7 Quality Basics in Development

7 Quality Basics in Development

FRASER – June 17th, 2011


Jean-Michel RENAUDIE

FRASER – June 17th, 2011

Opening Comments


Introduction

Ken SATO

4Propertyof Faurecia -Duplication prohibited

One reminder

Please switch off yourmobile phone and close your laptop


"Breakthrough Quality Plan" start from Oct.1, 2006

• Practical instead of conceptual

• Preventive action instead of fire-fighting

FES Quality( 7 Quality Basics !!

in Production & Development )

Customer

Quality

Breakthrough !!

Su

pp

lier Qu

ality

Develo

pm

ent

Qu

ality

Pro

du

ction

Qu

ality

Breakthrough Quality Plan


20080 S/R Alert

15 Customer PPM

I am expecting this plan to give lasting results and will closely track its implementation by all concerned in our company.I am counting on your responsiveness and rigor …

The plan does not introduce anynew tools ………aims to build a new « quality mindset »


From 6 Quality Basics

to 7 Quality Basics in Production

Supplier Partnership

Employee Empowerment

Variability Reduction

Quality

7 Quality Basics

Quality

Wall

Final

Inspection

Self

-Inspection

OK

1st piece

Rework

under Control

Poka

Yoke

Red

Bins

QRCIQuick Response

Quality Control

Stan

dard

ized

Wo

rk

5S

Includes Stop at DefectIncludes Temporary Quality Wall

4

23

15

9

1

0

7 8

6

If not OK

RepairScrapScrap

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

CriteriaOK - NOK sample

+0,2 mmGo - No go gauge

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

N°

123456789

10

Check point ByDeformation VisualDimension A MicrometerDimension B Gauge

... ...

... ..

.... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...

Frequency

100%1/120100%

...

...

...

...

...

...

...



Key Characteristics

Strict Control Plans

ValidatedEngineering

Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization

Functional Milestones,

Program Steering Committee

and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


Mandatory Program Deliverables

SalesAgreed prototype prices

Outstanding paymentsPre-series parts paid

Updated series price with POCustomer Contract Agreed tool & pre-series & series prices

Prototypes paidSales

Agreed prototype prices



Prototypes paid

Human

Resources Product support team staffedProgram Teams staffed Plant Start-up team plannedHuman

Resources Product support team staffedProgram Teams staffed Plant Start-up team planned

4444 LAUNCH1111 ACQUISITION 2A2A2A2A DESIGN 3333 PRODUCTION SET-UP2B2B2B2B DESIGN VERIFICATION5 Series

PRODUCTION4444 LAUNCH1111 ACQUISITION 2A2A2A2A DESIGN 3333 PRODUCTION SET-UP2B2B2B2B DESIGN VERIFICATION5 Series

PRODUCTION

Purchasing Supplier PPAP *Expert suppliers contracts signed BOPs, tools, gauges, equipment orderedDesigners suppliers contracts signedPurchasing Supplier PPAP *Expert suppliers contracts signed BOPs, tools, gauges, equipment orderedDesigners suppliers contracts signed

Design Validation Plan *

Design FMEA *

Product

Engineering Key characteristics *

Product definition for DV *

Production Validation test results successful *

Initial product concept Product definition freeze*

DVP test results successful

BOPs definition released

Design FMEA Actions implemented

Prototypes approved


Design FMEA *

Product








Prototypes approved

Detailed SOW Lessons Learned *

Program

ManagementS/R concerns solved (SLI) *

ECM for pre-series & series in place

Program internal contract

(program objectives)

Master schedule *

Single List of Issues in place

ECM for development In place

Single List of Issues managed *

Control of

process &

design

change *

Activities during ramp-up *

Make or Buy finalized (Subcontractors)

Prototype build plan CAR approved Pre-series build plan


Program





Master schedule *




Control of

process &

design

change *




Initial process capability study plan *

Facilities / Footprint specificationsManufac-

turing

Process definition

Production System definition

EMPT Run @ Rate

Initial supply chain concept (internal/external MIFD*)

Initial process concept

Prel. Manufacturing footprint

Initial equipment concept

Facilities definition released

Equipment & tooling specs * released

Logistic& Packaging definitions released *

Process FMEA * actions launchedProcess FMEA

Process capability achieved *

Mass Production Trial Run @ Rate *

Logistic & packaging in place *

Process flow realized *

Production process Instruction *

Process definition released



turing

Process definition


EMPT Run @ Rate















Actual BPInitial Business Plan Actual BPFinance Actual BPInitial Business Plan Actual BPFinance

END OF PRODUCTION

CUSTOMERINQUIRY

PROGRAMAWARD

CUSTOMERTOOL RELEASE

CUSTOMER PRODUCTION

PART APPROVAL

START OF PRODUCTION

END OF PRODUCTION

CUSTOMERINQUIRY

PROGRAMAWARD


CUSTOMER PRODUCTION

PART APPROVAL

START OF PRODUCTION

GR 1 GR 2B GR 3 GR 4CAR ApprovalProgram Quote Review

GR 2AGo/No Go Program Target Review



Quality

Quality Management Plan Quality Target Study * Gauges requirements *

Prototype control plan

Production Control Plan *Pre Production control plan implemented *Pre Production control plan

Prototype control plan implemented *

Initial Samples Submitted to Customer * I.S. for additional capacity

Quality






V1.0


PDCA in Program

Plan

DoCheck

Action

<Policeman>Audit

FES Program Audit

Reaction to Audit &Feedback to standard

ImplementationExcellent Program PlanKPI - Reporting System

<Teacher>Standardization & Training (coaching)

7 Quality basics in Dev - FES SchoolMandatory Program Deliverables

• Background: Bad launches come from bad execution of:• Costing,

• Engineering key deliverables

• Quality deliverables etc…

• Today Quality responsible in program for:• Training

• Audit

Need to audit notonly on Quality

FES Program audit


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


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.


Example: results summary

77%

70%

76%

53%

72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TOTAL PROG PROD PROC COST

PROCESSINDICATOR

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)


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


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


15 items of "Good & Bad answers on Faurecia

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”

- There is no “ Description of vehicle & targeted business” no “ Competitor

study”, no “ Customer decision making timeline” no “ Business plan (OI, IRR)”,

no “ Risk analysis”

- Finally, RFQA submission without top managements approval

Price estimation with assumptions

base-price add. Value VW 250 AU353 AU210

expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €

First BP Sittard

acc. group values

(3,7% SG&A)

120,00 € 170,00 € tbd

long distance JIT price Brussels 107,00 € 155,80 € n.a.


expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €

First BP Sittard

acc. group values

(3,7% SG&A)

120,00 € 170,00 € tbd


RFQ First

Offer

Expected

Award

CS

Polo / A3w 18/07 w 22/07 w 34/07

CS

A1w 20/07 w 24/07 w 34/07


expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €


RFQA submission with top managements approval by clear presentation

Risks analysisRisks analysis



will be

competitor onmarket position Comments

JCIJCIJCIJCI - CS

- JCI is very aggressive because they

want to cover the lost Golf business

- JCI is current supplier of VW

Brussels

- Audi requests to keep the current

supplier-structure --> no JCI business

LearLearLearLear - CS- no signals for aggressive behaviour

due to low volume

IntierIntierIntierIntier - CS

- generally very agressive behaviour

- but not appreciate due to bad R&D

performance and to low volume

SitechSitechSitechSitech - CS- no signals for aggressive behaviour

due to low volume

!

will be


JCIJCIJCIJCI - CS




Brussels




due to low volume






due to low volume

!

excellentexcellent goodgood averageaverage limitedlimited

The TOP Risks, if we are awarded

� Capacities for additional AU210 project is not part of Faurecia

MTP and target low in TBL

� problems in long-distance JIT concept (120km Sittard ��

Brussels)

� Higher requirements on quality than Mitsubishi Colt

Business plan

(OI,IRR)

Audi A3

OEM: Audi AG Market Code: AU353

Current Production (Faurecia)

location: Neuburg (Germany)

SOP: 2004 EOP: 2011

Prod. Volume total: 770.000

Description of vehicule & targeted business

Competitor study

Customer decision making timeline

Targeted business AU353 VW250 AU210 comments

� Complete Seat targeted fromSittardor long distance JIT

� Metal incl. Mechanisms

� Front seats PQ35 PQ25 PQ25 COP

� Rear seats AU350 PQ25 PQ25 Magna-Intier / Sitech


Turnover 136.180 k€OI 6.918€ 5,0%IRR 70,30%CAPEX 1.361 k€R&D 300 k€cash paymentTooling 200 k€ cash payment

Launch cost 943 k€



PMS Portal

Good Answer for Program Quote Review

Bad Asnwer for Program Quote reviewExample of “Bad” answer for “ Program Quote Review”



- There is only “ Price estimation with assumptions”

- There is no “ Description of vehicle & targeted business” no “ Competitor

study”, no “ Customer decision making timeline” no “ Business plan (OI, IRR)”,

no “ Risk analysis”

- Finally, RFQA submission without top managements approval



expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €

First BP Sittard

acc. group values

(3,7% SG&A)

120,00 € 170,00 € tbd



expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €

First BP Sittard

acc. group values

(3,7% SG&A)

120,00 € 170,00 € tbd


RFQ First

Offer

Expected

Award

CS

Polo / A3w 18/07 w 22/07 w 34/07

CS

A1w 20/07 w 24/07 w 34/07


expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €


RFQA submission with top managements approval by clear presentation

Risks analysisRisks analysis



will be


JCIJCIJCIJCI - CS




Brussels




due to low volume






due to low volume

!

will be


JCIJCIJCIJCI - CS




Brussels




due to low volume






due to low volume

!

excellentexcellent goodgood averageaverage limitedlimited

The TOP Risks, if we are awarded

� Capacities for additional AU210 project is not part of Faurecia

MTP and target low in TBL

� problems in long-distance JIT concept (120km Sittard ��

Brussels)

� Higher requirements on quality than Mitsubishi Colt

Business plan

(OI,IRR)

Audi A3

OEM: Audi AG Market Code: AU353

Current Production (Faurecia)

location: Neuburg (Germany)

SOP: 2004 EOP: 2011

Prod. Volume total: 770.000

Description of vehicule & targeted business

Competitor study

Customer decision making timeline

Targeted business AU353 VW250 AU210 comments

� Complete Seat targeted fromSittardor long distance JIT

� Metal incl. Mechanisms

� Front seats PQ35 PQ25 PQ25 COP

� Rear seats AU350 PQ25 PQ25 Magna-Intier / Sitech






PMS Portal

Good Answer for Program Quote Review

Bad Answer for Program Quote review

Intranet

Intranet through PMS Portal →→→→Good&Bad examples

Propertyof Faurecia -Duplication prohibited

Results (Image)

Result Indicators

better

bet

ter

41

23

bc

A: Excellent

B: Satisfactory

C: Marginal ok

D: Not ok

d0% 60% 70% 80%

0%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Program ZX

Program YX

100%

a

•FR1t

•Red Alert S/R

•Warranty

•PPM

•Customer Quality indicators

•Misdeliveries

•IRR

•Operating Income

•Program Management

•Product Validation

•Process validation

•Cost Management

Process Indicators(Checked by FES program audit)


5 Mandatory Rules added to the 15 existing MRs


5 Mandatory Rules added to the 15 existing MRs


Machine EvaluationForm


2. 2011 Plan


Overall 2011 Plan

0

20

40

60

80

100

GR1 GR2 GR3

Toledo

System audits

0

20

40

60

80

100

GR1 GR2 GR3

Méru

0

20

40

60

80

100

GR1 GR2 GR3

Brieres

0

20

40

60

80

100

GR1 GR2 GR3

Shanghaï

3 Programs after GR3, GR2b and GR1

2 days per site => 93 programs


2011 plan: R&D centers involved

Sites

Jan : Shanghaï (S), Peine-Hagenbach

Feb: Stadthagen, Neuburg, Bavans

March: Méru, Shanghaï(FIS), Brieres

April: Columbus, Auburn hills, Troy

May: Augsburg, Audincourt, Gamersheim-Weissenburg

Jun: Neuburg, Mouzon, Stadthagen

Jul : Brieres, Peine-Hagenbach

Sep: Bavans, Méru, Limeira

Oct: Quatro-Barras, Diadema, Augsburg, Audincourt, Gamersheim-Weissenburg

Nov: Troy, Columbus, Auburn Hills, Stadthagen, Neuburg

Dec: Mouzon


2010 Certified Auditors

Netwk PG Name Certified

SATO Kiichiro Yes

SOULA Paul-Louis Yes

FAS YGOUT Jacques

FIS BROGNIART Eric

CANIVAL J. Sebastien

FECT MAJCHROWICZ Christian 1

FAE ROTHAN Marie-Noelle 2

KLINGAUF Lutz

KUSIAK Jacek

THURET Gauthier

GIELATA Pawel

MESNARD Pierre Yes

KWIATKOWSKI Frank Yes

LACOUX Philippe 1

BECKER Rolf 1

MANSKE Carsten

FECT REBOURS Olivier 1

JACQUOT Eric Yes

FAE PATA Martial

PMS

Program

Quality

FAS

FIS

Group

Legend:

1: Only for GR1

2: For GR1 and 2

Netwk PG Name Certified

FAS DUDDLES Mark Yes

KERSUZAN Olivier

HAWLEY Brian

OBERHAUS Serena

HACK Thomas

MURRAY Todd 2

FIS OLIVEIRA Clodoaldo

FAS VILLARINHO Elessandra

FECT

FAS-FIS LI Li

LEE YW

GAO FENG EvaChina

FECT

FIS

FECT

Brazil

US



Agenda

7:45 Welcoming coffee

8:00 Opening comments J.M. Renaudie

8:20 Introduction K.Sato

8:35 Capitalization & Tranversalization K.Sato

9:00 Key Characteristics & Strict Control Plans V.Garcia Parra

10:10 FMEA PL.Soula

11:10 Break

11:25 Validated Engineering Changes E.Jacquot

12:05 Lunch

12:45 Program QRCI J.Burke

15:45 Break

16:00 Functional Milestones & Gate Reviews PL.Soula

16:55 Conclusion K.Sato

17:00 End



Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI

Let’s start!

Capitalization & Transversalization

Ken SATO

7 Quality Basics in 7 Quality Basics in 7 Quality Basics in 7 Quality Basics in DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment



Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


Examples


- Mistake the connection of

harness

- Risk the immobility of

the vehicle due to the

problem of injection

pump

• Check similar problem

of all harness

- Same size of terminals

- Same color of harness

Terminal (A)Bad

Harness (2.5mm)

Harness (0.5mm)

Same

size

Terminal (B)

Same

color

Terminal (A)OK

Terminal (B)

Harness (0.5mm)

Harness (2.5mm)

2.1 Example (Blockage 1.1)


C ar m a ker U n it H a rn e ss T yp e o f p ro b lem C o u n term ea su re D ate

1 2 3 4 5 6

a O K O K O K B ad O K O K

A b B ad

c B ad

R E N A U L T d O K

B ... ... ... ...

C ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

- Capitalization : Change “Design Standard”- Transversalization : Apply all same products (programs, plants)


• Ask to check, not only exact same problem, but also similar potential risk- Found 11 exact same problems & 45 similar problems and took

countermeasure


= OK

= Bad

• Mistake of parts drawing,

after design change• Heater of seat doesn’t work

properly

No heat

Over heat

• Standardize the validation

process after design change

SEAT



Design Review by

past quality concerns

Supplier

Design

Change

Validation Parts

design

Design Validation

for

the trial parts

Production Validation

for

Mass production

OK OK OK

Check

RenaultANPQP

Design

change

Request

Parts submission

warrant

Good

parts

delivery

Not OK


- Capitalization : Validation Process Standard for Design Change- Transversalization : Apply to all programs (products, plants)


Capitalization &

Transversalization


2. Program Quality2. Program Quality

Acquisition Design Validation Production

1.1. Group QualityGroup Quality

Qu

ali

ty S

ys

tem

Sta

nd

ard

Qu

ali

ty S

ys

tem

Sta

nd

ard

Qu

ali

ty S

ys

tem

Sta

nd

ard

11--AA 11--BBT

ools

Tools

Tools

22--DD Program Management SystemProgram Management SystemProgram Management System

22--BB Process Engineering ManualProcess Process EngineeringEngineering ManualManual

22--CC Supplier Management SystemSupplier Supplier Management SystemManagement System

22--AA Design StandardDesign StandardDesign Standard

3. Customer Quality 3. Customer Quality

Customer Quality StandardCustomer Quality StandardCustomer Quality Standard33--AA

Customer PPM Data base (8D)Customer PPM Data base (8D)Customer PPM Data base (8D)33--BB

Turning PDCA for Capitalization & Turning PDCA for Capitalization & TransversalizationTransversalization

S & R Alert / Warranty Data base (8D)S & R Alert / Warranty Data base (8D)S & R Alert / Warranty Data base (8D)33--CC

(Lessons

Learn

ed

)(( L

essons

Lessons

Learn

ed

Learn

ed

))

((LessonsLessons LearnedLearned ))

LessonsLessons LearnedLearned is source of Standardsis source of Standards>>EachEach functionfunction departmentdepartment is is accountableaccountable of of LessonsLessons LearnedLearned in in itsits respective arearespective area


> 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

In 60 workingdays

D8. Lessons learned

_D7. Effectiveness of action plan

In 10 workingdays

D6. Countermeasure to non detection and non conformance

_D5. Root cause of non conformance

_D4. Root cause of non detection

In 1 dayD3. Containment

_D2. Risk on similar products and processes

_D1. Description & Sketch

8D – problem solving report for Quality

8D and Lessons learned


Lessons Learned: Practice

<4 Key points for Before/After>1).Need picture, drawing or photo2).Need quantitative value3).<After> needs to prevent same or similar problem beforehand4).Need to understand easily even by your wife, husband (or partner)

All BGs use the Spider Systemunder names of LOLA,

I-Know & Knowledge Mgt


Lessons Learned: 2 examples

08/02/2006

BG/Div/Site: Detection Logistics

UAP/Line: Occurrence Internal

Author : Management Suppliers

What happened?

Plant:

Division:

BG's/Group:

Plant Geiselhöring

SMPG / Frames / Plant Geiselhöring

How has it been detected?

Potential Applicability

WHAT WE LEARNED

BEFORE AFTER

FACTORCONTROL POINT

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

ECE-R14 test

UAP 1 AU 716 2nd row

ECE-R14 test on rear seat 2nd row high variante NOK on fixed

SDS Validation Stadthagen and Design Engineering

Jan 24th 06

Faurecia Stadthagen / Validation

Relevant factors of ECE-R14 test

what: SDS Validation Stadthagen

how: ECE-R14 test

when: see crash-test schedule

who: SDS Validation Stadthagen

result crash test (COP)

LESSON LEARNED SHEET

SMPG /Frames-Div. / Geiselhöring Ty

pe

Application date :

UAP 1 / AU 716

Willibald Dimpfl

STANDARD / REACTION RULES

1 part

How many ?

Buckling of Boomerang door- and tunnelside

All materials inside drawing specifications

Materials in N.O.K validation ca. 10%-15% weaker

Seat is on the borderline between dynamic and static requirements

-

Parameters of materials are changing

-

Boomerang must absorb the energy in crash test

-

DIN allowed these changes

Boomerang must be weak to fullfill the dynamic specification

Who has detected it ?

Where has it been detected ?

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

Why it is a problem?

When did it happen ?

The side members (bumerang) were deformed under laod

and so that horizontal displacement of the H-point was not

meeting specification

without additional wire

ET4448124 A

ZSB4448718 A

with additional wire

8.05.2006

BG/Div/Site: Detection Logistics

UAP/Line: Occurrence Internal

Author : Management Suppliers

What happened?

Plant:

Division:

BG's/Group:

Aplicable

N/A

N/A

Following NOK procedure countinously

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

Workstation could have been reset by conventional key by

anyone who copied it.

Bucket position sensor allowes to start process even when

was out of order

Possible uncontrolled unscrew operation (quick rework)

Workstation can be reset only by electronic key which cannot be

copied without controll.

Bucket position sensor allowes to start process only when position

OK.

Unscrew operation not possible. This function is blocked in

screwdriver.

WHAT WE LEARNED

FACTORCONTROL POINT

(What to do?, how?, when?, who?)STANDARD / REACTION RULES

How many ?

1 piece

BEFORE AFTER

Where has it been detected ?

At Customer siteHow has it been detected?

Visually

WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? (5W + 2H) WHAT IS THE CAUSE?Sensors NOK, Uncontrolled resetting

Gap between side member and crossmemberWhy it is a problem?

Wrong position of partsWhen did it happen ?

4.11.2005Who has detected it ?

Customer JCI Geel

SMPG, Wałbrzych Frames Ty

peWojciech Mazgis

Wojciech Mazgis

LESSON LEARNED SHEETApplication date :


FAS


FIS


7 Quality basics in Development Evaluation form

NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________

1 2 3 4

Introduction

Capitalization &

Transversalisation

Key Characteristics

FMEA

Strict control plans

Program QRQC

Validated Engineering

Changes

Functional milestones

& Progr Steering Com

& Gate Reviews

How to accelerate

Conclusion

Rating: 1 = Poor 2=Average 3=Good 4= Excellent

General Appraisal 1 2 3 4 Comments:

Value added of

the module Comments

Evaluation Form

to fill in

Key Characteristics & Strict Control Plans

Victor GARCIA PARRA




Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


Key Characteristics

Agenda

How to manage Key characteristics 20 mnHow to build a Control Plan 20 mnWorkshop 25 mnDebriefing 5mn


X±y 1111

A±a B±b C±c D±d

“Slide”

“Sub-Assy”

Critical dimension “X” = S/R =

Which dimension is critical as well? => A, B, C, D or All ?

1111

Introduction


X±y 1111

A±a B±b C±c D±d

“Assy”

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

• Use Tolerance Chain Management (TCM)

For an appropriate answer => apply Key Characteristics Management:

Introduction


Reality is more complex

Introduction


• 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

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

Objectives

A±a B±b C±c D±d


• Understand interactions between product and

process characteristics.

• Know guidelines to minimize the initial control size.

• Implement 3 step process to define & monitor Key

Characteristics.

How to manage “Key Characteristics”






Characteristics.



Characteristics

Product Characteristics

Process Characteristics

Need to be controlledto ensure minimized variation of product characteristics

* “Key Process Characteristics” = “Key Control Characteristics” / KCC

Product & Process Characteristics

Key Product Characteristics

KPCKPCKPCKPC

Product Product Product Product CharacteristicCharacteristicCharacteristicCharacteristicwhich affectswhich affectswhich affectswhich affects

21Non-Key Product

Characteristics

Key Control *Characteristics

KCC

Non-Key Control Characteristics

Process Process Process Process CharacteristicCharacteristicCharacteristicCharacteristicwhich affectswhich affectswhich affectswhich affects

21


Measure Environment

MethodMaterial Manpower

Machine

KCC

KCCKCCKCC

KCC

KCC

KCCKCC KCC

EFFECTEFFECTEFFECTEFFECTCAUSECAUSECAUSECAUSE

KPC

Interactions between KPC & KCCs

Many KCCs factors can affect a KPC

=> e.g. changes in material can affect the KPC

Once KCCs are defined and in place, KPC checks may be reduced and performed during design or production validation

Ongoing control of KPC is required if KCCs are not determinedControl of KCCs will ensure that the variation of the related KPC is minimized


EFFECTEFFECTEFFECTEFFECTCAUSECAUSECAUSECAUSE

Measure Environment


Interactions between KPC & KCCs

Machine

KPCH - Point

Humidity

Cushion foam density

SuspensionDeflection

Inspection measurement

Qualified operator

Training

Conditioning

Example : H-Point / Seat

D

Ch

S

G

H

MP

C

E

V

Y

Metrology hard &

software

MannequinTest Protocol






Characteristics.



PMS

Initial

Control

Size

Verification Pre-Series/

Series Production

Design

Series

Control

Size

KCC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KCC

KPC

KPC

KPCKPC

KCC

KCCKCC

KPC KPC KCC KCC KCC

KPC

KPC KPC

KPC

The series control size of KPC can be reduced or eliminated along the development phases as following:

1. KPC which is validated and fulfill the requirements in DV & PV (e.g. ECE,

FMVSS, etc) can be reduced to zero or few numbers of the “Continuous Compliance Testing” Requirements

2. KPC which can be controlled automatically through its KCC because

• Its process is stable (process variation is under controlled)

• Poka-Yoke is in place

3. KPC which needs to be controlled regularly because there is no related KCC or Poka-Yoke in place. The control size has to be defined accordingly.

“Control of Process Characteristics ( KCC) will ensure that the variation of the Product Characteristics is minimized”

Non Conformity Cost = ppm x called volume

Customer’s called volume

Initial

Control

Size

PMS

Verification Pre-Series/

Series Production

Design

Series

Control

Size

KCC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KPC

KCC

KPC

KPC

KPCKPC

KCC

KCCKCC

KPC KPC KCC KCC KCC

KPC

KPC KPC

KPC

Guidelines to minimize control size





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



Customer

Inquiry

Program

award

Customer

tool release

Customer

production

part approval

SOP

GR 3GR 3GR 3GR 3

GR 2GR 2GR 2GR 2

�

INVESTMENT

APPROVAL

GR 4GR 4GR 4GR 4

GR 1GR 1GR 1GR 1

GO / NO GO QUOTATION PROGRAM

DECISION CONFIRMATION

4 4 4 4 5555 3 3 3 3 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 1 1 1 1

Management decisions

Max 2 Months Min 3 Months Max 6 Months

SERIESSERIESSERIESSERIES

PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION PRODUCTION

PRODUCTION SET- UP & PRE-SERIES

PRODUCT & PROCESSPRODUCT & PROCESSPRODUCT & PROCESSPRODUCT & PROCESS

DESIGN & DEVELOPMEN DESIGN & DEVELOPMEN DESIGN & DEVELOPMEN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENTTTT

PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL LAUNCH

3 step process

Non-KPCs

FIT FUNCTION

DRAWINGS

KPCKPCKPCKPC

PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS

SPECS

RS

Step1 : Designate KPCs

KPC’s listCust. requirements (CtC)Warranty dataSuppliers concerns

Control PlansProcess Flow DiagramRecord KPCsRecord KCCs

INPUT

OUTPUT

Responsible: R&D Engineer

Support: Program/Acquisition Manager, PQL, Buyer, Supplier, Quality, Sales, Product Manager

Recommended Tools: FA, D-FMEA, TCM, FEA

C.t.C = Critical to customer lists, TCM = Tolerance Chain Management, FEA = Finite Element Analysis


Customer

Inquiry

Program

award

Customer

tool release

Customer

production

part approval

SOP

GR 3GR 3GR 3GR 3

GR 2GR 2GR 2GR 2

�

INVESTMENT

APPROVAL

GR 4GR 4GR 4GR 4

GR 1GR 1GR 1GR 1



4 4 4 4 5555 3 3 3 3 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 1 1 1 1








PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL LAUNCH DoE = Design of Experiment

3 step process

Non-KPCs

FIT FUNCTION

DRAWINGS

KPCKPCKPCKPC


SPECS

RS


PROCESS CONTROL PLAN

CONTROLKCCKPC

KPC

KCC

KCC KCC

KCC

Cause Effect

Step2 : Monitor KPCs,KCCs

KCC

KCC

S/R listFit & Function listProduct DrawingsIndustrial DrawingsProduct Specs.


Recommended Tools: P-FMEA, Process Flow Diagram, Control Plan, DoE,

Cause-Effect Diagram, Pareto Analysis, Capability Study

Responsible : PQL

Support : Program Manager, Supplier Quality, Validation Engineer, Proto

Lab, Plant Quality, R&D, Process Pilot, Plant Launch team (Launch Mgr.)

Input Output


Customer

Inquiry

Program

award

Customer

tool release

Customer

production

part approval

SOP

GR 3GR 3GR 3GR 3

GR 2GR 2GR 2GR 2

�

INVESTMENT

APPROVAL

GR 4GR 4GR 4GR 4

GR 1GR 1GR 1GR 1



4 4 4 4 5555 3 3 3 3 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 1 1 1 1









Action steps along PMS

Non-KPCs

FIT FUNCTION

DRAWINGS

KPCKPCKPCKPC


SPECS

RS


Reduction of Variation

VARIABLES CONTROL CHARTKCCKCCKCCKCC

Initial CP Series

KPC

KCC

KCCKCC KPCKPC

Step3 : Improve KPCs,KCCscontrols


CONTROLKCCKPC

KPC

KCC

KCC KCC

KCC

Cause Effect

Step2 : Plan & Apply control system KPCs,KCCs

KCC

KCC

1st :Designate KPCs during the ph.1 & 2

- Design team collects input data/Lessons learned

of relevant characteristics, e.g. customer KPC list, Spec.,

C.t.C, Warranty, supplier concerns,…

- Define KPCs, Non-KPCs of designed product

- The respective program team members (R&D, PQL, Buyer, …)

identify the S/R or Fit/Function

2nd:Plan & Apply control systems KPCs/KCCs during the ph. 2 & 3

- Each KPC’s related KCCs are determined (shown in cause-effect diagram)

- Planning ways to control KCCs or KPCs if no related KCCs are identified

- Record the tests results (dimension, functional, …)

3rd :Improve KCCs controls during the ph. 3&4 (&5)

- Planning methods for reducing the variation within the targeted value

- Monitoring the results

- Maintain/improve control plan size & frequency

Customer

Inquiry

Program

award

Customer

tool release

Customer

production

part approval

SOP

GR 3GR 3GR 3GR 3

GR 2GR 2GR 2GR 2

�

INVESTMENT

APPROVAL

GR 4GR 4GR 4GR 4

GR 1GR 1GR 1GR 1



4 4 4 4 5555 3 3 3 3 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 2 a&b 1 1 1 1









Non-KPCs

FIT FUNCTION

DRAWINGS

KPCKPCKPCKPC


SPECS

RS



CONTROL

KCC

KPC

KPC

KCC

KCC KCC

KCC

Cause

Effect

Step2 : Monitor KPCs,KCCs

KCC

KCC


InstructionsControl records

Responsible : Plant Launch Team Leader (Launch Manager)

Support : Program Manager, Plant Manager, PQL, Supplier Quality, Plant Quality, Process Pilot

Recommended Tools: DoE, SPC, DVP&R, P-FMEA, Control Plan, QRCI, QSE, R@R

DoE = Design of Experiment, SPC = Statistical Process Control, DVP&R = Design Verification Plan & Report,

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

INPUT

OUTPUT

Reduction of Variation

VARIABLES CONTROL CHARTKCCKCCKCCKCC

Initial CP

Series

KPC

KCC

KCCKCC KPCKPC

Step3 : Improve KPCs,KCCscontrols


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



Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


Key Characteristics

Agenda

How to manage Key characteristics 20 mnHow to build a Control Plan 20 mnWorkshop 25 mnDebriefing 5mn


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


Bad Control Plan can kill People!

Renault Vel SatisRenault Vel SatisRenault Vel SatisRenault Vel Satis

Red alert NOK COP test Field campaign

Aug/2003:

16 cars NOK/400 in the field.

RootRootRootRoot cause cause cause cause

1. Why: IP insert broken

2. Why: Material brittel

3. Why: NOK glass fiber and PU rate

4. Why: Not checked at OK first part

5. Why: Not a KPC (absent in drawing & control plan)


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


• Written Description of Activities for Process ControllingWritten Description of Activities for Process ControllingWritten Description of Activities for Process ControllingWritten Description of Activities for Process Controlling

• List of Planned Tasks to be applied by Defined Responsible PeoplList of Planned Tasks to be applied by Defined Responsible PeoplList of Planned Tasks to be applied by Defined Responsible PeoplList of Planned Tasks to be applied by Defined Responsible People e e e (Operators, GAP Leaders, Maintenance, Quality, Lab (Operators, GAP Leaders, Maintenance, Quality, Lab (Operators, GAP Leaders, Maintenance, Quality, Lab (Operators, GAP Leaders, Maintenance, Quality, Lab …………) to ensure Product ) to ensure Product ) to ensure Product ) to ensure Product ConformityConformityConformityConformity

=> Who does what, when, where and why ?=> Who does what, when, where and why ?=> Who does what, when, where and why ?=> Who does what, when, where and why ?

• Control Plan lists all Process Parameters and Product CharacteriControl Plan lists all Process Parameters and Product CharacteriControl Plan lists all Process Parameters and Product CharacteriControl Plan lists all Process Parameters and Product Characteristics stics stics stics that require Specific Quality Actions that require Specific Quality Actions that require Specific Quality Actions that require Specific Quality Actions

⇒ 3 levels exist according to the Programs Phases3 levels exist according to the Programs Phases3 levels exist according to the Programs Phases3 levels exist according to the Programs Phases

Introduction: Control Plan Definition

Prototype Control

Plan

Pre-Production

Control Plan

Production Control

Plan

5PRODUCTION

4LAUNCH

GR4GR3

1ACQUISITION

2ADESIGN

2BDESIGN

VERIFICATION

3PRODUCTION

SET-UP

GR1 GR2BGR2A


Prototype Control Plan Layout

0p 1 0p 2Suppliers

�100% Visual Inspection & Measurement of Key Characteristics @ Supplier & Faurecia Locations

Prototype Phases PT

100% KC

Measurement

100%

Visual Inspection

•100% Visual Inspection

•100% Measurement on

Key Characteristics

0p 3 Customer

Internal & External

Customer Satisfaction

Prototype Shop

�Complete Design Validation Plan�Initiate Production Validation Plan


Pre-Production Control Plan Layout

PTTarget: achieve 15 Ppm & 100% Efficiency @ SOP

0p 1 0p 2 0p 3Final

InspectionSupplier

�Quality Wall @ Supplier & Faurecia Locations

Sorting of BOP on selected Key Characteristics

Quality Wall

Quality Wall

Sorting of Finished Goods on selected Key Characteristics

Incoming

Goods

Inspection

Manufacturing Plant

Customer

Internal & External


No Non-Conformity on Critical Characteristics allowed on Saleable Cars

S

R

�Incoming Goods Inspection

� Higher Frequency & Sampling Size on Key Characteristics Monitoring� Initiate SPC on Key Characteristics� Complete Production Validation Plan


Production Control Plan Layout

Final Inspection

0p 1 0p 2 0p 3

�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

Target: achieve 15 Ppm & 100% Efficiency @ SOP

Supplier

BOPdelivered in

Self-Certification Status

Manufacturing Plant

Customer

Internal & External



Process is stable

Could be checked by sampling

with basic rules:

Need 100% check for

Key Control Characteristics

<Rule 1> : Suspected lot must be checked 100% with traceability

OK OK OK

OK OK NOK

OK OK OK

Time

OK Lot Suspected Lot

100% check

Yes

No

<Rule 2> : SPC control with action rule

UPR limit

Action limit

Nominal

Action limit

LWR limit

X

X X

X

ACTION !!

�Clear decision rules

How to apply Control Plan ? (Sample Check)

Natural Process Limits

Natural Process Limits


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 ... ... ... ... ...

4

2

3

1

5

9

10

78

6

Maxi 10 Points to be Checked per Work Station

How to apply Control Plan ? (Instructions Sheet)

Pictures or Schemesto position the Criteria

Clear Decision RulesNo Subjective Criteria


Control Plan – Good Practices

Pre-Production CP

Production CP

Reaction Rulesdefined

Higher SamplingSize

Key Characteristicsdefined with

Nominal + Tolerances


Responsibilities

Plant ManagerPlant ManagerPlant ManagerPlant ManagerProgram Manufacturing LeaderProgram Manufacturing LeaderProgram Manufacturing LeaderProgram Manufacturing Leader

+ Plant Quality Manager+ Plant Quality Manager+ Plant Quality Manager+ Plant Quality ManagerProduction Control Production Control Production Control Production Control

PlanPlanPlanPlan

Program ManagerProgram ManagerProgram ManagerProgram ManagerPlant ManagerPlant ManagerPlant ManagerPlant Manager

Program Manufacturing Program Manufacturing Program Manufacturing Program Manufacturing Leader+ Program Quality Leader+ Program Quality Leader+ Program Quality Leader+ Program Quality

Leader +Leader +Leader +Leader +Plant Quality ManagerPlant Quality ManagerPlant Quality ManagerPlant Quality Manager

PrePrePrePre----Production Production Production Production Control Control Control Control PlanPlanPlanPlan

Program ManagerProgram ManagerProgram ManagerProgram ManagerProduct Development LeaderProduct Development LeaderProduct Development LeaderProduct Development Leader+ Program Quality Leader+ Program Quality Leader+ Program Quality Leader+ Program Quality Leader

Prototype Control Prototype Control Prototype Control Prototype Control PlanPlanPlanPlan

ValidatorValidatorValidatorValidatorActorActorActorActor

� 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”


How to write a control plan ?

General Information

Process / Tools

Description

KPC KCCTo be Monitored

Checking / Monitoring

MethodsReaction Rules

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


Built production control plan related to Built production control plan related to Built production control plan related to Built production control plan related to shoot channel 8 nuts screwing shoot channel 8 nuts screwing shoot channel 8 nuts screwing shoot channel 8 nuts screwing operation :operation :operation :operation :

Documents provided:Documents provided:Documents provided:Documents provided:

� DrawingDrawingDrawingDrawing

� KPC/KCC Ishikawa diagramKPC/KCC Ishikawa diagramKPC/KCC Ishikawa diagramKPC/KCC Ishikawa diagram

� DFMEA/PFMEADFMEA/PFMEADFMEA/PFMEADFMEA/PFMEA

� SR fastening mandatory pointsSR fastening mandatory pointsSR fastening mandatory pointsSR fastening mandatory points

� Blank control plan formatBlank control plan formatBlank control plan formatBlank control plan format

Share by table conclusionsShare by table conclusionsShare by table conclusionsShare by table conclusions

Workshop : Practical exemple (30’)


EFFECTEFFECTEFFECTEFFECT

Interactions between KPC & KCCsProposed answer

Example : Chute channel assembly

to Airbag Flap Reinforcement

CAUSECAUSECAUSECAUSE

Measure Environment


Machine

KPCTorque (6+/-1 Nm)

Torque & angle Calibration

Dirt or painting free

Poka Yokepart blocked at Torque Station

S/R rules Faurecia (eg : 2

remaining threads / stud

…)

Nut Alloy

Backup procedure if Poka Yoke Inoperative

Speed / Angle / Torque ramp-up

programming method

Training

Torque range

Grease free

Ergonomics(tools angle, overview, ...)

Stud Alloy

Maintenance

Self-locking nut P/N

Screwdriver accuracy in acc. with torque.


T5 Airbag shoot channel assemblycontrol plan

Prototype Pre-launch Production

Key Contact / Telephone

Demmy Yoosuf / 0044 7787 516731

Signature (Quality) Date (Original)

12/03/03

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

Supplier / Plant

Faurecia / FRADLEY

Supplier Code CXVNA

Other Approval / Date (If Required)

Other Approval / Date (If Required)

Part/ Process Name/ Machine, Device Characteristics

Specia Product / Process Evaluation/ Sample

Control Reactio Resp.

Process Number

Operation Description Jig, Tools for Mfg. No. Product Process Char.

Class.

Specifications / Tolerance Measurement Technique

Size Frequence Method Plan


300 Assembly Line - Post-Welding

300Fixation of Airbag Chute to

Topper Pad Assembly

Georges Renault Driver

System1 - Torque CC 6NM +/- 1NM

Screw driver with

inbuilt torque

transducer

1 Shift Start Up

a) Follow Poka Yoke validation

Instruction

b) Record results on Poka Yoke

validation record sheet

c) Record on start up sheet set & actual

torque for 1st off part

300Fixation of Airbag Chute to

Topper Pad Assembly

Georges Renault Driver

System2 - Torque CC 6NM +/- 1NM

Screw driver with

inbuilt torque

transducer

1 Every Part a) Automated check.

310 Traceability Recording Scanner, Manual backup 3

Airbag Chute

Batch, Chute

fixation nuts

batch number

- CC

Critical components

are traceable to

manufacturing batch

Recorded

electronically or

manually held

logs

1 Every Parta) Follow Standard Operation

FIS-F-PS-241/EN V2

a) Record batch information on manual

traceability sheets.

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.

T5 Airbag chute channel assemblycontrol plan

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


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!



NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________

1 2 3 4

Introduction

Capitalization &

Transversalisation

Key Characteristics

FMEA


Program QRQC


Changes



& Gate Reviews

How to accelerate

Conclusion



Value added of

the module Comments

Evaluation Form

to fill in



Agenda






10:10 FMEA PL.Soula

11:10 Break


12:05 Lunch


15:45 Break



17:00 End

FMEA Training ModuleFMEA Training ModuleFMEA Training ModuleFMEA Training Module

Paul-Louis SOULA



Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


1. Reasons for FMEAs

2. Objective of FMEAs

3. Types of FMEAs

4. How to build a Design FMEA

5. How to build a Process FMEA

6. Workshop

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis


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

D5 - Root Causes of Occurrence

In stall ation o f the han dle b ar

Gu iding at 22°5

Sl ide

Fema le pro file

Male profile

Loc k

Red Alert with Customer impact

nov- 09

BG/D iv/Site : Detection Lo gistics

UAP/Line: Occu rrence Internal

Author : Management Supp liers

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

Why it is a problem? No-relocking of one of the 2 slides.

What happened? Bad hafting of the handle bar inside the slide :

handle bar assembly inside the leg for recall of the handle bar.

When did it happen ? Detected the 29th Apr il of 2009.

Created the 24th April of 2009 at 12AM07.

CRITERIA

How m any ? 1 case

Possibility to assembly the handle bar in the slides but in a

bad position in the slide's locking spring.

Where has it been detected ? Detected dur ing tr iming of the seat in

Who has detected it ? Detected by operator in SOTEXO.

LESSON LEARNED SHEET

Nog en t s ur Ve rn iss on Ty

pe

Applica tion da te :

Qua li ty De part

Alla n GOURET

Assembly in the good hole of the slide's locking spring

Product poka yokeImpossibility of assembling the handle bar in

another hole that necessary to it s function

How has it been detected? Detected during triming of the seat : not

WHAT WE LEARNED

BEFORE AFTER

ITEM (Control Factor) METHOD

Possibility to put the handle bar in this hole of the locking spr ingNew 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 visibility2. FMEA Gravity at 8 : Missing of hierarchisation at 1 on the drawing and preconisation from Flers3. FMEA detection and occurence at 2 : No case before this one.4. Detection : potentialy sensitive but depending of the operator

D:\maniae\A Perso\SRC\Alertes Qualité\X95\JR95\Mauvais ass palonnier glissières \Préco montage palonnier.pdf

D:\maniae\A Perso\SRC\Alertes Qualité\X95\JR95\Mauvais ass palonnier gliss ières\Workshop R ed alerts JR-K95 JL Daudon 2009-05-07.ppt

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.

9700 slides checked out of which2000 vehicles checked at customer place


Background

Application date : 26-oct DesignBG/Div/Site: SMPG Nompatelize Process Link to AMSUAP/Line: Backrest T7 Mix OK/NOKAuthor : T.Delattre/A.Moussaïd Testing

Supplier

SR Alert Re-Occurrence prevention Memo # 6442

6442

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

NC freeplay on backrest and potential recliner

unlcking.

36 NC parts segregated on July 12th by resident

at customer PSA during function test.

Unclear definition of cable tension neither

efficient tool to set it right (gap setting)

Not OK (Before) OK (After)

No clear instruction for the operator who was

left alone to decide correct fitting

Gages in place to garantee repeatable cable and

recliner positionning as well as proper cable

tension

Consequently the backrest was partially unlocked and there was

a noticeable freeplay

D 5 Root cause of non conformance D 5 Root cause of non conformance D 5 Root cause of non conformance D 5 Root cause of non conformance

The backrest unlocking cable was set up too short.

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

D 4 Root cause of non DetectionD 4 Root cause of non DetectionD 4 Root cause of non DetectionD 4 Root cause of non Detection

Defect detected during

Preproduction, 405 seats

checked at customer


87

Before to start…

At which stage of the PMS

should be performed:

A Design FMEA ?

A Process FMEA ?

1 1 1 1 ProposalProposalProposalProposal

2A 2A 2A 2A DesignDesignDesignDesign

3 3 3 3 Production Production Production Production SetSetSetSet----upupupup

4 4 4 4 LaunchLaunchLaunchLaunch

5 S5 S5 S5 Sééééries ries ries ries ProductionProductionProductionProduction

2B 2B 2B 2B Design Design Design Design

VerificationVerificationVerificationVerification


continuus

continuusupdating

updating

FMEA: At what stage of PMS ?

1 1 1 1 ProposalProposalProposalProposal

2A 2A 2A 2A DesignDesignDesignDesign

3 3 3 3 Production Production Production Production SetSetSetSet----upupupup

4 4 4 4 LaunchLaunchLaunchLaunch

5 S5 S5 S5 Sééééries ries ries ries ProductionProductionProductionProduction

2B 2B 2B 2B Design Design Design Design

VerificationVerificationVerificationVerification

FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysisKPC (Key Product KPC (Key Product KPC (Key Product KPC (Key Product CharacteristicsCharacteristicsCharacteristicsCharacteristics) ) ) ) identifiedidentifiedidentifiedidentified from customer Requirements

Product and Process Product and Process Product and Process Product and Process FMEAsFMEAsFMEAsFMEAs review and feed back

Production Control Plan Production Control Plan Production Control Plan Production Control Plan ImplementedImplementedImplementedImplementedLessonsLessonsLessonsLessons learnedlearnedlearnedlearned

ProcessProcessProcessProcess FMEAFMEAFMEAFMEA completedPrePrePrePre----Production Control Plan Production Control Plan Production Control Plan Production Control Plan ImplementedPVP tests PVP tests PVP tests PVP tests resultsresultsresultsresults successfulMass Production Trial Mass Production Trial Mass Production Trial Mass Production Trial SuccessfulProcessProcessProcessProcess CapabilityCapabilityCapabilityCapability achieved

Product FMEAProduct FMEAProduct FMEAProduct FMEA initiation

KPC KPC KPC KPC listlistlistlist completed

Expert/Designer Expert/Designer Expert/Designer Expert/Designer suppliers product KPCs identified on 2D and BOM

ProcessProcessProcessProcess FMEA FMEA FMEA FMEA initiation

KCC List KCC List KCC List KCC List identified

Product FMEAProduct FMEAProduct FMEAProduct FMEA completed

Expert/Designer Expert/Designer Expert/Designer Expert/Designer supplierssupplierssupplierssuppliers KPCsKPCsKPCsKPCs validated

KPC/KCC KPC/KCC KPC/KCC KPC/KCC includedincludedincludedincluded in Pre-production control plan

BOPsBOPsBOPsBOPs, tools, gauges, , tools, gauges, , tools, gauges, , tools, gauges, equipmentsequipmentsequipmentsequipments ordered


FMEA Objectives

1.1.1.1. Reduce risks related to the Product and the Reduce risks related to the Product and the Reduce risks related to the Product and the Reduce risks related to the Product and the process definition and improve reliability and be process definition and improve reliability and be process definition and improve reliability and be process definition and improve reliability and be documenteddocumenteddocumenteddocumented

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

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

4.4.4.4. ReduceReduceReduceReduce costscostscostscosts and and and and DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment timetimetimetime

5.5.5.5. DDDD----FMEAsFMEAsFMEAsFMEAs and Pand Pand Pand P----FMEAsFMEAsFMEAsFMEAs are the links between are the links between are the links between are the links between Key Characteristics and Control PlansKey Characteristics and Control PlansKey Characteristics and Control PlansKey Characteristics and Control Plans

Risks


FMEA Definitions

Failure Mode & Effect Analysis

� The FMEA is a preventive analysis toolFMEA is a preventive analysis toolFMEA is a preventive analysis toolFMEA is a preventive analysis tool aimed at reducing risk during reducing risk during reducing risk during reducing risk during definition and validation of the Product and the Process designsdefinition and validation of the Product and the Process designsdefinition and validation of the Product and the Process designsdefinition and validation of the Product and the Process designs against a functional specification. It is a way of improving product reliability

� The Design FMEADesign FMEADesign FMEADesign FMEA identifies potential failures of the product design potential failures of the product design potential failures of the product design potential failures of the product design during the complete life cycle of the productduring the complete life cycle of the productduring the complete life cycle of the productduring the complete life cycle of the product ( part manufacturing, 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 FMEAProcess FMEAProcess FMEAProcess FMEA identifies potential failures of the product due to the potential failures of the product due to the potential failures of the product due to the potential failures of the product due to the manufacturing processmanufacturing processmanufacturing processmanufacturing 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.

Ref: FAU-S-DSG-3040


REDUCE THE COST OF MODIFICATIONS

Drawing

modifications

Toolingmodifications

Slide version 02


The FMEA Types and Teams

Design-FMEA(Product-FMEA)

Process-FMEA

Object When

Product(System, Component)

Responsible

Starts at End of Concept Phase

Product Designengineer or

System architect

Production process After first process definition

Process & Tool Engineer

Design-FMEA Team

QualityProduct

Design

Validation

Process

Engineering

Support

Functions

Teams

People with experience

Process-FMEA Team

QualityProduct

Design

Manufacturing

Process

Engineering

Support Functions


How to perform a FMEA

FMEA Number:

FMEA Date:Design

FMEAType of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en Drawing reference : Updated on :

Product : Engineering level/index: PILOT-leader :

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item : Life situation (DFMEA):

MODE Prevention Detection N° Description S O D RPN S O D RPN

Class can be S/R ( or "1") or "2" (function) or no value S : Severity D : Detectability O : Occurence RPN : Risk Priority Number

D-FMEA or P-FMEA

RP

N

Dete

cti

on

Recommended Corrective Actions

EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

KC

C n

b

KP

C n

b

Oc

cu

r-

ren

ce

N°Process Step

definition(PFMEA)

Product Function

definition studied(DFMEA) C

las

s

Potential Cause of

failure

Design validation (D-FMEA)

Process controls (P-FMEA) Responsible

RPN checked after

actions implementedTarget completion

dateAction taken

Forecasted new RPN

DESIGN PROCESS

1- Product function (DFMEA)or Process step (PFMEA)

2- Potential failure Mode3- Potential Effect4- Severity

1- Potential cause of failure + occurence2- Key Characteristics number3- Design Validation (DFMEA)4- Process control (PFMEA) + Detection5- RPN calculation 1- Recommended Corrective Actions

2- Responsible & target date3- Action taken4- Forecasted RPN5- RPN checked after actions implemented


1st Step: Identify Failure mode (1/2)

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

Product :

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item :

MODE KP

C n

b

N°Process Step

definition(PFMEA)

Product Functiondefinition studied

(DFMEA) Cla

ss

EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

D-FMEA or P-FMEA

1- Which function to study (DFMEA)(for each life situation)

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

- Intermittent function- Unintended function

3 - What are the worst effectsfor each failure mode? 4 – How bad is it ?

Identify a severity rating


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


Drawing reference :

Engineering level/index:

Life situation (DFMEA):

Prevention Detection

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

Oc

cu

r-

ren

cePotential Cause of

failure RP

N

De

tec

tio

n

KC

C n

b

DESIGN PROCESS

3- The actions already performed during Product design Prevention: Which checks have been made or standards used

in order to make the design more robustDetection: Which checks or tests are currently included

in the DVP design validation plan

1- Identify the associated cause (first level and root)

2- The estimated occurrence

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

4- Detection rating: How confindent are wewith current definition of the DVP to detecta potential defect

5- RPN calculation

DFMEA


1st Step: Identify Failure mode (2/2)

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

Product :

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item :

MODE KP

C n

b

N°Process Step

definition(PFMEA)

Product Functiondefinition studied

(DFMEA) Cla

ss

EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

D-FMEA or P-FMEA

1- Which process to study (PFMEA)

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

3 - What are the worst effectsfor each failure mode?

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


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


“D” : DETECTION GRADING CHART (Design)


Drawing reference :

Engineering level/index:

Life situation (DFMEA):

Prevention Detection

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

Oc

cu

r-

ren

cePotential Cause of

failure RP

N

De

tec

tio

n

KC

C n

b

DESIGN PROCESS

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

1- Identify the associated cause (first level and root)

2- The estimated occurrence

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

4- Detection rating: How confindent are wewith current definition of the Process todetect a potential defect

5- RPN calculation

PFMEA

KCC identified as a contributorto achieve the KPC


“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


Risk priority number ( or RPN)

RPN= : RPN= : RPN= : RPN= : SSSS x x x x OOOO x x x x DDDD

Slide version 02

Probability that the Probability that the Probability that the Probability that the cause/mode will cause/mode will cause/mode will cause/mode will

occuroccuroccuroccur

Probability that Probability that Probability that Probability that it won't be it won't be it won't be it won't be detecteddetecteddetecteddetected

Severity or Severity or Severity or Severity or Probability that Probability that Probability that Probability that the failure will be the failure will be the failure will be the failure will be

seriousseriousseriousserious


FMEA Number:

FMEA Date:

Updated on :

PILOT-leader :

N° Description S O D RPN S O D RPN

Responsible

RPN checked after actions implementedTarget completion

dateAction taken

Forecasted new RPNRecommended Corrective Actions

4- When action has been taken ( if action is different from initial, please mention it)

5- New RPN after actions are implementedIs action sufficient ?

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

What can be done for - Design changes, - Standard changes,- Process changes- Special controls ?

3rd step: Corrective Actions

1- Recommended Corrective Actions for Prevention and Detection:

2- Responsible & target date


PREVENTIVE ACTIONS

Once critical failures are identified preventive or corrective Once critical failures are identified preventive or corrective Once critical failures are identified preventive or corrective Once critical failures are identified preventive or corrective actions are decided for the actions are decided for the actions are decided for the actions are decided for the highehighehighehighesssst t t t RPNsRPNsRPNsRPNs

RPN > allowable limit (*) => ACTIONRPN > allowable limit (*) => ACTIONRPN > allowable limit (*) => ACTIONRPN > allowable limit (*) => ACTION

The future of our

company depends on

risk control

Once actions are in place the RPN should be recalculated it Once actions are in place the RPN should be recalculated it Once actions are in place the RPN should be recalculated it Once actions are in place the RPN should be recalculated it becomes:becomes:becomes:becomes: RPNRPNRPNRPN''''

Slide version 01

(*) may depend on customer requirement if more stringent than Fa(*) may depend on customer requirement if more stringent than Fa(*) may depend on customer requirement if more stringent than Fa(*) may depend on customer requirement if more stringent than Faurecia rules urecia rules urecia rules urecia rules


What have we learned on Design FMEA

Formalise a critical examination of product

design

Ensure that the product design conforms to

customer and legislative requirements

Functional Functional Functional Functional analysisanalysisanalysisanalysis

feedbackfeedbackfeedbackfeedback

Warranty, returns Warranty, returns Warranty, returns Warranty, returns and rejectsand rejectsand rejectsand rejects

Design validation plan Design validation plan Design validation plan Design validation plan (product tests)(product tests)(product tests)(product tests)

PrototypePrototypePrototypePrototype control control control control plan plan plan plan

INPUTSINPUTSINPUTSINPUTS OUTPUTSOUTPUTSOUTPUTSOUTPUTS

List of product List of product List of product List of product special special special special

characteristicscharacteristicscharacteristicscharacteristics

modifications modifications modifications modifications

Programme goals Programme goals Programme goals Programme goals ((((ppmppmppmppm, reliability, , reliability, , reliability, , reliability,

maintainability,maintainability,maintainability,maintainability,…………

Corrective actions Corrective actions Corrective actions Corrective actions planplanplanplan

Regulations Regulations Regulations Regulations

Measurement Measurement Measurement Measurement concepts, gages and concepts, gages and concepts, gages and concepts, gages and

instructions instructions instructions instructions FAUFAUFAUFAU----SSSS----PMPMPMPM----3040304030403040

Product requirement Product requirement Product requirement Product requirement

Design Design Design Design PokaPokaPokaPoka YokYokYokYokéééé

Slide version 02


What have we learned on Process FMEA

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

DFMEA

Process flow chart

Process assumptions

Serie control plan (included Process

Poka Yoké)

Inputs Outputs

List of process special caracteristics

Plant Lay out

Capitalization

Modifications

Program goals (ppm, reliability,

maintainability,…)

Corrective actions plan

Warranty, returns and rejects

FAUFAUFAUFAU----SSSS----PMPMPMPM----3042304230423042

Process functional analysis

Assembly and use instructions

Measurement and checking instructions

Slide version 02


8 Quality Basics in DevelopmentGroup owners & PG Referent / Experts March 18th, 2011

GroupGroupGroupGroupFECTFECTFECTFECTFAEFAEFAEFAEFISFISFISFISFASFASFASFAS7 Basics

J.BurkeTh.RochardA. Selbach/

M.SchafbauerJ.Robineau

Ph.Cossonnière

Supplier Quality

P.MesnardCh.SardaF.Selb/

M.Stefan-Weber

Ph.LalaguëTBDCap & Trans

PL. SoulaCh.MajchrowiczMN.RothanE.BrogniartJ.YgoutFunct Milestone

Program Stg & Gate Reviews

L.KlingaufE.JacquotY.Schneider/ JF.Wyrwas

P.MesnardL.KlingaufQRCI

E.JacquotF.AbadieJP.Gehin/

M.KherbacheR.HilpertTBD

Validated Engg

changes

E.JacquotV.GosattiY.Schneider/ JF.Wyrwas

P.MesnardTBDStrict Control

Plans

PL. SoulaV.GosattiF.Selb/R.Mary/M.Stefan-Weber

C.DesplanqueM.JordanFMEA

P.MesnardF.LuederP.Renoit/ R.Mary

Ph.LalaguëL.KlingaufKey

characteristics


108

Workshop on P-FMEA – 20 mn

Slide version 02

Nut and L-profile assembly by resistance welding

1. Choose 3 failure modes2. Establish a P-FMEA for these 3

failure modes3. Each group to report

FMEA Number:

FMEA Date:

Design FMEA

Type of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en Drawing reference : Updated on :

Product : Engineering level/index: PILOT-leader :

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item : Life situation (DFMEA):



D-FMEA or P-FMEA

RP

N

Dete

cti

on


EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

KC

C n

b

KP

C n

b

Oc

cu

r-

ren

ce

N°Process Step

definition(PFMEA)

Product Function


lass

Potential Cause of

failure

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

RPN checked after


dateAction taken

Forecasted new RPN

DESIGN PROCESS


Nut & L-profile assembly by resistance welding

L-profile

Nut M10

After electrical welding



FMEA Number: J84-P-RSS-G

FMEA Date: 15/07/2004

Type of vehicle or device : J84 Renault Megane Scenic Drawing reference : Updated on : 16/03/2010

Product : Rear Seat Metal Structure Engineering level/index: G PILOT-leader : ME / YOKE P.

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : UAP 3 / Nogent Part or Device or Item : Nut and L-Profile assembly Life situation (DFMEA): -


40 Resistance welding of

NUT on L-PROFILE

Missing NUT 8 NUT forgotton to insert

(Operator failure)

4 Operator qualification level L

or higher

Automatic machine stop

during clamping operation

(Poka Yoke no. J84/27)

1 32

D-FMEA or P-FMEA

5155436/38

RP

N

De

tec

tio

n


EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

KC

C n

b

KP

C n

b

Oc

cu

r-re

nc

e

N°Process Step

definition(PFMEA)

Product Function


las

s

Potential Cause of

failure



RPN checked after


dateAction taken

Forecasted new RPN

No welding possible, machine

stop, fastening operation

stopped if by pass, process

interuption

DESIGN PROCESS

1



FMEA Number: J84-P-RSS-G

FMEA Date: 15/07/2004

Type of vehicle or device : J84 Renault Megane Scenic Drawing reference : Updated on : 16/03/2010

Product : Rear Seat Metal Structure Engineering level/index: G PILOT-leader : ME / YOKE P.

Line and Plant (PFMEA) : UAP 3 / Nogent Part or Device or Item : Nut and L-Profile assembly Life situation (DFMEA): -


40 Resistance welding of

NUT on L-PROFILE

Missing NUT 8 NUT forgotton to insert

(Operator failure)


or higher




1 32

Missing L-PROFILE 6 L-PROFILE forgotton to

insert (Operator failure)


or higher




1 12

Wrong NUT (material,

diameter, threat,....)

8 1 Wrong NUT reference at

welding station

(Logistical failure)

2 1 Label scan of every new box

with NUTs at welding station

1st piece OK check 2 32

Wrong PROFILE (LH/RH) 6 Wrong welding fixation

plate used

(Tool change failure)


or higher


NUT incorrect inserted in

fixation plate (Operator

failure)


or higher




1 40 To be confirmed

Tooling damaged / worn

out (Maintenance failure)

2 2 Preventive Maintenance plan

no. J84/40)


NUT assembled from

wrong side

6 NUT incorrect inserted in

L-PROFILE (Operator

failure)


or higher




1 24 To be confrimed

Wrong welding parameter

(technician failure)

2 3, 4, 5 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 ?

Machine defect or tooling

defect ( tips not Ok)

(Equipment failure)

2 Preventive Maintenance plan

no. J84/40)

1st piece OK check 2 40 Jean-Yvs is it Ok ?

Changed material

properties (Supplier

failure)

4 6, 7 Yearly supplier part re-

qualification

1st piece OK check

(resistance torque

measurement)

4 160 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

check for NUT and

L-PROFILE

integrated in CP J84-

RSS-G at

20.09.2004

10 2 2 40 10 2 2 40

Machine defect

(Equipment failure)


no. J84/40)


Damaged delivered part

(Supplier failure)

4 8 Yearly supplier part re-

qualification

1st piece OK check

(resistance torque

measurement)



every NUT batch within incoming

inspection


check for NUT


RSS-G at

20.09.2004

7 2 2 28 7 2 2 28

Welding spatters in threat

of NUT

(defect for example)

7 4 Machine defect

(Equipment failure)


no. J84/40)

1st piece OK check 2 14 Do we keep it or not ?

NUT not correctly clamped

/ gap between nut and

profile

10 3 Machine defect

(Equipment failure)


no. J84/40)

1st piece OK check 2 40 Defect on part geometry considered

?


3

4Threat of NUT or PROFILE

damaged

No Belt Buckle assembly

possible

8

Bad welding connection

(insufficient penetration)

Insufficient torque resistance,

risk of stability loss during final

assembly and endurance

10

NUT turned by a few

degrees

10 2


possible




Machine stop, no welding

possible







interuption


stop, process interuption

No Belt Buckle fastening

possible (threat diameter too

small)

Wrong assembly reference

produced but part is Ok



RPN checked after


dateAction taken

Forecasted new RPN

KP

C n

b

Oc

cu

r-

ren

ce

N°Process Step

definition(PFMEA)

Product Function


las

s

Potential Cause of

failure RP

N

De

tecti

on


EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

KC

C n

b

D-FMEA or P-FMEA

5155436/38

DESIGN PROCESS

1

1

2

2

1

2

3

To be confirmed

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

Contacter Jean-Yves Loreau

2

2

1

1

4

5

5

6

6

7



MODE Prevention Detection N° Description

Missing NUT 8 NUT forgotten to insert

(Operator failure)


or higher




1 32 Transfer the detection on machine stop

Missing L-PROFILE 6 L-PROFILE forgotten to

insert (Operator failure)


or higher




1 12 Transfer the detection on machine stop

Wrong NUT (material,

diameter, threat,....)

8 1 Wrong NUT reference at

welding station

(Logistical failure)

2 1 1st piece OK check 5 80 Label scan of every new box with

NUTs at welding station

Wrong PROFILE (LH/RH) 6 Wrong welding fixation

plate used

(Tool change failure)


or higher


NUT incorrect inserted in

fixation plate (Operator

failure)


or higher




1 40

Tooling damaged / worn

out (Maintenance failure)


no. J84/40)


NUT turned by a few

degrees

10 2Insufficient torque resistance,






interruption


stop, process interruption-

frame cannot be assembled

No Belt Buckle fastening

possible (threat diameter too

small)

Wrong assembly reference

produced but part is Ok


Process controls (P-FMEA)

KP

C n

b

Oc

cu

r-

ren

ce

Cla

ss

Potential Cause of

failure RP

N

Dete

cti

on


EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

KC

C n

b

1

2

3

2

2

1

1



MODE Prevention Detection N° Description

NUT assembled from

wrong side

6 NUT incorrect inserted in

L-PROFILE (Operator

failure)


or higher




1 24

Wrong welding parameter

(technician failure)

2 3, 4, 5 Welding parameters vaidated

with 30 parts

1st piece OK check

(resistance torque

measurement)

2 40 Restricted machine & parameter

access, parameter change

documentation

Machine defect or tooling

defect ( capsnot Ok)

(Equipment failure)


no. J84/40)

1st piece OK check 2 40 Imporved Preventive Maintenance plan

by checking nets and pipes

Changed material

properties (Supplier

failure)

1 6, 7 Yearly supplier part re-

qualification

1st piece OK check

(resistance torque

measurement)





Machine defect

(Equipment failure)


no. J84/40)


Damaged delivered part

(Supplier failure)

4 8 Yearly supplier part re-

qualification

1st piece OK check

(resistance torque

measurement)




inspection

3

4Threat of NUT or PROFILE

damaged


possible

8

Cold Weld (insufficient

penetration)




10

Machine stop, no welding

possible


Process controls (P-FMEA)

KP

C n

b

Oc

cu

r-

ren

ce

Cla

ss

Potential Cause of

failure RP

N

Dete

cti

on


EFFECT

POTENTIAL FAILURE

Se

ve

rity

KC

C n

b

1

1

2

2

4

5

5

6

N° Description 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 Check of Supplier measurement





check for NUT and

L-PROFILE


RSS-G at

20.09.2004

10 1 2 20 10 2 2 40

40-1 Check of Supplier measurement



inspection


check for NUT


RSS-G at

20.09.2004

8 2 2 32 7 2 2 28

Responsible

RPN checked after


dateAction taken

Forecasted new RPNRecommended Corrective Actions



Agenda






10:10 FMEA PL.Soula

11:10 Break


12:05 Lunch


15:45 Break



17:00 End



NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________

1 2 3 4

Introduction

Capitalization &

Transversalisation

Key Characteristics

FMEA


Program QRQC


Changes



& Gate Reviews

How to accelerate

Conclusion



Value added of

the module Comments

Evaluation Form

to fill in


Break

Validated Engineering ChangesValidated Engineering ChangesValidated Engineering ChangesValidated Engineering Changes

Eric JACQUOT




Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


Agenda

� Introduction 15 mn

� Module objectives

� Validated Engineering Change

� 3 examples of Engineering Changes

� Workshop 15 mn

� Debriefing 5 mn

� Key messages 5 mn


Why this basic ?

�If not validated Engineering Change, potential disturbances …

� repeat tests with additional prototypes due to trepeat tests with additional prototypes due to trepeat tests with additional prototypes due to trepeat tests with additional prototypes due to test failuresest failuresest failuresest failures

� creation of a new problem to solve due to lack of impact creation of a new problem to solve due to lack of impact creation of a new problem to solve due to lack of impact creation of a new problem to solve due to lack of impact analysisanalysisanalysisanalysis

� rework even line stoppagerework even line stoppagerework even line stoppagerework even line stoppage due to non compatibility with due to non compatibility with due to non compatibility with due to non compatibility with overall system (other parts, BOPs, gauges, manufacturing overall system (other parts, BOPs, gauges, manufacturing overall system (other parts, BOPs, gauges, manufacturing overall system (other parts, BOPs, gauges, manufacturing system, packaging,system, packaging,system, packaging,system, packaging,…………))))

Severe human injuries in case of accidentsSevere human injuries in case of accidentsSevere human injuries in case of accidentsSevere human injuries in case of accidents��recall + Business holdrecall + Business holdrecall + Business holdrecall + Business hold

=> Any short-cut in Engineering Change Process will sooner or later cost the company !

=> Validated Engineering Change is a basic


Module objectives

� Understand the sequence of the various steps to achieve a Understand the sequence of the various steps to achieve a Understand the sequence of the various steps to achieve a Understand the sequence of the various steps to achieve a

proper validation.proper validation.proper validation.proper validation.

� Better understand consequences and causes of non Better understand consequences and causes of non Better understand consequences and causes of non Better understand consequences and causes of non

validated engineering change.validated engineering change.validated engineering change.validated engineering change.

� Know the contributors for the validation of engineering Know the contributors for the validation of engineering Know the contributors for the validation of engineering Know the contributors for the validation of engineering

changes.changes.changes.changes.


Engineering Change by Customer, supplier or internal

RejectRejectRejectReject

ECO : Engineering Change Order

ECOECOECOECODefine EC Define EC Define EC Define EC +DVP & PVP+DVP & PVP+DVP & PVP+DVP & PVP

Execute Execute Execute Execute DVP & PVPDVP & PVPDVP & PVPDVP & PVP

Implement Implement Implement Implement ECECECEC

EC validation

Design Review

Design Validation


ChangeChangeChangeChangeSubmittedSubmittedSubmittedSubmitted

Assess Assess Assess Assess ECR *ECR *ECR *ECR *

RejectRejectRejectReject

ECR : Engineering Change Request

Less than 5 days

* Use of checklist enables being exhaustive enough in the assessment

QCD assessment *


Engineering Change in PMS phases

The later it happens,

the more it costs and the higher the risk is for bad launch

Customer PPAP

1ACQUISITION 2A

DESIGN

2BDESIGN

VERIFICATION

SOP

3PRODUCTION

SET-UP

4LAUNCH

5PRODUCTION

Tool Launch

Design Review

Design Validation




Execute Execute Execute Execute DVP & PVPDVP & PVPDVP & PVPDVP & PVP

Implement Implement Implement Implement ECECECEC


Execute Execute Execute Execute DVPDVPDVPDVP


Example 2 : wiring fixture of ECS

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

After modification

Two metal clips but notpositioned as requested

Before modification

Two plastic binders

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)

Customer request

OEM : metal clipsInstead of plastic binders


Example 3 : Seat locking mechanism

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

Causes ?

Before modification

Locking mechanismsecured by a washer

After modification

No more washer

Design review : lack of robust standards

Design validation : test done too late (during launch phase)


Example 4 : YA5 headrest insert spring

Causes ?

Consequences : ejection of headrest during ECE 17 test � 35,000 vehicles to rework = ? M€ + 2 months task force + a lot of additional tests

Design review : risk underestimated (“small” modification)Production validation : no ECE 17 test performedSupplier : lack of capitalization and transparency

Before

noise, scratches, sliding effort

⇒Spring

After

Spring with RilsanCoating + bigger bending


Validated Engineering change

WorkshopECR based on internal VA VE in Serial Phase

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


� 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 account :

� 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 )?

WORKSHOP : Define DVP and PVP

20 min20 min LetLetLetLetLetLetLetLet’’’’’’’’ssssssss do do do do do do do do it!it!it!it!it!it!it!it!!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!


XXXXXXXXNo bag damageNo bag damageNo bag damageNo bag damageSDS PBSDS PBSDS PBSDS PB----0028v2 0028v2 0028v2 0028v2

Airbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deployment

XXXXXXXXNo sharp edgeNo sharp edgeNo sharp edgeNo sharp edgePBPBPBPB----0004v20004v20004v20004v2Airbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deployment

Module requirementModule requirementModule requirementModule requirement(fragment compliant with DVM 24331)(fragment compliant with DVM 24331)(fragment compliant with DVM 24331)(fragment compliant with DVM 24331)

ESESESES----F2DBF2DBF2DBF2DB----54044A7454044A7454044A7454044A74----AAAAAAAAAirbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deployment

XXXXXXXXdeployment trajectorydeployment trajectorydeployment trajectorydeployment trajectory

( +/( +/( +/( +/---- 9999°upupupup----down)down)down)down)(+/(+/(+/(+/---- 4444°side to side)side to side)side to side)side to side)

DVMDVMDVMDVM----0052005200520052----AB / SDS PBAB / SDS PBAB / SDS PBAB / SDS PB----0025v2 0025v2 0025v2 0025v2 Airbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deployment

XXXXXXXXNo bag damageNo bag damageNo bag damageNo bag damageSDS PBSDS PBSDS PBSDS PB----0028v2 0028v2 0028v2 0028v2 Airbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deploymentAirbag deployment

COCKPIT

XXXXMA0018 (rating 2 max)MA0018 (rating 2 max)MA0018 (rating 2 max)MA0018 (rating 2 max)DVMDVMDVMDVM----0014001400140014----MA/ SAE J1351 MA/ SAE J1351 MA/ SAE J1351 MA/ SAE J1351 OdorOdorOdorOdor

XXXXRES 30 MS 302RES 30 MS 302RES 30 MS 302RES 30 MS 302Taiwan specificationTaiwan specificationTaiwan specificationTaiwan specificationFlammabilityFlammabilityFlammabilityFlammability

XXXXMA0019MA0019MA0019MA0019DVMDVMDVMDVM----0016001600160016----MA/ SAE J1756MA/ SAE J1756MA/ SAE J1756MA/ SAE J1756Fogging Fogging Fogging Fogging

Topper Pad Foam

METHODMETHODMETHODMETHODTESTTESTTESTTESTDEVIATION DEVIATION DEVIATION DEVIATION NUMBERNUMBERNUMBERNUMBER

PVPPVPPVPPVPDVPDVPDVPDVPREQUIREMENTREQUIREMENTREQUIREMENTREQUIREMENT

TESTTESTTESTTESTTYPE OFTYPE OFTYPE OFTYPE OF

FACIA ASSY COVERED UPPER

PART NAMEPART NAMEPART NAMEPART NAMEFaurecia MeruFaurecia MeruFaurecia MeruFaurecia MeruNAME OF LABORATORYNAME OF LABORATORYNAME OF LABORATORYNAME OF LABORATORY

FAB10172PVJ + FAB10162PVJ + FAB500052PVJ + FAB500042PVJ

PART NUMBERPART NUMBERPART NUMBERPART NUMBERFaureciaFaureciaFaureciaFaureciaSUPPLIERSUPPLIERSUPPLIERSUPPLIER

ECR process : Design & Production Validation Plan


Organization, tool and documents

Product Data Management (PDM) = ECM tool� DESIGN REVIEW

��””””Design ApprovedDesign ApprovedDesign ApprovedDesign Approved”””” status in PDMstatus in PDMstatus in PDMstatus in PDM

� DESIGN VALIDATION��””””Engineering ApprovedEngineering ApprovedEngineering ApprovedEngineering Approved”””” status in PDMstatus in PDMstatus in PDMstatus in PDM

� PRODUCTION VALIDATION (Off Tool / Off Process)(Off Tool / Off Process)(Off Tool / Off Process)(Off Tool / Off Process)��””””Manufacturing ApprovedManufacturing ApprovedManufacturing ApprovedManufacturing Approved”””” status in PDMstatus in PDMstatus in PDMstatus in PDM

� Weekly reviews of the ECRs and ECOs by ECM workgroup

� New version of all related documents based on ECO results:

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


NO COMPROMISES

No trade-off with S/R validation even despite Customereven despite Customereven despite Customereven despite Customer

Always Always Always Always PPAP even if not requested by the customereven if not requested by the customereven if not requested by the customereven if not requested by the customer

No “small change”�� rigorous assessment :rigorous assessment :rigorous assessment :rigorous assessment :

� Sales, Sales, Sales, Sales,

� Product performance,Product performance,Product performance,Product performance,

� Bought Out Parts,Bought Out Parts,Bought Out Parts,Bought Out Parts,

� Production performance,Production performance,Production performance,Production performance,

� Production Control & LogisticsProduction Control & LogisticsProduction Control & LogisticsProduction Control & Logistics…………


Example of “Bad” and “Good” answer

“ Engineering Change Management ”


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:

-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


Example of “Good” answer for “Engineering Change

Management”

“How do you manage your Engineering changes with the customer ?”

Technical changes in process

Technical changed closed AFTER TOOL ORDER Feasability and Quotation

Request

Number

Date

receivedSender

Customer

request

reference

Return date

requestedPart Mold number Modification

Feasabil

GO / noGO

Requested

date for

quotation

Tool cost Part price

00C250098IP 04/05/2006 J. BARON Mail 30/09/2006 Base VU / VP37993M-

59220/5922

Customer Design wants to modify the two bases after tools

debuggingGO 19/09/06 250k€ NA

00C250100IP 04/05/2006 J. BARON Mail 14/05/2006 Platic cover of electrical plugTooling has been worn out after a fire. Tooling is not able to deliver

the expected quality. Quotation for refubishing of the tool.no GO 14/05/06 35k€ 0 €

00C250101IP 04/05/2006 J. BARON Mail 05/05/2006 IP+ Module39012M-

59031On cost for multi-graining - add-on separate tool drawer GO 05/05/06 330k€ 3,35 €

00C250112IP 11/10/2006 A. CHOPLIN Mail 18/10/2006 Façade a2/a3 37342XMistake on ATAX staples hangers: hangers are too thick and prevent

to perform the isostatism study for z axis.no GO 18/10/06 45k€ 0,80 €

00C250176IP 14/10/2006 COUPE C letter 03/11/2006 Fuse drawer Add a fuse compartment coverpliers GO 15/01/07 85k€ 5,45 €

-There is a “single list” to manage ECR

Feasability and Quotation

Part priceDate for

quotation

Customer

referenceQuotation

Requested

date for

implementon

DR:Design

Review date

Launching

date

Purchasing

request

number

Drawing

index

Delivery

date and

batch

FMEA

update

DVP=Design

Validaton

Plan

PVP=

Production

Validon

Plan

Closing

dateComments

NA 16/10/06 FEX61-IP98 Agreed 30/11/2006 02/11/2006 05/12/2006DA

10062929A

RDV 2

07/02/07NA 20/12/2006 20/01/2007

Waiting from RSA on final graining spec- Caution:

New quotation could be necessary - Wk 47

0 € 05/06/06 FEX61-IP84 Refused 15/09/2006

3,35 € 05/05/06 FEX61-IP81 Agreed 01/01/07 01/01/07 Not done --- RDV 3 NA Not done Not done Waiting for JB supplier quotation

0,80 € 16/11/06 FCIA N/A N/A S01/07 Redesign the ATAX staple

5,45 € 20/01/07FE X61-IP-

118Negociation Wk06

Technical change validationCustomer Agreement Technical change release

One signle table for various aspects

3 steps validation



NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________

1 2 3 4

Introduction

Capitalization &

Transversalisation

Key Characteristics

FMEA


Program QRQC


Changes



& Gate Reviews

How to accelerate

Conclusion



Value added of

the module Comments

Evaluation Form

to fill in


Lunch



Agenda






10:10 FMEA PL.Soula

11:10 Break


12:05 Lunch


15:45 Break



17:00 End

Program Quick Response ContinousImprovement (QRCI)

John BURKEJohn BURKEJohn BURKEJohn BURKE



Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


Program QRCI - Agenda

• Presentation and video 30 mn• Workshop 2 h 30 mn

�Practical QRCI 2 h�Debriefing 30 mn


Let’s start to be PRACTICAL !

Watch the VIDEO

Compare the BAD to the GOOD


Observation Part 1 – What went wrong?

Detection

Communication

Analysis

Verification

– 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)

– Insufficient real data (testing conditions ?, dimension ?,…)

– Insufficient in depth logical thinking (“I think it’s the spring that’s…”,…)

– 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 ,…)


Observation Part 2 – What contributed to this success?Detection

Communication

Analysis

Verification

Management

– Failures observed on the Gemba

– “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 members the day after problem raised)

– 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 )

– Real place verification through testing in laboratory

– Quick escalation – Monitoring and Effective support– Recognition


What is QRCI ?

A MANAGEMENT attitude to solve ANY KIND OF PROBLEM

On the REAL PLACE

By Focusing on Our Priorities

Quick Response ContinousImprovement


QRCI foundation: the 3 REALS

San means "3" – Gen means "real" or "actual" Shugi means "ideology"

San Gen ShugiUnderstand 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


The basic tools….

My eyes and my legs to….

What are the

Most important

Quality Tools

see/ measure/ observe/ analyze/ record…


Example of Example of Example of Example of ““““GOOD”””” answer for answer for answer for answer for ““““Single List of Issues Single List of Issues Single List of Issues Single List of Issues (SLI)(SLI)(SLI)(SLI)””””

How do you manage the important issues of your program ?

Program: Program mgr: SCHMITT Jean-Pierre

Product Ref.: SLI creation date 24-11-06

Award PPAP SOP List updated 20. december 2006

NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI)

A76 DP 24-11-06 1 Division 3 Quality Supplier issuesFeuille d'étanchéité fournisseur

DANA toujours état WE1N

Demander appui équipe Q-Achats

J. CABERO pour accélérer la

clôture et la levée des derniers

points durs

MC. ILUNGA 06-12-06 11-12-06 Do

T7 IP/DP 24-11-06 2 Division 1 Process PRC

Relevés de temps de maquettage

pas remontés par les usines

(réel/prévisionnel + pareto)

N

Faire mettre à jour les indicateurs

de convergence temps de

maquettage avec décroissance

prévisionnelle en temps

E. PINTO 22-12-06 Check

T7 IP/DP 24-11-06 3 Division 1 Quality PRCDifficulté de lisibilité des indicateurs

validation et CTF sur PNON

Faire regrouper les indicateurs PNO

par silhouette + clarification pour

lisibilité

P. LABORDE 22-12-06 Check

A515 IP 24-11-06 4 Division 2Product /

R&D

Function

reviewTF1 et TF1-GR1 toujours rouges N

Visibilité sur clôture / gate review à

assurerR. TOMCZAK 18-12-06 Plan

Tous

programmes24-11-06 5 Division 1

Project

organisation /

Project

PRCAbsence de suivi TTP pour clôture

des jalons PMSN

Proposition de synthèse jalon +

status + TTP/target DivMC. ILUNGA 22-12-06 05-12-06 Check

B58 IP/GLC 24-11-06 7 Division 3 Quality Customer

issuesReconception vide-poche N

Décision sur communication client

de l'engagement réflexion sur

reconception VA/VE

R. TOMCZAK 21-12-06 Plan

A76 DP 24-11-06 9 Product Group 3 Economics Function

review

Certification CE (360€) exigée par

outillageN

Interprétation de la Directive

Européenne par les Autorités

Espagnoles

Note cosignée FS/JPS vers

Lansade/Leroy copie JMV/I.

Lopez/C. Alberte sur fait que pas

possible prendre en compte à

posteriori

JP. SCHMITT 22-12-06 Plan

NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI)

GR1 GR2a GR2b GR3

PROGRAM QRQC DIVISION QRQC SLI

Single List of Issues (SLI)Customer: PSADivision: PSA Customer Division

Dev./Prod. Site (s): Méru Platform/Model (s): PSA Programs - all platforms

Les évolutions apparaissent en bleu, les sujets clos sont hachurés sur la prochaine diffusion puis masqués

Program

concerned

( If several

within the SLI

)

Opening Date

(DD.MM.YY)No

Responsibility /

Escalation level

( Program Core

team or Division

or PRC)

Program

risk level

4: S/R

3: High

2: Medium

1: Low

Impacted

Area -

Function - Pb

category

Needed

Experts

Problem description

( 5W = 2 H ?)

De

ep

an

aly

sis

docum

en

t nu

mb

er QRQC

number

or NA

Root Causes Countermeasure (C/M)

PDCA

Action Planned

Action Done

Success Checked by

evidence

Activity for capitalization

done (LL)

LeaderScheduled End

(Check) dateReal Check Date

Soldé au niveau Division

le 15/12/06

Not various listsBefore Gate

1

Closing DateAll S/R issues to be closed before Gate 3

Updated frequently

If applicable QRCI referencePriorities

defined

Program

risk level

4: S/R

3: High

2: Medium

1: Low


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

� Customer complaint product not meeting expectation

� FMEA unsolved critical issue

� Design review unsolved critical issue

� Prototypes unexpected test failure

� Initial samples not right first time

� PVP not passed

� Run and rate PT / MPT / EMPT failed

� Supplier IS rejected

� Tooling / gages 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

QRCI subjects

Link with SLI


If

unsolved

issues,

action

assigned

to

management

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

Program Risk level

3

2

4

1

0

Top 5 daily Core team metingEscalated to QRCI

Leader : Program manager

Division Program QRCIDaily

Leader : Customer Division Director

PG Program RegionalQRCI

Weekly meetingLeader : Region customer VP

Group/PGSteering Committee

Monthly

QRCI Organization: All levels contribute

Immediate action mandatory


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 support 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


Plan

Do

Exercice

D1

D2

D3

D4D5

D6

D7

D8

Check

Act

N°

Re- occurrence Re- occurrence Re- occurrence Re- occurrence

N° Resp.Resp.Resp.Resp. Dead-lineDead-lineDead-lineDead-line


N° VVVV VVVV VVVV VVVV VVVV


OOOO = OK, XXXX= NOK, ∆∆∆∆= Doubt, VVVV= Verification (To be used in D4 & D5 at columns "Real vs Std" and "Std OK?" and Validation of each Why)

Validated retained Validated retained Validated retained Validated retained

factorfactorfactorfactor

N°N°N°N°Dead-lineDead-lineDead-lineDead-line ResponsibleResponsibleResponsibleResponsible

RiskRiskRiskRisk

AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

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

EffectivenessEffectivenessEffectivenessEffectiveness


New risk New risk New risk New risk

detected detected detected detected


Resp.Resp.Resp.Resp. Dead-line/ DoneDead-line/ DoneDead-line/ DoneDead-line/ DoneCheckCheckCheckCheck

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

Validated retained Validated retained Validated retained Validated retained


N°N°N°N°ResponsibleResponsibleResponsibleResponsible

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

Dead-lineDead-lineDead-lineDead-line

Who found the problem? Who created the problem ? Who found the problem? Who created the problem ? Who found the problem? Who created the problem ? Who found the problem? Who created the problem ?

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

created?created?created?created?



New risk detected New risk detected New risk detected New risk detected


ISISISIS(is the problem)(is the problem)(is the problem)(is the problem)QRCI-8DQRCI-8DQRCI-8DQRCI-8D

Ref: FAU-F-PSG-0287Ref: FAU-F-PSG-0287Ref: FAU-F-PSG-0287Ref: FAU-F-PSG-0287

D6: QRCIQRCIQRCIQRCI Pilot: UAP Mgr. / HSE Mgr. /Logistic Mgr.

etc.

Name/ Signature

(In case customer does not exist & Program early (In case customer does not exist & Program early (In case customer does not exist & Program early (In case customer does not exist & Program early

phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit) D1- Problem description

D1- Problem description



5W/ 2H´s5W/ 2H´s5W/ 2H´s5W/ 2H´s1st Problem Definition1st Problem Definition1st Problem Definition1st Problem Definition

(Faurecia View)(Faurecia View)(Faurecia View)(Faurecia View)

What is the problem ? What is the problem ? What is the problem ? What is the problem ?

When the problem happened? When was the problem When the problem happened? When was the problem When the problem happened? When was the problem When the problem happened? When was the problem


Why is it a problem?Why is it a problem?Why is it a problem?Why is it a problem?

Quick Response Quick Response Quick Response Quick Response

Continuous ImprovementContinuous ImprovementContinuous ImprovementContinuous Improvement

IS NOTIS NOTIS NOTIS NOT(Is not the problem)(Is not the problem)(Is not the problem)(Is not the problem)


Team:Team:Team:Team: Opened: Opened: Opened: Opened:

D3 – Containment actions D3 – Containment actions D3 – Containment actions D3 – Containment actions (Including retained factor containment based on evidence)(Including retained factor containment based on evidence)(Including retained factor containment based on evidence)(Including retained factor containment based on evidence)

D3: Quality Manager / PILOT / HSE / UAP Mgr.

Definition of incident clear ?

Name/ Signature


phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)

How many?How many?How many?How many?

(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)

Classification:Classification:Classification:Classification:

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

Meeting datesMeeting datesMeeting datesMeeting dates

D4 -

D4 -

D4 -

D4 - Cause of non-detection of Defect / Risk

Cause of non-detection of Defect / Risk



(Why not found ?)

(Why not found ?)

(Why not found ?)

(Why not found ?)

(In case customer does not exist, D4 comes after D5 to show




Why couldn't detect the cause of Occurrence)




IS/ IS NOT influence retained factor of

non- detection

StandardStandardStandardStandard Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTOR

Comments/ ConclusionsComments/ ConclusionsComments/ ConclusionsComments/ Conclusions

D4 to D6D4 to D6D4 to D6D4 to D6

(10 workdays in case (10 workdays in case (10 workdays in case (10 workdays in case

Customer existCustomer existCustomer existCustomer exist **** & & & &

HSE)HSE)HSE)HSE)

Problem Problem Problem Problem 2nd definition2nd definition2nd definition2nd definition(Scope reduction)(Scope reduction)(Scope reduction)(Scope reduction)

Retained Retained Retained Retained FactorsFactorsFactorsFactors

Need to warn other plants/R&D

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

Investigation actionsInvestigation actionsInvestigation actionsInvestigation actions

Real vs. Real vs. Real vs. Real vs.

Std.Std.Std.Std.

Std.Std.Std.Std.

OK ?OK ?OK ?OK ?NOKNOKNOKNOK OK OK OK OK

Real situationReal situationReal situationReal situationStandardStandardStandardStandard

D4 5 Why's

D4 5 Why's

D4 5 Why's

D4 5 Why's

(Minimum 5 times or

(Minimum 5 times or

(Minimum 5 times or

(Minimum 5 times or

more to reach

more to reach

more to reach

more to reach

management issues)

management issues)

management issues)

management issues) Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ? Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?


Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a RETAINED FACTOR

ResultResultResultResult

Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?

D5 5 Why's

D5 5 Why's

D5 5 Why's

D5 5 Why's

(Minimum 5 times or

(Minimum 5 times or

(Minimum 5 times or

(Minimum 5 times or

more to reach

more to reach

more to reach

more to reach

managem

ent issues)

managem

ent issues)

managem

ent issues)

managem

ent issues) Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ? Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?

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

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

Actions Management (or escalated to Sr. Management)Actions Management (or escalated to Sr. Management)Actions Management (or escalated to Sr. Management)Actions Management (or escalated to Sr. Management)


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

Lessons learned sharedLessons learned sharedLessons learned sharedLessons learned shared

Actions TechnicalActions TechnicalActions TechnicalActions Technical

Follow up by Core teamsFollow up by Core teamsFollow up by Core teamsFollow up by Core teams

ActionActionActionAction

FMEA / Risk assessment updatedFMEA / Risk assessment updatedFMEA / Risk assessment updatedFMEA / Risk assessment updated

Standardized work created / updatedStandardized work created / updatedStandardized work created / updatedStandardized work created / updated


Std.Std.Std.Std.

Std.Std.Std.Std.

OK ?OK ?OK ?OK ?

All actions validated and implementedAll actions validated and implementedAll actions validated and implementedAll actions validated and implemented

D8 - Lessons learnedD8 - Lessons learnedD8 - Lessons learnedD8 - Lessons learnedD6 – Corrective actionsD6 – Corrective actionsD6 – Corrective actionsD6 – Corrective actions

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

Control Plan updatedControl Plan updatedControl Plan updatedControl Plan updated

Operators / team members informedOperators / team members informedOperators / team members informedOperators / team members informed

StepsStepsStepsSteps Milestone reviewMilestone reviewMilestone reviewMilestone review


(24 h in case (24 h in case (24 h in case (24 h in case

Customer existCustomer existCustomer existCustomer exist**** & & & &

HSE)HSE)HSE)HSE)

What is the rule for risk

Prevention / Detection ?

D8: Responsible Mgr: Plant / Program etc.

Name/ Signature


phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)phase, no time limit)


(60 workdays in case (60 workdays in case (60 workdays in case (60 workdays in case

Customer exist* & Customer exist* & Customer exist* & Customer exist* &

HSE)HSE)HSE)HSE)

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

HSE

HSE

HSE

HSE

Only

Only

Only

Only

Action Action Action Action PILOTPILOTPILOTPILOT

Category: Category: Category: Category:

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

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


Real situationReal situationReal situationReal situationRetained Factor Retained Factor Retained Factor Retained Factor

validated ?validated ?validated ?validated ?

Control pointControl pointControl pointControl point

How to measure/ characterize the retained factor

RETAINED FACTOR -D4- RETAINED FACTOR -D4- RETAINED FACTOR -D4- RETAINED FACTOR -D4-

D5 - Cause of occurrence




(Why happens this time & no other time)




(In case customer does not exist, D5 com

e before D4)


e before D4)


e before D4)


e before D4)

IS/ IS NOT influence retained factor of

occurrence

What is the rule for risk

Prevention

/ Occurrence?

How to measure/ characterize the retained factor

RETAINED FACTOR -D5- RETAINED FACTOR -D5- RETAINED FACTOR -D5- RETAINED FACTOR -D5- Control pointControl pointControl pointControl pointRetained Factor Retained Factor Retained Factor Retained Factor

validated ?validated ?validated ?validated ?NOKNOKNOKNOK OKOKOKOK

D3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implementedD3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implementedD3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implementedD3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implemented

Y

NO YES

NO YES

YES NO

N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Before incident

(3 months minimum history) After the incident & counter measure applied

Detection:

Occurrence:

� What is the problem?

� Do I have same problem elsewhere?

� How to contain?

� What is the root cause (non detection and occurrence)

� What are corrective actions plan?

� How to check efficiency?

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

Logical thinking is essential


N°

Re- occurrence Re- occurrence Re- occurrence Re- occurrence





OOOO = OK, XXXX= NOK, ∆∆∆∆= Doubt, VVVV= Verification

Validated Validated Validated Validated


N°N°N°N°Dead-lineDead-lineDead-lineDead-line ResponsibleResponsibleResponsibleResponsible

RiskRiskRiskRisk

AssessmenAssessmenAssessmenAssessmen

tttt




New risk New risk New risk New risk

detected detected detected detected


Resp.Resp.Resp.Resp. Dead-line/ DoneDead-line/ DoneDead-line/ DoneDead-line/ DoneCheckCheckCheckCheck

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

How many?How many?How many?How many?

(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)

Who found the problem? Who created the problem ? Who found the problem? Who created the problem ? Who found the problem? Who created the problem ? Who found the problem? Who created the problem ?

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


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

Real situationReal situationReal situationReal situation

Factor validated ?Factor validated ?Factor validated ?Factor validated ?

Action Action Action Action

QRCI-8DQRCI-8DQRCI-8DQRCI-8D

Meeting datesMeeting datesMeeting datesMeeting dates

D6: QRCI Pilot: UAP Mgr. / Hse Mgr. /Logistic Mgr.

etc.

Name/ Signature

PILOTPILOTPILOTPILOT

StepsStepsStepsSteps Milestone reviewMilestone reviewMilestone reviewMilestone review


24 h24 h24 h24 h

D8: Responsible Mgr: Plant / Program etc.

Name/ Signature

Team:Team:Team:Team: Opened: Opened: Opened: Opened:

D3 – Containment actionsD3 – Containment actionsD3 – Containment actionsD3 – Containment actions

D3: Quality Manager / PILOT / Hse / UAP Mgr.

Definition of incident clear ?

Name/ Signature

Category: Category: Category: Category:

(HSE: FR2t, FR1t & FR0t)(HSE: FR2t, FR1t & FR0t)(HSE: FR2t, FR1t & FR0t)(HSE: FR2t, FR1t & FR0t)

Comments/ ConclusionsComments/ ConclusionsComments/ ConclusionsComments/ Conclusions


10 workdays10 workdays10 workdays10 workdays


60 workdays60 workdays60 workdays60 workdays

All actions validated and implementedAll actions validated and implementedAll actions validated and implementedAll actions validated and implemented

D8 - Lessons learnedD8 - Lessons learnedD8 - Lessons learnedD8 - Lessons learnedD6 – Corrective actionsD6 – Corrective actionsD6 – Corrective actionsD6 – Corrective actions

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

Lessons learned sharedLessons learned sharedLessons learned sharedLessons learned shared

Follow up by Core teamsFollow up by Core teamsFollow up by Core teamsFollow up by Core teams

ActionsActionsActionsActionsActionActionActionAction

FMEA / Risk assessment updatedFMEA / Risk assessment updatedFMEA / Risk assessment updatedFMEA / Risk assessment updated

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

Operators informedOperators informedOperators informedOperators informed

Instructions at WS updatedInstructions at WS updatedInstructions at WS updatedInstructions at WS updated



Std.Std.Std.Std.

Std.Std.Std.Std.

OK ?OK ?OK ?OK ?

ResultResultResultResultHow to measure/ characterize the factorWhat is the rule for risk

Prevention / Detection ?NOKNOKNOKNOK OK OK OK OK


Std.Std.Std.Std.

Std.Std.Std.Std.

OK ?OK ?OK ?OK ?

StandardStandardStandardStandardControl pointControl pointControl pointControl point Real situationReal situationReal situationReal situation


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

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

D5 5 Why's

D5 5 Why's

D5 5 Why's

D5 5 Why's Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?

FACTOR -D4- FACTOR -D4- FACTOR -D4- FACTOR -D4-

FACTOR -D5- FACTOR -D5- FACTOR -D5- FACTOR -D5- Control pointControl pointControl pointControl pointWhat is the rule for risk

Prevention

/ Occurrence?

How to measure/ characterize the factor



Factor validated ?Factor validated ?Factor validated ?Factor validated ?NOKNOKNOKNOK OKOKOKOK


Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTOR


D5 - Factor of

D5 - Factor of

D5 - Factor of

D5 - Factor of

occurrence

occurrence

occurrence

occurrence

(Why happened ?)

(Why happened ?)

(Why happened ?)

(Why happened ?)

D4 5 Why´s

D4 5 Why´s

D4 5 Why´s

D4 5 Why´s Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?

IS/ IS NOT influence factor of occurrence

Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?Why ?

Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTORInvestigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTOR

D4 - Factor of non-

D4 - Factor of non-

D4 - Factor of non-

D4 - Factor of non-

detection

detection

detection

detection

(Cause of non-detection of




Defect / Risk)

Defect / Risk)

Defect / Risk)

Defect / Risk) IS/ IS NOT influence factor of non-

detection


StandardStandardStandardStandard

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

2nd Problem Redefinition2nd Problem Redefinition2nd Problem Redefinition2nd Problem Redefinition(Scope reduction)(Scope reduction)(Scope reduction)(Scope reduction)

IS NOTIS NOTIS NOTIS NOT Retained Retained Retained Retained FactorsFactorsFactorsFactors



New risk detected New risk detected New risk detected New risk detected


Need to warn other plants/R&D





5W/ 2H´s5W/ 2H´s5W/ 2H´s5W/ 2H´s1st Problem Definition1st Problem Definition1st Problem Definition1st Problem Definition

(Faurecia View)(Faurecia View)(Faurecia View)(Faurecia View)

What is the problem ? What is the problem ? What is the problem ? What is the problem ?

When the problem happened? When was the problem When the problem happened? When was the problem When the problem happened? When was the problem When the problem happened? When was the problem


Why is it a problem?Why is it a problem?Why is it a problem?Why is it a problem?

ISISISIS


Classification:Classification:Classification:Classification:

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

D3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implementedD3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implementedD3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implementedD3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implemented

Y

NO YES

NO YES

YES NO

N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N

QRCI

formto use

D1

D2

D3D3&D7

D4

D5

D6 D8


Program QRCI Workshop

• Build the QRCI (one per table) with yourtrainer on the QRCI Form. Perform all 8D steps (60 mn)

• Trainer will give to each group necessaryavailable information

• Debriefing (30 mn)

Brazed

connection

Leak test values higher thaninternal specification found during prototype assembly


Exhaust pipe assembly with brazing

1 - Process Flow in Prototype ShopWASHING

RING

2 – Leak Testing Results

Nok partsOk parts

RAW MATERIAL

TUBE MILL BENDINGDIAMETER

SIZING BRAZING

LEAK TESTING

Ok

WASHING

NOk

RING

END FORMING

Bubles detected with soap



Agenda






10:10 FMEA PL.Soula

11:10 Break


12:05 Lunch


15:45 Break



17:00 End


Break

Functional Milestones + Program Steering Committee & Gate Reviews

Paul-Louis SOULA




Key Characteristics



Changes

Capitalization &

Transversalization



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI


Why this basic?

�Too many bad launches:

Red SOP status (Mar 2011): 27% Red Programs( Jun 2011 25%)

�Delay for passing gates:

Time To Pass Gate (Mare 2011): 41 days(Jun 2011=>33 days)


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

� Remember: Delayed event has consequences (efficiency, costs) and comes from malfunctioning


Video Part 1


Live exchange – What went wrong?

Consequences

→ Gate red for 4 months

→ Airs shipment of 120 k€

Gate Review

→ PSC members late + 3 function heads missing

→ Product definition freeze is borderline

→ Packaging not validated by plant

→ Late contribution of functions

Core team:

→ No precise lead time to recover 2 wks delay on knee impact

→ Risks identified but not treated


Video Part 2


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




Objectives of Functional Milestones

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 Pass Gate

Validate the program progress againstStandards & Guidelines and internal expertise while taking

Into account Customer Requirements


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

Occur during each phase and involve Core Team members

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

• QVRQVRQVRQVR (Quality Validation Review lead by Quality Director) or (Quality Validation Review lead by Quality Director) or (Quality Validation Review lead by Quality Director) or (Quality Validation Review lead by Quality Director) or

• TVRTVRTVRTVR (Team Validation Review co(Team Validation Review co(Team Validation Review co(Team Validation Review co----lead by Program and Quality Directors)lead by Program and Quality Directors)lead by Program and Quality Directors)lead by Program and Quality Directors)

Gate Review happens after a “Green” QVR or TVR

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


1 2A 3 4 5

ACQUISITION PRODUCT &

PROCESSDESIGN

PRODUCTION SET-UP

LAUNCH

2B

PRODUCTIONDESIGN VERIFICATION

CUSTOMERINQUIRY

PROGRAMAWARD


CUSTOMER PRODUCTION

PART APPROVAL

START OF PRODUCTION

END OF PRODUCTION

GR 1 GR 2B GR 3 GR 4GR 2A

Program Management System


PMS Functional Milestones and Gate Reviews

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


• Ensure Faurecia best knowledge is used

• Identify technical risks and build subsequent corrective actions

• Ensure propagation of technical and design best practices

Acquisition Design Design VerificationCustomer

RFQ Award TL PPAP SOP

Production Setup Launch

Concept Proposal Validation

GR 1 GR 2A GR 2B GR 3 GR 4Executives Milestones

Fu

ncti

on

al

Milesto

nes

Engineering

Manufacturing

Purchasing

Quality

Finance

FM1A FM1 FM2A FM2B FM3

QVR* TVR** QVR* TVR** QVR* TVR** QVR* TVR**

QVR* : Quality Validation Review TVR** : Team Validation Review


Roles of function versus program

What When

QCD performance

Coordination

Global budget

Decision/ Escalade

Reporting towards customer

How

Resources

Standards

Expertise

Stick with commited cost

Veto

Validate and dive

PROGRAM FUNCTION


PSA OEM Benchmark

Function Objectives

e.g. R&D Director, Purchasing Director, ME Director

Q R T and Communication (int. / ext.)

Quality SystemDefinition of way of working, functional objectivesand organization

Resources/People Quantity and Competence

TechnicalStandards State of the art

Program Objectives

e.g. Program Manager

Q C D and Performance

Results


Functional Milestone Review Attendees

Status: E2B

Review Date:

Attempt: 1st

ASPG

Engineering Functional

Milestone Review

VW 250

Function: Invited:M/O:

JIT complete seat

Attended:

QPS-Manager

PQL VW 250

Division:

Program:

Product:

EFM Review Committee Members:

VW Group

Owner: J.Schnabel

O

SA VW 250

M

M

M

R. Oberbeck

J.Etzel

J.SchnabelJ.Schnabel

R. Oberbeck

J.Etzel

M: Mandatory - O: Optional

SSD - SECI Manager O R. Deppe R. Deppe

Programmdirector O K.Schlueter K.Schlueter

SSD - SSA Manager SEC O

SSD - DFA Manager O

R&D Vice President M T.Ludewig R.Hanauske

Director SSD - NEC M R.Hanauske R.Hanauske

SDS - Manager M T.Collette

SSD - PCA Manager O D.Kraft D.Kraft

SSD - SSA Manager O A.Spormann A.Spormann

SSD - CTCM Manager O S.Kroener S.Kroener

F.Meyer Joachim Mai

A. Buddensiek


Functional Milestone Checklists

Owned and maintainedby BG Functions


Program Steering Committee&

Gate Reviews


PMS: Levels of control

FAURECIA

MANAGEMENT


PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

LINE MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM MANAGER

PROGRAM PROGRESS

MGMT DECISIONS

GATE REVIEW #1-4

FUNCTIONAL MILESTONES

DETAILED REPORTS BY FUNCTION

PRODUCT ReadinessPROCESS

Readiness

KPI Monitoring

DESIGN VALIDATION

PM PMLPQL PBPDL

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

TECHNICAL & FUNCTIONAL OBJECTIVES

PROGRAM PROGRESS

3. Governance

SUPPLIER Readiness


Who is on the Program Steering Committee (PSC)?

Sales

Purchasing

Product Engineering

Program Management

Human Resources

Manufacturing

Quality Regional Director of Quality

Regional Director of Human Resources

PG or Regional Director of Programs

Appropriate Customer Division Manager

Regional Director of Product Engineering

Regional Director of Manufacturing

Regional Director of Purchasing

Regional VP (Chairman)

Finance Regional Controller


Mind-set change: Company wide expectations…

Gate Review repetitions are not acceptable

� 1st pass 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 forproblem resolution

� Increase information transparency – do not kill the messenger

� Focus on preventive problem solving and set the example for timely management involvement


PMS Mandatory Program Deliverables








Prototypes paid

Human

Resources Product support team staffedProgram Teams staffed Plant Start-up team plannedHuman

Resources Product support team staffedProgram Teams staffed Plant Start-up team planned



PRODUCTION



Design FMEA *

Product








Prototypes approved


Design FMEA *

Product








Prototypes approved


Program





Master schedule *




Control of

process &

design

change *





Program





Master schedule *




Control of

process &

design

change *






turing

Process definition


EMPT Run @ Rate

















turing

Process definition


EMPT Run @ Rate
















END OF PRODUCTION

CUSTOMERINQUIRY

PROGRAMAWARD


CUSTOMER PRODUCTION

PART APPROVAL

START OF PRODUCTION

END OF PRODUCTION

CUSTOMERINQUIRY

PROGRAMAWARD


CUSTOMER PRODUCTION

PART APPROVAL

START OF PRODUCTION





Quality






Quality






V1.0

* mandatory deliverables linked to Quality Validation Review minimum necessity items 1. Process1. Process1. Process1. Process


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

ResponsibilityValidator: Program Steering Committee

Actor: Acqusition Manager up to Program Kick-off, Program Manager after Program Kick-off



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

� Highlights the major program risks

� First approved at the Gate Review #1 by the PSC

� Functions have committed to their associated key program challenges

� The PSC reviews the Program Internal Contract atsubsequent Gate Reviews

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


Articulate the performance boundaries of a program as mutually agreed by theProgram Steering Committee (PSC) and the Program Core Team.

Prepared between the Program Quote Review and the Program Team Kick-off. First approved at the Gate Review #1 by the PSC. The PSC reviews the Program Internal Contract at subsequent Gate Reviews. Committed product deliverables are defined.Hard to measure customer expected performance targets are identified.Target and the actual values are compared and the magnitude of the gaps are estimated.The right level of staffing is reserved in order to close the gaps. Major program challenges are highlighted early.Main program stakes are transferred into the Program Single List of Issues Complementary gap closure projects are launched. The program scope is adjusted.Functions have committed to their associated key program challenges.

indicator Units Target Actual Seuil Alerte

Product

performance Safety/Regulation

Safety Customer

specification (

incl.NCAP) Tests status R/Y/G G Y

Regulation Tests status R/Y/G G Y

Interface with vehicule % parts in carry over % 10% 7% TBD

Innovative functions/new applications Number of new functions number 1 1

Innovation 1 - BA3 Milestone status M1-M4 M4 Status M4 < M3

Weight % = actual/customer target % 66kg 70kg TBD

Perceived quality Electrical Noise dB dB <40 36

Functional Noise Zero V3 Quotation RSA Subjective 0 >0

Aspect Number of DMT points number 0V1 et (V2+V3)<0.03 @ SOP TBD

effort Newtons number 100% to specification 1 Non conformance

Reliability & endurance Status of endurance test R/Y/G G Y

Design for manufacturing R/G 100% operation GO au Gate 2 RAGREPT Number of points < 5 number 0-5 5+1

Cost

Product cost (Provisional Product Cost

with current definition and current

manufacturing performance) Previsional cost / target cost 381.49 387.22

IRR % IRR % 15 6.8 5%

OI OI 6 2.6 0Upfront Upfront en ME 13.3 15 20%

Quality PPM at 0km PPM 40 150 10%

3 Months Warranty Claims K°/°° = Cases per 1000 2.15

B: 1,3

C: 6,9 10%

Resources Staffing CT & ET Zero Open Position * 1Turnover on Core Team and key

functions (Program Manager, Core

Team Members, Architect) % 0 0 1

Delivery Definition Freeze for DV juin-06 NA

Tool Launch avr-07 NAPPAP juil-08 Na

Manufacturing

Footprint Number and names of plants Number and name Number and name

6, ACL (JIT), St. Jao Madere

(Foam), St. Jao Madere

(Metal), St. Jao Madere

(Insitu), STEA (Trim Covers),

Poland (Slides)

84, Coife (3

Suppliers) Any changeProduction Volumes Unit forecast 1,000,000 NA 5%

Program

Specific

Targets/Challene

ges LCC % LCC Supplier Pannel % 30% 20% 5%

New Plant

Plant built, equiped, staffed

and approved 0

New Customer 0

New Concept 0New Development Venture 0



Weight 66kg 70kg

LCC 30% 20%


“Good” answer for

“Functional milestones & Gate Reviews”

How do you perform your Functional Milestones and your Gate Reviews ?

Clear list of attendees (plan/real)

including expert and mandatory if needed

Clear check list with conclusion (Ok/NOk)

( clear criteria to conclude Ok)

Action plan with Responsible & deadline in single file

Calendar for next ( six months at least) Functional Milestones

& Gate Review

Time to pass Gate is monitored and achieving

target line

Engineering / Manufacturing / Purchasing Functional

Milestones

ENGINEER

MANUF

PURCHASING

E84

Product type Complete Seat

1st row

Katharina Jahn

07/10/2008Review

location

Stadthagen Jacek Kusiak

PQL OutputsWP planned

closure dateQuality Key Deliverables Critical Status Comments / Actions Detailed description of PQL output

Product performance - PIST Level PIST level for KPCs has achieved the customer target

Final Key Characteristics ListKey Characteristics List reviewed and updated based on the prototype

tests, measurement results

2E15 Internal Quality Objectives Updated Development Convergence Plan 22/09/08Prototype control plan implemented

C G

Prototype control plan implemented and signed off

Product audit tracking is ongoing

reference to Convergenceplan E84_Fehlerübersicht_KJ_20080809

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

Pre-Production Control Plan

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

Pre-Production Inspection InstructionsReferences for measurement / Characteristics to be measured with

tolerance and classification

QSE plan with implementation dates in line with

FPT, MPT & EMPT requirements and schedule-

QSE Training & coaching plan -

- - Program risk assessment ongoing 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)

- - Quality Validation Review 23/09/08Prototype control plan implemented

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 )

Conclusion: PASS :___YES____ FAIL: ______

Re-Review Necessary ? YES:_______ NO:___X_____

Signature Name Date

Program Quality Manager Kusiaz Jacek 7-oct.-08

Comments:

2E14

2E25 Pre-Production Control Plan



implementedGauges requirements

2E+28

07/07/08

07/07/08

25.06.08

Proto #2 Quality Performance Analyzed


Established

QSE deployment plan defined

Work Packages

QUALITY FUNCTIONAL MILESTONE QUALITY FUNCTIONAL MILESTONE QUALITY FUNCTIONAL MILESTONE QUALITY FUNCTIONAL MILESTONE Phase 2BPhase 2BPhase 2BPhase 2B

Program

Review Date

PQL & contributors

Reviewed by

C

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

QSE plan for 2. semester 2008 is defined together with the plant QSE Coordinator

(Bernd Schmeisser / Michael Wende) 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

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

G

Y

G

PIST level actual

94,96% (h-point in BMW production adjustment)

78,92% (h-point in LH- addjustment)

target 60% for phase 2b

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

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

carry over parts the h-point E84 could not reach LH-adjustment, but BMW-

production 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

Ok

Critical item


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 assure first pass yield of Gate Reviews



Asia Shanghaï May 12th 8h-18h00

USA A.Hills-Frazer Jun 17th 8h-18h00

France Meru Jun 30th 8h-18h00

Germany Augsburg Jul 8th 8h-18h00

SAO Curitiba Sep 30th 8h-18h00

India Pune Oct 14th 8h-18h00

2011 Group sessions in Regions

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

Ken SATOKen SATOKen SATOKen SATO



Mandatory Program Deliverables








Prototypes paid

Human Resources Product support team staffedProgram Teams staffed Plant Start-up team plannedHuman Resources Product support team staffedProgram Teams staffed Plant Start-up team planned



PRODUCTION



Design FMEA *

Product








Prototypes approved


Design FMEA *

Product








Prototypes approved


Program





Master schedule *




Control of

process &

design

change *





Program





Master schedule *




Control of

process &

design

change *






turing

Process definition


EMPT Run @ Rate

















turing

Process definition


EMPT Run @ Rate
















END OF PRODUCTION

CUSTOMERINQUIRY

PROGRAMAWARD


CUSTOMER PRODUCTION

PART APPROVAL

START OF PRODUCTION

END OF PRODUCTION

CUSTOMERINQUIRY

PROGRAMAWARD


CUSTOMER PRODUCTION

PART APPROVAL

START OF PRODUCTION





Quality






Quality






V1.0



Key Characteristics



Changes



and Gate Reviews

FMEA

Program

QRCI

Capitalization &

Transversalization


The basic rule:

We are all allowed to make a mistake once

But:

This is true for:

Individuals

Teams

FAURECIA

we are not allowed to repeat twice the same mistake


The 7 Quality Basics in Development

are not tools for

Quality and PMS people

Who is responsible for Development Quality?

Who has to implement the 7 Quality basics in Development?

Who is in charge?

They are our basic

Development tools



NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________

1 2 3 4

Introduction

Capitalization &

Transversalisation

Key Characteristics

FMEA


Program QRQC


Changes



& Gate Reviews

How to accelerate

Conclusion



Value added of

the module Comments

Evaluation Form

to fill in
