Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 47 of 59 Production Part Approval: Performance Test Results Organization: Auto Precision Pressings Ltd Part number: 12345 Supplier/vendor code: 12345 Part name: Hinge LH Name of laboratory: *customer specified supplier/vendor code: Design record change level: 2 Engineering change documents: *If source approval is required, include the supplier (source) and customer assigned code. Test spec./rev./ date Specification/ limits Test date Qty. tested Supplier test results (data)/test conditions Ok Not Ok Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE Not Applicable for submission
Case Study (Delegate) Capability study: Variable data results Customer: Automotive Customer Part number: 123456 Description: Hinge LH Issue level: 1 Dimension/feature: Flange height / 30.75 ±1.25mm Nominal 30.75 Upper size limit 31.75 Lower size limit 29.75 Stand dev. (R-Bar/d2) 0.12569 Stand dev. (R-Bar/d2) x 3 0.37708 Stand dev. (R-Bar/d2) x 6 0.75415 X BAR 31.0038 UCLX 31.1539 LCLX 30.8537 R BAR 0.2588 UCLR 0.546068
AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 48 of 59 Capability indices Cp Process indices Cpk UPPER 1.9789 Cpk LOWER 3.3251 Cpk 1.9789 STAND DEV (n-1) 0.36704 Pp 0.9082 STAND DEV (n-1) x 3 1.10112 Ppk UPPER 0.6777 STAND DEV (n-1) x 6 2.20224 Ppk LOWER 1.1387 Ppk 0.6777
Case Study (Delegate) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sample 1 31.30 30.94 31.40 30.90 30.79 31.50 31.20 31.10 31.30 30.70 30.35 30.21 2 31.50 30.76 31.67 30.80 30.92 31.40 30.93 31.40 31.50 30.87 30.29 31.25 3 31.70 30.91 31.55 30.95 30.60 31.44 30.83 31.30 31.70 30.90 30.18 30.15 4 31.50 30.87 31.63 30.90 30.80 31.45 30.82 31.00 31.50 30.74 30.17 30.19 Means 31.5000 30.8700 31.5625 30.8875 30.7775 31.4475 30.9450 31.2000 31.5000 30.8025 30.2475 30.4500 Range 0.4000 0.1800 0.2700 0.1500 0.3200 0.1000 0.3800 0.4000 0.4000 0.2000 0.1800 1.1000 X Bar 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 UCLX 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 LCLX 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 UCLR 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.546068 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 R Bar 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588
AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 49 of 59 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Sample 1 31.30 30.85 30.87 30.98 30.86 31.30 30.86 30.83 30.81 30.87 31.30 30.79 30.78 2 31.50 30.79 30.80 30.92 30.83 31.28 30.87 30.88 30.83 30.85 31.40 30.77 30.84 3 31.70 30.89 30.80 30.70 30.76 31.60 30.86 30.98 30.84 30.87 31.60 30.92 30.90 4 31.50 30.96 30.90 31.05 30.87 31.50 30.83 30.81 30.75 30.92 31.50 30.78 30.87 Means 31.5000 30.8725 30.8425 30.9125 30.8300 31.4200 30.8550 30.8750 30.8075 30.8775 31.4500 30.8150 30.8475 Range 0.4000 0.1700 0.1000 0.3500 0.1100 0.3200 0.0400 0.1700 0.0900 0.0700 0.3000 0.1500 0.1200 X Bar 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 31.0038 UCLX 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 31.1539 LCLX 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 30.8537 UCLR 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.546068 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 0.54607 R Bar 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588 0.2588
Case Study (Delegate) X-Bar Chart 32.0000 31.5000 31.0000 30.5000 30.0000 29.5000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Means X BAR UCLX LCLX
AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 50 of 59 Range Chart Range UCLR R BAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1.2000 1.1000 1.0000 0.9000 0.8000 0.7000 0.6000 0.5000 0.4000 0.3000 0.2000 0.1000 0.0000
Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 51 of 59 Gage repeatability and reproducibility data sheet: Variable data results Part Number: NUMBER Gage Name Appraiser A John Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B Bill Characteristic Specification 29.75 31.75 Gage Type Appraiser C Bobby Characteristic Classification Trials 3 Parts 10 Appraisers 3 Date Performed Appraiser/ Part Average Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. A 1 31.65 30.94 31.30 30.90 30.79 31.50 29.75 31.45 31.65 29.80 30.973 2. 2 31.60 30.95 31.35 30.93 30.92 31.55 29.80 31.40 31.71 29.85 31.006 3. 3 31.70 30.91 31.41 30.95 30.85 31.53 29.83 31.30 31.70 29.75 30.993 4. AVE 31.65 30.93 31.35 30.93 30.85 31.53 29.79 31.38 31.69 29.80 xa= 30.991 5. R 0.10 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.15 0.06 0.10 ra= 0.087 6. B 1 31.70 30.94 31.30 30.90 30.79 31.90 29.75 31.10 31.70 30.60 31.068 7. 2 31.65 30.96 31.35 30.90 30.80 31.95 29.85 31.40 31.60 30.65 31.111 8. 3 31.70 30.95 31.41 30.95 30.70 31.85 29.83 31.30 31.70 30.60 31.099 9. AVE 31.68 30.95 31.35 30.92 30.76 31.90 29.81 31.27 31.67 30.62 xb= 31.093 10. R 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.10 0.05 rb= 0.098 11. C 1 31.65 30.90 31.39 30.90 30.79 31.50 29.75 31.10 31.70 29.80 30.948 12. 2 31.70 30.95 31.40 30.95 30.75 31.49 29.77 31.40 31.65 29.85 30.991 13. 3 31.70 30.91 31.41 30.93 30.70 31.48 29.83 31.30 31.70 29.95 30.991 14. AVE 31.68 30.92 31.40 30.93 30.75 31.49 29.78 31.27 31.68 29.87 xc= 30.977 15. R 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.30 0.05 0.15 rc= 0.086 16. PART X= 31.020 AVERAGE 31.67 30.93 31.37 30.92 30.79 31.64 29.80 31.31 31.68 30.09 Rp= 1.883 17. (ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R= 0.090 18. xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = 19. * UCLR = R x D4 = APPRAISER B C OUT OF CONTROL UCLR= 0.233 * D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations. Notes:
Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 52 of 59 Gage repeatability and reproducibility data sheet: Variable data results Part Number: NUMBER Gage Name: Appraiser A: Part Name: Gage Number: Appraiser B: Characteristic: Gage Type: Appraiser C: Characteristic Classification: Trials: 3 Parts: 10 Appraisers: 3 Date Performed: Measurement Unit Analysis % Total Variation (TV) Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV) EV = R x K1 Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/TV) = 0.090 x 0.5908 2 0.8862 = 100(0.053/0.598) = 0.053 3 0.5908 = 8.93 Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV) % AV AV = {(xDIFF x K = 100 (AV/TV) 2) 2 - (EV2 /nr)}1/2 = {(0.12 x 0.5231)^2 - (0.05 ^2/(10 x 3))}^1/2 = 100(0.060/0.598) = 0.060 = 10.02 Appraisers 2 3 n = parts r = trials K2 0.7071 0.5231 % GRR = 100 (GRR/TV) Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) GRR = {(EV2 + AV2 )}1/2 Parts K3 = 100(0.080/0.598) = {(0.053^2 + 0.060^2)}^1/2 2 0.7071 = 13.42 = 0.080 3 0.5231 Gage system may be acceptable Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4467 PV = RP x K3 5 0.4030 % PV = 100 (PV/TV) = 1.883 x 0.3146 6 0.3742 = 100(0.592/0.598) = 0.592 7 0.3534 = 99.10 Total Variation (TV) 8 0.3375 ndc = TV = {(GRR 1.41(PV/GRR) 2 + PV2 )}1/2 9 0.3249 = {(0.080^2 + 0.592^2)}^1/2 10 0.3146 = 1.41(0.592/0.080) = 0.598 = 10 Gage discrimination acceptable For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.
Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 53 of 59 Part Submission Warrant Part Name Hinge LH Cust. Part Number 12345 Shown on Drawing Number 12345 Org. Part Number Engineering Change Level 2 Dated 20/11/XX Additional Engineering Changes N/A Dated Safety and/or Government Regulation Yes No Purchase Order No. 123456 Weight (kg) 0.6000 Checking Aid Number N/A Checking Aid Eng. Change Level N/A Dated N/A ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION 12345 CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION N/A Supplier name and Supplier/ Vendor Code Orbit manufacturing limited Willbourne street West 12N12M Automotive Street address Region Postal code Country Application MATERIALS REPORTING Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported? Yes No Submitted by IMDS or other customer format: IMDS Submitted previously Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? Yes No N/A REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one) Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location Tooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify __________________________________
Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 54 of 59 REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one) Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer. Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer. Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer. Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer. Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at organization's manufacturing location. SUBMISSION RESULTS The results for: dimensional measurements appearance criteria material and functional tests statistical process package These results meet all design record requirements: Yes No (If "NO" - Explanation Required) Mold / Cavity / Production Process __________________________________ DECLARATION I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, which were made by a process that meets all Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples were produced at the production rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your review. I have noted any deviation from this declaration below. EXPLANATION/COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered? Yes No N/A Organization Authorized Signature: Bill Baker Date: 27/11/XX Print Name: Bill Baker Phone No.: 123456-12345 Fax No.: Title: Quality Manager E-mail: [email protected] FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE) PPAP Warrant Disposition: Approved Rejected Other ____________________________________________________ Customer Signature: Roy Thomas Date: 27/11/XX Print Name: Roy Thomas Customer Tracking Number (optional): N/A
Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 55 of 59 Extract from monthly operations meeting (supplier performance metrics) June 20XX Supplier OTIF Supplier on time delivery below target only meeting target during April. Action: continue to review performance monthly, Responsible: John Philips Completion date: Ongoing Supplier PPM Supplier PPM achieving minimum target. Action: None - continue to review performance monthly. Responsible: John Philips 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Supplier On Time Delivery On Time Delivery Target 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Supplier PPM Parts Per Million (PPM) Target
Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 56 of 59 Supplier Incidents of premium freight Supplier Incidents of premium freight not achieving target. Action: Continue to review performance monthly, responsible: John Philips Supplier CARs Supplier CARs on target over the past 12 months. Action: No action continue to review performance monthly 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Incidents of Premium Freight Incidents of premium freight Target 0 1 2 3 4 Supplier CARs Supplier CARs Target
Case Study (Delegate) AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 57 of 59 PO errors Purchase order errors over target over the past year Action: Continue to review quarterly Out of date certificates Out of date certificates are still a problem as suppliers do not respond in a timely manner Action: Continue to monitor certificates. Responsible: John Phillips 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PO Errors PO Errors Target 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Out of Date Certificates Out of Date Certs Target
Case Study (Delegate) KPI matrix Measure Process KPI/obj. Freq. Owner Source Method of calculation Target Type of chart Where reported Supplier KPI's On time delivery performance (OTIF) Process KPI Monthly Buyer (John Philips) ERP Total number of deliveries made - incorrect deliveries x 100 Total number of deliveries made > 99.5% Bar Monthly operations meeting Incidents of premium freight Process KPI Monthly Buyer (John Philips) Incident log No. of incidents <3 / month Bar Monthly operations meeting PPM by Supplier Process KPI Monthly Buyer (Roy Thomas)ERP Parts rejected x 1,000,000 Parts delivered < 500 Bar Monthly operations meeting
AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 58 of 59 Thomas) Formal supplier corrective actions Process KPI Monthly Buyer (Roy Thomas) CAR Log Number of Supplier corrective action reports raised < 3 month Bar Monthly operations meeting Supplier PPAP RFT Objective Monthly QA (Roy Thomas) PPAP Log PPAP Rejected x 100 PPAP submitted 98.50% Bar Monthly operations meeting Po errors Objective Quarterly Buyer (John Philips) ERP Number of Purchase order errors detected after issue < 3/quarter Bar Quarterly item at the monthly operations meeting Currency of Supplier certificates Objective Quarterly Buyer (John Philips) Approved supplier List Number of supplier certificates out of date < 5/quarter Bar Quarterly item at the monthly operations meeting
Case Study (Delegate) Customer satisfaction Customer Perception Customer Number of Reports Communication Responsiveness Accuracy On-time Delivery Quality Average Satisfaction Rating Customer 1 1 7 10 9 9 7 8.4 Good Customer 2 1 10 8 7 9 7 8.2 Good Customer 3 1 10 10 7 9 7 8.6 Good Customer 4 1 7 7 8 9 7 7.6 Good Customer 5 3 7 8 9 8 8 8 Good Customer 6 3 5 5 0 0 0 2 Poor Customer727700028Poor
AUT03001ENGX v1.0 Jan 2017 ©The British Standards Institution 2017 59 of 59 Customer 7 2 7 7 0 0 0 2.8 Poor Customer 8 3 7 5 0 0 0 2.4 Poor Customer 9 2 7 7 10 9 7 8 Good Excellent Good Average Poor 10 7 5 0 Customer satisfaction – there are a number of poor customer perception scores these are to be expected as we work in a very technical sector, therefore we need to be more diligent in the future and work on getting better. [END OF CASE STUDY]