7.2.5 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Dec 2013

User Guide
# Question Y* N N/A RYG

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
75% R
Status (%): 25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified 100% Y
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed G
Evidence
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program
development
Deliverable RYG Rating
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the
plans identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item
is highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
Yellow: Some questions have a negative answer but a recovery plan is in place which will
prevent impact on timing
The questions are used to evaluate the
quality of the deliverable attached to the
element.
Typical aspects of the deliverable to be
evaluated through the questions are:
1. Quality/availability of the inputs needed
to build the deliverable
2. Cross-functional approach to answer the
deliverables
3. Quality /conformity to a standard if any
or to best practices
4. control of the outcome of the deliverable
(e.g. action plan)

Input evidence of the answer to the question (e.g.: document
reference) here. If an "X" is in the preceding N column (column
D) then describe the issue here including root cause in order to
identify proper actions .
Y* - Put an "X" if complete and is OK or
"IP" if in-progress as planned.
N - Put an "X" if it is Not OK .
N/A - Put an "X" if you have agreed with
your customer that this question is Not
Applicable.
RYG - Put an "R" here if the answer to the
question is not acceptable and there is no
recovery plan. Put a "Y" here if there are
problems with the question but is
recoverable with an action plan inplace.
Put a "G" if it is on track or satisfactorily
complete. When you put an "R" or "Y" you
will need to complete the "Actions
Required" and subsequent columns.

User Guide
# Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%): 25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
75% - Action in Progress 100% - Action Closed
element.
deliverables
(e.g. action plan)

Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
Actions Required Responsible
Actions identified based on the root cause described
in the Evidence column when the RYG column is Red
or Yellow.
These are typical action management milestones .
The due date should be aligned with the closure date
of the deliverable as planned in the APQP timing. In
cases where the due date is not aligned with APQP
timing, the RYG status is most likely Red .
Date of revision for the
provided status and
personnel involved
User Guide
# Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%): 25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
element.
deliverables
(e.g. action plan)

Actual End
Date
milestones .
The due date should be aligned with the closure date
of the deliverable as planned in the APQP timing. In
cases where the due date is not aligned with APQP
2.01 Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
# Question Y* N N/A RYG
1
Have Engineers been trained in the industry
accepted DFMEA methodology?
2
Have best practices from similar part DFMEA's been
condsidered?
3
Have all functional requirements been included and
evaluated in the DFMEA?
4
Does the DFMEA reflect the latest design solution?
5
Is the DFMEA managed as a living document that is
updated with each design modifications?
6
Are actions for handling high RPNs clear?
7
Are CTIs and KCs identified for high RPNs that
cannot be feasibly reduced through a design
change?
8
Have historical quality issues and warranty data from
similar products been reviewed to understand failure
modes?
9
Are DFMEA results part of the reporting at Design
Reviews?
10
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
25% - Action Identified 50% - Owner Identified
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidence
Green: All questions have a positive answer (Y) and are ongoing normal program development
Red: Some questions have a negative answer and no recovery plan is in place or the plans
identified will have an impact in program timing. Support is required. When an item is
highlighted Red an assessment on the impact to the WP timing needs to be provided.
2.01 Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
# Question
1
Have Engineers been trained in the industry
accepted DFMEA methodology?
2
Have best practices from similar part DFMEA's been
condsidered?
3
Have all functional requirements been included and
evaluated in the DFMEA?
4
Does the DFMEA reflect the latest design solution?
5
Is the DFMEA managed as a living document that is
updated with each design modifications?
6
Are actions for handling high RPNs clear?
7
Are CTIs and KCs identified for high RPNs that
cannot be feasibly reduced through a design
change?
8
Have historical quality issues and warranty data from
similar products been reviewed to understand failure
modes?
9
Are DFMEA results part of the reporting at Design
Reviews?
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
2.02.1 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
# Question Y* N N/A RAG
1
Was a Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
standard process followed?
2
Does a system exist for collecting and studying
historical manufacturing defect data?
3
Have the DFMEA outputs been considered for
designing the manufacturing process?
4
As the design evolves are the processes to be used
in manfacturing clear?
5
Has the envisaged manufacturing process been
mapped to identify potential issues, e.g. out of cell
operations (using spaghetti maps)?
6
Have known manufacturing or assembly hazards
been avoided?
7
Are part count targets being met?
8
Can the design solution be manufactured using state-
of the art processes and within company industrial
strategy processes?
9
Are processes that depend on toxic or hazardous
materials being removed by design?
10
11
12
13
14
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.02.1 Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
# Question
1
Was a Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
standard process followed?
2
Does a system exist for collecting and studying
historical manufacturing defect data?
3
Have the DFMEA outputs been considered for
designing the manufacturing process?
4
As the design evolves are the processes to be used
in manfacturing clear?
5
Has the envisaged manufacturing process been
mapped to identify potential issues, e.g. out of cell
operations (using spaghetti maps)?
6
Have known manufacturing or assembly hazards
been avoided?
7
Are part count targets being met?
8
Can the design solution be manufactured using state-
of the art processes and within company industrial
strategy processes?
9
Are processes that depend on toxic or hazardous
materials being removed by design?
10
11
12
13
14
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
2.02.2 Design for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
1
Was a Design for MRO standard process followed?
2
Has data from MRO history of similar products been
gathered?
3
Has each feature of the new product been reviewed
to understand how it will be maintained, restored by
repair and rebuilt into the overhauled assembly?
4
Do features that have been problematic on prior
designs exist on this design?
5
Have difficult to maintian, repair or rebuild features
been removed by design?
6
Have features that drive extra maintenance burden,
repair steps or other inefficient practices been
removed by design?
7
Does a standard methodology exist for estimating
MRO times?
8
Are MRO time targets being met by the design?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.02.2 Design for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul
# Question
1
Was a Design for MRO standard process followed?
2
Has data from MRO history of similar products been
gathered?
3
Has each feature of the new product been reviewed
to understand how it will be maintained, restored by
repair and rebuilt into the overhauled assembly?
4
Do features that have been problematic on prior
designs exist on this design?
5
Have difficult to maintian, repair or rebuild features
been removed by design?
6
Have features that drive extra maintenance burden,
repair steps or other inefficient practices been
removed by design?
7
Does a standard methodology exist for estimating
MRO times?
8
Are MRO time targets being met by the design?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
2.02.3 Product Critical Items and Key Characteristics
1
Have customer defined CTI's or KC's been included
in the preliminary list?
2
Is a standard process for identifying CTIs and KCs
defined and has it been followed?
3
Has the DFMEA been incorporated into the process
and has it identified other KC's?
4
Are KC's being documented in the Design Record
where appropriate?
5
Are all other CTI's and KC's documented in the
production control documents?
6
Is there a process for insuring that product CTIs and
KCs are cascaded into the PFMEA?
7
Have KC failure modes been validated?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.02.3 Product Critical Items and Key Characteristics
# Question
1
Have customer defined CTI's or KC's been included
in the preliminary list?
2
Is a standard process for identifying CTIs and KCs
defined and has it been followed?
3
Has the DFMEA been incorporated into the process
and has it identified other KC's?
4
Are KC's being documented in the Design Record
where appropriate?
5
Are all other CTI's and KC's documented in the
production control documents?
6
Is there a process for insuring that product CTIs and
KCs are cascaded into the PFMEA?
7
Have KC failure modes been validated?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
Date of
revision for
the provided
status and
personnel
involved
2.02.4 New Packaging Specification
1
Do packaging standard exist?
2
Does the proposed design adhere to those
standards?
3
Does the proposed package design adhere to the
customer requirements?
4
Does the packaging meet all regulatory
requirements?
5
Has the packaging design been validated by all
stakeholders including the customer when
applicable?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.02.4 New Packaging Specification
# Question
1
Do packaging standard exist?
2
Does the proposed design adhere to those
standards?
3
Does the proposed package design adhere to the
customer requirements?
4
Does the packaging meet all regulatory
requirements?
5
Has the packaging design been validated by all
stakeholders including the customer when
applicable?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
Date of
revision for
the provided
status and
personnel
involved
2.03 Design Reviews
1
For supplier owned designs, are Design Reviews
being conducted in accordance with a standard
process at the supplier?
2
Are Design Review attendees appropriately qualified
to review and critique the design?
3
Do Design Review attendees adequately represent
all functional stakeholders?
4
Are Design for Manufacture & Assembly and Design
for MRO being condsidered at each review?
5
Have service and repair issues on similar designs
been considered?
6
Is supplier input and past quality experience being
considered?
7
Are product costs, weight and part counts being
tracked?
8
Are the results of on-going Verification &Validation
work being reviewed?
9
Do issues get tracked and resolved through a formal
process?
10
Are reviews documented and shared with
stakeholders in a timely manner?
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.03 Design Reviews
# Question
1
For supplier owned designs, are Design Reviews
being conducted in accordance with a standard
process at the supplier?
2
Are Design Review attendees appropriately qualified
to review and critique the design?
3
Do Design Review attendees adequately represent
all functional stakeholders?
4
Are Design for Manufacture & Assembly and Design
for MRO being condsidered at each review?
5
Have service and repair issues on similar designs
been considered?
6
Is supplier input and past quality experience being
considered?
7
Are product costs, weight and part counts being
tracked?
8
Are the results of on-going Verification &Validation
work being reviewed?
9
Do issues get tracked and resolved through a formal
process?
10
Are reviews documented and shared with
stakeholders in a timely manner?
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
Date of
revision for
the provided
status and
personnel
involved
2.04.2 Verification and Validation Testing Plan
1
Is development planning in accordance with a
standard process?
2
Does the plan anticipate parts made on non-
production tooling including rapid prototyping
technologies?
3
Does the plan include testing by the customer in the
customer's intended installion?
4
Is the plan aligned to the overall customer timing?
5
Is high risk testing front end loaded to the maximum
extent possible?
6
Do stakeholders get updated on testing as the plan is
executed?
7
Are specified test and inspection methods known to
adequately validate the product?
8
Are special tests or inspections required to address
new and unique product features?
9
Are test or inspection facility requirements clearly
defined?
10
Is a specific test requirement defined for each test
element?
11
Is the minimum acceptable standard of hardware
specified for each plan element?
12
Are the success criteria for each plan element
spelled out in advance of the element execution?
13
Are formal reports generated for each plan element?
14
Is there a fromal review at the end summarizing
performance to expectation and noting shortfalls and
remedial action?
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.04.2 Verification and Validation Testing Plan
# Question
1
Is development planning in accordance with a
standard process?
2
Does the plan anticipate parts made on non-
production tooling including rapid prototyping
technologies?
3
Does the plan include testing by the customer in the
customer's intended installion?
4
Is the plan aligned to the overall customer timing?
5
Is high risk testing front end loaded to the maximum
extent possible?
6
Do stakeholders get updated on testing as the plan is
executed?
7
Are specified test and inspection methods known to
adequately validate the product?
8
Are special tests or inspections required to address
new and unique product features?
9
Are test or inspection facility requirements clearly
defined?
10
Is a specific test requirement defined for each test
element?
11
Is the minimum acceptable standard of hardware
specified for each plan element?
12
Are the success criteria for each plan element
spelled out in advance of the element execution?
13
Are formal reports generated for each plan element?
14
Is there a fromal review at the end summarizing
performance to expectation and noting shortfalls and
remedial action?
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
2.05 Design Record Review by Production Source
1
Is the Design Review conducted using the lastest
revion of the design record?
2
Do key suppliers participate in the design record
review as appropriate?
3
Are key sub-tier suppliers involved where necessary?
4
Does the review follow a standard process?
5
Is the review outcome documented?
6
Is their a process for insuring the manufacturing
source identified KC's are incorporated into the
appropriate process documentation?
7
Are resources available to modify the design record
to suit the manufacturing capability when warranted?
8
Have the production source(s), including suppliers
and sub-tiers, signed off on their capability to produce
product compliant with the design record?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.05 Design Record Review by Production Source
# Question
1
Is the Design Review conducted using the lastest
revion of the design record?
2
Do key suppliers participate in the design record
review as appropriate?
3
Are key sub-tier suppliers involved where necessary?
4
Does the review follow a standard process?
5
Is the review outcome documented?
6
Is their a process for insuring the manufacturing
source identified KC's are incorporated into the
appropriate process documentation?
7
Are resources available to modify the design record
to suit the manufacturing capability when warranted?
8
Have the production source(s), including suppliers
and sub-tiers, signed off on their capability to produce
product compliant with the design record?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :
2.06 Management Support
1
Has a thorough review of the product been
conducted by Manufacturing Engineering using a
standard process?
2
Has a scoring report been developed showing
favourable and unfavorable elements of the product
to be manufactured?
3
Have the right management members been briefed
on the issues documented in the report?
4
Can resolutions to unfavourable ratings be
implemented by the production source?
5
Does the customer agree to resolutions to
unfavorable ratings that cannot be implemented at
the production source?
6
Has managements decision to proceed or abandon
been properly documented in the scoring report or
equivalent?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X 25%
N/A
IP 50%
Status (%):
75% R
100% Y
G
Evidences
2.06 Management Support
# Question
1
Has a thorough review of the product been
conducted by Manufacturing Engineering using a
standard process?
2
Has a scoring report been developed showing
favourable and unfavorable elements of the product
to be manufactured?
3
Have the right management members been briefed
on the issues documented in the report?
4
Can resolutions to unfavourable ratings be
implemented by the production source?
5
Does the customer agree to resolutions to
unfavorable ratings that cannot be implemented at
the production source?
6
Has managements decision to proceed or abandon
been properly documented in the scoring report or
equivalent?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
X
IP
Status (%):
Open
Date
Due
Date
Status
%
Actual End
Date
Location: / Site:
Reviewed by:
Reviewed with:
Date :

7.2.5 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Dec 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7.2.5 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Dec 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7.2.5 APQP Phase 2 Checklist Dec 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

User Guide

# Question Y* N N/A RYG

You might also like