be-pdp-fr-07-e papso form roanoke to waybo120809

BE-PDP-FR-07-E / Rev - (01-October-2007) Johnson Controls, Inc. Confidential and Proprietary

of 21

Product Approval & Process Sign-Off

INSTRUCTIONS for the PAPSO submission form & workbook

FORM INSTRUCTIONS:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

PURPOSE: Documents deliverable requirements and is the guideline for all deliverables of PAPSO.

RESPONSIBILITY: Project Manager is responsible for ensuring that the Project Development Team has accurately provided deliverables & status,

issues and actions with closure dates in preparation for all Gate reviews.

PAPSO form is mandatory and needs to be submitted for all applicable Part Approval & Process Sign Off (PAPSO) products.

Supplier Line Speed & Capacity is mandatory for SUPPLIER PAPSO submittals ONLY.

In the PAPSO form planning & Documentation dates are not required for Johnson Controls internal new products going thru PDP.

All forms other than the PAPSO form are for reference purpose only and may be used if no other template or form is mandated by Johnson Controls.

On the PAPSO form Items 17 thru 27 (in Bold Letters) are mandatory for supplier submissions.

REFERENCES: Refer to the PAPSO Procedure (BE-PDP-PR-08)


of 21

Product Approval & Process Sign-Off

Type Of Submission

New Product - JCI External Supplier: Supplier Name:

Interplant Transfer - JCI YES Part Change: Process Change: Location Change: New Part

Date of PAPSO:

Part/Assembly Name: Compressor Rotor Manufacturing Location Exit Roanoke

Part # or #'s: Part Rev Level:

Submitted by LONG JCI User Location

Status PRODUCT LAUNCH DATE: 01-Feb-10

1 12/01/09 Green Nemit

2 complete Green Dan Hager

3 ??? Nemit???

4 11/12/09 Yellow Rob Long

5 12/01/09 Green Rob Long

6 09/01/09 Green Complete Rob Long

7 01/15/10 Rob Long Measurement System Analysis - Gage R & R - (CADAR, July 09, snap gages, complete list to be loaded in e;room, ARAC)8 01/15/10 Rob Long Dimensional Results Layout @ Waybo, look for their approval

9 01/15/10 Green Complete Rob Long Material Test Results UL - Material Certs

10 01/15/10 Rob Long Process Capability Analysis In conjunction with Waynesboro

11 N/A N/A Appearance Approval Report12 01/15/10 Rob Long Sample Product Golden Samples

13 01/15/10 Complete Rob Long Checking Aids Work instructions, visual aides

14 N/A Nemit System /Product Test Results - Reliability & Functionality15 N/A Nemit Product Traceability & Branding plan16 Plant Layout complete17 Rob Long Tooling, Equipment, and Fixtures identified18 Rob Long Preventive Maintenance plans established19 Rudy Operators Trained and Instructions available20 Parts Handling Plan available21 Parts Packaging/Shipping/Branding Specifications available -Between Waybo and Monty)22 Purchased Components Readiness / Sub-supplier Part Submission complete23 Materials Readiness demonstrated24 Production validation (as applicable)25 Containment Plan available26 Supplier line speed and capacity verfied 27 Supplier Key Quality Systems Demonstrated 28 OTHER _____________________________

INTERIM Approvals

Items ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

needs to be complet & re-submitted to _____________________________________________ by _________________________________________________.

SIGNATURE DATE RESPONSIBILITY Plan Actual Comments

JCI Quality Eng.:

Approvals

SUPPLIER SIGNATURE DATE RESPONSIBILITY Plan Actual Comments

JCI Quality Eng.:

Supplier Quality Eng.:

Supplier Project Mgr.:

Approvals

JCI - INTERNAL (New Product/Interplant Transfer)

SIGNATURE DATE RESPONSIBILITY Plan Actual Comments

Plant Manager.:

Global Quality.:

Director, Global Quality.:

Reason For SUPPLIER Submission

Program Model Year & Part Family Name:

Planning & Documentation Target Date(s)

Implementation & Verification Completion

Date(s)ActionOwner

Design Records - Product Specifications/Drawings/Blueprints - (20 part numbers, Paul Nemit)Engineering Change Documents - (None , owned by Nemit)Design FMEA (Exists in Waybo?)Process Flow Diagrams - (In transfer e;room for Rotor Cell)Process FMEA- (In transfer e;room for Rotor Cell)Control Plan - Product / Process- (In transfer e;room for Rotor Cell)


of 21

Supplier PAPSO - Line and Speed Capacity

#VALUE! 30-Dec-99

#VALUE! Exit Roanoke

#VALUE! 30-Dec-99

#VALUE! 30-Dec-99

Line Speed & Capacity Verified

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments0 1 Has a machine process capability study been done and documented on all pieces of equipment?

0 2 Are projected ramp-up and peak demands known?

0 3 Is there a plan in place to compare your capacity against JCI releases at least monthly?

0 4 Has your manufacturing capacity plan been formulated to accommodate schedule changes?

0 5 Have the top three bottlenecks in the assembly process been identified?

0 6 Has an action plan been developed to reduce cycle time of the bottlenecks that were identified?

0 7 Have contingency plans been established to support production for 2 days in the event of equipment breakdown?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS

(A) # of Good parts built :__________________________________

(B) # of Total parts built :__________________________________

(C) Total run time, min. :__________________________________

Build Rate, min/pc (=C/A) : ________________________________

Yield, % (=A/B * 100) : ___________________________________

0 8 Is capacity sufficient to meet Johnson Controls peak production demands?

0 9

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Line Speed (Capacity) and Yield

Do the number of acceptable pieces coming off the end of line (as documented on PAPSO Checklist) meet or exceed production requirements?


of 21

Part Approval & Process Sign-Off WORKBOOK

Supplier Specific InstructionsPURPOSE: The Part Approval and Process Sign-Off (PAPSO) is intended to be a verification of " The Quality Systems and Manufacturing Readiness Plan" necessary for successful deployment of: (1) New parts, (2) Parts undergoing Engineering Changes, (3) Parts subject to Process Changes at the Supplier or sub-supplier; (4) Parts subject to a change in manufacturing location: (5) Existing parts being supplied by a new, different, or alternate supplier. The process may also be directed for existing products and suppliers if designated by the PDP team during the developemet of new end-item products.

The PAPSO will evaluate: The documentation of the required systems, the product conformance to the design records and specifications, and the effective implementation of the required Quality and Manufacturing systems.

WHEN : The PAPSO must be initiated prior to the Suppliers part submission to Johnson Controls. The Quality Engineer, QE (or designate) will schedule and lead the PAPSO using the Part Approval and Process Sign Off form along with the product specific records where applicable: (16a - 16e). The JCI Director of Supplier Quality, with input from the Supplier Commodity Mgr, Plant Operations Director, Plant Quality and Materials Manager, will identify when a Supplier should be allowed to perform the PAPSO themselves and submit the appropriate documentation to Johnson Controls for final approval.

Note: The Decision whether to schedule a JCI attended/led PAPSO or have the Supplier conduct their own is a subjective one. Some factors to consider are:

1.) What is the Suppliers past/present quality performance? e.g., PPM, on-time delivery, etc.2.) How critical is the Supplier's component to the overall success of the program?3.) Is the Supplier new to Johnson Controls? New to the automotive industry?4.) Does the component involve a new manufacturing process or technology for the Supplier?5.) What is the Suppliers current performance with Johnson Controls Supply Chan Management.

SCHEDULE PAPSO: Suppliers are required to notify their JCI Customer Pland Quality contact in the eventi any of the five listed conditions occurr: (1) New parts, (2) Parts undergoing Engineering Changes, (3) Parts subject to Process Changes at the Supplier or sub-supplier; (4) Parts subject to a change in manufacturing location: (5) Existing parts being supplied by a new, different, or alternate supplier. The QE (or designate) confirm the PAPSO requirement and communicate the PAPSO requirements and JCI's expectations. This includes sending the supplier a blank copy of the PAPSO Workbook. Which includes these Instructions, PAPSO form, Detail questions, Supplier Part Plan, Appearance, Dimensional, Material, Performance, and PDF Packaging Data Form. In the New Product Development Cycle, the PDP Team will forward the requriements for PAPSO to the supplier.

PLAN : The Supplier should prepare the PAPSO "Planning and Documentation" section by inserting Key Dates for the completion of each item in the "Planning and Documentaion" column and returning the document for Plan Approval. Multiple part numbers may be included on one PAPSO document provided the product introduction timing is consistent among the parts. The Detailed Questions in the PAPSO Workbook provide a valuable in-site into the requirements and should be completed.

a) The QE (or designate), with assistance from the Plant Materials Manager or Supplier Commodity Mgr, should fill out information in the "Completed by Johnson Controls" columns of the Supplier Part Plan prior to sending to the Supplier if this information is availale.

b) The PAPSO Form should then be returned to the Suppliers JCI Customer Plant Quality contact within 2 weeks of receipt of the PAPSO. The supplier is responsible for completing the remaining information on this form and providing updates if any planned timing is at risk or changed.

DO : CONDUCT PAPSO: The PAPSO team (Johnson Controls and Supplier representatives) should first review and evaluate all the Documentation requirements on the PAPSO form and then evaluate whether or not required systems were effectively Implemented into the plant and/or manufacturing line. Specific requirements for capacity demonstrations, Run-at-rate etc. may not apply to a specific part or supplier. These items may be identified as "N/A" at the descrition of the PAPSO or PDP teams. This would normally apply to Hardware items, bulk materials, and standard shelf-item electronic components.

DOCUMENT REVIEW - All documents, forms and supporting records must be evaluated for completeness, content and overall quality.

IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW - The (Johnson Controls purchased part) manufacturing line will be evaluated to ensure that the required quality, manufacturing and supporting systems have been implemented and are functioning effectively. Finally, the PAPSO team must verify the manufacturing line Run-at-Rate requirements. The PAPSO team must document the total good parts produced in a unit time and compare it to the Run-at-Rate goal. Self-certification and level of submission will be at the descretion of Johnson Controls as identified above.

CHECK : RED / YELLOW / GREEN: The Quality Engineer (or designate) must evaluate each item on the PAPSO form against the objective evidence provided. When the PAPSOline item requirement has been suitably demonstrated, the item is marked GREEN. Any requirement that does not meet the satisfaction of the PASPSO team will be marked RED (high risk) or YELLOW (low risk), and the issue is added to the PAPSO Action Item list. Corrective Actions should be completed in no more thqan 30 days or expediated in order to meet ptoduction and/or or product introduction requirements.

NOTE: Any items which do not apply to this supplier or product shall be marked as "N/A," and the reason why this is not applicable shall be recorded in the "Comments" section of the corresponding detailed checklist item.

ACT : APPROVE PAPSO: The PAPSO is approved (signatures on the PAPSO form) when all PAPSO form items are GREEN. The PAPSO Leader will change a RED or YELLOW to GREEN when the PAPSO Issue has been corrected and verified. The PAPSO may be approved at seperate stages. Plan Approval, Process Verification, and Part Approval.


of 21

Supplier PAPSO - Detailed Questions

#REF! #REF!

#REF! #REF!

#REF! #REF!

1. Plant Layout and Process Flow Diagram

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments

1. 1

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS1. 2 Does each workstation provide adequate lighting and sufficient space to promote effective working conditions?

1. 3 Are inspection point locations effective in preventing shipment of nonconforming products?

1. 4 Is there an identified area for nonconforming material, segregated from the manufacturing area?

1. 5 Is the procedure to re-qualify all reworked/repaired material being followed?

2. Tooling, Equipment & Fixtures Identified

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments2. 1 Is there a list of tooling, equipment and fixtures used for this product?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS2. 2 Is all equipment, gauging and tooling the same as will be used in production?

2. 3 Are all tools, equipment and fixtures clearly identified with a number, and with "Property of ____________"?

2. 4 Have customer specific requirements, e.g. branding, been met?

3. Preventive Maintenance Plans

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments3. 1 Has a preventive maintenance system been established for each piece of equipment?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS3. 2 Is the preventive maintenance system being followed?

3. 3 Is there an adequate supply of perishable tooling available in house?

3. 4

4. Operator Training & Instructions


4. 1

4. 2 Have all support personnel been identified and has this been communicated to the manufacturing team?

4. 3 Have all off-line job responsibilities been identified and assigned to qualified team members?

4. 4 Have production trainers been identified for each shift?

4. 5 Has a training matrix been set up to track team member training on these procedures?

4. 6 Is a system in place to certify operators?

4. 7 Is a system in place to verify operator training on gages, visual aids, and operator instructions?


4. 8

4. 9

4. 10 Are visual aids dated, approved & current?

4. 11 Are inspection gages and gage instructions readily available?

4. 12 Are rework and repair procedures in place and being followed?

5. Parts Handling Plan

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments5. 1 Have the handling and storage requirements of material, including delicate components, been reviewed?

5. 2 Are orders in place on components & packaging to support on-time production requirements?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS5. 3 Is the storage of material adequate to protect it from environmental factors?

5. 4 Is the storage location for components organized & monitored?

5. 5 Have controls been established to eliminate the potential for an operation to contaminate or mix similar products?

5. 6 Is the access to components limited to authorized personnel?

6. Parts Packaging/Shipping Specifications

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments6. 1 Has adequate protective packaging for finished product been defined?

6. 2 Have records of test shipping containers and trips been documented? (Ex: What was used on sample builds?)

6. 3 Does the label meet Customer requirements?

6. 4 Have you completed and submitted Packaging Data Forms (PDF) for all components?

6. 5 Is your system ready to send Advance Ship Notices (ASN), or Customer directed communication for these parts?

6. 6 Have you received a copy of Johnson Controls routing instructions?

6. 7

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS6. 8A Does packaging meet agreed upon standards as reflected on PDF?

Is specifications on branding at hand.

Is a contract with clear specification on who compensates for design faults and manufacturing faults at hand.

6. 8B Is a plan for disposal of branded item not meeting the requirements at hand -

6. 9 Does labeling of production packaging meet standards?

7. Purchased Components Readiness / Sub-supplier Part Submission Process

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments7. 1 Have you completed a Bill of Material review and have all necessary changes been made?

7. 2

7. 3 Are current specifications available for supplied material?

7. 4 Has an acceptable certification program for incoming material been implemented?

7. 5


7. 6 Are controls in place to isolate and inspect incoming material? (as determined by projected incoming quality levels)

7. 7 Is there an effective lot traceability system in place?

8. Materials Readiness Demonstrated

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments8. 1 Has the Supplier Part Plan been completed?

8. 2 Is cycle count frequency for components, WIP and finished goods appropriate for this product?

8. 3 Is there a system to require material certication and verification prior to release to production?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS - None

8. 4 Do material certications demonstrate compliance to material specifications?

9. Product Specifications & Drawings

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments9. 1 Is the current revision of the applicable Johnson Controls specification(s) on hand?

9. 2 Are specifications reflected on drawings and design records correctly?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS - None

10. Process Flow Diagram

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments10 1 Is there a dated copy of the current floor plan readily available?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS - None10 2 Does the actual material and production flow follow the process flowchart?

11. Design and Process FMEA


11. 1 Does the DFMEA have the correct Part #, Revision Level, Orig. Date and Rev. Date?

11. 2

11. 3 Are there RPN calculations for each failure mode and recommended actions for high risk RPN's (>Threshold)?

PFMEA

11. 4

11. 5 Are there RPN calculations for each failure mode and recommended actions for high risk RPNs (>Threshold)?

11. 6 Does the PFMEA follow the process flow?

12. Product Control Plan

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments12. 1 Does the Control Plan have the correct Part #, Revision Level, Orig. Date and Rev. Date?

12. 2 Does the control plan follow the process flowchart?

12. 3

12. 4

12. 5 Are appropriate potential failure modes, as identified in the PFMEA, addressed through the control plan?

12. 6


12. 7 Are all controls (including SPC), identified on the PFMEA and Control Plan, being used in the production process?

12. 8 Are all controls verified on a periodic basis to ensure desired results?

12. 9 Are all the elements of the control plan being followed?

13. Product Trace-ability Plan

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments13. 1 Is product traceable to location, date, and time of manufacure?

13. 2 Are provisions in place to desiginate multiple process streams (multiple cavities, dies, tools, etc.) where applicable.

13. 3 Is traceablity information usable after installation and use by the customer?

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS13 4 Are all trace-ability tools, processes in place and functioning?

13.5

13.6 6 Are trace-ability codes evident on product ready for shipment?

14. Containment Plan

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments14. 1 Are there procedures in place to protect customer in the event of 'Customer Complaint'?

14. 2

14. 3 Do Containment procedures drive/trigger problem solving?

14. 4 Is the containment plan adequate to launch a defect-free product?

14. 5 Is there a Plant Contingency Plan written?


14. 6

14. 7

14. 8 Are the Final Part Audit Instructions written and approved?

14. 9

15. Gage & Check Fixture Evaluation

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments15. 1 Has a gage / test fixture proveout checklist been completed? (if applicable)

15. 2 Have all gages been dimensionally certified?

15. 3 Were gage R&R's performed and acceptable (<10%) on all variable data measuring instruments?

15. 4

15. 5 Are procedures in place to calibrate test & measurement equipment on a regular basis?

15. 6 Has a list of untested components been compiled? (if applicable )

15. 7 Are test intermittent and open issues documented? (if applicable)

IMPLEMENTATION / PROCESS QUESTIONS15. 8 Are identified master good & master bad parts in place for the build?

15. 9 Are all gages and test equipment properly calibrated and traceable to a known standard?

15. 10 Are Engineering Change levels and calibration dates clearly called out on all gages?

15. 11 Do gages and test fixtures properly locate the part (ref. part drawing) and check necessary part features?

15. 12 Are procedures being followed to calibrate test & measuring equipment on a regular basis?

16. Product Validation Complete (16a - 16e : All that apply)

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments16. 1 Is Design Validation and Production Validation data present for all items requiring validation?

16. 2 Has all the validation data been analyzed with acceptable results?

16. 3

16. 4 Are all specifications and measurement method(s) agreed among Joyhnson Controls and the supplier?

16. 5 Are all Laboratories used in product validation approved by the appropriate approval authority?


16. 6

17. Key Quality Systems

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments17. 1 Has pilot build data been collected and stored?

17. 2 Is there a returned material authorization (RMA) process in place?

17. 3 Is there a procedure to re-qualify all reworked/repaired material?

17. 4 Are systems in place for continuous data collection to drive process improvement for this part?

17. 5 Does the problem solving system incorporate the 8-Disciplines approach?

17. 6 Are all part-specific 8D's which impact this product resolved?


17. 7

17. 8

17. 9 Are trends and out of control situations being noted and corrected?

18. Line Speed & Capacity Verified

DOCUMENTATION QUESTIONS Comments18. 1 Has a machine process capability study been done and documented on all pieces of equipment?

18. 2 Are projected ramp-up and peak demands known?

18. 3 Is there a plan in place to compare your capacity against JCI releases at least monthly?

18. 4 Has your manufacturing capacity plan been formulated to accommodate schedule changes?

18. 5 Have the top three bottlenecks in the assembly process been identified?

18. 6 Has an action plan been developed to reduce cycle time of the bottlenecks that were identified?

18. 7 Have contingency plans been established to support production for 2 days in the event of equipment breakdown?


(A) # of Good parts built :__________________________________

(B) # of Total parts built :__________________________________

(C) Total run time, min. :__________________________________

Build Rate, min/pc (=C/A) : ________________________________

Yield, % (=A/B * 100) : ___________________________________

18. 8 Is capacity sufficient to meet Johnson Controls peak production demands?

18. 9

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Does the floor plan identify the following: All required assembly, process and inspection stations? Locations for all raw material, work in process (WIP) and finished product?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Are all "Master Good / Master Bad" samples and any applicable fault masters in the Preventative Maintenance schedule?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Has a staffing (Production Operators) plan been developed to cover launch acceleration and full production requirements?

Are there set-ups, instructions and verification checklists posted for all equipment and operations? Are they being followed?

Are visual aids (including appropriate boundary samples) and operator instructions readily accessible by the operators at each station and being followed?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Has the shipping system been established to include: 1) Ship to Location & Dock Code 2) Shipment Frequency & Window 3) Primary Carrier 4) Expedite Carrier 5) Container Return/Maintenance 6) Saturday <Weekend?> Shipments 7) Freight Ownership & Payment 8) Pre-Production & Production Label Formats

STATUS (G/Y/R)

For each component/supplier with long lead times, do you have an action plan to ensure that adequate material is available to support Johnson Controls production needs? Note: unless otherwise specified, Johnson Controls fab/raw lead time expectations are 2/4 weeks, respectively.

Are there approved Sub-supplier Part Submission Process packages available for ALL Supplier-purchased components? (Note: Supplier part submissions for "Bulk" materials are not required unless requested by any customer 'downstream'.)

STATUS (G/Y/R)

STATUS (G/Y/R)

STATUS (G/Y/R)

STATUS (G/Y/R)

DFMEA (If Supplier is Design responsible)

Does the DFMEA include all functional specifications, appearance specifications, Significant Characteristics and Critical Safety Requirements as defined by the drawings and design records?

Does the PFMEA include all Johnson Controls required Significant Characteristics and internal SCs and Safety Requirements as defined by the drawings and internal requirements?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Does the Control Plan include the following: Incoming Inspection, In-process Inspection & Controls, Final Part Audit and Pre-Launch Containment Requirements?

Does the Control Plan include all the Johnson Controls SCs and Safety Requirements as defined by the drawings and Design Records?

Does Control Plan include both gage and test requirements?(including quantity, frequency, and required specifications?)

STATUS (G/Y/R)

In cases of Pressure Equipment - the material must be traceable to the batch/mould and a plan for transferring batchmarking when tooling removes the batch marking should be in place.

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Do these procedures ensure complete isolation of suspect material, at both customer and supplier locations? At transportation and storage locations?

Are the containment audit instructions in place and being followed? Posted at the station/process where the inspection takes place? (Instructions clearly visible. Non-conforming parts should be clearly marked as such and segregated, until the audit has been completed.)

Are there Labeling and Scanning instructions available? If necessary check for instructions regarding handling of parts prior to containment.

Is the team tracking the production builds and Containment audit results on the Launch Containment Chart? Are the issues being resolved?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Were gage R&R's performed and acceptable (ref. AIAG "Measurement Systems Analysis" manual) on all attribute measuring instruments?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

If any items in 16.2 requires "level -up" countermeasures, are the actions, timing and responsibility plans satisfactory? ("level-Up" are parts that are temporarily acceptable for SOP but will require improvements to meet specification.)

Is the validation equipment capable of performing all the tasks required to test product to AG product validation specifications?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Is the system being followed to ensure the correct revision level is in place for all engineering documents? (Specifications, PFMEA, Control Plans, Setup Sheets, Operator Instructions, Visual Aids)Are all "Master Good / Master Bad" samples available on line? Are they signed & dated?

STATUS (G/Y/R)

Line Speed (Capacity) and Yield

Do the number of acceptable pieces coming off the end of line (as documented on PAPSO Checklist) meet or exceed production requirements?


of 21

Supplier Part Plan

Supplier Name: Program Name:Supplier Number: Duns #:

Primary Customer Service Contact: Phone #:

Fax #:

Completed by Joohnson Controls

Completed by Supplier

Part Description

Supplier Assumptions:

Johnson Controls

Part #

Johnson Controls

PO # Shipment Frequency

QuotedVolume(Annual)

Peak Capacity (units per month)

Shifts per Day

Shifts per Week

Estimated Scrap %

Leadtime of Part

to AG

Finished Goods Levels (Planned days

on hand)Mfg

LocationShip From Location

Seeing EDI from this

AG site?

Supplier Part Submission

(PSW) Target Date

E11

This is the nominal annual volume which the supplier is expecting to produce.


of 21

Supplier PAPSO - Action Item

Program Name: (Customer, model yr, name) Program #:

Part Name: Rev. Level:

Part Number: Last rev. date:

Date of Review:

Quest. # Issue Corrective Action PlanPerson Responsible

Target due date

Completion date


of 21

Supplier PAPSO - Packaging Data Form

Supplier Packaging Data Form (PDF) Form must be signed and dated to be valid

Program Information Supplier Information

Program Description: Company Name: Phone:

Model Year: Originator Address: Fax:

Issue Date: Supplier Contact: E-mail:

Part Information

JCI V# Part Description Est. Annual Vol.

1.

2.

3.

JCI V# Part Description Est. Annual Vol.

4.

5.

6.

Returnable Packaging Information (Expendable back up is required. Must have similar inside dimensions)

Container Description:

Dunnage Description 1:


Container Dim: L x W x H Loaded Cont. Wt. lbs.

Full Pallet Dim: L x W x H Loaded Pallet Wt. lbs.

Quantity Per: Container Layer Pallet

Pallet type: Expendable Returnable

Expendable Packaging Information

Container Description:



Container Dim: L x W x H Loaded Cont. Wt. lbs.

Full Pallet Dim: L x W x H Loaded Pallet Wt. lbs.

Quantity Per: Container Layer Pallet

JCI Sign off Supplier Sign off Packaging Engineer Date Responsible Engineer Date ME/QE Date

Supplier Packaging Data Form (PDF) Purpose and Instructions

The purpose of the PDF is to provide the JCI Packaging Engineer with the most recent packaging proposal for each component provided by the supplier. The JCI Packaging Engineer will review the pack for potential ergo or safety issues and also determine returnable packaging feasibility. The information is then distributed to the Materials and Manufacturing Teams for logistical, material flow and lineside analysis. It is the responsibility of the supplier to provide the packaging cost to the JCI Buyer for approval. To help provide the most accurate information please follow the instructions below. For a complete list of JCI expectations, please reference our supplier manual at http://www.jcimanual.com/. 1. Program Information

Program Description: The description is the acronym for the program created by the OEM. Also, include the part type, i.e. GMX367 Cockpit. Model Year: Model year reflects the OEM’s start of production data, i.e. Model 2010. Issue Date: The issue date is the date packaging was prototyped.

2. Supplier Information

Company Name: The name of the company supplying goods to JCI. Originator Address: Location of the company supplying goods to JCI. Supplier Contact: Be sure to include the main contact that is available for any questions.


1. Part Information

This section is to be fully completed. Estimated volume is referenced for returnable packaging analysis. 2. Returnable Packaging Information

The container and dunnage description needs to include material and design type. If dunnage is expendable, indicate that within the description.

When using molded containers, it is best to include the container model. Example:

Container Description: NSO241507

Dunnage Description 1:Fleece coated plastic corrugated

Dunnage Description 2: Expendable polycoated pad

3. Expendable Packaging Information

The container and dunnage description needs to include material and design type. It is important to indicate corrugated, polychip, chip and wall descriptions.

Example:

Container Description: Double wall RSC

Dunnage Description 1:Cell chip partition 2 layers

Dunnage Description 2: 2 polychip pads, 1 per layer


1. Dimension, Weight, and Pallet Information.

All dimensions indicated need to be listed as the outside dimensions. Always try to utilize a 48”x45” or 32”x30” size pallet. Container dimensions should maximize those standard footprints. Pallet height includes overall pallet with containers. If pallets are stackable, keep outside pallet height below 50”. JCI Safety and Ergonomics guidelines require the container gross weight not to exceed 30 pounds.

If you have any questions regarding the information being requested, please contact your JCI Packaging contact. Once you have completed the form, please e-mail or fax to your JCI Packaging contact.


of 21

APPEARANCE APPROVAL REPORT

PART DRAWING APPLICATION

NUMBER NUMBER (VEHICLES)

PART BUYER E/C LEVEL DATE

NAME CODE

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING SUPPLIER / VENDOR

NAME LOCATION

REASON FOR New Part Process Change New Supplier

SUBMISSION Part Change Location Change Other

APPEARANCE EVALUATIONRequired Criteria Evaluation COMMENTS

1

2

3

45

Texture Approval NO Applies AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER

ORGANIZATION SOURCING AND TEXTURE INFORMATION PRE-TEXTURE REPRESENTATIVE

EVALUATION SIGNATURE AND DATE

COLOR EVALUATION NO AppliesMETALLIC COLOR

COLOR TRISTIMULUS DATA MASTER MASTER MATERIALMATERIAL HUE VALUE CHROMA GLOSS BRILLIANCE SHIPPING PART

SUFFIX DL* Da* Db* DE* CMC NUMBER DATE TYPE SOURCE RED YEL GRN BLU LIGHT DARK GRAY CLEAN HIGH LOW HIGH LOW SUFFIX DISPOSITION

COMMENTS

ORGANIZATION PHONE NO. DATE AUTHORIZED CUSTOMER DATE

SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE

CORRECT AND PROCEED

CORRECT AND PROCEED

APPROVED TO ETCH/TOOL/EDM


of 21

Production Part ApprovalDimensional Test Results

ORGANIZATION: PART NUMBER:

SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: PART NAME:

INSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL:

ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:

ITEM OK

Blanket statements of conformance are unacceptable for any test results.

SIGNATURE TITLE DATE

DIMENSION / SPECIFICATION

SPECIFICATION / LIMITS

TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

ORGANIZATION MEASUREMENT RESULTS (DATA)

NOT OK


of 21

Production Part ApprovalPerformance Test Results



NAME of LABORATORY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL:

*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:

*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code.

TEST SPECIFICATION / REV / DATE OK




TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA)/ TEST CONDITIONS

NOT OK


of 21

Production Part ApprovalMaterial Test Results



MATERIAL SUPPLIER: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL:

*CUSTOMER SPECIFIED SUPPLIER / VENDOR CODE: ENGINEERING CHANGE DOCUMENTS:

*If source approval is req'd, include the Supplier (Source) & Customer assigned code. NAME of LABORATORY:

MATERIAL SPEC. NO. / REV / DATE SUPPLIER TEST RESULTS (DATA) OK




TEST DATE

QTY. TESTED

NOT OK


of 21

PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST

Part # / Description:

Question Yes No Person Responsible Due Date

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Comment / Action Required

Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production and inspection stations?

Were all appropriate FMEA's (SFMEA, DFMEA) available and used as aids to develop the process flow chart?

Is the flow chart keyed to product and process checks in the control plan?

Does the flow chart describe how the product will move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?

Has the pull system/optimization been considered for this process?

Have provisions been made to identify and inspect reworked product before being used?

Have potential quality problems due to handling and outside processing been identified and corrected?


of 21

PROCESS FLOWCHART

Product / Part #/Description Issue DatePlantLocation

Legend:

Operation Transportation Inspection Delay Storage

Operation or Event Description of Evaluation

Operation or Event and Analysis Methods


of 21

CONTROL PLAN CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required Due Date

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Person Responsible

Was the control plan methodology referenced in Section 6 used in preparing the control plan?

Have all known customer complaints been identified to facilitate the selection of special product/process characteristics?

Are all special product/process characteristics included in the control plan?

Were SFMEA, DFMEA, and PFMEA used to prepare the control plan?

Are material specifications requiring inspection identified?

Does the control plan address incoming (material/components) through processing/assembly including packaging?

Are engineering performance testing requirements identified?

Are gages and test equipment available as required by the control plan?

If required, has the customer approved the control plan?

Are gage methods compatible between supplier and customer?


of 21

CONTROL PLAN

Control Plan Number Key Contact/Phone Date (Orig.) Date (Rev.)

Part Number/Latest Change Level Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

Part Name/Description Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

Supplier/Plant Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

CHARACTERISTICS METHODS

NO. PRODUCT PROCESSPRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE

SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENTSIZE FREQ.TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE

PART/ PROCESSNUMBER

PROCESS NAME/OPERATION

DESCRIPTION

MACHINE,DEVICE

JIG, TOOLSFOR MFG.

SPECIALCHAR.CLASS

REACTIONPLANCONTROL

METHOD

Prototype Pre-Launch Production


of 21

PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST

Customer or Internal Part No.

Question Yes No Comment / Action Required Due Date

1

2

3 Were similar part FMEA's considered?4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Revision Date

Prepared By:

Person Responsible

Was the Process FMEA prepared using the Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors guidelines?

Have all operations affecting fit, function, durability, governmental regulations and safety been identified and listed sequentially?

Have historical campaign and warranty data been reviewed?

Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or taken for high risk priority items?

Have appropriate corrective actions been planned or taken for high severity numbers?

Were risk priorities numbers revised when corrective action was completed?

Were high severity numbers revised when a design change was completed?

Do the effects consider the customer in terms of the subsequent operation, assembly, and product?

Was warranty information used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA?

Were customer plant problems used as an aid in developing the Process FMEA?

Have the causes been described in terms of something that can be fixed or controlled?

Where detection is the major factor, have provisions been made to control the cause prior to the next operation?


of 21

S E

V

CLA

SS

Potential OC

CU

R

DE

TE

CT

R P

N

Item Process Function/ Potential Potential Cause(s)/ Current Current Recommended Responsibility Action ResultsRequirements Failure Effect(s) of Mechanism(s) Process Process Actions & Target Actions S O D R.

Mode Failure of Failure Controls Controls Completion Taken e c e P.Prevention Detection Date v c t N. Notes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14


of 21

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEET GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY DATA SHEETVARIABLE DATA RESULTS VARIABLE DATA RESULTS

Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A Part Number Gage Name Appraiser A

Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B Part Name Gage Number Appraiser B

Characteristic Specification Gage Type Appraiser C Characteristic Gage Type Appraiser C

Lower UpperCharacteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed Characteristic Classification Trials Parts Appraisers Date Performed

APPRAISER/ PART AVERAGE Measurement Unit Analysis % Tolerance (Tol)TRIAL # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Repeatability - Equipment Variation (EV)

1. A 1 EV = Trials K1 % EV = 100 (EV/Tol)

2 2 = 2 0.8865 =

3 3 = 3 0.5907 =

4 AVE Reproducibility - Appraiser Variation (AV)

5 R AV = % AV = 100 (AV/Tol)

6. B 1 = =

7 2 = =

8 3 Appraisers 2 3

9 AVE n = parts r = trials 0.7087 0.5236

10 R Repeatability & Reproducibility (GRR) % GRR = 100 (GRR/Tol)

11. C 1 GRR = Parts =

12 2 = 2 0.7087 =

13 3 = 3 0.5236

14 AVE Part Variation (PV) 4 0.4464

15 R PV = 5 0.4032 % PV = 100 (PV/Tol)

16. PART = 6 0.3745 =

AVERAGE = 7 0.3534 =

17 Tolerance (Tol) 8 0.3378

18 Tol = Upper - Lower / 6 9 0.3247 ndc = 1.41(PV/GRR)

19 = ( Upper - Lower ) / 6 10 0.3145 =

= =

beyond this limit. Identify the cause and correct. Repeat these readings using the same appraiser and unit as originally used or

Notes:

R x K1

xa=

ra= {(xDIFF x K2)2 - (EV2/nr)}1/2

xb= K2

rb=

{(EV2 + AV2)}1/2 K3

xc=

rc= RP x K3

X=

Rp=

(ra + rb + rc) / (# OF APPRAISERS) = R=

xDIFF = (Max x - Min x) = xDIFF=

* UCLR = R x D4 = UCLR=

* D4 =3.27 for 2 trials and 2.58 for 3 trials. UCLR represents the limit of individual R's. Circle those that are

discard values and re-average and recompute R and the limiting value from the remaining observations. For information on the theory and constants used in the form see MSA Reference Manual, Third edition.

F12

MSA recommends 3 trail, 10 part, 3 appraiser analysis when possible


of 21

GAGE REPEATABILITY AND REPRODUCIBILITY REPORTATTRIBUTE ANALYTICAL METHOD

Part Number Gage Name Appraiser

Part Name Gage Number Date Performed

Characteristic Gage Type Upper Limit Lower Limit

ATTRIBUTE DATA

# a After entering data, follow the directions on the tab marked1 0.000 'Graph' to create the Gage Performance Curve2 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.000

FROM THE GRAPHENTER THE FOLLOWING:

Measurement Unit Analysis Bias Repeatability

B = R == =

t Statistic

t = 31.3 IBI / R = 2.093==

Result

ReviewedTitle

XT P'a

XT (P=.5) =

XT (P=.995) =

XT (P=.005) =

t0.025,19


of 21

CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX



INSPECTION FACILITY: DESIGN RECORD CHANGE LEVEL:

DIMENSION

Cha

ract

eris

tic D

esig

nat

ion Capability Summary

Short Term Long Term

NUMBER DESCRIPTION TOLERANCE Pp PpK Cp Cpk

Sample Size (n>=

30)

Sample Size n=3,100

Subgroups or equilavent