Quality Assessment

QSA-E
Quality System Assessment

for
Engineering Organizations
January 1999 - Third Edition

Quality System Assessment for Engineering Organizations
(QSA-E)
January 1999 - Third Edition

All prior editions are obsolete.
Any questions regarding this document, or the content therein, should be directed to:
Quality Standards Department
Ford Automotive Operations
Q&PL HQ - Building A
Fairlane Office Park
Dearborn, MI 48121
This document is published on the Ford Supplier Network:

http://web.bli.ford.com/fao_qualstandard1_b2b_browse_toc_flat.html
This manual published by Ford Automotive Operations

© Copyright Ford Motor Company, 1995
All Rights Reserved
Printed in the United States of America

QSA-E 2
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Technical Capability Criteria: 5
S.1 Voice of the Customer 6

S.2 Advanced Quality Planning 7
S.3 Business Plan 9
S.4 Program Management 10
S.5 Product Design Engineering 14
S.6 CAD/CAE 19
S.8 New Technology/Concepts 23
S.9 Product Testing 24
S.10a Materials, Fasteners, & Corrosion Protection Engineering 27
S.10b Color Approval 28
S.11 Simultaneous Engineering 28
S.12 Manufacturing Engineering Staff 29
QSA-E Scoring Summary Sheet 32
Appendix A - Glossary 35
Appendix B - Reference Publications 37
Record of Changes and Amendments 38

QSA-E 3 January, 1999
Introduction
This document is Ford Automotive Operations’ Quality System Assessment for Engineering
Organizations (QSA-E).
Ford Automotive Operations created the QSA-E to accomplish the following objectives:
Support for the FSS self-development process (first party).
Provide a method for assessing the Quality system and technical capabilities of the
engineering locations of potential suppliers prior to sourcing design responsibility(second
party).
Serve as a basis for scoring and rating the technical capability of the product development
organization of suppliers with design responsibility.
SCOPE:
The scope of this assessment is intended to apply at the organization level, encompassing all of a
supplier's product development activities and supporting staff level manufacturing engineering
activities. Certain elements or criteria of the QSA-E may not apply to a given organization, and may
therefore be designated as "NA" (not applicable). If in doubt regarding applicability, contact the Ford
decision maker.
The QSA-E technical capability criteria is supplemental to QS-9000 Quality System Requirements.
Product development locations must be in compliance with QS-9000 including element 4.4: design
Control.
FULL SERVICE SUPPLIER RECOGNITION:

Ford recognizes Full Service Suppliers based on their capability and commitment to function in
accordance with the principles and roles and responsibilities identified in the Partnering Guidelines Full
Service Supplier Relationships, Appendix C. The QSA-E contains self-assessment criteria
recommended for FSS self-development. Information on FSS self-development and recognition can be
obtained by contacting the Technology Leveraging Department, Advanced Vehicle Technology, FAO,
Ford Technology Review Center, Phone - (313) 248-9523.
SCORING GUIDELINES:
Supplier scoring or rating is outside the scope of this document. The scoring guidelines found in the
Q1 Award Process and Requirements Manual (10 point scale for each question) may be used to
establish a variable score as a means of internally tracking and reporting the engineering organization's
status of compliance to QSA-E. Scoring is not required for the FSS self-development assessment
process.

Technical Capability Criteria
QSA-E

Technical Capability
Voice of the Customer Element S.1

Question Assessor Notes Result
A. Ultimate Customer
1. Does the organization have a documented system for obtaining
customer feedback data on products over the life cycle of the
product and communicating it throughout the organization?
2. Does the organization have a process that consolidates, prioritizes,

and translates customer wants/requirements into useful technical
and functional descriptions?
3. Is there a plan which includes:

- Visitations for problem resolution and the maintenance of ongoing
customer satisfaction?
- Participation in Ford customer surveys, focus groups, etc.?
- Analysis of parts returned from Ford plants, engineering facilities,
and dealerships.
4. Does the plan include proactive contact with the customer, in order
to prevent future concerns and to understand likely future
requirements? Are visitations scheduled and carried out to plan? Is
the need for additional contact quickly identified and implemented?
B. Ford Engineering Customers Support

5. Does the supplier's Liaison/Sales (L/S) engineer(s) have
responsibility and authority to:
- Make design and business decisions/commitments when
required?
- Maintain Early Sourcing/Target Agreements and Statement of
Work?
6. Are L/S engineers technically qualified and experienced in:

- The appropriate field(s) and products/commodities?
- Working with Ford Purchasing and Product Engineering in support
of programs?
- WCP/FPDS, WERS, and Value Management?
7. Are L/S engineers accessible and in adequate number to cover each

Ford program?
8. Do L/S engineers and team Program Managers have defined roles

and responsibilities with respect to each other?

Advanced Quality Planning Element S.2


A. Management/Organizational Interfaces
1. Does the organization utilize the APQP & Control Plan reference
manual?
B. DFMEAs
2 Are DFMEAs expectations met? (i.e. FAO APQP Status Reporting
Guideline, Appendix B - Focus Element Checklist)
3. Are Design and Process FMEA development and application a

documented part of the Quality Manual and Product Development
System (PDS) including:
- Review and sign-off of FMEAs for each component/system at
each program phase?
- Completion and approval of DFMEAs and PFMEAs to support
PDS timing?
- Sign-off of DFMEA by the supplier's Program Manager before
drawings/designs are released for any tooling phase?
4. Are Design engineers trained in the use of DFMEAs?
5. Are DFMEAs for each commodity created and updated as new

designs are developed and concerns identified? Have past
experiences been retrieved and included in the DFMEA?
6. Has the team completed a risk assessment per section 4.4 of the
FAO APQP Status Reporting Guideline?
7. Does the supplier maintain a library of past DFMEAs? Are they

easily retrieved for review?
C. Design Verification Plan

8. Does the supplier develop a test plan for each design level and
formalize it in the DVP&R? Are they reviewed and updated to meet
all customer expectations (i.e. SDS) as part of the PDS?
9. Does the supplier meet the expectations for the Design Verification
Plan? (Defined in the FAO APQP Status Reporting Guideline,
Appendix B - Focus Element Checklist)

Advanced Quality Planning (continued) Element S.2


D. PFMEAs
10. Are PFMEAs expectations met? (i.e. FAO APQP Status Reporting
Guideline, Appendix B - Focus Element Checklist)
11. Are manufacturing engineers and appropriate supporting staff

members trained and proficient in the use of PFMEAs?
12. Are PFMEAs for each commodity/process developed? Have past

processing experiences been retrieved and included in the
PFMEAs?
E. CONTROL PLANS
13. Are expectations for control plans for Prototype, Pre-Launch and
Production met? (i.e. FAO APQP Status Reporting Guideline,
Appendix B - Focus Element Checklist)
14. Do all high risk failure modes identified on the FMEAs have
prevention methods designed into the respective processes?
15. Does the Management System include a prevention control

methodology such as:
- Review by manufacturing management of the adequacy and
effectiveness of error proofing?
- "Fresh Eyes" reviews(reviews by personnel not directly
responsible for the process) and "line walks" to evaluate
effectiveness of prevention controls for areas of risk identified
on the FMEA and the Control Plan?
Are these practices contained within the PDS

Advanced Quality Planning (continued) Element S.2


E. Manufacturing Feasibility
16 Has the supplier assessed which of its suppliers must do a
feasibility assessment? Have subcontractors that affect special
characteristics done feasibility assessments?
17. Has the supplier provided a formal feasibility document to Ford?

(Reference: Team Feasibility Commitment in the APQP and
Control Plan manual)
SUMMARY QUESTIONS:
18. Does a review of all 23 Key APQP elements on the FAO APQP
Status Report show that APQP methodologies are understood and
implemented? (Reference Appendix A of the FAO APQP Status
Reporting Guideline)
19. Are Special Characteristics finalized during the advanced quality

planning process?
Business Plan Element S.3

1. If appropriate, does the business plan address:

- Actions to meet Ford FSS roles and responsibilities?
- Strategy to support Ford in achieving vehicle customer

satisfaction standards?
2. Does the plan address how to improve aspects of the product that
the customer finds satisfactory (i.e. things-gone-right)?

Program Management Element S.4

A. Program Module Teams(PMT)

1. Is a fully staffed multi-disciplinary team used in the design process
with direct input in decision making?
2. Does each supplier cross-functional team(CFT)have a Program
Manager (PM) who directs and is accountable for the team's
efforts?
3. Does PM support all Ford PMT meetings as appropriate? Does the

PM meet with teams on a regular basis to review program time-
lines, targets/objectives versus status, Risk & Opportunity lists, and
open design and manufacturing issues list?
4. Does the PM maintain a record of open issues which identifies the

responsible person and status(date opened and date closed)?
5. Are program risk and opportunity lists maintained by the supplier's

PM?
6. Are team members trained in:

- Ford product development systems(WCP/FPDS) and Value
Management processes?
- The Design Verification Catalog(DVC) and System Design
Specifications(SDS)?
- Problem Solving and/or 8D?
7. Does the PM insure timely and consistent communications between

the product and manufacturing team members?
8. Does the supplier's team participate in:

- Early stages to support more cost/resource efficient development
of the SOW and SDS?
- Establishing QCWFT targets?
9. Does the organization use metrics to monitor its performance?
10. Are suppliers included in the team meetings, when appropriate?

Program Management (continued) Element S.4

B. Product Launch
11. Does the supplier have plans to support all pre-Job #1 builds and
launch with representatives who are knowledgeable of the program
and the build/launch procedures?
12. Are the Supplier's launch representatives:

- Empowered to make design and/or manufacturing changes as
required?
- Qualified in WERS?
- Supported by the supplier's team personnel?
13. Are launch representatives familiar with DVP&R, VDS, SDS, CDS
and all testing/inspection aspects of their components/system as to
be considered an expert and reliable resource to the Ford launch
team?
14. Does the supplier provide training/instruction on assembly

requirements to Ford manufacturing/assembly personnel before,
during, and after launch? Does the information include up-front
work on installation sketches and process sheets for VO?
15. Does the supplier conduct internal "fresh eyes" launch readiness
reviews? Are these reviews a part of the PD process? Do they
involve cross-functional representation?


C. Product Development System(PDS)

16. Does a documented Product Development System that aligns with
Ford's FPDS or WCP exist? Is the PDS complete and methodical?
Is it published at the beginning of each program and maintained by
the supplier's PMT? Does the PDS continue through product
launch, indicating PD launch support?
17. Does the PDS describe the component/system design processes in

detail? Does the system support Ford and program specific
milestones?
18. Does the process support Ford's Pre-Program Definition Target

Process?
19. Does the PDS support Ford Corporate Design (interior studio
feasibility engineering requirements
20. Does PDS support program documentation, as appropriate
- Feasibility Drawing?
- Prototype drawings?
- Math Surface?
- WERS Concerns?
- DVP&Rs?
- SDS/CDS Development?
- Service only Drawings?
- Product timing plans?
- Body Structural Drawings?
- Release (End-Item) Drawings?
- Tolerance Studies?
- Design Check Sheets?
- Illustration?


C. Product Development System(PDS) (continued)

21. Does the PDS include:
- Regular design reviews?
- Reliability Reviews (reference FAO Reliability Guide - FRG)?
- Sign-off milestones?
- Engineering discipline milestones that support program

events(e.g., FMA, FMEAs, DVP&R)?
- Manufacturing Feasibility throughout the design process?
- A "Risk Assessment" sign-off procedure that occurs at critical

milestones?
- Target/Objective maintenance throughout the design's

development and manufacture?
- Identification and addressing of significant and critical

characteristics?
- Prototype development and testing time-lines with tooling and

proveout evaluation time?
- Manufacturing Engineering (ME) responsibilities and key

deliverables?
- PD approval of manufacturing process plans and control plans in

support of Ford PDS?
- Consideration and review of serviceability?

Product Design Engineering Element S.5

A. Component Design
1. Are appropriate personnel experienced and qualified in the
following skills:
- Failure Mode Analysis (FMA)?
- Design of Experiments (Taguchi and classical)?
- Problem Solving?
- Design Specifications
- D/P FMEA?
- DVP&R?
- Ford WERS?
2. Is component/system low mileage and high mileage warranty data

evaluated to determine root cause? Have root causes been
identified for the top warranty concerns and included in the FMAs?
Is there a plan to correct warranty concerns? Are quality road maps
developed?
3. Are high mileage/durability components retrieved for evaluation to

validate testing assumptions and methods?
4. Does participation in Ford and non-Ford sponsored fleet evaluations

take place?
5. Are prior product problem, design, and manufacturing history used

in the development of the component design?
6. Is relationship between the CDS and DVC requirements

established?
7. Are program assumptions, benchmarking data and product history

used to develop targets? Do targets drive designs?
8. Does the organization have a library which is current and useful,

such as:
- Commodity benchmarking on cost, weight, quality, and function?
- Applicable Ford Packaging Standards?
- Homologation requirements/documentation for affected
components and systems?
- Ford ESs, SDSs, PVSs , and DVP&Rs as design reference?
- Completed developmental testing reports(history)?
9. Are homologation requirements and associated documents/reports

understood? Are homologation requirements included in design
check sheets?

Product Design Engineering (continued) Element S.5

A. Component Design (continued)

10. Are components dimensioned using GD&T?
11. Are appropriate measures planned and implemented for the security
of Ford proprietary information/property (such as designs, computer
software, prototype vehicles, etc.)?
12. Provide component design studies to support Ford system design

reviews with Ford? Is the confidence level defined?
13. Performs Studio Engineering responsibility as need?
14 Are Key Life Tests(KLT) performed on completed designs to

validate the reliability of products?
15. Is there an active program to improve the product robustness?
16. Is craftsmanship considered at each design phase/design review?


B. Prototype Build
17. Does the supplier have a comprehensive prototype program?
18. Are functional mock-ups or prove-out (e.g. stereolithography)

hardware used for preliminary DVP&R testing? Are proveout
samples used to:
- Discover feasibility or failure modes?
- Confirm FEA modeling results?
- Highlight areas of craftsmanship (concerns)?
19. If applicable, are prototype tooling drawings reviewed with PD for

discussion and approval of parting line locations, gating locations,
flow characteristics, cooling, etc., prior to sign-off/OK-To-Tool?
20. Are component prototypes representative of final design intent and

quality? Are they used to assess design and manufacturing
feasibility/capability?
21. If applicable, is clay modeling or equivalent capability available?
C. System Design
22. Is performance testing (life, durability, reliability) tracked for timely
completion and conformance?
23. Does the supplier's product design engineers understand "Key Life
Testing" (based on usage profiles for their systems)? Has the
supplier participated in the development of Real-World Usage
Profiles?
24. Have "Key Life Tests" been identified for specific Ford programs?
Have implementation plans been developed?


C. System Design (continued)

25. Are tolerance studies (Root Sum Square, worst case stack-up, or
GD&T) for fit and finish to mating components:
- Part of management design reviews?
- Based on manufacturing variability data as supplied by the

manufacturing engineering team?
- Concurred in by the responsible manufacturing engineers?
26. Does the supplier support fit and finish reviews with Ford VO? Is
Ford VO labor to assemble considered and minimized?
27. Has the supplier demonstrated the ability to communicate and work
with suppliers of interacting components in order to develop designs
or resolve issues?
28. Are cross functional team design reviews held to address system
design compatibility issues? Do they support Ford programmed
compatibility reviews?
29. Are thermal expansion and other material characteristics considered

when determining fits and clearances to mating components Are
these factors listed on a design check sheet or in a design guide?
30. Are color, gloss and texture match/coordination with mating

components considered? Are these factors listed on a design check
sheet or in a design guide?
D. Vehicle Design
31. If applicable, are vehicle design specifications (VDS) used to
develop complete vehicles using program management, engineering
design/development, styling and prototype build disciplines?
32. Did vehicle design/development efforts include documented

processes and procedures for vehicle attributes such as crash
worthiness, ride/handling, CFD, VSA, NVH, and reliability/durability?


E. Service Engineering
33. Is serviceability included in design reviews and in the design check
sheets?
34. Has the supplier developed operating and repair procedures for
supplied components? Are service complexity reduction
opportunities identified?
35. Has the supplier established a communications loop between the

product design activity and FCSD? Is the supplier/service
engineering relationship understood?
36. Has the supplier visited dealers for on-site review of component
performance and serviceability? Is there an established dealer to
product design information loop?
37. Does the supplier have experience in design of "service only"

components/assemblies?
38. Is the supplier familiar with WERS data requirements for service
end item release and data?
Government Regulations
39. Does the organization have a process to identify all applicable
government safety and environmental regulations, including those
affecting the processes performed?
41. Are there plans for post consumer material usage?

CAD/CAE Element S.6

A. CAD - Product/Services
1. Are appropriate resources and facilities available to prepare
necessary program documentation in accordance with theCAD
SOW/Checklist. This may include; dimensional stack-ups, checked
detail and assembly CAD data, parts lists with materials,
Illustration/installation sheets, and electronic buck information. This
also provides for:
- Program timing events?
- CAD contact(s)?
- "CAD/CAM the Master" (CCTM)?
- CAD SOW/Checklist?
2. Does the organization provide formatted files and/or CAD data files
throughout the program? Does design output conform to:
- Ford Engineering Drafting Standards
- Ford Worldwide Customer Requirements(WCR)?
3. Does the organization provide proper documents for release into the
Ford system?
4. Does the organization provide continuous engineering and

processing of changes?

CAD/CAE (continued) Element S.6

B. CAD - Information Systems
5. Is the organization trained and qualified in the use of the
applications listed on the CAD SOW?
(Reference:)
- CEPR (Common Engineering Planning Reporting)
Access program information (i.e. component and event due dates)
- WERS (Worldwide Engineering Release System)

Access and respond to Concerns
Create Concerns; Notices
- FWS (Forward Warning Schedule) - in Europe
- WACTS (Worldwide Automated Concern/Notice Tracking System)

Access mailbox for workload review
Forecast and report event completion dates
- PROFS - Electronic Mail
- WISE (Worldwide Integrated Standards for Engineers) access to

WCR and FAO standards.
- DOCMAN (Document Management) access to Ford Engineering

Archives and other database on-line.
C. CAD - Data Requirements

6. Does the organization's CAD data geometry and format meet the
requirements listed on the CAD SOW
(Reference:)
- DESIGN LAYOUT/DETAIL NUMBERING SYSTEM
All numbering of the CAD data files are maintained to current
design level releases as set forth by the specific program.
Reference; Corporate Product System Classification(CPSC)
- GEOMETRY
Complete 3-D data files are submitted in accordance to
requirements as set forth by the specific program.
- DATA FILE STRUCTURING

Component CAD files are in accordance to requirements of the
specific program.
- DATA EXCHANGE
Interface directly with Ford computer network and systems without
translation adhering to CDX policy.
- RETENTION
Data retention adheres to Corporate Record Management(CRM)
Policy.



C. CAD (continued)
7. Does the supplier manage accurate, up-to-date, CEPR and ensure
all timing is met? Does the supplier's system provide alerts and/or
forecast timing changes to Ford Timing Release & Material
Control(TRMC) when timing is in jeopardy?
D. CAE
8. Are appropriate resources and facilities available to effectively use
CAE analysis tools (e.g. FEA) during the concept and development
stages to:
- Achieve required structural, durability, and NVH targets?
- Achieve specified NVH objectives?
- Optimize the design for cost and weight?
- Meet safety standards?
9. Has CAE analyses demonstrated good correlation to actual real

world responses (e.g. stress/strain and natural frequencies)?
10. Does the organization's CAE activity :

- Take a lead role in developing new and enhancing current CAE
capabilities?
- Conduct pre and post CAE analysis reviews with appropriate Ford
engineering activities, when required?
- Provide detailed reports of all CAE analyses (this includes FE

model description, loads and boundary descriptions, results,
recommendations and verification, when appropriate) to the
appropriate activities?
- Participate in CAE sign-offs at appropriate Ford timing

milestones?
- Provide material/component test data used for the analysis to

Ford, when required?
- Provide FE models in MSC/NASTRAN bulk data format to FAO,

when required?
- Have 3D FEA capability to model(where appropriate)?


D. CAE (continued)
11. Does the organization's CAE analysis library include examples of
failure modes from prior programs? Are CAE failure modes written
into DFMEAs?
12. Has the supplier demonstrated electronic communication capability

with Ford to send and receive computer CAE files?
13. Does the supplier, where appropriate, have CAE capability for
vehicle analysis in the following areas:
- Crash analysis?
- Ride and Handling?
- NVH?
- Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)?
- Acoustics Kinematics?
14. Does the supplier use rapid prototyping technologies/techniques

(e.g. Stereolithography, cubal) to create:
- Prototypes for Design Aid Review?
- Styling aids/scan surfaces?
- Soft tooling (e.g. kirksite)?
- Prototypes for tooling, patterns, cores, etc.?

New Technology/Concepts Element S.7

1. Are appropriate resources involved in new technology development

and advanced engineering for automotive application?
- Is the R&D budget an appropriate percentage of sales?
- Are garage/shop resources available for vehicle development
projects, trials and reviews?
2. Do responsible advanced technology development engineers;

- have clearly defined job responsibilities?
- Maintain knowledge and awareness of technical advances in their
field?
- Have access to customer TGW and TGR from prior programs,
competitor's products, FMAs, and DFMEAs?
- Understand Ford wants?
- Pursue end customer wants?
3. Have the Best-In-Class components been evaluated for cost,

weight, quality and method of manufacture? Are competitors'
components accessible (boarded if possible) for reference?
4. Is there a disciplined advanced technology process ? Does it align

with and support the supplier's PDS? Is project documentation
maintained?
5. Does the supplier's advanced technology process identify

opportunities and needs for new technology based on customer
wants, e.g., QFD, FMA on existing designs, TGR, and TGW.
6. Is robustness methodology used to determine concept readiness?
7. Does the supplier have R&D plans which set and prioritize advanced
project objectives? Do the supplier's plans support Ford technology
plans? Are R&D plans included in the supplier's business plan?
8. Are Value Management techniques used to optimize target setting

and design targets?
9. Is the supplier aware of Ford's window of technology process and

Technology Submission Package? Has the supplier presented
concept ready technology to Ford for implementation into
programs?

Product Testing Element S.8

A. Test Equipment/Facility
1. Have appropriate statistical studies been conducted to analyze the
variation present in the results of each type of measuring and test
equipment system?
2. Are test area energy sources for lighting, heating, humidity, and
ventilation adequate to ensure proper test performance?
3. Are test area environmental controls adequate to ensure test results

are valid and measurement accuracy is not affected?
4. Does the facility have a documented preventive maintenance

program?
5. Are operating instructions current and available in the test area?
6. Does the data acquisition system have the precision, accuracy,

sampling rate, signal conditioning, and repeatability to ensure
reasonable data correlation between test samples?
7. Are test facilities/equipment adequate to perform all required

component prove-out testing in support of SDS requirements?

Product Testing (continued) Element S.8

B. Test Engineering Functions

8. Are rules for test sample receipt, identification, retention, and
disposal documented and followed?
9. Does the test procedure reference appropriate:

- Pre-test activities?
- Test run activities?
- Post-test activities?
10. Does the test data reduction, analysis, and presentation comply with
the supplier's test procedures and specified Ford requirements?
11. Are records of test authorization, sample sign-offs, data reduction,

analysis, and test reports maintained?
12. Does the process for developing test fixtures, gauges, etc. ensure
that:
- Measuring points result from team consensus and agree with
significant feature and control plan content?
- Clamping, holding and loading points are derived from customer

requirements and have been approved by team consensus prior
to sign-off/OK-to-tool of fixture/gauge designs?
13. Are instructions on tests that fail or are interrupted by failed parts
included in all test procedures?
14. Does the laboratory durability testing correlate with actual customer
usage (the where, when, how, and how often)?

Product Testing (continued) Element S.8

B. Test Engineering Functions (continued)

15. Are development testing equipment and facilities reviewed and
signed-off by the appropriate design activities prior to build? Are
design, construction, and prove-out schedules included in the
program timing? Do schedules support the program timing?
16. Do test engineers have appropriate training and experience in:

- Developing Real World Usage Profiles?
- Developing/Conducting Key Life Tests?
- Developing robust test plans?
17. Are Best-In-Class systems/components tested to establish

benchmarks or targets?
18. Do test engineers provide input to FMA and FMEA development?
19. Are action plans developed to address failures found during

development and durability testing? Do PD engineers review testing
progress and participate in reaction plans?

Materials, Fasteners, & Corrosion Protection

Engineering Element S.9a

1. For products using Ford-developed material specifications or Ford

recognized industry standards; are the materials procured from Ford
Corporate Approved Sources List?
2. Does the supplier have a process for developing materials

specifications, fastener utility part numbers, or approval of materials
suppliers?
3. Does the supplier have capability to conduct and/or direct, and

review testing:
- Required by applicable engineering material and performance
specifications?
- To validate fastener installation feasibility and performance (e.g.
establish and validate bolt torque specifications and retention)?
4. Does the supplier actively pursue the use of new and improved
materials and manufacturing processes?
5. Are qualified materials engineers identified within the organization?

Do they have open communication with appropriate Ford Materials
Engineering Activities?
6. Are there documented procedures for:

- Conforming to Ford recycling requirements?
- Meeting the requirements of WSS-M99P9999-A1 for control of
restricted substances?
- Ensuring incoming materials quality from materials and fastener
suppliers?
7. Are applicable components designed to meet materials, fasteners &

corrosion protection performance requirements in the SDS?
8. Does the supplier maintain a library of appropriate reference

materials such as Ford engineering material specifications,
Approved Source List, FLTMs, Ford Standard Part books, ASTM,
SAE, and ISO standards ?

Color Approval Element S.9b
1. For appearance items, does the suppliers PD system incorporate

key events for color approval?
Simultaneous Engineering Element S.10

1. Are manufacturing engineering personnel:

- Involved in all phases of the PDS?
- Included in all design reviews?
- Assigned to each program as direct contacts for the supplier's

PD engineers?
- Included in all Risk Assessment development reviews?
2. Are the manufacturing, assembly, and serviceability processes

developed simultaneously with the product design?
3. Are the manufacturing process development plans aligned with PDS

requirements and timing, and Ford program timing?
4. Is reuseability of tools and fixtures considered?
5. Do Manufacturing process plans require Product Design approval

prior to tool release?

Manufacturing Engineering Staff Element S.11
A. Manufacturing Engineering Staff

1. Does the Manufacturing Engineering activity have sufficient work-
related experience with manufacturing processes required to
support product and program needs?
2. Are appropriate manufacturing engineers trained and proficient in:

- The use of DFA, DFM, and DOE?
- Process capability and SPC techniques?
- Material handling/flow optimization?
- Human Ergonomics?
- TOPS
3. Is benchmarking of manufacturing processes and procedures

utilized to assure that they are Best-in-Class?
4. Does the supplier work with Ford during target development with
the intent to maximize reusability and commonality of facilities and
tooling?
5. Does the supplier have a manufacturing process review procedure?

Does it cover all build phases? Does it include the design activity?
6. Does the process review include statements of risk assessment

where open issues in development, design, or manufacturing are
addressed.?

Manufacturing Engineering Staff(continued) Element S.11
B. Production Sign-off
7. Is there a documented procedure to facilitate a production readiness
review which includes:
- Process potential/capability?
- Manufacturing process relative to design and production intent?
- Tooling and assembly methods descriptions, line speeds, and
cycle times?
- Production validation quantities run or batch sizes?
- Material descriptions/lot numbers?
8. Does the production readiness sign-off procedure require sign-off

from product design engineer, program team leader, manufacturing
engineer, reliability engineer, materials engineer, work cell leader (if
applicable), quality representative, and respective management?
C. Tooling Progress
9. Does the supplier develop and maintain Tooling Progress Reports
for each program? Are risk assessments maintained throughout the
tooling design and development?

Notes

QSA-E Scoring Summary Sheet
Element Total Comments Element
Questions Point Score
S.1 Voice of the Customer 8
S.2 Advanced Quality Planning 19
S.3 Business Plan 2
S.4 Program Management 21
S.5 Product Design Engineering 41
S.6 CAD/CAE 14
S.7 New Technology/Concepts 9
S.8 Product Testing 19
S.9a Materials, Fasteners, Corrosion
Protection Engineering 8
S.9b Color Approval 1
S.10 Simultaneous Engineering 5
S.11 Manufacturing Engineering 9
Overall QSA-E Score

Quality System Assessment for Engineering Organizations
GENERAL COMMENTS
Facility Name
Element No. Comments
Page of

Notes

Glossary of Terms Appendix A
Acronyms and Their Meanings
APG Arizona Proving Grounds

AQP Advance Quality Plans
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BIC Best-In-Class
CAD/CAM Computer Aided Design - Computer Aided Manufacturing
CAE Computer Aided Engineering
CDS Component Design Specification
CEPR Common Engineering Planning Report
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CFT Cross Functional Team
DFA Design For Assembly
DFM Design for Manufacturing
DFMEA Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
DOE Design of Experiments
DVC Design Verification Catalog
DVP&R Design Verification Plan and Report
ES Engineering Specification
ESTA Early Sourcing Target Assumptions
FAO Ford Automotive Operations
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FLTM FORD Laboratory Test Method
FMA Failure Mode Analysis
FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FMVSS Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
FPDS Ford Product Development System
FPS Ford Production System
FRACAS Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System
FSS Full Service Supplier
GD&T Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing
GTO Global Test Operation
ISO International Standards Organization
L/S Liaison/Sales
ME Manufacturing Engineering
OTT Okay To Tool
PD Product Development
PDS Product Development System
PEO Product Engineering Office
PFMEA Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
PM Program Management
PMT Program Module Team
PVS Product Verification Specification
PVP&R Process Validation Plan and Report

Glossary of Terms Appendix A
Acronyms and Their Meanings (continued)

QCWFT Quality Cost, Weight, Function, and Timing
QFD Quality Function Deployment
QOS Quality Operating System
R&O Risks and Opportunities
RPN Risk Priority Number
SDS System Design Specification
SOW Statement of Work
SPC Statistical Process Control
STA Supplier Technical Assistance
TGR Things Gone Right
TGW Things Gone Wrong
VDS Vehicle Design Specification
VC Vehicle Center
VSA Variable System Analysis
WCP World Class Process
WERS Worldwide Engineering Release System

Reference Publications Appendix B
Publication Publication Source
Advanced Product Quality Planning in North America: AIAG @ (810) 358-3003

and Control Plan (APQP) * in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement @ 0708-
861333
FAO Advanced Product Quality National Reproductions Corporation

Planning Status Reporting Guideline * 29400 Stephenson Highway
Madison Heights, MI 48071 @ (810) 398-7900
FAO Reliability Guide (FRG) * Diversified Document Solutions

@ (313) 594 -3402 or PROFS: EFARQUHA
Quality System Requirements (QS- in North America: AIAG

9000) in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement
Quality System Assessment (QSA) in North America: AIAG

in Europe: Carwin Continuous Improvement
System Design Specification(SDS) Moore Business Forms

Handbook PO Box 5026
Southfield, MI 48086-5026 @ (810) 357-7178
Target Guidelines - - for Ford and FAO, Product Development Finance Process Leadership
Suppliers Group
Worldwide Automotive Recycling FAO, Environment and Safety Engineering Staff

Requirements *
Worldwide Directory of Standards for N.A. - Ford Standards Desk @ 1-313-225-5120

Product and Manufacturing Europe - European Help Desk @44-1206-767636
Engineering *
Ford QOS Assessment Form * Ford Motor Quality Publications
c/o edcor Data Services
Partnering Guidelines for Full Service

Suppliers Relationship
* Available on Ford Supplier Network:

Record of Changes and Amendments

Page Number(s)
Date Description Affected Approval Signature
June 1997 Second Edition All Pages H. D. Atkinson
January 1999 Third Edition, deleted QS-9000 All Pages H. D. Atkinson

content in sections 1 and 2.


Quality Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QSA-E

Quality System Assessment

January 1999 - Third Edition

January 1999 - Third Edition

This document is published on the Ford Supplier Network:

This manual published by Ford Automotive Operations

Technical Capability Criteria: 5

S.1 Voice of the Customer 6

QSA-E Scoring Summary Sheet 32

Support for the FSS self-development process (first party).

FULL SERVICE SUPPLIER RECOGNITION:

Voice of the Customer Element S.1

Question Assessor Notes Result

2. Does the organization have a process that consolidates, prioritizes,

3. Is there a plan which includes:

B. Ford Engineering Customers Support

6. Are L/S engineers technically qualified and experienced in:

7. Are L/S engineers accessible and in adequate number to cover each

8. Do L/S engineers and team Program Managers have defined roles

Advanced Quality Planning Element S.2

Question Assessor Notes Result

3. Are Design and Process FMEA development and application a

4. Are Design engineers trained in the use of DFMEAs?

5. Are DFMEAs for each commodity created and updated as new

7. Does the supplier maintain a library of past DFMEAs? Are they

C. Design Verification Plan

Advanced Quality Planning (continued) Element S.2

Question Assessor Notes Result

11. Are manufacturing engineers and appropriate supporting staff

12. Are PFMEAs for each commodity/process developed? Have past

15. Does the Management System include a prevention control

Advanced Quality Planning (continued) Element S.2

Question Assessor Notes Result

17. Has the supplier provided a formal feasibility document to Ford?

19. Are Special Characteristics finalized during the advanced quality

Business Plan Element S.3

Question Assessor Notes Result

1. If appropriate, does the business plan address:

- Strategy to support Ford in achieving vehicle customer

Program Management Element S.4

Question Assessor Notes Result

A. Program Module Teams(PMT)

3. Does PM support all Ford PMT meetings as appropriate? Does the

4. Does the PM maintain a record of open issues which identifies the

5. Are program risk and opportunity lists maintained by the supplier's

6. Are team members trained in:

7. Does the PM insure timely and consistent communications between

8. Does the supplier's team participate in:

- Establishing QCWFT targets?

9. Does the organization use metrics to monitor its performance?

10. Are suppliers included in the team meetings, when appropriate?

Program Management (continued) Element S.4

Question Assessor Notes Result

12. Are the Supplier's launch representatives:

- Supported by the supplier's team personnel?

14. Does the supplier provide training/instruction on assembly

Program Management (continued) Element S.4

Question Assessor Notes Result

C. Product Development System(PDS)

17. Does the PDS describe the component/system design processes in

18. Does the process support Ford's Pre-Program Definition Target

20. Does PDS support program documentation, as appropriate

Program Management (continued) Element S.4