PPAP Process Flow Diagram Assessment

01How to use this chapter

This chapter separates the uploaded assessment criteria from practical KEVOS implementation guidance. The section titled Source-derived assessment criteria preserves the intent, terminology and checklist detail supplied in the uploaded PPAP Assessment. The surrounding handbook guidance explains how a manufacturing or supplier-quality team can organise evidence, perform a readiness review and spot gaps before formal submission. Where the uploaded source states a numeric threshold, edition reference or customer-specific expectation, it is identified as source-derived rather than presented as a universal rule.

Use the chapter in three passes. First, read the purpose and workflow to understand what the element is meant to prove. Second, work through the source-derived prompts against the actual part number, engineering revision and production process. Third, close the red flags and collect objective evidence before the package is released. For large PPAPs, record the evidence location beside each source prompt so another reviewer can repeat the assessment without relying on verbal explanation.

02Handbook workflow

1. Walk the real process from start to finishBegin with purchased material and external processes, then trace every manufacturing, inspection, assembly, packaging, storage and logistics step to customer shipment.
2. Give every step a stable identityUse operation or sequence numbers so PFMEA, control plan and work instructions can refer to the same process step without ambiguity.
3. Show non-normal routesMake rework, scrap, hold, alternate/backup operations and subcontract routes explicit rather than leaving them as tribal knowledge.
4. Capture movement and stagingDocument how product moves, where it waits and how it is stored or staged, including special handling requirements.
5. Mark where characteristics are created or verifiedIdentify processes that create special characteristics and the inspection/quality-assurance steps that verify product.
6. Validate the planned flowReview material-flow logic, handling risks, subcontract interfaces and alternate sources before approving the diagram.
7. Maintain it as a controlled APQP anchorUpdate the diagram when the process changes and ensure downstream PFMEA/control-plan documents follow the same revision.

03Evidence package to retain

The assessment is stronger when each conclusion points to a controlled record rather than a statement that the requirement is “covered”. The following evidence set is a practical minimum for this chapter; actual customer and contractual requirements govern the live submission.

• Controlled process-flow diagram
• Operation/sequence numbering
• Purchased-material and subcontract process steps
• Material-handling and storage/staging steps
• Inspection, data recording and functional-test points
• Rework and scrap routes
• Alternate/backup processes and validation evidence
• Assembly, cleaning, packaging and logistics steps
• Shipment-to-customer step
• Special-characteristic creation/verification points

04Source-derived assessment criteria

• 1.Process Flow Chart must be in place, which identifies all manufacturing operations, handling techniques, inspection steps, alternate/back-up processes and sub-contract suppliers.
• 2.Method of handling rework and scrap shall be clearly illustrated.
• 3.Process layout shall reflect planning so that a logical flow of material can occur during manufacturing of the product.
• 4.Does the flow chart illustrate the sequence of production?
• 5.Does the flow chart start with and detail the actual beginning of process (including purchased material and processes) and movement of material throughout all manufacturing operations?
• 6.Has the pull system/optimization been considered for this process?
• 7.Is the process flow chart controlled, updated and reviewed for completeness?
• 8.Does the flow chart include all assembly and packaging operations?
• 9.Are the sequences identified (operation or sequence number) so as to follow through to other APQP requirements?
• 10.Were all appropriate FMEA’s available and used as aids to develop the process flow chart? Are inspection/quality assurance steps, data recording, attribute checks and/or functional testing included for each process step?
• 11.Does the flow chart indicating the material flow and control for handling rework and scrap?
• 12.Does the material flow consider potential quality problems due to handling and sub- contracted operations?
• 13.Does the flow chart illustrate shipment to the customer and steps to consumption?
• 14.Does the flow chart describe how the product will move, i.e. roller conveyor, slide containers, tubs, etc?
• 15.Are steps in the process where product is stored and/or staged clearly identified?
• 16.Does the flow chart illustrate special handling requirements (green pre-heat, post grind, assembly)?
• 17.Does the flow chart identify in detail all in-house alternate or back-up processes?
• 18.Does the flow chart identify in detail all sub-contract alternate or back-up sources of supply for products or services provided?
• 19.Have alternate or back-up processes or sub-contract suppliers been validated?
• 20.Process(s) shall be identified that create Special Characteristics.

05Common red flags

These are practical review signals derived from the relationships and controls repeatedly required by the source. A red flag does not automatically mean the submission must be rejected; it means the condition deserves documented resolution before approval.

• Flow begins at the first internal machine and ignores incoming material or external processing
• Rework is handled in practice but absent from the diagram
• Alternate equipment is used during downtime but not documented or validated
• Operation numbers do not match PFMEA/control plan
• Storage or staging points that drive mix-up risk are omitted
• Packaging and shipment are absent although they affect conformity
• Material movement is shown but handling method and quality risk are unclear

06Cross-document interfaces

PPAP elements should not be reviewed as isolated files. Check the following interfaces for consistent part identity, revision, characteristic naming, operation numbering and control logic.

07Assessor close-out checklist

• The element is present or a controlled waiver/agreement explains why it is not required.
• The submitted record identifies the correct part number and engineering revision where applicable.
• The evidence is legible, understandable, controlled and traceable to the submitted product/process.
• Special characteristics and known customer concerns are treated consistently across related documents.
• Any nonconformance, temporary control, deviation or interim condition is visible and formally dispositioned.
• Actions have owners, due dates and objective closure evidence where the source expects corrective action.
• The final conclusion can be independently repeated by another reviewer using the package alone.

08Frequently asked questions

09Source and limitations

Primary source: uploaded Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) Assessment / PPAP Submission Assessment, 15 pages, Quality-One. Source sections used on this page: 2.2.5 Process Flow Diagram Assessment. Approximate source page coverage: 3-5.

This KEVOS chapter is an educational and assessment aid. It preserves the uploaded document's criteria but does not replace controlled customer-specific requirements, engineering specifications, contractual requirements or an official PPAP/APQP manual. Where the source references “PPAP 4th edition”, AIAG methods, Organization systems or Organization-specific targets, those references are retained as source context rather than silently updated or generalized.