Kvalitetsfabriken

Deep Dive 04 — Weak APQP/PPAP Discipline

Written by

Roland Vikström

in

TL;DR

When APQP/PPAP is treated as paperwork instead of a risk management system, launches suffer. Generic PFMEAs, mismatched control plans, and skipped validations create instability and customer distrust.

Executive Snapshot

APQP and PPAP create a common language for launching products right the first time. When treated as checklists, they fail. Weak discipline leaves gaps in risk analysis, control plans, and validation. The result: late changes, unstable launches, and hidden risks that surface in the field.

Why it happens

  • Launch pressure drives shortcuts to hit dates.
  • Docs filled to satisfy customers rather than to drive risk thinking.
  • Suppliers treat PPAP as a one‑time hurdle instead of a living system.
  • Management confuses “submitted” with “complete.”

How it shows up

  • Control plans don’t match actual processes.
  • PFMEAs are generic, copy‑paste documents.
  • MSA and capability studies skipped or placeholder data used.
  • PPAPs pass on paper but fail on the shop floor; problems resurface post‑SOP.

Consequences

  • Unstable launches and late design/process changes.
  • Early field failures; customer confidence erodes.
  • Escalations, extra audits, containment costs.
  • Factory stays noisy with chronic issues.

The Fix

  • Restore APQP/PPAP as a risk management system, not a document package.
  • Link PFMEA failure modes to real process data.
  • Ensure control plans reflect how the process actually runs.
  • Run MSAs and capability studies before submission.
  • Cross‑functional readiness reviews; PPAP proves capability and readiness.

Root Causes (6M+E)

DimensionTypical Issues
MeasurementSkipped MSAs; weak capability data
MethodsGeneric PFMEAs; control plans misaligned with reality
MachinesRun‑at‑rate skipped; unproven equipment
MaterialsSupplier data unverified; raw material variation ignored
ManpowerTeams treat APQP as paperwork; poor PFMEA/control plan skills
EnvironmentLaunch sites unprepared; gaps found after SOP

Diagnostics & Quick Checks

  • Do PFMEAs link to real process characteristics and data?
  • Does the control plan reflect what operators actually do?
  • Are MSAs and capability studies credible?
  • Was run‑at‑rate performed with production‑intent tools, parts, staffing?
  • Did the cross‑functional team confirm readiness to ship?

Acceptance Criteria

  • PFMEAs identify real risks and link to control plans.
  • Control plans match actual processes and operator instructions.
  • MSAs and capability studies confirm readiness.
  • Run‑at‑rate validates volume capability.
  • Cross‑functional sign‑off without containment.

30/60/90‑Day Playbook

0–30 days

  • Audit recent APQP/PPAPs for PFMEA, control plan, MSA, and capability gaps.
  • Run training refreshers on APQP/PPAP intent.
  • Close obvious gaps in measurement and control plan accuracy.

31–60 days

  • Revise PFMEAs with real failure data.
  • Align control plans with operator instructions and SPC.
  • Run‑at‑rate with production‑intent tools, staffing, environment.

61–90 days

  • Institutionalize layered APQP/PPAP reviews.
  • Add APQP metrics to program dashboards.
  • Require revalidation after significant process, material, or supplier changes.

Sustain & Scale

  • Tie APQP/PPAP to launch gates and supplier management.
  • Audit the shop floor, not just documents.
  • Capture lessons learned to strengthen future launches.
  • Treat APQP/PPAP as a living risk‑control system.

When discipline is strong, launches stabilize, credibility grows, and the factory begins to play itself.

📄 Download this Deep Dive as PDF

References & Further Reading

More posts