APQP raining November 2011.ppt

From the APQP and Control Plan manual, and from our discussion thus far, we know that these four ‘documents’ are required. We should also by now understand that these can be looked at as ‘elements’ where each is not a discrete document. When looking at one of these required ‘documents’ in terms of it being an element (as opposed to a discrete document) we have to look at each and determine what the specific requirements are for it. As with the control plan example on the next slide, there is a ‘minimum’ content required for each element. This diagram is another way to illustrate several developmental / critical paths of the main documentation requirements. As we discussed earlier, the APQP and Control Plan manual represents these as different, discrete documents. However, one should look at them as ‘element’ requirements. In the Ford DCP the process control plan ‘element’ is in the same document as the process FMEA ‘element’. None the less, the critical path rules still hold true. For example, in the DCP the control plan ‘part’ cannot be completed until the FMEA ‘part’ is completed. As we started to look at on the previous page, it is evident that the process flow diagram be ‘completed’ early. This is because it serves to identify all processes involved from which internal critical (special, whatever) characteristics are derived. I have only seen a couple of companies which got through a QS audit with NO internal critical / special characteristic. The above illustration shows the internal links in these documents which key each to the other. Note that the design FMEA does not have an internal link to the process FMEA because the design FMEA addresses intended use as opposed th the process FMEA which addresses processes. Note that on this example the PFMEA, the control plan and the process flow diagram have ‘links’ (in this example the Operation Number). Later in this presentation we will address situations where these documents are looked at as ‘elements’ as op