7.component part

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ
18,1 Component part quality
assurance concerns
and standards
128
Comparison of world-class manufacturers
Alan D. Smith
Department of Management and Marketing, Robert Morris University,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide practitioners of management with a comparative
analysis of how two global firms ensure quality standards in new product development/new product
manufacturability processes and manage design changes in reduced product life cycles in the current
economic recession.
Design/methodology/approach – The firms selected were: Newell Rubbermaid, a high-volume
manufacturer with a diverse product offering, designing and manufacturing consumer products for
large retail customers, and General Electric Healthcare Coils, a low-volume manufacturer of a niche
product for the magnet resonance imaging medical diagnostic systems. This case study presented a
review of the quality steps performed when they are faced with a design change to a part, benchmarking
their quality processes with the highest industrial standards possible.
Findings – The effective managing of engineering change has always been difficult, time consuming,
and a regular source of inefficiency and irritation for manufacturers. Best-in-class companies
understand that better change processes can drive top-line benefits and the two distinct companies
have developed very similar processes through effective industrial benchmarking activities that result
in improving speed to market while maintaining high-quality standards.
Practical implications – The component part design revision processes are well documented
between the two firms, with an appropriate comparative analysis.
Originality/value – Corporate management has demonstrated a commitment to component part
quality throughout the development and redesigns processes and has earned and maintained the
reputation of best-in-class manufacturing in their respective fields. Through successful quality
assurances and collaboration processes, the companies studied found stability in a very turbulent
financial and service-orientated marketplace.
Keywords Benchmarking, Corporate strategy, Competitive advantage, World class manufacturing,
Product development
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
1.1 Quality assurances through the product life cycle
One of the key strategic decisions in operations management and in providing
a competitive product is applying the correct quality techniques to assure that parts
Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2011 The author wishes to thank, most heartedly the reviewers for their valuable contributions and
pp. 128-148 input into the final paper. Peer reviewing and editing are commonly tedious and thankless tasks.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-5771
The author equally thanks the management teams of HR and GEHCC for demonstrating a
DOI 10.1108/14635771111109850 willingness to share in their world-class processes of manufacturing.

continue to meet the specified quality and design requirements throughout the product’s Component
life cycle in a lean management fashion (Biswas and Sarker, 2008; Browning and Heath, part quality
2009; Chan and Kumar, 2009; Grewal, 2008). As suggested by Butcher (2006), a great
function of product design is to be able to project and embody the future rather than the assurance
present, where true added value comes from. Competition in the marketplace demands
that companies develop and manufacture complex products with higher performance
and quality at a lower price than before to stay competitive. Product life cycles have 129
decreased, thus creating the need to develop new product development/new product
manufacturability (NPD/NPM) processes and manage design change in a shorter period
of time with no compromise on quality assurance (Pikosz and Malmqvst, 2000; Summers
and Scherpereel, 2008; Swink, 1999, 2000). Leading manufacturers in their respective
fields understand the importance of this and have developed new product and change
quality control systems that maximize profitability for their organization. Song and
Parry (1999), for example, created and tested a contingency model is used to examine the
moderating affects of product innovativeness on new produce performance. Their model
linked measures of product innovativeness, product synergy, development proficiency,
product competitive advantage, and product performance. The model performance
suggested that increases in product innovativeness weaken the influence of product
synergies and development proficiencies on product performance.
Through the four phases of the product’s life cycle different types of quality
techniques will be required. In the development phase, extensive reliability testing
and research will be required to assure design compliance to the quality and design
requirements. As the product moves into the growth cycle, more focus will be placed on
process quality and supplier quality. In the mature product phase and the end of life
phase, quality becomes a process of optimization and cost reduction. As suggested by
Dudek-Burlikowska and Szewieczek (2007), through all four cycles a critical aspect of
product quality is determining the part quality sensitivity to minor changes and how
those changes affect product quality and reliability.
Competitive advantage goes deeper than just the quality of parts and products.
Summers and Jones (2002) pointed to several areas to address when developing
competetive advantage but for this comparison analysis, the author of the present study
will only focus on the process of maintaining part quality and reliability as the
complonent travels through a design change process.

1.2 Top management’s involvement is associated with innovative NPD/NPM processes
that result in redefining manufacturing culture
Top management involvement is essential in promoting product design initiatives
¨
common to successful NPD/NPM processes (Toremen et al., 2009; Tripathi and Jeevan,
2009; Vinodh et al., 2008; Wan and Chen, 2008). As McDermott (1999, p. 638) commented,
“Across all the projects, there was a persistence among team believers that simply would
not let the projects die”. There appeared to be both a strong champion as well as a strong
sponsor, usually a director through the CEO that provided the encouragement and/or
financial backing to the projects when traditional sources were eliminated. This trend
was especially true in product developments requiring long payback periods.
Unfortunately, many product development and innovations that are viable and
possibly essential for the long-term survival of the firm may be denied due to the need for
short-term high rate of return mentality exhibited by many manufacturing firms:

BIJ Rather than based on promises of specific economic payback hurdles, sponsors commonly
cited continued investment on a gut feel that the project could have significant impact on the
18,1 long-term success of the firm. Without a sponsor, many of the projects would have “fallen
between the cracks” of the existing businesses of their corporations. The sponsor of each of
these projects worked to keep them alive (even unofficially), and encourage business units to
adopt them (McDermott, 1999, pp. 638-9).
130 It is critical, regardless of all the other factors that someone within the firm with
a position of power must be willing to identify and promote high-risk and high-potential
projects. Concepts of financial and upper management support are important
for promoting the positive effects of development team integration on successful
NPD/NPM processes.
Quinn et al. (1996, p. 71) suggested that “the success of a corporation lies more in its
intellectual and systems capabilities than in its physical assets”. The traditional method
of management of human capital, creativity, innovation, and the learning culture within
an organization has long over-shadowed the management of the professional intellect.
As with the tenets of resource-based view, strategic philosophy (Michalisin et al., 1997,
2000), the intangible strategic intelligence creates most of professional intellect of
an organization, and operates on the following four levels (in increasing importance):
cognitive knowledge or basic mastery of a professional discipline, advanced skills or
the ability to translate theory into effective execution or practice, systems understanding
or the deep knowledge of the cause and effect relationships underlying the professional
discipline, and self-motivated creativity or the motivation and adaptability for success.
The interaction of these factors allow nurturing organizations the ability to
“simultaneously thrive in the face of today’s rapid changes and renew their cognitive
knowledge, advanced skills, and systems understanding in order to compete in the next
wave of advances” (p. 72).
Quinn et al. (1996) also noted that the professional intellect within an organization
frequently becomes isolated inside the organization. As shown in the present study, any
attempts to isolate product development teams from the rest of the organization were
viewed very negatively in terms of its impacts on achieving the firms’ manufacturing
goals in the present study. It is a fact that the existence of a large organizational culture
creates conflict with other groups, such as marketing or manufacturing conflicting
with R&D departments. Thus, at the heart of an effective manufacturing organization,
managing and developing the professional intellect is critical for sustained competitive
advantage. The authors suggested the following successful practices to ensure the
development and growth of the professional intellect: recruit the best, force intensive
early development, constantly increase professional challenges, and evaluate and weed.
As the authors point out, “heavy internal competition and frequent performance
appraisal and feedback are common in outstanding organizations” (p. 74). Organizations
constantly need to leverage their professional intellect for sustainable competitive
advantage.
This leveraging of professional intelligence can be accomplished by capturing
knowledge in systems and software, overcoming reluctance to share information,
and organizing around reinvestment in intellectual capital through relinquishing
managerial control and empowering product development teams to mitigate the
potential threats to manufacturability. Unfortunately, to accomplish these important
objectives, organizations may have to abandon their familiar hierarchical structures

and reorganize in patterns that best suit their professional intellect to create value within Component
the organization. By creating intellectual webs and connectivity within the organization, part quality
networking and culture, and incentives for sharing, managers have the keys to success
within these organizations. Just as important, how the various product team members assurance
interact and communicate within the organization is as critical as the actual knowledge
that is created and transferred.
Business-decision support systems within manufacturing environments must take 131
advantage of the professional intellect that are found in technical project teams and
leverage the power of interactive computer-based systems directed toward the complex
and dependent decision problems found in strategic manufacturing management.
Team integration and NPD/NPM processes must be included in any system that is
designed to help domestic manufacturing firms to formulate generic competitiveness
strategies, to test them, and to establish when and how to make a specific plan or a
combination of actions. It is becoming increasingly apparent that an organization should
be a catalyst for such networking, instead of creating barriers for its development. Only
through sincere sharing of information and the development of the professional intellect
within the organizations’ product team culture can sustainable strategic advantage be
created in a meaningful way. The formulation of product development team culture
must support the achievement of long-term directions and mission, key strategic and
financial objectives, overall business strategies, specific functional strategies, and
tactical decision making. Hence, sincere sharing of information and the development of a
collaborative environment may be created.
As noted by Rondeau et al. (2002) and Smith (2006a, b), manufacturing
practices that reduce response time and enhance customization capabilities require an
information-rich internal environment that is capable of flexible resource deployment
and direct and continuous feedback. Especially, in a post-industrial environment,
manufacturing organizations have been searching for ways to reduce time to market,
while meeting stringent cost and quality targets in team integration and successful
management of new product initiatives.
As previously discussed, research efforts by Swink (1999, 2000) reinforces the notion
that development team integration processes are important to manufacturability and
resolving production problems. In general, project complexity and design appear to raise
the level of difficulty in manufacturing, but development team integration outweighs
and may alleviate the negative aspects of these influences, which was reaffirmed in the
present case study. Hout (1999) argued that good management practices should provide
insight to the complexity and interaction of traditional manufacturing variables with
the desire to promote a positive organizational culture of sharing and improvement.
Specifically, strategic management through management’s involvement in product
team integration activities should be studied in more detail. It is proposed that such
managerial support of involvement in innovative NPD/NPM processes will result in
re-defining the form’s manufacturing culture.

2. Case studies of product quality revision and adaptability
2.1 Methodology
As the previous studies reviewed on the tactical and strategic importance of quality
benchmarking processes in its various forms and its associated implementation
problems (Smith and Offodile, 2007, 2008a, b), the author of the present study decided

BIJ to review such parts revision processes from world class, global firms that are accessible
18,1 and have open-minded approaches to new product design and development. The two
manufacturing-orientated companies that were selected were Northeast Ohio based,
with global operations and reach capabilities, which were within relatively easy
access and can be reviewed for the principles of the strategic, financial, informational,
and operational viewpoints. Such organizations are mainstream economic drivers of the
132 Midwestern USA and provide an opportunity to review manufacturing firms that
closely link strategy with service marketing of quality and NPD/NPM processes.
While these firms are quite similar in nature and scope, especially in terms of their
desire to serve clientele, each firm faces unique challenges in utilizing its reputation for
quality and expertise in a highly competitive and cost-sensitive environment, with
significant consequences for getting it wrong in a recessionary economy (Hsu et al., 2009;
Kanniainen et al., 2009). Commonly established case study procedures associate with
quality initiatives and improvements were followed in the present study (Nonthaleerak
and Hendry, 2008; Smith, 2008, 2009).

2.2 Sample selection
The two relatively large organizations analyzed from a case study perspective in terms
of product design initiatives followed in the order of Newell Rubbermaid (NR) and
General Electric Healthcare Coils (GEHCC), two world-class design and manufacturing
companies perform changes to existing parts continuously to comply with suppliers
requests, part cost optimization, and part obsolescence to name a few. The leaders in the
industry must maintain part quality and product reliability without spending excessive
amounts of cash and without shutting down production while the part design is
changing. They accomplish this task by implementing design and quality procedures,
which allow for quicker implementation and add competitive advantage through quality
by employing quality function development scenarios and focus on positive quality
outcomes.
Combinations of personal interviews of upper to middle management, as well as
comments from convenient samples of employees were used to gather perceptions
of the accuracy of the various managements’ perceived metric-based product quality
initiatives and the associated strategic initiatives that support their efforts for
operational effectiveness. In essence, much of the factual information, not just personal
experiences, were obtained either directly from management’s permission, interviews,
and/or from the firms’ web sites, or a combination of all named sources.
The following section begin with a brief introduction to its general operating
environment followed by sections describing its goals for implementing incremental
and/or radical product design and related offers, and specific information concerning
the construction and delivery systems of these systems. Discussion of the practical
applications of lessons learned from the case studies follow these sections.

3. Company case studies
Rubbermaid is a high-volume manufacturer with a diverse product offering, designing,
and manufacturing consumer products for large retail customers, such as Wal-Mart Co.,
and they design and manufacture products for regulated industries. Each of these
customers expects the highest quality product at the lowest possible price. GEHCC is a
low-volume manufacturer of a niche product for the magnet resonance imaging medical

diagnostic systems. GEHCC designs and manufactures products under Food and Drug Component
Administration (FDA) regulatory requirements, with their customers demanding part quality
extremely high quality and high reliability. This case study will present a review of the
quality steps performed by appropriate management of Rubbermaid and GEHCC when assurance
they are faced with a design change to a part, benchmarking their quality processes with
the highest industrial standards possible. The process identified for each company is a
representation of the actual process used and in no way implies the complete compliant 133
process.

3.1 Case 1: GEHCC
3.1.1 Part quality process at GEHCC. As with many benching companies, management
at both the parent company, General Electric, and GEHCC have developed local and
global written Quality Policies, Procedures and Work Instructions (2009) to facilitate
a compliant methodology in maintaining part quality and reliability as the part goes
through redesign. A part design change starts with the initial engineering change request
(ECR) document, which provides the proper rationale for the change request. Some
possible reasons for a change request are; supplier requests, cost reductions, and/or to
improve manufacturability. This process is a fairly standardized process and normally
follows recognized standards such as ISO 9000 published guidelines on engineering
change order (ECO) systems (“Engineering Change Order System”, 2010). For the purpose
of this case study, the GEHCC evaluation will be based an internal ECR to improve
manufacturability.
Once the Change Control Board approves the ECR, it is sent to the appropriate
engineering department to be implemented. The eight steps involved in processing
an ECR are very similar to the steps are similar to both companies, GEHCC and NR, and
are shown in Figure 1. These steps are further broken down into key tasks, which require
completion before moving to the next step. Each of these steps will be evaluated to
highlight the importance they play in assuring that the original quality and design
requirements are met during the implementation of the design change.
3.1.2 Supplier notification of change phase. The initial contacting of the supplier is to
discuss the change and it allows the engineer an opportunity to determine if the supplier
is capable of performing the design change. During the supplier review, alternative
solutions and methods can be discussed. In a complex design change, it may be necessary
to identify alternative suppliers to manufacture the part.
3.1.3 Drawing revised phase. During this process, the engineer makes the changes
to the design and evaluates the design for features critical to quality (CTQ), which
includes design characteristics, manufacturing, and quality requirements. Determining
the design characteristics involves a thorough review and understanding of the
design and the original quality and design requirements. The assigned engineers review
with established manufacturing and quality to determine if these disciplines have
requirements for additional CTQ’s. These engineers typically discuss the CTQ’s with the
supplier. Once the CTQ’s are identified the drawing can be revised.
3.1.4 First article parts phase. Before the revised drawing is released to
manufacturing the revised parts are ordered from the supplier; these parts are known
as first article parts. In this step of the process, the ability of the supplier to manufacture
parts to the revised drawing is evaluated. This evaluation is called a First Article
Inspection (FAI). To conduct the FAI, an appropriate evaluation form is prepared by

BIJ 3 First article
2 Drawing
revised
18,1 4
Product test
parts
In-house FAI Develop CTQ's
1 Supplier
Test plan Supplier FAI & notification 8 Update
cert of change
Run test Determine production
inspection Assembly
Test report code Initial
134 discussion In process
inspection

Quality 7 Update
part change inspection
New
6 Release documents
revised
5 Manufacturing documents and Training
drawing
quality process review Engineering
Manufacturing review and
review approve
Manufacturing
Quality review review and
approve
Production
review and
approve
Sourcing
review and
approve
Figure 1. Service review
Typical change evaluation and approve
workflow at GEHCC Quality review
and approve

the engineer, which identifies those criteria that require proof of compliance before the
part can be accepted for product testing. The FAI is also used to determine if
the inspection code for the part needs to be modified. The inspection code provides
information to quality control to identify inspection requirement for production parts.
3.1.5 Product test phase. Medical products fall under strict design and manufacturing
requirements regulated by the US FDA. Every evaluation must comply with the design
control requirements in FDA-based quality system regulation (21 CFR Part 820). The
general guidelines are outlined by Matlis and Rubin (2009). To evaluate and demonstrate
that the revised part is reliable and can meet the original quality and design requirements,
a product test program must be developed. An engineering team will review the original
product evaluation and test documents and determine what types of tests are required for
the new part to show continued product compliance to the original quality and design
requirements. The testing requirements for the revised product are documented in a
test plan, which must be reviewed and approved by engineering and quality departments
prior to implementing the test. Testing is typically performed by specifically training
technicians who understand and follow the test plan requirements and provide the
necessary documentation the data sheets. After completion of each test, the test data
sheets are reviewed and approved by engineering and quality.
An assigned engineer prepares a test report after all testing is completed. The test
report documents the results of the tests, identifies if the product passed the testing, and
provides a written conclusion and recommendation on the use of the product. The report
is reviewed for compliance to the original quality and design requirements and approved
by engineering and quality prior to implementing the part change.

3.1.6 Manufacturing and quality process review phase. The manufacturing and Component
quality processes used in the manufacture of the product will be reviewed to assure part quality
that the part change did not affect these documents. Any documents affected by the
change must be revised and approved and the revised documents will be released when assurance
the revised drawing is released.
3.1.7 Release revised documents and drawing phase. All revised documents and the
drawing will be listed on an ECO form. The ECO identifies the reason for change, the 135
revision level of each document and drawing, it provides instructions on which
documents must be supplied to the supplier and which documents must be updated in
manufacturing and quality, it provides corrective action for parts in inventory, work in
process, finished goods and on order, and the ECO provides service rework instruction
if required. The overall ECO packet consisting of the revised documents, drawing, and
support documentation will be electronically routed for final approval for compliance
to the quality and design requirements before release. Once the ECO is approved for
release, the implementation date for the ECO will be added to the ECO.
3.1.8 Update inspection phase. Prior to the implementation of the ECO, all the
documents and drawing will be reviewed with the inspection department to update
them on any new quality requirements and to assure that the inspection code for the
part is updated when the ECO is implemented. Also, any new training will be identified
at this time.
3.1.9 Update production phase. Prior to the implementation of the ECO, the
documents and drawings will be reviewed with the product assemblers to update them
on any new manufacturing and quality requirements. Any new training will be
identified at this time. This entire quality revision processes is shown in Figure 1, which
shows the typical change workflows for GEHCC.

3.2 Case 2: NR
3.2.1 Part quality process at NR. At the heart of the corporate quality initiatives at NR is
their new product and product change quality control system is what the organization
refers to as the consumer-driven innovation (CDI) process. This process was designed
in order create a robust procedure for generating, evaluating and launching new
products and product updates, and consists of five milestones; discovery, definition,
design, development, deployment, and delivery. Figure 2 is a representation of the basic
decision steps outlined in the CDI process at NR.

MS O MS 1 MS 2
discovery GATE 1 definition GATE 2 design GATE 3

Figure 2.
New product and product
Post- change quality control
MS 3 MS 4 MS 5 launch
development GATE 4 deployment GATE 5 delivery system, known as the CDI
audit process

BIJ As shown in Figure 2, the concepts behind the CDI process are that work is done to
18,1 understand the potential costs and benefits in the milestone processes, then evaluated by
key decision makers at each gate in order to ensure that only projects with adequate
returns are selected and implemented. In addition to this benefit, the milestone and
gate procedure creates buy-in from top management and helps to expedite the
implementation of project proposals. This process gives the firm the ability to
136 concentrate on quality at many levels, as they are not solely focused on part quality,
but the quality of ideas, and of the process as a whole.
3.2.2 MS-0-discovery phase. Members of the NR Innovation University, the major
corporate training center for the company, lead the definition phase. These team
members are responsible for gathering and filtering concepts at a very high level.
In this phase, ideas are very broad, and are generally not linked to metrics that measure
success. In order to generate ideas, the team members hold regular brainstorming
meetings with players from across the supply chain and internal departments; typically,
these meetings are held bi-weekly. In addition to this method, ideas can be generated via
a product creation request (PCR) or ECR. These can be submitted anytime by individuals
within the organization or by key individuals within the supply chain by visiting the CDI
intranet site. These ideas are evaluated on a daily basis for linkage to strategy, market
attractiveness, and potential unmet customer/consumer needs (“CDI Process Overview”,
2007). If an idea is deemed viable, it is moved from MS0 to MS1, the definition phase.
3.2.3 MS-1-definition phase. In this phase, the high-level ECR begins to route to key
individuals in the business. These individuals are tasked with verifying and defining the
opportunity. In this phase, the focus is more on the quality of the idea, rather than the
part quality, so it will be discussed only briefly. In this phase, the ECR is routed to
individuals that will put the project in perspective, and a project manager is assigned.
They will put together their thoughts on the strategic fit, market potential, conduct
consumer research, provide a competitive assessment, and specify resources. At the
conclusion of this step, projects will either be terminated or moved to MS-2, the design
phase. In order to move to the next phase, the project manager and innovation team
members must be satisfied that the change will positively impact the firm’s bottom line,
and align with business goals and values. In order to keep tabs on the process, all ECR’s
are entered into our product life cycle management (PLM) software. The software keeps
tabs on the routing process, assigns time limits to individual tasks and allows us to
centralize all information regarding the proposed change.
Based on inputs from the project manger, applications of the software
will automatically determine the routing sequence, and move the project through the
milestone process as tasks are completed. In addition to this automated functionality,
NR employs several database administrators tasked with making sure the tasks are
completed correctly and on time. Individuals critical to the process are tied to the
performance of the system through their yearly performance evaluations.
3.2.4 MS-2-design phase. The design phase is where things finally start to come
together, and where the part quality procedures start to weigh heavily on the concept
moving forward. The part quality process is referred to as the production part approval
process (PPAP), and integrates with the CDI process as shown in Figure 3.
As typical of most manufacturing companies, management at NR seeks to be
constantly competitive, remaining lean and high quality. For these reasons, the leadership
team treats all manufacturing sites as an external supplier. Manufacturing sites within

Milestone Component
0 part quality
discovery
assurance
Milestone
1
definition
137

Milestone Step 1, PPAP
2 supply kickoff
design meeting

Step 2, documentation review Milestone
Step 3, PPAP submission 3
request development

Step 4, PPAP Milestone
warranty 4
submission deployment

Figure 3.
PPAP in terms
Milestone
preparation and timing
5
activities
delivery

the ﬁrm are forced to compete for business with outside suppliers every time a product
changes or a new product is introduced. For that reason, the PPAP process is the same
regardless of who actually does the manufacturing. Therefore, moving forward, we will
refer to Newell manufacturing sites and outside contractors as suppliers.
At this point in the process, there are many activities moving forward in concert as
the various functional departments tackle their respective tasks. In MS-2, the PPAP
starts with a supplier kick-off meeting. Pre-requisites to the meeting include the
ﬁnalization of product concept, revised drawings, an approved business plan, and a
manufacturing/sourcing evaluation where we send the revised prints out for quotation.
Upon receipt of the quotes, the strategic sourcing team will determine where the part
will be manufactured and the PPAP process can begin. The PPAP process consists of
the following steps: supplier kick-off meeting (MS-2), documentation review (MS-3),
PPAP submission request (MS-3), and PPAP submission warrant (MS-4). The supplier
kick-off meeting is designed in order to communicate the goals, objectives, timeline,
and requirements of the PPAP process. The process at NR also relays corrective action
requirements and potential repercussions that can exist if the process is not followed

BIJ in a timely manner and in accordance with all standard operating procedures. Objectives
18,1 of the meeting and high-level PPAP requirements can be found in Figure 4.
3.2.5 MS-3-development phase. MS-3 phase occurs when the PPAP process starts to
unfold, after the initial test run of the product is completed, along with all the required
documentation. The PPAP documentation required by suppliers is found in Figure 5.
All documents are considered critical to the success of the launch, for simplicity
138 sake; however, only a few of the more critical documents are discussed as they

SUPPLIER KICKOFF MEETING
Work instructions
A supplier kickoff meeting is performed in preparation for PPAP submission for any new
product launch.
1. Review the Program information and PPAP submission date.
2. Review the Checklist for the topics to be reviewed during the supplier kickoff.

3. Review the Special instructions for any additional PPAP requirements.
Program information
Program name Description Supplier name

Part name(s) RFP product engineer PPAP Submission date

Checklist
What is PPAP? Review the purpose of the production part approval process.
What are the keys to PPAP? 1. Supplier kickoff meeting - Occurs when supplier is awarded business.
2. Documentation request - Occurs immediately following T1 trial run.
3. PPAP submission request - Sent to supplier 4 weeks prior to PPAP.
4. PPAP submission - Submitted by supplier immediately following Pilot Run.
What is a pilot run? The initial production trial run from which the PPAP samples are taken.
When is a pilot run performed? When the process is 100% production representative.
PPAP general requirements PPAP approval must happen before first shipment.
PPAP samples mustcome from a 300 piece production Pilot Run.
PPAP submission includes 6 dimensional samples with 100% layout. (Minimum)
PPAP must be run on 100% production process at production rate.
Supplier's production run at rate will be verified during the PPAP Pilot Run.
RFP product engineer and supplier quality give PPAP approval.
Review PPAP Submission documentation.
Key program & PPAP dates Review the target pilot run and PPAP submission dates for the program.

Figure 4.
General objectives of the
meeting and high-level
PPAP requirements
Source: “PPAP quality procedures” (2008)

Component
DOCUMENTATION REQUEST part quality
Work instructions assurance
Use this document to request preliminary information during the development process.
1. Review the Program information and submission date. Documentation must be
submitted prior to the submission date. 139
2. Review the Checklist for the list of documentation requested.
3. Review the Special instructions for any additional notes.
Program information

Part number(s) Documentation requested by Document submission date

Checkl ist
Request to Submitted by
Description Notes
submit supplier

Preliminary process flow
Preliminary control plan
Manufacturing floor plan
Preliminary testing results
Preliminary dimensional results
Preliminary capability studies
Production gage plan & gage R&R
Process validation test plan
Preliminary packaging samples
Material & color documentation
Development drawings
Additional documentation 1
Additional documentation 2
SAMPLE REQUEST 1
_____ Pieces per cavity
SAMPLE REQUEST 2
_____ Pieces per cavity

Figure 5.
Required supplier
documentation in the
PPAP process

related to component quality initiatives, namely process flow, control plan, and
dimensional results.
The process flow is essentially a process map that is a schematic representation
of the current or proposed process flow. It can be used to show sources of variation

BIJ in the process such as different machines, the introduction of new material, the methods
18,1 used to manufacture product, and the use of manpower. It helps to analyze the entire
process of how a specific product is manufactured and can be used to improve the quality
of the product or productivity. The purpose of control plan, on the other hand, is to aid in
the manufacturing of quality products according to customer requirements. Control
plans provide a written summary description of the systems used in minimizing process
140 and product variation. The control plan describes the actions that are required at
each phase of the process including receiving; in-process, out-going and periodic
requirements to assure that all process outputs are being controlled. During production,
the control plan provides the process monitoring and control methods that will be used
to control part and process quality. The control plan should be updated and revised as
the process changes, as shown in Figure 6. If methods of inspection are improved,
it needs to be reflected in the control plan, so this document needs to accurately tell the
story of the production and inspection process.
In terms of the dimensional results, the supplier in question must provide
documentation to show that the parts supplied are in accordance with the dimensions
called out on the prints. To accomplish this documentation properly, all dimensions,
including reference dimensions, on the print are highlighted and numbered by the
vendor. The dimensions are measured and compared to what is called out on the print so
that everything of value is noted on the dimensional result sheet and a copy of the print
with the ballooned numbers is included with the submission and CTQ’s will be called out
on the print. An example of the PPAP dimensional report can be shown in Figure 7.
Upon receipt of the appropriate documents, management then identifies the areas
that need improvement before moving into the pilot runs. The process of refining
the documents will continue until the PPAP process is completed and formal parts
are submitted. An important aspect of the MS-3 phase involves the formal PPAP
submission request. This request instructs the supplier to move forward with a limited,
pilot production run of the part. In this step, the vendor is required to submit a minimum
amount of product produced in an environment that will exactly mimic the real-world
production environment. This request is typically submitted four weeks prior the pilot
run in order to give suppliers ample time to work on processing parameters and process
documentation. Figure 8 is an example PPAP submission request.
3.2.6 MS-4-deployment phase. In this phase, the pilot production runs and required
documents are completed and submitted to the leadership team for approval.

Part number/latest change level
1 Process control plan
Part name/description By/date 3 Appv'd date Page
2 4
Supplier/code: Ref: MFG. appv'l/date: QA appv'l/date:
5 6 7
Sequence Machine Critical Evaluation Evaluation Reaction to out of Related
Specification Authority control conditions
# Name number characteristic method frequency documents

8 9 10 11 1 13 1 15 1 17

Figure 6.
Control plan
example format

PPAP DIMENSIONAL REPORT
Component
Preparer instructions
part quality
1. Complete sections 1- 3.
2. Item number should be linked to corresponding ballooned engineering drawing and product specifications.
assurance
3. Provide report with PPAP submission to Newell Rubbermaid SQE for approval.
Refer to the supplier quality assurance manual (CORP1QA-001) for additional information.
1. General information
Description
PPAP sample
141
Part number/Rev
part number

2. Measurement information
Item Zone/ Status
Characterstic & tolerance Actual measurement Comments
no Page Accept Reject

3. Preparer signature

Figure 7.
PPAP dimensional report
plan example format

The process starts with the submission of the PPAP part submission warrant form. The
submissions are reviewed by relevant associates, and hopefully, the product is released
for production. As with all of these steps, relevant information including drawings,
documents, and communication history are uploaded into the company’s PLM software
for easy data sharing and project tracking.
3.2.7 MS-5-delivery phase. During MS-5 phase, the sixth and final step in the CDI
process, production is ramped up and daily quality activities begin. In the case of NR,
the critical dimensions are monitored continuously via random product audits. Typical
audits consist of a five-piece audit every hour for critical dimensions and for fit/function.

BIJ
18,1 PPAP SUBMISSION REQUEST
PPAP instructions
Use this document to request preliminary information during the development process.
1. Review the PPAP information and submission date. PPAP samples and PPAP documentation
142 must be submitted prior to the submission date.
2. Review the PPAP submission checklist for the list of PPAP submission requirements.

3. Review the Special instructions for specific PPAP requirements.

4. To submit PPAP first sign and complete a PPAPP art submission warrant. The warrant should
be the first document in the PPAP submission.
Program information

Part name(s) PPAP Submission requested by Required submission date

PPAP submission checklist
Request to
Document description Approved
submit
PPAP part submission warrant
NR engineering drawing(s) NR enters number & revision level
NR product specification(s) NR enters number & revision level
NR test specifications(s) NR enters number & revision level
NR packaging specification(s) NR enters number & revision level
PPAP dimensional report
PPAP 100% layout samples 6 Parts or __________ Parts per cavity
Process capability studies
Process flow chart
Process control plan
Gage R&R study
Supplier PPAP testing report
NSF and/or FDA approval
Newell Rubbermaid approval documents Received Approved
NR material & color approval NR materials is responsible for material and color approval.
NR packaging approval NR packaging is responsible for packaging approval.
NR test report NR test lab is responsible for the production test lab report.
NR process sign off results NR product engineer & supplier quality.
Production run at rate results NR / GSA representative.
Special instructions

Figure 8.
MS-3 phase the formal
PPAP submission
checklist example format

Dimensions that prove to be difﬁcult to control will be tracked on control charts,
and periodic capability studies will be performed. In addition to these steps, management
closely tracks other critical metrics; such as utilization, cycle time, material/labor usage
and tool wear among others. Upon successful launch of the product, the documentation
will be reviewed one ﬁnal time and the ECR/PCR will be closed by the relevant

project manager. All information regarding the launch will remain available to the Component
masses for the life of the product. part quality
assurance
4. Discussion and implications
4.1 Comparison of component quality processes
Both Rubbermaid and GEHCC have very structured processes for ensuring that
part quality is included in its part design methodology. While at first glance there 143
seems to be major differences in their methodologies, there are many similarities with
each organization’s approach to part quality. It is also interesting to note where the
organizations have differences as it pertains to each process. This comparison is not
meant to endorse one process over another, but rather to show how two organizations
are similar with their processes and to note where they differ.
At GEHCC, the part change process begins with the ECR as it does with Rubbermaid,
but it is interesting to note how the two organizations are different in their approaches.
At GEHCC, the initiation of an ECR tends to be driven by cost reductions, supplier
requests, or to improve manufacturability. These initiations tend to be driven by very
tactical decision-making criteria. NR has a very different organizational mindset when it
comes to ECR, and management appears to place significant emphasis on ensuring the
part and its quality is aligned with high-level organizational mission and goals before
creating the ECR. This is an interesting contrast to how organizations view quality from
a high level. It seems like GEHCC is very tactical and in the trenches when it comes to
using quality to drive part-making decisions. Quality at this stage for NR focuses on
ensuring the ECR request is going to meet all organizational goals. This is not to say
management does not look at changing parts for the reasons listed for GEHCC, but
rather to point out where the general emphasis is focused.
Once an ECR has been approved to move forward in the process, the next step is to
begin designing the actual part. It is at this point that both firms really start to focus
on part quality from a production standpoint as both firms start with a design and
have to consider if internal or external suppliers will be producing the part. It is
interesting to note both firms are willing to use a supplier regardless if it is internal or
external to the organization. They both evaluate the ability of the supplier on how they
can deliver the parts, not if the supplier is with the parent company or not.
One of the major differences in how each company addresses development is how
they handle the upfront decision-making process of determining if the supplier is
capable of making the part according to the specifications. GEHCC has incorporated
a first article part process that requires the suppliers to prove they can make the
parts to the quality and other specifications previously determined. Only upon passing
this initial test will the drawing be released to manufacturing for full-product testing.
NR puts its process flow, control plan, and manufacturing floor plan together before
doing actual product testing. Both organizations require that suppliers show
documentation that they are able to produce the part to the specifications set forth in
the design documents. GEHCC takes a bit more cautious approach to the development
before going to a full production run, but this situation may be due that the company is in
the medical-device industry and they have more regulations they must meet before
committing to a full production run. Additionally, GEHCC breaks the part design and
testing down to four milestones (first article parts, product test, manufacturing quality
process review, and release revised documents and drawing) while NR has this one step

BIJ listed as development. Again, this difference in emphasis ties back to the overall
18,1 organizational philosophy. Management at GEHCC tends to be a very tactical when it
comes to part quality and design and it shows by breaking the process down to several
major milestones. NR’s management tends to focus on products and quality from an
organizational level and thus has more emphasis on upfront process of the discovery and
definition phases. While both are very good at producing high-quality products, they
144 come to this end through very different means. Another notable difference between the
two is that GEHCC has built a training component into its quality part change process as
it sees the training of its people as a critical step in ensuring quality.
The corporate structures for quality benchmarking at NR and GEHCC have similar
processes in place to identify quality issues that need to be improved upon before going
into full production. In essence, NR uses its PPAP checklist to capture and track quality
issues, while GEHCC uses a test plan and report model to do the same function. It is after
passing through these processes that GEHCC and NR will begin a full production run of
the indicated parts. Both organizations have set monitoring processes to address quality
issues throughout the product life cycle, as illustrated in Table I.

4.2 Management recommendations
In most organizations, product quality and reliability is a measurement of success.
The management of the two organizations discussed in the present case study
must continue to utilize various methods to maintain a level of success. Developing
high-quality products is the objective of management at GEHCC and Rubbermaid.
Moving forward to achieve this goal requires continued engagement by all levels of
each firm, as management oversees the design of parts and products, it will also need to
provide leadership. It is essential to follow the processes in place to accomplish a long-term
return on investment, but both companies have proven to be elite and world class in their
respective marketplaces by demonstrating their profound commitment to offer quality
products. Their management must maintain a critical analysis of performance in order to
assess continued process improvement. Without continuous quality improvement
initiatives, the management team minimizes the opportunity for their company to be
competitive. Continuous evaluation of critical success factors is significant in continued
profitability, as well as consistent evaluation also includes the supply chain network.
The supply management connectivity is vital for both firms. As mentioned earlier,
GEHCC engineers develop a rapport with their suppliers keeping communication lines

Part design change process comparison
Activities Rubbermaid GEHCC

Supplier notification X X
Drawing revisions X X
First article inspection X X
Product test X X
Manufacturing and quality process review X X
Release revised documents and drawing X X
Table I. Update inspection X X
GEHCC and Rubbermaid Update production X X
parts’ production quality
comparisons Note: X indicates active involvement and requirements

open for frequent change. They function as a team to collaborate on the goals of the firm. Component
On the other hand, NR has a process by which the suppliers are included in milestone part quality
number two, the design phase. In a comparison of both methods, the key element is that
managers need to routinely assess the firm’s relationship with their suppliers, since assurance
establishing or sustaining a competitive advantage is at stake and should be at the
forefront of management.
As presented in the present study, component or part quality is echoed throughout 145
both of the company’s organizational goals. Definitively outlined with NR, managers
must continually take in consideration the five milestones of the CDI process. The mission
at GEHCC essential objectives varies, but it also focuses on a standardized process
for part quality. A diverse set of tools is at the disposal of managers to achieve long-term
competitive strategy. One of those tools that management uses is of cost and benefit
analysis in developing strategies for future production that will assist managers in
knowing their strengths and weaknesses. Management’s theoretical approach for
NPD/NPM should always be one of value added to the ultimate customer. Effective
utilization of resources is on the shoulders of the professional managers. Management at
both NR and GEHCC management must be clear about responsibilities, have good business
practices, and implement timely reporting systems of performance for continuity of success
in the marketplace (Hu et al., 2008; Jain et al., 2008; Smith, 2006a, b; McDermott, 1999).

5. General conclusions on quality assurance standards
Managing engineering change has always been a difficult and time-consuming task and
is a regular source of inefficiency and irritation for manufacturers. Best-in-class
companies understand that better change processes can drive top-line benefits and as a
result are developing these processes with a focus on improving speed to market while
maintaining high-quality standards. Quality, or the lack of quality, affects the entire
organization from supplier to customer and from product design to maintenance.
Quality has implications beyond those related to operations including; company
reputation, product liability, and global implications. All serve as strong arguments for
an organization to understand quality and build a total quality management system
with the focus of identifying and satisfying customers needs.
The cost of quality for any organization consists of four major categories, including
prevention costs, appraisal costs, internal failure, and external costs. The cost of the first
three factors can be reasonably estimated (Kennedy and Widener, 2008), but the external
costs which are incurred after delivery of defective parts or services can be very hard to
quantify and can exceed the value of revenues associated with a product, if proper quality
management is not in place for an organization. In the present case study, management at
both NR and GEHCC have shown a commitment to part quality throughout the
development and redesign processes in place at each organization and have earned and
maintained the reputation of best-in-class manufacturing in their respective fields.

References
Biswas, P. and Sarker, B.R. (2008), “Optimal batch quantity models for a lean production system
with in-cycle rework and scrap”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46
No. 23, pp. 6585-610.
Browning, T.R. and Heath, R.D. (2009), “Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production costs with
evidence from the F-22 program”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-35.

BIJ Butcher, D.R. (2006), “Importance of innovative design strategy in business”, Thomas Net News,
October 26, available at: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2006/10/importance_
18,1 of_innovative_design_strategy_in_business.html
CDI Process Overview (2007), Newell Rubbermaid CDI Documents, Newell Rubbermaid,
Atlanta, GA.
Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, V. (2009), “Performance optimization of a leagility inspired supply
146 chain model: a CFGTSA algorithm based approach”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 777-91.
Dudek-Burlikowska, M. and Szewieczek, D. (2007), “The product life cycle”, Journal AMME,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 243-5, available at: www.journalamme.org/papers_vol24_2/24245.pdf
Engineering Change Order System (2010), “ISO 9000 resources”, available at:
www.iso9000resources.com/ba/engineering-change-procedure.cfm
Grewal, C. (2008), “An initiative to implement lean manufacturing using value stream mapping
in a small company”, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and
Management, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4, pp. 404-21.
Hout, T.M. (1999), “Are managers obsolete?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 161-8.
Hsu, S., Ko, P.-S., Wu, C.-C., Cheng, S.-R. and Chen, Y.-S. (2009), “Hedging with derivatives by
Taiwanese listed non-financial companies”, International Journal of Electronic Finance,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 211-34.
Hu, G., Wang, L., Fetch, S. and Bidanda, B. (2008), “A multi-objective model for project portfolio
selection to implement lean and Six Sigma concepts”, International Journal of Production
Jain, V., Benyoucef, L. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “What’s the buzz about moving from ‘lean’ to
‘agile’ integrated supply chains? A fuzzy intelligent agent-based approach”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6649-78.
Kanniainen, J., Piche, R. and Mikkonen, T. (2009), “Use of distributed computing in derivative
pricing”, International Journal of Electronic Finance, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 270-83.
Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K. (2008), “A control framework: insights from evidence on lean
accounting”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 301-19.
McDermott, C.M. (1999), “Managing radical product development in large manufacturing firms:
a longitudinal study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 631-44.
Matlis, D.R. and Rubin, D. (2009), “Managing the total product life cycle, the changing face of
medical device product development”, Medical Products Magazine, July, available at:
www.mpo-mag.com/articles/2009/07/managing-the-total-product-life-cycle
Michalisin, M.D., Kline, D.M. and Smith, R.F. (2000), “Intangible strategic assets and firm
performance: a multi-industry study of the resource-based view”, Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 91-117.
Michalisin, M.D., Smith, R.F. and Kline, D.M. (1997), “In search of strategic assets”,
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 360-87.
Nonthaleerak, P. and Hendry, L. (2008), “Exploring the six sigma phenomenon using multiple
case study evidence”, International Journal of Operations and Productions Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 279-303.
Pikosz, P. and Malmqvst, J. (2000), “A comparative study of engineering change management in
three Swedish engineering companies”, available at: www.johnstark.com/ec008.pdf
PPAP Quality Procedures (2008), Newell Rubbermaid Quality Documents, Newell Rubbermaid,
Atlanta, GA.

Quality policies, procedures and work instructions (2009), GE Quality Documents, Global: Component
General Electric, Niskayuna, NY.
Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), “Managing the professional intellect: making
part quality
the most of the best”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-80. assurance
Rondeau, P.J., Vonderembse, M.A. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2002), “Investigating the level of
end-user development and involvement among time-based competitors”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 149-61. 147
Smith, A.D. (2006a), “Exploring dimensions of customer retention and information quality in the
online automobile industry”, International Journal of Electronic Business Management,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 48-63.
Smith, A.D. (2006b), “Technology advancements for service marketing and quality improvement:
multi-ﬁrm case study”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 99-113.
Smith, A.D. (2008), “Modernizing retail grocery business via knowledge management-based
systems”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 114-26.
Smith, A.D. (2009), “The virtual classroom from a business customer retention viewpoint:
an empirical-based study”, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 372-400.
Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2007), “Exploring forecasting and project management
characteristics of supply chain management”, International Journal of Logistics and Supply
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 174-214.
Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2008a), “Data collection automation and total quality
management: case studies of healthcare providers”, Health Services Quarterly, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 217-40.
Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. (2008b), “Strategic importance of team integration issues in
product development processes to improve manufacturability”, Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 269-92.
Song, X.M. and Parry, M.E. (1999), “Challenges of managing the development of breakthrough
products in Japan”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 665-88.
Summers, A. and Jones, D. (2002), CBI: The Voice of Business, available at: www.
honeycombcreative.com/site/_pdf/DesignAdvantage.pdf
Summers, G.J. and Scherpereel, C.M. (2008), “Decision making in product development: are you
outside-in or inside-out?”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1299-314.
Swink, M. (1999), “Threats to new product manufacturability and the effects of development
team integration processes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 691-709.
Swink, M. (2000), “Technological innovativeness as a moderator of new product design
integration and top management support”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 208-20.
¨
Toremen, F., Karakus, M. and Yasan, T. (2009), “Total quality management practices in Turkish
primary schools”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Tripathi, M. and Jeevan, V.K.J. (2009), “Quality assurance in distance learning libraries”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-9.
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S.R. and Maharaja, R. (2008), “DESSAC: a decision
support system for quantifying and analysing agility”, International Journal of Production
Wan, H-D. and Chen, F.F. (2008), “A leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying
impacts of lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23,
pp. 6567-84.

BIJ Further reading
18,1 Cavaleri, S.A. (2008), “Are learning organizations pragmatic?”, The Learning Organization,
Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 474-81.
Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T.A. and Deﬂorin, P. (2009), “Lean, take two! Reﬂections from the
second attempt at lean implementation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 79-85.
Sprovieri, J. (2008), “A modest Increase”, Assembly, Vol. 51 No. 13, pp. 22-41.
148
About the author
Alan D. Smith is presently University Professor of Operations Management in the Department of
Management and Marketing at Robert Morris University, located in Pittsburgh, PA. Previously,
he was Chair of the Department of Quantitative and Natural Sciences and Coordinator of
Engineering Programs at the same institution, as well as Associate Professor of Business
Administration and Director of Coal Mining Administration at Eastern Kentucky University.
He holds concurrent PhDs in Engineering Systems/Education from The University of Akron and
in Business Administration (OM and MIS) from Kent State University, as well as being author of
numerous articles and book chapters. Alan D. Smith can be contacted at: smitha@rmu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

7.component part

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 7.component part

Similar to 7.component part (20)

More from libfsb

More from libfsb (20)

7.component part