PPAP IN AEROSPACE - ASQ Hartford...Similar to a PPAP package. In general this is the aerospace equivalent of the automotive PPAP, Production Part Approval Process. PPAP requires larger

“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012

PPAP IN AEROSPACE Components, Challenges & Enablers

Hartford ASQ Monthly Meeting

Presented by: Peter E. Teti

Thursday, April 12, 2012

This document contains no technical data.

PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL PROCESS Presenter summary

Technical Fellow – Product Quality

27 years at HS and PW

Authored many quality & training documents

Developed many supplier quality key processes

Adjunct Professor at CCSU and NGS last 13 years

CQE instructor for ASQ Hartford over last 15 years

What is PPAP?

Why are UTC Aerospace units implementing PPAP? Why

now?

What are the components (key elements) of UTC Aerospace

PPAP?

Producer expectations

How will PPAP be implemented?

Key challenges

Key enablers

KEY TAKE-AWAYS

3


What’s PPAP?

4

PPAP is a protocol used to establish confidence in component suppliers

and their production processes, by proving that:

"....all UTC Aerospace business unit’s requirements are met by the supplier

and that the process under review has demonstrated, during an actual

production run, to have the potential to consistently produce parts meeting

these requirements."

INTRODUCTION TO PPAP A Definition (Reference AIAG PPAP Manual)

5

HISTORY OF PPAP Roots in Automotive

In 1982 the management staff of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford Motors founded

AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group).

The group then created to Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan

(APQP), within these standards, the AIAG developed PPAP to advance the parts

production approval process of quality planning.

The first manual spelling out the multiple requirement of PPAP was published in

1993. PPAP is part of the auto industry's overall Advance Product Quality Planning

initiative, step-by-step procedures designed to ensure production of an end-product

that will satisfy consumers.

6

HISTORY OF AEROSPACE & DEFENSE Product & Process Integrity Progression

7

1990’s

FAR 9.308

Early 2000’s

AS9100/AS9102

Mid-2000’s

Characteristic

Accountability

& Verification

2010’s

PPAP

SOURCE: Renaissance Services

“Do First Article

Inspection”

First true industry

Standard – driven

by commercial

Characteristic

accountability

Disciplined

approach

Widely adopted

across industry

today

Characteristic-

level data flow

and verification

Emphasis on

complete

technical data

package

National

Aerospace

Standard 3500

Based on automotive

industry approach

Gaining momentum,

but mostly at talking

stage

Challenge to apply in

Aerospace & Defense

job shop environment


Why PPAP?

8

PPAP AT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES Why is UTC Aerospace adopting PPAP?

COMPONENT RELIABILITY BATHTUB CURVE

Fail

ure

Ra

te

Time

Infant Mortality (Unbudgeted Costs)

Useful Life

(Warranty Costs)

Wear Out

PPAP would reduce “Infant Mortality” costs incurred on a new program

KEY DRIVER

- Escapes due to:

* Poor/Changing designs

* Poor manufacturing

processes

* Misunderstanding

requirements

* Workmanship errors

* Supply Chain fluidity

* Control of sub-tiers

KEY DRIVER

- Inherent Design component reliability

based on constant failure rate

$

* Beyond Warranty

* Aftermarket sales

of spare parts

9

Special Cause Common Cause

“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012 10

"We made too many changes at the same time -- new technology,

new design tools and a change in the supply chain -- and thus

outran our ability to manage it effectively for a period of time."

WHY PPAP IN AEROSPACE?

Boeing 787 – Major causes of multi-year delay

SOURCE: AOL Daily Finance article entitled “Boeing's Dreamliner Delays: Outsourcing Goes Too Far”, by Peter Cohan, 1/21/2011

New technology

New materials

Underestimating the

global supply chain - Lack of robust designs

- Lack of robust mfg. processes

- Lack of familiarity with component integration

Boeing executive quote to Reuters


WHY PPAP IN AEROSPACE?

Airbus 380 – Major causes of multi-year delay SOURCE: Wikapedia

System complexity

Rewiring due to mis-matched

design software between

Toulouse and Hamburg

Complex supply chain - Lack of robust method to ensure production readiness

- Lack of familiarity with component integration

- Suppliers not able to deliver components on time

Failure of configuration management

Failure of change control Show A380 Video

A380 film accelere_CD.mpg


WHY PPAP FOR UTC AEROSPACE?

New program ramp-up & production volumes

PRATT & WHITNEY

Next Generation Product Family

(NGPF) Engines

Airbus NEO

Bombardier C-Series

Mitsubishi Regional Jet

Russian Ikrut

HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND

Boeing 787 suite of systems and

components

NGPF engine systems for PW &

PWC

GOAL: “An engine an hour”

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

0 25 50 100 250 500 750 1000

Pe

rce

nta

ge

wit

h In

sta

lle

d N

on

co

nfo

rmin

g

Pro

du

ct

Number of System Parts

DISRUPTION PLANNER

P(NCM) at 10,000 PPM

P(NCM) at 5,000 PPM

P(NCM) at 1,000 PPM

P(NCM) at 500 PPM

P(NCM) at 250 PPM

P(NCM) at 50 PPM

Yields approximately 5%

of all assemblies having

installed nonconforming

parts. This is the

production limit.

99% yield on components nets a 100% disruption rate for a 1000 piece

assembly!

PURPOSE OF ASQR-09.2 UTC PPAP Specification

This specification defines requirements for validating a manufacturing or

assembly process which produces parts for a United Technologies

Corporation (UTC) Member Company.

The purpose is to provide evidence that UTC member engineering

design, record and specification requirements are properly understood

and fulfilled.

The goal is to demonstrate the established manufacturing process has

the potential to produce product that consistently meets all requirements

at the intended production rate.

As a supplier, it is your responsibility to ensure that you ship only parts

that have been approved and meet specifications.

13

Why do we need PPAP?…………….….If we already have AS9102 FAI?

INTRODUCTION TO PPAP Comparison to First Article Inspection (FAI)

14

FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION – AS9102 What’s the difference? SOURCE: Wikipedia

15

AS9102 is the Aerospace Standard for First Article Inspection Requirements. First Article Inspection Report

(FAIR) can be documented on Forms 1 (Part Number Accountability), 2 (Product Accountability), and 3

(Characteristic Accountability, Verification and Compatibility Evaluation.

The purpose of the First Article Inspection is to give objective evidence that all engineering, design

and specification requirements are correctly understood, accounted for, verified, and recorded.

The purpose of this standard is to provide a consistent documentation requirement for aerospace

components.

FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION (FAI): A complete, independent, and documented physical and functional

inspection process to verify that prescribed production methods have produced an acceptable item as

specified by engineering drawings, planning, purchase order, engineering specifications, and/or other

applicable design documents.

FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION REPORT (FAIR): The forms and package of documentation for a part

number or assembly, including FAI results, as per this Standard. Similar to a PPAP package.

In general this is the aerospace equivalent of the automotive PPAP, Production Part Approval

Process. PPAP requires larger quantity of components than would be typically manufactured for

aircraft components. PPAP also has a stronger emphasis on risk identification and mitigation as well

as process control (i.e., use of FMEA, Process Mapping, Control Plans, SPC, MSA, ).

PPAP VS FAI HMS Titanic 100th Anniversary

FAI illustrates that a producer met all engineering and

quality requirements for one part

FAI falls short on whether or not the process that made the

one good part will be able to make the voyage of rate

production

Things may look good when we board but are all systems

in place to be able to complete the trip? Again and again?

PPAP helps to ensure we can make the trip time and time again through

more in-depth risk identification and mitigation actions

COMPARISON

HIGHLIGHTS

14 of 19 elements

are covered in

AS9102

UPPAP per ASQR-

09.2 requires both

design and process

risk identification &

mitigation

UPPAP requires

more than one part

to be 100%

dimensionally

verified (requires 5)

to show process

stability

UTC PPAP VS. FAI COMPARISON ASQR-09.2 – AS9102

ITEM #

CRITICAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM ELEMENT

REQUIRING VALIDATION BY ASQR-09.2 (UTC PPAP)

AS9102 FAI

REQUIRED

ELEMENT TO

VALIDATE

(Yes/No)

1 Released Production Drawings Yes

2 Additional Engineering & Quality Requirements Yes

3 Production Purchase Order and Demand Fullfillment Yes

4 Design Failure Modes Effects Analysis No

5 Process Flow No

6 Process Failure Modes Effects Analysis No

7 Process Control Plan Yes

8 Process Readiness Study No

9 Initial Process Capability Studies Yes

10 Measurement Systems Analysis Yes

11 Engineering Frozen Planning and Source Approval Yes

12 Dimensional Report Yes

13 Production Verification Testing Yes

14 Special Process and Nondestructive Test Approval Yes

15 Material Certification Documentation Yes

16 Raw Material Approval Yes

17 Part Marking Approval Yes

18 Packaging, Preservation & Labeling Approval No

19 Review and Sign-Off Yes

Element not required to be reviewed by AS9102 FAI but is required by ASQR-09.2 UTC PPAP

Element required to be reviewed by both AS9102 FAI and ASQR-09.2 UTC PPAP

LEGEND

17

FAI alone will not be sufficient to ensure:

Production readiness

Initial process stability

Major process risks identified and resolved prior

to rate production

UTC PPAP VS. FAI COMPARISON ASQR-09.2 – AS9102

18

We cannot tolerate the same level of escapes and

disruptions seen on prior programs in order to

meet Customer requirements!

PPAP AT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES Benefits to Customers, Plant Sites and Suppliers

Manufacturing process functions that are clearly planned, validated,

documented and communicated that result in:

Reduced process variation

Statistically controlled processes

Enhanced customer confidence

in supplier’s capabilities

Consistent approach in assuring

quality and providing evidence

Reduced COPQ (infant mortality escapes)

Better controlled process changes

Development Production

Prevention through PPAP

Current state

Time

$$ T

ota

l C

ost

of

Qu

ality

Redesign

Re-qualifications

Escape Investigations

19

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Cost of Change/Failure

20

Time

Basic Plan Detailed Design Build Test Production

Release to

Manufacturing

Cost/Change

X=$14,700 per change (industry average)

100X

10X

X

PPAP IMPACT ON GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE Industry Performance

21

Problems per 100 Vehicles

From Historic Levels >300

21


Components, Challenges

& Enablers

22


PPAP COMPONENTS

Forms & Procedures

Training and Standard Work

Linkage to Design-to Build Process

Enabling Tools

Systems

Review Process


“Here comes another brilliant idea”

“Isn’t this going to increase costs?”

Supplier-to-supplier flow down of requirements

“You want 4 additional full-up dimensioned parts

on top of the FAI part?”

PPAP CHALLENGES


PPAP ENABLING TOOLS

Design FMEA

Process FMEA

Process Control Plans

SPC Control Charts

Gage & Process Capability Studies

Capacity Analysis

Process Readiness Study

Process Readiness

Study Assessment

PPAP 301

Training PackageASQR-09.2

PPAP ProcedureForm Number: QC-0990.26

Revision: Initial Release

Date: 6/22/2011

Element UPPAP Element Criteria

Status

(N/A, Not

Started, In-

Process,

Completed)

Action Item(s)/Comments

A) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division drawings

& specifications?

B) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and specifications

released (i.e. signatures applied)?

C) Is producer working to correct drawing revisions, including all

detail drawings (e.g. casting, forging, other detail parts) as

indicated on the purchase order?

D) Validate if any Critical to Quality (CTQ) features called out.

A) Verify that any supplemental customer requirements (Purchase

Order, Quality or Engineering Notes/Documents) are incorporated

into producer and subtier manufacturing processes and documents.

B) Verify that the producer is working to the correct released

revision of any supplemental customer requirement documents as

specified on the Purchase Order (e.g. Quality or Engineering

Notes/Documents, other specifications).

A) Verify that the producer is working to a production purchase

order?

B) Verify that the sub-tier PO documents flow down any UTC

requirements per ASQR-01, ASQR-09.2 etc.

C) Does the UPPAP package have evidence that the producer

knows the latest demand schedule and is updating capacity and

manufacturing plans accordingly.

D) Is there evidence that the producer flows down the latest

demand schedule to subtier suppliers and is updating subtier

management plans accordingly.

Released Production Drawings

SPD/SMD and SI Sheets

NOTE: See Element Reference Card for UTC

divisional definitions.

Production PO and Demand Fullfillment

UTC PPAP2 ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

PPAP Checklist Objective Evidence

Package & Forms

UPPAP 301

UTC Production Part Approval Process

1


SKILLS RECOMMENDED FOR PPAP Specifically for those approving packages

Design & Process FMEA

Process Mapping

Statistical Process Control

Preparation and Review of Control Plans

Gage Familiarization & Capability Studies

Capacity Analysis

Process Auditing

GD&T and Drawing Interpretation

First Article Inspection

Special Approvals (i.e., special processes, frozen processes, etc.)

etc.

UTC PPAP PROCEDURE ASQR-09.2, “UTC Production Part Approval Process”

New specification for UTC Aerospace divisions

Modeled after AIAG PPAP Manual

Approved by FAA and published February, 2011

Requirement to implement driven by purchase order

UTC Aerospace divisions have flexibility as to when &

where they choose to implement

Implementation, training and assistance provided by UTC

Pilot projects already completed with several suppliers

27

METHOD What are the key elements?

PPAP specifies steps and standards for every phase of

the planning and production process.

PPAP documentation, which follows the product from

inception to completion, contains at least 19 separate

elements by the time production is completed.

Key documentation requirements are validated on a

form called a “UPPAP Approval Submission”

Elements are shown on next page

28

PPAP ELEMENTS PER ASQR-09.2 Contents for Objective Evidence Package

29


Specifications

Production PO

Product Definition

11

22

33

Design FMEA

Manufacturing Process Flow

Process FMEA

Process Control Plan

Process Readiness Study

Initial Process Studies

Measurement System Analysis

Dimensional Report

Raw Material Approval

PPAP Core Activities

5555

6666

7777

8888

9999

10101010

12121212

4444

16161616

Frozen Process/Source Approval

Production Verification Testing

Special Process Approvals & NDT

Material Certification Documentation

“If Required” Activities

11111111

13131313

14141414

15151515

1919

1818

1717 Parts Marking Approval

Packaging, Preservation & Labeling Approval

HS Pre-Approved

PPAP Review and Sign-Off

HS Formal Approval

NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION – APQP

30

CAB Activity

Planning

Program Start

Experimental Production

Product Design and Dev.

Process Design and Development

Product and Process Validation

Production

Corrective Action Board activity

Plan & Define

Program

Product Design &

Development Verification

Process Design &

Development Verification

Product & Process

Validation

Ongoing Part & Process control

Transition to

Production

PPAP ensures the activities required by APQP are properly completed

Product & process planning

UPPAP activities

consolidation

NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION – APQP

31

VISION What does UTC Aero want to achieve with PPAP?

All new UTC Aerospace

designed product, significantly

revised product, and/or product

transitions using formally

validated processes in order to

mitigate the risk of Customer

escapes.

32

FORMAL VALIDATION What does this mean? For a Supplier?

Supplier performing formal production review, with standard

checklist, of processes used to manufacture UTC Aerospace

product

Supplier preparation of Objective Evidence Package that supports

each checklist item

UTC full or partial review of Objective Evidence Package

Reviews conducted by PPAP member focal points (MFPs, typically

QE/SQE) with functional experts where appropriate (i.e., X-Ray,

Heat Treat, etc.)

UPPAP Approval Submission Form sign-off by Supplier

and UTC Aerospace representative

33

34

Process Flow &

Process FMEA

GR&R, SPC & Sampling

High-RPN’s (Supplier-selected KPCs

and/or M/P controls)

Process Control Plan

& Initial Process

Studies

Work instructions Visual Aids

RCCA (address poor

capability)

Process

Planning

PPAP CORE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY CTQ

Features Escapes, QN & COPQ


PPAP LINKAGE

DFMEA

Process Flow Map

PFMEA

Control Plans

Work Instructions

Controls

CORE PPAP LINKAGES

• Focuses on how specific process steps will be controlled.

• Required of all suppliers .

• Define Key Process Inputs, Control Methods, Gage Capability , SPC chart and

reaction plan.

• Look at linkage to PFMEA.

Control

Plans

ASQR-09.2 requires Suppliers to demonstrate this chain reaction

• Focuses on sequence of steps used to create product.

• Required by all suppliers.

• Should include sequence of steps, KPIs and KPOs.

Process

Flow Map

• Focuses on product design and/or specifications.

• Required for suppliers with design authority.

• Look at similar design, Customer MFA, VOC, major escapes & field issues.

DFMEA

• Built from part Process Flow Map.

• Required of all suppliers.

• Look at internal & external escapes, defect data, labor variances, & turnbacks.

• Look at linkage to DFMEA where applicable.

PFMEA

KEY PPAP LINKAGES - continued

Controls • Focuses on ability to prevent high RPN failure modes.

• Required for all suppliers.

• Assures compliance to UTCQR-09.1 and ASQR-20.1.

• Focuses on Operator instructions created for each specific process step.

• Required for all suppliers.

• Looks at clarity, user-friendliness.

• Look at linkage to Control Plan and PW requirements.

Work

Instructions

• Focuses on how specific process steps will be controlled.

• Required of all suppliers .

• Defines Key Process Inputs, Control Methods, Gage Capability , SPC chart and

reaction plan.

• Look at linkage to PFMEA.

Control

Plans

ASQR-09.2 requires Suppliers to demonstrate this chain reaction

PPAP CHECKLIST

Incorporates all 19 PPAP elements required by ASQR-09.2

Spikes out specifically what to look for each PPAP element

Producer Supplier ABC PPAP Level 4

Part Name Widget Part Number 767821-1

Engineering Change

Level A Reason for Submission New ProgramExpected PPAP

Submission Date 15-Nov-11 Production Start Date 12/15/2011

Element PPAP Submission ItemsRequired

Documents

UTC Required

element for this

Part/Part Family?

(Yes/No)

Producer required

to submit

objective evidence

to UTC Division for

this element?

(Yes/No)

Producer's

Response

UTC Reviewer's

Response

R/Y/G Status

(based on UTC

Response)

Comment and/or

Recovery Plan Action Item

1) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division

drawings & specifications?

Drawings and

specifications

Yes Yes Completed Completed

2) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and

specifications released?

Drawings and

specifications

Yes Not Completed Not CompletedProduction Drawing not released; Supplier currently

working to "X-Drawing". HS Engineering promise date to

finalize design is 10/15/2011.

3) Is producer working to correct drawing revision? Applicable drawings Yes Partial Completion Partial Completion Supplier working to development drawing. Note above.

4) Is producer working to correct specification revisions for

specifications called out on the drawing/P.O.? Refer to

Control Card. Applicable specifications

Yes Completed Completed

5) Validate any CTQ Features called out.

Applicable drawings and

specifications

Yes Partial Completion Partial Completion HS Engineering has documented 3 CTQCs on unreleased

drawing.

6) For any CTQCs/CTSCs called out, validate producer has

approved KPC Management Form for lower-level selected

KPCs.

KPC Management Form

(ref. ProCert Database)

Yes Not Completed Not CompletedSupplier has not performed KPC Self-Selection per

HSC16199/HSM17 to support HS Engineering CTQCs

flowed down on drawing.

7) For drawings that call out a specific casting/forging

drawing, has producer flowed down to the sub-tier the

correct revision drawing? Also, refer to Element 16 for

drawings that specify a specific casting/forging P/N to be

used to ensure proper UTC approval.

Lower-level raw material

drawing

Yes Not Applicable Not Applicable

UTC PPAP ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST

Released Production

Drawings1

(NOTE: To be used in tandem with UPPAP Submission Form 1, ASQR-09.2)

PPAP SUPPLIER EVIDENCE PACKAGE Allow suppliers to understand exactly what needs to be completed and

submitted for each of the 19 PPAP elements per ASQR-09.2

Process o r Part N o : M OS / A FS

R ev. Level:Planning g roup: Orig inat o r: ISSU E D A TE:

Key Product

Characteristic

KPCD / KPCM / KPCA KEY PROCESS OUTPUT OPER. NUM .SEQ.

NUM BER

CONT.

CHART

TYPE

SAM P.

SIZE

SAM P.

FREQ.

BASELINE

CP

BASELINE

CPKTYPE OF GAUGE CAPABILITY (%)

PROCESS

PARAM ETER

SETTING

CONTROL M ETHOD REACTION PLAN

Pro-Cert analyst

approval:

DATE

:

KEY PROCESS PARAM ETERS

KEY PROCESS OUTPUT

KEY CHARACTERISTIC CONTROL PLAN

KEY PROCESS INPUT

Eng ine M odel:

REVISION LETTER:

MEASURING SYSTEM

Index

PROCESS READINESS STUDY – Element 8

Allow suppliers to self-assess the

processes building UTC product to

ensure production readiness

Originally developed by PWC;

added Capacity Planning and FOD

Focus areas include:

Manufacturing Operation Sheets

Tooling

Gaging

Equipment & TPM

Control of Key Product Characteristics

(KPCs)

Control of Sub-tier Suppliers

Capacity Planning

Control of Foreign Object Debris (FOD)

Company Private 41

UTC AEROSPACE PPAP TOOL KIT

UTC Aerospace has created a “PPAP Kit” for use by internal plant sites and

suppliers

Contains all the forms required for submission

Includes instruction on the use of the forms

Fully compliant to ASQR-09.2, UTC PPAP specification

The UTC PPAP Tool Kit contains everything required for submission and is

available on the UTC Suppliers/Partners Portal at www.utc.com

Process Readiness

Study Assessment

PPAP 301

Training Package ASQR-09.2

PPAP Procedure Form Number: QC-0990.26


Date: 6/22/2011


Status

(N/A, Not

Started, In-

Process,

Completed)



& specifications?















order?
















Package & Forms

UPPAP 301


1

http://www.hssupplierportal.com/

UTC WEBSITE


PPAP Deliverables

43

Series of documents

Gathered in a specific location, physical (binder) or electronic

(e.g., Visual IPI software) to create a "PPAP Objective

Evidence Package (OEP)“

PPAP OEP is formally approved by the supplier & HS

PPAP Approval Submission (Form 1) summarizes its 19

elements

A PPAP OEP approval means that

The supplier has reviewed and approved the evidence collected and

HS has not identified any issues that prevent its approval

WHAT DOES PPAP LOOK LIKE? Keeping Evidence

44

Process o r Part N o : M OS / A FS

R ev. Level:Planning g roup: Orig inat o r: ISSU E D A TE:

Key Product

Characteristic

KPCD / KPCM / KPCA KEY PROCESS OUTPUT OPER. NUM .SEQ.

NUM BER

CONT.

CHART

TYPE

SAM P.

SIZE

SAM P.

FREQ.

BASELINE

CP

BASELINE

CPKTYPE OF GAUGE CAPABILITY (%)

PROCESS

PARAM ETER

SETTING

CONTROL M ETHOD REACTION PLAN

Pro-Cert analyst

approval:

DATE

:

KEY PROCESS PARAM ETERS

KEY PROCESS OUTPUT

KEY CHARACTERISTIC CONTROL PLAN

KEY PROCESS INPUT

Eng ine M odel:

REVISION LETTER:

MEASURING SYSTEM

Index

SUBMISSION LEVELS Determined based on risk using Decision Tree Tool

Level Submitted documentation Reviewed

at

1 PPAP Approval form only HS

2 PPAP Approval form with limited

supporting data HS

3 PPAP Approval form with

complete supporting data HS

4 PPAP Approval form with

complete supporting data

Supplier’s

location

45

PPAP ELEMENT EXEMPTION DECISION TREE

Special

Processes for

this Part?

No

Element

14

Exemption

Member

Drawing

Defined Raw

Material?

Element 16

Exemption

No

Member-

Approved

Required for

Purchased

Material ?

Element

15a

Exemption

No

No

ESA Required?

Element

11

Exemption

Product

Verification

Testing

Supplier

Design?

No

Element

13

Exemption

Element

15b

Exemption

Element

4

Exemption

Raw

Material

Source

DFMEA

PPAP Required

Not all PPAP Elements may apply for a specific part.

Use PPAP Element Exemption Decision Tree to determine which elements will apply and which ones will not.

PPAP SUBMISSION STATUS & DISPOSITION ASQR-09.2 Interim Classes Pending Full Approval

Interim

class Characteristics & deviation type

Examples (situations or

missing evidence)

A 100% production tooling. Meet all drawing & specifications

Not all production approval requirements are met

Incomplete capability studies

Drawing changes desired

B 100% production tooling

Require reprocess / rework to meet all drawing & specifications

Temporary operations duly

documented

C Meet all drawing & specifications

Produced using non-production tooling and/or process

Temporary manufacturing

operation/detail source

D Do not meet all drawing & specifications

Parts can be considered salable

Deviations still exist

Plan to address deviations in place

E Do not meet all drawing & specifications

Parts cannot be considered salable Any unacceptable situation

Process is kept in the radar until all requirements are met

47

(CAD)

PPAP CHANGE NOTIFICATION ASQR-09.2 Form 2 - Criteria for submission

The supplier shall notify the member using the UPPAP

Notification, ASQR-09.2 Form 2 when any situation

described below occurs.

Ownership changes (of the Supplier).

A change in design.

A change in manufacturing source(s), process(s),

inspection method(s), locations of manufacture, tooling

or materials.

A change in numerical control program or translation to

another media.

A natural or man-made event, which may adversely

affect a manufacturing process.

A lapse in production for two years or as specified by the

customer. 48


IMPLEMENTATION

49


IMPLEMENTATION

50

Implementation requires using:

Standard work

Standard forms

Standard procedures

PPAP will not be effectively implemented without good, solid

standard work. Just like arithmetic, you need to follow the standard

procedure as it was intended. No Ma & Pa Kettle Math here!

Click for Video

MILESTONE 1Definition

MILESTONE 2Execution

MILESTONE 3Validation

MILESTONE 4Approval

Ma___Pa_Kettle_Math.wmv

PW PPAP MILESTONE SUMMARY

MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 1

MILESTONE 1

Definition


MILESTONE 1 Definition

• Define PPAP parts

• Define PPAP elements

• Define PPAP levels

• Document Quality

requirements

• Flow-down PO/WO to

producer

Industry Std Part?

New Part

Existing Production

or Legacy Part

High Risk Suppliers?

CAT1,

Partner or

Design

Authority

Supplier?

Signif icant CL1 EC?

Signif icant Escape?

High Risk Source

Transition?

High Risk Cold Start?

Does the part meet any

of the below criteria?

Cost Model

Requirement?

F Review

Requirement?

Historical Part Family

Quality/Delivery/Cost

Issues?

New Technology?

ESW-DFMEA Reqmt,

CTQ or Prime

Reliable Part?

PPAP not applicable

PPAP is applicable

Level 3 Submission

PPAP is applicable

Level 4 Submission

PPAP is applicable

Level 1 Submission

yes

no

yes

no

yes

no

no

yes

yes

no

yes

Forecasted Volume

Exceeds XXX in next

3 years+?

yes

yesPPAP not applicable

no

VCAB

and/or

Program

Quality

decision to

apply based

on need

yes

yes


MILESTONE 3 MILESTONE 3


MILESTONE 3 Validation

• Producer provides

initial element evidence

• MFP determines gaps;

provides feedback

to producer

• Producer re-submits

updated documentation

• Repeat as necessary

• Producer assembles

full package for review




MILESTONE 4 Approval

• Review/approval of

completed package

• PW & producer sign

Form 1 Warrant

• Close interim approval

action items; resubmit

for full approval.

• Update PPAP database




MILESTONE 2 Execution

• MFP contacts producer

• Conduct PPAP training

• Establish & document

timeline

• Producer works to

complete elements

Process Readiness

Study Assessment

PPAP 301

Training PackageASQR-09.2

PPAP ProcedureForm Number: QC-0990.26


Date: 6/22/2011


Status

(N/A, Not

Started, In-

Process,

Completed)



& specifications?















order?
















Package & Forms

UPPAP 301


1

PPAP WEBSITE – Pratt & Whitney

PPAP SUMMARY Key take aways

PPAP being implemented to reduce infant mortality escapes

Upfront validation and verification of critical part processes will enable production

readiness

HS Customers 100% behind this effort and pushing it

Recent new program experience suggest this action to implement PPAP is very

appropriate

PPAP will be driven by ASQR-09.2 via purchase order

Target date to go live is July 1st, 2011

HS Supplier Quality Assurance still working the implementation details but will

certainly provide suppliers required support

53


QUESTIONS?

54


BACK-UP

55

Company Private

PROCESS CERTIFICATION - HS • Applied to HS drawings & specifications per HSC16199

• HSM17 now provides specific instructions to DQR relative to Process Certification compliance

• Suppliers must control KPCs using Statistical Process Control (SPC)

• Suppliers must enter compliance data into HS Process Certification Database available on HS Supplier Portal

General Characteristic Information

Key Process Inputs

Gage Capability Information

Initial Process Capability Results

Milestone Tracking

Supplier KPC Requirements

• Documented Process Control Plan

• Completed Gage Capability Study

• SPC Data Collection at Operator Workstation

• Control Charts filled out by Operator

• Calculated Process Capability Indexes

• Action Plan to improve KPCs with Low Cpk

99.73%

95.46%

68.26%

X-3S -2S -1S +1S +2S +3S

.0214 .1360 .3413.3413 .1360 .0214

99.73%

95.46%

68.26%

X-3S -2S -1S +1S +2S +3S

.0214 .1360 .3413.3413 .1360 .0214 GOAL: Achieve Milestone IV – “Certified Process” 56

Company Private HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF

RESTRICTIONS ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT.

THIS DOCUMENT OR FILE CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA. ECCN: EAR99

CAPACITY ANALYSIS REVIEW

• Recently developed to support Rate Readiness Reviews

• A tool to assess current & future capacity

• Conducted to assure ability to meet a ramp-up in schedule

• Used to identify potential and existing over-capacity situations

• Develop risk mitigation plans to address over-capacity situations

Year QuarterLoad (hrs)

Load

(%)Load (hrs)

Load

(%)

Q1 58.034 16.5% 102.638 31.1%

Q2 84.374 24.0% 148.420 45.0%

Q3 79.406 22.6% 139.457 42.3%

Q4 94.116 26.7% 164.580 49.9%

Overall 315.930 22.4% 555.095 42.1%

Q1 99.534 28.3% 173.714 52.6%

Q2 149.060 42.3% 258.803 78.4%

Q3 181.680 51.6% 313.888 95.1%

Q4 189.123 53.7% 327.369 99.2%

Overall 619.397 44.0% 1073.774 81.3%

Q1 174.110 49.5% 302.449 91.7%

Q2 154.616 43.9% 269.219 81.6%

Q3 112.168 31.9% 195.636 59.3%

Q4 92.986 26.4% 162.484 49.2%

Overall 533.880 37.9% 929.789 70.4%

2010

Machine Name

2011

2012

Lathe Grinder

Lathe Grinder Hone Polish

Working days 220 220 220 220

Number of machines 1 1 1 3

Number of hours per day 8 8 8 8

Hours available 1408 1320 1531.2 4488

Efficiency 80% 75% 87% 85%

Variance to Process Std

Set-up 10% 15% 10% 10%

Experimental /

Downtime 5% 5% 1% 5%

Scrap/rework 5% 5% 2% 0%

Tool proving

Waiting (Quality authonomy)

Operator not available

Non Value Added Labor 20.0% 25.0% 13.0% 15.0%

Resource

No. Open A/I: 0

No. Closed A/I: 0

No. Overdue A/I: 0

Total A/I: 0

Item No.

Machine/

Process Step

Over Capacity

Projected

Year

Projected

Quarter

Action Item(s) to Eliminate

Over Capacity Situation

Person

ResponsibleDue Date Status

Date

Closed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Over Capacity Action Plan

57

CAT Tool training package

and spreadsheet available at:

www.hssupplierportal.com

Click on “Help” tab

Click on “Quality MPR”

http://www.hssupplierportal.com/