phase, phase, no no time time limit) limit)

Customer Customer exist exist** & & HSE) HSE)

D7 D7 to to D8 D8 (60 (60 workdays workdays in in case case Customer Customer exist* exist* & & HSE) HSE)

Classification: Classification: (HSE: (HSE: By By physical physical cause) cause)

D2 - Risks on similar Products, processes, machines, plants? Risky Risky process process or or conditions conditions to to report. report.

When When the the problem problem happened? happened? When When was was the the problem problem created? created? Who found found the the problem? problem? Who Who created created the the problem problem ?? Who

Problem Problem 2nd 2nd definition definition (Scope (Scope reduction) reduction)

Where Where was was the the problem problem found? found? Where Where was was the the problem problem created? created?

Detection:

How How the the problem problem was was found found ??

ReRe- occurrence occurrence

YES

Occurrence:

Need to warn other plants/R&D

NO

YES

NO

D3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implemented

How to contain?

PILOT PILOT PILOT PILOT

RETAINED RETAINED FACTOR FACTOR -D4-D4-

Comments/ Comments/ Conclusions Conclusions

Control Control point point

Standard Standard

How to measure/ characterize the retained factor

What is the rule for risk Prevention / Detection ?

Real Real situation situation

What is the root cause (non detection and occurrence) N°

IS/ IS NOT influence retained factor of non- detection

Control Control point point

Standard Standard

How to measure/ characterize the retained factor

What is the rule for risk Prevention / Occurrence?

D5 -- Cause Cause of of occurrence occurrence D5 (Why happens happens this this time time & & no no other other time) time) (Why (In case case customer customer does does not not exist, exist, D5 D5 come come before before D4) D4) (In

IS/ IS NOT influence retained factor of occurrence

NOK NOK

OK OK

Real Real situation situation NOK NOK

OK OK

Real Real vs. vs. Std. Std.

Std. Std. OK OK ??

Real Real vs. vs. Std. Std.

Std. Std. OK OK ??

After the incident & counter measure applied

Investigation Investigation plan plan to to validate/ validate/ eliminate eliminate aa RETAINED RETAINED FACTOR FACTOR Investigation Investigation actions actions

Resp. Resp.

Retained Retained Factor Factor validated validated ??

Result Result

Dead-line Dead-line

Investigation Investigation plan plan to to validate/ validate/ eliminate eliminate aa RETAINED RETAINED FACTOR FACTOR Investigation Investigation actions actions

Resp. Resp.

Result Result

Dead-line Dead-line

times or or (Minimum (Minimum 55 times more to to reach reach more management issues) issues) management

N°

N°

Why Why ??

VV

Why Why ??

VV

Why Why ??

VV

Why Why ??

VV

Why Why ??

VV

D4 D4 Root Root cause cause (( Management Management issue issue ?? ))

VV

Why Why ??

VV

Why Why ??

VV

Why Why ??

VV

D5 D5 Root Root cause cause (( Management Management issue issue ?? ))

How to check efficiency?

D8

What did we learn? (How to capitalize and transversalize ?)

D5 55 Why's Why's D5

D4 55 Why's Why's D4

D7

Why Why ??

VV

Why Why ??

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Retained Retained Factor Factor validated validated ??

What are corrective actions plan? times or or (Minimum (Minimum 55 times more to to reach reach more management issues) issues) management

D6

Effectiveness Effectiveness New New risk riskdetected detected Dead-line Dead-line (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Before incident (3 months minimum history)

D4 -- Cause Cause of of non-detection non-detection of of Defect Defect // Risk Risk D4 (Why (Why not not found found ?) ?) (In case case customer customer does does not not exist, exist, D4 D4 comes comes after after D5 D5 to (In to show show Why couldn't couldn't detect detect the the cause cause of of Occurrence) Occurrence) Why

D3

Action

N°


N°

Why Why is is itit aa problem? problem?

D3 – Containment actions

RETAINED RETAINED FACTOR FACTOR -D5-D5-

Check

Retained Factors

(Including retained factor containment based on evidence)

D4 D5

Do

IS NOT (Is not the problem)

How How many? many? (HSE: (HSE: Accident, Accident, Environment, Environment, Fire, Fire, Others) Others)

Category: Category: (HSE: Near Near Miss, (HSE: Miss, FR2t, FR2t, FR1t FR1t & & FR0t) FR0t)

** In In case case Customer Customer exist exist like like Logistic, Logistic, Quality, Quality, Program Program pre-production pre-production & & launching launching phase phase

Plan

IS (is the problem)

Do I have same problem elsewhere? D4 D4 to to D6 D6 (10 (10 workdays workdays in in case case

HSE HSE Only Only

D2

Milestone Milestone review review D3: Quality Manager / PILOT / HSE / UAP Mgr. Definition of incident clear ? YES NO Name/ Signature (In (In case case customer customer does does not not exist exist & & Program Program early early phase, phase, no no time time limit) limit)

5W/ 2H´s 1st 1st Problem Problem Definition Definition (Faurecia (Faurecia View) View) What What is is the the problem problem ??

D1- Problem description

D1

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

OO= OK, X= XX NOK, ∆= ∆∆ Doubt, V= VV Verification (To be used in D4 & D5 at columns "Real vs Std" and "Std OK?" and Validation of each Why)

D6 – Corrective actions

Act

Validated Validatedretained retained factor factor

D8 - Lessons learned

(Process, Machines, Standards, Hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls) Actions Technical Dead-line Dead-line

N° N°

Risk Risk Responsible Responsible Assessment Assessment (Y/N) (Y/N)

Effectiveness Effectiveness (Y/N) (Y/N)

New Newrisk risk detected detected (Y/N) (Y/N)

Action Action

Resp. Resp.

Dead-line/ Dead-line/ Done Done

Check Check (Y // N) N) (Y

All All actions actions validated validated and and implemented implemented Operators Operators // team team informed informed

Standardized Standardized work work created created // updated updated FMEA FMEA // Risk Risk assessment assessment updated updated Control Control Plan Plan updated updated

Lessons created Lessons learned learned (LL) (LL) created

Validated Validatedretained retained factor factor

N° N°

Actions Management (or escalated to Sr. Management)

Dead-line Dead-line

Responsible Responsible

Lessons Lessons learned learned shared shared

Follow Follow up up by by Core Core teams teams

151

5W/ 2H´s

QRCI-8D

IS

IS NOT

Retained Factors

1st Problem Definition (Faurecia View)

N°

D2 - Risks on similar processes, machines, plants? Risky process or conditions to report.

What is the problem ?

Opened:

Steps

Meeting dates

D1 to D3 24 h

D1- Problem description

Team:

Milestone review D3: Quality Manager / PILOT / Hse / UAP Mgr. YES NO Definition of incident clear ? Name/ Signature

D4 to D6 10 workdays

D6: QRCI Pilot: UAP Mgr. / Hse Mgr. /Logistic Mgr. etc. Name/ Signature

D7 to D8 60 workdays

D8: Responsible Mgr: Plant / Program etc. Name/ Signature

D1

Why is it a problem?

When the problem happened? When was the problem created? Who found the problem? Who created the problem ?

Re- occurrence

YES

NO

D3 – Containment actions

D3

D4 - Factor of nondetection

(Cause of non-detection of Defect / Risk)

Action

PILOT PILOT

D5 - Factor of occurrence (Why happened ?)

YES

Dead-line

FACTOR -D4-

Effectiveness New risk detected (Y/N) (Y/N)

Comments/ Conclusions

IS/ IS NOT influence factor of nondetection

Control point

Standard

How to measure/ characterize the factor

What is the rule for risk Prevention / Detection ?

Real situation NOK

OK

Real vs. Std.

Std. OK ?

IS/ IS NOT influence factor of occurrence

Control point

Standard

How to measure/ characterize the factor

What is the rule for risk Prevention / Occurrence?

Real situation NOK

OK

Real vs. Std.

Std. OK ?

QRCI form to use

Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTOR Factor validated ?

Investigation actions

Resp.

Result

Dead-line

D4 N°

NO

D3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implemented

D3&D7

FACTOR -D5-

D5 5 Why's D4 5 Why´s

Need to warn other plants/R&D

How many? (HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)

Category: (HSE: FR2t, FR1t & FR0t)


D2

2nd Problem Redefinition

How the problem was found ?

Classification: (HSE: By physical cause)

N°

(Scope reduction) Where was the problem found? Where was the problem created?

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTOR Investigation actions

Resp.

Factor validated ?

Result

Dead-line

D5 N°

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

D4 Root cause ( Management issue ? )

N°

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

Why ?

V

D5 Root cause ( Management issue ? )

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

O = OK, X= NOK, ∆= Doubt, V= Verification

D6 – Corrective actions

D6

D8 - Lessons learned

(Process, Machines, Standards, Hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls)

Validated factor

N°

Actions

Risk Assessmen Effectiveness Dead-line Responsible (Y/N) t (Y/N)

New risk detected (Y/N)

D8

Action

Resp.

Dead-line/ Done

Check (Y / N)

All actions validated and implemented Operators informed Instructions at WS updated FMEA / Risk assessment updated Lessons learned (LL) created Lessons learned shared Follow up by Core teams

152

Program QRCI Workshop Leak test values higher than internal specification found during prototype assembly


Brazed connection

• Build the QRCI (one per table) with your trainer on the QRCI Form. Perform all 8D steps (60 mn) • Trainer will give to each group necessary available information • Debriefing (30 mn) 153

Exhaust pipe assembly with brazing

WASHING

1 - Process Flow in Prototype Shop TUBE MILL

BENDING

RAW MATERIAL

END FORMING

DIAMETER SIZING

WASHING

RING


2 – Leak Testing Results

Ok parts

BRAZING

RING

Ok

LEAK TESTING

NOk

Nok parts

Bubles detected with soap 154



Agenda 7:45 8:00 8:20 8:35 9:00 10:10 11:10 11:25 12:05 12:45 15:45 16:00 16:55 17:00



155


Break

156


Functional Milestones + Program Steering Committee & Gate Reviews Paul-Louis SOULA



Program QRCI



FMEA



Why this basic?

Too many bad launches: Red SOP status (Mar 2011): 27% Red Programs ( Jun 2011 25%)


Delay for ing gates: Time To Gate (Mare 2011): 41 days

(Jun 2011=>33 days)

159

Module objectives

Understand basics of Functional Milestones , QVR (Quality Validation Reviews), TVR (Team validation Reviews) and Gate Reviews


Highlight factors for successful program steering and Gate Reviews : Delayed event has consequences (efficiency, costs) and comes from malfunctioning

160


Video Part 1

161

Live exchange – What went wrong?


Consequences → Gate red for 4 months → Airs shipment of 120 k€ Core team: → No precise lead time to recover 2 wks delay on knee impact → Risks identified but not treated Gate Review → PSC late + 3 function heads missing → Product definition freeze is borderline → Packaging not validated by plant → Late contribution of functions 162


Video Part 2

163

Live exchange – What went well ? Core team: Driven by SLI - weekly meetings- On time escalation Early experts involvment – Shopfloor review Early escalation to customer Preventive measures taken during meeting


Functional Milestones Function Management engagement Priorities driven by SLI and anticipation Review with evidence, facts and data Gate Review Green at 1st review – Key Deliverables Key Deliverables – Detailed validation Proactive management for next gate review 164


Functional Milestones

165

Objectives of Functional Milestones


Validate the program progress against Standards & Guidelines and internal expertise while taking Into Customer Requirements Make sure that Functional Managers are committed and involved in key decisions concerning programs – Up to date FAURECIA knowledge is used in programs – Program risks are well-evaluated and treated – Improve resource management – Increased standardization and carry over – Enable continuous improvement Improve the robustness of Gate Review decisions Improve our global Time To Gate 166

Functional Milestone Definition in “PMS Overview” – FAU-P-DSC-2200

Occur during each phase and involve Core Team presenting to a group of Experts, i.e. Functional Managers, and Technical Experts.

Cover Engineering, Manufacturing, Purchasing, and any other functions to assess the content and the quality of deliverables

Performed before


• QVR (Quality Validation Review lead by Quality Director) or • TVR (Team Validation Review coco-lead by Program and Quality Directors)

Gate Review happens after a “Green” QVR or TVR

Note: For more details on Functional Milestones see also F Manage Gates and Functional Milestones (FAU-P-DSC-2240) 167

Program Management System CUSTOMER INQUIRY

GR 2A

GR 1

1


ACQUISITION

CUSTOMER PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL

CUSTOMER TOOL RELEASE

PROGRAM AWARD

2A

GR 2B

2B

START OF PRODUCTION

GR 4

GR 3

3

END OF PRODUCTION

4

PRODUCT PRODUCTION SET- LAUNCH DESIGN VERIFICATION & UP PROCESS DESIGN

5

PRODUCTION

168

PMS Functional Milestones and Gate Reviews Gate Reviews Management’s commitment and of program for next phase Program risks agreement Prepared by Functional Milestones and Quality Validation Reviews Customer

Design

Acquisition RFQ

Executives Milestones

Award

GR 1

Production Setup

Design Verification

PPAP

TL

GR 2B

GR 2A

GR 3

Launch SOP

GR 4

Concept Proposal Validation


Functional Milestones

QVR* FM1A

FM1

TVR**

QVR* FM2A

TVR**

QVR*

TVR**

FM2B

QVR*

TVR**

FM3

Engineering Manufacturing Purchasing Quality Finance QVR* : Quality Validation Review

TVR** : Team Validation Review

Functional Milestones • Ensure Faurecia best knowledge is used • Identify technical risks and build subsequent corrective actions • Ensure propagation of technical and design best practices

169

Roles of function versus program


PROGRAM

FUNCTION

What When QCD performance Coordination

How Resources Standards Expertise

Global budget

Stick with commited cost

Decision/ Escalade

Veto

Reporting towards customer

Validate and dive

170

PSA OEM Benchmark

Program Objectives e.g. Program Manager

Q C D and Performance

Function Objectives e.g. R&D Director, Purchasing Director, ME Director Q R T and Communication (int. / ext.) Technical Standards State of the art


Resources/People

Results

Quantity and Competence

Quality System Definition of way of working, functional objectives and organization

171

Functional Milestone Review Attendees

ASPG

Engineering Functional Milestone Review

Status:


Division: VW Group Program: VW 250 Product: JIT complete seat Owner: J.Schnabel EFM Review Committee : Function: R&D Vice President Director SSD - NEC SDS - Manager SSD - PCA Manager SSD - SSA Manager SSD - CTCM Manager SSD - SECI Manager Programmdirector SSD - SSA Manager SEC SSD - DFA Manager QPS-Manager PQL VW 250 SA VW 250

E2B

Attempt:

M/O: Invited: M T.Ludewig M R.Hanauske M O O O O O O O M M M O

Review Date:

T.Collette D.Kraft A.Spormann S.Kroener R. Deppe K.Schlueter F.Meyer A. Buddensiek R. Oberbeck J.Etzel J.Schnabel

1st

Attended: R.Hanauske R.Hanauske

D.Kraft A.Spormann S.Kroener R. Deppe K.Schlueter Joachim Mai R. Oberbeck J.Etzel J.Schnabel

M: Mandatory - O: Optional

172


Functional Milestone Checklists

Owned and maintained by BG Functions

173


Program Steering Committee & Gate Reviews

174

PMS: Levels of control 3. Governance

FAURECIA MGMT DECISIONS

MANAGEMENT Program Steering Committee

GATE REVIEW #1-4

LINE MANAGEMENT

FUNCTIONAL MILESTONES


KPI Monitoring

DESIGN VALIDATION

PML

PDL

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES TECHNICAL & FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES

PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM

PROGRESS

DETAILED REPORTS BY FUNCTION PQL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

PB

PM

PRODUCT PROGRAM Readiness PROGRESS PROCESS SUPPLIER Readiness Readiness 175

Who is on the Program Steering Committee

(PSC)?


Regional VP (Chairman) Quality

Regional Director of Quality

Human Resources

Regional Director of Human Resources

Program Management

PG or Regional Director of Programs

Finance

Regional Controller

Sales

Appropriate Customer Division Manager

Product Engineering

Regional Director of Product Engineering

Manufacturing

Regional Director of Manufacturing

Purchasing

Regional Director of Purchasing 176

Mind-set change: Company wide expectations…

Gate Review repetitions are not acceptable

1st of all / majority of Mandatory Deliverables 2nd run to close any open issues raised in 1st run

Escalation is not only for information exchange, it is really for problem resolution

Increase information transparency – do not kill the messenger Focus on preventive problem solving and set the example for timely management involvement Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

177

PMS Mandatory Program Deliverables 1. Process

* mandatory deliverables linked to Quality Validation Review minimum necessity items CUSTOMER INQUIRY

Program Go/No Go Target Review

GR 2A

Program GR 1 Quote Review

Quality Target Study * Quality

CAR Approval

GR 2B

Quality Management Plan

Gauges requirements *

Prototype control plan

Prototype control plan implemented * Pre Production control plan

Human Resources

Program Management

Program Teams staffed Program internal contract (program objectives) Master schedule *

Sales

Product Engineering

GR 4

GR 3

Initial Samples Submitted to Customer *

I.S. for additional capacity

Pre Production control plan implemented *

Production Control Plan *

Detailed SOW

Make or Buy finalized (Subcontractors)

Lessons Learned *

Prototype build plan

CAR approved

Pre-series build plan

Single List of Issues managed *

S/R concerns solved (SLI) *

Activities during ramp-up *

ECM for pre-series & series in place

Initial Business Plan

Initial product concept

END OF PRODUCTION

Product team staffed

Single List of Issues in place

Customer Contract

START OF PRODUCTION

Plant Start-up team planned

ECM for development In place Finance



PROGRAM AWARD

Actual BP Agreed prototype prices

Agreed tool & pre-series & series prices

Updated series price with PO

Prototypes paid

Pre-series parts paid

Product definition for DV *

Product definition freeze*

Design FMEA *

Design FMEA Actions implemented

Key characteristics *

BOPs definition released

Design Validation Plan *

DVP test results successful

Control of process & design change * Actual BP

Outstanding payments

Production Validation test results successful *


Prototypes approved Process definition

Process definition released

Mass Production Trial Run @ Rate *

Process FMEA

Process FMEA * actions launched

Process flow realized *

Prel. Manufacturing footprint

Facilities / Footprint specifications

Facilities definition released

Initial equipment concept

Production System definition

Equipment & tooling specs * released

Production process Instruction *

Logistic& Packaging definitions released *

Logistic & packaging in place *

Initial process capability study plan *

Process capability achieved *

BOPs, tools, gauges, equipment ordered

Supplier PPAP *

Initial process concept

Manufacturing

Initial supply chain concept (internal/external MIFD*) Purchasing

V1.0

Expert suppliers contracts signed

1 ACQUISITION

Designers suppliers contracts signed

2A DESIGN


3 PRODUCTION SET-UP

EMPT Run @ Rate

4 LAUNCH

5 Series PRODUCTION

178

Version 2 - 14 Dec 2009

Program Internal Contract (program objectives) - GR#1 Description The Program Internal Contract articulates the performance boundaries of a program (objectives) committed to by the PSC Chairman as agreed by the Program Steering Committee (PSC), the Program Core Team (PCT), and associated Functional Managers at the Gate Review. The Program Internal Contract is prepared in the acquisition phase between the Program Quote Review and the Program Team Kick-off. The Program Internal Contract is first approved at the Gate Review #1 by the PSC. The PSC reviews the Program Internal Contract at subsequent Gate Reviews. It is possible that the threshold level of some contract parameters are changed during subsequent Gate Reviews.

Input Program Quote Review minutes Customer requirements Initial Product and Process Concept Preliminary Manufacturing Footprint Initial Equipment Concept Initial Supply Chain Concept


Required output Completed Program Internal Contract with full commitment of Program Team, Functional Managers and the Product Steering Committee

Documents to be used Program Internal Contract

Responsibility Validator: Program Steering Committee Actor: Acqusition Manager up to Program Kick-off, Program Manager after Program Kick-off

179

Program Internal Contract

Prepared between the Program Quote Review & Program Team Kick-off

First approved at the Gate Review #1 by the PSC


Highlights the major program risks

Functions have committed to their associated key program challenges

The PSC reviews the Program Internal Contract at subsequent Gate Reviews

The right level of staffing is reserved in order to close the gaps 180

Program Internal Contract Program Internal Contract Product performance

Safety/Regulation

Safety Customer specification ( incl.NCAP) Regulation

indicator

Units

Tests status Tests status % parts in carry over Number of new functions Milestone status % = actual/customer target dB Zero V3 Quotation RSA Number of DMT points Newtons Status of endurance test

R/Y/G R/Y/G % number M1-M4 % dB Subjective number number R/Y/G R/G number

Target

Program Steering Committee (PSC) and the Program Core Team. Electrical Noise Functional Noise Aspect effort


Prepared between the Program Quote Review and the Program Team Kick-off. Reliability & endurance First approved at the Gate Review #1 by the PSC. Design for manufacturing AGREPTContractNumber of points < 5 The PSC reviews the Program Internal at subsequent Product cost (Provisional Product Cost Gate Reviews. with current definition and current product deliverables are defined. Previsional cost / target cost manufacturing performance) Cost Committed IRR % IRR Hard toOImeasure customer expected performance targets are OI identified. Upfront Upfront en ME QualityTarget and PPM atthe 0km actual values are compared and PPM the magnitude of the gaps are estimated. The right level of staffing is reserved in order toK°close the 3 Months Warranty Claims /°° = Cases per 1000 gaps. Staffing CT & ET Resources Turnover on Core Team and key Major program challenges are highlighted early. functions (Program Manager, Core Main program stakes are transferred into the Program Single Team , Architect) List of Issues Delivery Definition Freeze for DV Tool Launch Complementary gap closure projects are launched. PPAP The program scope is adjusted. Functions have committed to their associated key program challenges. Manufacturing Footprint

Number and names of plants Production Volumes

Program Specific Targets/Challene LCC ges New Plant New Customer New Concept New Development Venture

LCC

Number and name Unit forecast

% LCC Supplier Pannel Plant built, equiped, staffed and approved

%

70kg

Y Y TBD 1 < M3 TBD 36 >0 TBD 1 Non conformance Y R 5+1

7%

M4 70kg

381.49 15 6 13.3 40

387.22 6.8 2.6 15 150

5% 0 20% 10%

2.15 Zero Open Position

B: 1,3 C: 6,9 *

10% 1

%

0 juin-06 avr-07 juil-08 6, ACL (JIT), St. Jao Madere (Foam), St. Jao Madere (Metal), St. Jao Madere (Insitu), STEA (Trim Covers), Number and name Poland (Slides) 1,000,000

30%

%

Seuil Alerte

G G 10% 1 M4 Status 66kg <40 0 0V1 et (V2+V3)<0.03 @ SOP 100% to specification G 100% operation GO au Gate 2 0-5

Weight 66kg Articulate the performance boundaries of a program as mutually agreed by the Interface with vehicule Innovative functions/new applications Innovation 1 - BA3 Weight Perceived quality

Actual

30% 0 0 0 0

0

20%

1 NA NA Na

84, Coife (3 Suppliers) NA

Any change 5%

20%

5%

181

“Good” answer for “Functional milestones & Gate Reviews” How do you perform your Functional Milestones and your Gate Reviews ? Clear check list with conclusion (Ok/NOk) ( clear criteria to conclude Ok) Critical item

Clear list of attendees (plan/real) including expert and mandatory if needed

Action plan with Responsible & deadline in single file

QUALITY FUNCTIONAL MILESTONE Phase 2B

Program

Product type Complete Seat

Review Date

Review location

07/10/2008

Work Packages

PQL & contributors Katharina Jahn

1st row

E84

PQL Outputs

WP planned closure date

Reviewed by

Stadthagen

Quality Key Deliverables

Critical

Jacek Kusiak

Status

Detailed description of PQL output

Comments / Actions PIST level actual 94,96% (h-point in BMW production adjustment) 78,92% (h-point in LH- addjustment) target 60% for phase 2b

Product performance - PIST Level

PIST level for KPCs has achieved the customer target

--> to add root cause action pilot and deadline in the PIST database

2E14

Proto #2 Quality Performance Analyzed

07/07/08

Prototype control plan implemented Gauges requirements

C

G

22/09/08

Prototype control plan implemented

C

G

07/07/08

Pre-Production Control Plan

Final Key Characteristics List

Actions are defined and agreed with the customer - H-point - discussion with Karmann and BMW because LH - adjustment is necessary, planned for cw 48; BMW and Karmann know this problem (because of Key Characteristics List reviewed and updated based on the prototype tests, measurement results carry over parts the h-point E84 could not reach LH-adjustment, but BMWproduction and ECE adjustments are fulfilled) Key Characteristics are updated (last update 25.09.2008 Rev. 05) 69 characteristics (class 1 = 12; class 2 = 27; check criteria = 30) --> PIST&PIPC 12 characteristics --> class 1 = 0, class 2 = 4, check criteria = 8

2E15

Internal Quality Objectives Updated Development Convergence Plan

2E25

Pre-Production Control Plan Established

Prototype control plan implemented and signed off Product audit tracking is ongoing

Action plan defined to correct non conformance based on PIST values, DV test results and any other non conformities (complaints..etc.).

reference to Convergenceplan E84_Fehlerübersicht_KJ_20080809

Pre-Production Control Plan Y

Pre-Production Controlplan is defined and signed off Inspection instructions are defined (based on E90) Update --> next update of inspection instruction will be during PVL-phase in 02/2009, training material is available in plant now

Pre-Production Inspection Instructions QSE plan with implementation dates in line with FPT, MPT & EMPT requirements and schedule 2E+28

QSE deployment plan defined

25.06.08

Pre-Production Control Plan

G

QSE Training & coaching plan

New Training and choaching for E84 is not necessary, because of carry over E90 (statement UAP Manager Y. Kermarrec) Budget 2009 :2 new Trainers and 1 new employee (50%) planned

-

-

Program risk assessment

ongoing

-

-

Quality Validation Review

23/09/08

Prototype control plan implemented

Conclusion:

:___YES____

FAIL: ______

Re-Review Necessary ?

YES:_______

NO:___X_____

Signature

Program Quality Manager

Name

Date

Kusiaz Jacek

7-oct.-08

Flow Chart/Machines, Tools used in the process / KPC, KCC / Frequency of control / Inspection methods, gauges, tools../ Record format and duration / Reaction rules in case of non conformity (Rework?) / Approval by Plant and Program Manager References for measurement / Characteristics to be measured with tolerance and classification

QSE plan for 2. semester 2008 is defined together with the plant QSE Coordinator (Bernd Schmeisser / Michael W ende) date for R@R implemented; planned dates: FPT (20.02.2009), MPT (22.05.2009), EMPT (24.09.2009) will be implemented in the next update of semester 1-2/2009 -

G

Shareplace is updated and in use / also 3PR and LOP / SLI / PRC

Regular Program risk assessment - Prototype (SLI /or customer specific list, 3PR, PRC, PQL Sharepoint, Risks identified and under control or escalated when necessary)

G

23.09.2008 09:30 - 11:00 result A-

QVR conclusion positive (status A or A-) or QVR scheduled (if QFM is performed earlier than QVR )

Ok

Comments:


Calendar for next ( six months at least) Functional Milestones & Gate Review

Engineering / Manufacturing / Purchasing Functional Milestones

Time to Gate is monitored and achieving target line

ENGINEER MANUF PURCHASING 182

Key Messages Focus on the PMS

Mandatory Deliverables

The Program Steering Committee is

a cross functional business management team

The PSC guarantees the full engagement of the

line organization to meet program objectives


Gate

Reviews are about decision

Change organization mind-set to

yield of Gate Reviews

assure first

183



2011 Group sessions in Regions Asia USA SAO India

Shanghaï A.Hills-Frazer Meru Augsburg Curitiba Pune

May 12th Jun 17th Jun 30th Jul 8th Sep 30th Oct 14th

8h-18h00 8h-18h00 8h-18h00 8h-18h00 8h-18h00 8h-18h00

184


Conclusion Ken SATO

Mandatory Program Deliverables CUSTOMER INQUIRY

Program Go/No Go Target Review

GR 2A

Program GR 1 Quote Review

Quality Target Study * Quality

CAR Approval

GR 2B

Quality Management Plan

Gauges requirements *

Prototype control plan

Prototype control plan implemented * Pre Production control plan

Human Resources

Program Management

Program Teams staffed Program internal contract (program objectives)

Detailed SOW

Master schedule *

Prototype build plan

Single List of Issues in place

Sales

Initial product concept


Product Engineering

GR 4

Initial Samples Submitted to Customer *

I.S. for additional capacity

Pre Production control plan implemented *

Production Control Plan * Product team staffed

Make or Buy finalized (Subcontractors)

Lessons Learned *

CAR approved

Pre-series build plan

Single List of Issues managed *

S/R concerns solved (SLI) *

Activities during ramp-up *

ECM for pre-series & series in place Actual BP Agreed prototype prices

END OF PRODUCTION

GR 3

Initial Business Plan Customer Contract

START OF PRODUCTION

Plant Start-up team planned

ECM for development In place Finance



PROGRAM AWARD

Agreed tool & pre-series & series prices

Updated series price with PO

Prototypes paid

Pre-series parts paid

Product definition for DV *

Product definition freeze*

Design FMEA *

Design FMEA Actions implemented

Key characteristics *

BOPs definition released

Design Validation Plan *

DVP test results successful

Control of process & design change * Actual BP

Outstanding payments

Production Validation test results successful *

Prototypes approved Process definition

Process definition released

Mass Production Trial Run @ Rate *

Process FMEA

Process FMEA * actions launched

Process flow realized *

Prel. Manufacturing footprint

Facilities / Footprint specifications

Facilities definition released

Initial equipment concept

Production System definition

Equipment & tooling specs * released

Production process Instruction *

Logistic& Packaging definitions released *

Logistic & packaging in place *

Initial process capability study plan *

Process capability achieved *

BOPs, tools, gauges, equipment ordered

Supplier PPAP *

Initial process concept

Manufacturing

Initial supply chain concept (internal/external MIFD*) Purchasing

V1.0

Expert suppliers contracts signed

1 ACQUISITION

Designers suppliers contracts signed

2A DESIGN


3 PRODUCTION SET-UP

EMPT Run @ Rate

4 LAUNCH

5 Series 186 PRODUCTION



Program QRCI



FMEA



The basic rule:

We are all allowed to make a mistake once But: we are not allowed to repeat twice the same mistake


This is true for: Individuals Teams

FAURECIA 188

Who is in charge? Who is responsible for Development Quality? Who has to implement the 7 Quality basics in Development?

The 7 Quality Basics in Development Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited

They are our basic are not tools for

Development tools Quality and PMS people 189


Comments

Introduction


Key Characteristics

FMEA



Program QRQC





2=Average

General Appraisal

1

2

3=Good 3

4= Excellent

4 Comments:

190


191

7 Quality Basics In Development 656i4g

Overview 3e4r5l

More details w3441

Related Documents 3m3m1z

7 Quality Basics In Development 656i4g

Supplier Quality Development Program 4b26p

Total Quality Management In Software Development Process b1w37

7 Quality Control Tools 8r4o

1c:enterprise 8.2 Development Basics Tutorial 2a7373

7 Quality Control Tools 8r4o

More Documents from "Avneet Multani" 3fy10

7 Quality Basics In Development 656i4g

Mott - Applied Strength Materials 5th (solutions Manual) 412b31

Sail Internship Project 2010-11 4822k

2011 Icas Maths Paper.pdf 6d4p2q

Corporate Excellence 20465

Motorola Driver Log 493h6c