Changes to AQP & PSO (Scoring)

1. Changes to AQP & PSO (Scoring) • October 12th, 2010

2. Why the Change? The intent behind the new changes to AQP/PSO Scoring: • Better reflect the Risk to Launch posed by a part during the AQP process • Better reflect the Risk to Launch posed by a part that remains without PSO approval (e.g., did the part fail due to minor documentation issues, or was line speed not met?) • Allow ease of communication between Chrysler and FIAT when managing each other’s parts

3. Background: Tool Commonization Goals Current Situation: At the moment, Fiat and Chrysler are using different tools to manage Project Development, starting from the supplier selection, up to start of volume production. Challenge: When Chrysler handles the Project Development for a Fiat part (and vice versa), which tools are used? How do we feed information to the other company’s systems?

4. Background: Tool Commonization Goals, cont. Solution: Product development phases have already undergone commonization, so it is possible to commonize Supplier Quality (SQ) Tools, starting from an analysis and a classification of the existing ones. Commonization phases: • Short-term: Focus is on closing gaps between existing tools and “transcoding” the results so that each company can use their own tools when handling parts for the other. • Long-term: Focus is on developing a set of SQ tools used by both companies.

5. Commonization Strategy Classification of SQ Tools

6. Commonization Strategy, cont.

7. Results – Program Review & AQP Advance Quality Planning Program Review Chrysler did not have an existing, mandatory comparable tool. The AQP Timing Chart has since been adapted to provide the information being asked.

8. Results – Program Review & AQP, cont. • Performed one-to-one comparison of Program Review form with AQP Timing Chart • When no match existed, a new task was added to the Timing Chart • Additional details were incorporated into the form instructions. • Boxes for overall score and Fiat score were added. • The R/Y/G status for each task was changed to match the Chrysler PSO scoring system (1-5 rating). • Form is now mandatory for all Chrysler personnel following Fiat parts.

9. Results – Program Review & AQP, cont. Comparison examples: • Fiat Guidelines: • Does the Supplier have the technical documentation necessary to the project development: SchedaProdotto; Product and Technical Specifications, Standards, Colour Master; Embossing Master; Mathematics? M a t c h • Added Chrysler Instructions: • PSO Element 2. Verify that the Supplier has the latest Technical Documentation, including the design model, GD&T, access to the latest Chrysler Engineering Standards, access to color/gloss/graining masters, etc. Review GD&T to ensure datums are adequately defined and special characteristics are identified. Verify CNs allow sufficient time for tool modifications, testing, etc.; propose V2 timing for CNs that may create a risk to launch. Note: Planning to run the PSO at an unapproved revision level (i.e., a future CN) results in a maximum score of "3" for this item.

10. Results – Program Review & AQP, cont. Comparison examples: • Fiat Guidelines: • Does the Supplier have the latest information about the requested volumes, the sequence of the launching version, the ramp-up curve and the mix? ADD • Added Chrysler Instructions: • Review program volume requirements, planned product mix, and planned launch ramp-up curve. Ensure the Supplier understands the requirements. Support the Buyer in timely Purchase Order issuance, and ensure the quoted Daily Tooling Capacity is sufficient to meet Chrysler's needs. 10

11. Results – Program Review & AQP, cont. 11

12. Results – Program Review & AQP, cont. Instructions Sample:

13. Results – PCPA & PSO Example of Homogenization work: Reviewed each requirement in PCPA for equivalent AQP/PSO requirement using the rating scale For instance,

14. Results – PCPA & PSO, cont. The AQP/PSO Team reviewed the gaps and revised the AQP/PSO Manual for the 7th Edition revision, as applicable

15. Results – PCPA & PSO, cont. 15 Fiat made the same comparison in the opposite direction, updating the PCPA on its guidelines.

16. Results – PCPA & PSO, cont. Status is equivalent to worst element; i.e., if one element is 1 (red), the PSO status is 1 Equal to Chrysler result, excluding the following elements: 3, 14, 16, 21 Equal to Chrysler result of Element 16 • Removed Accept and Reject Columns; replace with single “Status” column • Changed Documentation and Process with Pre- PSO and On-Site Visit Element 21 is approve/reject only

17. Scoring Changes: AQP & PSO • Chrysler has adapted a scoring system similar to that used on the Fiat Program Review and PCPA: • AQP Timing Chart and PSO Checklist will report both a Chrysler score and a Fiat score • Fiat score is only used for SQEs following parts that are Fiat-only

18. Scoring Changes: AQP & PSO, cont.

19. AQP Timing Chart form Scoring Examples: Issue Late design release means the Supplier will not have production tools ready by VP. They plan to build parts with prototype tooling, using production intent materials and gages. Tools will be available in time to provide parts for PSO and the Pre-series build. (Suggested score = 3) In an audit of the PFMEA prior to VP, the SQE discovers that the Supplier has not implemented error/mistake-proofing on several safety-related items. In addition, an overall audit using the Supplier PFMEA Audit form returns a “red” result. There are currently no plans to add more error/mistake-proofing. (Suggested score = 1) Task Production Tooling Complete (PTC) Process FMEA

20. AQP Timing Chart: Class discussion Issue PV testing is scheduled to start soon (a few weeks prior to VP), however, DV testing was not successfully completed. In addition, the tests as documented on the DVP&R do not agree with the requirements in the specifications listed on the CATIA pages, and the deviations have not been documented. Plan: The Supplier’s assembly process consists of 5 operations; the process is responsible for building 2 different (but very similar) parts. The parts have no safety characteristics, but a part failure on the vehicle could result in a customer walk-home condition. After each operation, the control plan requires the operator to 100% visually inspect the part, using a short checklist that is specific to each part number. There is an end-of-line tester after the final operation with tests for the proper part as well as critical functions; the EOL tester requires an operator to hand-load the part in. Task Test Sample Sizes & Frequencies Error and Mistake Proofing

21. Process Sign-Off (PSO) Checklist Examples: Issue One operation’s work instructions did not match what the operator was doing. The Supplier had made a change to improve efficiency but forgot to fully update the sheet; they will have it corrected within a few days. (Suggested score = 4) The primary checking fixture had a Gage R&R result of >30% on several characteristics. The Supplier has identified the reason, and plans to have the gage fixed and back in a reasonable time period. They will conduct a new R&R study at that time. (Suggested score = 3) Element Operating Instructions (10) Gage & Test Equipment Eval. (18)

22. Process Sign-Off (PSO) - PDR Examples: Issue Supplier failed to meet line speed by a large margin. It does not appear that any process modifications will enable them to meet the required volume, and additional tooling will not be ready until several months following launch. (Suggested score = 1) The required line speed was 150 parts/hour, and the Supplier met the requirement by a slim amount (152 parts/hour). However, their FTC result was only 85%; the Supplier has identified the cause and has plans in place to improve the FTC. (Suggested score = 3) Element Production Demonstration Run (16) Production Demonstration Run (16)

23. Process Sign-Off: Class discussion Issue The Suppliers floor plan identified a requirement for 5 operators on the assembly process. Once the PDR started, it became clear within a few minutes that the Supplier would not be successful in meeting line speed. In order to try and make it, they took two untrained operators from another area of the plant and added them to the process. The required lines speed was 150 parts/hour; the results of the PDR were 151 parts/hour with a final FTC of 91%. However, the Supplier experienced quite a bit of unscheduled down time due to equipment problems during the run, causing them to just barely make rate. The Supplier is investigating the issue with their tooling supplier; root cause has not yet been identified. Element Process Flow Diagram and Manufacturing Floor Plan Production Demonstration Run

24. Questions?