Product Characteristic Matrix (PCM) & Safe Launch Plan - Alignment & Agreement

Part Name Program or Project Name Supplier Name PCM Print Date / Revision

ZF Part Number / Drawing Number ZF Plant Region Supplier Plant Location (City, Country) SL Duration

Revision Level ZF Receiving Plant Name ZF Supplier ID SLP Data Submission Frequency Select

Design Inputs PFMEA Serial Process Control Information Safe Launch Control Information
Balloon
Sample Sample
No. Class of DFMEA PFMEA PFMEA PFMEA Failure Simulation
Product Characteristics RPN Control Method Special Gauge no. Control Method
Characteristic Severity Severity Occurrence Detection Confirmation
Size Frequency Size Frequency

COMMITMENT TO THE PCM AND SAFE LAUNCH PLAN

Required Function First Name and Last Name Position Signature (if requested, NA otherwise)* Date Comments

Supplier Representative

ZF: select from drop down

ZF: select from drop down

ZF: select from drop down

SAFE LAUNCH PLAN EXIT APPROVAL

Required Function First Name and Last Name Position Signature (if requested, NA otherwise)* Date Comments

Supplier Representative

ZF: select from drop down

ZF: select from drop down

QD83 - F2.12 PCM_SLP Tool - Rev 2.0 - June 2020 PCM SLP - Alignment and Agreement Page 1 of 8
 Recording of Safe Launch Data
Product Design Inputs SLP Control Information Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No. Production Week No.

Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID# Lot ID#
Sample Preliminary
Balloon Process Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week Q-ty produced / week
No. Class of Capability
Product Characteristic Control Method
Characteristic from PPAP
Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long Short/Long
Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity
Size Frequency Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process Term Process
Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected Inspected Rejected
Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability Capability

QD83 - F2.12 PCM_SLP Tool - Rev 2.0 - June 2020 Recording of Safe Launch Data Page 2 of 8
 SLP Overall Performance Monitor
This chart isn't available in your version of Excel.
Rejects and PPM Trend in the Safe Launch Phase
12 2000
Editing this shape or saving this workbook into a different file format will permanently break the chart.

10
Rejects

PPM
8

0 0

Rejects PPM
Production Week (CW)

Total Quantity Produced / Week

Total Rejected / Week

PPM
Total
Balloon Completion PPM /
Product Characteristic Short Failure Description(s) Issue week rejected / Quantity rejected / week
No. week Failure
failure

QD83 - F2.12 PCM_SLP Tool - Rev 2.0 - June 2020 SLP Performance Monitor Page 3 of 8
 Safe Launch Readiness Audit
Part Name Program Name

ZF Part Number PCM Print Date / Revision

Revision level Date of Assessment

Supplier Name ZF Representatives

ZF Supplier ID Supplier Representatives

Key Question
No. Documentation for Safe Launch & Safe Launch Team Evidences Look for Answer Comments
(x)

1. Drawing /Specifications
2. PCM / SLP
Does PCM / SLP and other documentation reflect latest design 3. Control Plan 1. Identification of Part Number, Revision level.
1 --
level actually being produced? 4. PFMEA 2. Change Management records
5. Work Instruction
6. Approved SCRs, etc.

Is the PCM /SLP agreed and signed off by

2 1. PCM signed by Supplier and ZF team 1. PCM / SLP signed by relevant supplier, ZF personnel. x
Supplier/SQA/SDE/Other relevant functions?

1. Consistent link between key documents for Safe Launch conditions.

2. Safe Launch Phase shall have elevated inspection frequencies
1. PCM / SLP
as compared to serial production frequencies.
Are Process Flow Diagram, PFMEA, Control Plan and Work 2. DFMEA
3. PCM reflects Severity, Occurrence and Detection ratings from
3 Instructions developed / adapted specifically for the Safe 3. PFMEA x
PFMEA & DFMEA
Launch Process? 4. Control Plan
4. PCM reflects sample size, frequency and inspection method from
5. Work Instructions
Control Plan.
5. Inspection frequency shall be piece based and not time based.

1. Responsible personnel for (a) data recording (b) data consolidation

Are roles and responsibilities of persons involved in Safe Launch (c) data reporting to ZF (d) reaction plan implementation and
4 1. Document for authorized Safe Launch Team
activities adequately defined and documented? (e) escalation.
2. Safe Launch Team shall cover all shifts.

Key Question
No. SLP - Shop Floor Readiness Evidences Look for Answer Comments
(x)

1. Separate Safe Launch area, if agreed.

1. Control Plan,
2. Adequate lighting
2. Safe Launch Work Instructions
3. Relevant and adequate inspection facilities (e.g.; inspection table, gauges, etc.)
Is there a separate and /or agreed area that is well lit and 3. Formats for data recording
4. Organised material flow (e.g. Material in & out bins, locked red bins,
5 properly equipped with well defined material flow to ensure zero 4. Formats for reporting to ZF --
quarantine bins)
defect end result for SLP activities? 5. Boundary Samples (where necessary,
5. Necessary instructions.
Customer approved)
6. Suitable data recording tools / mechanisms, formats.
6. Visual Samples.
7. Story boards for displaying trends

1. Work Instructions reflects all features and their class (C, S, PTC,...) from PCM.
Are Work Instructions available and in place for elevated 1. PCM / SLP 2. Elevated sample size, frequencies agreed for Safe Launch in PCM is
6 --
inspections as per SLP? 2. Work Instructions reflected in Work Instructions.
3. Availability of inspection / test equipments as in PCM.

Are there sufficient resources allocated to support SLP execution?

1. Shift patterns 1. Inspection instruments / equipments listed in PCM that are shared (e.g., CMM)
7 --
(i.e. CMM allocation, Metrology technicians, Test Lab technicians, 2. Allocation Share of equipments 2. Inspection Cycle Times
etc) If no, have sub-contracted resources been identified?

1. Authorised operating team for SLP

Are the operating personnel trained for SLP task? Are there 2. Shift pattern 1. Are all team members trained on Safe Launch requirements.
8 sufficient trained personnel to support ramp-up demand and 3. Training Plan 2. Interaction to verify understanding of Safe Launch execution requirements. --
serial demand in case of extension of SLP? 4. Training Records 3. Personnel deployment to cover all shifts.
5. Demand forecast / Schedule

1. Investigation done on-line or earmarked area

2. Record of problems analysed and root causes identified
Is there an earmarked work area for problem analysis and finding 1. SLP Performance Monitor
9 3. Corrective Actions taken --
root cause(s)? Actions to be reported on QOS. 2. Internal rejection and rework reports
4. Issues reported to ZF
5. Inhouse 8D reports.

1. Are all gauges available as per control plan, at the relevant inspection location.
1. Calibration records 2. Are gauges appropriate for the features?
Are inspection equipments (a) available at relevant locations, (b)
2. Gage R&R studies 3. Do the gauges have appropriate resolution (LC) for measurement?
10 suitable for features inspected, (c) calibrated and (d) qualifies --
3. Calibration tags 4. Are gauges calibrated appropriately and traceable as per national standards?
MSA study (Gage R&R)
4. Control Plan 5. Are the gauges arranged on the inspection table in an organised way?
6. Are MSA (G R&R) results available and acceptable?

Key Question
No. SLP Execution Evidences Look for Answer Comments
(x)

1. Data collection formats to be adequate to capture elevated SLP inspection

Are elevated sample sizes and inspection frequencies executed as 1. PCM / SLP frequency and sample size information.
11 defined in PCM / SLP? 2. SLP Work Instructions 2. Sampling frequencies are to be defined on a quantitative basis by piece count, --
SPC requirements (where required) are 3. Data collection formats not time. ( for example 5/1000 instead of 5/4 hours )
3. Inspection results matches the defined elevated frequencies

1. SLP Performance Monitor 1. Rejection / PPM Trend

Are story boards available to post trend charts as appropriate (i.e.
12 2. Paynter / Pareto Charts 2. Defect-wise Pareto --
Paynter charts, Pareto charts,..?
3. QOS Measurables 3. Correlation between QOS data and line information.

1. SLP label
Are individual boxes and pallets identified with "SLP" label as per
13 1. Identification of boxes and pallets with SLP Label. 2. Boxes and Pallets identified with SLP Label --
QD83 form F2.12?
3. Is identification with SLP label called for in packaging instruction?

1. Documentation of customer approval

1. Corrective actions identified in SLP Performance Monitor
2. Rework Process Instructions
14 Are rework operations validated and agreed / approved by ZF? 2. Post rework inspection records. --
3. Contained rework environment
3. Identification of reworked parts (to avoid mix-up)
4. SLP Performance Monitor

1. Non-conforming product procedure 1. Rejection and rework records

Breakpoints established for non-conforming material? 2. Containment of non-conforming product 2. Containment records
15 --
Material purged as appropriate? 3. Scrap, rework, hold, or other tags to identify 3. Corrective and Preventive actions
non-conforming product 4. Clean point information

1. Continuous Improvement Process

Does the supplier conduct periodic management meeting at SLP 1. Effective implementation of corrective actions
16 2. Minutes of meeting for management review --
area to review results and institute corrective actions if required? 2. Recurrence of concerns (if any)
3. Corrective Action

Is error proofing installed for PCM characteristics in the shop

17 floor? Are the installed error proofing systems being verified 1. PFMEA 1. Evaluate, if installed error proofing systems are working properly. --
periodically for their effectiveness?

Key Question
No. SLP Reporting Evidences Look for Answer Comments
(x)

1. Frequency of reporting to ZF
2. Understanding of fields in "Recording of Safe Launch Data" and
Are requirements of SLP understood and suitable
1. Signed off PCM by ZF representatives "SLP Performance Monitor"
18 reporting mechanisms established for timely reporting to x
and Supplier 3. Understanding of data submission - Raw / Process data,
ZF receiving plant?
SPC charts, 8D (if required)
4. Disposition of inspection results (if available)

1. History of Pre-production shipment from PPAP 1. SLP executed for all pre-production runs in line with PCM
Has SLP been executed for all pre-production builds and
19 2. SLP Performance Monitor 2. SLP reports shared with ZF --
shipments to ZF ?
3. SLP Recording 3. Presence of significant / potential issues observed from recorded data, if any.

Audit Result No data entered!

Supplier Representative Sign - Off ZF Representative Sign - Off

Name / Date / Position / Signature Name / Date / Position / Signature

QD83 - F2.12 - PCM_SLP Tool. Rev. 2.0 - June 2020 SL Readiness Verification Page 4 of 8
 Identification of Parts under Safe Launch Plan

#REF!

#REF!

#REF!
#REF!
#REF!

#REF!

SLP
#REF! #REF!

#REF!

#REF! #REF!
#REF!

#REF!

#REF!

QD83 F2.12 Rev. 2.0 - June 2020 SLP Label Identification of Parts under Safe Launch
Date of change Rev. No.

12/3/2020 3.0

6/30/2020 2.0

12/4/2018 1.1

6/19/2018 1.0

3/20/2018 0.9
Reason for change
Update to facilitate reporting, focus on general info about failures and ensure
right characteritic's failure on supplier's radar for improvement

Completely revised and optimized form. Main changes: see remarks

Grafic "Touch Point Incidents & ppm Monitoring": Formula updated.

Deleted the PCM page and created a joint page for PCM/Safe Launch;
added Russian and Chinese language

First version of revised form

Remarks
* SLP Performance Monitor
- automatic transfer of Balloons and Product Characteristics from the sheet PCM_SLP Template
- automatic transfer of production weeks, q-ty rejected and q-ty produced/week from the sheet Recording of S
- Column B description replaced with Product Characteristic
- Column C description replaced with Failure Description
- added 2 columns with Issue Week and Completion Week
- added new comments to Short Failure Description, Issue Week and Completion Week
- added cells protection for automatically transferred data
- Pareto Chart updated for PPM/Failure, no more per Rejects
- # of weeks extended to 26 and all are unhidden
- extended lines from 30 to 40
* Recording of Safe Launch Data
- added 3 hidden columns: ⅀ Inspected,⅀ Rejected and PPM (calculated as rejected per inspected)
- added a raw with q-ty produced/week
- extended lines from 30 to 40
* PCM_SLP Template
- extended lines from 30 to 40
- for PFMEA Severity, Occurence and Detection added N/A

* PCM Matrix and Safe Launch Data now in 2 separate Tabs

* PCM_SLP Template now features a signature area to
document committment and agreement to the
established Safe Launch Plan (below the SL Plan)
* 2 New Tabs were included: [SL Readiness Audit] +
[SLP Label]
* Rev 2.0 includes numerous improvements concerning text
and formatting, all aiming at making the undestanding and
practical use of this form easier and straigthforward.