Practical guide · Quality management
What is APQP? The five phases, the gates, and APQP vs PPAP
Short answer
APQP, advanced product quality planning, is the automotive method for planning a new part and the process that makes it in five phases, each closed by a gate review, so every customer requirement is met before production starts. PPAP is its approval step.
APQP stands for advanced product quality planning. It is a structured way to launch a new or changed part: a cross-functional team works through five phases (plan and define the program, product design and development, process design and development, product and process validation, then feedback, assessment and corrective action) and checks the deliverables of each at a gate before the next one is committed. The outputs are the documents and proofs a customer expects at launch: the FMEAs, the process flow, the control plan, gauge studies, capability studies and the PPAP submission. The method was written by Ford, General Motors and Chrysler and is published by AIAG; IATF 16949 expects a launch process like it, and aerospace has its own version in AS9145. APQP is the plan for the whole launch. PPAP, the production part approval process, is the step near the end of phase 4 where the supplier proves the plan worked and the customer approves the part.
Last reviewed:
What APQP means
APQP is short for advanced product quality planning. Advanced means early: the quality work is done while the part is still being designed and the line is still being built, not after the first bad batch. Product quality planning means the team decides up front what the customer needs, which features matter most, how each one will be made and checked, and what proof the customer will see before the first shipment.
Ford, General Motors and Chrysler wrote the method together in the late 1980s and early 1990s so that their suppliers would plan a launch one way instead of three. The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) published it in 1994 as the Advanced Product Quality Planning and Control Plan reference manual. The 2008 second edition is the one most supplier manuals still cite. AIAG has revised it since, so ask which edition your customer works to.
APQP is a planning framework, not a certificate: there is no APQP certification for a plant the way there is for IATF 16949. What customers check is that each launch followed a documented plan and produced the required outputs. IATF 16949:2016, the automotive quality management standard, asks for a design and development process (clause 8.3), the customer's product approval process (clause 8.3.4.4) and a control plan (clause 8.5.1.1, with the contents in Annex A), which is why automotive suppliers run APQP whether or not the customer names it.
| Core tool | What it does | Where it sits in APQP | Our page |
|---|---|---|---|
| APQP | Plans the whole launch in five phases with gate reviews | The framework the others sit in | APQP checklist |
| FMEA | Finds how the design or process could fail and ranks the risks before parts are made | DFMEA in phase 2, PFMEA in phase 3 | FMEA guide |
| MSA | Proves the gauges and test equipment give readings you can trust (gauge R&R, bias, stability) | Planned in phase 3, results in phase 4 | MSA study workbook |
| SPC | Watches each important characteristic with a control chart and works out capability (Cpk, Ppk) | Capability study in phase 4, SPC in production | Control chart guide |
| PPAP | Proves to the customer that the production process makes good parts at the quoted rate | End of phase 4 | PPAP checklist |
The control plan is the sixth document people group with these. It is written in APQP phases 3 and 4 and is the link between the PFMEA and the checks the floor runs every shift.
The five phases of APQP
The AIAG manual splits a launch into five phases. The outputs of one phase are the inputs of the next, and the phases overlap: process design starts before the product design is fully frozen, because tooling and gauges take months to arrive. Each phase ends at a gate where the team and its managers decide, on evidence, whether to commit the money and time for the next one.
The five phases of APQP
- 1Gate 1
Plan and define the program
- 2Gate 2
Product design and development
- 3Gate 3
Process design and development
- 4Gate 4, PPAP
Product and process validation
- 5Ongoing
Feedback, assessment and corrective action
Lessons learned in phase 5 feed phase 1 of the next program
| Phase | What it starts from | What it must produce | Who leads |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Plan and define the program | The customer's request and drawings, its customer-specific requirements, warranty and complaint history on similar parts, the business case and the start of production date | Design goals, reliability and quality targets, a first bill of materials, a first process flow, a first list of special characteristics, the product assurance plan and a timing plan worked back from start of production | Program manager with sales, quality and engineering |
| 2. Product design and development | The phase 1 goals and the first list of special characteristics | Design FMEA, design reviews, design verification plan, released drawings and material specifications, the prototype control plan, the agreed special characteristics, the tooling, equipment and gauge needs, and a signed team feasibility commitment | The design owner: your design team, or the customer for a build-to-print part |
| 3. Process design and development | The released design, the special characteristics and the equipment and gauge needs | Process flow diagram, floor plan, characteristics matrix, process FMEA, the pre-launch control plan, work instructions, the MSA plan, the capability study plan and the packaging specification | Process or manufacturing engineering with quality, production and maintenance |
| 4. Product and process validation | The finished line, production tooling and gauges, trained operators and the pre-launch control plan | A significant production run, MSA results, initial process (capability) studies, production validation tests, the packaging evaluation, the production control plan, the PPAP submission and the quality planning sign-off | Quality engineering with production |
| 5. Feedback, assessment and corrective action | Running production and the first customer feedback | Reduced variation, launch problems closed through corrective action, delivery and customer satisfaction tracked, and lessons learned written down for the next program | Plant quality and production, with the program team until the launch is stable |
Phase 5 is sometimes called launch, feedback, assessment and corrective action. It does not end at a gate: it runs for the life of the part. The [APQP checklist](/templates/apqp-checklist) lists 43 deliverables across the five phases with an owner, a due date and a late flag for each.
A build-to-print supplier, one that makes a part to the customer's drawing, still runs phase 2. Its job there is to review the drawing for feasibility, agree the special characteristics, take part in the customer's DFMEA where asked, and order tooling and gauges. The design itself belongs to the customer.
APQP gates: what each review asks to see
A gate is a short, scheduled review at the end of a phase. The program team shows the evidence for each deliverable and a manager with the authority to spend money decides one of three things: pass, conditional pass with the open items named, each with an owner and a date, or fail and hold. The AIAG manual describes the phases and their outputs; the names and dates of the gates usually come from your customer's launch process or your own.
| Gate | The question | Evidence to put on the table | Why it usually fails |
|---|---|---|---|
| End of phase 1 | Do we understand what the customer needs, and can we commit to the date? | Requirements and customer-specific requirements read and listed, quality targets, first process flow and special characteristics, a timing plan back from start of production, the team named | Customer-specific requirements never collected; the timing plan starts from today instead of from start of production |
| End of phase 2 | Is the design ready to cut tools for, and can we make it? | DFMEA or the customer's released design, drawings and specifications released, special characteristics agreed, feasibility commitment signed, tooling and gauge orders placed | The drawing is still changing; feasibility was signed without the process engineer in the room |
| End of phase 3 | Is the process ready to run production parts? | Process flow, floor plan, PFMEA, pre-launch control plan, work instructions, MSA and capability plans, packaging specification, tooling on site and tried out | Tooling or gauges late; the PFMEA was copied from a similar part and nobody walked the new line |
| End of phase 4 | Did a real production run prove the process, and has the customer approved the part? | Significant production run results, MSA results, initial process studies, validation tests, production control plan, PPAP approval, quality planning sign-off | Capability below the customer's target on a special characteristic; parts came from a hand-picked trial run |
| Phase 5 review | Is the launch stable, and what do we carry into the next program? | Launch containment results, scrap and rework, complaints, delivery, corrective actions closed, lessons learned recorded | Never held: the team moves to the next launch and the lessons stay in people's heads |
A gate that always passes teaches the team to stop reporting problems. A conditional pass with dated actions is an honest answer; a pass with open items nobody wrote down is not.
APQP vs PPAP
The difference between APQP and PPAP is scope. APQP is the plan for the whole launch, from the customer's request to stable production. PPAP is one deliverable inside it: the evidence package, submitted near the end of phase 4, that shows the customer the plan worked on real production parts. Most of what goes into a PPAP is made earlier in APQP, which is why a launch that skipped the planning finds its PPAP impossible to finish on time.
| APQP | PPAP | |
|---|---|---|
| Full name | Advanced product quality planning | Production part approval process |
| What it is | A planning framework for a launch | An approval package and the customer's decision on it |
| When | From the sourcing decision to stable production, and through the life of the part in phase 5 | Near the end of phase 4, and again after significant changes |
| Who it is for | The supplier's own team, to launch on time without surprises | The customer, to approve the part for production shipments |
| Output | The FMEAs, control plans, studies and records of every phase | A part submission warrant (PSW) with the evidence the submission level asks for |
| Reference | AIAG Advanced Product Quality Planning and Control Plan manual | AIAG Production Part Approval Process manual (fourth edition, 2006) |
| The result | A launch plan and its records | Approved, interim approval or rejected |
The 18 PPAP elements and the APQP phase that makes each one
The AIAG PPAP manual lists 18 elements. The customer decides which are submitted and which are kept on file at your plant. The right-hand column is the useful part for planning: almost every element is made in APQP phases 2 to 4, so it needs an owner and a date long before the submission.
| # | PPAP element | In plain words | Made in APQP phase |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Design records | The released drawing and specifications the part is made to | 2 |
| 2 | Authorized engineering change documents | Approved changes not yet shown on the drawing | 2, and at every change |
| 3 | Customer engineering approval | The customer's engineering sign-off, where it asks for one | 2 to 4 |
| 4 | Design FMEA | The design owner's FMEA | 2 |
| 5 | Process flow diagram | Every step from material in to part out | 1 (first version), 3 |
| 6 | Process FMEA | How each step could fail and what prevents or detects it | 3 |
| 7 | Control plan | What is checked at each step, how, how often and what to do if it fails | 3 (pre-launch), 4 (production) |
| 8 | Measurement system analysis studies | Gauge R&R and the other MSA studies on the gauges in the control plan | 3 (plan), 4 (results) |
| 9 | Dimensional results | Every dimension on the drawing measured on sample parts | 4 |
| 10 | Records of material and performance test results | Material certificates and the design validation tests | 4 |
| 11 | Initial process studies | Capability (Ppk) on the special characteristics from the production run | 4 |
| 12 | Qualified laboratory documentation | Proof the labs that did the tests are qualified for them | 4 |
| 13 | Appearance approval report | Colour, grain and finish approval, for appearance parts only | 4 |
| 14 | Sample production parts | Parts from the production run, sent to the customer | 4 |
| 15 | Master sample | A signed, retained part kept for reference and training | 4 |
| 16 | Checking aids | Fixtures and special gauges used to check the part | 3 (design), 4 (proved) |
| 17 | Customer-specific requirements | Records that the customer's own extra requirements were met | All phases |
| 18 | Part submission warrant (PSW) | The signed summary that declares the submission and asks for approval | End of 4 |
The element names are the standard ones from the AIAG PPAP manual; the descriptions and the phase mapping are ours. Track them with the free [PPAP checklist](/templates/ppap-checklist).
PPAP submission levels
| Level | What is sent to the customer |
|---|---|
| Level 1 | The warrant only (plus an appearance approval report for appearance parts) |
| Level 2 | The warrant with sample parts and limited supporting data |
| Level 3 | The warrant with sample parts and the complete supporting data. The default when the customer does not say |
| Level 4 | The warrant and whatever else the customer defines |
| Level 5 | The warrant with sample parts and complete data, reviewed at the supplier's plant |
At every level the full set of records is kept at the plant. The level only changes what is sent.
Two defaults in the PPAP manual shape the end of phase 4, and your customer can override both. The parts must come from a significant production run: one to eight hours of production on production tooling, gauges, process, materials and people, at least 300 consecutive parts. And the initial process study on each special characteristic is read against Ppk: above 1.67 meets the acceptance criteria, 1.33 to 1.67 may be acceptable after talking to the customer, below 1.33 does not. The process capability calculator works out Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk from your readings.
The control plan in APQP
The control plan is the document APQP leaves on the shop floor. For every step in the process flow it lists the product and process characteristics that matter, how each one is measured, how many parts and how often, how the result is recorded, and the reaction plan when a check fails. It is built from the PFMEA: every prevention and detection control the PFMEA relies on must appear on the control plan, or the PFMEA's ratings are wishful.
APQP produces it three times. The prototype control plan covers the checks on prototype builds in phase 2. The pre-launch control plan, in phase 3, adds extra checks for the first weeks of production, while the process is still unproven. The production control plan, in phase 4, is the long-term version, revised whenever the PFMEA changes.
| Characteristic | Product or process | Class | Specification | Method | Sample and frequency | Reaction plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nut present and seated | Product | Nut on every bracket, flush to the face | Proximity sensor in the weld fixture | Every part | Machine will not cycle; operator loads the nut and restarts | |
| Nut push-out force | Product | Special | At least 2.5 kN (illustrative) | Push-out tester | 3 parts at start of shift, after each tip dress and after any stop over 30 minutes | Stop the cell, hold every part since the last good check, call the shift quality technician |
| Weld current | Process | 9.5 to 10.5 kA (illustrative) | Weld controller monitor | Every weld | Controller rejects the part to the red bin; two faults in a row, call maintenance |
The numbers are illustrative, not a weld specification. The class column carries the special characteristics agreed in phase 2, so the floor knows which checks it can never skip.
Our control plan template has these columns ready to fill in, and the PFMEA template feeds it. How the PFMEA ranks the risks that the control plan then covers is in the FMEA guide.
An APQP timeline example, worked back from start of production
This example is illustrative. A supplier wins a stamped and welded seat bracket, built to the customer's drawing. The award arrives at the start of week 1 and the customer's start of production (SOP) is the start of week 41. Production tooling has a quoted lead time of 14 weeks, and the customer takes three weeks to review a PPAP submission.
| Phase | Weeks | Length | What fixes the dates | Gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Plan and define | 1 to 4 | 4 weeks | Requirements review, timing plan back from SOP | End of week 4 |
| 2. Product design and development | 3 to 12 | 10 weeks | Feasibility signed and tooling ordered by the end of week 11 | End of week 12 |
| 3. Process design and development | 9 to 26 | 18 weeks | Tooling arrives at the end of week 25, tryout in week 26 | End of week 26 |
| 4. Product and process validation | 27 to 38 | 12 weeks | Production run in week 32, submission at the end of week 35, approval at the end of week 38 | End of week 38 |
| Buffer | 39 to 40 | 2 weeks | Kept empty on purpose | |
| 5. Feedback, assessment and corrective action | 41 to 52 | 12 weeks | Launch containment for six weeks, lessons learned review in week 52 | Week 52 review |
Forward check: phases 1 to 4 add up to 4 + 10 + 18 + 12 = 44 weeks. Phases 1 and 2 overlap in weeks 3 and 4 (2 weeks) and phases 2 and 3 overlap in weeks 9 to 12 (4 weeks), so the span is 44 - 2 - 4 = 38 weeks, which is weeks 1 to 38.
The 40-week launch as a timeline
Example numbers- Weeks 1 to 41. Plan and define4 weeks. Gate: End of week 4.
- Weeks 3 to 122. Product design and development10 weeks. Gate: End of week 12.
- Weeks 9 to 263. Process design and development18 weeks. Gate: End of week 26.
- Weeks 27 to 384. Product and process validation12 weeks. Gate: End of week 38.
- Weeks 39 to 40Buffer2 weeks. Kept empty on purpose.
- Weeks 41 to 525. Feedback, assessment and corrective action12 weeks. Gate: Week 52 review.
Backward check, the way the plan should be built: SOP is the start of week 41. Keep two weeks of buffer, so approval is needed by the end of week 38. The customer needs three weeks to review, so the submission goes in at the end of week 35. Measuring every dimension, testing and putting the package together takes three weeks (weeks 33 to 35), so the production run is in week 32. Phase 4 starts in week 27, after tooling tryout in week 26. Tooling must arrive by the end of week 25, and with a 14-week lead time it must be ordered by the end of week 11: 25 - 14 = 11. Both directions give the same dates.
Now the order goes out four weeks late, at the end of week 15, because the drawing was still moving. Tooling arrives at the end of week 29 (15 + 14), tryout is week 30 and phase 4 starts in week 31. The production run moves to week 36 (31 + 5), the submission to the end of week 39 (36 + 3) and approval to the end of week 42 (39 + 3). The latest approval that still meets SOP is the end of week 40, so the launch is two weeks late: the buffer absorbed two of the four weeks and nothing else could. The lesson is the usual one. In most launches the long-lead tooling and gauges are the critical path, so phase 2 exists to get them ordered on a stable design, not to fill in forms.
APQP outside automotive
The phases are not specific to cars. Aerospace has its own standard for the same idea, AS9145, published by SAE for the aerospace supply chain, which pairs advanced product quality planning with a production part approval step. Medical device makers cover the same ground through design and development controls, such as ISO 13485 clause 7.3. Plants outside regulated supply chains use a lighter version: the five phases, a short gate review at the end of each, and only the deliverables that fit the risk of the part.
If you are scaling it down, keep three things: a timing plan worked back from the launch date, a PFMEA with a control plan that matches the floor, and one proof run at rate before the first shipment. Those catch most launch problems at a fraction of the paperwork.
Common APQP mistakes
- Treating APQP as the paperwork for the PPAP. The documents get written in the last month to fill a submission, and the problems they would have found are found by the customer instead.
- Planning forward from kick-off. Dates set forward leave no room before SOP. Work back from SOP, as in the example above, and let the early phases absorb the slack.
- Ordering tooling and gauges late. Gauge studies need the real gauges, and capability studies need the real tools. Both have long lead times, so they belong in phase 2 and 3 plans, not in phase 4.
- Copying the PFMEA and control plan from a similar part. The failure modes of the new line, its new fixture and its new operators never make it onto the sheet.
- A control plan that does not match the floor. If the operator's check sheet and the control plan disagree, the customer's auditor will find it before you do. Walk the line with the control plan in hand.
- PPAP parts from a hand-built run. Parts made slowly by the best operator on a good day prove nothing about production at rate.
- One quality engineer doing APQP alone. It needs process engineering, production, maintenance, purchasing and logistics in the room, or the feasibility commitment is a guess.
- Skipping phase 5. Launch problems get fixed one by one and never reach the lessons learned list, so the next program repeats them.
Go deeper
This page is the short version. These guides cover each part in full.
- FMEA in Manufacturing: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Complete GuideThe long read on the DFMEA and PFMEA that APQP phases 2 and 3 produce: each rating scale, RPN vs action priority, and the seven steps.
- Measurement System Analysis: Validating Gauge Reliability in ManufacturingHow to run the MSA studies planned in phase 3 and reported in phase 4 and the PPAP: bias, linearity, stability and gauge R&R.
- Gauge R&R: Repeatability and Reproducibility StudiesThe gauge R&R study itself, step by step, and how to read the result before the gauge goes on the control plan.
- Process Capability: Cp and Cpk Explained for ManufacturingThe maths behind the initial process studies in phase 4: Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk, and what to do when a special characteristic falls short.
- Statistical Process Control (SPC) ExplainedHow the special characteristics are watched once the part is in production, which is where phase 5 and the control plan take over.
All our articles on this subject are in the quality management topic.
Free templates and tools
- APQP checklistThe five APQP phases as a checklist: deliverables, owners, due dates, gate reviews and an issues list.
- PPAP checklistThe 18 PPAP elements with owner, due date and status, the five submission levels and a readiness count.
- Control plan templateWhat is checked at each step, against which limits, how, how often, and what to do when a result is out.
- PFMEA template (process FMEA)Failure modes, effects and causes rated for severity, occurrence and detection, with RPN before and after action.
- Design FMEA (DFMEA) templateA design FMEA worksheet with S, O, D and RPN before and after action, a class column and a design rating guide.
- Process flow diagram templateA squared sheet to draw the flow with a symbol key, and a step table that counts operations, moves, checks, waits and storage.
- MSA study workbookBias, linearity and stability study sheets for a gauge, with the arithmetic done and a guide to which study when.
- Process capability (Cpk) study sheet25 subgroups of readings with Cp, Cpk, Pp and Ppk worked out, control limits to check stability, and a histogram.
- Process capability (Cp, Cpk) calculatorCp and Cpk against your specification limits, plus Pp and Ppk from pasted measurements, with a distribution chart.
- First pass yield (FPY) calculatorFirst pass yield at each step and rolled throughput yield (RTY) across the whole process.
Doing this in LeanSuite
Quality Improvement
Log quality issues from the floor, trace each one to its root cause and follow the corrective action through to closure.
See Quality ImprovementSupplier Quality
Digitizes inbound inspections, flags non-conformances with photo proof and builds supplier scorecards.
See Supplier QualityNon-Conformance (NCR)
Moves non-conformance reports into an automated workflow and links each defect report to root-cause problem solving.
See Non-Conformance (NCR)
See it on your own lines
Bring the problem you are working on to a 45-minute demo. Or look around with sample data first, or pilot LeanSuite on your own lines for 90 days, with the setup done by our team.
FAQ
Questions about aPQP
APQP, advanced product quality planning, is a structured method for launching a new or changed part. A cross-functional team plans the product and its production process in five phases, each ending at a gate review, so that every customer requirement is met and proved before production starts. It was written by Ford, General Motors and Chrysler and is published by AIAG.
The five phases are: 1, plan and define the program; 2, product design and development; 3, process design and development; 4, product and process validation; and 5, feedback, assessment and corrective action. The first four each end at a gate review. Phase 5 runs for the life of the part and feeds lessons learned into the next program.
APQP is the plan for the whole launch, from the customer's request to stable production. PPAP, the production part approval process, is one step inside it, near the end of phase 4: the evidence package and signed part submission warrant that show the customer the production process makes good parts at the quoted rate. Most PPAP elements are made earlier in APQP.
The AIAG PPAP manual lists: design records, authorized engineering change documents, customer engineering approval, design FMEA, process flow diagram, process FMEA, control plan, measurement system analysis studies, dimensional results, material and performance test results, initial process studies, qualified laboratory documentation, appearance approval report, sample production parts, master sample, checking aids, customer-specific requirements records, and the part submission warrant.
There are five. Level 1 sends the warrant only. Level 2 sends the warrant with sample parts and limited data. Level 3 sends the warrant with sample parts and complete data, and is the default. Level 4 is the warrant plus whatever the customer defines. Level 5 is complete data reviewed at the supplier's plant. At every level the full records are kept on file.
IATF 16949:2016 requires what APQP delivers: a design and development process (clause 8.3), the customer's product approval process (clause 8.3.4.4) and control plans (clause 8.5.1.1 and Annex A). Most automotive customers also require APQP by name in their supplier manuals, so in practice automotive suppliers run it.
The five AIAG core tools are APQP (planning the launch), PPAP (getting the part approved), FMEA (ranking how the design or process could fail), MSA (proving the gauges can be trusted) and SPC (watching the process with control charts and capability). The control plan is usually grouped with them. Each has its own AIAG reference manual.
A control plan lists, for every process step, the characteristics that matter, how each is measured, the sample size and frequency, how results are recorded and what to do when a check fails. APQP produces three versions: prototype in phase 2, pre-launch with extra checks in phase 3, and production in phase 4. It is built from the PFMEA.
It is the run the PPAP parts come from. By the PPAP manual's default it lasts one to eight hours and gives at least 300 consecutive parts, made on production tooling, gauges, process, materials and operators at the production rate. Your customer can set a different quantity. Parts from a prototype or hand-built trial run do not count.
As long as the gap between the sourcing decision and the customer's start of production, which the customer sets. The plan is built backwards from that date: customer review time, the production run, tooling tryout and the tooling lead time. Long-lead tooling and gauges are usually the critical path, so they are ordered in phase 2 on a stable design.
A program manager who owns the timing, plus design engineering (or the customer's design contact for a build-to-print part), process engineering, quality, production, maintenance or tooling, purchasing and supplier quality, and logistics for packaging. Sales or the account manager carries customer requirements in. Key sub-suppliers join for their parts.
Yes. Aerospace has its own version, the SAE standard AS9145, which combines advanced product quality planning with a production part approval step. Medical device makers cover the same ground through design and development controls such as ISO 13485 clause 7.3. Other plants use a lighter version: five phases, short gate reviews and only the deliverables the risk calls for.
Related guides and tools
- APQP checklist in Excel and PDF: 43 deliverables across the five phases, gate dates and an issues log
- PPAP checklist: the 18 elements with owner, due date and status, and the five submission levels
- Control plan template: the checks, frequencies and reaction plans APQP leaves on the floor
- FMEA guide: DFMEA vs PFMEA, RPN vs action priority and a worked PFMEA example
- Lean playbook for automotive plants, where APQP and PPAP are part of every launch
More method guides
- The 6 Ms of production
- Poka-yoke
- Model area 90-day plans
- Moving from Excel to one system
- Reducing machine downtime: a worked month
- Andon
- Cycle time vs lead time, worked through
- Root cause analysis
- How many operators a line needs
- Reducing scrap and rework: a worked month
- Unsafe acts and unsafe conditions
- Just culture
- Stop-work authority
- Material review board (MRB)
- Nonconformance and NCRs
- Problem solving methods
- Quad chart
- OEE calculation
- Quality assurance vs quality control
- SOP meaning and format
- Job hazard analysis
- Near miss reporting
- Fishbone diagram
- Pareto chart
- Histogram
- Control chart
- What is a gemba walk
- What is lead time
- What is operational excellence
- How to improve product quality
- Preventive vs predictive maintenance
- Kanban
- FMEA
- PDSA cycle
- Safety moments
- Just-in-time manufacturing
- Kaizen
- 5S
- Total quality management (TQM)
- CAPA (corrective and preventive action)
- Layered process audit (LPA)
- Lean tools
- Lockout tagout (LOTO)
- A3 problem solving
- Preventive maintenance
- High reliability organization (HRO)
- Manufacturing KPIs
- Quality metrics
- Practical problem solving
- CMMS
- Risk assessment
- Production efficiency
- Total productive maintenance (TPM)
- Reliability-centered maintenance (RCM)
Or browse the topics, the full library and the lean glossary.
Rather see it on your own problem?
Bring the problem you are stuck on, and we will show you on a call how LeanSuite handles it.