Assigning numbers to control plans etc.



Hi! I am very new to the Cove, and it feels I'm even newer to quality. A little background on our company we are a small plastic gear company, we mold, tool, prototype, inspect etc. We do not do a lot of production, but we are heading in that direction for a few automotive suppliers. We are being required to submit PPAP's. We have completed our process flow diagram, working on our PFMEA's , and I have been forcasting what we need for the control plan. I am a little unsure about the numbering ( i.e. control plan docu #, or cross ref # from all applicable doc's like flow diag, FMEAs sketches etc., or the difference in using a part vs process #.) I have all the manuals from AIAG, but they are not helpful in this area or I am just not looking in the right place. Any assistance, or direction would be very appreciated.


I'm FAR from an expert on "automotive" PPAPs but...
I save/name our control plans based on the part number.

Part number: 1234
Control Plan: 1234 CP.xls (excel file)
Inspection Report: 1234 IR.xls
FMEA: 1234 FMEA.xls

Unless there is some "automotive" or QS requirement, keep your internal file naming useful to YOU! If is easier to use the customer's number use that over any internal number...

P.S. Some people here have programs and spreadsheets where all the PPAP forms are on seperate tabs within an excel file, so all the files are already linked and easy to find.

Bill Ryan - 2007

Welcome to the Cove, Deborah :bigwave:

The "document #" (revision?) is entirely up to whatever convention you wish to set up. If you follow the AIAG format for the rest of the Header information, you should be pretty well covered for any automotive customer (of course each customer may have their own "requirements").

As far as "cross referencing" the documents - I simply use a "process step" number in the left hand column of each document. That number must show up across all 3 documents and address the same "stuff" at each step (we use a software package which doesn't allow the cross-referencing to be incorrect. Spreadsheets are OK but can be an updating nightmare if you have too many different product/processing lines).

50 - Cast (This represents the "process step number" as well as the "Process Function"). It is numbered as step #50 on the PFD, PFMEA, and both Control Plans. The PFMEA will have all the Modes, Causes and Detections and (because I break out inspection into their own "steps") the Control Plan will address all the Causes for this "step" (the exception would be and "in-line, automated" inspection).

55 - Inspection-Cast . Once again this will show as a line item in the PFD and PFMEA (possibly with no Failure Modes) and the Control Plan addresses any Modes to be inspected at this "step".

Hope that helps you a little.


Randy Stewart

We use the sales order number for our internal part/job number which can be found on all documents pertaining to that part. Along with SO# is the customer part number on the Control Plans and FMEA's. So if we receive a shipper it will it will have the PN and reference the PO, the PO reference a SO# and PN so we should have 2 ways to cross reference the documentation.


Our process control plans (bulk material supplier) are numbered per the process/machine - ie, our Slitter control plan is SL-01, Temper mill is TR-01. Etc. Keepin' it simple....

Shaun Daly

Hi there.

We are fairly new at this as well, attached is what we have done.

Any comments appreciated.


  • PFC (Upload to web).doc
    169.5 KB · Views: 426
  • FMEA-MNY20221823B NEW.doc
    119 KB · Views: 785
  • MQL-MNY20221823B Iss 1.doc
    104 KB · Views: 352

Bill Ryan - 2007


I work for a die casting plant and have limited exposure to injection molding but I do understand your tools don't wear as much/quickly as ours do and I also understand that many of the issues with plastic parts deals with the visuals. I also have no idea how long a production run is for the part you have presented nor the TPM or Operator procedures you employ.

That being said, here goes:

My main "issue" (were I your customer ;) ) would be concerning the Detection values of "1" for everything (PFMEA). This would imply to me that you were incapable of sending me a nonconforming part. Typically, a Dectection value of "1" means you have Poka-Yokes in place, yet I don't see mention of them anywhere in these documents. According to your Control Plan, you use a caliper on only two dimensions and rely on Visual Inspection for the remainder of part features. Your frequencies are set at "First/Last shot" with some visuals hourly. Understanding that visual inspection is only 85% effective (at best) and highly subjective, most "guidelines" I have seen published would put the Detection value at, no better than, a "6" (with more than one layer of 100% visual inspection).

Regarding the Control Plan, I don't see any "Process Characteristics" being monitored other than "Die Setup". For example, in the PFMEA the Causes for a sink are shown as "Incorrect Holding Pressure" and "Incorrect Holding Time". I would expect to see some sort of monitoring of these two process parameters rather than relying on visual inspection of the part to tell me there is an issue with the process.

Please understand, these are just my comments and they reflect my experiences and what I expect out of our PFMEAs and Control Plans. It's very easy to sit back and criticize another's work. I tend to get a little "passionate" with PFMEAs because I have seen the benefits of the discipline when "properly" performed.

Have a great one :bigwave:


Shaun Daly

Thanks for the comments!

A friend recently photocopied the 3rd edition FMEA tables for me, so you will be pleased to know the ratings (especially Detection values) are much more severe.

In monitoring the applicable parameters - a good point. Currently the FMEA just reflects what we do, not what we should be doing.....

Basically we have minimal shopfloor process control atm, people just modify stuff & walk away.

You cant even be sure which machine the press has run in sometimes.....<sigh>

And management want us to go for TS....
Top Bottom