New Supplier Evaluation Summary Rev3

Supplier: APPROVED CHECKED WRITTEN

Location:
Audit Date:
Auditor(s):

OVERALL QUALITY AUDIT SCORE COMMODITIES

#DIV/0! APPROVED NOT APPROVED
2.9 - 4: OK TO SOURCE FOR REGULAR & CCD PARTS (SEE CCD AUDIT CRITERIA)

2.1 - 2.8: SOURCE REGULAR PARTS WITH ACTION ITEMS. NO CCD PARTS.

0 - 1.9: CAN NOT SOURCE

SINGLE "0" OR A NG PROCESS AUDIT : CAN NOT SOURCE

PROCESS SPECIFIC AUDITS EVAL CCD SOURCING REQUIREMENT CCD AUDIT RESULT
1 NO SINGLE CRITICAL QUESTION OVERALL CCD SCORE: #DIV/0!
2 WITH LESS THAN (3). MIN. CCD QUESTION SCORE: 0
3 OVERALL SCORE MUST BE OVERALL SCORE: #DIV/0!
4 2.9 OR GREATER. OK TO SOURCE FOR CCD PARTS:
5 YES NO

DISTRIBUTION Rec. Insp. SCORE DISTRIBUTION

DMAT SQE 4 1
DMMI SQE Abnormality Handling Supplier Control 0.9
3
DWAM SQE 0.8
DMTN PU 2
0.7
DMMX SQE
1
DMTN 20X SQE
QUANTITY 0.6
Measurement Control 0 Process Control 0.5
DMTN 101 SQE
OTHERS 0.4
0.3
0.2
Problem Correction Inspection Control 0.1
0
Quality Management 4 3 2 1 0
SCORE / RANK

Audit FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEMS NEEDED BEFORE CONSIDERATION FOR SOURCING DUE DATE IF
Section CHECK ITEMS SCORED 0 OR 1 (Note: only critical items have "0" rank score) APPLICABLE

Audit FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEMS DUE DATE IF

Section RECOMENDED WITH DENSO BUSINESS APPLICABLE

COMMENTS
 SQE FORM-027
NEW SUPPLIER AUDIT: 0
GENERAL JUDGEMENT CRITERIA RATING
Outstanding --> Exceeds Denso Requirements 4
Acceptable --> No Action Needed 3 SUPPLIER is required to complete RED
Minimal System in place --> Kaizen recommended for Denso Business 2 DENSO will complete GREEN
Inadequate System Exists --> Kaizen needs to be made before sourcing 1
No System Evident for critical item --> Supplier fails. Sourcing not recommended 0

"C" INDICATES CRITICAL. "O" SCORE IN ANY ONE ITEM DISQUALIFIES SUPPLIER.
Supplier Self-Assessment DENSO Assessment
LOWER THAN "3" IN ANY ITEM DISQUALIFIES SUPPLIER FOR CCD CONSIDERATION.
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS
SECTION 1: Material Control - Receiving Inspection - Lot Control

Data Record Retention (4) Digital copies. Easily accessible.

Inspection result sheets and / or spec. (3) All records kept for Incoming raw material. Paper copy . Appears to have no gaps.
1 C sheets for raw and sub raw material are (2) They have system and keep records but you can easily find gap.
kept. (0) No system. No records.

5S - Environmental Exposure (4) Clearly protected to inspect and store incoming material. No exposure to the elements
5S at Material Storage and Incoming (2) Storage and Inspection area is controlled but there is some chance to expose to
2 parts storage is good. Rust/Scratch elements
Prevention is considered. (1) Damage and moisture is possible.

(4) Fail safe electronic system controlling location , FIFO, etc.

(3) All materials clearly identified by location, color, component, grade, size, etc. Operator
Material & Parts Storage and FIFO can pick 1 side only.
(2) Some materials clearly identified by location, color, component, grade, etc. Paper
3 C Are materials and parts stored to avoid system identifies next use.
mixing encourage FIFO? (1) Materials stored only using part number. Easy to mix.
(0) No material storage rule. Materials stored by various methods with no identification.
Easy to mix. No FIFO Control

(4)Cert sheets checked and stored. Capability also tracked over time
Raw Material Certification (3) Cert sheets checked and stored. Evidence of checks available.
4 C Are material certs checked, stored, kept, (2) Cert sheets checked and stored. Minor gaps found in check and storage.
etc.? (1) Cert sheets checked and stored but many gaps found in check and storage.
(0) No system for checking/storing cert sheets.

(4) All incoming packaging inspected. If damaged, material is contained and corrective
Shipment Visual Check action system is utilized.
5 Incoming packaging inspection system
(3) All incoming packaging inspected. If damaged, material is inspected.
(2) All incoming packaging inspected but no rule if damaged.
(1) Incoming packaging only inspected on materials requiring receiving inspection.

(4) All critical items confirmed and charted each lot. Strength, structure, dimension,
Receiving inspection system material characteristic.
Does the supplier have a system to (3) Visual check with boundary sample, dimensional check of key items. Data stored and
6 C confirm dimensions and appearance of
monitored.
(2) Visual confirmation of parts attributes.
incoming parts? (1) Only periodic checking.
(0) No receiving inspection system
#DIV/0!
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

Incoming Inspection Material (4) Status confirmed by electronic system with fail safe.
Identification (3) Parts identification clear for each category - Suspect parts moved immediately to hold
area.
7 C Does the supplier have a stratification (2) All parts storage same area, tagging identification only for status.
method used to identify Awaiting- (1) All parts storage same area, little or no tagging for identification.
inspection, ok, and NG parts? (0) No system
0

(4) The supplier has electronic systems for tracing finished goods. The systems gathers lot
data at process usage.
Lot Traceability (3) The supplier has a clear, capable paper systems for tracing finished goods back to all
process and material.
8 C Does the supplier have good Lot (2) NA
Traceability. (1) The supplier has a systems in place but there are gaps. The supplier can not reliably
demonstrate traceability.
(0) The supplier has no system or capability to trace finished goods lots back to
manufacturing dates and/or raw materials.

(4) Additionally the systems goes so far as to identify the lot number part by part.
Mixed Lots (2) The supplier has a policy and procedure to handle lot division/mixing to ensure that
9 If Lot Division occurs during Production, traceability is maintained for all lots. Gaps possible but not found.
is it controlled? (1) No additional care is given to maintain traceability in the case of lot division or mixed
lots or they have a system with many gaps found.

(3) Supplier is experienced with IMDS submission and has no concern.

(1) Supplier does not seem to be familiar with IMDS submission. They would need help to
10 C Control of Substances of Concern (SOC) do.
(0) Supplier will not do IMDS submission.

(4) Company has a system in place to control inventory and completes routine inventory
audits of warehouse and WIP areas.
(3) Company has a system in place to control inventory and appears to maintain an
Inventory Management adequate level of inventory.
11 C Is there a standard amount of WIP and (2) Company has a non automated system in place, yet appears to meet customer
finished good inventory? requirements due to capacity or excessively over stocks product.
(1 ) Company has no system for inventory control, yet appears to be able to maintain an
adequate level of WIP and/or finished goods inventory.
(0) Company has no system for inventory control.

FINAL SCORE - Material Control / Rec Inspection / Lot Control: #DIV/0!

SECTION 2: Secondary Supplier Control

(4) Procedure/Policy for supplier Audits in place. Evidence that rule is followed and
Supplier Audits improvements are documented.
12 C The supplier audits their current (3) Procedure/Policy for supplier Audits in place. Evidence that rule is followed.
suppliers and future potential suppliers (1) Procedure/Policy for supplier Audits in place but no evidence it is followed.
(0) No procedure/Policy or related activity for supplier Audits.

(4) They are receiving full PPAP from their suppliers. They are also auditing to the PPAP.
Supplier Process Control (3) There is evidence that they are receiving and approving supplier PPAP.
13 C They understand and document their (2) Process Control Plan, Flow and shipping instructions are part of the qualification plan,
suppliers complete process but no evidence.
(0) No Supplier qualification requirement.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

Supplier Monitoring (4) Additionally there is evidence of improvement plans based off of score card.
(3) Incoming Inspection Standards are being made. Supplier monthly score card is
14 C They have procedures to monitor the operational.
quality of the parts they are receiving as (2) Incoming Inspection Standards are being made.
well the quality trends of their suppliers. (0) There is no evidence of Incoming Inspection of secondary suppliers.

Notification of supplier defects (4) Additionally QFNs or Abnormality Counter Action Report are tracked for effectiveness
and cycle time.
They submit QFN or Abnormality (3) Policy/procedure exists for QFNs or Abnormality Counter Action Report . There is
15 evidence of issuance and closure.
Counter Action Report to their suppliers (2) Policy/procedure exists for QFNs or Abnormality Counter Action Report but no
and follow-up response or evidence.
countermeasures. (1) No Policy/procedure.

FINAL SCORE - Secondary Supplier Control #DIV/0!

SECTION 3: Process Control

Work Instruction (WI) and Control Plan (4) The Work Instructions match the CP and there is additional detail in the WI that clarifies
alignment each check.
(3) The WI clearly show each of the items that are marked on the CP for this process.
16 Do the contents of the Operation (2) There are some minor gaps between the CP and the WI
Manuals & Control Plans agree? Verify (1) The Work Instructions are missing most of the items listed on the Control Plan. The
by checking 1 or 2 processes / lines. supplier does not use the CP to help develop WI.

(4) Work Instructions are posted visibly at the work station for the specific program that is
Work Instruction (WI) Accessibility being run.
17 (3) Work Instructions are easily accessible to the operator if they need to see them.
Are Work Instructions visible and (2) The operator has to leave the work station to access the WI.
accessible to the operators? (1) The operators have no knowledge of where to access the WI and never use them.

(4) Standardization of work across multiple work stations and the operators follow this
Work Instructions (WI) exactly.
(3) In observation of the operator, it is clear that they are following each step of the WI
18 C Are they following the Work (2) The operator is making small deviations from the work instruction steps.
Instructions? (1) The operator is not following the WI at all.
(0) The operators do not use work instructions, they only follow their experience.

Daily Machine Checks (4 ) Results are stored in database with Management visibility.
(3) Check Sheets are in place with appropriate initials.
19 C Is Daily/Periodic Machine Inspection (2) Policy and Check Sheet in place and usually followed. Minor non-conformities.
performed and documented according (1) Policy in place but rarely followed. Major non-conformities (many gaps).
to the Machine Check Sheet? (0) No policy in place. No daily machine checks.

(4) Machine is checked at start-up, changeover and end of run. Listed in OMS. Recorded
Machine 5S with no gaps found.
(3) Machine is checked at start-up, changeover and end of run. Listed in OMS. Recorded
20 C The inside of machines are cleaned and with a few gaps found.
(2) Machine is checked at start-up, changeovers and end of run. Listed in OMS.
checked for remaining work pieces on a (1) Machine is checked at start-up, changeover and end of run but not listed in OMS and
regular and defined basis. no evidence.
(0) No regular cleaning performed.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) In addition to having and following a plan the supplier also judges the amount of FM
Machine & Workstation 5S collected, compares against a norm and takes CM if abnormal condition is noticed.
They have a schedule to check and (3) There was a plan / schedule to check and replace such things as Filters and Sticky matts.
21 replace FM collection devices such as
It was being followed.
(2) No formal plan but it appeared that 5S of filters, sticky matts, etc. was on going.
Filters, Sticky matts ,etc. (1) No formal plan, schedule etc. to notify of filter check or replacement. Dirty filters and
sticky matts could be seen.

(4) Machine history is stored in database with Management visibility.

Machine Log (3) Machine history sheets are in place with appropriate initials.
(2) Policy in place and usually followed. Minor non-conformities.
22 C Is machine history logged & records (1) Machine Log in place but rarely followed. Major non-conformities (many gaps and/or
kept? missing initials).
(0) No Machine Log in place.

(4) Results are stored in database with Management visibility.

Pokayoke confirmation (3) Check Sheets are in place with appropriate initials. Evidence it is being followed all the
time.
23 C Is there a functional check for pokayokes (2) Policy in place and usually followed. Minor non-conformities.
at the start of the shift? (1) Policy in place but rarely followed. Major non-conformities (many gaps).
(0)They never confirm Pokayokes.

Vision system confirmation (4) Results are stored in database with Management visibility.
(3)Check Sheets are in place with appropriate initials. Evidence it is being followed all the
Are there periodic accuracy checks for time.
24 C automatic inspection equipment (such as (2) Policy in place and usually followed. Minor non-conformities.
vision systems)? Are they confirming (1) Policy in place but rarely followed. Major non-conformities (many gaps).
with NG Masters? (0) They are not doing these checks or using NG masters.

(4) Same as (2) but Log book shows only "approved" personnel make changes.
Machine Process Control Limits (2) Responsibilities well defined and there are defined process windows but no evidence it
is being followed.
25 C Is the supplier managing and controlling (1) Process parameters are defined but responsibility not clear. Process "window" not
machine process control limits. clearly defined.
(0) Process parameters, responsibilities, and settings are not documented.

Automatic monitoring of process

control limits (4) Shut down alarms in place, seem effective.
(3) Shut down alarms in place but are not quite 100% fool-proof.
26 (2) Shut down alarms in place but can be easily overridden
The machines can monitor the process (1) Supplier has no alarm capability for automated inspection.
and stop and alarm when needed.

(4) Inspection results charted, stored in a database, and monitored. There are instructions
to alert COC for abnormals.
Process Capability Tracking (3) Important items are defined for each step and recorded. Checks performed regularly
and initialed as required.
27 C Is process capability tracked for critical
(2) Policy is in place but not followed 100%. You can expect the level of completeness to be
more than Level (1)
items? (1) Policy is in place or seems to be a general attempt to track process capability but there
are multiple nonconformances.
(0) They are making no attempt to track capability.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) 1st & last piece retained, compared to master sample. Log showing trend data of
1st & Last Piece verification critical characteristics.
(3) 1st & last pcs approved by QC and retained. Evidence they are following. Confirmation
28 C Are first & last pieces verified? Who is done in a timely manner to contain NG parts.
responsible for the verification, Prod or (2) Mass Production parts can run for some time before 1st pcs deemed OK. Questionable
QA? containment for parts prior to 1st pcs approval.
(0) No attempt to implement 1st & last pcs. checks.

(4) Quality sheets are also logged into database and Management reviews. Clear targets
Quality Check Sheet Control and a escalation policy. Evidence data is being used to improve process.
(3) Quality Sheets are kept, they have clear targets, they can demonstrate management
oversight.
29 C Are quality check sheets (2) Quality Sheets are kept but lack specific targets.
reviewed/approved by the chain-of- (1) Quality Sheet are kept but unclear who reviews, what actions are taken if abnormal, no
command? specific targets, etc.
(0) Supplier does not keep quality records

Segregation of inspected parts (4) There are designated areas and boxes (yellow or red) to identify non-conforming parts,
quantities, and a disposition plan. There is use of items such as locked reject bins or totes
Are there different boxes for NG, cleared only by leaders only.
30 C dropped parts, changeover parts & (3) There are designated boxes or areas specifically for non-conforming parts (yellow or
rework parts? This question is related to red) and it is clear as to the reason for rejection, and disposition is clear.
parts after inspection. Parts that are (0) There are not any designated boxes for suspect quality or NG parts. Disposition
being held for disposition or to scrap. method is unclear, and there is no consistent record.

Prevention of parts mixing at

changeover and Final Inspection (4) There is a policy, it is being followed, and status of parts are clearly identified. System
appears full-proof.
Is there mixing prevention for (2) There is a policy for part changeover, but no evidence that policy is followed
consistently.
31 C changeover parts, test parts & current (1) No established policy to prevent part mixing in process, but method has been
product? Note that the method for established to try to prevent. It is unclear how this process is controlled.
preventing parts mixing may be different (0) No established method to prevent mixing and it appears to be a high potential with
between changeover & test parts and at current.
final inspection.

(4) Kanbans, or similar, are used to identify part number, quantity, lot number(s) and
Use of Kanban cards or labels process status, and is consistent on all totes/boxes.
(2) Kanbans, or similar, are used to identify part number and there is a process status, but
32 C Are control cards/kanbans used with
is not always utilized for all totes. No lot number identification
(1) Kanbans, or similar, are used to identify part number and quantity, but no lot number
product to prevent skipped processes? or process status.
(0) There is no identification on the parts to show part number or current process.

Handling of 5M1E changes (4) A 5ME Change log is updated, posted and visible. The Change log documents a 2nd
person sign off and noted quality confirmation results.
33 C Is quality verified after any 5ME (2) A 5ME change document exists, but 2nd person validation is NOT recorded and no
changes? Are the 5M changes properly results documented.
recorded & identified? (0) No evidence of documentation or verification for 5ME changes.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) Results of P-charts reviewed daily/weekly and communicated to management and

Scrap Analysis Cost of Quality associates.
(3) In process defect trends are charted, recorded and analyzed and reviewed with
34 Are in-process defect trends Leaders.
(P-Charts/Values) analyzed? (2) No evidence of defect trends analyzed and review to upper plant management
(1) In process defect trends are not available.

Foreign Material Prevention - Lids on (4) All WIP and final goods are covered with lids where appropriate. There are Work
totes Instruction Sheets that specify packaging style with Lids.
35 Are all totes in the plant containing
(3) All WIP and final goods are covered with lids where appropriate.
(2) It is possible to find totes of WIP or final product that are not covered but very few.
product are covered? (1) Many of the totes containing WIP or final product don't have lids.

Reduction of FM brought in by (4) In addition to (3) there is evidence of observation or acknowledgement by

associates. management.
(3) There is a policy requiring the items shown in (2).
36 Policies and procedures in place to (2) Unforms are clean, hands and gloves are clean. No food at the work cell.
reduce FM brought in from associates (1) No regard for possibility of FM brought in by dirty clothing, food remaining on hands
clothing, food, make-up, etc. after break, etc. Dirty uniforms are present. Snack food and drinks are at the work cell.

Tote Cleaning (4) Yes and all totes get cleaned before re-use.
Are inside of totes inspected for (3) Yes and totes have periodic cleaning frequency set.
37 contamination? Do they keep their totes (2) Yes but no cleaning frequency established
at an appropriate cleanliness level? (1) No inspection of totes or cleaning

(4) Has a policy/system policy in place similar to DENSO requirements and can provide
Material Process Changes evidence system being used.
(3) Has a policy/system policy in place similar to DENSO requirements for process changes.
38 C Does supplier understand "Process (2) Has no system in place to inform customers of process and/or material changes, but
Change / material change is NOT agree to conform to DENSO.
allowed without DENSO approval"? (1) N/A
(0) They will not agree to conform to DENSO policy regarding changes.

Plan for back-up machines

(4) Company has duplicate back-up machines and they will pre-qualify during PPAP timing.
(3) Company has duplicate back-up machines but they haven't considered pre-qualifying..
39 Are backup machines available? Does (1) Company plans to run production on same machine and there is no duplicate back-up
the supplier plan to pre-qualify backup machine.
machines.

FINAL SCORE - Process Control: #DIV/0!

SECTION (4) Inspection Control

(4) The Criteria and/or boundary samples are similar to what DMTN uses so they can easily
Visual parts criteria understand our requirements.
(3) The Criteria and/or boundary samples are clearly marked with definite levels defined.
40 C There is a criteria for judging visual parts (2) The Criteria and/or boundary samples are somewhat vague and need better definition
and their visual criteria is easily for the inspector.
accessible to the inspectors. (0) There is an obvious lack of criteria and the inspector can only make the judgment by
their experience.

Inspection Environment (4) Lighting levels have been identified based on customer requirements and are checked
with some frequency.
41 Appropriate Lighting at Inspection
(3) Lighting is appropriate for the types of parts being produced.
(2) Lighting is semi-adequate but could be improved.
location. (1) The lighting is poor and large adjustments must be made.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) Yes, all checks are completed per inspection standard with evidence recorded in SPC
software.
(3) Yes, all checks are completed per inspection standard with evidence listed on control
In process Checks charts,. No gaps found.
42 C (2) Yes, all checks are completed per inspection standard with evidence listed on control
In process checks done according to a charts. Gaps found in non-critical checks.
Inspection Std. with SPC data collected. (1) Yes, all checks are completed per inspection standard with evidence listed on control
charts. Gaps found in critical checks.
(0) No, inspection standard. Checks not being done.

WIP quantity at Inspection Area

Is the number of WIP parts at the (4) Process limited to one-piece-flow or automated part handling.
(3) It is easy to see which parts have been inspected. The amount seems appropriate.
43 inspection area appropriate? (should not (2) Number of parts should be reduced slightly to avoid mistake.
have too many to inspect) (1) No control over how many parts/ high potential to skip.
* Please watch Inspector to verify actual
operation.

Visual Inspection work flow (4) Standard work is established and all inspectors use the same method. This is confirmed
by mgmt. audits.
44 Are visual inspection steps good (good (3) Standard work is established. All inspectors use the same method.
flow) so that it will prevent skipping of (2) Standard work is established. Inspectors are not using same method.
inspection items? (1) Standard work is not established and inspectors are not using same method.

P- Charts for Visual Inspection

(4) Suppler has p-chart already set/in place and a pareto by defect modes.
Are all visual inspection results charted (3) Suppler has charting in place for visual inspection results based on customer request.
45 C and monitored? (Clearly see
(2) Suppler does not have charting system in place for visual inspection criteria, but is
willing to implement.
normal/abnormal level. Able to report (0) Supplier unwilling to implement a p-chart system to monitor visual inspection results.
abnormalities at time of occurrence.)

(4) Additionaly there is evidence of daily team and management review.

Use and functionality of control charts (3) Control charts used consistently with clear indication of out of spec. performance and
detailed reasons shown.
46 C Are abnormalities on control charts (2) Control charts used but not updated on a daily basis.
clear? (1) Control chart used, but out of spec not clear.
(0) No control charts used.

(4) Cleanliness confirmed by management audits. Results are shown on information board.
5S at Inspection Table (3) Regular cleaning required by procedure and recorded.
47 Inspection table cleanliness control (2) Cleaning regular but not required by procedure. Or only done per associate discretion.
(1) No cleaning is performed or specified.

WIP Identification (4) Part inspection status is controlled by QR/barcode scanning system that clearly
indicates inspection status.
(3) Clear labeling and consistent labeling.
48 C Part identification and separation. (2) Some labeling, but labeling or location needs improvement.
(Consider this identification for all (1) Inconsistent location or labeling, rule not clear
process as well as Inspection) (0) No identification or labeling system
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) The supplier understands there is an FM requirment on the drawing and gives general
instruction through their Work Instructions to check. There is clear criteria for acceptable
Foreign Material lnspection level (size & QTY).
(3) The supplier understands there is an FM requirement on the drawing and gives general
49 Parts are inspected for FM per drawing instruction through their Work Instructions to check.
specifications. (2) There is evidence they check for FM but it is not specifically called out on the Work
Instructions,
(1) No indication they are inspecting for FM.

(4) There is a policy or procedure that drives them to consider FM reductionin their process
Lessons Learned from Foreign Material design.
Problems (3) There is evidence that Countermeasures for past defects caused by FM were reflected
The suppliers is applying lessons learned in process designs of future products.
50 from FM problems to future process (2) It appears based on general observations that the supplier is considering FM reduction
design. in their process design.
(1) No indication that Countermeasures for FM reduction have been applied to their
process design.

(4) OK/NG master samples are used daily and recorded to confirm inspection accuracy.
Procedure for confirmation of OK/NG Masters are properly identified, controlled, calibrated, etc.
Masters (2) OK/NG master samples are used periodically but not regularly. No
51 C maintenance/confirmation done.
Automatic inspection machine or vision (1) OK/NG master samples exist but are only used on an "as needed" basis. No
system OK/NG master confirmation maintenance/confirmation done.
(0) Not used.

FINAL SCORE - Inspection Control: #DIV/0!

SECTION 5: Management / Quality Management

(4) Maintenance support is available in the plant during all working shifts and weekend
Maintenance Coverage operations.
(3) Maintenance support is in the plant for most of the time but on call during off-shifts
52 C and weekend operations.
How is adequate Maintenance coverage (2) Maintenance is only available during some production shifts and off-shift items are
assured? Are off shifts covered? dealt with when they return.
(0) Maintenance support is very limited and is available only on an as-needed basis

(4) Quality support is available in the plant during all working shifts and weekend
QA Coverage operations.
(3) Quality support is in the plant for most of the time but call during off-shifts and
53 C How is adequate Quality weekend operations.
Assurance/Control coverage assured? (2) Quality support is only available during some production shifts and off-shift items are
Are off shifts covered? dealt with when they return.
(0) Quality support is very limited and is available only on an as-needed basis

(4) Engineering support is available in the plant during all working shifts and weekend
Process Engineering Coverage operations.
(3) Engineering support is in the plant for most of the time but call during off-shifts and
54 C How is adequate Production / Process weekend operations.
Engineering coverage assured? Are off (2) Engineering support is only available during some production shifts and off-shift items
shifts covered? are dealt with when they return.
(0) Engineering support is very limited and is available only on an as-needed basis

(4)Top management approval system in place and followed. Evidence of top management
PPAP Approval or Management approvals. (Like 2QA system)
Approval for new process and part (3)PPAP approval system in place and followed. Evidence of quality management
55 C approvals for similar processes.
Judge their production part and process (2)PPAP approval system in place. No evidence of quality management approvals.
approval process. (1)PPAP or QA Management approval system in place. Not followed perfectly.
(0)PPAP or QA Management approval system used.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) Clear policy requiring management approval to remove. Policy required more frequent
Early Stage Control Understanding & oversight, inspection, and tighter targets.
use (3) Demonstrates practice of ESC by showing more management oversight. Evidence ESC
targets set and have management oversight to remove from ESC.
56 C (2) Evidence of increased inspection during ES C but no increased Management oversight
Does the supplier follow ESC? Do they for ESC removal.
grasp the significance of ESC. (1) Evidence of increased inspection during ESC.
(0) ESC is not followed and there is no understanding of ESC concept.

Over all 5S (4) 5S is same level or better than Denso Plant

(3) Good condition (No additional actions needed)
57 (2) 5S in place but some improvement needed)
Consider overall 5S condition (1) No or Minimal level of 5S (Needs much improvement)

Training System (4) Additionaly supplier recognizes associates for increasing skill level.
(3) Training is in place with documentation plus verification system
58 C Judge the suppliers associate training
(2) Training is in place with documentation
(1) Training is in place with no documentation
system. (0) No training system

(4) There is evidence that the system is utilized.

(3) System in place to target weak points, generate & implement ideas for improvement
Kaizen Circle or Similar and measures the results, recognizes and/or rewards associates, but there no evidence of
59 improvement activities.
Judge their Kaizen circle activity (2) System in place for generating & implementing ideas for improvement. No evidence of
improvement activities.
(1) The company has no system in place.

(4) An EF team meets on a scheduled basis to implement improvements, tracks data to

Plant Efficiency Improvement verify results are effective and the efforts are evident.
(3) EF responsible person tracks data from their changes to verify results. Little evidence
60 Evidence of Plant Efficiency
that activity is taken place.
(2) Company has an EF person that works to implement improvements to the facility, yet
Improvement Activity there is no system to track and verify results. No evidence the activity is taking place.
(1) No system is in place for EF activity and the facility/production flow is in poor condition.

(4) The supplier has reviewed the DENSO SQAM, understands and agrees to follow.
(3) The supplier has a vague understanding (they quickly reviewed) of the DENSO SQAM
DENSO SQAM but they are willing to agree.
Is the supplier aware that DENSO has a (2) The supplier has not reviewed the SQAM (has no idea what is in it) but they are willing
61 C Supplier Quality Assurance Manual and to agree.
can you agree to follow. (1) The supplier has reviewed and understands to some level what is in the SQAM but will
not agree to follow.
(0) Supplier shows no desire to review the SQAM nor agree to it.

QA Organization Structure (4) There is a QA Department that operates separately from Production. Evidence that the
QA Dept. is completing activities such as QIPs for sub-suppliers.
62 C (3) QA Dept. operates separately from the Production Dept. and appears to be meeting the
Is the QA department separate from the needs of Production and Customers.
Production Department? (0) No separate QA Dept. or Manager.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) There is evidence the manual is considered living.

Quality Manual (3) Has a Quality Manual and procedure to handle quality requirements and expectations.
Manual outlines the quality standards.
63 C Does the supplier have a Quality Manual. (2) Has a Quality Manual but it doesn't clearly define procedures to handle quality
requirements and expectations.
Do they review and revise its (1) N/A
effectiveness. (0) Has no Quality Manual and/or official procedure to handle quality related requirements
and expectations.

(4) Has a document control policy to maintain document records and revisions. Evidence it
Procedure to Control Quality Records is properly utilized.
(3) N/A
64 C (2) Has a document control policy to maintain document records and revisions. Evidence
Is there a documented control procedure reveals system is not properly utilized.
for quality records. (1) N/A
(0) No document control policy and/or system in place.

(4) Additionally evidence that reflects CR countermeasures are incorporated into

CR visibility programs.
(3) System in place to publish CRs, shows status of root cause investigation and other
65 CR are visible to all in the company.
details.
(2) System in place to publish CRs, however could use some improvement (to make more
Associate level knows all CR. visible, show investigation status, etc.).
(1) N/A

Technical Support 4) There are process engineers and other highly technical assistance such as a nearby tech
center or Japan HQ expertise.
66 There appears to be enough technical
3) There are enough process engineers
2) Process engineers are available but they seem to be stretched thin.
personal to support their projects. 1) No process engineers. Just technicians

(4) Company holds IATF 16949 and additional certifications (such as ISO 14001, ISO 13485,
NADCAP, etc..
(3) Company at least holds IATF16949 certification.
67 C Certifications ISO, etc.? (2) Company only holds ISO 9001 or some other minimal certification.
(1) N/A
(0) Company has no certifications.

(4) The supplier has experience with CCD parts. They have a clear policy on how to assure
quality of CCD items including 100% inspection, more frequent inprocess inspection,
increased training, etc. , there is evidence it is followed and evidence production, QA,
Critical Control Designation Engineer staff understand CCD requirements.
68 C The supplier has a CCD parts (2) The supplier has experience with CCD parts. They have a clear policy on how to assure
requirements and has a plan to handle. quality of CCD items but not clear evidence is it consistantly followed.
(1)There is some understanding and evidence they apply speciatl control to CCD parts but
no official policy.
(0) No policy, consideration, etc.

(4) Supplier has their customer defect history actual verses target adn shows evidence that
Customer Defect Targets this informationis shared throught the company. Supplier shows evidence they set tighter
Confirm the supplier has customer targets each year. Customer Defect Target = Customer Defect Target =
69 (3) Supplier has customer defect actual result history and clear targets.
defect targets and are they able to (2) Supplier has some customer defect actual result history but the supplier has no Customer Defect Results = Customer Defect Results =
achieve the target. customer defect targets.
(1) Supplier has no customer defect actual result history.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

(4) Supplier has in-procss defect targets and history. They are acheiving targets or taking
actions to achieve. Their in-process defect history verses target is communicated thtough
the entire organization. Easy to understand their current in-process defect condition.
Inprocess Defects (3) Supplier has in-process defect targets and history but they are not achieving their In-plant Defect Target=
70 Supplier has inprocess defect targets and targets and don't appear to be taking actions to meet. Supplier has the defect history In-plant Defect Result=
they can achieve the targets. broken down by defect mode. Most common Defect Mode=
(2) Supplier has in-process defect history but does not have targets.
(1) Supplier does not have accurate, readily available in process defect history.

CR & In House defect CM tracking 4) Tracked and presented monthly to Management. Method to follow-up and keep
visibility. Evidence management is holding the plant responsible for results.
71 C Do they track customer and in-house 2) They track and make visible to all line and management members. No evidence off
defects CM for completion and follow-up.
verification. (0) No system to follow-up on CM for in-house and customer defects.

FINAL SCORE - Management / Quality Management: #DIV/0!

SECTION 6: Problem Corrective Action

QFN / 8D Procedure (4) Mistake proofing / poka joke procedure implemented. Poka yoke verification checks .
(3) QFN/8d report closed showing related documents were updated. Company has a
They use a robust and formal QFN/8d defined problem solving tool and uses it consistently.
72 C procedure to implement CM to prevent
(2) QFN/8d reports with related evidence to close open actions. Root cause analysis not
properly conducted.
re-occurrence. They apply mistake (1) Missing some QFN/8d responses
proofing /poka yoke to assure. (0) No system in place.

(4) System to show how corrective actions need to be applied to other processes.
Examples of implementation. Hard changes; Evidence of QFN/8d corrective action applied
Yokoten to other process.
(3) Examples of corrective actions applied from previous QFNs/ 8ds. No formal
73 Yokoten to the other Departments /
procedure/system documented.
(2) Some corrective action applied to other processes, mainly soft changes (Increased
Products inspection/ verification ).
(1) No action or Corrective action referred to other processes on QFN/8d reports or no
evidence of implementation.

(4) Scrap capture and analysis implemented. Action plans defined to address issues.
Scrap Reduction Activity Presented on KPI board.
(3) Scrap capture and analysis implemented. Action plans defined to address issues.
74 Continuous In-Process Defects / Scrap
(2) Scrap capture and analysis procedure implemented . Some evidence of implementation
on shop floor but not for all part numbers
Reduction Activity (1) Scrap capture and analysis system not documented. No evidence of implementation.
Scarp not being measured.

(4) Rejected product test/ analysis implemented. Records are available. Proper
testing/measuring equipment is available at the facility.
CR Analysis (3) NA
(2) Rejected product test/ analysis implemented but not documented. Records available.
75 C They have an adequate system for Some testing/measuring needs to be outsourced.
Customer Return Analysis. (1) Rejected product test/ analysis system not documented. Some records available.
Testing and measuring is conducted by suppliers.
(0) No system in place.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

Problem Analysis

Formal Problem Analysis is used for in- (4) Policy /or formal procedure in place. Evidence the systems and procedures are being
house and customer defects. followed and additional actions are being conducted to prevent reoccurrence.
Review Policy for: (3) Policy and/or formal procedure in place. Evidence the system and procedures are
Method (8D, 5Why, etc.) being followed.
76 C Containment (2) Policy and/or formal procedure in place. No evidence that the systems or procedures
Timing of Actions are being followed.
Required Participants (1) Policy for 8D and containment but no policy for escalation (internal or external).
(management?) (0) No policy or formal procedure for problem analysis.
Escalation for Customer defects
Yokonirami (PFMEA)

FINAL SCORE - Problem Corrective Action: #DIV/0!

SECTION 7: Measurement Control

(4) Has equipment to complete all measurement in-house. Plus non-standard equipment
Measurement Capability such as 3D Scanner, X-Ray, etc.
(3) Has equipment and capacity to complete all measurements in-house.
77 C Supplier has enough measurement
(2) Has equipment to complete most measurement in-house, but has to use an outside
source for some measurements.
capability to perform all ISIR in-house. (1) N/A
(0) No in-house measurement capabilities. Other than calipers.

Damage to parts caused by inspection

device (4) Additionally Mgmt. audit to confirm.
(3) Procedure exists to check for gauge/part contact damage. Evidence check is being
System to check inspection device for performed.
78 part damage prevention.
(2) Procedure exists to check for gauge/part contact damage. Evidence that check was
done at initial use.
Check for manual off line in process (1) No procedure exists to check for gauge/part contact damage, but no evidence that
checks and automatic in line inspection check is being performed.
equipment.

(4) Gauge tracking software is being used to indicate calibration status. Schedule exists
and no gaps found.
(3) Manual gauge tracking system is being used to indicate calibration status. Schedule
Gauge Calibration exists and no gaps found.
79 C (2) Manual gauge tracking system is being used to indicate calibration status. Schedule
Gage and Calibration Schedule & Control exists and (1)2 gaps found.
(1) Manual gauge tracking system is being used to indicate calibration status. More than 2
gaps found.
(0) No tracking of calibration status or more than 5 gaps found

FINAL SCORE - Measurement Control: #DIV/0!

SECTION 8: Abnormality Handling

(4) Specific location for rework separate from normal process. Parts clearly identified and
parts go back through inspection after rework. There is identification in case of an issue.
Control of Reworked product Or no rework allowed.
(2) Parts requiring rework are separated, reworked at another area, but not re-inspected
80 C or identified in case of an issue.
Is a distinction made between reworked (1) Rework occurs at the workstation and parts are checked by a secondary operator.
product & normal OK product? Parts completing rework cannot be identified in case of an issue.
(0) Rework occurs at the workstation and parts are not checked by a secondary operator.
Parts completing rework cannot be identified in case of an issue.
 SQE FORM-027
CHECK ITEM JUDGEMENT CRITERIA SCORE COMMENTS SCORE COMMENTS

Operator understanding of Abnormal (4) Operators are trained and experienced on the process and understand the defect
modes and process norms. Operator clearly "owns" the process- Koutei Pro
Do operators understand & recognize (3) The operator has some knowledge of the equipment and process from
81 their process abnormalities? (2) It appears as the operator has been identified for the process but has limited
This is specific to their process beyond understanding of specific process abnormalities.
the normal stop, call, wait. (1) The operator has no understanding and or little experience with the specific process.

(4) The supplier has a clearly documented procedure on how to handle utility failures.
Utility Related Failures There is limited utility backup when possible. There are designees for assisting and
maintaining utility related issues.
82 C Does a clear rule/plan exist for dealing (3) The supplier recognizes the deficiency and has a backup plan in the event of a utility
with utility-related failures? source failure without clearly defined documentation.
(0) There is no evidence of a rule/plan for utility failures.

Abnormality Rule (4) Rule in place, being followed 100% with evidence of escalation to outside groups
(3) Rule in place with evidence of escalation within company
83 C Is an abnormality rule in place? Are
(2) Rule in place and it's sometimes followed
(1) Rule in place, but it is not followed
abonormals documented. (0) No rule for abnormality condition exists

Associates Understanding of
Abnormality Rule (4) Rule followed, with evidence of periodic training of rule and record
(3) Rule followed and evidence of training record for all Associates
84 (2) Evidence that rule is being followed
In general do associate understand the (1) Associates show little to no understanding
abnormality rule? (Stop, Call, Wait)

(4) Rework control plan and instructions established. All rework parts are put back in
process for normal inspection.
(3) Rework control plan and instructions established. Rework parts are inspected off-line in
Control Plan / JIS for rework parts a separate step.
85 C (2) Rework control plan OR instructions established and utilized. Inspection occurs off-line
Is there a control plan for rework parts? at same step.
(1) Rework control plan OR instructions established and utilized. No inspection after
rework.
(0) No control of rework.

(4) Designated area for rework by part number. Parts are introduced back to line for
normal inspection. (or rework prohibited).
Rework Location (3) One rework station for multiple part numbers but clear rule for only one part at time.
86 Parts are introduced back to line for normal inspection.
Rework location (2) One rework station for multiple part numbers but clear rule for only one part at time.
Parts are inspected off-line.
(1) Rework in line or rework off-line with no re-inspection.

FINAL SCORE - Abnormality Handling: #DIV/0!

SECTION (9): General Supplier Information
Company/Plant:
Industry Type:
Location:
Information
1. Company Outline (Organization, History, Capital relation etc.):

2. Plant Opened Year:

3. Main Products:

4. Annual Sales (% of sales is automotive?):

5. Employees Number (Total, Engineers):

6. Main Customers:

7. Main Suppliers:

8. ISO 9001 / TS16949:

9. Main Manufacturing Equipment:

10. Main QC Inspection/R&D Equipment:

11. Production Mgr. / Quality Mgr. Years of Service:

12. Contact person(s) during Tooling Development and Mass Production:

13. KPI Results (MOR, In-Process Defects, CR):

14. Reference Brochure, Report etc. (Preserved Location, Report No. etc.):
REVISION DATE CONTENT ORIGINATOR
Added Q46, Q65, & Q66. REFINED CCD AUDIT SCORE
1 8/9/2017 CALCULATION D. Snell
2 9/20/2017 Removed Q46 (Suppliers risk to product conformity) D. Snell
3 10/26/2017 Added 5 questions related to FM control. D. Snell