This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 10 November 2014, At: 19:07

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Management Science and

Engineering Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmse20

Evidence of APQP in quality improvement: An SME

case study
a b c
Kapil Mittal , Prabhakar Kaushik & Dinesh Khanduja
a
Mechanical Engineering Department , Yamuna Institute of Engineering & Technology ,
Yamunanagar , Haryana , 133103 , India
b
Mechanical Engineering Dept. , University Institute of Engineering & Technology, M. D.
University , Rohtak , Haryana , 124001 , India
c
Mechanical Engineering Department , National Institute of Technology , Kurukshetra ,
Haryana , 136119 , India
Published online: 16 May 2013.

To cite this article: Kapil Mittal , Prabhakar Kaushik & Dinesh Khanduja (2012) Evidence of APQP in quality improvement: An
SME case study, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 7:1, 20-28

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509653.2012.10671203

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of
the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 ISSN 1750-9653, England, UK
International Journal of Management Science
and Engineering Management, 7(1): 20-28, 2012
http://www.ijmsem.org/

Evidence of APQP in quality improvement: An SME

case study
Kapil Mittal1 ∗ , Prabhakar Kaushik2 , Dinesh Khanduja3
1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Yamuna Institute of Engineering & Technology, Yamunanagar (Haryana), 133103, India
2 Mechanical Engineering Dept., University Institute of Engineering & Technology, M. D. University, Rohtak (Haryana), 124001,
India
3 Mechanical Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra (Haryana), 136119, India

(Received 8 August 2011, Revised 26 December 2011, Accepted 8 January 2012)

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014

Abstract. Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) has had an impressive impact as it is significantly better than other
quality management systems which merely provide detailed statistics based on analytical methods. However, the APQP scope is
still restricted to new product development only. This paper looks at the application of APQP methodology for quality improvement
in small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), using a specific die casting unit case. The study could be a paradigm initiative towards
high quality products and services at low cost for every SME.
Keywords: industrial management, planning and control, process design, quality management, cost reduction

1 Introduction Ivert and Jonsson (2010) [10] applied advanced planning

In every line of business today, there is common busi-
ness failure, even after a major success. This failure is often
because of a weak planning foundation. There are many
quality management systems (QMS) available today which
have proven records of quality improvement but lack an in-
dustry oriented approach (Jain et al., 2011 [11]; Kaipia and
Holmstrom, 2007 [13]). APQP is one of the fastest grow-
ing quality management tools that encompasses a broad
array of business best practices and skills that are essential
for the success and growth of an industry (Ivert and Jons-
son, 2010 [10]). It is a comprehensive system for achieving
and maximizing organizational success (Ernst, 2002 [6]),
and has the benefits of a close understanding of customer
needs, a disciplined use of facts, data and statistical anal-
ysis and system improvement (Chan et al., 2009 [5]; Ho,
2006 [8]). APQP among other QMS has a more industri-
ally oriented approach (Ma et al., 2008 [15]; Shipley and
Armacost, 1993 [20]) and has been used in such areas fail-
ure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) (Carbone, 2005 [3]),
process flow diagrams (PFD) and control plans, all of which
are helpful in the sustainability of a system over a long pe-
riod (Iamratanakul et al., 2008 [9]).
Advanced product quality planning (APQP) is a pro-
cess developed in the late 1980s by a commission of experts
gathered from the big three US automobile manufacturers:
Ford, GM and Chrysler. This commission invested five years
in the analysis of automotive development and production
in the US, Europe and especially in Japan at that time.
Although APQP has been implemented in new product de-
velopment with success in many big corporations (Jayaram
and Narasimhan, 2007 [12]) there is still less documented
evidence of its implementation as a quality improvement
tool for an existing product.
∗ Correspondence to: Tel.: +91-8059141440, +91-9896990007. E-mail address: kapilmittal007@gmail.com.
in a chemical industry that manufactures, markets, sells
and distributes chemicals. There were many benefits as a
result of the APQP implementation during the new product
launch such as a high level of motivation among employees,
proper communication, good forecasting, optimal plans.
Saux (2006) [19] used process control plans and PFMEA in
a gas semiconductor manufacturing industry and as a result
benefits such as scrap reduction, an improved maintenance
schedule, and process improvements were achieved. Chai
and Xin (2006) [4] conducted a survey on academicians
and industrialists which suggested that the application of
NPD tools were under exploited in most the industries in
Singapore. Carbone (2005) [3] explained that general new
product success rate was at a steady 25% between 1995
and 2004 therefore cooperation between manufacturing and
other functional groups is critical to improve the success
rate of new products. These factors will appear on their
own, during the application of APQP methodology. Lind
and Gill explained how Freudenberg NOK (An Automobile
Sealing Giant) eliminated redundant system, gained exec-
utive visibility & improved product launch processes by in-
tegrating APQP program management and product devel-
opment. Sanongpong (2009) [18] described a process based
management system focusing on controlling and managing
new product launch by initiating new knowledge. APQP is
a process based management process which can contribute
to the improvement of product quality. Bobrek and Sokovic
(2005) [2] modified APQP philosophy, tested it over 30 cer-
tified quality management systems, and 2 enterprise man-
agement systems and proved that it was possible to imple-
ment this procedure into anintegrated management system
(IMS). This IMS resulted in increased efficiency and effec-
tiveness. An IMS always leads to a more effective system

©International Society of Management Science Published by World Academic Press,

And Engineering Management® World Academic Union
 International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 7(1): 20-28, 2012
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014
Fig. 1 Engine mounting bracket
which also
• Improves operational performance,
• Improves staff motivation.
• Enhances customer satisfaction,
• Reduces cost.
Sireli et al. (2002) [21] proposed a generalized product
planning and forecasting model for an NPD project in the
avionics industry in the USA. The model was based on a
specific application that focused on a cockpit weather in-
formation system. It was used to provide improved weather
information for NASA spacecrafts so that accidents and in-
juries could be reduced. The literature review revealed that
APQP research to date has been largely confined to devel-
opment of new products, and more recently in organiza-
tional measurement systems. Very few papers have focused
on its role in Quality improvement and those that do tend
to focus only on Customer (Parent Organization) system
fulfillment not on competitiveness, profit boosting, success
and failure aspects or strategy.
Most of the quality improvement programs aim to:
• Understand and continuously improve the organizational
process,
• Refocus the organization on the customers’ needs, and
• Involve and motivate employees in achieving quality out-
put.
Some of the benefits of using APQP in quality improve-
ment are:
• To direct resources to satisfy the customer,
• To promote early identification of required changes,
• To promote documentation,
21
• To achieve standardization,
• To provide a quality product on time at the lowest cost.
The goal of product quality planning is to facilitate com-
munication with everyone involved to assure that all re-
quired steps are completed in time. Effective product qual-
ity planning depends on a company’s top management com-
mitment to the effort required in achieving customer satis-
faction.
Due to growing importance of supply chain management
issues in the global market environment, large firms are
heavily dependent on small- to medium-sized enterprises
for the provision of high quality products and/or services
at low costs (Ancona and Caldwell, 1990 [1]; Lam, 1997
[14]). As small companies are more agile, it is mush easier
to buy-in management support and commitment, as op-
posed to large organizations (Pawar and Driva, 1999 [16])
but the education and training component is much more
difficult. Moreover, small companies do not have the slack
to free up top talented people to engage in the training and
execution of QMSs but this case study could be a paradigm
initiative towards achieving high quality products and ser-
vices at low cost through the implementation of APQP for
every SME.
2 The case study
The present study was carried out in a SME unit man-
ufacturing die casting products. The main product of the
unit is the manufacture of engine mounting brackets (EMB)
(Fig. 1). The tolerance limit of one of the hole diameter is
11.00 0.10 mm. The initial observations showed very high
rejection rates in manufacturing of EMB. A Pareto chart
IJMSEM email for subscription: info@msem.org.uk
 22 K. Mittal & P. Kaushik & D. Khanduja: Evidence of APQP in quality improvement

was drawn to investigate the major cause of rejection by chart is prepared to proceed in a sequential manner and
taking 100 rejected samples (Fig. 2). The major cause was to present a one shot picture of the entire methodology, as
found to be variation in one of its hole diameters. The re- shown in Fig. 3. In this paper the high rejection problem of
jection rate of EMB was 6.3 percent because of the high EMB was studied in depth and all the five phases in APQP
variation in hole diameter. This hole was a reference point methodology (Fig. 4) were successfully implemented to im-
for many other projections in its drawing. So, there was prove the existing Z bench Sigma level of the product from
a great need to reduce rejection rate of EMB by reducing 1.53 to 4.53 which resulted in a monetary saving of Rs. 0.36
defects inherent in the process. million, a substantial amount for a small industry.

3.1 Phase I (Plan & define program)

Pareto Chart

90
100 The ”Voice of the Customer” encompasses complaints,
80 recommendations, data and information obtained from in-
80
70 ternal and/or external customers. Determining customer
No. of Pcs.

60

Percent
60 needs and expectations is the first and the most important
50
40
step of any APQP project because understanding customer
40
30 expectations forms the backbone of the project and makes
20 20 the job easier during development (Bobrek and Sokovic,
10
0 0
2005 [2]; Rana et al., 2011 [17]). A multidisciplinary team
ut r was formed for APQP project. A feasibility study for the
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014

Defects n s
tio le NG llin
g ge he
r ia Ho ish rO Fi ka Ot
fe r in proposed project was done by reviewing the design and
Va ow F in
am No
n h
a Bl ce
S
Di Ch manufacturing requirements, and their availability in the
le rfa
Ho Su organization. Based on the type of product, complexity and
Count 42 24 10 8 4 4 2
Percent 44.7 25.5 10.6 8.5 4.3 4.3 2.1
customer expectations, a time plan was prepared which con-
Cum % 44.7 70.2 80.9 89.4 93.6 97.9 100.0 sisted of a list of tasks, assignments and other events.
 
3.2 Phase II (Product design & development)
Fig. 2 Pareto chart for finding major cause of bracket rejection This section discusses the elements of the planning pro-
cess during which design features and characteristics are
 
developed into a near final form. A feasible design allows
RAW MATERIAL RECEIPT
for the meeting of production volumes and schedules, and
engineering requirements, along with quality, reliability, in-
vestment cost, weight, unit cost and timing objectives. The
INSPECTION REJECT APQP team considers all design factors to ensure that the
OK
final product satisfies the “voice of the customer”. In this
case the required product designs/drawings were provided
DIECASTING
by the customer but the supplier had to check the feasibility
of those designs/drawings according to existing equipment
INSPECTION REJECT and the manufacturing process to be used. The design of
other necessary equipment such as jigs and fixtures, and
inspection gauges were also prepared. The team must be
FETTLING
satisfied that the proposed design can be manufactured, as-
sembled, tested, packaged, and delivered in sufficient quan-
INSPECTION REJECT
tities, at an acceptable cost to the customer on schedule.

3.3 Phase III (Process design & development)

SHOTBLASTNG
This section discusses the major features of developing
a manufacturing system and its related control plans to
MACHINING achieve quality products. The tasks to be accomplished at
this phase of the product quality planning process depend
upon the successful completion of the prior stages. This
INSPECTION REJECT step is designed to ensure the comprehensive development
of an effective manufacturing system. The manufacturing
system must assure that customer requirements, needs and
DISPATCH
expectations are met. The design of the manufacturing pro-
cess consists of sequencing various operations required in
Fig. 3 Process flow for EMB the manufacturing of the required product. After finalizing
the sequence of manufacturing process, a PFD was pre-
3 The APQP methodology pared and then a Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
(PFMEA) was carried out which checked the feasibility of
Implementation of APQP requires utilizing its concepts the planned and designed process (Figs. 5 and 6). A shop
and relating these concepts to the specific application under floor layout for the process was prepared keeping in mind
consideration (Chai and Xin, 2006 [4]). If the methodology the existing layout of the shop floor. The inspection equip-
of problem solving is not comprehensive enough, the so- ment for all operation stages were designed and developed.
lution will not be correct and the problem will resurface The inspection equipment corresponded to the dimension/
sooner or later (Ghalayini and Noble, 1996 [7]). A process shape being produced at that stage.

IJMSEM email for contribution: submit@msem.org.uk

 International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 7(1): 20-28, 2012
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014
  Fig. 4 Different phases of adopted methodology
3.3.1 Measurement system analysis
A proper Measurement System Analysis (MSA) includ-
ing the gauge R & R (Repeatability & Reproducibility)
was conducted. The purpose of the gauge R & R study was
to ensure that the measurement system was statistically
sound. The gauge R & R study determines how much of
the process variation is due to measurement system varia-
tion. In this case of variation in the EMB hole diameter, the
inspection was being carried out by a vernier caliper so the
gauge R & R study was conducted on that vernier caliper.
From the results of the gauge R & R study, repeatabil-
ity and reproducibility were 29.34 percent and 0.00 percent
which put the percentage study variation at 29.34 percent,
which is less than 30 percent, indicating that Measurement
System was correct.
3.3.2 Process capability analysis
A process capability analysis was performed to investi-
gate the actual state of the process. A rational sub-grouping
was done and twenty samples were drawn, in groups of five.
Minitab was used to draw the process capability analysis
curve for the EMB hole diameter (Fig. 7).
The Z- Bench sigma value of process was found to be
1.53, C pk 1 as 0.61 and existing DPMO level of the process
was 62792.85, which was high and showed that there were
lot of opportunities for process improvements.
3.3.3 Fish-bone diagram
Using process capability analysis, the DPMO level and
sigma level of the EMB hole diameter rejection was known.
Now it was the time to find out the causes of the EMB rejec-
tion. Using expert experience and critical analysis of actual
process, a fish bone diagram (Fig. 8) was drawn to discover
the causes of the higher rate of EMB rejections due to the
variation in hole diameter. The philosophy of the Fishbone
or Cause-and-Effect diagram represents a structured brain-
storming approach to problem solving. The basic idea of
the Fishbone diagram is to make a list of all of the possible
causes that may have an effect on a known problem.
1 C pk is defined as the minimum of [(USL − Average)/3s, (Average − LSL)/3s] where, USL is the upper specification limit, LSL is
the lower specification limit, s is the sample standard deviation, s2 is the sample variance.
23
3.3.4 Two sample t-test
A t-test is a hypothetical test which uses A null hypoth-
esis in which if the p value is greater than the assumed
confidence level then the hypothesis/assumption is wrong
and if it is less than the assumed confidence level then the
assumption about the real cause of the variation is true.
For the Two Sample T-Test, four important factors were
identified for study from the Fishbone diagram. In the first
case, a Two Sample T-Test was done for Operator Skill
(Unskilled and Skilled) by taking a sample size of 50 each
for skilled and unskilled operators. In the second case, a
Two Sample T-Test was done for drilling tool replacement
(after 96hrs and after 140 hrs) by taking a sample size of
50 each for tool replacement after 96 hrs and 140 hrs. In
the third case, a Two Sample T-Test was done for the tool
re-grinding of (after 100 hrs and after 150 hrs) by taking a
sample size of 50 each for regrinding after 100 hrs and 150
hrs. In the fourth case, a Two Sample T-Test was done for
the EMB Holding Mechanism i.e. fixtures (old and new)
by taking a sample size of 50 each for the old and the new
mechanism.
First case: Two sample t-test for operator skill
(Skilled and unskilled)
 
Sample 1 was unskilled operators.
Sample 2 was skilled operators.
Using Minitab, the Two Sample T-Test shows that as the
P-value for the EMB hole diameter is greater than 0.05
IJMSEM email for subscription: info@msem.org.uk
 24 K. Mittal & P. Kaushik & D. Khanduja: Evidence of APQP in quality improvement
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014

Fig. 5 Process flow diagram for EMB

therefore Operator Skill cannot be a factor for EMB rejec- Sample 1 was Tool Replacement after 96 hr.
tion. Sample 2 was Tool Replacement after 140 hr.
 
Since the P-value for Tool replacement is less than 0.05,
greater than 0.05
Second case:therefore
Two Operator
sampleSkill cannot be a factor
t-test forforrod
EMB rejection.
replace- this might be a factor for EMB rejection.
ment
Third case: Two sample t-test for rod holding mech-
anism

IJMSEM email for contribution: submit@msem.org.uk

 International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 7(1): 20-28, 2012 25
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014

 
Fig. 6 Process failure mode and effect analysis for EMB

Sample 1 was new EMB Holding Mechanism. Two Sample T-Test. These experiments were conducted to
Sample 2 was old EMB Holding Mechanism. optimize the value of the parameters for tool replacement
Since the P-value for EMB Holding Mechanism is less than and the EMB Holding mechanism. A 2 ∗ 2 Experiment was
0.05, this might be a factor for EMB rejection. designed i.e. an experiment with two factors on each level.
Tab. 1 shows the significant vital factors for the EMB hole
Process Capability of EMB diameter variation.
 

LSL Target USL

Main Effects Plot for EMB Hole Diameter
P rocess Data P otential (Within) C apability
LS L 10.90000 Process Capability of EMB Z.Bench 1.53 T ool Replacem ent EM B Holding M echanism
Target 11.00000 Z.LS L 1.84 10.98
USL 11.10000 Z.U S L 1.89
S ample M ean 10.99870 LSL Target USL C pk 0.61
S ample N P rocess Data100 P otential (Within)
C C pk C apability
0.62 10.97
Mean of EMB Hole Diameter

S tDevLS(Within)
L 10.90000
0.05373 Z.Bench 1.53
Target 11.00000 Z.LS L 1.84
USL 11.10000 Z.U S L 1.89 10.96
S ample M ean 10.99870 C pk 0.61
S ample N 100 C C pk 0.62
S tDev (Within) 0.05373
10.95

10.94

10.93
10.88 10.92 10.96 11.00 11.04 11.08 11.12
E xp. Within P erformance 10.92
P P M < LS L 33104.62 96 hrs 140 hrs Old New
P P M > U S L 29688.22 10.88 10.92 10.96 11.00 11.04 11.08 11.12
 
P P M ETotal
xp. Within62792.85
P erformance
P P M < LS L 33104.62  
PPM > USL
P P M Total
29688.22
62792.85
Fig. 9 Main effect plot for EMB hole diameter
Fig. 7 Process capability analysis of EMB rejection data before  

implementing
Fig. 5:APQP methodology
Process capability analysis of EMB rejection data before implementing

APQP methodology Inter action P lot for EM B Hole Diameter

T o o l Rep lac emen t
11.00
96 h r s
140 h r s

10.98

10.96
Mean

10.94

10.92

10.90

Old New
EMB Holding Me cha nis m
 

Fig. 6: Fishbone diagram Fig. 10 Interactions Plot for EMB hole diameter
Fig. 8 Fishbone diagram
Minitab was used to plot the Main Effects Plot and Inter-
3.3.5 Design of experiments action Plot between the vital few factors (tool replacement
The Design of Experiments was done to determine the and EMB holding mechanism). Tab. 2 shows the readings
optimum conditions for the few factors indicated after the for the significant factors at various levels.

IJMSEM email for subscription: info@msem.org.uk

 26 K. Mittal & P. Kaushik & D. Khanduja: Evidence of APQP in quality improvement
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014

 
Fig. 11 Control plan for EMB

The Main Effect Plot (Fig. 9) suggests that tool replace- description” of the methods used to minimize process and
ment and EMB holding mechanism both are major factors. product variation. It provides a structured approach for the
The interactions plot (Fig. 10) shows that the lines are par- design, selection and implementation of value added control
allel to each other so there are no interactions present be- methods. It is not intended to replace the detailed informa-
tween the factors. The change in the response mean from tion contained in operator work instructions. This control
low to high for tool replacement does not depend on the plan was displayed on every work station for the conve-
level of the EMB holding mechanism. nience of workers and engineers.
3.4 Phase IV (product and process validation)
Table 1 Significant vital factors for EMB hole diameter varia-
tion During this phase the manufacturing process is validated
by conducting an evaluation trial run. The trial run is
Vital Factors Low Level High Level
named as the Production Part Approval Process (PPAP). It
Tool Replacement 140 hrs 96 hrs consists of a continuous production of 300 parts on the same
EMB Holding Mechanism Old New equipment by the same operators who will produce the
parts during the upcoming production period. The PPAP
was conducted and the APQP team verified that the con-
Table 2 Readings of significant factors at various levels trol plan and process flow chart were being followed and the
product met customer requirements. The 300 parts were
Tool EMB Holding Readings (EMB sent to the customer for approval along with the various
Sr. No.
Replacement Mechanism Hole Diameter mm) documents.
1 After 96 hrs Old 10.95 Project recommendations’ application brought the sigma
2 After140 hrs Old 10.90 level up to 4.53 with a DPMO level of 2.98 (an improvement
of 62789.87) (Fig. 12), which was equivalent to savings of
3 After 96 hrs New 11.00
Rs. 0.36 millions (Refer appendix I) which is substantial for
4 After 140 hrs New 10.95 a small business. Apart from this, a collection of the doc-
uments such as the PFD, PFMEA, control plan, and work
As per the findings explained above, necessary actions instructions were also generated as a part of the system
were taken and all these observations and corrections such which will help the organisation to achieve its goals during
as the process descriptions, key product characteristics, in- production.
spection equipment and checking aids, process capability
3.5 Phase V (feedback assessment and corrective
index, frequency of inspection, tool changing frequency,
actions)
process audit method and frequency were documented in
a single chart known as a control plan (Fig. 11) which is This phase works towards the continuous improvement
one of the very important outputs of the APQP project. of the organization which is needed for any organization to
The process control plan provides a documented “summary compete in today’s expanding market Feedback from any-

IJMSEM email for contribution: submit@msem.org.uk

 International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 7(1): 20-28, 2012
Process Capability of EMB
LSL
P rocess Data
LS L 10.90000
Target 11.00000
USL 11.10000
S ample M ean 11.00030
S ample N 100
S tDev (Within) 0.02140
10.92 10.95 10.98 11.01 11.04 11.07 11.10
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014
E xp. Within P erformance
P P M < LS L 1.39
P P M > U S L 1.59
P P M Total 2.98
Fig. 12 Process capability analysis of EMB Rejection data after Improvement
one at any stage is always accepted and subsequent steps
for improvement should be implemented systematically.
4 Conclusions
In this research, an initiative was taken to apply APQP
in a small organization manufacturing an EMB for the au-
tomotive sector. The results of the study amply showed
that APQP is a versatile strategy for achieving produc-
tivity improvement and has a lot of potential as a qual-
ity improvement strategy along with its use in the product
development area. In the manufacturing industry, the suc-
cessful implementation of APQP has been mostly limited
in NPD. Further, an analysis of previous research showed
there has been little focus on APQP implementation in
Quality improvement in any sort of industry. In the present
study, an attempt was made to implement APQP for qual-
ity improvement in a small industry manufacturing Engine
mounting brackets for the automotive sector. The results
showed that the APQP. The major reasons identified for
the high rejection rates were operator skill, tool replace-
ment and the EMB holding mechanism. After a gauge R &
R study, it was found that the rejection was not due to a
human or instrumentation factor. During the third phase,
many modifications/changes were suggested such as reduc-
ing tool replacement time to 96 hrs and designing a fixture
for holding the EMB while machining. Initially the DPMO
level was 62792.85 and the level was 1.53. But after imple-
mentation of the APQP, the DPMO level was 2.98 and the
Sigma level 4.53.
APQP for the quality improvement of existing products
is an emerging topic among many academics and practi-
tioners. Very few studies have reported the successful ap-
plication of the APQP for quality improvement in existing
products. APQP tools and methodology have evolved to
encompass various domains associated with product devel-
opment and process improvement. The evolution of APQP
parallels the evolution of quality methods. It provides a
comprehensive and flexible system for maximizing business
success and has been considered a revolutionary approach
27
Target USL
P otential (Within) C apability
Z.Bench 4.53
Z.LS L 4.69
Z.U S L 4.66
C pk 1.55
C C pk 1.56
to product and process improvement. This paper is an at-
tempt to show how highly useful role of management tech-
niques such as APQP can be used for quality improvement
in existing products as well as for new product develop-
ment.
References
[1] Ancona, D. and Caldwell, D. (1990). Improving the perfor-
mance of new product teams. Research Technology Man-
agement, 33(2):25–29.
[2] Bobrek, M. and Sokovic, M. (2005). Implementation of
APQP concept in design of QMS. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 162-163:718–724.
[3] Carbone, T. (2005). Integrating operations and product de-
velopment methodologies for improved product success us-
ing advanced product quality planning. IEEE ASMC, Mu-
nich, Germany.
[4] Chai, K. and Xin, Y. (2006). The application of new product
development tools in industry: the case of Singapore. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Managemen, 53(4):543–554.
[5] Chan, C., Yung, K., and Ip, W. (2009). The implementation
of a model for integration of MRP II and TQM. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, 10(5):298–305.
[6] Ernst, H. (2002). Success factors of new product develop-
ment: a review of the empirical literature. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1):1–40.
[7] Ghalayini, A. and Noble, J. (1996). The changing basis of
performance measurement. International Journal of Oper-
ation and Production Management, 16(8):63–80.
[8] Ho, S. (2006). Management art and science: From 5-S to 6
sigma. International Journal of Management Science and
Engineering Management, 1(1):63–70.
[9] Iamratanakul, S., Patanakul, P., and Milosevic, D. (2008).
Innovation and factors affecting the success of NPD
projects: Literature explorations and descriptions. Inter-
national Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, 3(3):176–189.
[10] Ivert, L. and Jonsson, P. (2010). The potential benefits of
advanced planning and scheduling systems in sales and op-
erations planning. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
110(5):659–681.
IJMSEM email for subscription: info@msem.org.uk
 28 K. Mittal & P. Kaushik & D. Khanduja: Evidence of APQP in quality improvement
[11] Jain, J., Dangayach, G., and Agarwal, G. (2011). Evi-
dence of Supply Chain Management in Indian manufactur-
ing firms: A survey. International Journal of Management
Science and Engineering Management, 6(3):198–209.
[12] Jayaram, J. and Narasimhan, R. (2007). The influence
of new product development competitive capabilities on
project performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 54(2):241–256.
[13] Kaipia, R. and Holmstrom, J. (2007). Selecting the right
planning approach for a product. Supply Chain Manage-
ment: An International Journal, 12(1):3–13.
[14] Lam, S. (1997). Quality planning performance: the relation-
ship between objectives and process. International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, 14(1):10–23.
[15] Ma, C., Ko, Y., and Luh, D. (2008). A structure-based
workflow planning method for new product development
management. International Journal of Management Sci-
ence and Engineering Management, 4(2):83–103.
[16] Pawar, K. and Driva, H. (1999). Performance measure-
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 19:07 10 November 2014
ment for product design and development in a manufac-
IJMSEM email for contribution: submit@msem.org.uk
turing environment. International Journal of Production
Economies, 60-61:61–68.
[17] Rana, A., Nanda, S., and Sontakki, B. (2011). Innovation
quality management in public sector research and develop-
ment organizations: application of six sigma methodology.
International Journal of Management Science and Engi-
neering Management, 6(4):307–312.
[18] Sanongpong, K. (2009). Automotive process-based new
product development: a review of key performance metrics.
WCE, London, U.K.
[19] Saux, D. (2006). The effective use of process control plans
and process failure mode effects analysis in a gas semicon-
ductor manufacturing environment. In CS Mantech Con-
ference. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
[20] Shipley, T. and Armacost, R. (1993). Systematic approach
to new product development. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 25(1):333–336.
[21] Sireli, Y., Ozan, E., and Kauffmann, P. (2002). A New Prod-
uct Planning and Forecasting Model for the Avionics Mar-
ket in the United States. PhD thesis, University of North
Carolina, Charlotte, USA.