Si vous arrivez directement sur cette page, sachez que ce travail est un rapport d'étudiants et doit être pris comme tel. Il peut donc comporter des imperfections ou des imprécisions que le lecteur doit admettre et donc supporter. Il a été réalisé pendant la période de formation et constitue avant-tout un travail de compilation bibliographique, d'initiation et d'analyse sur des thématiques associées aux concepts, méthodes, outils et expériences sur les démarches qualité dans les organisations. Nous ne faisons aucun usage commercial et la duplication est libre. Si, malgré nos précautions, vous avez des raisons de contester ce droit d'usage, merci de nous en faire part, nous nous efforcerons d'y apporter une réponse rapide. L'objectif de la présentation sur le Web est de permettre l'accès à l'information et d'augmenter ainsi les échanges professionnels. En cas d'usage du document, n'oubliez pas de le citer comme source bibliographique. Bonne lecture...
|CONVERGENCE BREAKTHROUGH FOR CARRY-OVER PARTS|
Référence bibliographique à rappeler pour tout usage :
CONVERGENCE BREAKTHROUGH FOR CARRY-OVER PARTS
KAPKIN Pedro, Stage professionnel de fin d'études, MASTER Management de la Qualité (MQ-M2), UTC, 2011-2012, http://www.utc.fr/master-qualite, puis "Travaux" "Qualité-Management", réf n°229
Visant à atteindre
l'excellence dans toutes les fonctions caractérisant
Faurecia, le ASQ responsable avec lequel ce travail
a été fait, a commencé à suivre le processus d’approbation
d’un groupe de pièces appelés Carry-over ; ces pièces sont
utilisées dans différents projets dont il est responsable.
Ces projets requirent des composants 100% approuvés.
Mots clés : Faurecia, Carry over, Approbation,
Aiming to attain the
excellence in every function characterizing Faurecia, the
ASQ responsible along with whom this work was carried out,
started to follow the approval process for a group of
parts called Carry-over; these pieces are used in the
different projects he is responsible of. These project
require pieces to be 100% approved.
Key words : Faurecia, Carry over, Approval,
Reference, Follow up,
Con el objetivo de alcanzar la excelencia en todas las funciones que caracteriza a Faurecia, el ASQ responsable junto a quien fue llevado a cabo este trabajo, comenzó a hacer seguimiento del proceso de aprobación de un grupo de partes llamadas Carry-over; estas piezas son utilizadas en diferentes proyectos de los cuales él se responsable. Estos proyectos requieren un 100% de componentes aprobados.
Luego de un periodo de ejecución y antes de alcanzar los resultados esperados, el proceso de seguimiento fue interrumpido, dejando el proceso de aprobación si alguien encargado de seguir las acciones que lo llevarían a su buen termino, lo cual causó incertidumbre en la calidad presente en las piezas mencionadas.
Este trabajo explica la manera en la que el mencionado seguimiento fue retomado. A partir del estudio del impacto del problema, pasando por la actualización de la base de datos y posterior operación que llevó a diferentes estrategias para el mejoramiento de la consecución de la información, su almacenamiento y su administración para finalmente proponer una idea para perennizar la utilización del proyecto.
Palabras clave: Faurecia, Carry-over, Aprobación, Referencia, Seguimiento,
|Download the Report PDF format
a foreign student I would like to thank Faurecia for giving me
the opportunity to carry out my master’s internship period at
their Caligny site in Lower-Normandy, France and for deploying
to my entire disposition a series of tools and assistance not
only to fulfil a requirement to complete the Masters in Quality
Management at the Compiegne University of Technology but also
for my personal and professional growth.
I would sincerely like to thank the following people for being always willing to help during the development of this project and also during all my internship period:
The ASQ and internship supervisor Ludovic Navarro for his wise guidance and his challenges leading always to discover by myself the answers I looked for.
All the persons concerned of all the functions mentioned in this work for daring to change their ways of doing their job.
To professor Gilbert Farges and Jean-Pierre Caliste, professor and also UTC internship adviser for the valuable knowledge imparted during the theoretical part of the formation and the assistance during the project execution and internship period.
To mi family in Colombia for giving me all the emotional support needed when facing a big challenge like the pursuit of a master’s degree abroad.
Annexe 1: The
Carry-over part follow up procedure proposed
The FAURECIA group
is a leading automotive supplier occupying the second place at
European scale and the eighth place in the world. Present in 28
countries, the group has 60000 employees and has a turnover of
more than 12.7 million Euros. Today the group supplies pieces for
all automobile constructors.
Faurecia Caligny is composed of a
research center gathering the activities of conception, simulation
and phisical validation of components for automobile seats. This
research center focuses on new product/material and fabrication
process having as the main objective the security on automobile
seats, their operation performance and the weight reduction on
their component. This research center works hand by hand with the
Caligny plant which in 2010 gathered three production plans
present in Flers, France and produces the tree types of mechanisms
for seats; slides, recliners and pumping devices.
All these three products have
different presentations depending on the kind of seat and vehicle
they are going to be used with. Since there is a viriety of
components not made by Faurecia, there is a numerous amount of
bought parts whose quality has to be managed. This activity is
what gives place to this project which consist in the restart and
latter improvement of the follow up done to the approval process
of the mentioned part's quality files belonging to project the
concerned project products. Such activity stopped due to the
responsible's increase of efforts on the treatment of new demanded
This project starts with the update
of the database containing the information on parts' approval to
move then to propose different strategies to enable an accurate
and easy follow up of the part's approval process.
Finally, in order to guarantee
sustainability to the follow up strategy, a procedure is proposed
in order to adapt it to any project in the enterprise.
1.1 Faurecia group presentation
Image 1: Faurecia in the world 
four modules of the group’s activity
The main components:
- The structure and mechanisms compose the SMPG division
The mechanisms: - Slides
- Associated products
- Foam padding
- The covers
- The structure
Image 2: The different components 
The interior vehicle:
The dashboard: The door panels: The acoustic module:
Image 3: Interior panel  Image 4: Door panels  Image 5: The acoustic module 
Bumpers: The exhaust systems:
Image 6: The bumpers  Image 7: The exhaust system 
1.1.2 The key figures
Image 8: 2010 revenues by business group 
Image 9: Faurecia’s clients 
1.1.3 Presentation of Faurecia Flers
1946 Creation of Mécanique Générale et Outillage, enterprise created at Passais La Conception (Orne) by brothers Auguste et Maurice COUSIN (Transfer to Bois de Flers site on September 1952) - Workforce : 8 people
1960 Specialization on automobile mechanisms – Workforce : 80 people
1972 Second site in Flers : La Butte aux Loups – Workforce : 858 people
1990 Third site in Flers : La Blanchardière
1990 Creation of BERTRAND FAURE due to a consolidation of enterprises and foreign subsidiaries. COUSIN enterprise is named pilot site for mechanisms activity.
1993 Creation of BERTRAND FAURE FRANCE in November
1995 BERTRAND FAURE FRANCE (which Flers is part) becomes BERTRAND FAURE EQUIPEMENT S.A.
1999 The merger of ECIA society by BERTRAND FAURE was approved by both companies on the first of June 1999. After this operation, FAURECIA will be the group name and will constitute the head company. FAURECIA is :
2001 On October 25th 2000 FAURECIA announces the acquisition of the automobile activities belonging to Allibert, which takes its consolidated sales up to 8 billion Euros.
2008 Grouping of the three Flers plants to create a pole called “Mécapolis” (See picture here under)
Return to summary
1.1.4 Products made in
Image 11: Components produced in Caligny 
Return to summary
1.2 The Project
1.2.1 Ordinary project’s execution workflow
To start the introduction to the project’s environment, the
following diagram illustrates in a general way the different
actions from the moment a client’s order is received until it goes
out to production line.
Diagram 1: The project’s contexts 
Return to summary
Reference’s approval workflow
In order to illustrate a PSW approval’s process, a standard
workflow showing the general steps followed is shown in diagram 2.
This diagram is a zoom in of the functions that are carried out
between the two functions in the circle on diagram 1.
Diagram 2: Approval process’ standard workflow 
Return to summary
function presentation and activities
Composing the quality responsibility of the purchasing department
three functions are fournd:
(Advanced Supplier Quality)
• SQA (Supplier Quality Assurance)
• SQ&D (Supplier Quality and Development)
From these three functions, the only one described will be the
AQS since it is the one that carried out this project.
This is the function in charge of surveilling the quality of the
different purchased parts before they are made. This is carried
out through a close work with the supplier by assuring the
compliance he can offer to demanded requeriments through his
production process and the guidance and assistance during part's
The following are some of the functions carried out by the ASQ
• Deploy APQP related to the Development phase
of Purchased Parts.
• Define the Risk and suppliers to be followed.
• Insure that suppliers sourced respect Mandatory rules and Audit criteria.
• Get Feasibility Commitment sign off for sourcing and for change implementation.
• Define Supplier Development plan with objectives, risk assessment, critical suppliers, critical parts, key milestones, deliverables, R@R and PPAP planning, resources & supports needs.
• Participate at Design Review Meeting and ECR Meeting.
• Train the suppliers and make sure that the defined standards are properly applied (APQP elements),
• Follow the APQP progress with status report.
• Manage the Process Qualification at Supplier
(Control Plan & Quality Basics implementation).
• Get from suppliers their control record (i.e: raw material certification…) for all parts.
• Responsible for PPAP construction and New
parts Approval during Development phase.
• Coordinate with SQA Production Trial Runs on New parts during Development phase.
• Ensure that 100% of S/R parts will be validated at GR3.
• Ensure that all documentations are updated.
• 100% of S/R characteristics secured.
• Ensure that Incoming Inspection instructions integrate control means according supplier’s Control Plan.
1.2.4 Production Part Approval Process (PPAP)
This is a set of of documents certifying that aspects as;
required quality, material, process requirements, dimentional
capability and production capacity are controlled by the supplier.
These are some of the documents contained in the PPAP:
• Designed records as drawings
• Process FMEA
• Process control plan
• Production process flow
• Material compliance
• Part submission warrant
Return to summary
1.2.5 The Part Submission Warrant (PSW)
Document ceritying that all of the documents presented by the
supplier in the PPAP meet the enterprice's requirements.
The three possible states given to this document by the ASQ after its examination can be:
For a reference whose production characteristics have been
validated by the ASQ as according to FAURECIA’s requirements.
• Rejected: When some of the presented documentation contained in the PPAP do not demonstrate the production characteristics as in accordance with FAURECIA’s requirements.
• Other: Expresses a state of temporary approval that permits the fabrication and delivery of parts by the time that some corrections are made on the production process in order to achieve full compliancy. This is known as a fabrication on deviation.
Return to summary
Carry-over follow up methodology
In order to store the information about every reference composing
the products used in the project concerned, the following database
Image 12: Carry-over follow up database 
The information contained in this database is explained below:
In order to watch the amount of references approved the following
indicators are claculated and plotted.
Image 13:Carry-over follow up indicators 
These indicators are calculated this way:
Their behavior can be observed thanks to the following graph:
Graph 1: Indicators’ behavior before project’s re-start 
2. Problem and
Generally speaking problems causing a reference's non-approval
• Unsuccessful tool set up leading the supplier
to quality unconformities.
• Impossibility to achieve demanded statistical control parameters.
• Tardiness on documentation’s update required due to drawing changes.
• Disagreements between design office and supplier concerning one or many specifications; dimensions, essays or engineering specifications as tolerances, hardness values or surface finishes.
The follow up disregar for the non-approved references bring the
• Lack of capacity to assure quality for
• Incapacity to guarantee long-term product compliancy due to production process stability.
• Product’s quality deterioration through time.
• Client’s rejection of product.
• Quality problems in final product.
At the momento of the project's restart, the following
difficulties are found:
• PSWs or Part Submission Warrant though they
were signed as fully approved and they were already held by their
responsibles, they had not been asked for by the concerned ASQ nor
had they been sent to him so they appeared as not approved in the
Carry-over follow up file.
• The different actions carried out and in course intended to reach PSWs approval were not documented so no historical information concerning this activities and enabling its follow up was kept.
• Due to the missing coordination among the different functions related to the information regarding the different references’ approval process, there were difficulties to complete the data contained in the Carry-over follow up file, so the actions depending on it took longer to be executed or in the worst case were not.
Objectives, action plan and project planning
• To manage the information concerning the PPAP
approval of non-approved references in order to follow and guide
the actions taken on this subject until their approval.
• To set and accomplish the goal for the number of approved references for the two indicators in use and to give continuity to this accomplishment by creating tools to facilitate the projects control.
• To determine the responsibilities concerning the Carry-over follow up file of all the functions related to the project carried out so they can deliver and receive what is strictly necessary.
• To create a proposition of a procedure to guide the application of the Carry-over follow up methodology into any project concerning Carry-over pieces in order to perpetuate the projects achievements with the available means.
Image 14: Convergence Breakthrough for carry-over parts project planning 
Return to summary
This project will be carried out in the two following stages:
The Check-Act stage in which the database will be updated by the
recovery of all the needed information from the concerned actors.
The Plan-Do stage in which due to the acquired familiarity with
the projects environment ideas of improvement will appear and will
be developped to be applied for a later analysis of their
This two-stage strategy is a application of the PDCA or Denim's
wheel and can be graphically explained as follows.
This strategy starts from its inner part with the project’s
development strategy of the Check-Act – Plan-Do order: Them it
moves to the classic Deming wheel starting from the Check phase;
because what was executed in the mentioned inner cycle has to be
tested, then in the Act phase, with the Acquired experience,
actions to improve are introduced. In this phase, the collection
of information concerning improvement ideas’ performance is
gathered in order to later refine such improvements in the Plan
phase and this way to restart the cycle with the application of
the refined improvements in the phase Do.
To define de information needs of every one of the functions
demanding the information gathered by the project, a 5Ws (Who,
What, Where, When, Why?) model will be set up for every
interaction between the project and the different such functions.
This model allows to narrow down to the specific all that has to
be delivered and received from every one of the mentioned
functions and it will contribute to clarify the concerned actors’
Once all innovations have been applied, a comparison of the
initial situation with the one achieved by the project's
application will be done, intending to define the project's
achievements in order to support its application into another
projects. After this, a procedure for the reference's follow up
will be created aiming to support the follow up future adoption
Finally, the ideas bringing sutainability to the follo up but not
developped in this project will be discussed.
Return to summary
Diagram 4: Project’s risk analysis 
For this project the actions Responsible’s contact, Action set up
and Action follow up were considered to bring the strongest risks
to the project’s execution, see diagram 2, besides, these actions
are the ones the project’s pilot is responsible of so its careful
execution has to be guaranteed.
For the evaluation of the actions taken to prevent the risk, they are graded as difficult to carry out with a red smiley face and those considered as easy to do it are identified with a green smiley face.
5. Project’s execution
5.1 Exploration of
Graph 2: Indicator’s status at project’s restart 
As it can be seen on the above graph, the indicator’s status evidence that the approval situation found at the moment of the project’s restart did not meet the objectives set for them, which demonstrates the lack of attention paid to this activity.
Graph 3: PSWs’ approval status before project’s execution 
This graph shows the differently affected PSWs in terms of percentage of the total number of references managed by program Light. As it can be seen, 35% of the references to which the affected PSWs belong to risk generating difficulties due to its non-approved status.
Graph 4: Afected projects before project’s execution 
Regarding the upper analysis more profoundly it can be seen that references having a non-approved PSW are present in 62% of the projects considered in program Light.
| Graph 5: References with
deffined action plan before project’s execution 
Graph 6 illustrates in terms of percentage over the total amount of references the ones; approved (65%), having no action plan leading to their PPAP approval (23%) and those having an action plan in course regarding their PPAP approval (12%).
5.2 Check-Act stage
At the moment of the project’s re-start, the first step to the
update of the file was to ask every one of the persons in charge
of every non approved reference about the state of their approval.
For this, the study of the different activities concerned by the
reference’s approval had to be done in order to learn who to
contact for demanding this information.
Through the mentioned action, many of the PSWs already signed stating the PPAP approval of certain references were recovered and therefore masked as approved in the follow up file. For those references whose PSW had not been signed, a report of the actions taken for their approval was asked for with the intention of giving them continuity.
In this phase the indicators started to improve and results for
the reference’s approval were rapidly achieved. The progress in
the results of these indicators in terms of percentage of
references approved during the Check-Act stage is shown below.
Graph 6: Indicator’s behaviour at project’s Check-Act stage 
As shown on the graph 6, for the
period between week 8, which is the one in which the project was
re-started, marked on the graph as “Reprise du suivie”, and week
12, the growing tendency of the curve evidences a rapid
acquisition of approvedPSWs that as mentioned on the problem’s
definition, were already approved but had not been included on the
Carry-over follow up file.
Return to summary
5.3 Plan-Do stage
As the activities concerned in the project were carried out, the acquaintance with its environment grew so possibilities of improvement started to appear due to the possibility for critically observing how the activities were performed.
All theses modifications are intended not only to facilitate the project’s present intentions but also to give it sustainability and perpetuate its usage through achieving an easy operability.
Return to summary
identification of functions and function’s needs and
Through the study of the different
procedures that define the different activities of every one of
the jobs concerned by the project, the interactions in terms of
responsibilities and needs of every one of them regarding the
project were defined, this in order to “ensure that appropriate
communication processes are established within the
organization”, which in this case the organization is
interpreted as the group of people interacting inside project
The following diagram illustrates the different functions related
to the project.
Diagram 5: Function’s related to the Carry-over follow up file 
Diagram 5 shows all the functions from which the Carry-over
follow up file receives information and/or to which it supplies
it. At this point of the project the project’s pilot function is
carried out by the ASQ internship student.
By developing a 5Ws analysis for each one of the project´s interactions with every function related to it, expressed with an arrow on the graph above ( ) or ( ) depending if the involved function has a need and a responsibility with the file or if it only has a responsibility with it, the type of interaction of every one of them concerning the file are identified. As a result, these needs and responsibilities were recognized and specified.
The 5Ws diagrams that helped to identify the function’s responsibilities and needs are showed below.
Table 1: Program Manufacturing Leader (PML) – Carry-over follow up 5Ws diagram 
From this table it can be evidenced that the PML function works as an information supplier for the file since the only interaction with it is the “Responsibility” for supplying information about the references used for incoming programs. Due to the importance of this information, with the aim of ensuring its complete transmission, a standardized way of gathering it, latter discussed, was conceived.
Table 2: SQA (Caligny, Grojec and Walbrzych) – Carry-over follow up 5Ws diagram 
The table above evidences that the SQA function is related to the Carry-over data base as a supplier of information because it is in charge of following some of the actions taken aiming a reference’s PPAP approval and as a client because it needs the information contained in the file in order to respond to an action plan or any possible situation involving a reference’s PPAP update.
Table 3: Design office – Carry-over follow up 5Ws diagram 
Table 5 evidences that the responsibility of the design office with the follow up file is really present through the ASQ and SQA function, so there is not a real interaction between the first mentioned function and the recalled follow up.
Table 4: Program buyer – Carry-over follow up 5Ws diagram 
From the analysis presented in table 6, it is shown that the responsibility of the program buyer is to provide information to the file. Since the problem is related to the BOM, this indicates that possibly this document could collect the information needed by the file and needed to be provided by the analyzed function.
Table 5: Project’s pilot (ASQ internship student) - Carry-over follow up 5Ws diagram 
Table 7 presents the relationship between the ASQ internship student and the follow up process in terms of the responsibilities and the needs that engage him to it. As pilot of the project, the ASQ internship student is the keeper of the file, reason for which the person in this function is obliged to continuously update the information contained in it (the responsibility) received from the related functions (the need), in order to guarantee that the information contained is the product of the most recent actions taken on the reference’s approval and that followed reference’s belong to the most recently incoming projects.
Return to summary
standardized BOM form
This improvement idea results from the 5Ws analysis and it
consists on creating a standardized spread sheet, shown on image
12, with the information demands needed to supply the information
required for the project’s operation.
This idea is identified thanks to the function of providing information to the project shared between the PML and the Program buyer. The fact of creating a standardized form including all the information needed to supply the needs of the concerned functions permits a rapid flow of information, enabling punctual decision taking. Image 6 shows a generic presentation of the mentioned form.
Image 15: Standarized Bill Of Materials form 
This spread sheet is shared between the Program Manufacturing
Leader and the Program Buyer in order for them to work on an
standardized document containing the data they needed for their
job and that, which they are to supply, needed not only by the ASQ
function but for the other functions. This information is then
transmitted to the ASQ internship student (the project’s pilot) to
be included in the follow up file.
Return to summary
individual reference action plan spreadsheet
The next modification was the creation of a history database to
list chronologically all the actions carried out in the attempts
for a reference’s approval, template shown below.
Image 16: Individual reference action plan spread sheet 
For every non approved reference, a spread sheet containing some
of the parameters of a 5Ws model is created in order to well
document and address the actions carried out to complete the
references’ approval process.
The “Insert line here” is intended
to guide the user to insert a line when there is no space left to
register an action, in order for him not to have to set the cell
colour format parameters for column “Status”.
Return to summary
5.3.4 The action plan folder
Image 17: Action plan folder 
To store the entire action plan’s spread sheets; the action plan file shown on image 8 was conceived. Inside it, a file for every reference was created to store all the information support generated around a reference’s approval, such as drawings, e-mails, metrology reports, among others.
Image 18: Approval information file 
To have a view inside one of the files containing the information related to a references' approval process, the content belonging to reference 4451586-3 is shown on the image above.
Return to summary
Graph 7: Indicator’s status at project’s turn in date The upper graph shows the curves expressing the results achieved for both indicators. As it can be evidenced, indicator (% Statut “Full approved”) reaches its objective of 95% of approved references, as indicator (% Statut “Full approved au bon indice”) though not at its objective of 90% of full approved references, shows a climbing tendency toward it.
Comparison with problem’s analysis
Aiming to contrast the situation achieved thanks to the project’s execution with that shown at the exploration of the project, the same structure for the analysis presented for this last one is established to present the situation achieved by this work, enabling an easier comparisons between the various results.
Graph 8: PSWs’ approval status after project’s execution 
The pie chart above shows the differently affected PSWs’ reference in terms of percentage of the total number of references managed by program Light. As it can be seen, 16% of these references risk generating problems due to its non-approved status contrary to the 35% shown on the like above graph for the exploration of the project.
Graph 9: Afected projects after project’s execution 
Comparing this graph with the graph above expresing the results at the exploration of the problem, it is evidenced that the number of affected projects stayed the same.
Graph 10: References with deffined action plan after project’s execution 
This pie chart illustrates in terms of percentage over the total amount of references the ones; approved 83%, having no action plan leading to their PPAP approval 0% and those having an action plan in course regarding their PPAP approval 17%. Contrasting this graph with the graph above, it can be perceived the improvement in terms of efficiency at minding non-approved references.
Carry-over part follow up procedure proposal
In order to perpetuate the usage of the tools used and developed
by this project, a strategy for its continuation is set up.
As it was planned in the objectives, this project presents a proposition of the procedure, intended to guide the latter creation of a standard procedure to be adopted by the different programs aiming to apply the Carry-over part’s follow up methodology to achieve comparable results to those obtained for program Light.
Through the creation of such document to specify the activities and necessities for adopting the follow up methodology, it is intended to achieve its application into the different projects using Carry-over parts present in the company. This application is thought to be carried out accounting on the means already available, which is guaranteed by allocating the activities managed by the ASQ internship student to the other functions involved. By this, every one of the persons belonging to the project to which the procedure is intended to be applied will be empowered with the different activities needed to carry out the demanded tasks. These activities will have “specific responsibilities, measurable objectives and defined responsible” 
As mentioned before, in order to allocate the functions carried out by the ASQ internship student during the project’s execution to the functions belonging to a project, the procedure’s description of their roles include the allocated responsibilities into the description of every one of their functions.
project’s sustainability (The usage of the Carry-over part
follow up file after the intervention)
Due to the scope of this project, limited according to the time
that from the beginning was planned to be dedicated to its
execution, there are some activities that were not performed by
the moment of turning it in; these activities concern the
sustainability of the project in the enterprise in order to attain
in others the results obtained for project Light.
8.1 The PSW follow up methodology applied into other projects (Plan)
the intentions of achieving the same results as for project Light
into other projects using carry-over parts, it is intended to work
with the other programs managers in order to introduce the
procedure created to their team and lead them into the adoption of
the Carry-over follow up methodology.
The mentioned procedure will be presented to all the actors dedicated to a project in order to allocate the functions mentioned in this document and this way to carry out the application.
8.2 The project’s activities allocation (Do)
As mentioned in step number 8, the construction of the procedure
will include in every one of the different function belonging to a
project, all the functions that were carried out by the ASQ
internship student during the project’s execution. In order to do
this, a virtual share place is considered for all of them to be
able to access and modify all the information contained in the
8.3 The project’s activities execution follow up (Check)
As for every project, the quality on the performance of the
activities executed has to be checked more cautiously at its
beginning, because it is at this stage that its authors have to be
motivated and engaged to pursue the expected results.
To carry out this follow up, a weekly meeting of every project’s actors with the project’s responsible ASQ is planned in order to answer questions and to check that the job done corresponds with the expected.
8.4 The project’s execution assessment (Act)
This stage of the execution is conceived by the feedback that the
projects’ responsible ASQ gives to the projects’ executers from
their comments received in the weekly meeting, in order to answer
the question concerning the methodology’s application or just to
guide them through the application of the procedure.
By the execution of this project there are two aspects I would
like to conclude about separately:
The professional aspect concerning what was brought to program Light by the execution of the project:
• With the information retrieval carried out at the beginning of the project, which helped the indicator’s status to improve notoriously and rapidly as shown on graph 6, it could be identified that the PPAP approval situation was not as bad as believed since this set of documents was already approved for 10% of them as evidenced on graph 6 with the fast climbing curve between the lines. This evidenced a lack of communication among the people concerned of receiving this information and the ones concerned of storing it and informing the project Light members about their reception.
• The first contribution mentioned on part “5.3.1 The identification of functions and function’s needs and responsibility allocation” intended to improve the lack of communication among the different concerned function by well defining the responsibilities and then to allocate them to the different actors. This strategy would permit them to be aware of everyone else’s responsibilities, which intends to create in every one of them a compromise with the tasks belonging to the allocated functions.
• Although the programs containing a non-approved reference remain the same amount from the project’s re-start to the project’s completion as evidenced with the comparison of graphs 4 and 9, the success of the project is justified by the fact that the number of references with no approval action or with an ongoing one decreased as shown when comparing graphs 5 and 10.
• The execution of the project permitted to diminish by 19% the number of non-approved references.
• Since only 17% of the references are not approved and 65% of the projects contain a non-approved reference, it can be inferred that many of the non-approved references are used by more than one project. This means that the approval of a certain number of these references would bring great benefits to the overall approval state found on the projects.
• My involvement with the suppliers and the different people composing Faurecia’s stuff permitted to establish an action plan for everyone of the non-approved references. This convergence plan will enable us to attain a rate of 100% compliancy by October 2012.
Personal gains with project execution:
• The opportunity of managing the amount of information concerning the project gave me the ability of organizing my way of thinking in order to transmit it into the way I started to organize the information in my hands, this way I started to be able to access this information in a more efficient and rapid way.
• The opportunity of working as a foreign internship student which limited me on the understanding the interaction in the work environment due to the language barrier, helped me to improve my capacity to understand frustration and to develop abilities to motivate my self when my capacities are exceeded by a situation or task.
• The need of developing a methodology by myself to carry-out this project obliged me to use the tools studied during the theoretical part of the “Master II Management Qualité” making it possible for me to put this tools to use in the professional field and adapt them to non-restrictive, ideal cases as those proposed in the academic environment.
• The fact of having to give result’s about the
work I performed while depending on others to achieve them, helped
me to realize the importance of planning the activities on which
rely my job in order to permit others to be also able to plan
theirs, this way all the people involved would have enough time to
supply demanded information or resources on time.
 Group presentation, Faurecia, 2011 (18-05-2012)
 SQ Supplier Quality Methodology guide, FAU-C-SPG-6400, Faurecia Automotive Group, 2008. (03-26-2012)
 Production Part Approval Process, Daimler Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Third edition, 1999. (03-26-2012)
 FARGES, Gilbert, Fondements méthodologiques de l’amélioration continue et de la résolution des problèmes, UTC, Master Management Qualité © 2011 (15-03-2011)
 ISO/TS 16949:2002 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE, Automotive Industry Action Group, 2003 (12-04-2012)
FERNANDES A. Mario (1996) El control, Fundamento de la gestión por procesos. ASIC 2003. 91 P. (03-04-2012)
 KAPKIN S. Pedro, Convergence breakthrough for carry-over parts, MASTER Management de la Qualité (MQ), UTC, 2011-2012, http://www.utc.fr/master-qualite, puis "Travaux" "Qualité-Management", réf n°229)
Annexe 1: The Carry-over part follow up procedure proposed
Return to summary