“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
PPAP IN AEROSPACE Components, Challenges & Enablers
Hartford ASQ Monthly Meeting
Presented by: Peter E. Teti
Thursday, April 12, 2012
This document contains no technical data.
PRODUCTION PART APPROVAL PROCESS Presenter summary
Technical Fellow – Product Quality
27 years at HS and PW
Authored many quality & training documents
Developed many supplier quality key processes
Adjunct Professor at CCSU and NGS last 13 years
CQE instructor for ASQ Hartford over last 15 years
What is PPAP?
Why are UTC Aerospace units implementing PPAP? Why
now?
What are the components (key elements) of UTC Aerospace
PPAP?
Producer expectations
How will PPAP be implemented?
Key challenges
Key enablers
KEY TAKE-AWAYS
3
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
What’s PPAP?
4
PPAP is a protocol used to establish confidence in component suppliers
and their production processes, by proving that:
"....all UTC Aerospace business unit’s requirements are met by the supplier
and that the process under review has demonstrated, during an actual
production run, to have the potential to consistently produce parts meeting
these requirements."
INTRODUCTION TO PPAP A Definition (Reference AIAG PPAP Manual)
5
HISTORY OF PPAP Roots in Automotive
In 1982 the management staff of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford Motors founded
AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group).
The group then created to Advanced Product Quality Planning & Control Plan
(APQP), within these standards, the AIAG developed PPAP to advance the parts
production approval process of quality planning.
The first manual spelling out the multiple requirement of PPAP was published in
1993. PPAP is part of the auto industry's overall Advance Product Quality Planning
initiative, step-by-step procedures designed to ensure production of an end-product
that will satisfy consumers.
6
HISTORY OF AEROSPACE & DEFENSE Product & Process Integrity Progression
7
1990’s
FAR 9.308
Early 2000’s
AS9100/AS9102
Mid-2000’s
Characteristic
Accountability
& Verification
2010’s
PPAP
SOURCE: Renaissance Services
“Do First Article
Inspection”
First true industry
Standard – driven
by commercial
Characteristic
accountability
Disciplined
approach
Widely adopted
across industry
today
Characteristic-
level data flow
and verification
Emphasis on
complete
technical data
package
National
Aerospace
Standard 3500
Based on automotive
industry approach
Gaining momentum,
but mostly at talking
stage
Challenge to apply in
Aerospace & Defense
job shop environment
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
Why PPAP?
8
PPAP AT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES Why is UTC Aerospace adopting PPAP?
COMPONENT RELIABILITY BATHTUB CURVE
Fail
ure
Ra
te
Time
Infant Mortality (Unbudgeted Costs)
Useful Life
(Warranty Costs)
Wear Out
PPAP would reduce “Infant Mortality” costs incurred on a new program
KEY DRIVER
- Escapes due to:
* Poor/Changing designs
* Poor manufacturing
processes
* Misunderstanding
requirements
* Workmanship errors
* Supply Chain fluidity
* Control of sub-tiers
KEY DRIVER
- Inherent Design component reliability
based on constant failure rate
$
* Beyond Warranty
* Aftermarket sales
of spare parts
9
Special Cause Common Cause
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012 10
"We made too many changes at the same time -- new technology,
new design tools and a change in the supply chain -- and thus
outran our ability to manage it effectively for a period of time."
WHY PPAP IN AEROSPACE?
Boeing 787 – Major causes of multi-year delay
SOURCE: AOL Daily Finance article entitled “Boeing's Dreamliner Delays: Outsourcing Goes Too Far”, by Peter Cohan, 1/21/2011
New technology
New materials
Underestimating the
global supply chain - Lack of robust designs
- Lack of robust mfg. processes
- Lack of familiarity with component integration
Boeing executive quote to Reuters
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012 11
WHY PPAP IN AEROSPACE?
Airbus 380 – Major causes of multi-year delay SOURCE: Wikapedia
System complexity
Rewiring due to mis-matched
design software between
Toulouse and Hamburg
Complex supply chain - Lack of robust method to ensure production readiness
- Lack of familiarity with component integration
- Suppliers not able to deliver components on time
Failure of configuration management
Failure of change control Show A380 Video
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012 12
WHY PPAP FOR UTC AEROSPACE?
New program ramp-up & production volumes
PRATT & WHITNEY
Next Generation Product Family
(NGPF) Engines
Airbus NEO
Bombardier C-Series
Mitsubishi Regional Jet
Russian Ikrut
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND
Boeing 787 suite of systems and
components
NGPF engine systems for PW &
PWC
GOAL: “An engine an hour”
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
0 25 50 100 250 500 750 1000
Pe
rce
nta
ge
wit
h In
sta
lle
d N
on
co
nfo
rmin
g
Pro
du
ct
Number of System Parts
DISRUPTION PLANNER
P(NCM) at 10,000 PPM
P(NCM) at 5,000 PPM
P(NCM) at 1,000 PPM
P(NCM) at 500 PPM
P(NCM) at 250 PPM
P(NCM) at 50 PPM
Yields approximately 5%
of all assemblies having
installed nonconforming
parts. This is the
production limit.
99% yield on components nets a 100% disruption rate for a 1000 piece
assembly!
PURPOSE OF ASQR-09.2 UTC PPAP Specification
This specification defines requirements for validating a manufacturing or
assembly process which produces parts for a United Technologies
Corporation (UTC) Member Company.
The purpose is to provide evidence that UTC member engineering
design, record and specification requirements are properly understood
and fulfilled.
The goal is to demonstrate the established manufacturing process has
the potential to produce product that consistently meets all requirements
at the intended production rate.
As a supplier, it is your responsibility to ensure that you ship only parts
that have been approved and meet specifications.
13
Why do we need PPAP?…………….….If we already have AS9102 FAI?
INTRODUCTION TO PPAP Comparison to First Article Inspection (FAI)
14
FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION – AS9102 What’s the difference? SOURCE: Wikipedia
15
AS9102 is the Aerospace Standard for First Article Inspection Requirements. First Article Inspection Report
(FAIR) can be documented on Forms 1 (Part Number Accountability), 2 (Product Accountability), and 3
(Characteristic Accountability, Verification and Compatibility Evaluation.
The purpose of the First Article Inspection is to give objective evidence that all engineering, design
and specification requirements are correctly understood, accounted for, verified, and recorded.
The purpose of this standard is to provide a consistent documentation requirement for aerospace
components.
FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION (FAI): A complete, independent, and documented physical and functional
inspection process to verify that prescribed production methods have produced an acceptable item as
specified by engineering drawings, planning, purchase order, engineering specifications, and/or other
applicable design documents.
FIRST ARTICLE INSPECTION REPORT (FAIR): The forms and package of documentation for a part
number or assembly, including FAI results, as per this Standard. Similar to a PPAP package.
In general this is the aerospace equivalent of the automotive PPAP, Production Part Approval
Process. PPAP requires larger quantity of components than would be typically manufactured for
aircraft components. PPAP also has a stronger emphasis on risk identification and mitigation as well
as process control (i.e., use of FMEA, Process Mapping, Control Plans, SPC, MSA, ).
PPAP VS FAI HMS Titanic 100th Anniversary
FAI illustrates that a producer met all engineering and
quality requirements for one part
FAI falls short on whether or not the process that made the
one good part will be able to make the voyage of rate
production
Things may look good when we board but are all systems
in place to be able to complete the trip? Again and again?
PPAP helps to ensure we can make the trip time and time again through
more in-depth risk identification and mitigation actions
COMPARISON
HIGHLIGHTS
14 of 19 elements
are covered in
AS9102
UPPAP per ASQR-
09.2 requires both
design and process
risk identification &
mitigation
UPPAP requires
more than one part
to be 100%
dimensionally
verified (requires 5)
to show process
stability
UTC PPAP VS. FAI COMPARISON ASQR-09.2 – AS9102
ITEM #
CRITICAL PRODUCTION SYSTEM ELEMENT
REQUIRING VALIDATION BY ASQR-09.2 (UTC PPAP)
AS9102 FAI
REQUIRED
ELEMENT TO
VALIDATE
(Yes/No)
1 Released Production Drawings Yes
2 Additional Engineering & Quality Requirements Yes
3 Production Purchase Order and Demand Fullfillment Yes
4 Design Failure Modes Effects Analysis No
5 Process Flow No
6 Process Failure Modes Effects Analysis No
7 Process Control Plan Yes
8 Process Readiness Study No
9 Initial Process Capability Studies Yes
10 Measurement Systems Analysis Yes
11 Engineering Frozen Planning and Source Approval Yes
12 Dimensional Report Yes
13 Production Verification Testing Yes
14 Special Process and Nondestructive Test Approval Yes
15 Material Certification Documentation Yes
16 Raw Material Approval Yes
17 Part Marking Approval Yes
18 Packaging, Preservation & Labeling Approval No
19 Review and Sign-Off Yes
Element not required to be reviewed by AS9102 FAI but is required by ASQR-09.2 UTC PPAP
Element required to be reviewed by both AS9102 FAI and ASQR-09.2 UTC PPAP
LEGEND
17
FAI alone will not be sufficient to ensure:
Production readiness
Initial process stability
Major process risks identified and resolved prior
to rate production
UTC PPAP VS. FAI COMPARISON ASQR-09.2 – AS9102
18
We cannot tolerate the same level of escapes and
disruptions seen on prior programs in order to
meet Customer requirements!
PPAP AT UNITED TECHNOLOGIES Benefits to Customers, Plant Sites and Suppliers
Manufacturing process functions that are clearly planned, validated,
documented and communicated that result in:
Reduced process variation
Statistically controlled processes
Enhanced customer confidence
in supplier’s capabilities
Consistent approach in assuring
quality and providing evidence
Reduced COPQ (infant mortality escapes)
Better controlled process changes
Development Production
Prevention through PPAP
Current state
Time
$$ T
ota
l C
ost
of
Qu
ality
Redesign
Re-qualifications
Escape Investigations
19
DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Cost of Change/Failure
20
Time
Basic Plan Detailed Design Build Test Production
Release to
Manufacturing
Cost/Change
X=$14,700 per change (industry average)
100X
10X
X
PPAP IMPACT ON GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE Industry Performance
21
Problems per 100 Vehicles
From Historic Levels >300
21
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
Components, Challenges
& Enablers
22
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
PPAP COMPONENTS
Forms & Procedures
Training and Standard Work
Linkage to Design-to Build Process
Enabling Tools
Systems
Review Process
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
“Here comes another brilliant idea”
“Isn’t this going to increase costs?”
Supplier-to-supplier flow down of requirements
“You want 4 additional full-up dimensioned parts
on top of the FAI part?”
PPAP CHALLENGES
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
PPAP ENABLING TOOLS
Design FMEA
Process FMEA
Process Control Plans
SPC Control Charts
Gage & Process Capability Studies
Capacity Analysis
Process Readiness Study
Process Readiness
Study Assessment
PPAP 301
Training PackageASQR-09.2
PPAP ProcedureForm Number: QC-0990.26
Revision: Initial Release
Date: 6/22/2011
Element UPPAP Element Criteria
Status
(N/A, Not
Started, In-
Process,
Completed)
Action Item(s)/Comments
A) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division drawings
& specifications?
B) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and specifications
released (i.e. signatures applied)?
C) Is producer working to correct drawing revisions, including all
detail drawings (e.g. casting, forging, other detail parts) as
indicated on the purchase order?
D) Validate if any Critical to Quality (CTQ) features called out.
A) Verify that any supplemental customer requirements (Purchase
Order, Quality or Engineering Notes/Documents) are incorporated
into producer and subtier manufacturing processes and documents.
B) Verify that the producer is working to the correct released
revision of any supplemental customer requirement documents as
specified on the Purchase Order (e.g. Quality or Engineering
Notes/Documents, other specifications).
A) Verify that the producer is working to a production purchase
order?
B) Verify that the sub-tier PO documents flow down any UTC
requirements per ASQR-01, ASQR-09.2 etc.
C) Does the UPPAP package have evidence that the producer
knows the latest demand schedule and is updating capacity and
manufacturing plans accordingly.
D) Is there evidence that the producer flows down the latest
demand schedule to subtier suppliers and is updating subtier
management plans accordingly.
Released Production Drawings
SPD/SMD and SI Sheets
NOTE: See Element Reference Card for UTC
divisional definitions.
Production PO and Demand Fullfillment
UTC PPAP2 ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
PPAP Checklist Objective Evidence
Package & Forms
UPPAP 301
UTC Production Part Approval Process
1
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
SKILLS RECOMMENDED FOR PPAP Specifically for those approving packages
Design & Process FMEA
Process Mapping
Statistical Process Control
Preparation and Review of Control Plans
Gage Familiarization & Capability Studies
Capacity Analysis
Process Auditing
GD&T and Drawing Interpretation
First Article Inspection
Special Approvals (i.e., special processes, frozen processes, etc.)
etc.
UTC PPAP PROCEDURE ASQR-09.2, “UTC Production Part Approval Process”
New specification for UTC Aerospace divisions
Modeled after AIAG PPAP Manual
Approved by FAA and published February, 2011
Requirement to implement driven by purchase order
UTC Aerospace divisions have flexibility as to when &
where they choose to implement
Implementation, training and assistance provided by UTC
Pilot projects already completed with several suppliers
27
METHOD What are the key elements?
PPAP specifies steps and standards for every phase of
the planning and production process.
PPAP documentation, which follows the product from
inception to completion, contains at least 19 separate
elements by the time production is completed.
Key documentation requirements are validated on a
form called a “UPPAP Approval Submission”
Elements are shown on next page
28
PPAP ELEMENTS PER ASQR-09.2 Contents for Objective Evidence Package
29
Released Production Drawings
Specifications
Production PO
Product Definition
11
22
33
Design FMEA
Manufacturing Process Flow
Process FMEA
Process Control Plan
Process Readiness Study
Initial Process Studies
Measurement System Analysis
Dimensional Report
Raw Material Approval
PPAP Core Activities
5555
6666
7777
8888
9999
10101010
12121212
4444
16161616
Frozen Process/Source Approval
Production Verification Testing
Special Process Approvals & NDT
Material Certification Documentation
“If Required” Activities
11111111
13131313
14141414
15151515
1919
1818
1717 Parts Marking Approval
Packaging, Preservation & Labeling Approval
HS Pre-Approved
PPAP Review and Sign-Off
HS Formal Approval
NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION – APQP
30
CAB Activity
Planning
Program Start
Experimental Production
Product Design and Dev.
Process Design and Development
Product and Process Validation
Production
Corrective Action Board activity
Plan & Define
Program
Product Design &
Development Verification
Process Design &
Development Verification
Product & Process
Validation
Ongoing Part & Process control
Transition to
Production
PPAP ensures the activities required by APQP are properly completed
Product & process planning
UPPAP activities
consolidation
NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION – APQP
31
VISION What does UTC Aero want to achieve with PPAP?
All new UTC Aerospace
designed product, significantly
revised product, and/or product
transitions using formally
validated processes in order to
mitigate the risk of Customer
escapes.
32
FORMAL VALIDATION What does this mean? For a Supplier?
Supplier performing formal production review, with standard
checklist, of processes used to manufacture UTC Aerospace
product
Supplier preparation of Objective Evidence Package that supports
each checklist item
UTC full or partial review of Objective Evidence Package
Reviews conducted by PPAP member focal points (MFPs, typically
QE/SQE) with functional experts where appropriate (i.e., X-Ray,
Heat Treat, etc.)
UPPAP Approval Submission Form sign-off by Supplier
and UTC Aerospace representative
33
34
Process Flow &
Process FMEA
GR&R, SPC & Sampling
High-RPN’s (Supplier-selected KPCs
and/or M/P controls)
Process Control Plan
& Initial Process
Studies
Work instructions Visual Aids
RCCA (address poor
capability)
Process
Planning
PPAP CORE ACTIVITIES SUMMARY CTQ
Features Escapes, QN & COPQ
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
PPAP LINKAGE
DFMEA
Process Flow Map
PFMEA
Control Plans
Work Instructions
Controls
CORE PPAP LINKAGES
• Focuses on how specific process steps will be controlled.
• Required of all suppliers .
• Define Key Process Inputs, Control Methods, Gage Capability , SPC chart and
reaction plan.
• Look at linkage to PFMEA.
Control
Plans
ASQR-09.2 requires Suppliers to demonstrate this chain reaction
• Focuses on sequence of steps used to create product.
• Required by all suppliers.
• Should include sequence of steps, KPIs and KPOs.
Process
Flow Map
• Focuses on product design and/or specifications.
• Required for suppliers with design authority.
• Look at similar design, Customer MFA, VOC, major escapes & field issues.
DFMEA
• Built from part Process Flow Map.
• Required of all suppliers.
• Look at internal & external escapes, defect data, labor variances, & turnbacks.
• Look at linkage to DFMEA where applicable.
PFMEA
KEY PPAP LINKAGES - continued
Controls • Focuses on ability to prevent high RPN failure modes.
• Required for all suppliers.
• Assures compliance to UTCQR-09.1 and ASQR-20.1.
• Focuses on Operator instructions created for each specific process step.
• Required for all suppliers.
• Looks at clarity, user-friendliness.
• Look at linkage to Control Plan and PW requirements.
Work
Instructions
• Focuses on how specific process steps will be controlled.
• Required of all suppliers .
• Defines Key Process Inputs, Control Methods, Gage Capability , SPC chart and
reaction plan.
• Look at linkage to PFMEA.
Control
Plans
ASQR-09.2 requires Suppliers to demonstrate this chain reaction
PPAP CHECKLIST
Incorporates all 19 PPAP elements required by ASQR-09.2
Spikes out specifically what to look for each PPAP element
Producer Supplier ABC PPAP Level 4
Part Name Widget Part Number 767821-1
Engineering Change
Level A Reason for Submission New ProgramExpected PPAP
Submission Date 15-Nov-11 Production Start Date 12/15/2011
Element PPAP Submission ItemsRequired
Documents
UTC Required
element for this
Part/Part Family?
(Yes/No)
Producer required
to submit
objective evidence
to UTC Division for
this element?
(Yes/No)
Producer's
Response
UTC Reviewer's
Response
R/Y/G Status
(based on UTC
Response)
Comment and/or
Recovery Plan Action Item
1) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division
drawings & specifications?
Drawings and
specifications
Yes Yes Completed Completed
2) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and
specifications released?
Drawings and
specifications
Yes Not Completed Not CompletedProduction Drawing not released; Supplier currently
working to "X-Drawing". HS Engineering promise date to
finalize design is 10/15/2011.
3) Is producer working to correct drawing revision? Applicable drawings Yes Partial Completion Partial Completion Supplier working to development drawing. Note above.
4) Is producer working to correct specification revisions for
specifications called out on the drawing/P.O.? Refer to
Control Card. Applicable specifications
Yes Completed Completed
5) Validate any CTQ Features called out.
Applicable drawings and
specifications
Yes Partial Completion Partial Completion HS Engineering has documented 3 CTQCs on unreleased
drawing.
6) For any CTQCs/CTSCs called out, validate producer has
approved KPC Management Form for lower-level selected
KPCs.
KPC Management Form
(ref. ProCert Database)
Yes Not Completed Not CompletedSupplier has not performed KPC Self-Selection per
HSC16199/HSM17 to support HS Engineering CTQCs
flowed down on drawing.
7) For drawings that call out a specific casting/forging
drawing, has producer flowed down to the sub-tier the
correct revision drawing? Also, refer to Element 16 for
drawings that specify a specific casting/forging P/N to be
used to ensure proper UTC approval.
Lower-level raw material
drawing
Yes Not Applicable Not Applicable
UTC PPAP ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
Released Production
Drawings1
(NOTE: To be used in tandem with UPPAP Submission Form 1, ASQR-09.2)
PPAP SUPPLIER EVIDENCE PACKAGE Allow suppliers to understand exactly what needs to be completed and
submitted for each of the 19 PPAP elements per ASQR-09.2
Process o r Part N o : M OS / A FS
R ev. Level:Planning g roup: Orig inat o r: ISSU E D A TE:
Key Product
Characteristic
KPCD / KPCM / KPCA KEY PROCESS OUTPUT OPER. NUM .SEQ.
NUM BER
CONT.
CHART
TYPE
SAM P.
SIZE
SAM P.
FREQ.
BASELINE
CP
BASELINE
CPKTYPE OF GAUGE CAPABILITY (%)
PROCESS
PARAM ETER
SETTING
CONTROL M ETHOD REACTION PLAN
Pro-Cert analyst
approval:
DATE
:
KEY PROCESS PARAM ETERS
KEY PROCESS OUTPUT
KEY CHARACTERISTIC CONTROL PLAN
KEY PROCESS INPUT
Eng ine M odel:
REVISION LETTER:
MEASURING SYSTEM
Index
PROCESS READINESS STUDY – Element 8
Allow suppliers to self-assess the
processes building UTC product to
ensure production readiness
Originally developed by PWC;
added Capacity Planning and FOD
Focus areas include:
Manufacturing Operation Sheets
Tooling
Gaging
Equipment & TPM
Control of Key Product Characteristics
(KPCs)
Control of Sub-tier Suppliers
Capacity Planning
Control of Foreign Object Debris (FOD)
Company Private 41
UTC AEROSPACE PPAP TOOL KIT
UTC Aerospace has created a “PPAP Kit” for use by internal plant sites and
suppliers
Contains all the forms required for submission
Includes instruction on the use of the forms
Fully compliant to ASQR-09.2, UTC PPAP specification
The UTC PPAP Tool Kit contains everything required for submission and is
available on the UTC Suppliers/Partners Portal at www.utc.com
Process Readiness
Study Assessment
PPAP 301
Training Package ASQR-09.2
PPAP Procedure Form Number: QC-0990.26
Revision: Initial Release
Date: 6/22/2011
Element UPPAP Element Criteria
Status
(N/A, Not
Started, In-
Process,
Completed)
Action Item(s)/Comments
A) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division drawings
& specifications?
B) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and specifications
released (i.e. signatures applied)?
C) Is producer working to correct drawing revisions, including all
detail drawings (e.g. casting, forging, other detail parts) as
indicated on the purchase order?
D) Validate if any Critical to Quality (CTQ) features called out.
A) Verify that any supplemental customer requirements (Purchase
Order, Quality or Engineering Notes/Documents) are incorporated
into producer and subtier manufacturing processes and documents.
B) Verify that the producer is working to the correct released
revision of any supplemental customer requirement documents as
specified on the Purchase Order (e.g. Quality or Engineering
Notes/Documents, other specifications).
A) Verify that the producer is working to a production purchase
order?
B) Verify that the sub-tier PO documents flow down any UTC
requirements per ASQR-01, ASQR-09.2 etc.
C) Does the UPPAP package have evidence that the producer
knows the latest demand schedule and is updating capacity and
manufacturing plans accordingly.
D) Is there evidence that the producer flows down the latest
demand schedule to subtier suppliers and is updating subtier
management plans accordingly.
Released Production Drawings
SPD/SMD and SI Sheets
NOTE: See Element Reference Card for UTC
divisional definitions.
Production PO and Demand Fullfillment
UTC PPAP2 ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
PPAP Checklist Objective Evidence
Package & Forms
UPPAP 301
UTC Production Part Approval Process
1
UTC WEBSITE
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
PPAP Deliverables
43
Series of documents
Gathered in a specific location, physical (binder) or electronic
(e.g., Visual IPI software) to create a "PPAP Objective
Evidence Package (OEP)“
PPAP OEP is formally approved by the supplier & HS
PPAP Approval Submission (Form 1) summarizes its 19
elements
A PPAP OEP approval means that
The supplier has reviewed and approved the evidence collected and
HS has not identified any issues that prevent its approval
WHAT DOES PPAP LOOK LIKE? Keeping Evidence
44
Process o r Part N o : M OS / A FS
R ev. Level:Planning g roup: Orig inat o r: ISSU E D A TE:
Key Product
Characteristic
KPCD / KPCM / KPCA KEY PROCESS OUTPUT OPER. NUM .SEQ.
NUM BER
CONT.
CHART
TYPE
SAM P.
SIZE
SAM P.
FREQ.
BASELINE
CP
BASELINE
CPKTYPE OF GAUGE CAPABILITY (%)
PROCESS
PARAM ETER
SETTING
CONTROL M ETHOD REACTION PLAN
Pro-Cert analyst
approval:
DATE
:
KEY PROCESS PARAM ETERS
KEY PROCESS OUTPUT
KEY CHARACTERISTIC CONTROL PLAN
KEY PROCESS INPUT
Eng ine M odel:
REVISION LETTER:
MEASURING SYSTEM
Index
SUBMISSION LEVELS Determined based on risk using Decision Tree Tool
Level Submitted documentation Reviewed
at
1 PPAP Approval form only HS
2 PPAP Approval form with limited
supporting data HS
3 PPAP Approval form with
complete supporting data HS
4 PPAP Approval form with
complete supporting data
Supplier’s
location
45
PPAP ELEMENT EXEMPTION DECISION TREE
Special
Processes for
this Part?
No
Element
14
Exemption
Member
Drawing
Defined Raw
Material?
Element 16
Exemption
No
Member-
Approved
Required for
Purchased
Material ?
Element
15a
Exemption
No
No
ESA Required?
Element
11
Exemption
Product
Verification
Testing
Supplier
Design?
No
Element
13
Exemption
Element
15b
Exemption
Element
4
Exemption
Raw
Material
Source
DFMEA
PPAP Required
Not all PPAP Elements may apply for a specific part.
Use PPAP Element Exemption Decision Tree to determine which elements will apply and which ones will not.
PPAP SUBMISSION STATUS & DISPOSITION ASQR-09.2 Interim Classes Pending Full Approval
Interim
class Characteristics & deviation type
Examples (situations or
missing evidence)
A 100% production tooling. Meet all drawing & specifications
Not all production approval requirements are met
Incomplete capability studies
Drawing changes desired
B 100% production tooling
Require reprocess / rework to meet all drawing & specifications
Temporary operations duly
documented
C Meet all drawing & specifications
Produced using non-production tooling and/or process
Temporary manufacturing
operation/detail source
D Do not meet all drawing & specifications
Parts can be considered salable
Deviations still exist
Plan to address deviations in place
E Do not meet all drawing & specifications
Parts cannot be considered salable Any unacceptable situation
Process is kept in the radar until all requirements are met
47
(CAD)
PPAP CHANGE NOTIFICATION ASQR-09.2 Form 2 - Criteria for submission
The supplier shall notify the member using the UPPAP
Notification, ASQR-09.2 Form 2 when any situation
described below occurs.
Ownership changes (of the Supplier).
A change in design.
A change in manufacturing source(s), process(s),
inspection method(s), locations of manufacture, tooling
or materials.
A change in numerical control program or translation to
another media.
A natural or man-made event, which may adversely
affect a manufacturing process.
A lapse in production for two years or as specified by the
customer. 48
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
IMPLEMENTATION
49
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
IMPLEMENTATION
50
Implementation requires using:
Standard work
Standard forms
Standard procedures
PPAP will not be effectively implemented without good, solid
standard work. Just like arithmetic, you need to follow the standard
procedure as it was intended. No Ma & Pa Kettle Math here!
Click for Video
MILESTONE 1Definition
MILESTONE 2Execution
MILESTONE 3Validation
MILESTONE 4Approval
PW PPAP MILESTONE SUMMARY
MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 1
MILESTONE 1
Definition
MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 1 MILESTONE 1
MILESTONE 1 Definition
• Define PPAP parts
• Define PPAP elements
• Define PPAP levels
• Document Quality
requirements
• Flow-down PO/WO to
producer
Industry Std Part?
New Part
Existing Production
or Legacy Part
High Risk Suppliers?
CAT1,
Partner or
Design
Authority
Supplier?
Signif icant CL1 EC?
Signif icant Escape?
High Risk Source
Transition?
High Risk Cold Start?
Does the part meet any
of the below criteria?
Cost Model
Requirement?
F Review
Requirement?
Historical Part Family
Quality/Delivery/Cost
Issues?
New Technology?
ESW-DFMEA Reqmt,
CTQ or Prime
Reliable Part?
PPAP not applicable
PPAP is applicable
Level 3 Submission
PPAP is applicable
Level 4 Submission
PPAP is applicable
Level 1 Submission
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
Forecasted Volume
Exceeds XXX in next
3 years+?
yes
yesPPAP not applicable
no
VCAB
and/or
Program
Quality
decision to
apply based
on need
yes
yes
MILESTONE 3 MILESTONE 3 MILESTONE 3
MILESTONE 3 MILESTONE 3
MILESTONE 3 MILESTONE 3
MILESTONE 3 Validation
• Producer provides
initial element evidence
• MFP determines gaps;
provides feedback
to producer
• Producer re-submits
updated documentation
• Repeat as necessary
• Producer assembles
full package for review
MILESTONE 4 MILESTONE 4 MILESTONE 4
MILESTONE 4 MILESTONE 4
MILESTONE 4 MILESTONE 4
MILESTONE 4 Approval
• Review/approval of
completed package
• PW & producer sign
Form 1 Warrant
• Close interim approval
action items; resubmit
for full approval.
• Update PPAP database
MILESTONE 2 MILESTONE 2 MILESTONE 2
MILESTONE 2 MILESTONE 2
MILESTONE 2 MILESTONE 2
MILESTONE 2 Execution
• MFP contacts producer
• Conduct PPAP training
• Establish & document
timeline
• Producer works to
complete elements
Process Readiness
Study Assessment
PPAP 301
Training PackageASQR-09.2
PPAP ProcedureForm Number: QC-0990.26
Revision: Initial Release
Date: 6/22/2011
Element UPPAP Element Criteria
Status
(N/A, Not
Started, In-
Process,
Completed)
Action Item(s)/Comments
A) Does producer have access to applicable UTC division drawings
& specifications?
B) Is top level and sub-level (BOM) drawings and specifications
released (i.e. signatures applied)?
C) Is producer working to correct drawing revisions, including all
detail drawings (e.g. casting, forging, other detail parts) as
indicated on the purchase order?
D) Validate if any Critical to Quality (CTQ) features called out.
A) Verify that any supplemental customer requirements (Purchase
Order, Quality or Engineering Notes/Documents) are incorporated
into producer and subtier manufacturing processes and documents.
B) Verify that the producer is working to the correct released
revision of any supplemental customer requirement documents as
specified on the Purchase Order (e.g. Quality or Engineering
Notes/Documents, other specifications).
A) Verify that the producer is working to a production purchase
order?
B) Verify that the sub-tier PO documents flow down any UTC
requirements per ASQR-01, ASQR-09.2 etc.
C) Does the UPPAP package have evidence that the producer
knows the latest demand schedule and is updating capacity and
manufacturing plans accordingly.
D) Is there evidence that the producer flows down the latest
demand schedule to subtier suppliers and is updating subtier
management plans accordingly.
Released Production Drawings
SPD/SMD and SI Sheets
NOTE: See Element Reference Card for UTC
divisional definitions.
Production PO and Demand Fullfillment
UTC PPAP2 ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
PPAP Checklist Objective Evidence
Package & Forms
UPPAP 301
UTC Production Part Approval Process
1
PPAP WEBSITE – Pratt & Whitney
PPAP SUMMARY Key take aways
PPAP being implemented to reduce infant mortality escapes
Upfront validation and verification of critical part processes will enable production
readiness
HS Customers 100% behind this effort and pushing it
Recent new program experience suggest this action to implement PPAP is very
appropriate
PPAP will be driven by ASQR-09.2 via purchase order
Target date to go live is July 1st, 2011
HS Supplier Quality Assurance still working the implementation details but will
certainly provide suppliers required support
53
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
QUESTIONS?
54
“PPAP in Aerospace”, by P. Teti, ASQ Hartford Monthly Meeting, April 12, 2012
BACK-UP
55
Company Private
PROCESS CERTIFICATION - HS • Applied to HS drawings & specifications per HSC16199
• HSM17 now provides specific instructions to DQR relative to Process Certification compliance
• Suppliers must control KPCs using Statistical Process Control (SPC)
• Suppliers must enter compliance data into HS Process Certification Database available on HS Supplier Portal
General Characteristic Information
Key Process Inputs
Gage Capability Information
Initial Process Capability Results
Milestone Tracking
Supplier KPC Requirements
• Documented Process Control Plan
• Completed Gage Capability Study
• SPC Data Collection at Operator Workstation
• Control Charts filled out by Operator
• Calculated Process Capability Indexes
• Action Plan to improve KPCs with Low Cpk
99.73%
95.46%
68.26%
X-3S -2S -1S +1S +2S +3S
.0214 .1360 .3413.3413 .1360 .0214
99.73%
95.46%
68.26%
X-3S -2S -1S +1S +2S +3S
.0214 .1360 .3413.3413 .1360 .0214 GOAL: Achieve Milestone IV – “Certified Process” 56
Company Private HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON THIS PAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE NOTICE OF
RESTRICTIONS ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS DOCUMENT.
THIS DOCUMENT OR FILE CONTAINS NO TECHNICAL DATA. ECCN: EAR99
CAPACITY ANALYSIS REVIEW
• Recently developed to support Rate Readiness Reviews
• A tool to assess current & future capacity
• Conducted to assure ability to meet a ramp-up in schedule
• Used to identify potential and existing over-capacity situations
• Develop risk mitigation plans to address over-capacity situations
Year QuarterLoad (hrs)
Load
(%)Load (hrs)
Load
(%)
Q1 58.034 16.5% 102.638 31.1%
Q2 84.374 24.0% 148.420 45.0%
Q3 79.406 22.6% 139.457 42.3%
Q4 94.116 26.7% 164.580 49.9%
Overall 315.930 22.4% 555.095 42.1%
Q1 99.534 28.3% 173.714 52.6%
Q2 149.060 42.3% 258.803 78.4%
Q3 181.680 51.6% 313.888 95.1%
Q4 189.123 53.7% 327.369 99.2%
Overall 619.397 44.0% 1073.774 81.3%
Q1 174.110 49.5% 302.449 91.7%
Q2 154.616 43.9% 269.219 81.6%
Q3 112.168 31.9% 195.636 59.3%
Q4 92.986 26.4% 162.484 49.2%
Overall 533.880 37.9% 929.789 70.4%
2010
Machine Name
2011
2012
Lathe Grinder
Lathe Grinder Hone Polish
Working days 220 220 220 220
Number of machines 1 1 1 3
Number of hours per day 8 8 8 8
Hours available 1408 1320 1531.2 4488
Efficiency 80% 75% 87% 85%
Variance to Process Std
Set-up 10% 15% 10% 10%
Experimental /
Downtime 5% 5% 1% 5%
Scrap/rework 5% 5% 2% 0%
Tool proving
Waiting (Quality authonomy)
Operator not available
Non Value Added Labor 20.0% 25.0% 13.0% 15.0%
Resource
No. Open A/I: 0
No. Closed A/I: 0
No. Overdue A/I: 0
Total A/I: 0
Item No.
Machine/
Process Step
Over Capacity
Projected
Year
Projected
Quarter
Action Item(s) to Eliminate
Over Capacity Situation
Person
ResponsibleDue Date Status
Date
Closed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Over Capacity Action Plan
57
CAT Tool training package
and spreadsheet available at:
www.hssupplierportal.com
Click on “Help” tab
Click on “Quality MPR”