7 Quality Basics in Development PDF

7 Quality Basics in Development
FRASER – June 17th, 2011

Opening Comments
Jean-Michel RENAUDIE
FRASER – June 17th, 2011
Introduction
Ken SATO
One reminder
Please switch off your

mobile phone and
close your laptop
Property of Faurecia - Duplication prohibited
4
Breakthrough Quality Plan
"Breakthrough Quality Plan" start from Oct.1, 2006

• Practical instead of conceptual
• Preventive action instead of fire-fighting
Customer
Quality
Development Quality
Production Quality
Supplier Quality
Breakthrough !!
FES Quality
( 7 Quality Basics !!
in Production & Development )
5
2008
0 S/R Alert
15 Customer PPM
The plan does not introduce any

new tools ………aims to build a
new « quality mindset »
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 … 6
From 6 Quality Basics
to 7 Quality Basics in Production
Quality
Variability Reduction
Standardized
Work
5S 7 Quality Basics
N° Check point By Frequency Criteria If not OK
1 Deformation Visual 100% OK - NOK sample Repair
2 Dimension A Micrometer 1/120 +0,2 mm Scrap
3 Dimension B Gauge 100% Go - No go gauge Scrap
4 ... ... ... ... ...
5 ... .. ... ... ...
6 ... .... ... ... ...
7 ... ... ... ... ...
8 ... ... ... ... ...
9 ... ... ... ... ...
10 ... ... ... ... ...
Supplier Partnership 1
5
4 7 8
1
2
Quality Employee Empowerment 3 9 60
Wall
QRCI
Final Self Red Rework Poka OK Quick Response

Inspection -Inspection Bins under Control Yoke 1st piece Quality Control
Includes Stop at Defect 7

Includes Temporary Quality Wall
Program Functional Milestones,

QRCI Program Steering Committee
and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated
Strict Control Engineering

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
8
Mandatory Program Deliverables
CUSTOMER
CUSTOMER PROGRAM CUSTOMER PRODUCTION START OF END OF
INQUIRY AWARD TOOL RELEASE PART APPROVAL PRODUCTION PRODUCTION
Program
Go/No Go Target Program GR 1 GR 2A CAR Approval GR 2B GR 3 GR 4
Review Quote Review
Quality Target Study * Quality Management Plan Gauges requirements * Initial Samples Submitted to Customer * I.S. for additional capacity
Quality Prototype control plan Prototype control plan implemented *
Pre Production control plan Pre Production control plan implemented * Production Control Plan *
Human
Resources Program Teams staffed Plant Start-up team planned Product support team staffed
Program internal contract Detailed SOW Make or Buy finalized (Subcontractors) Lessons Learned *
(program objectives)
Program Master schedule * Prototype build plan CAR approved Pre-series build plan Activities during ramp-up *
Management Control of
Single List of Issues in place Single List of Issues managed * S/R concerns solved (SLI) * process &
design
ECM for development In place ECM for pre-series & series in place change *
Finance Initial Business Plan Actual BP Actual BP
Customer Contract Agreed prototype prices Agreed tool & pre-series & series prices Updated series price with PO
Sales
Prototypes paid Pre-series parts paid Outstanding payments
Initial product concept Product definition for DV * Product definition freeze*
Design FMEA * Design FMEA Actions implemented

Product
Engineering Key characteristics * BOPs definition released
Design Validation Plan * DVP test results successful Production Validation test results successful *
Prototypes approved
Initial process concept Process definition Process definition released Mass Production Trial Run @ Rate * EMPT Run @ Rate
Process FMEA Process FMEA * actions launched Process flow realized *
Manufac- Prel. Manufacturing footprint Facilities / Footprint specifications Facilities definition released
turing
Initial equipment concept Production System definition Equipment & tooling specs * released Production process Instruction *
Logistic& Packaging definitions released * Logistic & packaging in place *

Initial supply chain concept
(internal/external MIFD*) Initial process capability study plan * Process capability achieved *
Purchasing Expert suppliers contracts signed Designers suppliers contracts signed BOPs, tools, gauges, equipment ordered Supplier PPAP *
5 Series
1 ACQUISITION 2A DESIGN 2B DESIGN VERIFICATION 3 PRODUCTION SET-UP 4 LAUNCH PRODUCTION
V1.0
9
PDCA in Program
• Background: Bad launches come from bad execution of:

• Costing,
Need to audit not
• Engineering key deliverables
• Quality deliverables etc…
only on Quality
• Today Quality responsible in program for:
• Training
• Audit FES Program audit
Action Plan
Reaction to Audit & <Teacher>
Feedback to standard Standardization & Training (coaching)
7 Quality basics in Dev - FES School
Check Do
<Policeman> Implementation
Audit Excellent Program Plan
FES Program Audit KPI - Reporting System
10
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
11
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.
12
Example: results summary
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)
100%
76% 77% 72%
80%
70%
53%
PROCESS 60%
INDICATOR
40%
20%
0%
TOTAL PROG PROD PROC COST
13
Example of “Bad” answer for “Program Quote Review”
14
Example of “Good” answer for “Program Quote Review”
15
15 items of "Good & Bad answers on Faurecia
Intranet through PMS Portal →Good&Bad examples
PMS Portal
Intranet
Bad Answer
Asnwer for Program Quote review
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 Good Answer for Program Quote Review
Example of “Good” answer for “Program Quote Review”
Price estimation with assumptions “ Do you organize internal“ Program Quote Review” with your top
managements before RFQA submission to customer ”?
base-price add. Value VW 250 AU353 AU210
expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €

RFQA submission with top managements approval by clear presentat
ion
base-price add. Value VW 250 AU353 AU210
First BP Sittard Price estimation with assumptions
expected Target 90,00 € 120,00 € 90,00 €
acc. group values 120,00 € 170,00 € tbd
(3,7% SG&A)
Description of vehicule & targeted business Targeted business AU353 VW250 AU210 comments
long distance JIT price Brussels 107,00 € 155,80 Audi

€ A3 n.a.
Complete Seat targeted from
Sittardor long distance JIT
OEM: Audi AG Market Code: AU353
Metal incl. Mechanisms
Current Production (Faurecia) Front seats PQ35 PQ25 PQ25 COP
location: Neuburg (Germany)
Rear seats AU350 PQ25 PQ25 Magna-Intier /Sitech
SOP: 2004 EOP: 2011
Prod. Volume total: 770.000
Customer decision making timeline Turnover 136.180 k€

RFQ First Expected OI 6.918€ 5,0%
IRR 70,30%
Offer Award
Business plan CAPEX 1.361 k€
Competitor study CS
w 18/07 w 22/07 w 34/07 (OI,IRR)
R&D
Tooling
300 k€cash payment
200 k€ cash payment
Polo / A3
will be
market position Comments
Launch cost 943 k€
competitor on
CS
- JCI is very aggressive because they
w 20/07 w 24/07 w 34/07
A1
want to cover the lost Golf business
Risks analysis
! JCI
JCI - CS
Brussels
- JCI is current supplier of VW
- Audi requests to keep the current

The TOP Risks, if we are awarded
Capacities for additional AU210 project is not part of Faurecia

supplier-structure --> no JCI business
- no signals for aggressive behaviour
Lear
Lear - CS
due to low volume MTP and target low in TBL
- generally very agressive behaviour
Intier
Intier - CS - but not appreciate due to bad R&D
performance and to low volume
problems in long-distance JIT concept (120kmSittard
Sitech
Sitech - CS
- no signals for aggressive behaviour Brussels)
due to low volume
Higher requirements on quality than Mitsubishi Colt

excellent good average limited
16
Results (Image)
better
100%
Result Indicators Program Z A: Excellent
1
80%
X
•FR1t
2
•Red Alert S/R B: Satisfactory
•Warranty 60%
•PPM Program Y C: Marginal ok
3
•Customer Quality indicators 40%
X
•Misdeliveries
•IRR D: Not ok
•Operating Income
4
0%
d c b a better
0% 60% 70% 80% 100%
Process Indicators
(Checked by FES program audit)

•Program Management
•Product Validation
•Process validation
•Cost Management
5 Mandatory Rules added to the 15 existing MRs
18
5 Mandatory Rules added to the 15 existing MRs
19
Form
Machine Evaluation
20
2. 2011 Plan
21
Overall 2011 Plan
3 Programs after GR3, GR2b and GR1

2 days per site => 93 programs
Méru
Brieres
System audits 100
100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0
GR1 GR2 GR3 Toledo Shanghaï 0
GR1 GR2 GR3

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
GR1 GR2 GR3 GR1 GR2 GR3
22
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
23
2010 Certified Auditors
Netwk PG Name Certified Netwk PG Name Certified

SATO Kiichiro Yes FAS DUDDLES Mark Yes
Group
SOULA Paul-Louis Yes KERSUZAN Olivier
FAS YGOUT Jacques HAWLEY Brian
US FIS
OBERHAUS Serena
FIS BROGNIART Eric
PMS CANIVAL J. Sebastien HACK Thomas
FECT
FECT MAJCHROWICZ Christian 1 MURRAY Todd 2
FAE ROTHAN Marie-Noelle 2 FIS OLIVEIRA Clodoaldo
KLINGAUF Lutz Brazil FAS VILLARINHO Elessandra
FECT
KUSIAK Jacek
FAS-FIS LI Li
FAS THURET Gauthier
GIELATA Pawel
China FECT
LEE YW
GAO FENG Eva
MESNARD Pierre Yes

Program KWIATKOWSKI Frank Yes
Quality FIS LACOUX Philippe 1
BECKER Rolf 1
MANSKE Carsten Legend:

FECT REBOURS Olivier 1 1: Only for GR1
JACQUOT Eric Yes 2: For GR1 and 2
FAE PATA Martial
24
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
25

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization Let’s start! Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
26
Capitalization & Transversalization
Ken SATO

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
28
Examples
29
2.1 Example (Blockage 1.1)
- Mistake the connection of - Risk the immobility of

harness the vehicle due to the
Bad Terminal (A)
problem of injection
Harness (2.5mm) pump
Same Same
color size
Harness (0.5mm)
Terminal (B)
• Check similar problem

OK
Terminal (A) of all harness
Harness (0.5mm) - Same size of terminals

- Same color of harness
Harness (2.5mm)
Terminal (B) 30
• Ask to check, not only exact same problem, but also similar potential risk
- Found 11 exact same problems & 45 similar problems and took
countermeasure
- Capitalization : Change “Design Standard”
- Transversalization : Apply all same products (programs, plants)
C ar m aker U n it H a rn e s s T y p e o f p ro b l e m C o u n te rm e a s u re D a te
1 2 3 4 5 6
a OK OK OK B ad OK OK
A b B ad
c B ad
R E NA ULT d OK
B ... ... ... ...

C ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ...
31
• Mistake of parts drawing, • Heater of seat doesn’t work

after design change properly
Over heat
= Bad
No heat
SEAT
= OK
• Standardize the validation
process after design change
- Capitalization : Validation Process Standard for Design Change

- Transversalization : Apply to all programs (products, plants)
Design Review by
past quality concerns
Not OK
Design Check
Supplier Change Design Validation Production Validation
Validation for for
Parts Mass production
design the trial parts
OK OK OK
delivery
Design
Renault change Parts submission Good
ANPQP warrant parts
Request
&
Capitalization
Transversalization
34
Turning PDCA for Capitalization & Transversalization
Lessons Learned is source of Standards
>Each function department is accountable of Lessons Learned in its respective area
1. Group Quality 2. Program Quality
1-A 1-B 2-D Program
Program Management
Management System
System
(Lessons Learned )
Standard
System Standard
Acquisition Design Validation Production

Tools
Quality System
2-A Design
Design Standard
Standard
(Lessons
2-B Process
Process Engineering
Engineering Manual
Manual
Quality
2-C Supplier
Supplier Management
Management System
System
3. Customer Quality (Lessons Learned )

3-A Customer
Customer Quality
Quality Standard
Standard
3-B Customer
Customer PPM
PPM Data
Data base
base (8D)
(8D)
3-C S
S&&R
R Alert
Alert // Warranty
Warranty Data
Data base
base (8D)
(8D) 35
8D and Lessons learned
8D – problem solving report for Quality
D1. Description & Sketch _

D2. Risk on similar products and _
processes
D3. Containment In 1 day
D4. Root cause of non detection _
D5. Root cause of non _
conformance
D6. Countermeasure to non In 10 working
detection and non conformance days
D7. Effectiveness of action plan _
D8. Lessons learned In 60 working
days
> 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
36
Lessons Learned: Practice
<4 Key points for Before/After>

1).Need picture, drawing or photo
2).Need quantitative value
3).<After> needs to prevent same or similar
problem beforehand
4).Need to understand easily even by your
wife, husband (or partner)
All BGs use the Spider System

under names of LOLA,
I-Know & Knowledge Mgt
37
Lessons Learned: 2 examples
LESSON LEARNED SHEET LESSON LEARNED SHEET

Application date : 08/02/2006 Application date : 8.05.2006
BG/Div/Site: SMPG /Frames-Div. / Geiselhöring Detection Logistics BG/Div/Site: SMPG, Wałbrzych Frames Detection Logistics
Type
Type
UAP/Line: UAP 1 / AU 716 Occurrence Internal UAP/Line: Wojciech Mazgis Occurrence Internal
Author : Willibald Dimpfl Management Suppliers Author : Wojciech Mazgis Management Suppliers
WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? (5W + 2H) WHAT IS THE CAUSE? WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? (5W + 2H) WHAT IS THE CAUSE?
What happened? Buckling of Boomerang door- and tunnelside What happened? Sensors NOK, Uncontrolled resetting
ECE-R14 test on rear seat 2nd row high variante NOK on fixed All materials inside drawing specifications Gap between side member and crossmember
Why it is a problem? Materials in N.O.K validation ca. 10%-15% weaker Why it is a problem?
The side members (bumerang) were deformed under laod Seat is on the borderline between dynamic and static requirements Wrong position of parts
and so that horizontal displacement of the H-point was not - When did it happen ?
meeting specification Parameters of materials are changing 4.11.2005
When did it happen ? - Who has detected it ?
Jan 24th 06 Boomerang must absorb the energy in crash test Customer JCI Geel
Who has detected it ? - Where has it been detected ?
SDS Validation Stadthagen and Design Engineering DIN allowed these changes At Customer site
Where has it been detected ? How has it been detected?
Faurecia Stadthagen / Validation Boomerang must be weak to fullfill the dynamic specification Visually
How has it been detected? How many ?
ECE-R14 test 1 piece
How many ? BEFORE AFTER
1 part Workstation could have been reset by conventional key by Workstation can be reset only by electronic key which cannot be
BEFORE AFTER anyone who copied it. copied without controll.
Bucket position sensor allowes to start process even when Bucket position sensor allowes to start process only when position
was out of order OK.
Possible uncontrolled unscrew operation (quick rework) Unscrew operation not possible. This function is blocked in
screwdriver.
ET
4448124 A
ZSB
4448718 A
without additional wire with additional wire WHAT WE LEARNED

CONTROL POINT
WHAT WE LEARNED FACTOR STANDARD / REACTION RULES
(What to do?, how?, when?, who?)
CONTROL POINT
FACTOR STANDARD / REACTION RULES
(What to do?, how?, when?, who?)
NOK procedure audit for every employee

"Confirm'"is when bad part is proceed by
Every 3 months
what: SDS Validation Stadthagen operator according NOK procedure
Following NOK procedure countinously Done by Quality Inspector
how: ECE-R14 test "Not Confirm" is when it is not proceed
Relevant factors of ECE-R14 test Confirmed in Training Records
when: see crash-test schedule result crash test (COP) acurately
who: SDS Validation Stadthagen
Potential Applicability Potential Applicability

Plant: UAP 1 AU 716 2nd row Plant: Aplicable
Division: Plant Geiselhöring Division: N/A
BG's/Group: SMPG / Frames / Plant Geiselhöring BG's/Group: N/A
38
FAS
39
FIS
40
7 Quality basics in Development Evaluation form
NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________
Value added of
the module Comments
1 2 3 4
Introduction
Capitalization &
Transversalisation
Key Characteristics
FMEA
Evaluation Form
Strict control plans
to fill in
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:
41
Key Characteristics &

Strict Control Plans
Victor GARCIA PARRA


and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
43
Key Characteristics
Agenda
How to manage Key characteristics 20 mn

How to build a Control Plan 20 mn
Workshop 25 mn
Debriefing 5mn
44
Introduction
Critical dimension “X” = S/R = 1

Which dimension is critical as well? => A, B, C, D or All ?
A±a B±b C±c D±d
“Sub-Assy”
X±y 1
“Slide”
45
Introduction
For an appropriate answer => apply Key Characteristics Management:
• Objective: determine which dimensions are critical and which have

to be kept under control!
• Use Tolerance Chain Management (TCM)
X±y 1
A±a B±b C±c D±d
“Assy”
46
Introduction
Reality is more complex
47
Objectives
• 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
A±a B±b C±c D±d
48
How to manage “Key Characteristics”
• Understand interactions between product and

process characteristics.
• Know guidelines to minimize the initial control size.
• Implement 3 step process to define & monitor Key

Characteristics.
49


Characteristics.
50
Product & Process Characteristics
Key Product Product

Characteristics Characteristic
Product KPC which affects
Characteristics
Non-Key 1 2
Product
Characteristics
Characteristics
Key Control * Process

Characteristics Characteristic
KCC which affects
Process
Characteristics 1 2
Non-Key Control
Characteristics
Need to be controlled
to ensure minimized
variation of product
characteristics
* “Key Process Characteristics” = “Key Control Characteristics” / KCC 51

Interactions between KPC & KCCs
CAUSE EFFECT
Material Method Manpower
KCC
KCC
KCC KCC KCC
KCC
KPC
KCC
KCC KCC
Machine Measure Environment

Many KCCs
Once KCCs
Ongoing
Control factors
ofcontrol
KCCs
are of can
willKPC
defined affect
is
ensure
and in aplace,
required
that KPC
theifvariation
KCCs are
of not
KPC checks determined
themay
related
be
reduced
KPC is minimized
=> e.g. and performed
changes during
in material candesign
affect or
theproduction
KPC validation
52
CAUSE EFFECT
Suspension
Deflection Qualified Training
Cushion foam Inspection operator

density measurement
Test Protocol Humidity

KPC
Mannequin H - Point
Metrology
hard & Conditioning
software
V
Machine Measure Environment Y

E
M
P
C
Example : H-Point / Seat H

Ch
D 53
S


Characteristics.
54
Guidelines to minimize control size
3.2.
1.KPC
KPCwhich
which can
is validated
needs
“Control ofbetocontrolled
and fulfill
be controlled
Process automatically
the requirements
regularly
Characteristics through
( because
KCC) inits
will DV
KCC
there &isPV
ensure because
no related
(e.g.
that the ECE,
The series control size of KPC can be reduced or eliminated along the
• KCC
FMVSS, etc) can
or Poka-Yoke beof
variation reduced
in place.
the to
Thezero or few
control numbers
issize of the
hascontrolled)
tominimized”
be “Continuous
defined
Its process
development is stable
phases asProduct
(process Characteristics
variation
following: under is
ComplianceisTesting”
• accordingly.
Poka-Yoke in placeRequirements
Design Verification Pre-Series/

KPC Series Production
KPC
KPC KPC
KPC KPC KPC
KPC Series
Initial KPC KCC
Control PMS KPC KPC KCC KCC KCC Control
KCC KPC KPC
KCC
Size KCC Size
KPC KPC
KCC KPC
Non Conformity Cost = ppm x called

Customer’s
called volume volume
55


Characteristics.
56
3 step process
Customer Program Customer
Customer
production SOP
Inquiry award tool release part approval
1 G R 1: Designate KPCs
Step1 2 a&b GR 2 3 INPUTG R 3 4 GR 4 5
KPC’s list
Management decisions
DRAWINGS Cust. requirements (CtC)
S Warranty data
R INVESTMENT
GO / NO GO QUOTATION PROGRAM
KPC APPROVAL
Suppliers concerns
DECISION CONFIRMATION
FIT
FUNCTION
SPECS
OUTPUT
Non-KPCs Control Plans
Process Flow Diagram
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
Record KPCs
Record KCCs
Responsible: R&D Engineer

Support: Program/Acquisition Manager, PQL, Buyer,
Supplier, Quality, Sales, Product Manager
Recommended
PRODUCT & PROCESS Tools: FA, D-FMEA,
PRODUCTION SET- UP TCM, FEA SERIES
PROPOSAL & PRE-SERIES LAUNCH
DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMEN T
C.t.C = Critical to customer lists, TCM = Tolerance Chain Management, FEA = Finite Element Analysis
PRODUCTION
57
Max 2 Months Min 3 Months Max 6 Months
3 step process
Customer
production SOP
1 2 a&b
G R 1 Step1 : Designate KPCsG R 2 3 Step2 : Monitor KPCs,KCCs
GR 3 4 GR 4 5
KCC KCC KCC
Management decisions
DRAWINGS
S KP
R INVESTMENT
C
KPC APPROVAL
DECISION CONFIRMATION
FIT KCC KCC KCC

FUNCTION Cause Effect
SPECS
Non-KPCs
Input Output
PROCESS CONTROL PLAN
KPC KCC CONTROL

S/R list Control Plans

Fit & Function list Process Flow
Product Drawings Diagram
Industrial Drawings Record KPCs
Product Specs. Record KCCs
Responsible : PQL
Support : Program Manager, Supplier Quality, Validation Engineer, Proto
Lab, Plant Quality, R&D, Process Pilot, Plant Launch team (Launch Mgr.)
Recommended Tools: P-FMEA, Process Flow Diagram, Control Plan, DoE,

PRODUCT
Cause-Effect & PROCESS
Diagram, PRODUCTION SET- UP
Pareto Analysis, Capability Study SERIES
PROPOSAL & PRE-SERIES LAUNCH
DEVELOPMEN T PRODUCTION
DoE = Design of Experiment 58
Action steps along PMS
Customer
production SOP
Step2 : Monitor KPCs,KCCs
Step1 : Designate KPCs
KCC KCC KCC
1 GR 1 S
R
2 a&bDRAWINGS
GR 2 3
Step2 : Plan & Apply control
GR 3
KP
4 GR 4 5
Step1 : Designate KPCs 1st :Designate KPCs duringC the
KPC system KPCs,KCCs ph.1 & 2
FIT KCC
- KCCDesign KCC team collects input data/Lessons learned
Management decisions KCC KCC KCC
FUNCTION Caus Effect
SPECS
DRAWINGS
INVESTMENT e
of relevant characteristics, e.g. customer KPC list,
Non-KPCs S PROCESS CONTROL KP
APPROVAL
Spec.,
CONFIRMATION R
DECISION PLAN C
KPC KP KCC.t.C,
CONTRO
Warranty, supplier concerns,…
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS KCCC C
KCC L
KCC
FIT - Define KPCs, Non-KPCs of designed product
FUNCTION Cause Effect
SPECS - Step3
The respective
: Improve program
KPCs,KCCs team members (R&D, PQL,
INPUT
Non-KPCs KPC
Buyer, …) controls
PROCESS CONTROL PLAN
Initial KCC
identify
KPC KCC KPC Series the S/R or Fit/Function
CP KPC KCC CONTROL
Control Plans
KCC
Process Flow KCC

VARIABLES CONTROL
CHART
Diagram Step3 : Improve KPCs,KCCs
OUTPUT
Record KPCs 2nd:Plan & Apply control systems
KPC
KPCs/KCCs during the
controls
Instructions
ph. 2 & 3
Initial KCC
Record KCCs - Reduction
Each KPC’s CP
KPC KCC KPC Series
related KCCs are determined (shown
of Variation Control records
in cause-effect
KCC
diagram)
VARIABLES CONTROL
- Planning ways to control KCCs or KPCs
3rd :Improve KCCs controls during the ph. 3&4 (&5) KCCif no related CHART
KCCs are
Responsible : Plant Launch Team Leader identified
(Launch Manager)
- Planning methods for reducing the
Support : Program
variation Manager,
within the targetedPlant
- Record the tests results (dimension, functional, …)
value Manager, PQL, Supplier Quality, Plant Quality, Process Pilot
- Monitoring the results
- Maintain/improve Reduction of Variation
Recommended Tools: DoE,
control planSPC,
size & DVP&R, P-FMEA, Control Plan, QRCI, QSE, R@R
frequency
PRODUCT & PROCESS PRODUCTION SET- UP SERIES
DoE = Design of Experiment, SPC = Statistical Process Control, DVP&R
PROPOSAL = Design Verification Plan & Report, LAUNCH
& PRE-SERIES
DEVELOPMEN T PRODUCTION
QRCI = Quick Reaction Quality Control, R@R = Run at Rate 59
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
60

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
61
Key Characteristics
Agenda
How to manage Key characteristics 20 mn

How to build a Control Plan 20 mn
Workshop 25 mn
Debriefing 5mn
62
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
63
Bad Control Plan can kill People!
Renault Vel Satis Root cause

Red alert NOK COP test 1. Why: IP insert broken
Field campaign 2. Why: Material brittel
Aug/2003:
3. Why: NOK glass fiber and PU rate

16 cars NOK/400 in the 4. Why: Not checked at OK first part
field.
5. Why: Not a KPC (absent in drawing & control plan)
64
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
65
Introduction: Control Plan Definition
• Written Description of Activities for Process Controlling

• List of Planned Tasks to be applied by Defined Responsible People
People
(Operators, GAP Leaders, Maintenance, Quality, Lab …) to ensure Product
Conformity
=> Who does what, when, where and why ?
• Control Plan lists all Process Parameters and Product Characteristics
Characteristics
that require Specific Quality Actions
⇒ 3 levels exist according to the Programs Phases
GR1 GR2A GR2B GR3 GR4

1 2B 3 4 5
2A
ACQUISITION DESIGN PRODUCTION LAUNCH PRODUCTION
DESIGN
VERIFICATION SET-UP
Prototype Pre- Production

Control Production Control
Plan Control Plan Plan 66
Prototype Control Plan Layout
Prototype Phases PT
Prototype Shop
100% 100% KC
Suppliers 0p 1 0p 2 0p 3 Visual Inspection Measurement Customer
100% Visual Inspection & Measurement Internal &

•100% Visual Inspection
•100% Measurement on of Key Characteristics @ Supplier & External
Key Characteristics Faurecia Locations Customer
Satisfaction
Complete Design Validation Plan
Initiate Production Validation Plan
67
Pre-Production Control Plan Layout
Target: achieve 15 Ppm &

PT 100% Efficiency @ SOP
Sorting of
Finished Goods
Manufacturing Plant on selected Key
Characteristics
Quality Wall
Incoming
Final
Goods 0p 1 0p 2 0p 3
Supplier Inspection Inspection Customer
Sorting of BOP
Quality Wall @ Supplier & Faurecia Internal &
on selected Key Locations External
Characteristics Incoming Goods Inspection Customer
Higher Frequency & Sampling Size on Satisfaction
Key Characteristics Monitoring

Quality Wall
Initiate SPC on Key Characteristics
Complete Production Validation Plan
S
No Non-Conformity on Critical Characteristics
R
allowed on Saleable Cars 68
Production Control Plan Layout
Target: achieve 15 Ppm &

100% Efficiency @ SOP
Manufacturing Plant
0p 1 0p 2 0p 3 Final
Inspection
Supplier Customer
Adjust Frequency & Sampling Size on
Internal &
BOP Key Characteristics monitoring
delivered in External
according to Product & Process
Self-Certification Customer
Variability
Status Satisfaction
Drive Continuous Improvement through
SPC on Key Characteristics

Product Audit
Lessons Learned to Programs
69
How to apply Control Plan ?
(Sample Check)
Clear decision rules
Process No Natural Process Limits

is stable Need 100% check for
Natural Process Limits

Key Control Characteristics
Yes
Could be checked by sampling
with basic rules:
<Rule 1> : Suspected lot must be checked <Rule 2> : SPC control with action rule
100% with traceability UPR limit
X ACTION !!
OK Lot Suspected 100% check Action limit
Lot X X
Time
OK OK OK Nominal
OK OK NOK
Action limit X
OK OK OK
LWR limit
70
How to apply Control Plan ? (Instructions Sheet)
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 ... ... ... ... ...
No Subjective Clear Decision Rules
5 ... ... ... ... ...
Criteria
6 ... ... ... ... ...
7 ... ... ... ... ...
8 ... ... ... ... ...
9 ... ... ... ... ...
10
Maxi
...
10 Points
...
to be Checked
...
per
...
Work Station
...
4 7
Pictures or Schemes5 8
to position the Criteria 10
1
2
9 6
3
71
Control Plan – Good Practices
Pre-Production CP
Reaction Rules
defined
Key Characteristics
defined with
Nominal + Tolerances
Higher Sampling
Production CP Size
72
Responsibilities
Actor Validator
Prototype Control
Product Development Leader
Plan + Program Quality Leader
Program Manager
Pre-
Pre-Production Program Manufacturing
Leader+ Program Quality Program Manager
Control Leader + Plant Manager
Plan Plant Quality Manager
Production Control Program Manufacturing Leader

Plant Manager
Plan + Plant Quality Manager
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”
73
How to write a control plan ?
General Information
Process parameters only:

-temperature
Product characteristics only: -pressure
-dimension,
-velocity
-appearance, -torque
-function,
Process / ToolsKPC KCC -part number

-force Checking / Monitoring
Reaction Rules
-handling
To be Monitored
Description -physical & chemical -positioning Methods
properties (temperature, fiber
-labeling
glass content, porosity, -scanning
crack, adhesion, etc.)
-packaging
-etc.
Poka-yoke identification nber 74
Workshop : Practical exemple (30’)
Built production control plan related to
shoot channel 8 nuts screwing
operation :
Documents provided:
Drawing
KPC/KCC Ishikawa diagram
DFMEA/PFMEA
SR fastening mandatory points
Blank control plan format
Share by table conclusions
75
Proposed answer
CAUSE EFFECT
Ergonomics
Backup
Stud Alloy Speed / Angle /
(tools angle,
procedure if overview, ...)
Torque ramp-up Training
Nut Alloy Poka Yoke programming
Inoperative method S/R rules
Self-locking Faurecia (eg : 2
remaining
Poka Yoke
nut P/N
part blocked at Torque & angle

threads
…)
/ stud KPC
Grease Torque
Torque Station Calibration
free
Screwdriver accuracy Maintenance Torque range Dirt or painting (6+/-1
in acc. with torque. free
Nm)
Machine Measure Environment
Example : Chute channel assembly

to Airbag Flap Reinforcement
76
T5 Airbag shoot channel assembly
control plan
Key Contact / Telephone Signature (Quality) Date (Original) Date (Revision)

Prototype Pre-launch Production Demmy Yoosuf / 0044 7787 12/03/03 17/03/2005
516731
Part Number / Latest Change Level Core Team D. Yoosuf, T. Giraud, L. David, Richard Customer Engineering Approval / Date (If Required)
28/11/03
FAB500150XXX (LHD NoNav), FAB500140XXX (RHD NoNav) Cornick Stephane Beaupere, Michael Levasseur, Fadel
FAB500160XXX (RHD Nav), FAB500170XXX (LHD Nav) Wade, , Manuel Ventura, Dave Herrington
Part Name / Discription Supplier / Plant Approval / Date Customer Quality Approval / Date (If Required)
TOPPER PAD ASSY NO NA V & NO NAV LH&RH 28/11/03
Supplier / Plant Supplier Code Other Approval / Date (If Required) Other Approval / Date (If Required)
Faurecia / FRADLEY CXVNA
Characteristics Sample
Part/ Process Name/ Machine, Device Specia Product / Process Evaluation/ Control Reactio Resp.
Process Operation Description Jig, Tools for Mfg. Char. Specifications / Tolerance Measurement Method Plan
Number No. Product Process Size Frequence
Class. Technique
77
T5 Airbag chute channel assembly
control plan
300 Assembly Line - Post-Welding
a) Follow Poka Yoke validation

Instruction a) Inform GAP Leader & Supervisor if
Screw driver with
Fixation of Airbag Chute to Georges Renault Driver b) Record results on Poka Yoke Poke Yoke system fails.
300 1 - Torque CC 6NM +/- 1NM inbuilt torque 1 Shift Start Up
Topper Pad Assembly System validation record sheet b) Inform maintenance to rectify
transducer
c) Record on start up sheet set & actual problem.
torque for 1st off part
a) Inform GAP Leader & Supervisor if

Poke Yoke system fails part.
Screw driver with b) Inform maintenance to rectify
Fixation of Airbag Chute to Georges Renault Driver
300 2 - Torque CC 6NM +/- 1NM inbuilt torque 1 Every Part a) Automated check. problem.
Topper Pad Assembly System
transducer c) Backup driver to be used if original
cannot be repaired otherwise stop
production.
Airbag Chute Recorded

Critical components
Batch, Chute electronically or a) Follow Standard Operation a) Record batch information on manual
310 Traceability Recording Scanner, Manual backup 3 - CC are traceable to 1 Every Part
fixation nuts manually held FIS-F-PS-241/EN V2 traceability sheets.
manufacturing batch
batch number logs
…and additionally , electrical fastener initial torque calibration

and then …regular checking !
78
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!
79
NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________
Value added of
the module Comments
1 2 3 4
Introduction
Capitalization &
Transversalisation
Key Characteristics
FMEA
Evaluation Form
to fill in
Program QRQC
Changes
& Gate Reviews
How to accelerate
Conclusion
80
Agenda

10:10 FMEA PL.Soula
11:10 Break
12:05 Lunch
15:45 Break

17:00 End
81
FMEA Training Module
Paul-Louis SOULA

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
83
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
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
84
Red Alert with Customer impact
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.
LESSON LEARNED SHEET D5 - Root Causes of Occurrence

Applica tion da te : nov- 09 1. No product poka yoke ; estimated nonnecessary by mechanisms
B G/D iv/Site : No g en t s ur Ve rn iss on Detection Lo gistics 2. New operator (2 days of experience) without the good sensibility
Type
U AP/Line: Qua li ty De pa rt Occu rre nce Internal
A uthor : All a n GOUR ET Manag ement Supp liers
WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? (5W + 2H) WHAT IS THE CAUSE?

What happ ened? Bad hafting of the handle bar inside the slide : Possibility to assembly the handle bar in the slides but in a Sl ide
handle bar assembly inside the leg for r ecall of the handle bar. bad position in the slide's locking spring. Fema le pro file
Why it is a p ro blem? No-relocking of one of the 2 slides.
When did it happ en ? Detected the 29th Apr il of 2009.

Cr eated the 24th April of 2009 at 12AM07.
Who has det ect ed it ? Detected by operator in SOT EXO . Loc k
Where has it b een det ect ed ? Detected dur ing tr iming of the seat in
Ho w h as it been d etected ? Detected during triming of the seat : not

Gu idi ng at 22°5
Male p rofil e
Ho w m any ? 1 case
In stall ation o f the h an dle b ar

BEFORE AFTER
Possibility to put the handle bar in this hole of the locking spr ing
New 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 visibility
2. FMEA Gravity at 8 : Missing of hierarchisation at 1 on the drawing
and preconisation from Flers

3. FMEA detection and occurence at 2 : No case before this one.
4. Detection : potentialy sensitive but depending of the operator
WHAT WE LEARNED
ITEM (Control Factor) METHOD CRITERIA
D:\maniae\A Perso\ D:\maniae\A Perso\
SRC\Alerte s Qualité\X95\JR95\Mauv
SRC\Alertesais
Qualité\X95\JR95\Mauv
ass palonnier gliss ièreai
s\Workshop
s ass palonnier
R ed ga
Assembly in t he good hole of the slide's Product poka yoke I mpossibility of assembling the handle bar in
locking spring another hole t hat necessary to it s function
9700 slides checked out of which
2000 vehicles checked at customer place
85
Background
SR Alert Re-Occurrence prevention Memo # 6442

Application date :
BG/Div/Site:
26-oct
SMPG Nompatelize
Design
Process Link to AMS
D 5 Root cause of non conformance
Mix OK/NOK
The backrest unlocking cable was set up too short.
UAP/Line: Backrest T7
Author : T.Delattre/A.Moussaïd Testing 6442
Supplier
WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM? (5W + 2H)
NC freeplay on backrest and potential recliner
Cause
Unclear definition of cable tension neither
Consequently the backrest was partially unlocked and there was
unlcking. efficient tool to set it right (gap setting)
36 NC parts segregated on July 12th by resident a noticeable freeplay
at customer PSA during function test.
Not OK (Before) OK (After) D 4 Root cause of non Detection
No clear instruction for the operator who was Gages in place to garantee repeatable cable and
left alone to decide correct fitting recliner positionning as well as proper cable Control method was not defined with clear criteria
tension
Risk was wrongly evaluated during FMEA Study and no precise
action was defined to prevent defect to be stopped
Defect detected during

Preproduction, 405 seats
checked at customer
86
Before to start…
1
Proposal
2A At which stage of the PMS
Design should be performed:
2B
Design A Design FMEA ?
Verification A Process FMEA ?
3
Production
Set-
Set-up
4
Launch
5 Sé
Séries
Production
87 87
FMEA: At what stage of PMS ?
1 FUNCTIONAL Analysis
KPC (Key Product Characteristics)
Characteristics) identified from customer Requirements
Proposal
2A Product FMEA initiation
KPC list completed
Design Expert/Designer suppliers product KPCs identified on 2D and BOM
Process FMEA initiation
KCC List identified
continuus updating
Product FMEA completed

2B Expert/Designer suppliers KPCs validated
Design KPC/KCC included in Pre-production control plan
BOPs,
BOPs, tools, gauges, equipments ordered
Verification
Process FMEA completed
3 Pre--Production Control Plan Implemented
Pre
Production PVP tests results successful
Mass Production Trial Successful
Set-
Set-up
Process Capability achieved
4 Production Control Plan Implemented

Launch Lessons learned
5 Sé
Séries Product and Process FMEAs review and feed back
Production
88
FMEA Objectives
1. Reduce risks related to the Product and the Risks

process definition and improve reliability and be
documented
2. Drive focus on priorities (Safety, reliability and
functionality) during product & process
development after criticality ranking
3. Identify the key needed verifications during the
product/process development phase and during
the production cycle
4. Reduce costs and Development time
5. D-FMEAs and P-
P-FMEAs are the links between
Key Characteristics and Control Plans
89
FMEA Definitions
Failure Mode & Effect Analysis Ref: FAU-S-DSG-3040
The FMEA is a preventive analysis tool aimed atreducing risk during

definition and validation of the Product and the Process designs against a
functional specification. It is a way of improving product reliability
TheDesign FMEA identifies potential failures of the product design

during 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 FMEA identifies potential failures of the product due to the
manufacturing 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.
90
REDUCE THE COST OF MODIFICATIONS
Tooling
modifications
Drawing
modifications
Slide version 02 91
The FMEA Types and Teams
Object When Responsible

Product Design
Design-FMEA Product Starts at End of
engineer or
(System, Component) Concept Phase
(Product-FMEA) System architect
Production process After first process Process & Tool

Process-FMEA definition Engineer
Product Product
Quality Quality
Design Design
Teams
Design-FMEA Process-FMEA
Team Team
Support Support
Validation Functions Manufacturing Functions
Process Process
Engineering Engineering
People with experience
92
How to perform a FMEA
D-FMEA or P-FMEA DESIGN PROCESS FMEA Number:

FMEA Date:
Design Updated on :
Type of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en Drawing reference :
FMEA
Product : Engineering level/index: PILOT-leader :
Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item : Life situation (DFMEA):
Detection
Design validation (D-FMEA) RPN checked after
Severity
KCC nb
KPC nb
Occur-
Process Step Product Function POTENTIAL FAILURE Recommended Corrective Actions Forecasted new RPN
Class
rence
Potential Cause of Target completion
RPN
N° Process controls (P-FMEA) Responsible Action taken actions implemented
definition definition studied failure date
(PFMEA) (DFMEA)
MODE EFFECT 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
1- Product function (DFMEA)

or Process step (PFMEA)
2- Potential failure Mode
3- Potential Effect 1- Potential cause of failure + occurence
4- Severity 2- Key Characteristics number
3- Design Validation (DFMEA)

4- Process control (PFMEA) + Detection
5- RPN calculation 1- Recommended Corrective Actions
2- Responsible & target date
3- Action taken
4- Forecasted RPN
5- RPN checked after actions implemented
93
1st Step: Identify Failure mode (1/2)
D-FMEA or P-FMEA
1- Which function to study (DFMEA) Type of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en

Product :
(for each life situation) Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item :
Severity
KPC nb
Process Step Product Function POTENTIAL FAILURE
Class
N° definition definition studied
(PFMEA) (DFMEA)
MODE EFFECT
2 - What can go wrong?
- No function
- Partial/over function or
degraded over time
- Intermittent function
- Unintended function
3 - What are the worst effects

for each failure mode? 4 – How bad is it ?
Identify a severity rating
94
“S” : SEVERITY GRADING CHART (Design and Process)
95
2nd step: Evaluate Root cause and Current Controls (1/2)
DESIGN PROCESS
Drawing reference :
1- Identify the associated cause Engineering level/index:
Life situation (DFMEA):
(first level and root)
2- The estimated occurrence Design validation (D-FMEA)
Detection
KCC nb
Occur-
rence
Potential Cause of
RPN
Process controls (P-FMEA)
failure
Prevention Detection
DFMEA
3- The actions already performed during Product design

Prevention: Which checks have been made or standards used
in order to make the design more robust
Detection: Which checks or tests are currently included
in the DVP design validation plan
4- Detection rating: How confindent are we

with current definition of the DVP to detect
a potential defect
5- RPN calculation
96
1st Step: Identify Failure mode (2/2)
D-FMEA or P-FMEA
Type of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en

1- Which process to study (PFMEA) Product :
Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item :
Severity
KPC nb
Process Step Product Function POTENTIAL FAILURE
Class
N° definition definition studied
(PFMEA) (DFMEA)
MODE EFFECT
2 - What can go wrong?

See below types of defects
(for function consider degraded
or intermittent due to process)
3 - What are the worst effects 4 – How bad is it ?

for each failure mode? Identify a severity rating?
Is it a KPC ?
97
“O” : OCCURRENCE GRADING CHART (Design & Process)
98
“D” : DETECTION GRADING CHART (Design)
99
2nd step: Evaluate Root cause and Current Controls (2/2)
DESIGN PROCESS
KCC identified as a contributor
Drawing reference : to achieve the KPC
1- Identify the associated cause Engineering level/index:
Life situation (DFMEA):
(first level and root)
2- The estimated occurrence Design validation (D-FMEA)
Detection
KCC nb
Occur-
rence
Potential Cause of
RPN
failure
Prevention Detection
PFMEA
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
4- Detection rating: How confindent are we

with current definition of the Process to
detect a potential defect
5- RPN calculation
100
“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
101
Risk priority number ( or RPN)
RPN= : S x O x D
Severity or
Probability that the Probability that
Probability that
cause/mode will it won't be
the failure will be
occur detected
serious
Slide version 02 102

3rd step: Corrective Actions
1- Recommended Corrective Actions for FMEA Number:

FMEA Date:
Prevention and Detection: Updated on :
PILOT-leader :
What can be done for

- Design changes, Recommended Corrective Actions Target completion Forecasted new RPN
RPN checked after
Responsible Action taken actions implemented
- Standard changes, N° Description
date
S O D RPN S O D RPN
- Process changes
- Special controls ?
2- Responsible & target date
3- Forecasted new RPN Action taken ?

Is action sufficient ?
4- When action has been taken ( if action is
different from initial, please mention it)
5- New RPN after actions are implemented

Is action sufficient ?
103
PREVENTIVE ACTIONS
Once critical failures are identified preventive or corrective

actions are decided for the highes
highest RPNs
RPN > allowable limit (*) => ACTION
The future of our

company depends on
risk control
Once actions are in place the RPN should be recalculated it

becomes: RPN'
RPN'
Faurecia
(*) may depend on customer requirement if more stringent than Faurecia rules
What have we learned on Design FMEA
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Design validation plan
Product requirement (product tests)
Functional Formalise a critical Design Poka Yoké

Yoké
analysis
examination of product
design Prototype control
feedback
plan
Ensure that the product
Warranty, returns design conforms to List of product
and rejects special
customer and legislative
characteristics
requirements
modifications
Corrective actions
Programme goals plan

(ppm,
ppm, reliability,
maintainability,…
maintainability,… Measurement
concepts, gages and
Regulations instructions
FAU--S-PM-
FAU PM-3040

What have we learned on Process FMEA
Inputs Outputs
DFMEA
Process flow
Assembly and use
chart instructions
Formalise a critical
Process examination of process design
functional Serie control plan
analysis (included Process
Ensure that the process
design allows products made Poka Yoké)
Process
assumptions conforming to customer and
legislative requirements Corrective actions
Plant Lay out plan
Capitalization ensure that products are not
damaged in handling List of process
Warranty, returns special caracteristics
and rejects (transports, storage, …)
including on and off site

Modifications
Measurement and
Program goals (ppm, checking instructions
reliability,
maintainability,…)
FAU--S-PM-
FAU PM-3042

Group owners & PG Referent / Experts March 18th, 2011
7 Basics FAS FIS FAE FECT Group

Key P.Renoit/
L.Klingauf Ph.Lalaguë F.Lueder P.Mesnard
characteristics R.Mary
F.Selb/R.Mary/M.
FMEA M.Jordan C.Desplanque Stefan-Weber
V.Gosatti PL. Soula
Strict Control Y.Schneider/

TBD P.Mesnard V.Gosatti E.Jacquot
Plans JF.Wyrwas
Validated Engg JP.Gehin/
TBD R.Hilpert F.Abadie E.Jacquot
changes M.Kherbache
Y.Schneider/
QRCI L.Klingauf P.Mesnard E.Jacquot L.Klingauf
JF.Wyrwas
Funct Milestone
Program Stg & J.Ygout E.Brogniart MN.Rothan Ch.Majchrowicz PL. Soula
Gate Reviews
Ph.Lalaguë F.Selb/
Cap & Trans TBD M.Stefan- Ch.Sarda P.Mesnard
Weber
Supplier Ph.Cossonnièr A. Selbach/
J.Robineau Th.Rochard J.Burke
Quality e M.Schafbauer
107
Workshop on P-FMEA – 20 mn
Nut and L-profile assembly by resistance welding
1. Choose 3 failure modes

2. Establish a P-FMEA for these 3
failure modes
3. Each group to report
D-FMEA or P-FMEA DESIGN PROCESS FMEA Number:

FMEA Date:
Design Type of vehicle or device : FAU-f-DSG-4040/en Drawing reference : Updated on :
FMEA
Product : Engineering level/index: PILOT-leader :
Line and Plant (PFMEA) : Part or Device or Item : Life situation (DFMEA):
Detection

Severity
KCC nb
KPC nb
Occur-
Class
rence

RPN
N° Process controls (P-FMEA) Responsible Action taken actions implemented

definition definition studied
failure date
(PFMEA) (DFMEA)
108 Slide version 02 108

Nut & L-profile assembly by resistance welding
L-profile
Nut M10
After electrical welding
109
D-FMEA or P-FMEA DESIGN PROCESS FMEA Number: J84-P-RSS-G
FMEA Date: 15/07/2004
Type of vehicle or device : J84 Renault Megane Scenic Drawing reference : 5155436/38 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): -
D e t e c t io n
S e v e r ity
KCC nb
Process Step
KPC nb
Product Function
O c c u r-
POTENTIAL FAILURE Recommended Corrective Actions Forecasted new RPN
C la s s
re n c e
Potential Cause of Process controls (P-FMEA) Target completion actions implemented
RPN
N° definition definition studied Responsible Action taken
failure date
(PFMEA) (DFMEA) MODE EFFECT Prevention Detection N° Description S O D RPN S O D RPN
40 Resistance welding of Missing NUT No welding possible, machine 8 NUT forgotton to insert 4 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 32
NUT on L-PROFILE stop, fastening operation (Operator failure) or higher during clamping operation
1 stopped if by pass, process (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)
interuption
110
D-FMEA or P-FMEA DESIGN PROCESS FMEA Number: J84-P-RSS-G
FMEA Date: 15/07/2004
Type of vehicle or device : J84 Renault Megane Scenic Drawing reference : 5155436/38 Updated on : 16/03/2010
Need to have a picture of the machine and how it works
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): - Contacter Jean-Yves Loreau
Detection
Severity
KCC nb
KPC nb
Occur-
Class
rence
RPN
N° definition Process controls (P-FMEA) Responsible Action taken actions implemented
definition studied failure date
(PFMEA) (DFMEA)
40 Resistance welding of Missing NUT No welding possible, machine 8 NUT forgotton to insert 4 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 32
NUT on L-PROFILE stop, fastening operation (Operator failure) or higher during clamping operation
interuption
Missing L-PROFILE No welding possible, machine 6 L-PROFILE forgotton to 2 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 12
stop, process interuption insert (Operator failure) or higher during clamping operation
1 (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)
Wrong NUT (material, No Belt Buckle fastening 8 1 Wrong NUT reference at 2 1 Label scan of every new box 1st piece OK check 2 32
diameter, threat,....) possible (threat diameter too 2 welding station with NUTs at welding station
2 small) (Logistical failure)
Wrong PROFILE (LH/RH) Wrong assembly reference 6 Wrong welding fixation 4 Operator qualification level L 1st piece OK check 2 48
produced but part is Ok plate used or higher
2 (Tool change failure)
NUT turned by a few Insufficient torque resistance, 10 2 NUT incorrect inserted in 4 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 40 To be confirmed
degrees risk of stability loss during final 1 fixation plate (Operator or higher during clamping operation
assembly and endurance failure) (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)
3
Tooling damaged / worn 2 2 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 40
To be confirmed out (Maintenance failure) no. J84/40)
NUT assembled from Machine stop, no welding 6 NUT incorrect inserted in 4 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 24 To be confrimed
wrong side possible L-PROFILE (Operator or higher during clamping operation
4 failure) (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)
Bad welding connection Insufficient torque resistance, 10 3 Wrong welding parameter 2 3, 4, 5 Restricted machine & 1st piece OK check 2 40 Do we need to do something else
(insufficient penetration) risk of stability loss during final 1 (technician failure) parameter access, parameter (resistance torque can we let Firs part Ok at 1 JY
assembly and endurance change documentation measurement) Loreau what can vwe do more ?
Machine defect or tooling 2 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 40 Jean-Yvs is it Ok ?
5 defect ( tips not Ok) no. J84/40)
5 (Equipment failure)
Changed material 4 6, 7 Yearly supplier part re- 1st piece OK check 4 160 40-1 Check of Supplier measurement Q / SERIOUS V. 18/09/2004 100% protocol 10 2 2 40 10 2 2 40
properties (Supplier qualification (resistance torque protocols (material properties) for check for NUT and
failure) measurement) every NUT and L-PROFILE batch L-PROFILE
within incoming inspection integrated in CP J84-
RSS-G at
20.09.2004
Threat of NUT or PROFILE No Belt Buckle assembly 8 4 Machine defect 2 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 32
damaged possible 2 (Equipment failure) no. J84/40)
Damaged delivered part 4 8 Yearly supplier part re- 1st piece OK check 4 128 40-1 Check of Supplier measurement Q / SERIOUS V. 18/09/2004 100% protocol 7 2 2 28 7 2 2 28
6 (Supplier failure) qualification (resistance torque protocols (material properties) for check for NUT
measurement) every NUT batch within incoming integrated in CP J84-
inspection RSS-G at
20.09.2004
Welding spatters in threat No Belt Buckle assembly 7 4 Machine defect 1 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 14 Do we keep it or not ?
of NUT possible 2 (Equipment failure) no. J84/40)
6 (defect for example)
NUT not correctly clamped Insufficient torque resistance, 10 3 Machine defect 2 9 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 40 Defect on part geometry considered
/ gap between nut and risk of stability loss during final 1 (Equipment failure) no. J84/40) ?
profile
7 assembly and endurance
111
Detection
Design validation (D-FMEA)
Severity
KCC nb
KPC nb
Occur-
POTENTIAL FAILURE Recommended Corrective Actions
Class
rence
Potential Cause of
RPN
failure
MODE EFFECT Prevention Detection N° Description
Missing NUT No welding possible, machine 8 NUT forgotten to insert 4 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 32 Transfer the detection on machine stop
stop, fastening operation (Operator failure) or higher during clamping operation
interruption
Missing L-PROFILE No welding possible, machine 6 L-PROFILE forgotten to 2 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 12 Transfer the detection on machine stop
stop, process interruption- insert (Operator failure) or higher during clamping operation
1 frame cannot be assembled (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)
Wrong NUT (material, No Belt Buckle fastening 8 1 Wrong NUT reference at 2 1 1st piece OK check 5 80 Label scan of every new box with
diameter, threat,....) possible (threat diameter too 2 welding station NUTs at welding station
2 small) (Logistical failure)
Wrong PROFILE (LH/RH) Wrong assembly reference 6 Wrong welding fixation 4 Operator qualification level L 1st piece OK check 2 48
produced but part is Ok plate used or higher
2 (Tool change failure)
NUT turned by a few Insufficient torque resistance, 10 2 NUT incorrect inserted in 4 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 40
degrees risk of stability loss during final 1 fixation plate (Operator or higher during clamping operation
assembly and endurance failure) (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)
3
Tooling damaged / worn 2 2 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 40
out (Maintenance failure) no. J84/40)
112
Detection
Design validation (D-FMEA)
Severity
KCC nb
KPC nb
Occur-
POTENTIAL FAILURE Recommended Corrective Actions
Class
rence
Potential Cause of
RPN
failure
MODE EFFECT Prevention Detection N° Description
NUT assembled from Machine stop, no welding 6 12 NUT incorrect inserted in 4 Operator qualification level L Automatic machine stop 1 24
wrong side possible L-PROFILE (Operator or higher during clamping operation
4 failure) (Poka Yoke no. J84/27)
Cold Weld (insufficient Insufficient torque resistance, 10 3 Wrong welding parameter 2 3, 4, 5 Welding parameters vaidated 1st piece OK check 2 40 Restricted machine & parameter
penetration) risk of stability loss during final 1 (technician failure) with 30 parts (resistance torque access, parameter change
assembly and endurance measurement) documentation
Machine defect or tooling 2 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 40 Imporved Preventive Maintenance plan
5 defect ( capsnot Ok) no. J84/40) by checking nets and pipes
5 (Equipment failure)
Changed material 1 6, 7 Yearly supplier part re- 1st piece OK check 4 40 40-1 Check of Supplier measurement
properties (Supplier qualification (resistance torque protocols (material properties) for
failure) measurement) every NUT and L-PROFILE batch
within incoming inspection
Threat of NUT or PROFILE No Belt Buckle assembly 8 4 Machine defect 2 Preventive Maintenance plan 1st piece OK check 2 32
damaged possible 2 (Equipment failure) no. J84/40)
Damaged delivered part 4 8 Yearly supplier part re- 1st piece OK check 4 128 40-1 Check of Supplier measurement
6 (Supplier failure) qualification (resistance torque protocols (material properties) for
measurement) every NUT batch within incoming
inspection
RPN checked after

Recommended Corrective Actions Target completion Forecasted new RPN
Responsible Action taken actions implemented
date
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 Q / SERIOUS V. 18/09/2004 100% protocol 10 1 2 20 10 2 2 40

protocols (material properties) for check for NUT and
every NUT and L-PROFILE batch L-PROFILE
within incoming inspection integrated in CP J84-
RSS-G at
20.09.2004
40-1 Check of Supplier measurement Q / SERIOUS V. 18/09/2004 100% protocol 8 2 2 32 7 2 2 28

protocols (material properties) for check for NUT
every NUT batch within incoming integrated in CP J84-
inspection RSS-G at
20.09.2004 113
Agenda

10:10 FMEA PL.Soula
11:10 Break
12:05 Lunch
15:45 Break

17:00 End
114
NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________
Value added of
the module Comments
1 2 3 4
Introduction
Capitalization &
Transversalisation
Key Characteristics
FMEA
Evaluation Form
to fill in
Program QRQC
Changes
& Gate Reviews
How to accelerate
Conclusion
115
Break
116
Validated Engineering Changes
Eric JACQUOT

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
118
Agenda
Introduction 15 mn
Module objectives
Validated Engineering Change
3 examples of Engineering Changes
Workshop 15 mn
Debriefing 5 mn
Key messages 5 mn
119
Why this basic ?
If not validated Engineering Change, potential disturbances …

repeat tests with additional prototypes due to test
test failures
creation of a new problem to solve due to lack of impact
analysis
rework even line stoppage due to non compatibility with
overall system (other parts, BOPs, gauges, manufacturing
system, packaging,…
packaging,…)
Severe human injuries in case of accidents
recall + Business hold
=> Any short-cut in Engineering Change Process will sooner or
later cost the company !

=> Validated Engineering Change is a basic
120
Module objectives
Understand the sequence of the various steps to achieve a

proper validation.
Better understand consequences and causes of non

validated engineering change.
Know the contributors for the validation of engineering

changes.
121
Engineering Change by Customer, supplier or internal
QCD assessment * EC validation
Less than 5 days
Change Assess Define EC Execute Implement

ECO
Submitted ECR * +DVP & PVP DVP & PVP EC
Design Design Production

Review Validation Validation
Reject Reject
ECR : Engineering Change Request ECO : Engineering Change Order
* Use of checklist enables being exhaustive enough in the assessment
122
Engineering Change in PMS phases
Customer
Tool Launch PPAP SOP
1 Design 2BDesign 3 Production 5

2A 4
ACQUISITION Review DESIGN
Validation PRODUCTION
Validation LAUNCH PRODUCTION
DESIGN
VERIFICATION SET-UP
Define EC
ECO
+DVP & PVP
Define EC Execute
ECO
+DVP & PVP DVP
Define EC Execute Implement

ECO
+DVP & PVP DVP & PVP EC
The later it happens,
the more it costs and the higher the risk is for bad launch
123
Example 2 : wiring fixture of ECS
Before modification Customer request After modification
OEM : metal clips Two metal clips but not

Two plastic binders
Instead of plastic binders positioned as requested
Consequences : Car recall due to radiator leakage (1 M€)

Causes ?
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) 124
Example 3 : Seat locking mechanism
Before modification After modification
Locking mechanism No more washer

secured by a washer
Consequences : failure in rear crash test very close to 1520 cars recall
Causes ?
Design review : lack of robust standards
Design validation : test done too late (during launch phase)
125
Example 4 : YA5 headrest insert spring
Before After
noise, scratches, Spring with Rilsan

Spring ⇒ Coating + bigger bending
sliding effort
Consequences : ejection of headrest during ECE 17 test 35,000 vehicles

to rework = ? M€ + 2 months task force + a lot of additional tests
Causes ? Design review : risk underestimated (“small” modification)
Production validation : no ECE 17 test performed
Supplier : lack of capitalization and transparency
126
Validated Engineering change
Workshop
ECR based on internal VA VE in Serial Phase
Passenger Airbag Chute Channel Material change from PA 6

30% GF to 10%GF
127
WORKSHOP : Define DVP and PVP
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 )?
20 min Let’s do it!!! 128

ECR process : Design & Production Validation Plan
SUPPLIER Faurecia PART NUMBER
FAB10172PVJ + FAB10162PVJ +
FAB500052PVJ + FAB500042PVJ
NAME OF LABORATORY Faurecia Meru PART NAME
FACIA ASSY COVERED UPPER
TYPE OF TEST
DVP PVP DEVIATION
TEST METHOD REQUIREMENT NUMBER
Topper Pad Foam
Fogging DVM-
DVM-0016-
0016-MA/ SAE J1756 MA0019 X
Flammability Taiwan specification RES 30 MS 302 X
Odor DVM-
DVM-0014-
0014-MA/ SAE J1351 MA0018 (rating 2 max) X
COCKPIT
Airbag deployment SDS PB-

PB-0028v2 No bag damage X X
deployment trajectory
Airbag deployment DVM-

DVM-0052-
0052-AB / SDS PB-
PB-0025v2 ( +/-
+/- 9°up
up-
up-down) X X
(+/-
(+/- 4°side
side to side)
ES-
ES-F2DB-
F2DB-54044A74-
54044A74-AA Module requirement
Airbag deployment
(fragment compliant with DVM 24331)
Airbag deployment PB-

PB-0004v2 No sharp edge X X
SDS PB-
PB-0028v2
Airbag deployment No bag damage X X
129
Organization, tool and documents
Weekly reviews of the ECRs and ECOs by ECM

workgroup
Product Data Management (PDM) = ECM tool
DESIGN REVIEW
”Design Approved”
Approved” status in PDM
DESIGN VALIDATION
”Engineering Approved”
PRODUCTION VALIDATION (Off Tool / Off Process)
”Manufacturing Approved”
New version of all related documents based on ECO

results:
Drawings, BOM, FMEAs, KPCs , KCCs, control plan,
suppliers documents, End of Life Vehicle Regulations…
130
NO COMPROMISES
No trade-off with S/R validation even despite Customer

Always PPAP even if not requested by the customer
No “small change” rigorous assessment :

Sales,
Product performance,
Bought Out Parts,
Production performance,
Production Control & Logistics…

Logistics…
131
Example of “Bad” and “Good” answer
“ Engineering Change Management ”

132
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
133
Example of “Good” answer for “Engineering Change
Management”
“How do you manage your Engineering changes with the customer ?”
Technical changes in process -There is a “single list” to manage ECR
Technical changed closed AFTER TOOL ORDER Feasability and Quotation
Customer Requested
Request Date Return date Feasabil
Sender request Part Mold number Modification date for Tool cost Part price
Number received requested GO / noGO
reference quotation
37993M- Customer Design wants to modify the two bases after tools
00C250098IP 04/05/2006 J. BARON Mail 30/09/2006 Base VU / VP GO 19/09/06 250k€ NA
59220/5922 debugging
Tooling has been worn out after a fire. Tooling is not able to deliver
00C250100IP 04/05/2006 J. BARON Mail 14/05/2006 Platic cover of electrical plug no GO 14/05/06 35k€ 0€
the expected quality. Quotation for refubishing of the tool.
39012M-
00C250101IP 04/05/2006 J. BARON Mail 05/05/2006 IP+ Module On cost for multi-graining - add-on separate tool drawer GO 05/05/06 330k€ 3,35 €
59031
Mistake on ATAX staples hangers: hangers are too thick and prevent
00C250112IP 11/10/2006 A. CHOPLIN Mail 18/10/2006 Façade a2/a3 37342X no GO 18/10/06 45k€ 0,80 €
to perform the isostatism study for z axis.
00C250176IP 14/10/2006 COUPE C letter 03/11/2006 Fuse drawer

One signle table for
Add a fuse compartment coverpliers GO 15/01/07 85k€ 5,45 €
various aspects
Feasability and Quotation Customer Agreement Technical change release Technical change validation
Requested Purchasing Delivery DVP=Design PVP=
Date for Customer DR:Design Launching Drawing FMEA on Closing
Part price Quotation date for request date and Validat Production Comments
quotation reference Review date date index update on date
implementon number batch Plan Valid Plan
DA RDV 2 Waiting from RSA on final graining spec- Caution:

NA 16/10/06 FEX61-IP98 Agreed 30/11/2006 02/11/2006 05/12/2006 A NA 20/12/2006 20/01/2007
10062929 07/02/07 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
FE X61-IP-
5,45 € 20/01/07
118
Negociation Wk06 3 steps validation
134
NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________
Value added of
the module Comments
1 2 3 4
Introduction
Capitalization &
Transversalisation
Key Characteristics
FMEA
Evaluation Form
to fill in
Program QRQC
Changes
& Gate Reviews
How to accelerate
Conclusion
135
Lunch
136
Agenda

10:10 FMEA PL.Soula
11:10 Break
12:05 Lunch
15:45 Break

17:00 End
137
Program Quick Response Continous
Improvement (QRCI)
John BURKE

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
139
Program QRCI - Agenda
• Presentation and video 30 mn

• Workshop 2 h 30 mn
Practical QRCI 2h
Debriefing 30 mn
140
Let’s start to be PRACTICAL !
Watch the VIDEO
Compare the BAD to the GOOD

141
Observation Part 1 – What went wrong?
Detection
– 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)
Communication
– Insufficient real data (testing conditions ?, dimension ?,…)
Analysis
– Insufficient in depth logical thinking (“I think it’s the spring that’s…”
,…)
Verification
– 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
,…)
142
Observation Part 2 – What contributed to this success?
Detection
– Failures observed on the Gemba
Communication
– “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)
Analysis
– 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 )
Verification
– Real place verification through testing in laboratory

Management
– Quick escalation
– Monitoring and Effective support
– Recognition
143
What is QRCI ?
A MANAGEMENT attitude to
solve ANY KIND OF PROBLEM
On the REAL PLACE
By Focusing on Our Priorities
Quick Response Continous

Improvement
144
QRCI foundation: the 3 REALS
San means "3" – Gen means "real" or "actual"

Shugi means "ideology"
San Gen Shugi

Understand 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
145
The basic tools….
What are the

Most important
Quality Tools
My eyes and my legs to….

see/ measure/ observe/ analyze/ record…
146
Example of “GOOD”” answer for “Single List of Issues
(SLI)”
(SLI)”
How do you manage the important issues of your program ?
Before Gate
Not various lists
1
PROGRAM QRQC DIVISION QRQC SLI
Single List of Issues (SLI)
Division: PSA Customer Division Customer: PSA Program: Program mgr: SCHMITT Jean-Pierre
Dev./Prod. Site (s): Méru Platform/Model (s): PSA Programs - all platforms Product Ref.: SLI creation date 24-11-06
Award GR1 GR2a GR2b PPAP GR3 SOP List updated 20. december 2006
NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI) NA (Div SLI)
Les évolutions apparaissent en bleu, les sujets clos sont hachurés sur la prochaine diffusion puis masqués
PDCA
Program Program
Deep analysis
Responsibility / Action Planned
concerned risk level Impacted
document
QRQC Action Done
number
Escalation level
Opening Date 4: S/R Area - Needed Problem description Scheduled End
No ( Program Core number Root Causes Countermeasure (C/M) Leader Real Check Date Success Checked by
( If several (DD.MM.YY) 3: High Function - Pb Experts ( 5W = 2 H ?) (Check) date
team or Division or NA evidence
within the SLI 2: Medium category
or PRC) Activity for capitalization
) 1: Low
done (LL)
Demander appui équipe Q-Achats
Feuille d'étanchéité fournisseur J. CABERO pour accélérer la Soldé au niveau Division
A76 DP 24-11-06 1 Division 3 Quality Supplier issues N MC. ILUNGA 06-12-06 11-12-06 Do
le 15/12/06
DANA toujours état WE1 clôture et la levée des derniers
points durs
Faire mettre à jour les indicateurs
Relevés de temps de maquettage
de convergence temps de
T7 IP/DP 24-11-06 2 Division 1 Process PRC pas remontés par les usines N E. PINTO 22-12-06 Check
maquettage avec décroissance
(réel/prévisionnel + pareto)
prévisionnelle en temps
Faire regrouper les indicateurs PNO
T7 IP/DP 24-11-06 3 Division 1 Quality PRC
Difficulté de lisibilité des indicateurs
validation et CTF sur PNO
N Updated par silhouette + clarification pour P. LABORDE 22-12-06 Check
lisibilité
A515 IP 24-11-06 4 Division 2
Product /
R&D
Function
review
TF1 et TF1-GR1 toujours rouges N frequently Visibilité sur clôture / gate review à
assurer
R. TOMCZAK 18-12-06 Plan
Project
Tous Absence de suivi TTP pour clôture Proposition de synthèse jalon +
24-11-06 5 Division 1 organisation / PRC N MC. ILUNGA 22-12-06 05-12-06 Check
programmes des jalons PMS status + TTP/target Div
Project
Décision sur communication client
Customer
B58 IP/GLC 24-11-06 7 Division 3 Quality Reconception vide-poche N de l'engagement réflexion sur R. TOMCZAK 21-12-06 Plan
issues
reconception VA/VE
Note cosignée FS/JPS vers
Interprétation de la Directive Lansade/Leroy copie JMV/I.
Function Certification CE (360€) exigée par
A76 DP 24-11-06 9 Product Group 3 Economics N Européenne par les Autorités Lopez/C. Alberte sur fait que pas JP. SCHMITT 22-12-06 Plan
review outillage
Espagnoles possible prendre en compte à
posteriori
Closing Date
Program All S/R issues
If applicable QRCI
risk level
reference
to be closed
4: S/R Priorities before Gate 3
3: High
2: Medium defined
1: Low
147
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 QRCI subjects
Initial samples not right first time Link with SLI
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
148
QRCI Organization: All levels contribute
Program Risk level

If
Group/PG
4 Steering unsolved
Committee
Monthly issues,
PG Program Regional action
3
QRCI
Weekly meeting
Leader : Region customer VP
assigned
2 Division Program QRCI to

Daily
Leader : Customer Division Director management
Top 5 daily Core team meting

1 Escalated to QRCI
Leader : Program manager Immediate
action
Permanently , every Core team member (PQL, PDL, Buyer,….) will raise
mandatory
0 issues and disclose them in SLI at Core team level if unsolved.
149
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
150
Exercice
Logical thinking is essential
What is the problem?
5W/ 2H´s IS IS NOT Retained D2 - Risks on similar Products,
D1
QRCI-8D 1st
1st Problem
Problem Definition
(Faurecia
Definition
(Faurecia View)
View)
(is the problem) (Is not the problem) Factors N°
processes, machines, plants?
Risky
Risky process
process or
or conditions
conditions to
to report.
report.
Ref:
Ref: FAU-F-PSG-0287
FAU-F-PSG-0287
What
What is
is the
the problem
problem (customer
(customer view):
view): What
What is
is the
the problem
problem ??
Quick Response
Continuous Improvement
Team:
Team: Opened:
Opened:
D1- Problem description

Why
Why is
is itit aa problem?
problem?
Steps
Steps Meeting
Meeting dates
dates Milestone
Milestone review
review
D1
D1 toto D3
D3 D3: Quality Manager / PILOT / HSE / UAP Mgr. When
When the
the problem
problem happened?
happened? When
When was
was the
the problem
problem
(24 hh in
(24 in case
case Definition of incident clear ? YES NO created?
created?
Customer exist** &
Customer exist & Name/ Signature
HSE)
HSE) (In
(In case
case customer
customer does
does not
not exist
exist &
& Program
Program early
early Who found
Who found the
the problem?
problem? Who
Who created
created the
the problem
problem ??
phase,
phase, no
no time
time limit)
limit)
Do I have same problem elsewhere?

D4
D4 to
to D6
D6 D6: QRCI
QRCI Pilot: UAP Mgr. / HSE Mgr. /Logistic Mgr.
(10
(10 workdays
workdays in
in case Problem
Problem 2nd
2nd definition
definition
D2
case etc.
Customer exist** &
Customer exist & Name/ Signature (Scope
(Scope reduction)
reduction)
HSE)
HSE) (In
(In case
case customer
customer does
does not
not exist
exist &
& Program
Program early
early
Where
Where was
was the
the problem
problem found?
found? Where
Where was
was the
the problem
problem
phase,
phase, no
no time
time limit)
limit)
created?
created? Detection:
D7
D7 to
to D8
D8 D8: Responsible Mgr: Plant / Program etc.
(60
(60 workdays
workdays in
in case
case Name/ Signature How
How the
the problem
problem was
was found
found ??
Customer
Customer exist*
exist* &
& (In
(In case
case customer
customer does
does not
not exist
exist &
& Program
Program early
early
HSE)
HSE) phase,
phase, no
no time
time limit)
limit)
Occurrence:
Classification:
Classification:
(HSE:
(HSE: By physical cause)
By physical cause)
How
How many?
many?
Only
HSE
Only
HSE
(HSE:
(HSE: Accident,
Accident, Environment,
Environment, Fire,
Fire, Others)
Others)
Category:
Category:
(HSE: Near
(HSE: Near Miss,
Miss, FR2t,
FR2t, FR1t
FR1t &
& FR0t)
FR0t)
** In
In case
case Customer
Customer exist
exist like
like Logistic,
Logistic, Quality,
Quality, Program
Program pre-production
pre-production &
& launching
launching phase
phase Re-
Re- occurrence
occurrence YES NO Need to warn other plants/R&D YES NO
D3 – Containment actions D3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implemented
Plan
(Including retained factor containment based on evidence)
Comments/
Comments/ Conclusions
How to contain?
Effectiveness
Effectiveness New
New risk
riskdetected
detected Conclusions
Action PILOT
PILOT
PILOT
PILOT Dead-line
Dead-line
(Y/N)
(Y/N) (Y/N)
(Y/N)
D3
Before incident After the incident & counter measure applied
(3 months minimum history)
D4
show
to show
RETAINED
RETAINED FACTOR
FACTOR -D4-
-D4- Control
Control point
point Standard
Standard Real
Real situation
situation Investigation
Investigation plan
plan to
to validate/
validate/ eliminate
eliminate aa RETAINED
RETAINED FACTOR
FACTOR
What is the root cause

Real
Real vs.
vs. Std.
Std. Retained
Retained Factor
Factor
Std. OK validated
validated ??
IS/ IS NOT influence retained factor of What is the rule for risk Std. OK ?? Investigation
Investigation actions
actions
D5 to
N° How to measure/ characterize the retained factor NOK
NOK OK
OK Resp.
Resp. Dead-line
Dead-line Result
Result
Occurrence)
of Occurrence)
non- detection Prevention / Detection ?
Risk
Defect // Risk
after D5
comes after
Y N
of Defect
D4 comes
Y N
cause of
non-detection of
D5
?)
found ?)
Y N
the cause
of non-detection
exist, D4
not found
Y N
not exist,
(non detection and occurrence)
detect the
(Why not
Y N
couldn't detect
does not
(Why
customer does
Y N
Cause of
Why couldn't
D4 -- Cause
case customer
Y N
Y N
Why
D4
(In case
Y N
(In
Y N
RETAINED
RETAINED FACTOR
FACTOR -D5-
-D5- Control
Control point
point Standard
Standard Real
Real situation
situation Investigation
Investigation plan
plan to
to validate/
validate/ eliminate
eliminate aa RETAINED
RETAINED FACTOR
FACTOR
What is the rule for risk
Real
Real vs.
vs. Std.
Std. Retained
Retained Factor
Factor
IS/ IS NOT influence retained factor of Investigation
Investigation actions
actions validated
validated ??
N° occurrence
How to measure/ characterize the retained factor Prevention NOK
NOK OK
OK Std.
Std. OK
OK ?? Resp.
Resp. Dead-line
Dead-line Result
Result
/ Occurrence?
D4)
before D4)
Y N
come before
time)
other time)
Y N
D5 come
What are corrective actions plan?
Y N
no other
Do
occurrence
of occurrence
D6
exist, D5
Y N
& no
not exist,
time &
Y N
this time
Cause of
does not
Y N
D5 -- Cause
happens this
customer does
Y N
(Why happens
case customer
D5
Y N
(Why
Y N
(In case
Y N
(In
Y N
Y N
N° Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV D4
D4 Root
Root cause
cause (( Management
Management issue
issue ?? ))
issues)
or
management issues)
times or
Check
(Minimum 55 times
reach
to reach
How to check efficiency?
Why's
D4 55 Why's
D7
management
more to
(Minimum
more
D4
N° Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV Why
Why ?? VV D5
D5 Root
Root cause
cause (( Management
Management issue
issue ?? ))
or
issues)
times or
management issues)
(Minimum 55 times
reach
to reach
Why's
D5 55 Why's
management
more to
(Minimum
more
D5 OO= OK, X=
XX NOK, ∆=
∆∆ Doubt, V=
VV Verification (To be used in D4 & D5 at columns "Real vs Std" and "Std OK?" and Validation of each Why)
D6 – Corrective actions
D8 - Lessons learned
(Process, Machines, Standards, Hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls)
What did we learn?

Risk
Validated
Validatedretained
retained
Actions Technical Dead-line Responsible
Risk
Effectiveness
Effectiveness
New
Newrisk
risk
Action
Action Resp. Dead-line/
Check
Check
detected Dead-line/ Done
Act
factor
factor Dead-line Responsible Assessment
Assessment detected Resp. Done
D8
(Y/N)
(Y/N) (Y // N)
(Y N)
N°
N° (Y/N)
(Y/N) (Y/N)
(Y/N)
All
All actions
actions validated
validated and
and implemented
implemented
Operators
Operators // team
team members
members informed
informed
Standardized
Standardized work
work created
created // updated
updated
FMEA
FMEA // Risk
Risk assessment
assessment updated
updated
(How to capitalize and transversalize ?)

Control
Control Plan
Plan updated
updated
Lessons
Lessons learned
learned (LL)
(LL) created
created
Validated
Validatedretained
retained Actions Management (or escalated to Sr. Management)
factor
factor Dead-line
Dead-line Responsible
Responsible Lessons
Lessons learned
learned shared
shared
N°
N°
Follow
Follow up
up by
by Core
Core teams
teams
151
5W/ 2H´s IS IS NOT Retained D2 - Risks on similar processes,
QRCI-8D 1st Problem Definition N° machines, plants?
(Faurecia View)
Factors Risky process or conditions to report.
What is the problem ?
Team: Opened:
D1
D1- Problem description

Why is it a problem?
Steps Meeting dates Milestone review

D1 to D3 D3: Quality Manager / PILOT / Hse / UAP Mgr. When the problem happened? When was the problem
24 h Definition of incident clear ? YES NO created?
Name/ Signature
Who found the problem? Who created the problem ?
D4 to D6 D6: QRCI Pilot: UAP Mgr. / Hse Mgr. /Logistic Mgr.

10 workdays etc.
Name/ Signature
Where was the problem found? Where was the problem
created?
2nd Problem Redefinition
(Scope reduction)
D2
D7 to D8 D8: Responsible Mgr: Plant / Program etc.
60 workdays Name/ Signature How the problem was found ?
Classification:
(HSE: By physical cause)
How many?
QRCI
(HSE: Accident, Environment, Fire, Others)
Category:
(HSE: FR2t, FR1t & FR0t)
Re- occurrence YES NO Need to warn other plants/R&D YES NO
D3 – Containment actions D3 & D7. Indicators follow-up by date of Manufacture / Occurrence / Action implemented
D3Action PILOT
PILOT Dead-line
Effectiveness New risk detected
(Y/N) (Y/N)
Comments/ Conclusions
form
D3&D7
to use
(Cause of non-detection of
FACTOR -D4- Control point Standard Real situation Real vs. Std. Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTOR
D4 - Factor of non-
Factor validated ?
N°
IS/ IS NOT influence factor of non-
How to measure/ characterize the factor
What is the rule for risk
NOK OK Std. OK ? Investigation actions
Resp. Dead-line Result
Defect / Risk)
detection Prevention / Detection ?

detection
Y N
Y N
Y N
D4
Y N
Y N
Y N
FACTOR -D5- Control point Standard Real situation Investigation plan to validate/ eliminate a FACTOR
What is the rule for risk Real vs. Std.
Investigation actions Factor validated ?
(Why happened ?)
N° IS/ IS NOT influence factor of occurrence How to measure/ characterize the factor Prevention NOK OK Std. OK ? Resp. Dead-line Result
D5 - Factor of
/ Occurrence?
occurrence
Y N
Y N
D5
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Why ? V Why ? V Why ? V Why ? V Why ? V D4 Root cause ( Management issue ? )

D5 5 Why's D4 5 Why´s
N°
N° Why ? V Why ? V Why ? V Why ? V Why ? V D5 Root cause ( Management issue ? )
O = OK, X= NOK, ∆= Doubt, V= Verification
D6 – Corrective actions
D8 - Lessons learned
Validated
factor
N°
D6 (Process, Machines, Standards, Hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls)
Actions
Dead-line Responsible
Risk
Assessmen Effectiveness
t
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
New risk
detected
(Y/N) D8
Action Resp. Dead-line/ Done
Check
(Y / N)
All actions validated and implemented
Operators informed
Instructions at WS updated
FMEA / Risk assessment updated
Lessons learned (LL) created
Lessons learned shared

Follow up by Core teams
152
Program QRCI Workshop
Leak test values higher than

internal specification found during prototype assembly
Brazed
connection
• Build the QRCI (one
per table) with your
trainer on the QRCI
Form. Perform all 8D
steps (60 mn)
• Trainer will give to
each group necessary
available information
• Debriefing (30 mn)
153
Exhaust pipe assembly with brazing
WASHING
1 - Process Flow in Prototype Shop
DIAMETER
TUBE MILL BENDING END WASHING SIZING BRAZING
RAW FORMING
MATERIAL
RING
RING
Ok
2 – Leak Testing Results LEAK TESTING
NOk
Ok parts Nok parts
Bubles detected with soap

154
Agenda

10:10 FMEA PL.Soula
11:10 Break
12:05 Lunch
15:45 Break

17:00 End
155
Break
156
Functional Milestones +
Program Steering Committee & Gate Reviews
Paul-Louis SOULA

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
158
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)
159
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
160
Video Part 1
161
Live exchange – What went wrong?
Consequences
→ Gate red for 4 months
→ Airs shipment of 120 k€
Core team:
→ No precise lead time to recover 2 wks
delay on knee impact
→ Risks identified but not treated
Gate Review
→ PSC members late + 3 function heads
missing
→ Product definition freeze is borderline

→ Packaging not validated by plant
→ Late contribution of functions
162
Video Part 2
163
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
164
165
Objectives of Functional Milestones
Validate the program progress against

Standards & Guidelines and internal expertise while taking
Into account Customer Requirements
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
166
Functional Milestone Definition
in “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
• QVR (Quality Validation Review lead by Quality Director) or
• TVR (Team Validation Review co-
co-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) 167
Program Management System
CUSTOMER
GR 1 GR 2A GR 2B GR 3 GR 4
1 2A 2B 3 4 5
ACQUISITION PRODUCT DESIGN PRODUCTION SET- LAUNCH PRODUCTION

& VERIFICATION UP
PROCESS
DESIGN
168
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
Customer Acquisition Design Design Verification Production Setup Launch

RFQ Award TL PPAP SOP
Executives GR 1 GR 2B GR 3 GR 4
GR 2A
Milestones
Concept Proposal
Validation
QVR* TVR** QVR* TVR** QVR* TVR** QVR* TVR**
FM1A FM1 FM2A FM2B FM3

Milestones
Functional
Engineering
Manufacturing
Purchasing
Quality
Finance
QVR* : Quality Validation Review TVR** : Team Validation Review
• Ensure Faurecia best knowledge is used
• Identify technical risks and build subsequent corrective actions
• Ensure propagation of technical and design best practices 169
Roles of function versus program
PROGRAM FUNCTION
What When How

Resources
QCD performance
Coordination Standards
Expertise
Global budget Stick with commited cost
Veto
Decision/ Escalade
Reporting towards customer Validate and dive
170
PSA OEM Benchmark
Program Objectives Function Objectives

e.g. Program Manager e.g. R&D Director, Purchasing
Director, ME Director
Q C D and Q R T and Communication (int. / ext.)

Performance
Technical
Standards
State of the art
Resources/People
Quantity and Competence
Results
Quality System
Definition of way of working,
functional objectives
and organization
171
Functional Milestone Review Attendees
Engineering Functional Review Date:

Milestone Review
ASPG
Status: E2B Attempt: 1st
Division: VW Group
Program: VW 250
Product: JIT complete seat
Owner: J.Schnabel
EFM Review Committee Members:
Function: M/O: Invited: Attended:
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
SSD - SECI Manager O R. Deppe R. Deppe
Programmdirector O K.Schlueter K.Schlueter
SSD - SSA Manager SEC O F.Meyer Joachim Mai

SSD - DFA Manager O A. Buddensiek
QPS-Manager M R. Oberbeck R. Oberbeck
PQL VW 250 M J.Etzel J.Etzel
SA VW 250 M J.Schnabel J.Schnabel
O
M: Mandatory - O: Optional
172
Functional Milestone Checklists
Owned and maintained

by BG Functions
173
&
Gate Reviews
Program Steering Committee
174
PMS: Levels of control
3. Governance
FAURECIA STRATEGIC
MGMT OBJECTIVES
DECISIONS MANAGEMENT
GATE REVIEW
Program Steering PROGRAM
#1-4 Committee OBJECTIVES
FUNCTIONAL LINE MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL &

MILESTONES FUNCTIONAL
OBJECTIVES
KPI Monitoring
PROGRAM MANAGER PROGRAM
PROGRESS
DETAILED REPORTS
BY FUNCTION
PQL PML PDL PB PM
DESIGN PRODUCT PROGRAM

VALIDATION PROCESS Readiness SUPPLIER PROGRESS
Readiness Readiness
175
Who is on the Program Steering Committee
(PSC)?
Regional VP (Chairman)
Quality Regional Director of Quality
Human Resources Regional Director of Human Resources
Program Management PG or Regional Director of Programs
Finance Regional Controller
Sales Appropriate Customer Division Manager

Product Engineering Regional Director of Product Engineering
Manufacturing Regional Director of Manufacturing
Purchasing Regional Director of Purchasing
176
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 for

problem resolution
Increase information transparency – do not kill the
messenger
Focus on preventive problem solving and set the example
for timely management involvement
177
PMS Mandatory Program Deliverables
* mandatory deliverables linked to Quality Validation Review minimum necessity items 1. Process
CUSTOMER
Program
Review Quote Review
Human
design
Sales

Product
Prototypes approved
turing

5 Series
1 ACQUISITION 2A DESIGN 2B DESIGN VERIFICATION 3 PRODUCTION SET-UP 4 LAUNCH PRODUCTION
V1.0
178
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
Responsibility
Validator: Program Steering Committee
Actor: Acqusition Manager up to Program Kick-off, Program Manager after Program Kick-off
179
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 at

subsequent Gate Reviews
The right level of staffing is reserved in order to

close the gaps
180
Program Internal Contract indicator Units Target Actual Seuil Alerte
Safety Customer
Product specification (
performance Safety/Regulation incl.NCAP) Tests status R/Y/G G Y
Weight
Regulation 66kg
Tests status
Articulate the performance boundaries of a program as mutually agreed by the
Interface with vehicule % parts in carry over
R/Y/G
%
G
10%
70kg7%
Y
TBD
Innovative functions/new applications Number of new functions number 1 1
Program Steering Committee (PSC) and the Program Core Team.
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
Prepared between the Program Quote Review and the Aspect Number of DMT points number 0V1 et (V2+V3)<0.03 @ SOP TBD
Program Team Kick-off. effort Newtons number 100% to specification 1 Non conformance
Reliability & endurance Status of endurance test R/Y/G G Y
First approved at the Gate Review #1 by the PSC.
Design for manufacturing R/G 100% operation GO au Gate 2 R
The PSC reviews the Program Internal AGREPTContractNumber
at subsequent
of points < 5 number 0-5 5+1
Gate Reviews.
Product cost (Provisional Product Cost
with current definition and current
Cost Committed product
manufacturing deliverables are defined. Previsional cost / target cost
performance) 381.49 387.22
Hard toOImeasure customer expected performance
IRR % IRR
OI
targets are % 15
6
6.8
2.6
5%
0
identified.
Upfront Upfront en ME 13.3 15 20%
QualityTarget and
PPM atthe0km actual values are compared and PPM the magnitude 40 150 10%
of the gaps are estimated.
The right level of staffing is reserved in order toK°close
3 Months Warranty Claims
the
/°° = Cases per 1000
B: 1,3
C: 6,9
2.15 10%
gaps.
Resources Staffing CT & ET Zero Open Position * 1
Major program challenges
Turnover on Core Team and key are highlighted early.
functions (Program Manager, Core
Main program
Team Members,stakes are transferred into the Program Single
Architect) % 0 0 1
List
Delivery of Issues
Definition Freeze for DV juin-06 NA
Complementary
Tool Launch
PPAP
gap closure projects are launched. avr-07
juil-08
NA
Na
The program scope is adjusted. 6, ACL (JIT), St. Jao Madere
(Foam), St. Jao Madere

Functions have committed to their associated key program (Metal), St. Jao Madere
challenges.
Manufacturing
Footprint Number and names of plants
Production Volumes
LCC
Number and name
Unit forecast
30%
Number and name Poland (Slides)
1,000,000
20%
(Insitu), STEA (Trim Covers), 84, Coife (3
Suppliers)
NA
Any change
5%
Program
Specific
Targets/Challene
ges LCC % LCC Supplier Pannel % 30% 20% 5%
Plant built, equiped, staffed
New Plant and approved 0
New Customer 0
New Concept 0 181
New Development Venture 0
“Good” answer for
“Functional milestones & Gate Reviews”
How do you perform your Functional Milestones and your Gate Reviews ?
Clear list of attendees (plan/real) Clear check list with conclusion Action plan with Responsible
including expert and mandatory if (Ok/NOk) & deadline in single file
needed ( clear criteria to conclude Ok)
Critical item QUALITY FUNCTIONAL MILESTONE
Phase 2B
Program Product type Complete Seat PQL & contributors Katharina Jahn
E84 1st row
Review Date Review Stadthagen Reviewed by Jacek Kusiak

07/10/2008
location
WP planned
Work Packages PQL Outputs Quality Key Deliverables Critical Status Comments / Actions Detailed description of PQL output
closure date
PIST level actual
Product performance - PIST Level 94,96% (h-point in BMW production adjustment) PIST level for KPCs has achieved the customer target
78,92% (h-point in LH- addjustment)
target 60% for phase 2b
--> to add root cause action pilot and deadline in the PIST database
Prototype control plan Actions are defined and agreed with the customer
Proto #2 Quality Performance
2E14 07/07/08 implemented C G - H-point - discussion with Karmann and BMW because LH - adjustment is
Analyzed
Final Key Characteristics List Gauges requirements necessary, planned for cw 48; BMW and Karmann know this problem (because of Key Characteristics List reviewed and updated based on the prototype
carry over parts the h-point E84 could not reach LH-adjustment, but BMW- tests, measurement results
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
Prototype control plan implemented and signed off

Prototype control plan Product audit tracking is ongoing Action plan defined to correct non conformance based on PIST values,
2E15 Internal Quality Objectives Updated Development Convergence Plan 22/09/08 C G
implemented DV test results and any other non conformities (complaints..etc.).
reference to Convergenceplan E84_Fehlerübersicht_KJ_20080809
Flow Chart/Machines, Tools used in the process / KPC, KCC /

Pre-Production Controlplan is defined and signed off Frequency of control / Inspection methods, gauges, tools../ Record
Pre-Production Control Plan Pre-Production Control Plan
Inspection instructions are defined (based on E90) Update format and duration / Reaction rules in case of non conformity (Rework?)
2E25 07/07/08 Pre-Production Control Plan Y
Established --> next update of inspection instruction will be during PVL-phase in 02/2009, / Approval by Plant and Program Manager
training material is available in plant now
References for measurement / Characteristics to be measured with
Pre-Production Inspection Instructions
tolerance and classification
QSE plan with implementation dates in line with
QSE plan for 2. semester 2008 is defined together with the plant QSE Coordinator -
FPT, MPT & EMPT requirements and schedule
(Bernd Schmeisser / Michael W ende) 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
2E+28 QSE deployment plan defined 25.06.08 Pre-Production Control Plan G
QSE Training & coaching plan -
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
Regular Program risk assessment - Prototype (SLI /or customer specific

- - Program risk assessment ongoing G Shareplace is updated and in use / also 3PR and LOP / SLI / PRC list, 3PR, PRC, PQL Sharepoint, Risks identified and under control or
escalated when necessary)
Prototype control plan QVR conclusion positive (status A or A-) or QVR scheduled (if QFM is
- - Quality Validation Review 23/09/08 G 23.09.2008 09:30 - 11:00 result A-
implemented performed earlier than QVR )
Conclusion: PASS :___YES____ FAIL: ______
Re-Review Necessary ? YES:_______ NO:___X_____
Program Quality Manager

Signature Name
Kusiaz Jacek
Date
7-oct.-08 Ok
Comments:
Calendar for next ( six months Engineering / Manufacturing / Time to pass Gate is
at least) Functional Milestones Purchasing Functional monitored and achieving
& Gate Review Milestones target line
ENGINEER
MANUF
PURCHASING
182
Key Messages
Focus on the PMS Mandatory Deliverables
The Program Steering Committee isa 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
183
2011 Group sessions in Regions
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
184
Conclusion
Ken SATO
CUSTOMER
Program
Review Quote Review
Human
design
Sales

Product
Prototypes approved
turing

5 Series
1 ACQUISITION 2A DESIGN 2B DESIGN VERIFICATION 3 PRODUCTION SET-UP 4 LAUNCH 186
PRODUCTION
V1.0

and Gate Reviews
Capitalization &
Transversalization
Validated

FMEA Plans Changes
Key Characteristics
187
The basic rule:
We are all allowed to make a mistake

once
But: we are not allowed to repeat twice
the same mistake
This is true for:

Individuals
Teams
FAURECIA
188
Who is in charge?
Who is responsible for Development Quality?

Who has to implement the 7 Quality basics in
Development?
The 7 Quality Basics in Development

They are our basic
are not tools for
Development tools
Quality and PMS people
189
NAME :_____________________________Session:_____________________________________
Value added of
the module Comments
1 2 3 4
Introduction
Capitalization &
Transversalisation
Key Characteristics
FMEA
Evaluation Form
to fill in
Program QRQC
Changes
& Gate Reviews
How to accelerate
Conclusion
190
191

7 Quality Basics in Development PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

7 Quality Basics in Development PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

7 Quality Basics in Development

FRASER – June 17th, 2011

Please switch off your

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

The plan does not introduce any

I am expecting this plan to give lasting results and

Final Self Red Rework Poka OK Quick Response

Includes Stop at Defect 7

Program Functional Milestones,

Strict Control Engineering

Finance Initial Business Plan Actual BP Actual BP

Initial product concept Product definition for DV * Product definition freeze*

Design FMEA * Design FMEA Actions implemented

Process FMEA Process FMEA * actions launched Process flow realized *

Logistic& Packaging definitions released * Logistic & packaging in place *

• Background: Bad launches come from bad execution of:

Confirm rigor and discipline in programs.

Mandatory Program Deliverables & Reporting

It’s “Good” level overall.

“ Do you organize internal “ Program Quote Review” with your top

- There is only “ Price estimation with assumptions”

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

long distance JIT price Brussels 107,00 € 155,80 Audi

Customer decision making timeline Turnover 136.180 k€

- Audi requests to keep the current

Capacities for additional AU210 project is not part of Faurecia

Higher requirements on quality than Mitsubishi Colt

•PPM Program Y C: Marginal ok

(Checked by FES program audit)

3 Programs after GR3, GR2b and GR1

GR1 GR2 GR3

Jan : Shanghaï (S), Peine-Hagenbach

Netwk PG Name Certified Netwk PG Name Certified

MESNARD Pierre Yes

MANSKE Carsten Legend:

7:45 Welcoming coffee

16:00 Functional Milestones & Gate Reviews PL.Soula

Program Functional Milestones,

Strict Control Engineering

Capitalization & Transversalization

Program Functional Milestones,

Strict Control Engineering

- Mistake the connection of - Risk the immobility of

• Check similar problem

Harness (0.5mm) - Same size of terminals

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

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

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

• Mistake of parts drawing, • Heater of seat doesn’t work

- Capitalization : Validation Process Standard for Design Change

Acquisition Design Validation Production

3. Customer Quality (Lessons Learned )

D1. Description & Sketch _

> Access through Faurecia intranet

<4 Key points for Before/After>

All BGs use the Spider System

LESSON LEARNED SHEET LESSON LEARNED SHEET

without additional wire with additional wire WHAT WE LEARNED

NOK procedure audit for every employee

Potential Applicability Potential Applicability

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

General Appraisal 1 2 3 4 Comments:

Key Characteristics &

Ensure a Global Understanding of Control Plans

Improve the Content and Execution of Control

Clarify the Contribution of each Function

Be aware of incurred risks if not properly deployed

Protect Internal & External Customers

Efficiently ensure Product Conformity in spite

Define Reaction Rules in case of deviations

100% Visual Inspection & Measurement Internal &

Clear decision rules