Name: PDP-APQP Free Form

Revision: 1 Last Saved: 21-MAR-2016

POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC.

2100 HIGHWAY 55
MEDINA, MN 55340

PDP-APQP Free Form

OPS-FORM-0146

WRITTEN BY: Cal Larson DATE: 21-MAR-20

APPROVED BY: Brad Clark DATE: 21-MAR-2
 REVISION HISTORY

REV DATE AUTHOR

31-Dec 21-Mar-16 Cal Larson

 Number: OPS-FORM-0146

: PDP-APQP Free Form

Saved: 21-MAR-2016

ARIS INDUSTRIES INC.

2100 HIGHWAY 55
MEDINA, MN 55340

PDP-APQP Free Form

OPS-FORM-0146

Cal Larson DATE: 21-MAR-2016.

Y: Brad Clark DATE: 21-MAR-2016.
SION HISTORY

APPROVER(S) DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES

Brad Clark Initial Release

1 Select Process Owner Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP)
2 Organize the Teams Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) is a structured method for defining and
executing the actions necessary to ensure a product satisfies the customer. APQP is
Engineering program and supplier-led and required of all system, subsystem and component
Manufacturing manufacturing locations. This includes both internal and external suppliers
Material Control The Goal of APQP
The goal of APQP is to facilitate communication between all persons involved in a
Purchasing program and ensure that all required steps are completed on time, with a high quality of-
Quality event, at acceptable cost and quality levels.
Sales
Management
Project Leader
3 1.13 Management Support Letter of support from management
4 1.1 Voice of the Customer Customer expectations
5 1.8 Reliability and Quality Goals Metric goals to exceed customer expectations
6 1.1.2 Historical Warranty & Quality Information Provided by customer
7 1.3 Product/ Process Benchmark Data Benchmark similar products, processes, or methods
8 1.4 Product/Process Assumptions Begin with product/process assumptions
9 1.6 Customer Inputs Next users of the product
10 2.6 Engineering Drawings (Including Math Data) Sufficient information to assure feasibility
11 2.7 Engineering Specifications Review all associated specifications
12 2.8 Material Specifications Understand the material requirements
13 Background Gate 2, % Complete Percent completed based on selected tasks - supplier selection (Prepared for RFQ)
14 1.9 Preliminary Bill of Material Review the BOM on the drawings
15 2.1 Design/System Failure Mode Analysis (DFMEA and/or SFMEA) Review DFMEA and/or SFMEA if provided by customer
16 2.11 Special Product and Process characteristics Identify all KPCs in the design record
17 2.2 Design for Manufacturability and Assembly Simultaneous engineering to increase yield
42 2.4 Design Reviews Colaborative meeting to discuss 2.2 and function with SQE, Engr & Supplier
18 2.9 Drawing and Specification Changes Communicate & document DCR
19 2.10 New Equipment, Tooling and Facilities Requirements Identify new mfg requirements
20 2.12 Gages/Testing Equipment Requirements Identify all gage/test requirements to assure compliance
21 1.10 Preliminary Process Flow Chart Anticipated mfg process
22 3.4 Floor Plan Layout Facilitate the synchronous flow of materials through the process
23 3.1 Packaging Standards Customer packing requirements
24 2.13 Team Feasibility Commitment & Management Support (i.e. Pg 91) Can the design be mfg, assy, tested, pkg, & del per requirements?
25 3.5 Characteristics Matrix Process parameters and mfg stations
42 2.4 Design Reviews Colaborative meeting to discuss 2.2 and function with SQE, Engr & Supplier
27 3.3 Process Flow Chart Schematic or proposed process flow
28 3.6 Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) Created before beginning production to anticipate and resolve potential issues
29 3.9 Measurement Systems Analysis Plan Plan to accomplish planned measurements
30 3.7 Pre-Launch Control Plan Control Plan prior to Preliminary Production Run
31 3.8 Process Instructions Preliminary Process Instructions
42 2.4 Design Reviews Colaborative meeting to discuss 2.2 and function with SQE, Engr & Supplier
32 3.10 Preliminary Process Capability Study Plan Quality planning should prepare a robust plan
33 Preparation Gate 3, % Complete Percent completed based on selected tasks - planning stages complete
34 Production Trial Run Formally 4.1 in 1st Edition this is a test run of the production process
35 4.1 Significant Production Run Production tooling/process/personnel run at rate of significant quantity
36 4.2 Measurement Systems Evaluation Check against the Control Plan and Process Instructions
37 4.7 Production Control Plan Finalize the Control Plan based on validation of the process
38 2.1 DFMEA Review Review DFMEA/SFMEA
39 2.11 Special Product and Process characteristics (Review) Provide Cpk values to KPCs
40 2.2 Design for Manufacturability and Assembly (Review) Review DFM&A
42 2.4 Design Reviews Colaborative meeting to discuss 2.2 and function with SQE, Engr & Supplier
41 2.9 Drawing and Specification Changes Communicate & document DCR
43 3.6 PFMEA (Review) Finalize the PFMEA based on validation of the process
44 4.3 Preliminary Process Capability Study Assessment of the readiness for full production
45 Production Gate 4, % Complete Percent completed based on selected tasks - review after production runs
46 4.8 Quality Planning Sign-Off and Management Support Overall review from the APQP team and approval
47 4.4 Production Part Approval (PPAP) PPAP submission per customer requirements
48 4.6 Packaging Evaluation Evaluate the effectiveness of the packaging
49 PPAP & Review Gate 5, % Complete Percent completed based on selected tasks - review after PPAP submission & delivery
50 5.1 Reduced Variation Continual improvement to increase yield
51 5.2 Improved Customer Satisfaction Evaluate the effectiveness of APQP
52 5.3 Improved Delivery and Service Review 1.8 - what improvements can be made?
53 5.4 Effective Use of Lessons Learned/Best Practices Overall TGR and TGW
54 Long Term Gate 6, % Complete Percent completed based on selected tasks - follow-up improvements
55 Total Progress Percent completed based on selected tasks across the entire form

1.7 Design Goals 11-Jan VOC to measurable design objectives

2.1 Design and System FEMAs (DFMEA & SFMEA) 17-Jan Assess the probability & effect of design faiure
2.3 Design Verification 18-Jan Verifies the design meets the VOC
2.4 Design Reviews 18-Jan Regularly scheduled meetings lead by design engineering
2.5 Proto Build Control Plan 19-Jan Regarding ProtoType parts only
4.5 Production Validation Testing 3-Feb Engineering tests that validate production products meet requirements

We never have enough time, so things are omitted.

We have done this, this way, so we minimize the effort.
We assume that we know what has been requested, so we do not listen carefully
We assume that because we finish a project, improvement will indeed follow, so we bypass the improvement steps
*Only those steps selected by SQE or Supplier become mandatory for the "Free Form" APQP workbook
** Once the file has been saved, DO NOT CHANGE THE FILE NAME, simply update the "last rev date" on the top le
*** Naming convention: APQP_ProjectName_SupplierName_PartName_PartNumber
**** Utilize the APQP training slides for more detail on sheet use "how to"

APQP Project Initiation Process

1) Once supplier selection has been made for a comonent, an APQP level will be designated by Polaris
2) Polaris will hold an APQP kickoff meeting will all stakeholders, including the supplier and execute the followin
2a) Fill out APQP ownership and team identification sections
2b) Review mandatory APQP steps for understanding
2c) Identify and select any other steps desired for the project
2d) Assign due dates and owners to each selected step (this turns the box color purple)
2e) Ensure project remains on task by completing steps by due dates. When the task is less than 2 weeks fro
2f) Determine cadence for updation and review of APQP form (suggest weekly updates)

Supplier APQP Sheet Use Instructions

1) Complete assigned tasks/steps
2) Keep the APQP tab up to date, including the percent complete box
3) When task is fully complete, update percent complete box to 1.0 and add objective evidence to respected ta
3a) To limit the file size, use cover sheets or snips of objective evidence in the tabs and email full document d

Polaris SQE Sheet Use Instructions

1) Upon receipt of APQP file from supplier, review tasks that have a 1.0 in the percent complete box
2) If satisfied with the submittal, place name or initials in the Polaris SQE Approval box (this turns the color oran
3) Upload APQP file to project site weekly as agreed upon by the SQE Project Lead
QP workbook
t rev date" on the top left of the APQP sheet for tracking

nated by Polaris
and execute the following:

k is less than 2 weeks from the due date, box will be yellow. When the task is overdue, box will be red.

evidence to respected tab (this turns the color green)

nd email full document directly to the Polaris representative

omplete box
(this turns the color orange)
 Requ

Due
Date
ireme
nts D
ocum
ent

Date
Added
Colla
b
Mode oration
l/Dra
wing

Date Date
Due Added

Priority Two
Priority One
10/15/2015

(Ref P/N)
New Part

Priority Three
Last Rev Date:

Part Number
SQE:

Rev
Part Name
Supplier Code:

Application
Supplier

GYR Status

N/A
S = Supplier P = Polaris
Resp
Design

Past Due
PDP Project

Assigned
Due Soon

Completed
Polaris SQE Check
Supplier APQP
Process Owner
APQP Steps

Sele
AIAG APQP Reference Manual 1995 Page Numbers Pg 3
2nd Edition AIAG APQP Reference Manual 2008 Page Numbers Pg 3

c t Pr
oces
s Ow
Orga ner
Pg 3
Pg 3

nize
the T
eam
Engin s
eerin
Manu g
factu
Mate rin
rial C g
ontro
Purc
has l
Supplier Team

Quali ing
ty
Sale
s
Mana
gem
ent
Engin
eerin

D = Domestic Supplier, L = LCC Supplier

Manu g
factu
Mate ring
rial C
Reference Working Days

Purc on
hasin trol
Quali g
Customer Team

ty
PDP
Lead
Proje
1.13
ct Le
Mana ader
1

g emen
Pg 11
Pg 14

t Sup
port
1.1 V
o
3

ice o
f th
Pg 7
Pg 9

e Cu s
tome
r
Polar
is
2

Supp
lier O
n -Board
ing
Revie
w the P
1

olaris
SQAM
Portal

(Supp
lier Q
uality
Assura
1.8 R nce M
eliab an u
2

ility a
Pg 10
Pg 12

nd Q
uality
Goals
1.1.2
Histo
1

rica
Pg 8

l Warr
Pg 10

anty
& Qu
ality
Infor
1.7 D
e m ation
1

sign G
o
Pg 9

als(d
Pg 11

esign
respo
nsible
1.3 P )
ro
1

duct/
Pg 9

Proce
Pg 11

ss Be
nchm
ark D
1.4 P ata
ro
2

duct/
Proce
Pg 12

ss A s
sump
tions
1.6 C
1

ustom
er
Pg 9
Pg 12

Inputs

2.6 E
ngine
3

ering
Pg 16
Pg 20

Draw
ings (I
nclud
in g Ma
2.7 E th Da
ngine ta)
5

ering
Sp
Pg 16
Pg 21

ecific
ation
s(Inclu
d ing P
2.8 M olaris
1

ateria and In
l Spec dustr
Pg 16
Pg 21

ificati
ons
2.1 D
e sign/
10

Syste
m Fa
Pg 14
Pg 18

ilure
Mod
eA nalys
is (DF
PDP MEA
Gate and/o
DUE

2 (2.9 r SF
CON )M
CEP % Com ilestone
1.9 P
T plete
relim
3

inary
Bill o
Pg 10
Pg 12

f Mate
rial
2.11
Sp e
1

cial P
rodu
Pg 17
Pg 21

ct an
d Proce
ss ch
2.2 D a racte
e sign fo ristics
r
5

Manu
fa
Pg 14
Pg 18

ctura
b ility a
nd As
semb
2.4 D ly
e sign R
1

eview
#1
Pg 15
Pg 19

2.9 D
rawin
g
10

an d S
Pg 16
Pg 21

pecifi
catio
n Ch ange
2.5 P s #1
ro to Bu
ild co
Pg 20

ntrol
Pla n(des
ign re
2.10 s pons
New ible)
2

Equip
Pg 17
Pg 21

ment,
Tooli
n g an d
2.12 Faciliti
Gage es Re
2

s/Testi quire
n ments
Pg 17
Pg 22

g Equ
ipme
nt Re
q uirem
1.10 ents
Prelim
2

inary
Pg 10
Pg 13

Proce
ss Flo
w Chart
Sub-T
ier M
2

an ag
emen
t
3.4 F
lo
2

or Pla
n Lay
Pg 20
Pg 26

out

3.1 P
ackag
ing Stand
ards
 3.1 P

2
ackag
ing

Pg 20
Pg 26
Stand
ards
2.13
Team

1
Feasib
ility C

Pg 17
Pg 22
omm
itmen
t&M
3.5 C an ag
hara em en

2
cteris t Su p
ti por

Pg 20
Pg 27
cs M
atrix
3.6 P
ro cess

5
Failu
re

Pg 21
Pg 27
Mod
ea nd Eff
ects A
nalys
V-Bu is
il (PFM
EA)

= 80
75% d 1 (3.14
Prod )
uctio
n Too
V-Bu led p
il arts

= 80
75% d 1 (3.14
Prod )
uctio
n Too
V-Bu led p
il arts
= 80
75% d 1 (3.14
)
D = 60 L D = 60 L D = 60 L
Prod
uctio
2.4 D n Too
esign led p
1

Revie arts
w
Pg 15
Pg 19

#2
3.2 P
rodu
2

ct/ Proce
Pg 20
Pg 26

s s Qu
ality
Syste
m Re
3.3 P view
roces
4

sF low C
h
Pg 20
Pg 26

art
3.9 M
easu
5

re ment
Pg 22
Pg 28

Syste
ms Analy
sis Pla
Safe n
Laun
5

ch Co
ntrol
Plan
3.8 P
roces
10

s In struc
Pg 21
Pg 28

tio ns
3.10
Prelim
5

ina ry Pro
Pg 22
Pg 29

cess
C ap ab
ility S
2.4 D tudy
e Plan
1

sign R
eview
Pg 15
Pg 19

#3
2.9 D
raw ing a
10

n d Sp
Pg 16
Pg 21

ecific
ation
Ch

No released drawings prior to this point

ange
s (Pro
Prod
u
d Rel
ction Drwg
Draw ) #2
ing R
PDP e lease
De d -PQR
sign Cre ated
DUE

DEV % Revie
ELO Completew 2 (3.13
P/VA
L )
IDAT
Produ
c E
2

tion T
rial R
Pg 25

un

PI Bu
100% ild 1 (3
.2
D = 30
L = 80

Prod
uctio 2)
n Too
4.7 Pro led Parts
5

ducti

No drawing changes after this point

o n Co
Pg 27
Pg 35

ntrol
Pla n
4.1 S
ignifi
3

ca nt Pr
o
Pg 34

ducto
n Run
Polar
is AAR
10

(A ppera
nce A
ppro
val Re
4.2 M port)
easu
5

re ment
Pg 26
Pg 34

Syste
ms Analy
sis (E
4.6 P valua
tion)
2

ackag
ing Evalu
Pg 27
Pg 35

ation
Run @
2

Rate

2.1 D
F
1

MEA
Revie
w
Pg 14
Pg 18

2.11
Sp e
1

cial P
rodu
Pg 17
Pg 21

ct an
d Proce
ss ch
2.2 D a racte
e sign fo ristics
2

r Manu
(Revie
w)
Pg 14
Pg 18

fa ctura
b ility a
nd As
2.4 D semb
ly
1

esign (Revie
Revie w)
Pg 15
Pg 19

ws #4

2.9 D
rawin
g
10

an d S
Pg 16
Pg 21

pecifi
catio
n Ch ange
3.6 P s #3
F MEA
2

(Revie
Pg 21
Pg 27

w)
4.3 P
relim
2

ina ry Pro
Pg 26
Pg 34

cess C
ap ab
ility S
tu dy
PB B
u ild 3
= 80

.25
D = 30 L

PDP
% Co Gate 3 (3
.2
DUE

mple
te D 6) Miles
EVE to
LOP ne
/VAL
IDAT
4.4 P
rod E
5

uctio
n Par
Pg 26
Pg 35

t App
roval
(PPAP
4.8 Q )
uality
2

Plann
in
Pg 27
Pg 35

g Sign
-Off a
nd Mana
geme
SOP nt Su
p port
(D
REF

PDP
% Co Prod Re
ad
DUE

mple
te L iness (4
AUN .6
CH )
5.1 R
e duce
10

d Var
Pg 29
Pg 39

iation

5.2 Im
prove
5

d Cu s
Pg 30
Pg 40

tome
r Sati
sfacti
o n
5.3 Im
5

prove
d Deli
Pg 30
Pg 40

very
a n d Se
rvice
5.4 E
ffecti
2

ve Us
e
Pg 40

of Le
ssons
Learn
ed/B
est P
ractic
Long
Term es
Gate
%C 6
o mp
Tota
l lete
Prog
DUE

ress
 L
APQP
RETURN

Part Number
Rev
PDP
Gate

DUE
2 (2
CON % Co .9) Miles
CE P mple tone
V-Bu T te
i

= 80
75% ld 1 (3.14
)
D = 60 L
Prod
uctio
n Too
PDP le d p
Desi arts
gn R
DUE

DEV % Comp eview 2

E LO (3.13
P/VA lete )
LIDA
PI Bu TE
100% ild 1 (3
.2
L = 80

Prod
uctio 2)
n Too
led P
PB B arts
u ild
= 80

3.25
D = 30 D = 30 L

PDP
% Co Gate 3 (3
.2
DUE

m pl e
te D 6) Miles
EVE t
LOP one
/VAL
IDAT
SOP E
REF

PDP
% Co Prod Re
ad
DUE

m pl e
te L iness (4
AUN .6
CH )
Tota
l Prog
re ss
 Tota
l Prog

DUE
re ss
Voice of the Customer Overview
Customer expectations regarding quality, delivery, cost, etc.

Details here: http://www.polarissuppliers.com/polcy_procedure/Business_Practices/BP101.asp

APQP!A1
 APQP
uality, delivery, cost, etc. RETURN

tices/BP101.asp
 Overview
Supplier On-Boarding is an overview of the Polaris Core Tools
Suppliers who have not completed On-Boarding should make arrangements with their respective Polaris SDE
to arrange for an On-Boarding session

SDE

*Polaris Quality Core Tools

Priority Description Date Rank Attendees
31-Dec SQAM Supplier Quality Assurance Manual
1-Jan Polaris Drawings
2-Jan PQR Part Qualification Request
3-Jan PPAP Production Part Approval Process
4-Jan PCR Process Change Request
5-Jan SCAR Supplier Corrective Action Report
6-Jan AAR Appearance Approval Report
7-Jan APQP Advanced Product Quality Planning
8-Jan DCR Design Change Request
9-Jan Deviations
10-Jan DDR Delivery Discrepancy Report
11-Jan R@R Run at Rate
12-Jan Red Rabbit
13-Jan PDP Polaris Development Process
14-Jan Certified ID Requirement
15-Jan Sorting
16-Jan Supplier Portal
17-Jan SDE/SQE/Buyer roles
18-Jan RTY Rolling Throughput Yield
19-Jan PDI Pre-Delivery Inspection
20-Jan Recovery Fees
21-Jan MQPR Monthly Quality Perf Report
· Doing business with Polaris – expectations to ensure a successful relationship

Team:
SDE Supplier Development Engineer
Supplier Development
New supplier onboarding
Quality systems understanding
Polaris quality core tools*

SQE Supplier Quality Engineer

Part number specific
Process specific
 Supplier quality submissions
APQP
Engineering Specifications
PCR
PDI
PQRs
R@R
RMOs
SCARs

Buyer Purchasing Agent

ASN website
Contact Maintenance
DCR processing
DDR System
Deviation processing
E commerce site
Electronic Communication
Engineering Drawing System
Engineering Specifications
Leancor
Packaging
RFQ
STAR System
Supplier Net
Trade Compliance
 APQP
olaris SDE RETURN

Follow-up

PQR Champion
Overview
The latest version of the SQAM can be accessed at http://www.polarissuppliers.com/
The SQAM communicates the quality processes, systems, and procedures to ensure all members of the supply base meet
expectations of Polaris Industries. This document sets the strategy for Polaris and its suppliers to achieve industry leading
As part of the purchasing agreement suppliers should familiarize themselves with the content of this document
 mbers of the supply base meet the APQP
liers to achieve industry leading quality RETURN
tent of this document
Overview
Quality History (RMOs) with same or similar parts
Warranty History (Reports) with same or similar parts APQP RETURN
Delivery History with same or similar parts
This historical information should appear on the FMEAs
Overview
Product/Process benchmarking should include the identification of world class or best-in-class based on customer and inter
performance measures and research into how this performance was achieved. Benchmarking should provide a stepping sto
developing new designs and processes that exceed the capabilities of the benchmark companies
ed on customer and internal objective APQP
uld provide a stepping stone for RETURN
Overview
There will be assumptions that the product has certain features, design or process
concepts APQP RETURN
These include technical innovations, advanced materials, reliability assessments and
new technology
All should be utilized as inputs
P RETURN
 Overview
The next users of the product can provide valuable information relating to their needs and expectations APQP RETURN
These should include comments on the customer side from production personnel, material handlers, planners/schedulers, etc
These inputs should be used by the customer and/or organization to develop agreed upon measures of customer satisfaction
Typically done by Polaris soliciting input from our receiving facilities

APQP 1.6 APQP 1.6

Customer Input Customer Input
Receiving Facility Quality Manuf. Engr.
Enter a couple bullets indicating what the supplier does well or could do better for Quality (responsiveness, Enter a couple bullets indicating what the supplier does well or could do better
PPAP quality, etc)

Buyer Planning/Scheduling
Enter a couple bullets indicating what the supplier does well or could do better (communication, etc) Enter a couple bullets indicating what the supplier does well or could do better with communication, etc

Receiving Facility Production Personnel Shipping/Receiving

Enter a couple bullets indicating what the supplier does well or could do better for presentation of parts, Enter a couple bullets indicating what the supplier does well or could do better with packaging, shipping,
packaging, etc. returnables, dunnage, etc.
Overview
Externally supplier designed or Polaris designed the following rationale shall be followed:
To ensure consistent drawing practices a hierarchy of standards has been developed to govern the design intent docume
Preference should be given to the primary and secondary priorities:
Primary - Polaris Standards (i.e. ENG-STND-0004, SQAM, etc)
Secondary - ASME (i.e. Y14.5M-1994, etc)
Other industry standards* (i.e. ISO, DIN, JIS, etc)
*Any industry standards, other than primary and secondary priority, must be approved by the Polaris Design Engineer
overn the design intent documented on the drawing
APQP
RETURN

ed by the Polaris Design Engineer before use

 Overview
Supplier goals as they relate to 1.1 VOC
Lean Goals
FPY/RTY Goals/Targets

Example Quality Goals:

METRIC GOAL
PPM Quality Goal
MAX Number of RMOs
On Time Delivery
On Time PQR Goal
Flexability
Cost Reduction
Lean Enterprise
APQP RETURN
 Overview
Based on product/process assumptions include a potential supplier list and manufacturing process

EXAMPLE FORM

POLARIS PART NUMBER:

BOM Spl Char Potential Supplier

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

POLARIS PART NUMBER:

BOM Spl Char Potential Supplier

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

POLARIS PART NUMBER:

BOM Spl Char Potential Supplier

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

POLARIS PART NUMBER:

BOM Spl Char Potential Supplier

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

POLARIS PART NUMBER:

BOM Spl Char Potential Supplier

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ocess APQP
RETURN

Manufacturing Process Delivery

Manufacturing Process Delivery

Manufacturing Process Delivery

Manufacturing Process Delivery

Manufacturing Process Delivery
 Overview
A visual approach to the anticipated MFG process flow chart from 1.4 Assump and 1.9 PBOM
Value Stream Mapping
This is preliminary

Process Flow Diagram (Exampl

Department

Prod/Serv ID Number

Sources of Variation
Sources of Variation
(Experience-Based)

Operation 100%
Storage
or Activity Inspection

Operation/Activity with Inspection Transportation

 APQP
RETURN

agram (Example)

Date

Sources of Variation
of Variation
(Results of this Step)

Operator
Delay
(Full time)

Transportation (Part time)

Overview
Suppliers shall establish and maintain documented procedures that control sub tier supplier behaviors. These procedures sha
distribution of Polaris drawings/specifications, raw material, quality and testing, packaging and identification (labels). When r
of part traceability (lot codes and/or date codes) should be defined and the Sub Tier suppliers shall maintain revision control
properly instilled in their systems. Polaris Tier I suppliers shall ensure the Sub tier suppliers are responsible for managing mat
and/or tool maintenance and shall provide useful life of these tools on an annual basis that is made available to Polaris.
Tier I suppliers are solely responsible for their sub Tier performance and compliance to Polaris requirements. This includes, b
adherence to all KPC requirements defined in the Design Record. Minimum Polaris requirements are to have current supplier
critical Sub Tier suppliers on file and a demonstrated understanding of the Polaris Part Qualification Process (PQR's and PPAP'
also responsible for PCR compliance at their respective Sub Tiers.
It is strongly encouraged that a Supplier Quality Manual is distributed to the Sub Tier suppliers.

SUB TIER
TIER I RESPONSIBLE QUALITY
TIER II SUPPLIERS Part Number LOCATION CONTACT MANUAL
1
2
3
4
5
6

SUB TIER
TIER I RESPONSIBLE QUALITY
TIER III SUPPLIERS Part Number LOCATION CONTACT MANUAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
 viors. These procedures shall include proper
entification (labels). When required, proper levels
all maintain revision control methods that are
sponsible for managing material lead times, fixtures APQP
de available to Polaris. RETURN
quirements. This includes, but is not limited to,
are to have current supplier quality audits for
on Process (PQR's and PPAP's). Tier I suppliers are
Overview
Interest, commitment and support of supplier upper management for APQP
A letter of commitment from supplier upper management stating their organization's support of the APQP program should
posted below
 APQP
he APQP program should be RETURN
Overview
A Design or Concept FMEA is a systematic approach; used by the design responsible team, to assure that potential desig
DFMEA's are to be done concurrently with the design process to allow for the determined Recommended Actions to posi
Output from the Design FMEA (e.g. potential Characteristics) should also be used when creating and analyzing the Proces
 ssure that potential design failure modes and their associated causes have been considered and addressed
mmended Actions to positively affect the design
g and analyzing the Process FMEA, and the Control Plans
 APQP
RETURN
Overview
At this point the planning is complete and components have been made, good opportunity to review the content of the DFM
w the content of the DFMEA for relevancy to reality APQP
RETURN
Overview
Design for Manufacturability and Assembly is a Simultaneous Engineering process designed to optimize the relationship
At a minimum, the items listed here should be considered by the by the supplier's APQP team with a focus on quality, inc
A concept is designed based on fit-form-function. It is the supplier's responsibility to communicate manufacturing sugge
Design, concept, function and sensitivity to manufacturing variation
Manufacturing and /or assembly process
Dimensional tolerances
Performance requirements
Number of components
Process adjustments
Material handling
Polaris will entertain changes to the Design Record which will improve productivity providing fit-form-function requireme
Please provide feedback here by way of marked up drawings or detailed written requests which can be pasted below
neous Engineering process designed to optimize the relationship between design function, manufacturability and ease of assembly
ed by the by the supplier's APQP team with a focus on quality, increased yield, improved delivery and lower costs
he supplier's responsibility to communicate manufacturing suggestions to the design team which should include:
ing variation

ch will improve productivity providing fit-form-function requirements can be met

awings or detailed written requests which can be pasted below
cturability and ease of assembly
d lower costs
ould include:
APQP
RETURN
Overview
At this point the components have been made, good time to review opportunities for increased yield and improved proces
ield and improved process capabilities APQP RETURN
Overview
For the purpose of communicating with the design team Design Reviews are setup to stimulate collaboration between man
Suppliers or Polaris may select dates and times for scheduled Design Reviews (i.e. after 2.2 DFM)
The intent is not to dissuade ongoing communication between manufacturing and design only to specifically designate a da
is intended
Design Reviews are intended to cover product design not necessarily process design
A wide range of APQP subjects can be used to create process design
The intent of 2.4 #1 is to review with design engineering the supplier's 2.2 DFM
ollaboration between manufacturing and designers

specifically designate a date/person to whom the requested Design Review APQP

RETURN
Overview
For the purpose of communicating with the design team Design Reviews are setup to stimulate collaboration between manuf
The intent of 2.4 #2 is to review the results of the Validation Build with the supplier
boration between manufacturing and designers

APQP RETURN
Overview
For the purpose of communicating with the design team Design Reviews are setup to stimulate collaboration between manuf
The intent of 2.4 #3 is to conduct a final design review prior to release of the production drawing
boration between manufacturing and designers

APQP RETURN
Overview
For the purpose of communicating with the design team Design Reviews are setup to stimulate collaboration between manuf
The intent of 2.4 #4 is to have an additional review with design engineering after production has begun
The intent is not to dissuade ongoing communication between manufacturing and design only to specifically designate a date
is intended
 boration between manufacturing and designers
begun
ecifically designate a date/person to whom the requested Design Review APQP RETURN
Overview
Prototype Control Plans are a description of the dimensional measurements and material and functional tests that will occ
The design responsible team should ensure that a Prototype Control Plan is prepared
The Proto CP is made up of characteristics deemed necessary to confirm predicted test outcome
Process to be used to be close as possible to what will be used
Delta analysis of differences and opinion formed on impact of the differences of the process steps
The manufacture of prototype parts provides and excellent opportunity for the supplier and Polaris to evaluate how well t
objectives
and functional tests that will occur during prototype build

tcome APQP
RETURN
ss steps
nd Polaris to evaluate how well the product or service meets the VOC
Overview
Early collaboration may begin with ProE models and/or engineering requirements documents
Pre-release or WIP drawings may also be communicated early in the APQP process
Information should be reviewed to determine if there is sufficient information to assure feasibility and compatibility with ind
KPCs are special characteristics requiring special controls such as error-proofing, mistake-proofing, SPC, 100% inspection etc
Ensure the requirements are understood and match supplier capabilities - assume there will be no changes to the requirem
gineering requirements documents
arly in the APQP process
fficient information to assure feasibility and compatibility with industry manufacturing and measuring standards
uch as error-proofing, mistake-proofing, SPC, 100% inspection etc.
er capabilities - assume there will be no changes to the requirements when quoting
 APQP
g standards RETURN
Overview
A detailed review and understanding of the controlling specifications as defined in the Design Record
Suppliers should determine which characteristics affect meeting functional, durability, cleanliness and appearance require
May be tables on the drawings or direct reference to Polaris engineering or process standards as well as international sta
Bar Coding is an all too common issue at launch. Please ensure the receiving facilities approve your bar code submissions
We recommend sending samples to the Polaris receiving facilities early in the process to allow time for adjustments
 rolling specifications as defined in the Design Record
s affect meeting functional, durability, cleanliness and appearance requirements as defined in the Design Record
ce to Polaris engineering or process standards as well as international standards as defined in the Design Record
Please ensure the receiving facilities approve your bar code submissions before SOP
eceiving facilities early in the process to allow time for adjustments
 sign Record
sign Record APQP
RETURN
Overview
Special consideration should be given to the material specifications noted within the Design Record
Specifications should be reviewed for KPCs relating to physical properties, performance requirements, environmental, ha
Manufacturability is an important consideration when reviewing material as well as corrosion protection
cord APQP RETURN
ments, environmental, handing and storage
rotection
Overview
Drawing and specification changes may be required, especially after design reviews, and the APQP team must ensure that t
communicated and properly documented to all affected areas
The intent of 2.9 #1 is for the design engineers to communicate their assessment of the previous 2.2 DFM and 2.4 #1 afte
review the information
Once the design team has made their decisions 2.9 #1 is considered complete, no further action is required

Sample Form Only (the actual form of communication my vary)

Date
Date Changes are
Requested Changes Requestor Requested Accepted By Due Received
P team must ensure that the changes are promptly
APQP
us 2.2 DFM and 2.4 #1 after they have had a chance to RETURN

s required
 Overview
Drawing and specification changes may be required, especially after design reviews, and the APQP team must ensure that
communicated and properly documented to all affected areas
The intent of 2.9 #2 is for the design engineers to communicate their assessment prior to final release of the drawing
Once the design team has made their decisions 2.9 #2 is considered complete, no further action is required

Sample Form Only (the actual form of communication my vary)

Date
Date Changes are
Requested Changes Requestor Requested Accepted By Due Received
QP team must ensure that the changes are promptly
APQP
l release of the drawing RETURN
n is required
 Overview
Drawing and specification changes may be required, especially after design reviews, and the APQP team must ensure that
communicated and properly documented to all affected areas
The intent of 2.9 #3 is for the design engineers to communicate their assessment of the previous 2.4 #4 after they have
information
Once the design team has made their decisions 2.9 #4 is considered complete, no further action is required
2.4 #4 and 2.9#3 are a review of informaton after production has begun

Sample Form Only (the actual form of communication my vary)

Date
Date Changes are
Requested Changes Requestor Requested Accepted By Due Received
QP team must ensure that the changes are promptly
APQP
ous 2.4 #4 after they have had a chance to review the RETURN

n is required
 Overview
FMEA's and/or process reviews may identify new equipment and facilities including meeting capacity requirements
The suppliers' APQP team should address these requirements by adding the items to the Timing Chart
The team should assure that there is a process to determine that new equipment and tooling is capable and delivered o
Facilities progress should be monitored to assure completion prior to planned production tryout

NEW EQUIPMENT, TOOLING, AND TEST EQUIPMENT CHECKLIST EXAMP

Polaris Part Number

QUESTION YES
1 Does the design require
a New materials?
b Quick change?
c Volume fluctuations?
d Mistake proofing?
2 Have lists been prepared identifying
a) New equipment?
b) New tooling?
c) New test equipment (including checking aids)?
3 Have acceptance criteria been agreed upon for:
a) New equipment?
b) New tooling?
Willc)aNew test equipment
preliminary (including
capability study bechecking
conductedaids)?
at the tooling and/or equipment
4 manufacturer?
5 Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been established?
6 Is a preventive maintenance plan complete for equipment and tooling?
7 Are setup instructions for new equipment and tooling complete and understandable?
Will capable gages be available to run preliminary process capability studies at the equipment
8 supplier's facility?
9 Will preliminary process capability studies be run at the processing plant?
10 Have process characteristics that affect special product characteristics been identified?
11 Were special
Does the product characteristics
manufacturing equipment haveused sufficient
in determining acceptance
capacity to handlecriteria?
forecasted production
12 and service volumes?
13 Is
Hastesting capacity sufficient
the measurement to provide
equipment beenadequate testing?
verified and documented showing qualification for
14 the required scope of measurement and testing?
 capacity requirements
ming Chart APQP RETURN
g is capable and delivered on time
yout

MENT CHECKLIST EXAMPLE (A-3 of AIAG APQP Manual)

Revision Level

NO N/A Comment / Action Required Person Responsible Due Date

EXAMPLE TIMING CHART
Set Up
Operation Machine Machine Installed at Machine and
OP Description Machine Delivery Production Line Pluged In runoff
20 Operation Description Name Date Date Date Date
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
 Sign Off
Date
 Overview
For planning purposes list all KPCs noted in the Design Record
KPCs will need to be listed in the PFMEA and Control Plan

KPC Matrix (all parts, sub and asm)

Part Part Char # KPC Drawing Grid Location
Desc No.
1
2
3
Desc 1

4
PN 1

5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Desc 2

4
PN 2

5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
Desc 3

5
PN 3

6
7
8
9

1
2
3
4
5
Desc 4

PN4

6
7
8
9
10
 1
2
3
4
Desc 5

5
PN5

6
7
8
9
 APQP
RETURN

asm)
Comments
Overview
Process capability/control must be demonstrated at time of R@R
Ppk 1.67 for short term of initial qualification is permitted for the first 90 days
Cpk 1.33 must be established after 90 days to prove long term capability
KPC control methods include but are not limited to (in order of preference):
Error-Proofing, Mistake-Proofing, SPC, 100% Inspection, etc.
Error-Proofing and Mistake-Proofing methods may be submitted in place of Process Studies (i.e. for characteristics in
which Statistics are impractical)
KPC's shall receive first order of precedence for continuous improvement (starting with the highest severity failure mode
items on the FMEA, lowest Capability Study metrics or non-Error-Proof or Mistake-Proof processes)

KPC Matrix (all parts,

Part Part Drawing Grid
Char # KPC Gage Used
Desc No. Location
1
2
3
Desc 1

4
PN 1

5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Desc 2

4
PN 2

5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Desc 3

4
PN 3

5
6
7
8
1
2
3
Desc 4

4
PN 4

5
6
Desc 6 Desc 5 Desc 4

PN 6 PN 5 PN 4

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8
7
 APQP
RETURN

udies (i.e. for characteristics in

h the highest severity failure mode

of processes)

KPC Matrix (all parts, sub and asm)

Mistake or Error
GR&R Result Ppk Cpk Status Proof
Comments
 Overview
Just as the APQP team would plan for new equipment, tooling and facilities requirements the team must ensure Gages/T
Will new equipment, software and subsequent learning be required for CMM measurements for example?
Will leak test or X-Ray equipment be required?
New gaging should be part of a Timing Chart to prevent assumptions and to prevent any delays

GAGES/TESTING EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS EXAMP

Polaris Part Number

QUESTION YES
1 Are there additional gages / equipment needed according with the control Plan?
2 Has test equipment feasibility and accuracy been established?
3 Are there new programs to be created for the lab equipment?
ADCOLE
CMM
Profile projector
Roughness Tester
4 Have the lab formats needs to be modified / updated for the new reference?
ADCOLE
CMM
Profile projector
Roughness Tester
e team must ensure Gages/Testing Equipment Requirements are understood and addressed
s for example? APQP RETURN

ays

ENT REQUIREMENTS EXAMPLE

Revision Level

NO N/A Comment / Action Required Person Responsible Due Date

P RETURN
Overview
The Polaris Manufacturing Feasibility Commitment indicates the suppliers APQP team is satisfied that the proposed design can be APQP RETURN
manufactured, assembled, tested, packaged and delivered in sufficient quantity on schedule at an acceptable cost to Polaris
 Contact Name: Shipped From:

Contact e-mail: Contact Phone #:

✘
ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETE OR FORM WILL BE REJECTE

Note: 2005 changes are in Italics Page 108 of 187 Date Issued: April 2001.
Date Revised: April 1, 2005.
 Overview
The suppliers' APQP team should review the facilities QMS
Any additional controls and/or procedural changes required to produce the product shall be updated, documented and inclu
Control Plan

PRODUCT/PROCESS QUALITY CHECKLIST EXAMPLE (A-4 from AIAG APQP

Polaris Part Number

Question Yes No N/A

1 Is customer assistance or approval required for
the development of the control plan?
2 Has the organization identified who will be the
quality liaison with the customer?
3 Has the organization identified who will be the
quality liaison with its suppliers?
4 Has the quality management system been
reviewed and approved per customer specific
requirements?
5
Are there sufficient personnel identified to cover:
a l Control plan requirements?
/
b l Layout inspection?
/
c l Engineering performance testing?
/
d l Problem reaction and resolution analysis?
/
6 Is there a documented training program that:
a l Includes all employees?
/
b l Lists whose been trained?
/
c l Provides a training schedule?
/
7 Has training been completed for:
a l Statistical process control?
/
b l Capability studies?
/
c l Problem solving?
/
d l Mistake proofing?
/
e l Reaction plans?
 f l Other topics as identified?
/
8 Is each operation provided with process
instructions that are keyed to the control plan?
9 Are standard operator instructions accessible at
each work station?
10 Do operator instructions include pictures ad
diagrams?
11 Were operator/team leaders involved in
developing standard operator instructions?
12 Do inspection instructions include:
a l Easily understood engineering performance
specifications?
b l Test frequencies?
/
c l Sample sizes?
/
d l Reaction plans?
/
e l Documentation requirements?

13 Are visual aids:

a l Appropriate, easily understood and legible?

b l Available?
/
c l Accessible? /

d l Approved?
/
e Dated and current?
l
/
14 Is there a procedure to implement, maintain, and
establish reaction plans for issues such as out of
control conditions based on statistical process
control?
15 Is there an identified problem solving process that
includes root cause analysis?
16 Are the latest drawings and specifications
available for the operator, in particular at the
points of the inspection?
a l Have engineering tests (dimensional,
material, appearance, and performance) been
completed and documented as required in
accordance with customer requirements?
17 Are the current forms/logs available for
appropriate personnel to record inspection
results?
18 Are the following available and placed at the
appropriate points of the operation?
a l Monitoring and measurement devices?
 b l Gage instructions?
/
c l Reference samples?
/
d l Inspection logs? /

19 Have provisions been made to certify and

calibrate gages and test equipment at a defined
frequency that is appropriate?
20 Have required measurement system capability
studies been:
a l Completed?
/
b l Accepted?

21 Have initial process capability studies been

conducted per customer requirements?
22 Are layout inspection equipment and facilities
adequate to provide initial and ongoing layout of
all details and components in accordance with
customer requirements?
23 Is there a documented procedure for controlling
incoming material that may include, for example,
the following items:
a l Characteristics to be inspected?
/
b l Frequency of
inspection? /
c l Sample size? /

d lDesignated location for approved product?

/
e l Disposition of nonconforming products?
/
24 Have sample production parts been provided per
customer requirements?
25 Is there a procedure to identify, segregate, and
control nonconforming products to prevent
shipment?
26 Are rework/repair procedures available to assure
conforming product?
27 Is there a procedure to requalify
repaired/reworked material?
28 Has a master sample, if required, been retained
as part of the part approval process?
29 Is there an appropriate lot traceability procedure?

30 Are periodic audits of outgoing products planned

and implemented?
31 Are periodic assessments of the quality system
planned and implemented?
32 Has the customer approved the packaging and
the packaging specification?
d to produce the product shall be updated, documented and included in the Process APQP RETURN

CHECKLIST EXAMPLE (A-4 from AIAG APQP Manual)

Revision Level

Person Due
Comment / Action Required
Responsible Date
Revision Date

Prepared By:
 Overview
Update the 1.10 Preliminary Process Flow Chart with information derived from the DFMEA, PFMEA and Control Plan
The Process Flow Chart can be used to analyze sources of variations of machines, materials, methods and manpower from
assembly process
It is used to emphasize the impact of sources of variation on the process
Process Flow should integrate with the 3.4 Floor Plan Layout
The Manufacturing flow chart can be either in the traditional flow chart format, or depicted in Cycle Line Layouts, Tooling L
types of layouts, providing all necessary information is included or attached

PROCESS FLOW CHART CHECKLIST EXAMPLE (A-6 of the AIAG APQP M

Polaris Part Number

Question Yes No N/A

1 Does the flow chart illustrate the entire process
from receiving through shipping, including outside
processes and services?
2 In the development of the process flow chart, was
the DFMEA used, if available, to identify specific
characteristics that may be critical?
3 Is the flow chart keyed to product and process
checks in the control plan and PFMEA?
4 Does the flow chart describe how the product will
move, i.e., roller conveyor, slide containers, etc.?

5 Has the pull system/optimization been considered

for this process?
6 Have provisions been made to identify and
inspect reworked product before being used?
7 Are material controls for movement and staging
of product including appropriate identification
properly defined and implemented? The controls
should address incoming supplier product as well
as subcontracted processes.
mation derived from the DFMEA, PFMEA and Control Plan
variations of machines, materials, methods and manpower from beginning to end of the manufacturing or
APQP RETURN
on the process
out
nal flow chart format, or depicted in Cycle Line Layouts, Tooling Line Layouts, Plant Layouts, or other appropriate
luded or attached

ECKLIST EXAMPLE (A-6 of the AIAG APQP Manual)

Revision Level

Person Due
Comment / Action Required
Responsible Date

Revision Date

Prepared By:
APQP RETURN
 Overview
Critical to success is a robust/detailed Floor Plan Layout developed and reviewed to determine the acceptability of important
Planning and using tools such as a "Cardboard City" allows for adequate planning regarding room, utilities, material flow (inc
All material flow should be keyed to the Process Flow Chart and Control Plan
Key to lean is maximizing is optimal material travel, handing and value-added use of floor space facilitating the synchronous fl

FLOOR PLAN CHECKLIST EXAMPLE (A-5 from AIAG APQP Manual)

Polaris Part Number

Question Yes No N/A

1 Have lean concepts been applied in considering
material flow?
2 Does the floor plan identify all required process
and inspection points?
3 Have clearly marked areas for all material, tools,
and equipment at each operation been
considered?
4 Has sufficient space been allocated for all
equipment?
5 Are process and inspection areas:
a l Of adequate size?
/
b l Properly lighted?
/
6 Do inspection areas contain necessary
equipment and record storage?
7 Are there adequate:
a l Staging areas?
/
b l Impound
areas? /
8 Are inspection points located to prevent shipment
of nonconforming products?
9 Are there controls for each process to eliminate
contamination or inappropriate mixing of product?

10 Is material protected from overhead or air

handling systems contamination?
11 Have facilities been provided for final product
audit?
12 Are facilities adequate to control movement of
nonconforming incoming material?
eloped and reviewed to determine the acceptability of important control items
or adequate planning regarding room, utilities, material flow (including containment of non-conforming material)
and Control Plan
and value-added use of floor space facilitating the synchronous flow of materials through the process

ST EXAMPLE (A-5 from AIAG APQP Manual)

Revision Level

Person Due
Comment / Action Required
Responsible Date

Revision Date
Prepared By:
l) APQP RETURN
 Overview
A Characteristics Matrix is a display of the relationship between process parameters and manufacturing stations
Dimensions are identified with dimension numbers on the drawing (commonly known as ballooning a drawing) and each m
Each type of interaction can either have a positive or a negative interaction
Positive interactions are expected
Negative interactions are unexpected
Every interaction both positive and negative should be verified
The Characteristics Matrix is the precursor to the PFMEA and Pre-Launch Control Plan

CHARACTERISTIC MATRIX

Polaris Part Number Engineering Change Level

DIMENSION FROM DFMEA

NUMBER DESCRIPTION TOLERANCE KPC SEVERITY
1 66.8 ± 0.1 2

2 49.50 ± 0.20 R 6
 manufacturing stations
s ballooning a drawing) and each manufacturing operation

RACTERISTIC MATRIX EXAMPLE

Part Name

C = Characteristic at an operation used for clamping

L = Characteristic at an operation used for locating
X = Characteristic created or changed by this operation should
match the process flow diagram form

FROM DFMEA OPERATION NUMBER

OCCUR 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
3 X C
L
4 X L
 APQP
RETURN

90
 Overview
A PFMEA (Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) shall be conducted during APQP and before beginning production
A PFMEA provides a disciplined review and analysis of a new or revised process
The intent is to anticipate, resolve or monitor potential process problems
Determine if mistake proofing is possible (error proof KPC in PFMEA can negate KPC)
Special controls if you cannot mistake proof
Large FMEAs do not need to be shared with Polaris
Polaris is looking for focused PFMEAs
If it's on the PFMEA then it should appear on the Control Plan also

PROCESS FMEA CHECKLIST EXAMPLE (A-7 from AIAG APQP Manua

Polaris Part Number

Question Yes No N/A

1 Was the Process FMEA prepared by a cross
functional team? Has the team taken into
account all customer specific requirements,
including FMEA methodologies as shown in the
current edition of the FMEA?
2 Have all operations including subcontracted, or
outsourced processes and services been
considered?
3 Have all operations affecting customer
requirements including fit, function, durability,
governmental regulations and safety been
identified and listed sequentially?
4 Were similar part/process FMEA's considered?

5 Have historical campaign and warranty data been

reviewed and used in the analysis?
6 Have you applied the appropriate controls to
address all of the identified failure modes?
7 Were severity, detection and occurrence revised
when corrective action was completed?
8 Do the effects consider the customer in terms of
the subsequent operation, assembly, and
product?
9 Were customer plant problems used as an aid in
developing the Process FMEA?
10 Have the causes been described in terms of
something that can be corrected or controlled?
11 Have provisions been made to control the cause
of the failure mode prior to subsequent or the
next operation?

SEVERITY INDEX

DETECTION INDEX
be conducted during APQP and before beginning production APQP
w or revised process RETURN
cess problems
n PFMEA can negate KPC)
Item:

Model Year(s)/Program(s)
an also

Core Team:

Process Step
/ Function

LIST EXAMPLE (A-7 from AIAG APQP Manual)

Revision Level Requirements

Person Due
Comment / Action Required
Responsible Date
Revision Date

Prepared By:

OCCURRENCE INDEX
 POTENTIAL
FAILURE MODE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS
(PROCESS FMEA) EXAMPLE

Process Responsibility

Model Year(s)/Program(s) Key Date

Classification Current Current

Occurrence

Detection
Severity

Potential Potential Potential

Failure Effect(s) Causes(s) Process Process
Mode of Failure of Failure Controls Controls
Prevention Detection
 FMEA Number:
SIS

Prepared by:

FMEA Date (Orig.)

FMEA Date (Rev.)

Action Results

Responsibility

Occurrence

Detection
Recommended & Target
RPN

Severity
Actions Taken

RPN
Action Completion
Date & Effective Date
 APQP
Safe Launch Instructions RETURN

Terms SL-Safe Launch

SL1-Safe Launch at supplier
SL2-3rd Party
Ppk-Process Performance Index
Cpk-Process Capability Index
SPC-Statistical Process Control
KPC- Key Product Characteristic
SLCP- Safe Launch Control Plan
Instructions 1. Determine if Safe Launch is applicable for the part(s) based off the guideline below. If so, the details should be finalized in APQP section 3.7 Pre-Launch Control Plan or when an incident
warrants Safe Launch.

2. Send this document to the supplier prior to production build ahead. This document should be sent before sction 3.7 Pre-Launch Control Plan for APQP parts or when the part is added to
Safe Launch. In the event SL2 is used, please refer to 3rd Party Containment Procedure OPS-PROC-0110 for the inspection process. The supplier will be responsible for filling out the SPC
Sheet and Corrective Action plan based off the sorting company's results.
2a.The supplier project lead is responsible for filling out sections A-G for review and approval from Polaris. The supplier quality associates are responsible for filling out the remaining data
once parts are in production.
2b. Pictures should be added to the Visual Aids sheet before sending if pictures of the defect or non-conforming dimension have not been previously provided to the supplier.
2c. The supplier is responsible for filling out and submitting the SPC data to the assigned Polaris Supplier Quality associate on the previous agreed upon frequency. The supplier should meet a
minimum Cpk of 1.33 or implement Mistake-Proofing. If a minimum of 1.33 Cpk or Mistake-Proofing is not achievable a DCR should be submitted.All data should be retained by the supplier for
the lenght of Safe Launch plus 1 year.

3. The Inspection Sheet and SPC data should be reviewed by the assigned Polaris associate for any non-conforming product found. If there continues to be non-conforming product, a root
cause analysis needs to be completed with a corrective action plan. All corrective actions must be tracked on the Corrective Action Plan sheet. There should not be any non-conforming
products found on the Inspection Sheet without a Corrective Action Plan in place to address the root cause.

4. Any supporting documentation should be attached to the Supporting Documentation tab. This would include items such as individual part measurement data, corrective action evidence,
pictures of non-conforming parts, etc.
5. As a guideline, the Inspection Sheet, SPC data and Corrective Action Plan should be monitored until the supplier has gone 90 days or 6 shipments with zero defects. The Safe Launch
process may be discontinued without meeting the above guideline if approval from plant QE or Supplier Quality has been given.

6. The Safe Launch Control Plan should be attached to the Safe Launch Control Plan tab. The SLCP will be defined and agreed upon at the time of pre-production control plan submission
within the APQP process (section 3.7).
7. All parts shipped during the Safe Launch process should be identified with a certification sticker as defined in the Certified ID Process OPS-PROC-0105.

Safe Launch Implementation Guideline

Non-conforming Incident Review SL1 SL2
Frequency Supplier 3rd Party
New Group 1 and 2 parts; safety critical/compliance related, performance Group 1 parts-
each lot
-KPC SPC Data
critical/high risk to customer satisfaction. Group 2, 3 or 4- -AAR/Increased cosmetic inspections
This would not include carryover parts from current production. Every 30 days -Tool wear/Tool count
X -Critical production characteristics/dimensions
-High severity items from PFMEA
-KPC capability data
Parts with KPC's; KPC dimensions need Ppk and Cpk reported on a set frequency Group 1 parts- -Dimensions non-tool controlled outside of 70% of
agreed upon between Polaris and the supplier throughout Safe Launch. Some parts each lot
Group 2, 3 or 4-
tolerance
with KPC's may not require Safe Launch if they are not a Group 1 or 2 part. Every 30 days -'A' surface cosmetics (paint, chrome powder coat,
X substrates that will be painted)
-Material properties
-First Pass Yield
Repeat issues found during PDP build; SCAR must be submitted and first 60 days or Every 30 days -Performance Validation
6 shipments will be inspected for the issue. -End of line test data
X

Chronic documented unresolved supplier product quality, parts shortage, or Every 30 days
logistical issue during SOP.
X

Supplier's that have been chosen for High and Medium Level APQP. Low level Group 1 parts-
APQP will do Safe Launch per the discretion of Supplier Quality. each lot
Group 2, 3 or 4-
Every 30 days
X

Non-conforming product is found at POLARIS INDUSTRIES from certified SL1 parts. Every 30 days

Post PV design changes on parts that are not currently on APQP or Safe Launch Every 30 days

Polaris Industries
Document #X.XXX
Issue Date: 2/26/2015
Revision: 001
Overview
All processes should include Process or Work Instructions which provide sufficient understanding and detail for all personne
the operation of the process
Processes include but are not limited to operation of the process, tooling, special handling, inspection procedures, material
packaging
There should be traceability from the Work Instruction to the VOC
Work Instructions should contain visual aids and easy to read

EXAMPLES:
nd detail for all personnel who have direct responsibility for
APQP
tion procedures, material flow, equipment maintenance and RETURN
Overview
GR&R % to guidelines
Under 10% Good
10-20% Acceptable, but care should be exercised
20-30% Sampling techniques to be adjusted but can be used
Greater than 30% unacceptable
Duplicate Gage Correlation
Polaris/Supplier
Study should be within 10% of each other
BIAS
Mean values off target
Linearity
Scale variation not consistent
Stability Over Time
Gage BIAS or variation degrades based on use
Refer to the AIAG Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) reference manual
APQP RETURN
Overview
A detailed review and understanding of the controlling specifications as defined in the Design Record
Suppliers should determine which characteristics affect meeting functional, durability, cleanliness and appearance requireme
May be tables on the drawings or direct reference to Polaris engineering or process standards as well as international standar
Bar Coding is an all too common issue at launch. Please ensure the receiving facilities approve your bar code submissions bef
We recommend sending samples to the Polaris receiving facilities early in the process to allow time for adjustments
d
nd appearance requirements as defined in the Design Record
ll as international standards as defined in the Design Record APQP
bar code submissions before SOP RETURN
for adjustments
Overview
The Production Trial Run is a validation of the effectiveness of the manufacturing and assembly process, using actual producti
equipment, environment (including trained production operators), facilities and cycle times
The trial run proves out the planned process over an actual trail of the proposed setup
Preliminary documents such as the Preliminary Flow Chart and Pre-launch Control Plan can be finalized in preparation of a Ru
Work Instructions can also be adjusted as necessary as lessons are learned
ess, using actual production tooling,

APQP RETURN
zed in preparation of a Run @ Rate
Overview
A separate AAR shall be completed for each part or series of parts if the product/part has appearance requirements on the de
Upon satisfactory completion of all required criteria, the organization shall record the required information on the Polaris AAR
AAR typically applies for cosmetic requirements such as paint, chrome, polish grain or other surface appearance requirement
Only the Polaris AAR from will be accepted for submission
ce requirements on the design record
mation on the Polaris AAR form APQP RETURN
appearance requirements
Overview
A Significant Production Run shall be from one to eight hours of production, and with the specific production quantity to
otherwise specified by the authorized Polaris QA representative
The Significant Production Run shall be conducted at the production site, at the production rate agreed upon as indicated
production gaging, production process, production materials and production operators
Significant production runs are used for Polaris R@R and PPAP submissions
Only production parts can be used
Parts from each unique production process, e.g., duplicate assembly line and/or work cell, each position of a multiple ca
representative parts tested
The Significant Production Run is NOT part of the development process
The purpose is to provide the evidence that all customer engineering Design Record requirements are properly understoo
process has the potential to produce product consistently meeting these requirements during an actual production run
All designs and processes must be frozen
Refer to the Polaris PPAP Manual for further details
fic production quantity to total a minimum of 50 consecutive parts, unless

agreed upon as indicated on the purchase order, using production tooling,

h position of a multiple cavity die, mold, too or pattern, shall be measured and APQP RETURN

nts are properly understood by the supplier and that the manufacturing
n actual production run
 APQP RETURN

Expectations for R@R:

¨ Design is FROZEN, Production process is FROZEN and all production fixtures/jigs/tools are FROZEN – no pro
¨ All open points from Action Register are closed – to be verified
¨ Running at a production rate with production operators (make sure your entire crew is at ease, performing
¨ Proper work instructions are posted and the control plans match the process and are being followed
¨ Proper material handling, non-conforming material control methods, standard rework loops, and escalation
¨ PPAP package is complete and ready for review – please create a binder for us with this information

While production is running (plan to be as hands off as possible and just review):
· Walk the line with control plan in hand – review process and WI’s to ensure compliance (all assembly ops, i
· We will follow the process based on the Op numbers of the control plan
· Couple quick time studies of bottle neck operations to ensure it matches your expected output
· Barcode / Traceability throughout process / assurance it is correct characters and readable

During production breaks:

· Stick a nose in further to review the fixturing, poke yokes, etc
· Verify open points from Action Register have been closed

Pre or Post Production (in the office):

· Review PFMEA and Control plans in more detail – does the PFMEA catch all potential failure modes and doe
· Review incoming inspection procedures – would like to go see parts / process for inspection
· Full details on traceability / barcode
· Review PPAP package
· Review R@R audit tool for completeness and circle back for open points
· Review and sign MFC (attached) noting any exceptions

Please let us know if you have any questions in advance of the visit. Looking forward to a successful R@R and launch!
ools are FROZEN – no process changes allowed post R@R without routing through the PCR process

ew is at ease, performing their standard work, and that we’re not looking over their shoulders to pick them apart, but rather to just unders
are being followed
work loops, and escalation processes are identified and in use
h this information

liance (all assembly ops, in process measurements, torqueing ops, testing ops, etc to match control plan)

pected output

tial failure modes and does the control plan tie to that to mitigate the risks?

R@R and launch!

but rather to just understand their processes)
Overview
The purpose of the MSA is to assess the quality of a measurement system
MSAs focus is measurement systems where the readings can be replicated on each part
The decision to adjust a manufacturing process is commonly based on the measurement data
The data, or some statistic calculated from them, are compared with statistical control limits for the process, and if the com
then an adjustment of some kind is made
Another use of measurement data is to determine if a significant relationship exists between two or mare variables (analyti
Basically, an analytic study is one that increases knowledge about the system of causes that affect the process
Please refer to the AIAG 4th Edition MSA Manual for additional information
A Measurement Systems Analysis Study may be required with PPAP submissions when KPCs are present in the Design Rec
Refer to 3.9 MSAP within APQP
 APQP
RETURN
he process, and if the comparison indicates that he process is out of statistical control,
or mare variables (analytic studies)
the process

present in the Design Record

Overview
The Production Control Plan is a finalization of the Pre-Launch Control Plan (3.7)
The production trial run allows the supplier to validate and further refine the Pre-Launch into the final Production Control
The PCP is a living document and should be updated to reflect the addition or deletion of controls based on experience
 CO
e final Production Control Plan
rols based on experience gained by production parts Prototype Pre-Launch
APQP
Control Plan Number
RETURN

Part Number/Latest Change Level

Part Name/Description

Supplier Plant

PART/ PROCESS NAME/

PROCESS OPERATION
NUMBER DESCRIPTION

Form No. 07-000004-01

 CONTROL PLAN
Productio
Pre-Launch
n
Prepared by Date (Orig.)

Core Team Customer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd

Supplier/Plant Approval/Date Customer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

Supplier Code Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.) Other Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

CHARACTERISTICS METHODS
MACHINE,
SPECIAL
DEVICE
CHAR. PRODUCT/PROCESS EVALUATION/ SAMPLE
JIG, TOOLS
NO. PRODUCT PROCESS CLASS
FOR MFG. SPECIFICATION/ MEASUREMENT
SIZE FREQ.
TOLERANCE TECHNIQUE

Polaris Industries
 Date (Rev.)

omer Engineering Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

omer Quality Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

r Approval/Date (If Req'd.)

REACTION
CONTROL PLAN
METHOD
Overview
A Production Trial Run and/or Significant Production Run provides the supplier the opportunity to evaluate output
Review the PFMEA and adjust for appropriate changes
to evaluate output APQP RETURN
Overview
A Production Trial Run and/or Significant Production Run provides the supplier the opportunity to evaluate output
Review the PPCS and adjust for appropriate changes
o evaluate output APQP RETURN
Overview
PPAPs purpose is to provide the evidence that all Polaris engineering Design Record and specification requirements are prop
produce product consistently meeting these requirements during an actual production run at the quoted production rate
Minimum requirements on the PSW are noted in read on the left form
The right form is the Polaris PSW

Part Submission Warrant

Part Name Polaris Part Name Cust. Part Number Polaris Part Number

Shown on Drawing Number Org. Part Number

Engineering Change Level Polaris ECL (Rev Level) Dated

Additional Engineering Changes Dated

Yes No
Safety and/or Government Regulation Purchase Order No. PO # Weight (kg)

Checking Aid Number Checking Aid Eng. Change Level Dated

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION

Supplier Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Polaris Business Unit

Supplier Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Customer Name/Division

Street Address
Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code

City State/Prov ZIP Country

City Region Postal Code Country Application

MATERIALS REPORTING

Yes No
Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported?

Submitted by IMDS or other customer format:

Yes No n/a
Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes?

REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one)

Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
 Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify

REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer.
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at organization's manufacturing location.

SUBMISSION RESULTS
The results for dimensional measurements material and functional tests appearance criteria statistical process package

These results meet all design record requirements: Yes NO (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process

DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, which were made by a process that meets all
Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples were produced at the
production rate of __#_/_#__ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your review.
I have noted any deviation from this declaration below.

EXPLANATION/COMMENTS: Provide any explanaory comments on the Submission Results or an deviations

from the Declaration. Attach additional information as appropriate.

Yes No n/a
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered?

Organization Authorized Signature Date Date

Print Name Reponsible Supplier official Phone No. Phone Number Fax No.
Title Title E-mail Email Address

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)

PPAP Warrant Disposition: Approved Rejected Other

Customer Signature Date

Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)

on requirements are properly understood by the supplier and that the manufacturing process has the potential to APQP
uoted production rate RETURN

Part Submission Warrant

Part Name Cust. Part Number

Shown on Drawing Number Org. Part Number

Engineering Change Level Dated

Additional Engineering Changes Dated

N
e
Safety and/or Government Regulation o Purchase Order No. Weight (kg)
s

Checking Aid Number Checking Aid Eng. Change Level Dated

ORGANIZATION MANUFACTURING INFORMATION CUSTOMER SUBMITTAL INFORMATION

Supplier Name & Supplier/Vendor Code Customer Name/Division

Street Address Buyer/Buyer Code

City Region Postal Code Country Application

MATERIALS REPORTING

e
Has customer-required Substances of Concern information been reported? o
s

Submitted by IMDS or other customer format:

e
Are polymeric parts identified with appropriate ISO marking codes? o
s

REASON FOR SUBMISSION (Check at least one)

Initial submission Change to Optional Construction or Material
Engineering Change(s) Sub-Supplier or Material Source Change
Tooling: Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment, or additional Change in Part Processing
 Correction of Discrepancy Parts produced at Additional Location
Tooling Inactive > than 1 year Other - please specify

REQUESTED SUBMISSION LEVEL (Check one)

Level 1 - Warrant only (and for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report) submitted to customer.
Level 2 - Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 3 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data submitted to customer.
Level 4 - Warrant and other requirements as defined by customer.
Level 5 - Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data reviewed at organization's manufacturing location.

dimensional
SUBMISSION RESULTS material
appearanc
and statistical
The results for e
measureme functional process package
criteria
nts
These results meet tests
all design record requirements: Yes (If "NO" - Explanation Required)
Mold / Cavity / Production Process

DECLARATION
I affirm that the samples represented by this warrant are representative of our parts, which were made by a process that meets all
Production Part Approval Process Manual 4th Edition Requirements. I further affirm that these samples were produced at the
production rate of ____/____ hours. I also certify that documented evidence of such compliance is on file and available for your review.
I have noted any deviation from this declaration below.

EXPLANATION/COMMENTS:

Yes
Is each Customer Tool properly tagged and numbered?

Organization Authorized Signature Date

Print Name Phone No. Fax No.

Title E-mail

FOR CUSTOMER USE ONLY (IF APPLICABLE)

t
Appro
PPAP Warrant Disposition: Rejected h
ved
e
r
Customer Signature Date

Print Name Customer Tracking Number (optional)

Form No. 18-000012-01 Polaris Industries

 APQP
RETURN

struction or Material
Source Change
ted to customer.

ufacturing location.

a process that meets all

es were produced at the
available for your review.
Overview
Concur and collaborate with the Polaris receiving facility regarding a trails plan
All test shipments (when required) and test methods must assess the protection of the product from normal transportation
and adverse environmental factors
Polaris specified packaging does no preclude the supplier's APQP team involvement in evaluation the effectiveness of the p
 APQP RETURN
om normal transportation damage

the effectiveness of the packaging

 PRODUCT QUALITY PLANNING SUMMARY AND APPROVALS

DATE:

PRODUCT NAME: PART NUMBER / REV:

CUSTOMER: MANUFACTURING PLANT:

1. PRELIMINARY PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY QUANTITY

REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
Ppk - SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS

2. CONTROL PLAN APPROVAL (If Required) APPROVED: YES / NO* DATE APPROVED

3. INITIAL PRODUCTION SAMPLES

CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY QUANTITY
CHARACTERISTICS
SAMPLES PER SAMPLE ACCEPTABLE
DIMENSIONAL
VISUAL
LABORATORY
PERFORMANCE

4. GAGE AND TEST EQUIPMENT

MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTIC

5. PROCESS MONITORING
QUANTITY
PROCESS MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PROCESS SHEETS
VISUAL AIDS

6. PACKAGING/SHIPPING QUANTITY
REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE PENDING*
PACKAGING APPROVAL
SHIPPING TRIALS

7. Approvals
 TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE

TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE

TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE TEAM MEMBER/TITLE/DATE

* REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN ACTION PLAN TO TRACK PROGRESS.

PROVALS
APQP
RETURN

PENDING*
Overview
Control charts and other statistical techniques should be used as tools to identify process variation
Analysis and corrective actions should be used to reduce variation
Continual improvement requires attention not only to the special causes of variation but the understanding common causes o
reduce these sources of variation
Proposals should be developed including costs, timing and anticipated improvement for Polaris review
Rolling Throughput Yield is another tool which can be used to help identify opportunities as well as measure the benefits of c
 APQP
tanding common causes of seeking ways to RETURN

ew
measure the benefits of continual improvement
 APQP
RETURN
 APQP
RETURN
 Overview
A Lessons Learned or Best Practices portfolio is beneficial for capturing, retaining and apply knowledge towards the next pro
We want to repeat Things Gone Right and avoid repeating Things Gone Wrong
This is valuable input providing input from past experiences
Review TGR/TGW
Data from RMOs, DDRs and warranty metrics
Internal and external SCARs
"Read-across" with similar products and processes
DFMEA and PFMEA studies

SAMPLE FORM
Project -

THINGS GONE RIGHT THINGS GONE WRONG

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Polaris Responsible
Supplier Responsible

COMPLETED EXAMPLE FORM

Project - Viper

THINGS GONE RIGHT THINGS GONE WRONG

Recovery time from 1st pc (out of print) to Late start to establish supply chain for
1 acceptable product for PQR approval crankcase components
Used conveyors in layout with trays or plastic Machining fixtures required additional
2 rollers to reduce part carrying (raw and modification to prevent locating datums from
machined material) damage
 Features with 0.040mm positional tolerance
Built a common CMM fixture for both half and
3 required additional capability study runs due
assembled part. to micro porosity presence.

Built a special assembly fixture with guides to 0.040mm positional tolerance requires
4 prevent manual assembly additional machining adjustments and tests

Leak test designs for half cases became more

difficult than expected. Split line along the
Built machining window fixtures to machine
5 crankshaft centre line proved to be very
both side of each half difficult to seal due to features not having
closed sealing loop on the same plain.

Much longer capability study timing had to be

6 Use two washers to wash machined half cases estimated for 0.040mm positional tolerances

Program layout was spread on 3 locations

Built OP20 dowel pin verification gauge to instead of one place (floor space constrain).
7 verify pins are present and installed properly. Layout for entire cell should be for best line
performance and process flow

Built dowel pin and bearing depth gauges to All machined surfaces must be protected on
8 make sure bearings and pins are installed each station, assembly press and entire
properly process

Machining Fixture locating pins were Packaging has to be ordered on time –

9 shortened and shaped to prevent damage on Dunnage design, quotes and PO are required
CMM inspected surface. several months prior to PPAP schedule.

Force monitoring was not included in assembly

Single pass tool was used/designed for 3
10 different diameters with different surface fins equipment. This would reduce
feature/component machining
machining. inspection/frquency.

OP30 Machining fixtures pre-position locating Additional room around and between CNC
11 long pins engaged to both half cases prior to machines would help process flow
dowel holes location for assembly machining

Machining Fixtures and presses were built in Use of 2,000psi press to assemble two dowel
12 short period of time requiring minimum pins and bearing/bushing at the same time.
adjustment. Pump has to be changed to 3,000psi.
 0.040mm positional cpk requires a significantly
longer PPAP timing. Slightly
CNC machines were equipped with coolant increased/proposed tolerance as suggested or
13 chiller to reduce temperature impact adjusted Cpk requirement; making sure
machining variation (cpk features) fit/form/function is in place; would reduce
significantly PPAP process time line .

Machining tooling was ready on time and

14 designed as estimated.
Polaris team provided excellent support to
15 team and program start.

Initial casting was good with no issue for

16 machining and assembly process. Foundry
scrap was acceptable at the startup.

Polaris Responsible
Supplier Responsible
owledge towards the next project

APQP
RETURN