Q1 Process Manual - Risk Analysis, Quality Assurance, ISO ...



[pic]

Q1

Award

PROCESS AND

REQUIREMENTS

MANUAL

Introduction

This manual details the process and requirements for candidates petitioning for Ford Motor Company's Q1 Award.

The Q1 Award recognizes Ford and supplier facilities and organizations that have achieved a sustained level of excellence in customer satisfaction, while meeting systems and results requirements in Quality, Engineering, and Delivery/Materials Management.

The Q1 Award Manual has been updated to:

• Provide individual brochures for the separate classifications of Q1 that detail the requirements in a user-friendly single document that can be ordered separately.

• Detail those elements common to all classifications of Q1 in the four-page Q1 Process section of this manual (pages 7 through 10).

• Simplify the classifications of Q1 by combining several unique programs into a common Service classification.

The Q1 Award program is managed on a global basis by FAO Quality which is responsible for its implementation, including the contents of the individual brochures. The Ford organization which serves as the administering activity for the Q1 Award candidate varies by the product or service provided.

Assessment of a Q1 Award candidate involves a number of system requirements and result metrics which are detailed in the Requirements brochures associated with this manual. Compliance with these systems assessments, demonstrated performance on the results metrics, and strong customer focus evidenced by customer endorsements forms the basis of this program.

This manual is organized into three sections:

• A Q1 Process Section covering those items common to all Q1 Awards.

• An Appendix which contains selected Tools and a listing of publications applicable to the Q1 Process.

• Individual brochures associated with this manual which detail the specific requirements for the various Q1 categories.

Record of Changes and Amendments

|Date |Issue |Description/Page(s) Affected |Sign-Off |

|April, 1995 |1.0 |Replaces the Q-101 version with one based on the Quality System Requirements QS-9000, or |H.D. Atkinson |

| | |the equivalent International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 series Quality | |

| | |System Requirements. | |

|July, 1997 |2.0 |Establishes separate requirement brochures for the six individual categories, reduces the|H.D. Atkinson |

| | |number of categories, changes customer endorsement shelf life, revises the variable | |

| | |scoring system, adds recertification considerations, and adds a publication directory. | |

| | |All pages. | |

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Record of Changes and Amendments 4

Table of Contents 5

Q1 Process:

Eligibility, Prerequisite and Benefits 7

Initial Certification Process 8

Initial Requirements and Ongoing Assessment 9

Probation and Revocation 10

Appendices:

Appendix A - Administering Activities 12

Appendix B - Component Conformance Review (CCR) 13

Appendix C - Process Capability Review (PCR) 14

Appendix D - Q1 Quality System Survey Scoring 16

Appendix E - Publications 17

Requirement Brochures: Front and Back Covers

For External Suppliers of Production Material

For Internal Suppliers of Production Material

For Product Engineering Organizations

For Service Organizations

For Tooling and Equipment Suppliers

For Vehicle Assembly Plants

Q1 Process

Eligibility, Prerequisites and Benefits

Eligibility

Eligibility for the Q1 Award covers each individual facility currently supplying product or services directly to a Ford customer, including all Ford facilities. Categories of facilities and organizations specifically included are:

• Production and service part manufacturing facilities.

• Vehicle assembly facilities both Ford operated and those that provide product to Ford (including vehicle conversion facilities).

• Service organizations providing a service to Ford customer(s), including, but not limited to:

• Suppliers of Facilities, Materials & Services Purchasing.

• FCSD/FCSD-E and other FAO Parts Distribution or Redistribution Centers.

• Suppliers of engineering design.

• Suppliers of tooling and equipment.

• Ford Product Engineering activities.

Q1 recipients who no longer ship directly to Ford may not advertise their Q1 status nor fly the Q1 flag.

Prerequisites:

Prerequisites are pre-conditions which must be met prior to the initial petitioning for the Q1 Award. The prerequisites for each classification of candidate are fully spelled out in the individual requirement brochures associated with this manual.

Benefits Of Q1 Status:

The Q1 Award, maintained in good standing, entitles a facility or organization to the following benefits:

• The ability to self-certify to the requirements of the Ford/GM/Chrysler Quality System Requirements (QS-9000) and Quality System Assessment (QSA).

• A Q1 flag.

• A Q1 plaque.

• The ability to publicize/advertise attainment of the Q1 Award.

Q1 Process

Initial Certification Process

Pre-Petition

The prospective candidate may contact the appropriate administering activity for their classification (the administering activity for each classification can be found in Appendix A). The administering activity assigns a sponsor to the candidate, whose role is to facilitate and coordinate the process, and assure process consistency.

The sponsor reviews the eligibility of the candidate, assists in determining the applicable customer/supplier relationships, and confirms the classification and organizational scope of the candidate's petition. Agreement is also reached on the metrics to be used and the extent of any Component Conformance Review (Appendix B) and/or Process Capability Review (Appendix C). Finally, the sponsor arranges for verification, which may include the use of a cross-functional team.

The candidate conducts a self-evaluation using the Q1 criteria. Where appropriate, a work plan is developed and actions are taken to improve the candidate's operating systems. Once the candidate believes they meet all of the Q1 requirements, they should obtain endorsements from the customers identified earlier. Customer endorsements have a "shelf life" of 6 months from the date of the signature on the document.

Petition

When the candidate determines that they meet the Q1 criteria, and have the required customer endorsements, they will advise the sponsor in writing and submit the required documentation (detailed in the individual brochures). The sponsor will then convene a verification team, as appropriate, to make an independent assessment and recommendation on the candidate's qualification for the Q1 award.

The initial review of the candidate's petition will be by the sponsoring activity. Optionally, the verification team may elect to perform an on site assessment to verify that the evidence is representative of the candidate's actual operations. On conclusion of their review, the team will make a recommendation on the disposition of the petition.

The recommendation of the verification team, along with the completed Q1 petition, are forwarded to the administering activity, where Q1 approval authority rests. The administering activity either accepts the team's recommendation, or modifies it based on additional circumstances or discretion. Upon completion of this process, the sponsor will inform the candidate of the results.

Q1 Process

Initial Requirements and Ongoing Assessment

Initial Requirements

In order to be approved for the Q1 Award, each candidate must fulfill requirements specific to their classification in three areas:

• Systems Assessments

• Results Metrics

• Customer Endorsements

Systems Assessments:

Systems Assessments address the adequacy of the underlying "systems" a candidate uses to assure Quality and Customer Satisfaction. Each candidate is required to pass a systems assessment of the adequacy of its Quality System and their Quality Operating System (QOS). Certain candidates must also pass a system assessment of their MS-9000 Materials Management System Assessment (MMSA) and/or Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP).

Results Metrics:

Results Metrics address the candidate's results in customer satisfaction in those areas important for that classification. All candidates must assess their Quality results. In addition, certain candidates must also assess their Delivery Rating and/or Engineering results.

Customer Endorsements:

Customer endorsements are indicative of the effectiveness of a candidate's overall efforts at Customer Satisfaction. Each candidate is required to get customer endorsements during the pre-petitioning process.

Specific requirements in each area, by candidate classification, are detailed in the brochures associated with this manual. Unless directed otherwise; where variable scoring is specified, the candidate will use the Q1 Quality System Survey Scoring Guidelines (Appendix D).

Ongoing Assessment

Every six months each Q1 recipient should perform a self-assessment against the applicable Q1 criteria.

At the option of the administering activity, a formal recertification evaluation may be required.

Q1 Process

Probation and Revocation

Probation

All Q1 recipients are expected to be responsible for their quality performance.

If a customer recommends revoking an endorsement because a violation of policy is suspected, or a performance metric falls below Q1 levels, the Q1 Award administering activity will work with the supplier to resolve the issues or determine whether Q1 Probation or Revocation is warranted.

If, after due consideration, STA or FAO Quality decides that the supplier has not performed to the Q1 standards, a Q1 Probation letter is issued to the supplier. Additional probation requirements, including guidelines for working with Ford union partners, are published separately.

The supplier then works to resolve the issue and obtain customer endorsements from all parties involved in the probation issue. When satisfactorily completed, Ford notifies the supplier that the Q1 Award has been recertified.

Revocation

If, after the specified time (maximum of 6 months), the supplier is unable to satisfactorily resolve the probation issue, Ford issues a Revocation letter. Upon notification, the supplier must return the Q1 flag and plaque.

Multiple violations or severity of circumstance can result in immediate revocation of Q1.

To regain Q1 status, the supplier must be recertified by the administering activity.

APPENDIX

Appendix A Administering Activity

The administering activity is the primary contact for the Q1 candidate and is to be contacted before the Q1 petitioning process begins. The administering activity will assign a sponsor to the candidate, whose role is to facilitate and coordinate the process and assure process consistency.

The administering activity depends upon the classification of Q1 under consideration. The specific activity is as follows:

|CLASSIFICATION |ADMINISTERING ACTIVITY |

|External Suppliers of Production Materials |FAO Purchasing Supplier Technical Assistance (STA) |

|Internal Suppliers of Production Material |FAO Quality Office |

|Product Engineering Organizations |FAO Quality Office |

|Service Organizations |FAO Purchasing Supplier Technical Assistance (STA), or |

| |FAO Customer Service Quality (external), and |

| | |

| |FAO Quality Office (internal) |

|Tooling and Equipment Suppliers |FAO Purchasing Supplier Technical Assistance (STA) |

| |(external), and |

| | |

| |FAO Quality Office (internal) |

|Vehicle Assembly Plants |FAO Quality Office |

Appendix B Component Conformance Review (CCR)

The Component Conformance Review, or CCR, is a tool which is used to assess the effectiveness of a candidate's quality systems in managing part conformance to specification, in order to meet customer needs and expectations. Accordingly, the Sponsor/Verification Team may elect to require that the candidate perform a CCR, and that they review their results with the Sponsor/Verification Team

Selection of Characteristics:

A CCR should be based on the candidate's existing master characteristic list. Significant/important characteristics should be selected from the control plan by the candidate's production, engineering and quality teams. It is important to assure that important characteristics are selected.

A CCR targets a total of 2,500 measurements per review. A typical selection might be 14 parts, with an average of 6 significant or critical characteristics each, for a total of 84 characteristics. If 30 readings are made for each part, a total of 2,520 measurements would be included in the CCR. The characteristics selected should be reviewed for concurrence with the Sponsor/Verification Team.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Samples collected must be selected from approved material.

Scoring a CCR:

In order to score a Component Conformance Review, a Conformance Index Value (CIV) must be calculated. The CIV represents the percentage of Out-of Specification measurements found out of the total number of measurements taken. It is calculated as follows:

Number of Out-of Specification Measurements

Conformance Index Value (CIV) = x 100

Total Number of Measurement Made

Once a CIV has been calculated, a Q1 score will be calculated based on the following guidelines

0 points The CIV > 1.0

1 point 1.0 > CIV > 0.4

2 points 0.4 > CIV > 0

3 points The CIV = 0

A minimum Q1 score of 2 points is required to "pass" a CCR, if one is required.

Appendix C Process Capability Review (PCR)

The Process Capability Review, or PCR, is a tool which is used to assess the effectiveness of a facility's quality systems in managing processes to produce products which meet customer needs and expectations. Accordingly, the Sponsor/Verification Team may elect to review the candidate facility's data on a number of selected process parameters/product characteristics.

Selection of Characteristics:

A PCR should be based on a selected number of process parameters and/or product characteristics. The recommended number of selected parameters/characteristics should typically be from ten to fifty.

The process parameters and product characteristics, as well as the quantity, will be selected by the candidate facility and reviewed for concurrence with the Sponsor/Verification Team. The following guidelines should be used in the selection of process parameters and product characteristics:

• They must be related to final product characteristics which are important to final product function, appearance, and, most importantly, the final customer's perception of a quality product.

• There must have been an issue or problem relating to ultimate customer satisfaction, which related back to the product parameter or process characteristic selected, on which the candidate focused the efforts of a variability reduction team or equivalent, and made measurable improvement.

• The parameter/characteristic selected must be currently monitored by the candidate.

• They should be directly affected by the candidate's process (controllable).

• Their level must be quantifiable by an attributes or variables measurement system.

• They must represent a cross-section of the candidate's processes.

Data Collection and Analysis:

For each process parameter or product characteristic selected, the candidate's control charts will form the basis of the review. The Verification team will confirm the adequacy of the measurement system, data collection, statistical process control (SPC) utilization, and capability assessment.

If the process shows any form of instability, the candidate's reaction will be evaluated. If the process is stable, the capability of the process will be determined as follows :

• For variables data Cp and Cpk values should be calculated using the control chart and the Engineering Specification.

• For attribute data, a percent conforming value should be calculated using current data.

Appendix C Process Capability Review (PCR) (continued)

Scoring a PCR:

For each of the process parameters or product characteristics reviewed, a score will be calculated based on the following guidelines:

0 The process is unstable (i.e., not in a state of statistical control). No statement about capability is possible. No containment actions have occurred.

1 Containment actions have occurred, but no problem definition has taken place.

2 - 3 The use of other statistical methods (Pareto charts, cause & effect diagrams, etc.) and the eight- discipline approach has been started (2 points), or are in progress (3 points), but no corrective actions have been implemented.

4 - 5 As per 3, but corrective actions are in place, although it is too early to assess their effectiveness.

6 - 9 As per 5, but the use of problem solving and statistical methods has significantly improved the process although stability has not yet been achieved. As fewer points fall outside the trial control limits, 7 to 9 points may be awarded.

10 The processes are stable and containment actions are in place.

11 - 12 The process is stable and, for variables data measurements, has a Cpk > 1.0. For processes evaluated with attributes data, the process shows favorable improvement in either reduction of p or reduction in variation (closer control limits) over at least 12 months (11 points). The process shows favorable improvement in both reduction in p and variation over at least 12 months (12 points). (Twelve points represents the maximum available for processes evaluated using attributes data).

13 The process is stable, has a Cp > 1.33 and Cpk > 1.0, for at least 3 months.

14 The process is stable, has a Cp > 1.67 and Cpk > 1.0, for at least 3 months.

15 The process is stable, has a Cp > 2.00 and Cpk > 1.0, for at least 3 months.

The overall Q1 score for the PCR is the average score of each process parameter and product characteristic reviewed. A minimum overall score of 12 points is required to "pass" a PCR, if one is required.

Appendix D Q1 Quality System Survey Scoring

Q1 Quality System Survey Scoring Guidelines:

| | | |Percent |

|QSA Equiva-lent| | |of Available |

| |Level |Description |Points |

|0 |0 |The supplier is not familiar with the concept/criteria and has no relevant source documentation (flow charts, |0 |

| | |forecasts, plans, procedures, strategies etc.) in this area. | |

|0 |1 |The supplier is familiar with the concept/criteria, but there is no evidence of source documentation, planning |10 |

| | |or implementation. | |

|0 |2 |The supplier is familiar with the concept/criteria and has preliminary source documentation with incomplete |20 |

| | |plans for implementation. | |

|0 |3 |Source documents are available. Implementation (with assigned responsibility) has started (0 - 30% complete). |30 |

|0 |4 |Source documentations are available. Implementation is in progress and partially finished (30% - 60% complete).|40 |

| | |Deficiencies have been identified, but improvements are not verifiable. | |

|1 |5 |Source documents available. Implementation is nearly finished (60% - 80% complete) and there is preliminary |50 |

| | |evidence of relevant results. | |

|1 |6 |Source documents are available. Implementation is generally finished (80% - 95% complete). Documented evidence|60 |

| | |of relevant results has started. Teamwork with customers and interacting activities has begun. | |

|2 |7 |There is full implementation of source documentation for the concept or criteria and complete confirmed evidence|70 |

| | |of relevant results. The suppler has met Ford's minimum requirements. -- minimum Q1 requirement. | |

|2 |8 |The source document has been implemented and substantiated ongoing relevant results are available over time. |80 |

| | |Analysis of results and continuous improvement can be shown in some key areas, Teamwork with customers and | |

| | |interfacing activities is ongoing. | |

|3 |9 |The supplier has reached world class performance and is able to show growth beyond the standard and continuous |90 |

| | |improvement is all areas. | |

|3 |10 |The supplier is best-in-class and able to demonstrate significant innovation in new ways to show relevant |100 |

| | |results beyond the Ford standard. The supplier sets the industry standard and is the benchmark leader. | |

Variable Scoring Method :

Within each element (e.g., 4.1 - Management Responsibility), the result (0 to 10) for each question is marked in the right hand column of the assessment. The column is then totaled and averaged to obtain the final result.

As an alternative, third-party registration to QS-9000 is considered as satisfying the requirements of the 80% self-assessment score.

For engineering and service locations, third-party registration to ISO 9000 is considered as satisfying the requirements of the 80% self-assessment score for the ISO-based questions only in QSA-E and QSA-S.

Appendix E Publications

The following publications, along with the contact for additional copies, are part of the Q1 Award process:

|Publication |Publication Source |

|Advanced Product Quality Planning and Control Plan (APQP) |in North America: AIAG @ (810)-358-3003 |

| |in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement @ 1708-861333 |

|Advanced Product Quality Planning Status Reporting Guideline |National Reproductions Corporation |

| |29400 Stephenson Highway |

| |Madison Heights, MI 48071 @ (810) 398-7900 |

|Materials Management System Assessment (MMSA) |edcor Data Services |

| |PO Box 9079 |

| |Farmington Hills, MI 48333 @(810) 626-3077 |

|Materials Management System Requirement |edcor Data Services |

|(MS-9000) | |

|Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) |in North America: AIAG |

| |in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement |

|Quality Operating System Assessment |edcor Data Services |

|Quality System Assessment (QSA) |in North America: AIAG |

| |in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement |

|Quality System Assessment for Engineering Organizations (QSA-E) |edcor Data Services |

|Quality System Assessment for Service Organizations and Warehouse/Distribution |edcor Data Services |

|Facilities (QSA-S) | |

|Quality System Requirements (QS-9000) |in North America: AIAG |

| |in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement |

|Quality System Requirements, Tooling and Equipment Supplement (TE Supplement) |in North America: AIAG |

| |in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement |

|Tooling and Equipment Quality System Assessment (QSA-TE) |in North America: AIAG |

| |in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement |

| | |

Any questions regarding this document, or the content therein, should be directed to:

Quality Associate, Core Quality

Ford Automotive Operations Quality

DTC

16630 Southfield Rd.

Suite 42D34

Allen Park, MI 48101

Phone - (313) 390-4923

This manual published by Ford Automotive Operations - Quality

( Copyright Ford Motor Company, 1997

All Rights Reserved

Printed in the United States of America

-----------------------

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

PRINTED PAGE UNCONTROLLED

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

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download