QRS2012 Sec1 Rev4 201911 Eng

Quality Requirements for Suppliers
SECTION 1
2012 Edition
Issued Date: May 9th 2012
Effective Date: August 1st 2012
Revision 4
Issued Date: July 31st 2019
Effective Date: September 1st 2019
Mazda Motor Corporation

Quality Requirements for Suppliers
(QRS)
This document complies with the SALES AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT made between
the supplier and Mazda Motor Corporation. All revisions to this document must be approved
by the Mazda Quality Division. Mazda Quality Division reserves the right to modify or
change the contents of this document at any time without prior notice.
2
Index
Chapter 1. Preface ..................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Before reading the “Quality Requirements for Suppliers 2012 Edition” ................................................. 6
1.2 Objective .................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.3 Text Composition ..................................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Applicability ............................................................................................................................................ 7
1.5 QRS Inquiry ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2. General Requirements ............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Quality Management System ................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1 Requirements .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Communication with Mazda.................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Requirements .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 (1) Introduction of Supplier Representatives in Japan .................................................................. 8
2.2.2 (2) Registration of Supplier Representatives for Quality Assurance ............................................ 8
2.2.3 Documents for Submission to Mazda ............................................................................................... 8
2.2.4 Mazda Contact Information .............................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Continuous Improvement ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.2 (1) Target Setting for Continuous Improvement ......................................................................... 10
2.3.2 (2) Implementation of Continuous Improvement ....................................................................... 10
2.4 Mazda Quality Assurance Certification System .................................................................................... 10
2.4.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.2 Scope .............................................................................................................................................. 10
2.4.3 Requirements ...................................................................................................................................11
2.4.3 (1) Acquisition of Quality Assurance Certification......................................................................11
2.4.3 (2) Certification of Appreciation in Quality.................................................................................11
2.4.3 (3) Warning of Certification Cancellation....................................................................................11
2.5 Quality Audit ..........................................................................................................................................11
2.5.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................11
2.5.2 Requirements ...................................................................................................................................11
2.5.2 (1) Internal Quality Audit ............................................................................................................11
2.5.2 (2) Quality Audit by Mazda ........................................................................................................ 12
2.6 Fundamental Quality Controls ............................................................................................................... 12
2.6.1 Control of Lot Traceability ............................................................................................................. 12
2.6.1 (1) Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.6.1 (2) Definition .............................................................................................................................. 12
2.6.1 (3) Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.6.2 Control of Mazda Supplied Parts .................................................................................................... 13
2.6.2 (1) Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 13
2.6.2 (2) Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 13
2.6.2 (3) Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.6.3 Subcontractor Control ..................................................................................................................... 14
2.6.3 (1) Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 14
2.6.3 (2) Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 14
2.6.4 Control of Quality Records and Retention...................................................................................... 15
2.6.4 (1) Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 15
2.6.4 (2) Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.7 Inspectional management for security components……………………………………………………17
2.7.1 Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………..17
2.7.2 Requirements………………………………………………………………………………………17
2.7.2 (1) Clarification of inspection management method and agreement with Mazda……………….17
2.7.2 (2) Control Plan for inspection management method and reflection to procedure………………17
2.7.2 (3) Secured inspection management and storage of operation record…………………………...17
2.7.2 (4) Evidence attached for submission of Parts Submission Declarations………………………..17
2.7.2 (5) Local verification conducted by Quality Division of Mazda………………………………...18
2.7.2 (6) Submission for the change in the agreed description on “Assurance Item List for System
Inspection”…………………………………………………………………………………….18
3
Chapter 3. Quality Assurance for New Product Launch ......................................................... 19
3.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2 Applicability .......................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Requirements ......................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 APQP Phases................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 (1) Definition of APQP Phase ..................................................................................................... 19
3.3.1 (2) Activities at Each APQP Phase ............................................................................................. 19
3.3.1 (3) APQP Phase Control ............................................................................................................. 20
3.3.2 Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) ................................................................................. 20
3.3.2 (1) APQP Elements ..................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.2 (2) Linkage of APQP Elements ................................................................................................... 21
3.3.3 Significant Parts .............................................................................................................................. 25
3.3.3 (1) Definition of Significant Parts............................................................................................... 25
3.3.3 (2) Designation of Significant Parts............................................................................................ 25
3.3.3 (3) Mazda Joint Events ............................................................................................................... 25
3.3.4 Submission ...................................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.4 (1) Submission Level .................................................................................................................. 25
3.3.4 (2) Deliverables .......................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.5 Specific Requirements for APQP Elements .................................................................................... 28
3.3.5 A-1. APQP Element; “Mazda Input Requirements” ................................................................... 28
3.3.5 A-2. APQP Element; “APQP Draw up” ...................................................................................... 29
3.3.5 A-3. APQP Element; “Design Review” ...................................................................................... 31
3.3.5 A-4. APQP Element; “Functionality Development” ................................................................... 33
3.3.5 A-5. APQP Element; “Design FMEA” ....................................................................................... 35
3.3.5 A-6. APQP Element; “Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention”................................................... 37
3.3.5 A-7. APQP Element; “Design and Production Validation Test” ................................................. 39
3.3.5 A-8. APQP Element; “Risk Assessment for New/Changed” ...................................................... 40
3.3.5 A-9. APQP Element; “Significant Characteristics” .................................................................... 44
3.3.5 A-10. APQP Element; “Subcontractor APQP Status Control” .................................................... 47
3.3.5 A-11. APQP Element; “Tooling” and “Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness” ....... 48
3.3.5 A-12. APQP Element; “Parts Inspection” ................................................................................... 49
3.3.5 A-13. APQP Element; “Parts Examination” ............................................................................... 53
3.3.5 A-14. APQP Element; “Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan” ................. 54
3.3.5 A-15. APQP Element; “Process FMEA” .................................................................................... 56
3.3.5 A-16. APQP Element; “Control Plan” ........................................................................................ 58
3.3.5 A-17. APQP Element; “Process Parameters Setting” ................................................................. 61
3.3.5 A-18. APQP Element; “Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development” .......................... 64
3.3.5 A-19. APQP Element; “Measurement System Evaluation” ........................................................ 65
3.3.5 A-20. APQP Element; “Operator Work Instructions” ................................................................. 67
3.3.5 A-21. APQP Element; “Packaging Specifications” .................................................................... 68
3.3.5 A-22. APQP Element; “Process Capability Study” ..................................................................... 69
3.3.5 A-23. APQP Element; “Acceptance Samples”............................................................................ 71
3.3.5 A-24. APQP Element; “Process Assurance Assessment”............................................................ 72
3.3.5 A-25. APQP Element; “Mass Production Trial Run”.................................................................. 74
3.3.5 A-26. APQP Element; “Part Submission Declaration (PSD)” .................................................... 75
3.3.5 A-27. APQP Element; “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control”........................................... 77
3.3.5 A-28. APQP Element; “Lessons Learned” .................................................................................. 78
APPENDIX- Requirements for Parts Delivery........................................................................................ 79
3.3.6 Specific Requirements for Particular Elements .............................................................................. 83
3.3.6 B-1. Particular Element; “Verification for Engine Management System” .................................. 83
3.3.6 B-2. Particular Element; “Verification for Body Sheet Metal Parts and Vehicle Fit and Finish
Parts” ................................................................................................................................................... 87
3.3.6 B-3. Particular Element; “Quality Equivalence Verification” ..................................................... 92
4
Chapter 4. Quality Assurance for Mass Production ................................................................ 95
4.1 Mass Production Control ....................................................................................................................... 96
4.1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 96
4.1.2 Requirements .................................................................................................................................. 96
4.1.2 (1) Control of Maintenance......................................................................................................... 96
4.1.2 (2) Change Control ..................................................................................................................... 96
4.1.2 (3) Control of Nonconforming Parts ......................................................................................... 101
4.1.2 (4) Corrective Action ................................................................................................................ 103
4.2 Market Quality Improvement .............................................................................................................. 104
4.2.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 104
4.2.2 Requirements ................................................................................................................................ 104
4.2.2 (1) Corrective Actions for Warranty Claims ............................................................................. 104
4.2.2 (2) Market Quality Improvement Activities ............................................................................. 105
4.2.2 (3) Joint Activities with Mazda for NTF and/or technical concerns ......................................... 105
4.2.2 (4) Establishment of System and Organization......................................................................... 105
4.2.2 (5) Reflection into Warranty Cost Compensation ..................................................................... 105
Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 106
5
Chapter 1. Preface
Issue of QRS Revised edition vol.4, 2012
To ensure the reliable quality assurance system between Mazda and Supplier for security components
which are managed with assurance methods according to laws and regulations, the revised edition vol.4
shall stipulate requirements of “Inspection management method” for Supplier in “2.7 Inspectional
management for security components” and related terms.
The revised edition vol. 3 did not distinguish these components from general components.
Mazda expects that Supplier will once again realize any operations and tasks must be conducted
according to the laws and regulations and ensure the quality assurance.
Issue of QRS 2012 Rev3
It has been a period of 4 years since our last revision (Rev2). Suppliers have successfully carried out the
QRS requirements. However, there are still occasional problems that arouse from misinterpretation of the
QRS because of inexplicit and unclear explanations.
The focus of this revision is to clarify Mazda's expectation so that the correct quality assurance activities
will be carried out by the suppliers. Hence, Rev3 is mainly on re-phrasing the contents and additional
explanations.
Another purpose is in expectation for cooperation in quality enhancement. Rapid technology innovations in
recent years have led to require a higher level of quality assurance. In order to provide products that suffice
the customer satisfaction, Mazda and suppliers need to cooperate and share the maximum perception.
1.1 Before reading the “Quality Requirements for Suppliers 2012 Edition”
Mazda will become a company that has a reputation worldwide as a provider of the highest product quality
and service quality from all of our customers and stakeholders. Therefore, Mazda shall ensure the best
performance on quality assurance and implement continuous improvement for our product quality. As
Mazda’s product quality is heavily affected by the quality of supplied parts, it is absolutely necessary for
Mazda to work together with our suppliers to enhance quality assurance. To pursue a higher level of quality
assurance at suppliers, Mazda releases the “Quality Requirements for Suppliers (hereinafter called QRS)
2012 Edition” is thoroughly revised from the former 2010 Edition.
The fundamental concepts of these revisions are described below. Mazda would like suppliers to understand
these concepts before reading QRS SECTION 2012 Edition.
(1) New Product Quality Build-up

The energy required for problem solving differs substantially depending on the stage of operation at
which the problem is identified. Solving a problem that occurs in the markets takes significantly more
energy than solving a problem at the earliest stages of design and development.
Therefore, it is important for suppliers and Mazda to realize a robust product design and production where
the product quality is built-up through the complete elimination of all potential quality risks within the
design and development, production readiness and initial mass production stages.
(2) Mass Production Quality Control and Continuous Improvement
In addition to the routine mass production Quality Control, the key for further customer satisfaction is to
pursue continuous improvement for higher quality. Continuous improvement requires the reduction of
product quality variation and also to improve Quality Management System taking all opportunities
including applicable business processes.
It is important for suppliers and Mazda to enhance the ability to detect signals which often appear before a
problem occurs during mass production, and to take necessary preventive actions on the signals if it is
really problematic.
(3) Reactions toward Globalization of business activities
In order to deal with changing circumstances surrounding automotive industries, globalization of
production has become a key focus. Therefore, it is important for suppliers and Mazda to ensure that the
product quality is equivalent globally at all manufacturing locations.
(4) Common Perceptions
We need not only a common understanding among all relevant organizations, but also a common
perception that can lead us to work for the same targets. To maximize the performance in quality
assurance, it is important for suppliers and Mazda to ensure common perceptions through close
6
communication and cooperation among all internal and external organizations.
1.2 Objective
QRS defines the minimum requirements for suppliers, who have business transactions for Automotive
Parts and vehicles with Mazda. QRS requires the necessary quality assurance at the design, development,
production readiness and mass production stages.
1.3 Text Composition

QRS consists of the following sections.
-QRS SECTION 1; the main document which describes all the requirements at the design,
development, production readiness and mass production stages.
-QRS SECTOIN 2; the package of submission forms (including samples) linked to QRS
SECTION 1.
1.4 Applicability
QRS applies to suppliers which deliver parts (excluding Accessories) to Mazda, and to suppliers which
deliver KD Parts to overseas Mazda contractors.
1.5 QRS Inquiry
If there are any inquiries or proposals about QRS, please contact Mazda using the designated form “QRS
Inquiry Sheet” in QRS SECTION 2.
7
Chapter 2. General Requirements
2.1 Quality Management System
2.1.1 Requirements
Suppliers shall obtain the certification of ISO9001. To obtain the certification of ISO/TS16949 (IATF
16949) or an equivalent Quality Management System is preferential. However, the requirements specified
in QRS are dominate over them.
2.2 Communication with Mazda

2.2.1 Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for smooth communications with Mazda. The smooth
communications lead the suppliers to implement prompt and appropriate actions for any business
processes to quality assurance planning.
2.2.2 Requirements
2.2.2 (1) Introduction of Supplier Representatives in Japan
Suppliers should consider introduction of representatives in Japan to ensure smooth communications with
Mazda headquarters. If this is difficult, suppliers shall establish a clear communication route and
organization that would enable the suppliers to implement prompt and appropriate actions whenever
quality concerns occur.
2.2.2 (2) Registration of Supplier Representatives for Quality Assurance
-Suppliers shall assign the following;
a) Quality Management Representative who is responsible for their quality assurance
b) Quality Representative at each liaison office and manufacturing plant
c) Quality Information Contact Representative
Those Representatives shall be submitted by email to Mazda Quality Dept. referring to Table 1.
-For submission, the designated form “Registration of Supplier Representatives for Quality Assurance” in
QRS SECTION 2 shall be used without changing the original file format.
-Suppliers shall register a Quality Representative from the subcontractor in the case that the subcontractor
delivers the parts directly to Mazda on behalf of the Tier1 supplier.
-The submission shall be done at the start of business with Mazda (for a new supplier, immediately after
downloading QRS from Mazda Global Supplier Network (MGN)) and/or within 10 days after any
changes of representatives are determined.
NOTES;
-The Quality Information Contact Representative should directly download quality information by
accessing MGN (Mazda Global Supplier Network). The quality information from Mazda is
distributed through MGN that is controlled by Mazda Purchasing Dept.
-Suppliers who have only prototype business with Mazda, “Registration of Supplier
Representatives for Quality Assurance” shall be submitted to Mazda Prototype Fabrication Dept.
if required.
-In accordance to the Private Information Protection Law and Information Privacy Statement,
Mazda will not disclose obtained personal data to any third parties except as permissible by Law.
2.2.3 Documents for Submission to Mazda
All documents submitted to Mazda shall be described in Japanese or English. The documents should be
primarily electronic when at all possible.
2.2.4 Mazda Contact Information

Table 1 shows Mazda’s contact information. Mazda Contract List may be subject to revision that will be
notified by MGN.
8
Table 1: Mazda Contact List
Div Contents Dept. E-mail Address Tel/Fax
Design and Development Please contact the responsible design and development group
R&D
Prototype Engineering Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4277
Prototype Parts shisakugijutsu@mail.mazda.co.jp
Gr. Fax:+81-(0)82-287-5136
Purchased Parts Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4496

QRS kohinki_01@mail.mazda.co.jp
Quality Engineering Gr Fax:+81-(0)82-287-5219
Quality Operations Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4581

Claim Compensation Contact person in charge
Management Gr Fax:+81-(0)82-287-5219
Submission on Registration of Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4496
Purchased Parts
Supplier Representatives for Quality kohinkan.01@mail.mazda.co.jp
Quality Engineering Gr Fax:+81-(0)82-287-5219
Assurance
Vehicle Quality Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4497
Vehicle Components bken_sharyo.hs@mail.mazda.co.jp
Engineering Gr. Fax:+81-(0)82-287-5219
Tel:+81-(0)82-252-5158
Engine Components ptken_engine.hs@mail.mazda.co.jp
Fax:+81-(0)82-252-5345
Mazda Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4804
Transmission /Axle PT Quality
Hiroshima ptken_kudo.hs@mail.mazda.co.jp
Components Engineering Gr. Fax:+81-(0)82-287-5219
Plant
Tel:+81-(0)82-287-5038
Materials ptken_sozai.hs@mail.mazda.co.jp
Fax:+81-(0)82-287-5271
Quality Body Plate Vehicle Quality Tel:+81-(0)82-252-5014
bken_shatai.hs@mail.mazda.co.jp
Tel:+81-(0)835-29-1244
Vehicle Components bken_sharyo.hf@mail.mazda.co.jp
Hofu Vehicle Quality Fax:+81-(0)835-29-1897
Engineering Gr. Tel:+81-(0)835-24-2277
Mazda Transmission
ptken_buhin.hf@mail.mazda.co.jp
Hofu Plant Components Fax:+81-(0)835-24-5844
Body Plate Hofu PT Quality Tel:+81-(0)835-29-1113

bken_shatai.hf@mail.mazda.co.jp
Tel:+86-21-3998-3100
For suppliers in China MCO SQA MCO.SQC@mazda.co.jp
Fax:+86-21-3998-3101
Tel:+1-256-850-7011
For suppliers in North America MNAO PQA mnaopqa@mazdausa.com
Tel: +49-(0)2173-943181
For suppliers in Europe MME PQA mme-pqa@mazdaeur.com
Fax:+49-(0)2173-943424
Tel: +66-(0)38-998-770
For suppliers in ASEAN MST QD ASEAN-SQA@mazda.co.th
Log. Packaging Please contact the responsible Purchasing or Production Control and Logistics Department
Mazda Global Supplier Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4036

Info. Quality Information mgn-support@is.mazda.co.jp
Network Fax:+81-(0)82-286-4001
9
2.3 Continuous Improvement
2.3.1 Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for Continuous Improvement. The purpose of Continuous
Improvement is to continuously improve the product quality and effectiveness of the Quality
Management System toward established quality targets.
2.3.2 Requirements
Suppliers shall establish quality targets and action plans for Continuous Improvement. Continuous
Improvement that is to be implemented at the manufacturing processes shall focus on reduction of
variation in quality.
The Supplier Quality Management Representative shall take the responsibility and initiative to control
and review the result of Continuous Improvement activities.
2.3.2 (1) Target Setting for Continuous Improvement
The quality targets for Continuous Improvement shall include the items listed below.
a) To improve the product quality indexes, which are measured and reported at Mazda.
-Warranty claims (Warranty Claim 12 months PPM, R/1000 etc.)
-Recalls, Service Campaigns and/or Rework Actions
-0km Claims PPM through the mass production
-number of 0km Claims occurred at TT, PP and/or Initial MP
b) To reduce variation of the product quality (including variation of process parameters) and to improve
Process Assurance.
c) To enhance the Quality Management System by use of the following inputs.
-Lessons Learned from new product launch (APQP)
-Lessons Learned from the corrective or preventive actions required through the internal and/or
external audits.
-Result of self-assessment based on Mazda Quality System Assessment
-Experiences of advanced design and development for new product, new manufacturing or
measurement techniques if necessary
d) To improve productivity and productive efficiency.
2.3.2 (2) Implementation of Continuous Improvement
Suppliers shall establish action plans and implement the actions toward established quality targets.
Quality Management Representative shall take the initiative to periodically review the implementation
status and its effectiveness.
The result of Continuous Improvement in each fiscal year shall be reflected into quality targets and/or
action plans for the next fiscal year.
2.4 Mazda Quality Assurance Certification System

2.4.1 Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for Mazda Quality Assurance Certification System.
Through this System, Mazda promotes suppliers to establish self-directive quality assurance and to
implement necessary activities such as Continuous Improvement.
2.4.2 Scope
The requirements in this paragraph apply to suppliers who deliver Automotive Parts to Mazda and to
those suppliers who deliver KD Parts to overseas Mazda contractors.
Excluded suppliers are listed below.
-Only Accessories
-Only raw materials (e.g. steel plate materials)
-Only Service Parts
-Intermitted business with Mazda in terms of mass production
10
2.4.3 Requirements
2.4.3 (1) Acquisition of Quality Assurance Certification
Suppliers shall acquire Mazda Quality Assurance Certification until the start of mass production. The
Certification conditions are;
a) To Pass Quality Assurance System Audit by Mazda.

Suppliers shall receive Mazda Quality Assurance System Audit that is conducted at the start of business
and/or on a periodical basis. If it is not passed, suppliers shall receive Mazda Quality Assurance System
Audit again after necessary improvements are completed.
b) To agree on the annual quality target.
Suppliers shall agree on the annual quality target proposed in “Proposed Setting Quality Target” which
is provided from Mazda Purchasing Dept. After reaching agreement, suppliers shall incorporate the
agreed targets into internal quality targets and implement necessary activities.
Based on Monthly Quality Report issued by Mazda, suppliers shall monitor their product quality
measurable and shall implement necessary actions where the agreed targets are not achieved.
2.4.3 (2) Certification of Appreciation in Quality
Suppliers will be awarded a "Certification of Appreciation in Quality" by Mazda for their exceptional
quality performance. The award will be presented not just by the quality results, but based on the overall
performance including continued efforts and contribution in quality enhancement. Suppliers are expected
to promote all quality assurance activities on a company-wide basis.
2.4.3 (3) Warning of Certification Cancellation
In the case that a supplier does not achieve the agreed quality targets (especially Critical Concerns occur)
or in the case that a supplier performs quality improvement activities unsatisfactory, Mazda will issue a
“Warning of Certification Cancellation” to the applicable suppliers in order to strongly encourage them to
implement necessary quality improvement.
Suppliers who receive a “Warning of Certification Cancellation” shall submit action plans to Mazda for
approval. The action plans shall include not only corrective actions for the concern promoting the
“Warning of Certification Cancellation” but also preventive actions to improve their Quality Management
System or quality assurance processes related to the concern.
NOTES;
-Even though the period of Warning of Certification Cancellation is required for maximum of 6
months, it is possible to shorten the period if the targets are achieved.
-The Quality Assurance Certification will be revoked if the supplier performance status is still
unsatisfactory even after the recovery activities have been put in place based on prior warning.
2.5 Quality Audit
2.5.1 Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for auditing the suppliers’ Quality Management System,
for assuring the supplier has implemented effective quality assurance activities and for achieving
established quality targets and continuous improvement plan.
2.5.2 Requirements
2.5.2 (1) Internal Quality Audit
-Suppliers shall plan and implement both Internal Quality Audits and Quality Audits for subcontractors.
The Quality Audit shall clearly include the purpose for auditing their compliance to QRS, effectiveness of
Quality Management System, manufacturing product and processes.
-Scope of the product and manufacturing process audits should strongly take into consideration
Significant Characteristics and recurrence prevention for Past Concerns. During the manufacturing
process audits, suppliers shall focus on auditing actual established Quality Controls for compliance with
Process Assurance Assessment and Control Plan.
11
2.5.2 (2) Quality Audit by Mazda
Supplier shall be audited periodically or when Mazda determined necessary. The supplier will be required
to react to the audit result and to submit action plans for the concerns identified. The supplier action plans
shall include the corrective actions of the concerns identified as well as the preventive actions to be taken
as an improvement of the quality assurance processes that caused the concerns.
Quality audit by Mazda primarily focuses on the followings and confirm;

a) Effective Quality Management System is in place and in full compliance with QRS.
b) Process assurance systems established during new parts launch readiness stages are to be continued at
mass production stages and beyond.
c) Implementation and effectiveness of continuous improvement activities.
d) Root cause investigation and its corrective action implementation for quality concern
2.6 Fundamental Quality Controls

2.6.1 Control of Lot Traceability
2.6.1 (1) Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for production lot traceability and necessary quality
records at incoming, production, inspection and delivery stages. These controls enhance the supplier
ability to effectively identify suspect shipment and root-cause when a quality concern arises.
2.6.1 (2) Definition
The production lot is a unit of products manufactured under the same condition, which quality is
considered as equivalent. Table 2 shows fundamental production lots and definition.
As there seem to be product quality fluctuation between production lots, suppliers shall predict factors
that cause product quality fluctuation through implementation of Process FMEA. Necessary production
lot shall be defined in accordance to Table 2.
Table 2: Fundamental Production Lot and definition

NO. Production Lot Definition
1 Raw Material Incoming Lot One lot per incoming raw material.
2 Component Incoming Lot One lot per receipt unless multiple deliveries from
subcontractors can be considered as one lot with a
proof they are produced under the same
manufacturing condition.
3 Production Lot from one-shift One lot per shift / day if produced under consecutive
production production.
4 Batch Production Lot One lot per one batch production when produced
under the same manufacturing condition.
5 Production Lot after implementing The production lot shall be separate after
a change implementing changes such as a material change, a
process change, a production method change.
2.6.1 (3) Requirements
2.6.1 (3) a) Fundamentals of Lot Traceability Control
-Suppliers shall establish a system to control traceability as per the definition of production lot. All
necessary quality records and production records such as raw material quality records, process parameter
records, inspection records and production date shall be controlled. Refer to Table 3. The retention period
for those records is specified in “2.6.4 Control of Quality Records and Retention”.
-Suppliers shall implement thorough controls especially for part/products Significant Characteristics with
special attention given to A/AR Rank due to the fact that traceability for those part/products is much more
important.
-FIFO (First In and First Out) Inventory and production control shall be implemented when processing
raw materials or in-process part/products, when transferring them to another location as well as when
shipping finished products from supplier’s warehouses.
12
-If there is more than one quality record than one that belongs to one production lot of finished products
in the course of entire production run, the suppliers shall ensure traceability between those quality records
and the production lot of finished products.
2.6.1 (3) b) Indication of Lot Traceability
-Suppliers should have legible traceability information (such as lot number or production date code) on
finished products. (e.g. indications by engraving, stamping or serial labelling) The position of indication
on the finished products should be determined with a consideration of legibility in the vehicle level.
-The position of traceability information requires Mazda’s engineering approval due to the fact that there
are possible adverse interactions with the vehicle appearance or quality of the matching products when
assembling at Mazda.
Table 3: Quality Records and contents to be recorded
NO. Quality Records Contents to be recorded
1 Incoming Record Subcontractor’s name, material specification (component number),

incoming date, production lot number of the incoming materials
(components), quality certifications.
2 Production Data Change over record, process parameter setting record, continuous
surveillance data of process parameters, production shift, and
operator.
3 Quality Inspection Inspection results according to the Control Plan, product quality data
Data of 100% inspection.
4 Maintenance Check Checking results according to preventive and daily maintenance
Record plan.
5 Reworking Record Reworking date, reworking quantity, reworking purpose, rework
operator and supervisor, inspection results after reworking.
6 Delivery Record Delivery date, delivery quantity, customer (or Mazda Parts
Warehouse), production lot number of finished products.
2.6.2 Control of Mazda Supplied Parts

2.6.2 (1) Purpose
This paragraph describes requirements for Mazda Supplied Parts for the purpose of clarification on roles
and responsibilities for quality assurance of the Mazda Supplied Parts.
2.6.2 (2) Scope
The requirements specified in this paragraph are applied to the suppliers who use Mazda Supplied Parts
(hereinafter called “Supplier” limited in this paragraph) as well as the suppliers who produce the supplied
parts (hereinafter called “Producer” limited in this paragraph).
2.6.2 (3) a) Mazda’s Role
Mazda hosts a meeting with the participation of the Suppliers and the Producers if responsibility for
quality assurance of Mazda Supplied Parts needs to be determined.
2.6.2 (3) b) Requirements for Suppliers
-The Suppliers shall implement incoming inspection for Mazda Supplied Parts.
-After receiving Mazda Supplied Parts, the Suppliers shall have full responsibility for any failures or
quality deterioration on those parts during assembly and logistics activities.
-The Suppliers shall inform Mazda immediately after any quality concerns related to Mazda supplied
parts.
-The Suppliers shall participate in the meeting if requested by Mazda. If necessary, the Suppliers can also
request Mazda to schedule a meeting.
13
2.6.2 (3) c) Requirements for Producers
-The Producers shall provide necessary information or requirements such as handling or storage
procedures, which need to be satisfied at the Suppliers.
-If a quality concern occurs on the Mazda Supplied Parts, the Producers shall immediately identify a
root-cause and take necessary corrective and preventive actions.
-The Producers shall participate in the meeting if requested by Mazda. If necessary, the Producers can
also request Mazda to schedule a meeting.
NOTES;
-In the abovementioned meeting, the following items are mainly discussed.
a) Packaging Specification
b) Handling Requirement
c) Quality Characteristics to be controlled
d) Reaction procedure in the case of a quality concern
-Any changes to meeting decision or agreements needs to be communicated to Mazda for
approval.
2.6.3 Subcontractor Control
2.6.3 (1) Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for control and quality assurance of subcontractors who
are associated with supplier’s part production.
2.6.3 (2) a) Clarification of Supply-Chain
Suppliers shall clarify the Supply-Chain with all subcontractors who are associated with part production
from raw materials, components to finished products. To ensure the understanding of the Supply-Chain,
the supplier should provide the same requirement to their Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers.
2.6.3 (2) b) Sourcing of Subcontractor
Suppliers shall define sourcing criteria for selected subcontractor and confirm that the subcontractors
satisfy the sourcing criteria before sourcing decision is finalized. The sourcing criteria shall include that
the selected subcontractors fulfil the requirements specified in QRS.
2.6.3 (2) c) Control of Subcontractors’ APQP status
Suppliers shall ensure that all relevant subcontractors implement quality assurance activities or
equivalents in accordance with APQP requirements specified in the QRS, and shall monitor the
subcontractors’ APQP status. (Refer to “A-10. Subcontractor APQP Status Control”)
2.6.3 (2) d) Subcontractors’ Change Control and Submission to Mazda
Suppliers shall require all subcontractors to implement Change Control in accordance with the
requirements specified in the QRS. Suppliers shall receive notification of changes from the subcontractor
and implement necessary quality assurance activities. (Refer to “4.1.2 Requirements”> “(2) Change
Control”)
2.6.3 (2) e) Subcontractors’ Corrective and Preventive Actions
Suppliers shall ensure that subcontractors implement necessary corrective and preventive actions for their
quality concerns. (Refer to “4.1.2 Requirements”> “(3) Control of Nonconforming Parts”)
2.6.3 (2) f) Subcontractor Quality Audit
Suppliers shall establish a subcontractor quality audit plan and implement the audit as planned. In the
audit, suppliers shall ensure that the subcontractor fulfils suppliers’ quality requirements including
requirements specified in the QRS. Subcontractors under Tier 2 shall be considered into the audit plan as
needed.
14
2.6.4 Control of Quality Records and Retention
2.6.4 (1) Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for control of quality records and retention.
2.6.4 (2) a) Control of Quality Record and Retention
-Suppliers shall establish a system in which electronic quality record can be easily searched and promptly
retrieved upon request by Mazda. For editable medium, use a system for approval of all registration and
modification of medium.
-Suppliers shall establish an appropriate retention method and environment in order to prevent
deterioration of the quality records
2.6.4 (2) b) Retention Period
-Suppliers shall retain the quality records according to the retention period specified in Table 4.
-The retention period starts from the date when the quality records are created or received.
-The quality records related to product liability cases or recalls shall be retained until the concerns are
closed even after the retention period has expired.
2.6.4 (2) c) Disposal of Quality Records
-After the retention period has expired, the quality records shall be disposed under illegible condition.
15
Table 4: Retention Period of Quality Records
Starting Retention Period (Year)
Documents/ point of
NO. Retention Parts that have Remarks
Quality Records Others
(*1) A/AR Rank
Registration of Supplier
Including Registration before
1 Representative for Quality c 10 10
revision
Assurance
APQP status report
2 (QRS2010; Quality Assurance b 2 1
Plan)
3 Control Plan (*2) c 10 10
4 Operator Work Instructions c 10 2
Acceptance Sample Application

5 c 10 (*4) 3
(*3)
Records of ECN #, contents,
6 Records of design change c 10 2
effective date.
7 Delivery Record a 10 2 Refer to Table 3

Incoming, in-process, delivering,
materials, performance, reliability
2
inspection/test, Final Quality
Verification Report
Section 2.7 Those which are
8 Inspection Reports c 10
associated with parts/inspection
characteristic stipulated in
10
“Assurance Item List for System
Inspection”.
PSDs (Parts Submission

9 c 10 2 With a package of APQP Elements
Declarations)
Notification of Production
10 a 3 3
Methods Change
Quality records (including
11 a 10 2 Refer to Table 3
production records)
8D Reports, Records of
For Rework Actions, Warranty
12 corrective and preventive c 10 1
Claims and 0km-Claims.
actions
13 Request for Deviation a 3 3
Quality records related to

14 N/A until the concerns are closed
product liability cases or recalls
In accordance with supplier established
15 Other quality records
operating procedure.
NOTES;
-(*1) Classification for starting point of retention;
a) when Document is generated.
b) when the mass production started
c) when the mass production ended.
-(*2)Include former Inspection Standards
-(*3) If the retention period of the acceptance sample is set, the sample should be retained until the designated
date.
-(*4) Applicable only for case of A and AR Quality Rank
16
2.7 Inspectional management for security components
2.7.1 Purpose
Mazda shall stipulate requirement of “Inspection management method (*1) in a supplier for security
components managed in their assurance method based on laws and regulations.
Note；
(*1) Inspectional method, frequency (Inspection cycle/Sample size), inspection/measurement
equipments, management method of inspection record shall be indicated on “Assurance Item List
for System Inspection”.
2.7.2 Requirements
2.7.2 (1) Clarification of inspection management method and agreement with Mazda
・Mazda shall present target parts/inspection characteristic to be managed with “Assurance Item List for
System Inspection” for the target supplier in the MP preparation stage of new models.
The target supplier shall describe inspection management method of the presented parts/inspection
characteristic and the production site where the inspection is to be conducted without omission
according to the form of “Assurance Item List for System Inspection” in SectionⅡ to obtain consensus
from Quality Division of Mazda.
Contact for the target suppliers：

2.2.4 Purchased Parts Quality Engineering Gr. of “QRS in general” on contact list of Mazda:
kohinki_01@mail.mazda.co.jp
2.7.2 (2) Control Plan for inspection management method and reflection to procedure
・Supplier shall incorporate inspection management method, obtained from the consensus with Mazda
Quality Division into the Control Plan or any documents and shall identify/indicate it as “Item
described on Assurance Item List for System Inspection”.
2.7.2 (3) Secured inspection management and storage of operation record

・Supplier shall assure and conduct the inspections complying the management method in “Assurance
Item List for System Inspection” obtained from the consensus. The evidence shall be recorded/stored
as a inspection report, etc.
・Supplier shall submit the evidence such as Control Plan and Inspection Report regarding parts/inspection
characteristic specified in “Assurance Item List for System Inspection” without any delay when Quality
Division of Mazda requires the said evidence.
2.7.2 (4) Evidence attached for submission of Parts Submission Declarations

Refer to Chapter 3 3.3.5 A-26 Quality assurance activity “Parts submission declaration” regarding
submission of parts submission declarations.
・Use the form of “ Parts submission declaration” in SecⅡ.
・Supplier shall attach the following items as an evidence regardless of the submission level (Refer to
Chapter 3. 3.3.4(1) submission level) when submitting “Parts submission declarations”.
a. Control plan which indicates inspection management method described on “Assurance Item List for
System Inspection”.
b. Evidence such as most recent Inspection Report which shows that the inspection is performed as
specified in designated inspection management method.
17
2.7.2 (5) Local verification conducted by Quality Division of Mazda
Mazda may perform audit to confirm if inspection is performed as described in “Assurance Item List for
System Inspection” and if management system to assure the implementation of inspection is maintained
and operated.
2.7.2 (6) Submission for the change in the agreed description on “Assurance Item List for System
Inspection”
・When the description on “Assurance Item List for System Inspection” is planned to change (change of
inspection management method and/or production sites), the modified “Assurance Item List for System
Inspection” shall be discussed and agreed in advance, and updated.
a. Submission of the “Notification of Production Method Change” and attach the revised
proposal of “Assurance Item List for System Inspection”
・When Supplier plans to change the description on “Assurance Item List for System Inspection”, the
supplier shall submit the “Notification of Production Method Change” to Quality Division of Mazda for
an approval immediately after undertaking APQP activity(*2).
Note；
(*2)
Refer to Chapter 4 4.1.2 (2) 3) “Change of production method”. Supplier shall generally be required to
submit the “Notification of Production Method Change” in mass production process. However, only
when changing the description on “Assurance Item List for System Inspection”, Supplier shall submit
the “Notification of Production Method Change” whether in mass production process or in mass
production preparation process.
・”Notification of Production Method Change” shall include the revised proposal of “Assurance Item List
for System Inspection” as well as Advance Product Quality Planning (APQP).
Supplier shall fill out the highlighted cells in “Assurance Item List for System Inspection” in SecⅡ, .
・Use the form of “Notification of Production Method Change” in SecⅡ

Supplier selects category 8 “Assurance Item List for System Inspection” in the column for a reason of
change in “Notification of Production Method Change”. For the change content, select “Change in
Management method of Inspection for Security Components.”
b. After the approval of “Notification of Production Method Change”
Follow the terms 2.7.2 (2)-2.7.2 (5) described above.
18
Chapter 3. Quality Assurance for New Product Launch
3.1 Purpose
This chapter defines a structured method of quality assurance for New Parts, called as “Advanced Product
Quality Planning (APQP)” in which Mazda specifies minimal requirements for our suppliers when
implementing the corresponding activities (hereinafter called “APQP Elements”) during the stages of
design and development, production readiness, and initial mass production. This chapter also emphasizes
a linkage between APQP Elements and the intention is that suppliers perform self-directive APQP
implementation as planned.
3.2 Applicability
This chapter applies to all new launches of Automotive Products (excluding Accessories) which are
equipped into Mazda new projects.f
NOTE;
A part of the specific requirement of APQP Elements is linked from “Chapter 4.Quality Assurance
for Mass Production”.
3.3 Requirements
3.3.1 APQP Phases
3.3.1 (1) Definition of APQP Phase
“APQP Elements” are categorized into four “APQP Phases” as below. Mazda expresses fundamental
expectations with timing guideline for each “APQP Phase”.
“APQP Phases” consists of;

APQP Phase 1 : Robust Product Design and Development
APQP Phase 2 : Robust Production Process Readiness
APQP Phase 3 : Product and Production Quality Verification
APQP Phase 4 : Initial Mass Production Intensive Control
Table 1 shows a rough time frame for “APQP Phases” in comparison to Mazda typical Mile Stones at new
product launch. Suppliers shall regard it as timing guideline to be considered when drawing up APQP as
well as when implementing each APQP Element.
Table 1: Position of APQP Phases to Mazda Mile Stones

PDesign and Development Production Readiness PMass
Mazda Production
Mile Stones DCV TT PP MP
(Typical)
4. Initial Mass
1. Robust Product 2. Robust Production 3. Product and
APQP Production
Design and Process Readiness Production
Intensive
Phases Quality
Development Control
Verification
3.3.1 (2) Activities at Each APQP Phase

-Suppliers shall fully understand and meet all relevant regulatory requirements. And in addition to this, as
a specialist of the supply part, suppliers are expected to provide the perspective of any anticipated issues
and make discussion with Mazda Design Engineering. Based on a thorough understanding, the suppliers
shall provide superior performance at product design and development stages. This will assist the
suppliers to realize robust product design for ensuring functionalities over the vehicle life time with stable
product quality in all-market circumstances or in any vehicle usage by end customers. (=Robust Product
Design and Development)
Key points for Robust Product Design and Development is to define clear targets related to the product
functionality, to clarify control/uncontrolled factors and effects functionality, and to define allowable
19
quality limits for the functionality in terms of end customers’ satisfaction through design verification.
-Suppliers shall designate CFT (Cross Functional Team) coordination with specialists from design and
development, production readiness, and mass production. CFT shall always communicate mutually and
shall be involved into APQP activities to maintain an effective communication linkage between design
and development and production readiness.
Important design outputs through “APQP Phase1” such as “Significant Characteristics” and
“Requirements for Production Control” shall be transitioned into “APQP Phase 2”. To ensure the
information flow, CFT conducts necessary internal design review meetings, where important decision or
verifications are to be based on facts in principle of GENBA, GENBUTSU, and GENJITSU at any time.
(GENBA = On Site Review, GENBUTSU = Actual Part Review, and GENJITSU = Fact)
-Suppliers shall implements necessary preventive actions to eliminate potential design failures that are
associated with new technology, new architecture and/or design change from a base product. Suppliers
shall implement necessary corrective action to prevent recurrence for design failures which suppliers
actually encountered in the past through both Mazda and the other OEMs similar product and technology.
-CFT shall verify all design output obtained from “APQP Phase 1” is appropriate.
-After sharing key design output in APQP Phase 1 such as “Significant Characteristics” or “Requirements
for Process Assurance”, suppliers shall establish Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan
which satisfy the key design outputs identified.
At APQP Phase 2, in order to realize stable product quality at the same time of the production, suppliers
shall develop process parameters which have enough Safety Margins to assure product quality. Thus,
suppliers shall achieve superior production process and Quality Control which is capable of product
quality and which process assurance degree is high. (=Robust Production Process Readiness)
-Suppliers shall implements necessary preventive actions to eliminate potential process failures associated
with new production technology, new method and/or process changes that are different from base
production process. Suppliers shall implement necessary corrective action to prevent recurrence for
process failures which the suppliers have actually encountered in the past through both Mazda and the
other OEMs similar product and technology.
-CFT shall verify all production process readiness outputs obtained from “APQP Phase 2” is appropriate.
-After completion of “APQP Phases 1 and 2”, Suppliers shall verify that the production process capability
meets requirements with high process assurance level. (=Product and Production Quality Verification).
The verification is to be based on GENBA, GENBUTSU, and GENJITSU.
-CFT shall confirm that “APQP Phases 1, 2, and 3 Elements” are completed without any concerns, and
that the mass production processes and Quality Controls are established to move on “APQP Phase 4”.
Thus, suppliers submit PSD to Mazda.
-After PSD is approved, the use of SPC (Statistical Process Control) shall be implemented to assure that
the product quality is stable at mass production and that product quality variation is within acceptable
range. This intends to ensure the process capability at the initial mass production stage is maintained as
verified at “APQP Phase 3”.
3.3.1 (3) APQP Phase Control
Suppliers shall implement phase control at each “APQP Phases” to ensure that applicable “APQP
Elements” are completed as planned. CFT members including senior management of suppliers shall
review the completion status and pending problems of each activity and shall keep records after
determining propriety to move onto the next phase in APQP Phase Control.
3.3.2 Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP)
3.3.2 (1) APQP Elements
Table 2 shows “APQP Elements” and reference numbers of corresponding requirements associated to
each APQP Element. Suppliers shall draw up all applicable “APQP Elements” in APQP and shall
implement them in accordance with the corresponding requirements, regardless if required by Mazda.
(Refer to “3.3.4.Submission”)
20
Table 2: List of APQP Elements
Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP)
APQP Mazda Mazda Joint Event
APQP Elements Requirements
Phase Milestones
1 Design-in (1) Sourcing Decision N/A
(2) Mazda Input Requirements A-1
(3) APQP Draw up A-2 APQP Review mtg
(4) Concept Design Review A-3
(5) Functionality Development A-4
(6) Design FMEA A-5
(7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design) A-6 M1 Parts Audit
(8) Design Verification Test A-7
(9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Design) A-8
(10) Significant Characteristics A-9
FD (11) Specific Design Review A-3 Joint DR
(12) Design Drawings Release N/A
(13) Subcontractor APQP Status Control A-10
(14) Tooling A-11
DCV (15) DCV Parts Inspection A-12
2 (16) DCV Parts Examination A-13 DCV QC mtg
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan A-14
(18) Process FMEA A-15
(19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness A-11 DCV Pro. Audit
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Production) A-6
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Production) A-8
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan A-16
(23) Process Parameters Setting A-17
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development A-18
(25) Measurement System Evaluation A-19
(26) Control Plan A-16
(27) Operator Work Instructions A-20
(28) Packaging Specifications A-21
TT (29) Production Validation Test A-7
(30) Process Capability Study A-22
(31) TT Parts Inspection A-12
(32) TT Parts Examination A-13 TT QC mtg
3 (33) Acceptance Samples A-23
PP (34) PP Parts Inspection A-12
(35) Process Assurance Assessment A-24 PP QC mtg
(36) Mass Production Trial Run A-25 MP Trial Run/Audit
(37) Initial Mass Production Parts Inspection A-12
(38) Part Submission Declaration A-26
4 MP (39) Initial Mass Production Intensive Control A-27
6 months (40) Lessons Learned A-28
3.3.2 (2) Linkage of APQP Elements

The following charts show key linkage between APQP Elements. Thus, the linkage is not limited, but
suppliers should adapt supplemental linkage according to internal APQP framework if needed.
21
Start Main Stream

Key Feedback
◆Design-in
(1) Sourcing Decision
(2) Mazda Input Requirements
Data base of
Past Concerns (3) APQP Draw up
(7) Past Concerns (4) Concept Design Review

Recurrence
Prevention
(Design) (9) Risk Assessment
(5) Functionality Development
for New/Changed
(Design)
(6) Design FMEA
(8) Design Verification Test A3
A1
1. (10) Significant Characteristics
(11) Specific Design Review
◆FD
(12) Design Drawings Release
(13) Subcontractor
(14) Tooling APQP Status
lA1
Control
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development (DCV)
(15) DCV Parts Inspection (16) DCV Parts Examination
◆DCV
A2
22
Development of production A1
◆FD A3 Data base of
engineering Past Concerns
(21) Risk
Assessment for
New/Changed
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and (20) Past
(Production)
Concept Control Plan Concerns
Recurrence
Prevention
(18) Process FMEA (Production)
A2
(19) Facilities, Jigs, and

◆DCV Inspection Gages Readiness
(25)
(24) Preliminary Measurement
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan System
Production Trial Run and
Development Evaluation
(DCV)
(23) Process Parameters Setting
(33) Acceptance
Samples
(26) Control Plan
(28)
Packaging
Specifications
(27) Operator Work Instructions
(24) Preliminary (35) Process Assurance Assessment

Production Trial Run (TT)
and Development
(TT)
(29) Production Validation Test

(13) Subcontractor
(30) Process Capability Study APQP Status Control
(32) TT Parts (31) TT Parts

Examination Inspection
s◆TT
B
23
B
◆PP
(36) Mass Production Trial Run (35) Process Assurance

Assessment (PP)
(30) Process Capability Study

(13) Subcontractor
(34) PP Parts Inspection APQP Status
Control
(37) Initial Mass Production A1 A2

Parts Inspection
(38) Part Submission Declaration

◆MP
C
◆MP C
(39) Initial Mass Production Intensive Control
A1 A2 B
◆6 months after SOP (40) Lessons Learned
End
24
3.3.3 Significant Parts
3.3.3 (1) Definition of Significant Parts
“Significant Parts” are designated by Mazda based on consideration of quality risks associated with new
technology, new architecture, changes from the base product, importance of recurrence prevention and
current quality performance. “Lv.3” of the Submission Level is applied to “Significant Parts”. (Refer to
“3.3.4 (1) Submission Level”)
3.3.3 (2) Designation of Significant Parts
After determination of “Significant Parts” at each vehicle program, Mazda informs the designated
suppliers of the “Significant Parts” by sending a documented letter. Afterwards, Mazda will initiate the
first meeting with the designated suppliers for the purpose of kick off.
3.3.3 (3) Mazda Joint Events
Mazda applies Mazda Joint Events to “Significant Parts” to verify the APQP status and output from
individual APQP Elements. Table 3 shows the default framework of Mazda Joint Even”. Suppliers shall
incorporate the applicable Mazda Joint Events into the APQP after agreement.
Basically Mazda takes initiative for necessary arrangements toward Mazda Joint Events such as to
propose a meeting date, to clarify which APQP Elements are to be reviewed.
Table 3: Mazda Joint Events and implementation timing at APQP Phase

NO. Mazda Joint Events APQP Phase
1 APQP Review meeting Phase 1
2 M1 Parts Audit Phase 1
3 Joint Design Review Phase 1
4 DCV Quality Confirmation meeting Phase 1 or 2
5 DCV Production Audit Phase 1 or 2
6 TT Quality Confirmation meeting Phase 2
7 PP Quality Confirmation meeting Phase 2 or 3
8 Mass Production Trial Run and Audit Phase 3
3.3.4 Submission
3.3.4 (1) Submission Level
“Submission Level” defines a package of documents from APQP Elements. Suppliers shall submit the
required document to Mazda in accordance with “Submission Level”. Table 4 shows application and
definition toward each submission level. Suppliers shall apply “Lv.2” in principle, while suppliers shall
apply “Lv.3” for “Significant Parts” designated by Mazda.
Suppliers shall draw up all applicable APQP Elements and implement them in accordance with the
corresponding requirements, regardless of necessity of submitting evidential documents to Mazda.
Table 4: Definition of Submission Level

Submission Level Application Definition
Lv.1 Minor Changed Parts that have only minor changes. Controls set by supplier.
Parts
Lv.2 General Newly Newly developed parts not determined as significant by
Developed Parts Mazda, the controls set by supplier.
Lv.3 Significant Parts Parts that have quality risks in association with
New/Changed or Past Concerns. Need to be focused by
Mazda.
25
3.3.4 (2) Deliverables
Suppliers shall document output of “APQP Elements”. The submission to Mazda shall be in accordance
with the column of “Submission Level” in Table 5 (Refer to the following legend).
Table 5: Submission Deliverables from APQP

Submission Level
APQP Elements Requirements
Lv.1 Lv.2 Lv.3
(1) Sourcing Decision N/A N N N
(2) Mazda Input Requirements A-1 N N N
(3) APQP Draw up A-2 Y Y Y
(4) Concept Design Review A-3 N N N
(5) Functionality Development A-4 N N N
(6) Design FMEA A-5 N N Y
(7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design) A-6 N N Y
(8) Design Verification Test A-7 N N Y
(9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Design) A-8 Y Y Y
(10) Significant Characteristics A-9 N Y Y
(11) Specific Design Review A-3 N N N
(12) Design Drawings Release N/A N N N
(13) Subcontractor APQP Status Control A-10 N N N
(14) Tooling A-11 N N N
(15) DCV Parts Inspection A-12 Y Y Y
(16) DCV Parts Examination A-13 N N Y
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan A-14 N N N
(18) Process FMEA A-15 N N Y
(19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness A-11 N N N
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Production) A-6 N N Y
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Production) A-8 Y Y Y
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan A-16 N N N
(23) Process Parameters Setting A-17 N N Y
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development A-18 N N Y
(25) Measurement System Evaluation A-19 N N Y
(26) Control Plan(*1) A-16 N(*1) N(1*) Y
(27) Operator Work Instructions(*1) A-20 N(*1) N(*1) N(*1)
(28) Packaging Specifications A-21 Y Y Y
(29) Production Validation Test(*1) A-7 N(*1) Y Y
(30) Process Capability Study A-22 N N Y
(31) TT Parts Inspection A-12 Y Y Y
(32) TT Parts Examination A-13 N N Y
(33) Acceptance Samples A-23 Y Y Y
(34) PP Parts Inspection A-12 Y Y Y
(35) Process Assurance Assessment A-24 N N Y
(36) Mass Production Trial Run A-25 N N Y
(37) Initial Mass Production Parts Inspection(*1) A-12 N(*1) Y Y
(38) Part Submission Declaration A-26 Y Y Y
(39) Initial Mass Production Intensive Control A-27 N N Y
(40) Lessons Learned A-28 N N N
NOTES1;
(*1) Target parts/inspection characteristic to be controlled in “Assurance Item List for System
Inspection” which is stipulated in Chapter 2-General Requirement “2.7 Inspection management
for security components” shall be submitted regardless of submission level.
26
NOTES2;
Legend symbol in the column of “Submission Level”;
Y = Submission is required. In case of “Lv.3”, suppliers shall submit documents through “Mazda
Joint Events”.
N = Submission is not required as default. Suppliers shall submit documents when Mazda
requires.
27
3.3.5 Specific Requirements for APQP Elements
3.3.5 A-1. APQP Element; “Mazda Input Requirements”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for APQP Element “Mazda Input Requirements”. The
purpose of this Element is to ensure that suppliers fully understand Mazda’s design requirements,
expectations and other applicable requirements before implementing design and development activities.
2. Linkage of APQP Elements
Table 1 shows other key APQP Elements that are linked with this APQP Element.
Table 1: Linkage of APQP Elements

Linkage from Linkage to
(1) Sourcing Decision (3) APQP Draw up
(4) Concept Design Review
(7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design)
3. Requirements
3.1 Collection of “Mazda Input Requirements”
-Immediately after getting the sourcing decision from Mazda, suppliers shall start collecting Mazda’s
design requirements and the other applicable requirements according to Table 2.
-The collected “Mazda Input Requirements” should be documented for the purpose of confirming that
suppliers’ understanding is clarified through communication with Mazda.
-Whenever suppliers find any unclear or ambiguous contents concerning Mazda's design specifications or
any related requirements, suppliers are to discuss with the responsible Mazda Design Gr. and attain full
understanding.
Table 2: Mazda Input Requirements to be collected and Scope

NO. Mazda Input Requirements to be collected Scope Reference
1 All requirements in Chapter 3 excluding “3.3.6 All new products Chapter 3
Specific Requirements for Particular Elements”
2 Commodity definitive Engine Management B-1
requirements; System
For Engine Management System
Commodity definitive All Body plates and fit and B-2
“3.3.6 requirements; finish products
Specific for body plates and fit and finish
Requirements parts
for Particular Quality Equivalence Verification New products that are B-3
Elements” launched at the different
manufacturing location
from the current location
producing the base, similar
or family products.
3 Design requirements All new products Specifications
(Regulations, functionality targets, reliability (Design
targets, dimensional requirements) Drawings)
3.2 Common Understandings among CFT

Suppliers shall share the collected “Mazda Input Requirements” with CFT through internal meetings.
Common understandings among CFT members shall be confirmed at that point in time “APQP draw up”,
“Concept Design”, and “Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design)” shall be started.
4. Form for submission to Mazda
Not applicable.
28
3.3.5 A-2. APQP Element; “APQP Draw up”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Elements “APQP Draw up”. The purpose of
this Element is to ensure that APQP draw up is taken for all necessary APQP Elements and controls
smooth APQP implementation.

(1) Sourcing Decision (4) Concept Design Review
(2) Mazda Input Requirements
3. Requirements
3.1 CFT (Cross Functional Team)
-Immediately after getting the sourcing decision from Mazda, suppliers shall form CFT (Cross Functional
Team) organizing specialists from design and development, production readiness and mass production.
3.2 Draw up APQP
Suppliers shall draw up APQP which includes contents required in Table 2.
Table 2: Requirements at APQP draw up

NO. Contents Requirements at APQP draw up
1 General Supplier name, targeted product name, part number, and CFT members.
Information
2 APQP Elements All APQP Elements shown in “3.3.2. (1) APQP Elements (Table 2)” in
the Chapter 3.
Additional APQP Element required if Mazda specifies one.
3 Plan and Each APQP Element shall show plans, action required, implementation
Implementation timing with start and end dates.
4 Responsibility A responsible team and /or personnel responsible for each Element.
5 Status A column for status indication referring to Table 3.
3.3 APQP Status Control and Recovery

-Suppliers shall assign a control tower for APQP status. The control tower shall track the APQP status on
daily basis and assure each APQP Element is implemented as planned. At each APQP Phases as a
minimum, CFT and senior management shall confirm that all APQP Elements are implemented on track.
-Once R and Y are identified (Refer to Table 3), CFT shall share the status and immediately determine
necessary recovery actions. The actions shall be approved by the responsible management.
Table 3: Definition of APQP status

Symbol Color Definition
R Red The APQP Element does not fulfill the plan without any recovery actions.
Y Yellow There is a possible risk not to fulfill the plan, but necessary recovery
actions are determined.
G Green The APQP Element is being implemented on track.
Completed White The APQP Element has been completed without any concerns remained.
29
The designated form “APQP and Status Report” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier
internal form is acceptable if all the requirements specified in this document are fulfilled.
(Note) 1. Write down the submission date of Parts Submission Declaration.

2. Submission may be necessary even for design changes / production method changes.
Therefore, see “3.3.5 A-26 APQP Element; “Part Submission Declaration (PSD)””
30
3.3.5 A-3. APQP Element; “Design Review”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Design Review”. The purpose of
this Element is to ensure that output of design and development activities is verified and suppliers
effectively transfer important design information and technical knowledge to the following APQP
Elements.

Stage Linkage from Linkage to
(4)Concept (2)Mazda Input Requirements (5) Functionality Development
Design (3)APQP Draw up (9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed
Review (7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design)
(Design)
(9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed
(Design)
(11)Specific (6) Design FMEA (12)Design Drawings Release
Design (7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (14)Tooling
Review (Design) (17) Manufacturing Process Design and
(9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed Concept Control Plan
(Design)
(8) Design Verification Test
(10) Significant Characteristics
3. Procedures
3.1 General
-Suppliers as a minimum shall conduct a Concept Design Review and a Specific Design Review.
-Scope of the Design Review shall not be limited to verifying outputs from Design and Development, but
in a broader sense the entire APQP process. Suppliers should regard the Design Review as an opportunity
to effectively transfer design output, important information and technical knowledge to applicable APQP
Elements.
-The Design Review shall be conducted as needed as required.
-When a design requirement is changed, additional Design Review shall be conducted.
-CFT shall be involved into those Design Reviews or responsible alternate.
-Supplier responsible person shall issue meeting minutes after each Design Review and share the result
with CFT for common understanding. The minutes should record the result of discussion in accordance
with items required in “3.2” or “3.3”.
3.2 Discussion Items at the Concept Design Review
The Concept Design Review shall include the following discussion items.
-Mazda’s design requirements are understood and converted into supplier internal design requirements
and establish development activities and clear targets for measuring and assuring product functionality.
-Concept design drawings and/or design models are feasible to realize Mazda’s design requirements.
-Necessary preventive actions are verified to eliminate potential design failures that are associated with
new technology, new architecture and/or design change from a base product.
-Necessary corrective actions are verified to prevent recurrence for design failures which suppliers
actually encountered in the past through both Mazda and the other OEMs similar product and technology.
-Status of APQP Elements is entirely on track.
-There is no critical concern for product readiness. All identified concerns are tracked in a visible
document where also recovery actions are to be incorporated.
31
3.3 Discussion Items at the Specific Design Review
The Specific Design Review shall include the following discussion items.
-Mazda’s latest design requirements are well kept and all specific design requirements are put into design
drawings.
-Key output from Design and Development activities is to be verified by CFT.
-Necessary preventive actions to eliminate potential design failures that are associated with new
technology, new architecture and/or design change from a base product are captured into necessary design
drawings.
-Necessary corrective actions to prevent recurrence for design failures which suppliers actually
encountered in the past through both Mazda and the other OEMs similar product and technology are kept
into design drawings.
-”Significant Characteristics” are defined on design drawings.
-Important design output through “APQP Phase1” such as “Significant Characteristics” and
“Requirements for Production Control” is clarified and correctly transferred to production readiness.
-Status of APQP Elements is entirely on track.
-There is no critical concern for product readiness. All identified concerns are tracked in a visible
document where also recovery actions are to be incorporated.
A form for this APQP Element is not specified.
32
3.3.5 A-4. APQP Element; “Functionality Development”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Functionality Development”.
(Called as Optimization Design and Parametric Design) The purpose of this Element is to realize robust
product design that functionalities do not fluctuate under any market circumstances or any varied vehicle
usage of end customers.

(2) Mazda Input Requirements (6) Design FMEA
(4) Concept Design Review (8) Design Verification Test
(7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design) (10) Significant Characteristics
(9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Design) (11) Specific Design Review
3. Requirements
3.1 Scope of “Functionality Development”
“Functionality Development” shall be applied to the functionality of No.1 in Table 2 if required by Mazda.
Suppliers should consider numbers (No.2, No.3 and No.4) as well.
Table 2: Scope of Functionality Development

NO. Scope of Functionality Development
1 Product functionalities agreed with Mazda as joint development
2 Critical product functionalities converted from Mazda design requirements
3 Product functionalities associated with new technology, new architecture, where technical road
blocks may exist.
4 Fragile product functionalities that are causing chronic warranty claims and 0km claims
including claims which root-cause has not been identified.
3.2 Implementing Procedure
3.2.1 Target setting for Product Functionality
-Establish concept design drawings and/or design models that are feasible to meet Mazda design
requirements and to realize robust product design for ensuring functionalities over the vehicle life time
with stable product quality in all-market circumstances or in any vehicle usage by end customers.
-Define necessary product functionalities to affect the design requirement, and determine a technical
target for the product functionalities that promotes product design activities.
3.2.2 Clarification of Control/Uncontrolled Factors and Stability Assessment
-Define control factors and uncontrolled factors for the product functionalities and implement stability
assessment.
Clarify highly effective control factors are identified by utilizing statistical design approaches such as
Quality Engineering.
3.2.3 Determination of Allowable Quality Limit
-Allowable quality limit for highly effective control factors toward the technical targets are studied by
shifting those factors as a design parameter.
-Define appropriate Safety Margins which is adequate to cancel effects of the uncontrolled factors and to
achieve the technical targets for the product functionalities.
The highly effective control factors with those Safety Margins are converted into design specifications
and into prototype design drawings.
33
3.2.4 Design Validation
-Conduct “Design Validation Test” by testing prototype samples, which are produced according to the
prototype design drawings, and verify that the product functionalities satisfy the technical target.
3.2.5 Specification and Design Drawings
-After the Design Validation is passed, the design specifications are fixed into design drawings of mass
production.
-In specific, design specifications in association with the highly effective control factors are regarded as
“Significant Characteristics”. In the drawings, “Significant Characteristics” shall be clearly identified
with a special symbol according to suppliers’ internal procedure.
-Output from “Functionality Development” and “Significant Characteristics” is shared with CFT through
internal meetings such as “Specific Design Review”.
Any Forms or documents are acceptable if all requirements in this document are fulfilled.
34
3.3.5 A-5. APQP Element; “Design FMEA”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Design FMEA”. The purpose of
this Element is to predict potential failures caused by product design, and to take necessary preventive
actions to reduce risks of the potential failures.

(4) Concept Design Review (5) Functionality Development
(5) Functionality Development (8) Design Verification Test
(7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design) (10) Significant Characteristics
(9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Design) (11) Specific Design Review
(18) Process FMEA
3. Requirements
-Suppliers shall implement Design FMEA according to requirements in this document. “Reference
Procedure of Design FMEA” in QRS SECTION 2 can be referred.
3.1 General
-Design FMEA shall start from the stage of Concept Design.
-Scope of Design FMEA shall include component level.
-Design FMEA shall be updated at all times Design Change is planned.
3.2 Prediction of Failure Modes
-Suppliers shall predict all the potential failure modes caused by the current product design.
-The failure modes in association with Past Concerns and “Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Design)”
shall be added.
3.3 Risk Assessment (S: Severity / O: Occurrence / D: Detection)
-For “Severity”, applicable rank is reviewed by assessing how the potential failure mode impacts/affects
assembly and/or system.
-For “Occurrence”, applicable rank is reviewed by assessing how often the cause of potential failure
occurs based on the current design control.
-For “Detection”, applicable rank is reviewed by assessing how the potential failure mode is detectable
based on the current design control.
NOTE;
*Suppliers can define appropriate rank for each risk assessment (S / O / D). Table 1 to 3 in
“Implementing Procedure; Design FMEA” can be referred.
3.4 RPN and Preventive Action

-Suppliers shall determine the targeted RPN (Risk Priority Number) and take necessary preventive actions
toward RPN higher than the target. Suppliers shall consider the necessity of preventive actions by
reviewing not only RPN but also independent Severity.
3.5 Realization of Design Control

-All design control including the preventive actions shall be reflected into the following APQP Elements.
(5) Functionality Development; design control is realized into design model or concept design.
(8) Design Verification Test; necessary tests to detect the potential failures are incorporated.
(10) Significant Characteristics; design control, in especial, required for higher RPN, higher
Severity, particular failure modes in association with New/Changed or Past Concerns are
35
converted into Significant Characteristics.
(18) Process FMEA; In case Process Control is used to reduce RPN, the Process Control is
reflected into Process FMEA.
3.6 Validation of Effectiveness at Specific Design Review
At Specific Design Review, CFT shall validate effectiveness as expected on both Design FMEA and
output of reflected APQP Elements. CFT shall also confirm there is no critical negative effect.
Suppliers shall use the special forms if required by Mazda Design Dept. If not, the designated form
“Design FMEA Work Sheet” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier internal form is
acceptable if all the requirements in this document are fulfilled.
36
3.3.5 A-6. APQP Element; “Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Past Concerns Recurrence
Prevention”. The purpose of this Element is to prevent recurrence for design and process failures from
both Mazda and the other OEMs that were actually encountered in the past (hereinafter called “Past
Concerns”) and to take necessary corrective actions at stage of design and development and production
readiness.

Design and (2) Mazda Input Requirements (4) Concept Design Review
Development (5) Functionality Development
Supplemental; (8) Design Verification Test
Supplier’s Database of Past (11) Specific Design Review
Concerns
Production (12) Design Drawings Release (17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept
Readiness Control Plan
Supplemental; (18) Process FMEA
Supplier’s Database of Past (19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges
Concerns Readiness
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan
(35) Process Assurance Assessment
3. Requirements
3.1 Applicable Past Concerns
After implementing “Mazda Input Requirements”, suppliers shall collect applicable Past Concerns
according to Table 2, and implement Recurrence Prevention according to “3.1.” and “3.2.”.
Table 2: Applicable Past Concerns for Recurrence Prevention

NO. Applicable Past Concerns Initiative
1 Concerns with Rework Action taken, Warranty Claims, 0km-Claims within Suppliers
supplier’s responsibility that occurred on base products, similar products and
technologies for Mazda businesses.
2 Concerns with Rework Action taken, Warranty Claims, 0km-Claims within Suppliers
supplier’s responsibility that occurred on base products, similar products and
technologies for the other OEMs.
3 Chronic Warranty Claims and 0km-Claims including claims which Suppliers
root-cause has not been identified.
4 Concerns with Rework Action taken, Warranty Claims, 0km-Claims that Mazda
Mazda encountered though the other suppliers’ businesses. (*1)
NOTE;
(*1) Mazda provides necessary information about the Past Concerns by sending the designated
form.
3.2 Recurrence Prevention at Design and Development
-From the beginning of Concept Design, suppliers shall take necessary corrective actions into relevant
design activities such as ”Functionality Development”, “Specific Design”, “Design FMEA”.
-The corrective actions shall be converted into design drawings, where the key design requirements are
regarded as “Significant Characteristics”.
-CFT shall verify that corrective actions taken are appropriate through “Concept Design Review”,
37
“Specific Design Review”.
3.3 Prevention at Production Readiness
-From the beginning of “Manufacturing Process Design and Quality Control Concept”, suppliers shall
take necessary corrective actions into relevant production readiness activities such as ”Process FMEA”,
“Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness” and “Pre-Launch Control Plan”.
-CFT shall verify the corrective actions taken by implementing “Process Assurance Assessment”. The
assessment shall be implemented in front of production process while a trial production.
The designated form “Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention Sheet” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used.
The supplier internal form is acceptable if all the requirements in this document are fulfilled.
38
3.3.5 A-7. APQP Element; “Design and Production Validation Test”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Validation Test (*1)”. The purpose
of this Element is to promote effective tests for “Design Validation Test” and “Production Validation Test”
and to ensure that those tests are implemented as planned.
NOTE;
(*1) “Validation Test” intends to manage necessary tests that specifically require long duration
such as reliability tests, and that are forced to use only small sample size due to destructive tests.

Design (5) Functionality Development (10) Significant Characteristics
(6) Design FMEA (11) Specific Design Review
Production (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and (38) Part Submission Declaration
Readiness Development
(36) Mass Production Trial Run
3. Requirements
3.1 Design Validation Test
-According to “Mazda Input Requirements”, suppliers shall determine all necessary tests for “Design
Validation Test” to be implemented during “APQP Phase 1”. The test plan should be agreed with Mazda
Design Dept.
-As design requirements are possibly updated and/or added through Design and Development activities,
suppliers should well communicate with Mazda Design Dept. in order to comprehend necessary test items
and test conditions.
3.2 Product Validation Test
-Test items at Product Validation Test are basically the same as the test items determined as Design
Validation Test.
-Product Validation Test shall be implemented by use of mass product equivalents, after all Mass
Production Tools, Facilities, Jigs, Inspection Gauges are fixed, Control Plans and Work Instructions are
completed.
-In case a design change or a process change needs to be conducted, affected Validation tests shall be
implemented again by use of the latest product after the change is done.
-Suppliers should communicate well with Mazda Quality Dept. in order to fully understand Mazda
expectations, necessary test items and test conditions.
3.3 Expectations in terms of Validation Test
-If possible, the test cycle for Validation Test should be continued until the test sample is failed or its
functionalities are completely lost (= Reliability Limit) even though the targeted test cycle is passed. As
Reliability Limit provides data in the quantified value, there are merits that the supplier can review the
obtained data to see a Safety Margins and/or variation against the design specification.
The reason for this expectation is that, the sample size for a kind of Validation Test tends to be smaller
than the other tests such as performance tests or dimensional inspections. Therefore, product variation is
not accurate or cannot be calculated due to the small sample size.
-Test samples used at Validation Test should be retained in the initial 6 months after the start of mass
production. The test samples are to be utilized as a reference when a quality concern occurs.
Any forms are acceptable for Validation Test plan and report. The form specified in “A-12 Parts
Inspection” can be referred.
39
3.3.5 A-8. APQP Element; “Risk Assessment for New/Changed”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Risk Assessment for
New/Changed”. The purpose of this Element is to eliminate the potential failures in association with New
and Changes existing in the product design and manufacturing process.

Design and (2) Mazda Input Requirements (5) Functionality Development
Development (4) Concept Design Review (6) Design FMEA
(5) Functionality Development (8) Design Verification Test
(11) Specific Design Review
(15) DCV Parts Inspection
(16) DCV Parts Examination
Production (17) Manufacturing Process (10) Significant Characteristics
Readiness Design and Concept Control (17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept
Plan Control Plan
(18) Process FMEA
(19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges
Readiness
(23) Process Parameters Setting
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and
Development
(25) Measurement System Evaluation
(26) Control Plan
3. Requirements
-Suppliers shall implement “Risk Assessment for New/Changed” according to “3.1 Implementing
Procedure at Design and Development” and “3.2 Implementing Procedure at Production Readiness”. (For
an overview of this APQP Element, refer to Fig.1.)
-This APQP Element shall be repeated at all-time any design changes, process changes or subcontractor
changes occur.
40
Fig.1: Overview of “Risk Assessment for New/Changed”
Linkage from
(Design and Development) (Production Readiness)
-Mazda Input Requirements -Manufacturing Process Design
-Concept Design Review and Concept Control Plan
-Functionality Development
1. Clarification of 2. Risk Assessment and 3. Validation of

New/Changed Preventive Actions Preventive Actions
New Base (Design and Development)

Comparison
Parts Parts Design FMEA
Preventive Actions reflected in;
Clarification
-Functionality Development -Design Verification Test
-Significant Characteristics -DCV Parts Inspection
New/Changed? -Specific Design Review -DCV Parts Examination
(Design and
Development)
-Mechanism and Components
(Production Readiness)
-Materials
-Specifications Process FMEA
(Production Readiness) Preventive Actions reflected in;
-Manufacturing Location
-Manufacturing System -Significant Characteristics
-Preliminary Production
-Production Methods / -Manufacturing Process Design
Trial Run and Development
Techniques and Concept Control Plan
-Quality Control & Inspection -Production Validation Test
-Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection
Techniques -Process Assurance
Gauges Readiness
Assessment
-Control Plan
-Process Parameters Setting
-Operator Work Instructions
-Measurement System Evaluation
Linkage to
41
3.1 Implementing Procedure at Design and Development
-This Element at design and development shall be conducted from the beginning of Concept Design
according to this Implementing Procedure.
3.1.1 Clarification of New/Changed in Association with Product Design
-The base product for the product design is defined as a target for comparison. After collecting necessary
design information that enables suppliers to technically compare the new product to the base one, all new
and changed factors both in the assembly and the component level are clarified according to the guideline
of Table2. It is important to check design intention once identifying new and changed factors.
NOTE;
-To ensure accurate design information, it is collected through the corresponding APQP Elements
“Mazda Input Requirements”, “Design Reviews”, or “Functionality Development”.
Table 2: Procedure for clarification of New/Changed in Association with Product Design

Items to Compare Procedure
Mechanism and Compare mechanism of the product and its components from design
Components perspective, and clarify all new and change factors from the base product.
Materials Compare materials used in the product, and clarify all new and changed
factors from the base product including ones used for inexperienced purposes.
Specifications Compare design specifications and Mazda design requirement, and clarify all
new and changed factors from the base product. Regardless of the same
purpose of design specification, it is regarded as a changed factor if the design
specification has nominal or tolerance values bit experienced before.
3.1.2 Risk Assessment and Preventive Actions

Possible failures predicted from the clarified new and changes factors are incorporated into “Design
FMEA”, and necessity of preventive actions are to be discussed at suppliers. Necessary preventive actions
are reflected into the following APQP Elements.
- “Functionality Development”; a preventive action related to product design is reflected into the
design concept or the design model.
- “Significant Characteristics”; a preventive action that requires Process Control is converted into
design specifications as “Significant Characteristics” in order to motivate realization of robust
Quality Control during the production readiness.
- “Specific Design Review”; the result of the risk assessment with the corresponding preventive
actions are verified by CFT.
3.1.3 Validation of Preventive Actions
Appropriate validation activities for the taken preventive actions are implemented through measuring the
product quality or examining the actual parts in the relevant APQP Elements “Design Validation Test”,
“DCV Parts Inspection”, “DCV Parts Examination”.
3.2 Implementing Procedure at Production Readiness
In addition to implementing the design and development, this Element at production readiness shall be
conducted from the beginning of “Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan” according to
this Implementing Procedure.
3.2.1 Clarification of New/Changed in Association with Manufacturing Process
After collecting necessary manufacturing process’s information that enables suppliers to technically
compare the new product to the base one, all new and changed factors both in the assembly and the
component level are clarified according to the guideline of Table3. It is important to check process
intentions once identifying new and changed factors.
42
Table 3: Procedure for clarification of New/Changed in Association with Manufacturing Process
Items to Compare Procedure
Manufacturing Compare manufacturing location, and clarify all new and changed factors
Location from the base product.
Manufacturing System Compare manufacturing system, and clarify all new and changed factors. This
item includes to see, for instance, difference of production line concept
(manual line or automated), process flow (including process order),
manufacturing circumstance (clean room concept or not).
Production Methods Compare single production methods and techniques, and clarify all new and
and Techniques changed factors. Regardless of experience at the other commodities, it is
regarded as a changed factor if the production methods and techniques are
used for a new purpose.
Quality Control and Compare Quality Control and single inspection techniques, and clarify all new
Inspection Techniques and changed factors.
3.2.2 Risk Assessment and Preventive Actions

Possible failures predicted from the identified new and change factors are incorporated into “Process
FMEA”, and necessity of preventive actions is to be discussed at suppliers. Necessary preventive actions
are reflected into the following APQP Elements.
- “Significant Characteristics”; a preventive action that requires critical Process Control is

converted into “Significant Characteristics”.
- “Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan”; applicable preventive actions are
reflected into the Manufacturing Process Design or Concept Control Plan.
- “Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness”; applicable preventive actions are realized on
tooling activities.
- “Control Plan”; a preventive action that requires Quality Control is reflected as a Control Item in
Control Plan.
- “Process Parameters Setting” a preventive action that requires product quality built in by
controlling process parameters is incorporated into Verification of Process Parameters.
- “Operator Work Instructions”; a preventive action that requires operators’ skills is reflected in
Work Instructions, and requires necessary training is implemented.
- “Measurement System Evaluation”; a preventive action that requires special inspection gauges is
incorporated into Measurement System Evaluation.
3.2.3 Validation of Preventive Actions
Appropriate validation activities for the taken preventive actions are implemented through measuring the
product quality or confirming realization of the actions in the relevant APQP Elements “Preliminary
Production Trial Run and Development”, “Production Validation Test”, “Process Assurance Assessment”.
-For the requirement “Clarification of New/Changed”, the designated form “Survey on New/Changed” in
QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
-For the other requirements of “Risk Assessment and Preventive Actions” and “Validation of Preventive
Actions”, suppliers shall use the designated forms required in the corresponding APQP Elements.
43
3.3.5 A-9. APQP Element; “Significant Characteristics”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Significant Characteristics”. The
purpose of this Element is to clarify Significant Characteristics in Design Drawings, and to ensure that
necessary verification activities in the following APQP Elements are in place.

(5) Functionality Development (11) Specific Design Review
(6) Design FMEA (12) Design Drawings Release
(7) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Design)
(9) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Design)
3. Requirements
3.1 Clarification of Significant Characteristics
-Through the relevant APQP Elements, suppliers’ design and development shall clarify “Significant
Characteristics” including the ones required as Mazda design specifications. Definition of “Significant
Characteristics” shall be in accordance with Table 2. The clarified “Significant Characteristics” shall be
listed into “Significant Characteristic List and Evaluation Sheet” referring to QRS SECTION 2.
-At the Specific Design Review, suppliers’ design and development shall justify that all Significant
Characteristics are comprehensively listed.
-The clarified Significant Characteristics shall be reflected into all levels of Design Drawings such as
assembly drawings, machining drawings, component drawing, and material drawings. The Design
Drawings shall have special identification on each Significant Characteristics according to suppliers’
internal procedures.
-The clarified Significant Characteristics shall be listed into the designated form “Significant
Characteristics Follow Up Sheet” by Design Drawings Release.
NOTE;
-“Significant Characteristics” are to be clarified at the supplier more extensively than the ones
required by Mazda because of full coverage detail design of the assembly, machining, components
and/or materials.
Table 2: General Definition of “Significant Characteristics”

NO. Category General Definition
1 Safety Characteristics which if failed, will be the cause for malfunction of
vehicle and may cause accidents such as collision/fire or any defects
which could harm the driver/passenger in anyway.
Characteristics which would lead to some sort of precursory signs
(phenomenon) may not apply.
2 Regulations Characteristics which if failed, will be the cause for a defect that violates
the government regulations for safety, environment.
3 Product Value Characteristics which if failed, will be the cause for a defect which would
significantly reduce the product value of vehicle/part and ruin the
reputation of Mazda brand.
-Important vehicle functionalities
-Potential failures associated with New/Changed
-Potential failures associated with Past Concerns
44
Fig.1: Position of “Significant Characteristics from supplier detail design specifications
“Significant Characteristics”
from Mazda design specifications
1. Safety 2. Regulations 3. Product Value
A Rank Mazda designated characteristics

AR Rank
(by Significant Characteristics
(Drawing/MES) (Drawing/MES)
Follow Up Sheet)
“Significant Characteristics”
from supplier detail design specifications
1. Safety 2. Regulations 3. Product Value
-Supplier detail design drawings

-Significant Characteristics Follow Up Sheet
3.2 Verification for Significant Characteristics

-According to APQP, suppliers shall implement the relevant APQP Elements listed in Table 3 to
“Significant Characteristics”.
-The result of relevant APQP Elements shall be reported in the designated form “Significant
Characteristics Follow Up Sheet”. Updates of the sheet shall be done and controlled at each build event
according to Mazda milestones.
-Whenever a quality problem in MP/Production readiness phase, review Significant Characteristics
accordingly.
Table 3: Key relevant APQP Elements to “Significant Characteristics”

Key relevant APQP Elements to “Significant Characteristics” Requirements Timing to update
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control A-14 Design Drawings
Plan Release
(18) Process FMEA A-15 N/A
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan A-16 DCV
(15) DCV Parts Inspection A-12 DCV
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development A-18 TT
(26) Control Plan A-16 TT
(30) Process Capability Study A-22 At each build event
(DCV/TT/PP)
(31) TT Parts Inspection A-12 TT
(34) PP Parts Inspection A-12 PP
(35) Process Assurance Assessment A-24 At each build event
(DCV/TT/PP)
(36) Mass Production Trial Run A-25 PP
4.1 Submission
4.1.1 Form for submission to Mazda
The designated form “Significant Characteristics Follow Up Sheet” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
4.1.2 Timing for submission
According to instructions from Mazda, the result of “3.1 Clarification of Significant Characteristics” shall
45
be submitted by Design Drawings Release and the other result of “3.2. Verification for Significant
Characteristics” shall be submitted at each build event.
46
3.3.5 A-10. APQP Element; “Subcontractor APQP Status Control”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Subcontractor APQP Status
Control” for the purpose of ensuring that suppliers control subcontractors’ APQP status.

(12) Design Drawings Release All subcontractor APQP Elements
3. Requirements
3.1 Subcontractor APQP draw up
Suppliers shall require their contractors, who supply new products, to draw up APQP and shall review it.
The subcontractors’ APQP shall satisfy the same contents as described in Table 2 of “A-2 APQP Draw
up”, or equivalent contents.
3.2 Subcontractors’ APQP Status Control and Recovery
Suppliers shall assign a control tower for the status of subcontractors’ APQP. The control tower shall track
the status from all necessary subcontractors on a regular basis in order to confirm their APQP Elements
are implemented as planned. At least each APQP Phase, CFT and a review board of supplier’s senior
managements shall confirm subcontractors’ APQP status.
Once R or Y is identified (Refer to “A-2. APQP Draw up, Table3”), suppliers shall share the concerns
with subcontractors and immediately determine recovery actions. The recovery actions shall be approved
by both the responsible managements from the supplier and subcontractor.
The designated form “APQP and Status Report” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier
internal form is acceptable if all the requirements specified in this document are fulfilled.
47
3.3.5 A-11. APQP Element; “Tooling” and “Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Elements “Tooling” and “Facilities, Jigs,
and Inspection Gauges Readiness”. The purpose of this Element is to ensure that suppliers control
readiness of Tools, Facilities, Jigs and Inspection Gauges as planned, and of facilitating the following
product and production quality verification.

(12) Design Drawings Release (22) Pre-Launch Control Plan
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and
Control Plan Development
(18) Process FMEA (25) Measurement System Evaluation
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Production)
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Production)
3. Requirements
3.1 Tooling and Status Control
-Suppliers shall confirm tool design drawings are completed without any concerns affected to the tools.
-The tooling shall be kicked off, after timing plan of tooling is adjusted to meet DCV parts’ delivery to
Mazda.
-In case suppliers have to control a number of tools at the same time, a dedicated timing plan should be
documented apart from APQP, in order to ensure the status of the individual tools.
3.2 Development for Tools
-After getting the first version of the tool, “Preliminary Production Trial Run” shall be implemented to
verify product quality and productivity. The tool shall be modified as needed.
3.3 Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness and Status Control
-Suppliers shall confirm Manufacturing Layout and Process design drawings are completed without any
concerns affected to the tools.
-The Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges shall be kicked off, after those timing plans are adjusted to
meet DCV parts’ delivery to Mazda.
-In case suppliers have to control a number of Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges at the same time, a
dedicated timing plan should be documented apart from APQP, in order to ensure the status of the
individuals.
3.4 Development for Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges
-After getting the first version of the Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges, “Preliminary Production
Trial Run” shall be implemented to verify product quality, productivity and production feasibility.
Development shall be conducted as needed. In parallel, “Process Assurance Assessment” is started to
facilitate improvement.
For the timing plan; any forms are acceptable if timing plan for individual Tools, Facilities, Jigs, and
Inspection Gauges are documented.
48
3.3.5 A-12. APQP Element; “Parts Inspection”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Elements of “DCV Parts Inspection”, “TT
Parts Inspection”, “PP Parts Inspection” and “Initial Mass Production Parts Inspection”. The purpose of
this Element is to ensure that suppliers deliver products, which satisfy all design requirements, to Mazda.

DCV Parts (22) Pre-Launch Control Plan (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and and Development
Development
TT Parts (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and (36) Mass Production Trial Run
Development
(26) Control Plan
PP Parts (36) Mass Production Trial Run Initial Mass Production
Initial Mass Initial Mass Production (38) Part Submission Declaration
Production
Parts
3. Requirements
-Suppliers shall create “Inspection Report” according to design requirements, when delivering prototype
parts, DCV parts, TT parts, PP parts and Initial Mass Production Parts to Mazda.
-“Inspection Report” shall be created for the other purpose if Mazda requires.
-When delivering those parts, suppliers shall satisfy requirements specified in the “APPENDIX-
Requirements for Parts Delivery”.
3.1. Implementing Procedures for Submission of “Inspection Report”
3.1.1 DCV Parts Inspection (Including Prototype Parts)
-Inspection Report shall be submitted together with the actual parts by each job order number to the parts
warehouse designated by Mazda Prototype Fabrication Dept.
-If submission of the Inspection Report is required from the responsible Mazda Design Dept., submit as
instructed.
-When Mass Production Parts are delivered as prototype ordered parts, the submission of Inspection
Report is not required unless requested by Mazda Prototype Fabrication Dept. In this case, enter
“Prototype Use” in the blank of the Identification Tag.
3.1.2 TT and PP Parts Inspection
-When applicable parts are delivered, the Inspection Report (including the Reliability Test Report) shall
be attached to the actual parts and delivered to the designated parts warehouse by each job order number.
However, if Parts Submission Declaration (PSD) is already approved, attach the approved PSD.
-Overseas suppliers shall deliver them to the designated parts warehouse according to the instruction from
Mazda Logistics Dept.
-For materials or components shared with the other parts, it is acceptable to attach the Inspection Report
done on a material lot or Production Lot basis to the first delivery parts. This is limited to the case where
there is no effect on quality in the subsequent processes (processing, treatment, assembling.)
3.1.3 Initial Mass Production Parts Inspection (including KD Parts, Service Parts and Changed
Parts)
-When applicable parts are delivered, the approved PSD shall be attached to the actual parts identified for
delivery lots and delivered to the designated parts warehouse.
-In case the parts are delivered to more than two warehouses, the same PSD can be copied as long as
those parts come from the same Production Lot.
49
-For carry-over production use parts, it is not required to attach the PSD unless requested by Mazda. In
this case, circle “1.Carry-over Mass Production Part” in the Identification Tag.
-If Mass Production Parts that have been delivered to one Mazda plant are delivered for the first time to
another plant, it is not required to attach the PSD unless requested by Mazda.
In this case, circle “2. Current parts delivered to another parts warehouse” in the Identification Tag (For
Pilot, and Initial Mass Production) and enter the name of the parts warehouse under submission in
parentheses before delivery to the designated parts warehouse.
-In case of assembling Mazda Supplied Parts which adopted a design change, it is not required to attach
the PSD unless requested by Mazda. Describe that Mazda Supplied Parts are changed on the identification
tag, and supply to the designated parts warehouse.
Table 2: Requirements for Inspection Report

Submission
Type Inspection Characteristics Inspection sample size (*1)
Time
-Characteristics specified on design drawing As instructed on design
drawing
-Characteristics specified by Mazda If not,
n = 1 to 5 → All data
-A, AR rank characteristics n ≥ 5 → 5 data
Prototype According to
Parts -Characteristics that caused problems at instructions
supplier or Mazda during prototype stage n = 1 to 5 → All data
(X-1, M-1) from Mazda
n ≥ 5 → 5 data
-Characteristics related to design change
-Characteristics required from each
development event, and characteristics Mazda-specified number
specified by Mazda
-Dimension characteristics that tolerances are
specified in the design drawing (*2)
-Function and performance characteristics
-Reliability characteristics (Development First lot
delivery time
Stage) n = 1 to 5 → All data
DCV Parts (by each job
The characteristics may include Function and n ≥ 5 → 5 data
performance characteristics (*5) order number)
-Characteristics that caused problems at (*4)
supplier or Mazda during prototype stage
-Characteristics required bythat
-Dimension characteristics Mazda
tolerances are
specified in the design drawing (*2)
-Reliability characteristics(Mass Production First lot
Stage) n = 1 to 5 → All data delivery time
The characteristics may include Function and n ≥ 5 → 5 data (by each job
performance characteristics (*5) (*6) order number)
-Characteristics that caused problems at (*4)
TT/PP Parts supplier or Mazda during prototype, DCV or
PP.
-All characteristics excluding the
First lot
abovementioned described in the design n=1
delivery time
drawing or MES (*3)
-Characteristics especially specified by Mazda Mazda-specified number When requested
by Mazda
50
Table 2-Continuition
Submission
Type Inspection Characteristics Inspection sample size (*1)
Time
-Dimension characteristics that tolerances
are specified in the design drawing (*2)
-Reliability characteristics(Mass Production
Stage) n = 1 to 5 → All data
The characteristics may include function and n ≥ 5 → 5 data
performance characteristics (*5) When requested
Initial Mass by Mazda
-Characteristics that caused problems at
Production
supplier or Mazda during PP
Parts
-All characteristics of excluding the
abovementioned described in the design n=1
drawing or MES (*3)
-Characteristics especially specified by When requested
Mazda-specified number
Mazda by Mazda
-Dimension characteristics that tolerances
are specified in the design drawing (*2)
n = 1 to 5 → All data
KD/Service -Reliability characteristics(Mass Production When requested
n ≥ 5 → 5 data
Parts Stage) by Mazda
The characteristics may include function and
performance characteristics (*5)
-Characteristics related to design change or
Design/Process n = 1 to 5 → All data When requested
process change and related characteristics in
Changed Parts n ≥ 5 → 5 data by Mazda
the drawing(s)
Production -Characteristics that are impacted by
n = 1 to 5 → All data When requested
Method production
n ≥ 5 → 5 data by Mazda
Changed Parts method change
Mass
When requested
Production -Characteristics for the layout inspection n=1
by Mazda
parts
NOTES;
(*1) “n” indicates No. of data to be attached on Inspection Report in the table.
(*2) For the parts that are partially changed from Mass Production Parts, only changed-part
characteristics and impacted characteristics shall be applied. In this case, enter “Other
characteristics are the same as XXX XX XXXX (part number) that are already under mass
production” in the “Sketch and Description” section.
(*3) “All Characteristics” of parts that are produced in mass production shall be measured once.
“All Characteristics” refer to all design specifications not only quantitative quality such as
dimension with tolerances but also qualitative quality such as harness socket terminal alignment,
parts composition, color type that are required in the design drawing, approval drawing and MES.
When specified dimensional characteristics are for a single part, the Single Part Drawing shall be
used. When single-part dimensions are adjusted to ensure assembly dimensions, the assembly
dimensions shall take priority. *It is recommended to write measured results on the drawing in
red.
(*4) Even if the first delivery lot quantity is less than 5, submit 5 data when 5 data can be recorded
from the same Production Lot. In that case, one submission at the first lot delivery time is
acceptable.
(*5) The inspection of the “Reliability characteristics” described in the design drawing shall be
targeted only for TT parts of the first delivery if there are no changes that impact the Reliability
characteristics.
51
(*6) Suppliers shall accept the sample size required by Mazda.
The designated form “Inspection Report” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier internal form
is acceptable if all the requirements in this document are fulfilled.
5. Applicable Document
“APPENDIX- Requirements for Parts Delivery”
52
3.3.5 A-13. APQP Element; “Parts Examination”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Parts Examination”. The purpose
of this Element is to detect a sign of possible failures such as Past Concerns, fragile product design,
difficulty of production or operation by doing examination based on the actual products from Preliminary
Production Trial Run and/or the Validation test samples.

DCV Parts (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run
Examination and Development (DCV stage) and Development (TT stage)
TT Parts (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run (36) Mass Production Trial Run
Examination and Development (TT stage)
3. Requirements
-Suppliers shall conduct Parts Examination at least twice. Firstly at “DCV Parts Examination” through the
“Preliminary Production Trial Run” once the tooling is fixed, and Secondly at the “TT Parts Examination”
after completion of “Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness”.
-To detect a signal of possible failures due to durability related quality, Parts Examination should be
conducted based on the actual samples after completion of Validation Test.
-If concerns are still identified in the “TT Parts Examination”, additional “Parts Examination” such as “PP
Parts Examination” shall be repeatedly conducted until confirming the improved products.
-CFT shall be involved in the “Parts Examination”.
3.1 Check Items and Products
-Based on output of the APQP Elements, the suppliers shall determine individual check items and
document them on a Check Sheet prior to conducting the Parts Examination.
-A check item shall be added if Mazda requires.
-Products utilized for “Parts Examination” shall be equivalent to ones supplied to Mazda.
-“Parts Examination” shall be based on finished products and products that are easily able to disassemble
to components, or already disassembled components.
3.2 Examination and Corrective Action
-“Parts Examination” shall be conducted according to the created Check Sheet while the finished products
are being disassembled. The result of the examination shall be recorded in the Check Sheet.
-Check items newly identified during the examination shall be added to the Check Sheet with the results.
-Suppliers shall accept the examination as “Mazda Joint Event” for “Significant Parts” when Mazda
requires. In this case, suppliers shall internally conduct in advance.
-Concerns identified through the examination shall be shared with CFT and immediately corrective
actions are determined and reflected into necessary APQP Elements.
The designated form “Parts Examination Check Sheet” should be used. The supplier internal form is
53
3.3.5 A-14. APQP Element; “Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Manufacturing Process Design
and Concept Control Plan”. The purpose of this Element is to realize robust manufacturing process
through reflecting necessary requirements into Manufacturing Process Design as well as Concept Control
Plan.

(11) Specific Design Review (18) Process FMEA
(12) Design Drawings Release (22) Pre-Launch Control Plan
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Production)
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Production)
3. Requirements
3.1 Collection of Requirements for Manufacturing Process Design
-Based on the former APQP Elements, suppliers shall collect all necessary requirements for the
manufacturing process design as well as for the Quality Control (hereinafter “Requirements for Process
Assurance”) referring to Table 2.
-The collected “Requirements for Process Assurance” should be listed in documents, and controlled by a
registration system.
-A design review should be implemented to verify output of “Requirements for Process Assurance”
among CFT.
Table 2: Requirements for Process Assurance

NO. Requirements for Process Assurance
1 Significant Characteristics, Quality Characteristics for Quality Controls and
Assembly/machining procedures specified in Design Drawings and applicable MES.
2 Assumptions of Quality Controls for reducing potential risks through Design FMEA
3 Significant Characteristics
4 Necessary Corrective Action to prevent recurrence of Past Concerns
5 Necessary requirements for assuring productivity and capacity
6 Specific requirements communicated from Mazda
3.2 Process Layout Design
-Appropriate process layout for fulfilling the identified “Requirements for Process Assurance” shall be
designed. The process layout design shall include Process Flow, Process Methods, Processing Formation,
Inspection and Test processes.
-In parallel, “Process FMEA” shall be implemented to reduce potential risks in the Process Layout
Design.
3.3 Specific Process Design
-After the implementation of the Process Layout Design in parallel, with individual process designs
detailed such as Production Facilities, Fixtures, Jigs, Inspection Equipment, Gauges, Conveyors, Part
Feeders, Poke-yokes, Interlock Sequence.
-In parallel, “Process FMEA” shall be continuously implemented to reduce potential risks in those
individual process designs.
3.4 Concept Control Plan
-Conceptual Quality Control assumed through the Process Layout Design and Specific Process Design
shall be determined.
54
-The conceptual Quality Control should consist of product inspections and manufacturing parameter
checks. -Assumption of Quality Controls to reduce potential risks through “Process FMEA” shall be
added.
3.5 Transitioning in the Pre-Launch Control Plan
-All Quality Controls identified through the Concept Control Plan shall be incorporated into “Pre-Launch
Control Plan”.
The designated forms “Requirements for Process Assurance”, “Process Flow Chart and Concept Control
Plan” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier internal forms are acceptable if all the
requirements in this document are fulfilled.
55
3.3.5 A-15. APQP Element; “Process FMEA”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Process FMEA”. The purpose of
this Element is to predict potential failures caused by manufacturing process, and to take necessary
preventive actions to reduce quality risks.

(6) Design FMEA (17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept
(10) Significant Characteristics Control Plan
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept (19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges
Control Plan Readiness
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (23) Process Parameters Setting
(Production) (25) Measurement System Evaluation
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (26) Control Plan
(Production) (27) Operator Work Instructions
Development
3. Requirements
Suppliers shall implement Process FMEA according to the requirements in this document. “Implementing
Procedure of Process FMEA” in QRS SECTION 2 can be referred.
3.1 General
-Process FMEA shall be started in parallel with “Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control
Plan” at early stage of production readiness.
-Scope of Process FMEA shall include all manufacturing processes including new and changed processes.
-Process FMEA shall be updated at all times when the product design is changed, when the manufacturing
process is changed, or when a failure actually occurs during production readiness as well as during mass
production.
3.2 Prediction of Failure Modes
-Suppliers shall predict all potential failure modes caused by manufacturing processes.
-Failures in association with “Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Production)” and “Risk Assessment
for New/Changed (Production)” shall be added as a potential failure mode.
-Failure modes in association with “Significant Characteristics” shall be focused in Process FMEA.
-If Process Control is used to reduce RPN of Design FMEA, the Process Control shall be realized into
Process FMEA.
3.3 Risk Assessment (S: Severity / O: Occurrence / D: Detection)
-For “Severity”, applicable rank is reviewed by assessing how the potential failure mode impacts/affects
assembly and/or system.
-For “Occurrence”, applicable rank is reviewed by assessing how often a cause of the potential failure
occurs based on the current Process Control.
-For “Detection”, applicable rank is reviewed by assessing how the potential failure or the cause is
detectable based on the current Process Control.
NOTE;
-Suppliers can define appropriate rank for each risk assessment (S / O / D). Table 1 to 3 in
“Implementing Procedure; Process FMEA” can be referred.
56
3.4 RPN and Preventive Action
-Suppliers shall determine the targeted RPN (Risk Priority Number) and shall take necessary preventive
actions toward RPN higher than the target. Suppliers shall consider the necessity of preventive actions by
reviewing not only RPN but also independent Severity.
3.5 Realization of Design Control
All Process Control including the preventive actions shall be reflected into the following APQP Elements.
-(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control Plan; Process Control shall be realized in
Process Layout Design and Specific Process Design.
-(19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness; Tooling activities shall be reflected.
-(23) Process Parameters Setting;
-(25) Measurement System Evaluation; applicable measurement systems and inspection gauges shall be
evaluated.
-(26) Control Plan; necessary Control Items required from Process Control shall be introduced.
-(27) Operator Work Instructions; necessary contents shall be described to ensure Process Control.
3.6 Validation of Effectiveness at Trial Production Run

Through trial production runs, CFT shall validate effectiveness as expected on both Process FMEA and
actually realized manufacturing processes. CFT shall also confirm there is no critical negative effect.
The designated form “Process FMEA Work Sheet” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier
internal form is acceptable if all the requirements in this document are fulfilled.
57
3.3.5 A-16. APQP Element; “Control Plan”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Elements “Pre-Launch Control Plan” and
“Control Plan”. The purpose of these Elements is that suppliers determine necessary Quality Control in a
document to ensure the Quality Control is in place at mass production.

Pre- All APQP Elements up to APQP Phase 1 (23) Process Parameters Setting
Launch (17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run
Control Control Plan and Development
Plan (19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges
Readiness
(18) Process FMEA
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention
(Production)
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed
(Production)
Control (22) Pre-Launch Control Plan (27) Operator Work Instructions
Plan (23) Process Parameters Setting (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and and Development
Development (35) Process Assurance Assessment
(25) Measurement System Evaluation
(28) Packaging Specifications
(30) Process Capability Study
(33) Acceptance Samples
3. Requirements
3.1 General
3.1.1 Control Items in Control Plan
Control Items in the Control Plan shall consist of “Product Quality Control” and “Process Parameter
Control”.
-“Product Quality Control” is an inclusive term of Control Items that directly measure and inspect
product quality.
-“Process Parameter Control” is an inclusive term of Control Items that implement surveillance on
Process Parameters during processing.
NOTE;
“Process Parameter Control” shall apply to product quality that is difficult to perform “Product
Quality Control” due to certain reason and only appears while use of vehicle’s performance, and
shall be utilized for the purpose of ensuring product quality in addition to “Product Quality
Control”.
3.1.2 Inspection Frequency in Principle
-“Inspection Frequency” for “Product Quality Control” shall be determined according to process
capability index verified through APQP Phase 2 referring to Table 2.
58
Table 2: Inspection Frequency for Product Quality Control in principle
Inspection Frequency Product Process Capability Index
For “Product Quality Control” Quality
Significant -Cpk less than 1.33 (bilateral tolerance)
Characteristics -Cp less than 1.33 (unilateral tolerance)
100% Inspection
Other Quality -Cpk less than 1.00 (bilateral tolerance)
Characteristics -Cp less than 1.00 (unilateral tolerance)
Significant -Cpk more than and equal to 1.33 (bilateral tolerance)
Characteristics -Cp more than and equal to 1.33 (unilateral tolerance)
Sampling Inspection
Other Quality -Cpk more than and equal to 1.00 (bilateral tolerance)
Characteristics -Cp more than and equal to 1.00 (unilateral tolerance)
-In the case of Sampling Inspection for “Product Quality Control”, appropriate “Process Parameter
Control” shall be determined where necessary process parameters are under surveillance during
processing.
-In case of the Sampling Inspection, its inspection frequency shall be at least twice per one production lot
(*1), which requires the first and the last samples to be inspected. Necessity of intermediate samplings
should be determined according to suppliers’ logistics circumstances, which may be stocks and logistics
leading time from suppliers to Mazda. The parts, which were already inspected as the former sampling
inspection, are not allowed to ship out from suppliers before the latter sampling inspection occurs.
-Especially for Significant Characteristics, the tendency for any abnormality should be monitored in order
to sustain the process controlled state statistically.
NOTE;
“Production lot” is a unit of parts which were produced under the same condition and therefore
quality is assumed equivalent. In another word, once the Production Lot is changed, there is
possible fluctuation on product quality one after another. Suppliers should predict all causal
factors for the possible fluctuation through Process FMEA.
The Production lot includes, for instance, raw material lot, subcontractor’s delivery lot, production
lot under one production shift, batch production lot, any production lot after Process Parameters
are changed.
3.1.3 Timing of Creating Control Plan
The “Pre-Launch Control Plan” shall be established by no later than DCV parts production at suppliers.
The “Control Plan” shall be established by no later than start of TT parts production at suppliers.
3.1.4 Annual Layout Inspection
Suppliers shall at least annually measure and control all design requirements such as dimensional quality,
product performance excluding reliability (hereinafter called “Annual Layout Inspection”). The “Annual
Layout Inspection” should be entered as a control item in the Control Plan to ensure the control is in
place.
The “Annual Layout Inspection” can be omitted partially if it is controlled more than one in a year for
another purpose.
3.2 Implementing Procedures
3.2.1 Creating Pre-Launch Control Plan
The contents shown in Table 3 shall entry into the Pre-Launch Control Plan.
59
Table 3: Contents to enter in Pre-Launch Control Plan
Input from Contents to enter in Pre-Launch Control Plan
(10) Significant Characteristics All Significant Characteristics
(12) Design Drawings Release All quality characteristics and specifications required in
design drawings
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and All control items of “Process Parameter Control” and
Concept Control Plan “Product Quality Control” determined as Concept Quality
Plan
(18) Process FMEA All applicable control items of “Process Parameter Control”
and “Product Quality Control” required from Process
FMEA as a corrective action to reduce RPN
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence All applicable control items of “Process Parameter Control”
Prevention (Production) and “Product Quality Control” to prevent recurrence of Past
Concerns
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed All applicable control items of “Process Parameter Control”
(Production) and “Product Quality Control” to reduce risks in association
with New/Changed
3.2.2 Creating Control Plan
The contents shown in Table 4 shall entry into the Control Plan.
Table 4: Contents to enter in Control Plan

Input from Contents to enter in Control Plan
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan All control items of “Process Parameter Control” and
“Product Quality Control” determined in Pre-Launch
Quality Plan
(23) Process Parameters Setting All nominal values and control ranges determined through
APQP Element “Process Parameter Setting”
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run All applicable control items reflected from Preliminary
and Development Production Trial Run to improve process assurance
(25) Measurement System Evaluation All measurement systems and inspection gauges which
GRR are passed
(30) Process Capability Study All applicable “Inspection Frequency” determined
according to process capability
(33) Acceptance Samples All applicable control items as reference criteria
(35) Process Assurance Assessment All applicable control items reflected from Process
Assurance Assessment to improve process assurance
Requirements specified in “3.1.5. All applicable control items in association with Annual
Annual Layout Inspection” Layout Inspection
【Applicable parts only】 Inspection management method and its identification
Requirement Section 2.7.2(2) ”2.7 specified in “Assurance Item List for System Inspection”.
Inspection management for security
components”
3.2.3 Revision of Control Plan and Applicable Documents
-Suppliers shall update the Control Plan every time inputs from the linked APQP Elements are changed.
The latest version of Control Plan shall always be maintained at necessary places.
-Immediately after creating or updating the Control Plan, the linked APQP Elements such as “Operator
Work Instructions”, “Mass Production Trial Run”, “Process Assurance Assessment” shall be revised as
necessary to reflect the necessary actions to be implemented.
The designated form “Control Plan” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier internal form is
60
3.3.5 A-17. APQP Element; “Process Parameters Setting”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Process Parameters Setting”. The
purpose of this Element is to verify appropriate Process Parameters and Control Range, which has a
Safety Margins, in order to assure product quality is built up during processing.

(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan (26) Control Plan
Development
3. Terminology
Table 2 shows terminology used in this APQP Element.
Table 2: Terminology
Terms Definition
Process Parameters Adjustable parameters that need to be set in production facilities and
processes for the purpose of building up product quality during
processing.
Acceptable Quality Limit Limit process parameter that brings product quality out of design
(of Process Parameters) specification. “Acceptable Quality Limit” is found out by shifting process
parameters.
Control Range Nominal value and acceptable range between upper and lower process
(of Process Parameters) parameters, which are set and controlled in production facilities and
processes.
Safety Margins Distance between Acceptable Quality Limit and Control Range of Process
(of Process Parameters) Parameter.
Worst Case Condition Lower and upper process parameters within Control Range
(of Process Parameters)
4. Requirements
4.1 Scope
Suppliers shall implement the verification specified in “4.2 Implementing Procedures” for Process
Parameters. Suppliers shall incorporate the following product quality in the verification and place special
emphasis.

(2) General Quality Characteristics that require higher quality level than ordinal or require less quality
variation, which are assured by Process Parameter Control during processing.
NOTE;
The verification specified in “4.2 Implementing Procedures” can be omissible for Process
Parameters that have been proven to be appropriate through the use of documented technical
know-how or internal standards. Those documented technical know-how or internal standards
shall be validated and interpretable to Mazda.
61
4.2 Implementing Procedures
Fig.1 shows a flow of this APQP Element.
Fig.1: Flow of Process Parameter Setting

4.2.1 Verification
Plan
4.2.2 Verification and Process Parameters Setting

(1) (2) Finding out (3) (4) (5)
Clarification Acceptable Tentative Verification Assessment
of highly Quality Limit Setting of for Process of Safety
effective (Parameter a) Process Parameters Margins
Process Parameters -Process
Parameters (2) Capability
(Parameter b) -Worst
Condition
(2)
(Parameter c)
(2)
(Parameter d)
4.2.3 Reflection of
Process Parameters
into affective APQP
Elements
4.2.1 Verification Plan

-Suppliers shall make a verification plan according to requirements in “4.1 Scope” and “4.2 Implementing
Procedures”.
-The verification plan should be specific to manage all tests with special consideration for tests that
require long durations such as reliability tests, and those that require the use of smaller sample sizes due
to destructive testing.
4.2.2 Verification and Process Parameters Setting
(1) Clarification of highly effective Process Parameters
-Highly effective Process Parameters for each product quality shall be discussed among specialists from
CFT, to clarify them by utilizing technical data or previous verification result in terms of Process
Parameters.
-Suppliers should use method of quality engineering and of experimental design to clarify highly effective
Process Parameters in case that higher quality level than normal or reduction of quality variation is
required.
(2) Finding out Acceptable Quality Limit

Experimental tests utilized for shifting Process Parameter, that affect the product quality is analyzed to
find out “Acceptable Quality Limit”.
(3) Tentative Setting of Process Parameters

Safety Margins for Acceptable Quality Limit are established into the Process Parameter and determines
the Nominal Values and Control Ranges as a preliminary setting of the Process Parameter.
(4) Verification for Process Parameters

1) Process Capability Verification
Process Parameters, which are individually determined in procedure (3), are tentatively set for production.
At which time, the variation of product quality and process capability index are verified utilizing a certain
62
sample size through Production Trial Run.
2) Verification under Worst Case Condition

Additional Production Trial Run shall be implemented under worst case conditions for Process
Parameters that may tentatively be set into the production. The product quality shall meet its design
specification.
NOTES;
-Suppliers should understand that most likely there will be an interaction effect to the product
quality when more than one Process Parameters interact together. Therefore, “Process Capability
Verification” and “Verification under Worst Case Condition” are necessary and required.
-It is expected that testing, such as a reliability test or a tensile strength test, is to be continued
until a test sample is failed or its product functionality is completely lost even though the test
target cycles of the design requirement are passed.
-In case of a reliability test as “Verification under Worst Case Condition”, suppliers should deal
with the reliability test plan to be combined with “A-7 Design and Production Validation Tests”, as
for this kind of tests, its sample size tends to be smaller than the other tests such as performance
tests or dimensional inspections.
(5) Assessment of Safety Margins
As the test result of “(4) Verification for Process Parameters”, suppliers shall assess whether or not the
tentative Process Parameters has enough Safety Margins for Quality Limit according to the criteria in
Table 3.
Table 3: Criteria for assessment of Safety Margins

Verification What to be assessed? Criteria
Process Capability Process Capability Index that is calculated Cpk more than and equal to 1.33
Verification from samples during this verification
Verification under Measured data of the product quality that is Within design specification
Worst Case obtained from samples during this
Condition verification
4.2.3 Reflection of Process Parameters into affective APQP Elements

After the assessment is passed, the tested Process Parameters for Nominal Values and the Control Ranges
are accepted for the mass production. Those Parameters shall be reflected in the “Control Plan”,
“Operator Work Instruction” and related APQP Elements.
Any forms are acceptable if the result of followings contains.
(1) Clarification of highly effective Process Parameters

(2) Finding out Acceptable Quality Limit
(4) Verification for Process Parameters
(5) Assessment of Safety Margins
63
3.3.5 A-18. APQP Element; “Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Preliminary Production Trial Run
and Development”. The purpose of this Element is to identify concerns hidden in production and to
accelerate process improvement for adequate process assurance in the early stages of production
readiness.

(14) Tooling (23) Process Parameters Setting
(19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness (29) Production Validation Test
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan (30) Process Capability Study
(26) Control Plan (33) Acceptance Samples
3. Requirements
3.1 Implementation of Preliminary Production Trial Run
“Preliminary Production Trial Run” shall be implemented as soon as Tooling is fixed and completed.
Afterwards, the trial run shall be repeatedly implemented in parallel with Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection
Gauges, Control Plan and Operator Work Instructions are to be implemented and completed. (Refer to
Fig.1)
Fig.1: Overview of Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development
◆DCV ◆TT ◆PP

Tooling Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary
Production Trial Run Production Production Mass Production
Trial Run Trial Run Trial Run
Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection
Gages Readiness
Development & Improvement
Pre-Launch Process
Control Plan Parameters Control Plan
Setting
Operator Work Instructions
Process Assurance Assessment
3.2 Process Development and Status Control

-Suppliers shall share concerns, which are identified through implementing “Preliminary Production Trial
Run” and “Process Assurance Assessment”, with CFT and shall determine necessary corrective actions.
-A corrective action, which requires process changes, shall provide necessary feedback into “Process
FMEA” and the other related APQP Elements.
-After establishing an action plan with implementation timing and responsibilities, suppliers shall ensure
the corrective actions are implemented as planned by controlling the status.
Not applicable.
64
3.3.5 A-19. APQP Element; “Measurement System Evaluation”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Measurement System Evaluation”.
The purpose of this Element is to evaluate accuracy of measurement systems or inspection gauges used
for Quality Control of mass production, to ensure that the accuracy is controlled during mass production.

(10) Significant Characteristics (26) Control Plan
(19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges (27) Operator Work Instructions
Readiness (30) Process Capability Study
(26) Control Plan (31) TT Parts Inspection
(27) Operator Work Instructions (34) PP Parts Inspection
(37) Initial Mass Production Parts Inspection
3. Requirements
3.1 Scope of “Measurement System Evaluation”
-Suppliers shall evaluate the following measurement systems or inspection gauges by Gauge R&R
(Repeatability and Reproducibility).
-Measurement systems or inspection gauges that are used as Quality Control for “Significant
Characteristics”
-Measurement systems or inspection gauges that are newly installed (no experienced usage in the past)
-Measurement systems or inspection gauges that give fluctuating measurement data
NOTE;
If different methods from Gauge R&R are applied, suppliers should justify that the applied
method is appropriate to Mazda if required.
3.2 Evaluation by Gauge R&R

-Gauge R&R shall start once all-manufacturing Tools, Facilities, Fixtures, Jigs, Inspection Gauges and
Test Equipment are fixed, and shall be completed no later than TT production.
-Indexes of Gauge R&R are to be evaluated according to Table 2. Suppliers shall take necessary
corrective actions if it does not pass Gauge R&R. The evaluation shall be repeated until corrective actions
are proven effective and the Gauge R&R is successfully passed.
-The corrective actions shall be reflected into “Control Plan” or “Operator Work Instructions” when
actions require changing to another measurement system or inspection procedures.
Table 2: Criteria of Index of Gauge R&R

Index of Gauge R&R Evaluation Result
< 10% Passed Acceptable
10% ≤ Gauge R&R ≤ 30% Conditionally A corrective action should be discussed in
Passed consideration of its impact.
30%< Not Passed Not Acceptable
A corrective action shall be implemented.
3.3 Calibration and Maintenance

-Suppliers shall control all measurement systems and inspection gauges required in the Control Plan by
use of a tracking list.
65
-Calibration and maintenance procedures shall be in place to ensure all measurement systems and
inspection gauges are controlled by periodically implementing necessary checks and evaluation. A clear
identification, which shows expiration date and passing status, shall be put on each individual
measurement system and inspection gauge.
The designated form “Gauge R&R Evaluation Sheet” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier
internal form is acceptable if all the requirements specified in “Gauge R&R Evaluation Sheet” are
fulfilled.
66
3.3.5 A-20. APQP Element; “Operator Work Instructions”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Operator Work Instructions”. The
purpose of this Element is to ensure that operators and inspectors, who work in mass production, obtain
stable performance through training with necessary Work Instructions established.
NOTE;
“Operator Work Instructions” is an inclusive term of documents that operators and inspectors
should refer to during mass production. The “Operator Work Instructions” is also used for operator
training done by supervisors and it consists of such as individual work procedures, inspection
standards, visual aids, process parameter sheets, changeover procedures, initial sample inspection
procedures.

(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and
Development Development
(25) Measurement System Evaluation (35) Process Assurance Assessment
(26) Control Plan
3. Requirements
3.1 Creating Operator Work Instructions
-Suppliers shall clarify necessary contents for “Operator Work Instruction” through APQP Elements
shown in “Linkage from” ref. Table 1.
-The “Operator Work Instruction” shall be established before start of TT production in principle.
3.2 Training for Operators
-With use of the established “Operator Work Instructions”, suppliers shall implement necessary training
for all applicable operators who are planned to work in mass production. The record of the training is kept
in order to control who was trained.
-The training shall be implemented before start of TT production in principle.
3.3 Trials and Certification of Operators
-Suppliers shall evaluate the trained operators’ performance through actual production trial run, and shall
check whether or not those operators really comply with their applicable Work Instructions.
-After concluding the trained operators are stable enough with compliance to their applicable Work
Instructions, the operators, who need special skills to work in specific production, shall be certified. The
record of the certification is kept in order to control who was certified.
-The certification shall be implemented before start of PP production in principle.
Not applicable.
67
3.3.5 A-21. APQP Element; “Packaging Specifications”
1. Purpose
This document describes the minimum requirements for the APQP Element “Packaging Specifications”.

(19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges Readiness (26) Control Plan
3. Requirements
-Suppliers shall design and develop an appropriate packaging which maintains product quality, integrity
and stability.
-The package should take into consideration handling efficiency, rust prevention performance
requirements, and the ease of product loading removal handling. The Mazda Packaging Specification
requires concurrence and approval of Mazda Logistics Dept.
NOTE;
Ultimately the supplier is responsible for the packaging and assuring delivered part/product
integrity. The supplier will be held responsible for all costs when Mazda sustains damages
(related/caused) by the packaging.

Suppliers shall use the form required by Mazda Logistics Dept.
68
3.3.5 A-22. APQP Element; “Process Capability Study”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Process Capability Study”. The
purpose of this Element is to confirm that mass production is capable of producing stable product quality
including “Significant Characteristics” by an approach of statistical verification.

(10) Significant Characteristics (26) Control Plan
(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development (35) Process Assurance Assessment
(36) Mass Production Trial Run
3. Requirements
3.1 Criteria of Process Capability Index
Suppliers shall achieve the process capability index specified in Table 2.
Table 2: Criteria of Process Capability Index

Product Quality Targets of process capability index Necessary sample size
In principle for process capability
Significant -Cpk more than and equal to 1.33 -More than 30 data for quantified quality
Characteristics (bilateral tolerance) -More than 250 data for counting quality
-Cp more than and equal to 1.33
(unilateral tolerance)
Other Quality -Cpk more than and equal to 1.00 Same as above.
Characteristics (bilateral tolerance)
-Cp more than and equal to 1.00
(unilateral tolerance)
Exception to the target of process capability index;

-Exception is accepted in the case of Cpk/Cp calculation is almost impossible due to quality
related to product reliability, quality that requires destructive tests or immeasurable quality.
-In the case of exception, suppliers shall control “Process Parameters” to assure the product
quality instead of process capability.
3.2 Implementation of Process Capability Study
-Process Capability Study shall be implemented at the earliest possible timing after Facilities, Jigs, and
Inspection Gauges are installed.
-Process Capability index for “Significant Characteristics” should be calculated at Preliminary Trial Run
(DCV stage) with mass production tooling.
-At the Preliminary Trial Run (TT stage), Process Capability Study shall be implemented, after readiness
of Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection Gauges completed, Control Plan and Work Instructions are established.
-At the Preliminary Trial Run (PP stage), Process Capability Study shall be implemented again in order to
confirm it maintains the equivalent capability or better than the ones studied previously.
3.3 Process Capability Improvement and Reflected into the Control Plan
-If the target of the process capability index is not achieved, suppliers shall take corrective actions to
improve by PP parts production.
-If suppliers decide to change Quality Control from “Sampling Inspection” to “100% Inspection” as a
corrective action, it will be necessary to update this change in the Control Plan and related control
documents.
69
Report of “Process Capability Study”; any forms are acceptable if the following is fulfilled.
-Stage of sample production (e.g. DCV stage)

-Individual statistical data and histogram
-Sample size
-Process Capability status
Suppliers shall input the Process Capability index into the "Significant Characteristic List and Evaluation
Sheet" if Mazda requires.
70
3.3.5 A-23. APQP Element; “Acceptance Samples”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Acceptance Samples”. The
purpose of this Element is to clarify abstract product quality, which has uncertain specification or is not
measurable in a quantified way such as operational feeling, color unevenness, grain, texture and surface
finish for ensuring mass production Quality Control is stable by adapting “Acceptance Sample”.

(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and (26) Control Plan
Development (27) Operator Work Instructions
3. Requirements
3.1 Development of Abstract Product Quality
Through design and development activities, suppliers shall understand the existence of the abstract
product quality. The abstract product quality shall be converted to a quantified way of measurable quality.
If this is not possible, the suppliers shall agree to a master sample as a development target for the abstract
product quality.
Suppliers shall begin evaluation and development of the abstract product quality from DCV stage to
achieve development target.
3.2 Creation and Submission of Applicable “Acceptance Samples”
Through implementing “Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development”, the suppliers shall evaluate
ease and accuracy for controlling the abstract product quality taken by operators or inspectors who
actually performs the work for mass production.
Based on the evaluation result, the necessity for “Acceptance Samples” shall be determined to improve
process control accuracy. “Acceptance Samples” shall be created by using the form in QRS SECTION 2
and submitted to Mazda Quality Dept. for approval.
3.3 Reflection of Approved “Acceptance Samples” into APQP Elements
“Acceptance Samples” after obtaining Mazda approval shall be reflected into “Control Plan” and
“Operator Work Instructions” as reference criteria.
The designated form “Acceptance Sample Application” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
71
3.3.5 A-24. APQP Element; “Process Assurance Assessment”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Process Assurance Assessment”.
The purpose of this Element is to assess the manufacturing process assurances, which were developed
through other relevant APQP Elements, utilizing a comprehensive approach. This leads suppliers to
identify concerns hidden in the production process and to accelerate process improvement for adequate
Process Assurance Level in the early stage of production readiness.

(10) Significant Characteristics (14) Tooling
(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control (19) Facilities, Jigs, and Inspection
Plan Gauges Readiness
(18) Process FMEA (24) Preliminary Production Trial Run
(20) Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention (Production) and Development
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (36) Mass Production Trial Run
(22) Pre-Launch Control Plan
(26) Control Plan
3. Requirements
Suppliers shall implement “Process Assurance Assessment” according to “3.1 Preliminary Assessment”
and “3.2 Assessment at TT and PP stages”. For details, refer to the document “Implementation of Process
Assurance Assessment” in QRS SECTION 2.
“Fig.1.” shows an overview of “Process Assurance Assessment” to see how it is positioned and linked to
the other APQP Elements.
Fig.1: Overview of Process Assurance Assessment
Mazda DCV PP MP Changes

TT
Key Mile
Stone Claims
Linkage
from Significant Characteristics
& Process FMEA
feedback Past Concerns
to Risk Assess. for New/Changed
Pre-Launch Control Plan Control Plan
Operator Work Instructions
Process
Assurance Preliminary At TT stage At PP At MP During Mass
Assessment Assessment Assessment stage Trial Run Production
Assessment Assessment Assessment
Linkage
to Tooling, Facilities, Preliminary Mass Production
& Jigs, and Production Trial Trial Run
feedback Inspection Gages Run
from Readiness
72
3.1. Preliminary Assessment
Suppliers shall start with “Process Assurance Assessment” as early as possible before TT. Suppliers shall
determine corrective actions for concerns identified and items that do not meet the target rank. Those
corrective actions shall be reflected into applicable APQP Elements.
3.2. Assessment at TT and PP stages
-At the TT production stage, based on the result of the preliminary assessment, the assessment shall be
implemented during an actual production trial. Suppliers shall determine corrective actions for concerns
newly identified and items that do not meet the target rank.
-At the PP production stage, the same assessment as TT stage shall be implemented.
NOTE;
“Process Assurance Assessment” requires the entry of contents from but not limited to
“Significant Characteristics”, “Process FMEA”, “Past Concerns Recurrence Prevention”, “Risk
Assessment for New/Changed”, “Pre-Launch Control Plan”, “Control Plan”, and “Operator Work
Instructions”.
3.3. Assessment and Target at Mass Production Trial Run

During Mass Production Trial Run, the assessment shall be implemented to confirm that “Overall
Judgment” achieves “G” or above. If not, suppliers shall immediately determine corrective actions to be
implemented by start of mass production.
The designated form “Process Assurance Assessment Form” in QRS SECTION 2 should be used. The
supplier internal form is acceptable if all the requirements in this document are fulfilled.
73
3.3.5 A-25. APQP Element; “Mass Production Trial Run”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Mass Production Trial Run”. The
purpose of this Element is to confirm that mass production has enough process assurance and capability
while implementing trial run after mass production readiness is completed.

All APQP Elements up to APQP Phase 2. (29) Production Validation Test
(35) Process Assurance Assessment (30) Process Capability Study
(34) PP Parts Inspection
3. Requirements
3.1 Condition
Suppliers shall fulfill the following condition when implementing “Mass Production Trial Run”.
-Basic quantity of product during “Mass Production Trial Run” is 100 pieces.
-Mass production readiness is completed, which includes all APQP Elements up to APQP Phase 2 is
completed.
-Tack time is equivalent to one planned at mass production.
-Mass production operators and inspectors, who have a certification, work in the production.
-CFT is involved in “Mass Production Trial Run”.
3.2 Check Items
Suppliers shall use the designated check items required in the Form of QRS SECTION 2.
3.3 Implementation
-Suppliers shall implement self-directive “Mass Production Trial Run” under the condition according to
“3.1.”.
-In the trial run, suppliers shall actually confirm that mass production and Quality Control are realized
same as evaluated in “Process Assurance Assessment”.
-Once identifying any concerns, suppliers shall share with CFT and immediately determine corrective
actions.
3.4 Implementation as Mazda Joint Event
Suppliers shall accept if Mazda requires joining in the “Mass Production Trial Run” as “Mazda Joint
Event”.
The designated form “Mass Production Trial Run Report” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
74
3.3.5 A-26. APQP Element; “Part Submission Declaration (PSD)”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Part Submission Declaration
(PSD)”. The purpose of this Element is that suppliers declare all APQP Elements up to APQP Phase 3 is
completed, ready to move on APQP Phase 4, and to start delivery of mass production products to Mazda.

All APQP Elements up to APQP Phase 3. (39) Initial Mass Production Intensive Control
3. Requirements
3.1 Preparation of PSD
-Suppliers shall confirm submission level referring to “3.3.4. Submission (1)” in the Chapter 3.
-Suppliers shall describe necessary entry information in the PSD according to the Form in QRS
SECTION 2.
NOTE;
One PSD can cover multiple part numbers if they are within the same family commodity. In this
case, suppliers describe a representative part number in the first page of the PSD and put other
applicable part numbers into the part list.
- Submission of “Notification of Production Method Change” may be required for design changes.
Thereofore please follow the requirements on “Table 2: Submission Documents to Mazda” (P98), in
section “4.1.2 (2) 3) b) Submission to Mazda”.
3.2 Packaging of PSD Submission Documents

Suppliers shall prepare a package of documents which consist of all output from APQP Elements. The
package is to be attached to the PSD.
3.3 Submission of PSD and Package
Suppliers shall submit the PSD with the package to Mazda.
NOTE;
Documents may not be necessary to attach as a package again, suppliers have already submitted to
Mazda, unless those documents are updated.
3.4 Timing for Submission
Submission shall be completed at least 2 weeks before start of delivery of mass production products from
suppliers. Earlier submission is acceptable if APQP phase 3 is completed.
NOTES;
-After receiving, Mazda reviews the PSD and the package, and the PSD is approved if there is no
concern at all. The PSD with Mazda’s approval is returned to suppliers before first shipment.
-For the submission level of “Lv.1”, Mazda only receives the submission but does not apply this
approval process.
- If there are any changes made after submission, re-submission on the changed points only need
to be done by 2days before shipment.
-For design changes on softwares (ex. for PCM / TCM), submission is to be done by 2days before
MRD.
75
PSD: the designated form “Parts Submission Declaration” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
Document in the package: suppliers shall refer to each APQP Element.
76
3.3.5 A-27. APQP Element; “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Initial Mass Production Intensive
Control”. The purpose of this Element is that suppliers confirm that the product quality and process
capability are being stabilized at initial stage of mass production by intensively implementing quality
inspection and by doing statistical process control.

(38) Part Submission Declaration (40) Lessons Learned
3. Requirements
3.1 Scope and Method of “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control”
Supplier shall make a plan of “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control” according to Table 2 as a
guideline.
Table 2: Scope and Method of “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control

NO. Product Quality to be controlled Control
1 “Significant Characteristics” that is controlled by Increase of the sampling frequency, addition
the sampling inspection in mass production. of statistical process control and/or restudy
of Process Capability.
2 Product quality that are affected by operators’ Additional inspection by a special
skills, such as missing operation, wrong inspection process separated from mass
component installation, appearance. production inspection process.
3 Product quality that caused quality concerns at
TT or PP build event.
4 Product quality that Mazda requires. Agreed method with Mazda.
3.2 Duration and Criteria for Closure

-Suppliers shall define certain duration of “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control” or 1,000 products
of accumulated total production after start of mass production.
-Criteria for closure of “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control” shall ensure that claim from Mazda is
to be zero during the pre-determined timeframe. Suppliers should define the other criteria as needed.
3.3 Planning
Suppliers shall make a plan of the Initial Mass Production Intensive Control including the contents below.
The plan shall be submitted to Mazda if required.
a) Scope of product quality
b) Inspection Frequency
c) Duration and planned quantity
d) Criteria for closure
3.4 Implementation and Closure
Suppliers shall implement “Initial Mass Production Intensive Control” according to the plan. If Mazda
requires, the closure shall be agreed with Mazda.
Plan; any forms are acceptable if all the requirements in “3.3.” are fulfilled.
Report; the designated form “Report for Initial Mass Production Intensive Control” in QRS SECTION 2
should be used. The supplier internal form is acceptable if all the requirements in this document are
fulfilled.
77
3.3.5 A-28. APQP Element; “Lessons Learned”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the APQP Element “Lessons Learned”. The purpose of
this Element is to improve suppliers’ APQP to be more robust for this project and the next projects.
“Lessons Learned” is an approach of finding opportunities to improve suppliers’ APQP, through
reviewing product quality status at the initial mass production as well as utilizing effectiveness of APQP
relevant activities.

All APQP Elements for this project All APQP Elements for the next projects
3. Requirements
3.1 General
Suppliers shall implement “Lessons Learned” around 6 months after start of mass production according to
“3.2 Implementing Procedure”. “Lessons Learned” should be updated according to the need by the
supplier.
3.2 Implementing Procedure
3.2.1 Review of all circumstances during APQP
Suppliers shall review all output and documents from APQP, and reflect all circumstances referring to the
followings.
-Did each APQP Element completion satisfy timing as planned in APQP? If not, what was wrong?
-Were there any concerns during APQP? If yes, what was wrong?
-Did any quality claims occur in DCV, TT and/or PP vehicles? If yes, why did the claim escape
from the supplier? Why did the supplier prevent the claim during APQP?
-Was there any excellent result of APQP more than suppliers’ expectation? What was a reason for
the success?
-Were there newly installed APQP relevant activities which have positive effectiveness? If yes, is
the activity already standardized?
3.2.2 Review of mass production quality
Suppliers shall review 8D reports for product quality concerns (Concerns with Rework Action, Warranty
Claims and 0km-Claims) that occurred within 6 months after start of mass production, referring to the
following.
-Did a product quality concern occur? Why could not it be prevented during APQP?
3.2.3 Corrective Actions
As an opportunity of improvement through “3.2.1 Review of all circumstances during APQP” and “3.2.2
Review of mass production quality”, suppliers shall take possible corrective actions into suppliers’
Quality Management System, design standards, technical standards, and internal procedures. Suppliers
shall also confirm that the improvement is proven to be effective for the next projects.
Not applicable.
78
APPENDIX- Requirements for Parts Delivery
1. Purpose
This appendix describes supplemental requirements that suppliers satisfy when delivering new parts to
Mazda.
2. Requirements
2.1 Status of Production Readiness at Mazda Build Events
Table 1 indicates the requirements of Production readiness when delivering the parts at each Mazda build
event.
Table 1: Requirements for status of production readiness

Facilities, Jigs, and
Type of new parts Tooling Operators
Inspection Gauges
Certified Prototype
Prototype Parts Prototype Tools Prototype Production
Operators
(M-1 etc.) Possible Possible
Possible
Certified Prototype
Mass Production Tools Prototype Production
DCV Parts Operators
Required Possible
Possible
Certified Prototype
Mass Production Tools Mass Production
TT Parts Operators
Required Required
Possible
Certified Mass
Mass Production Tools Mass Production
PP Parts Production Operators
Required Required
Required
Certified Mass
Initial Mass Mass Production Tools Mass Production
Production Operators
Production Parts Required Required
Required
2.2 Final Design Drawing
The final design drawing shall be submitted to Mazda Design Dept. for approval. Suppliers shall ensure
the approval is completed before TT parts delivery.
2.3 Documents to be Attached to the Parts Delivered
Table 2 indicates the type of document to be attached to the parts delivered at each build event. Suppliers
shall complete the corresponding APQP Elements prior to delivery.
Documents from the corresponding APQP Elements are:

-“Inspection Report” from “A-12 Parts Inspection”
-“Design (or Production) Validation Test Report” from “A-7 Design and Production Validation Test”
-“Parts Submission Declaration (PSD)” from “A-26 Parts Submission Declaration”
NOTE;
If the PSD is already approved before PP parts delivery, the approved PSD is attached instead of
attaching “Inspection Report” and “Production Validation Test Report”.
79
Table 2: Necessity of Attachment
Necessity of Attachment
Type of new Production
parts Inspection Design Validation Test
Validation Test PSD
Report Report
Report
Prototype Parts
Required Required Not needed Not needed
(M-1 etc.)
DCV Parts Required Required Not needed Not needed
If “Production Validation
If completed,
TT Parts Required Test” not completed, Not needed
Required
Required
If completed,
PP Parts Required Not needed Required
Required
If PSD
Initial Mass If PSD approved,
approved, Not needed Required
Production Parts Not needed
Not needed
2.4 Traceability between Parts and Inspection Data

Traceability between delivered parts and Inspection data is important. It is effective for Mazda when
evaluating the vehicle quality such as a correlation between vehicle performance and component quality.
Suppliers should support making inspection data traceable to the individual delivered part if Mazda
requires.
(1) Prototype and DCV Parts
The traceability shall be implemented.
(2) TT, PP, and Initial Mass Production Parts
The traceability shall be implemented when required by Mazda.
NOTES;
-The identification marking such as reference number, serial number indicated in the inspection
report shall be also placed on the actual parts for the traceability purpose.
If the identification marking may cause an adverse effect on product quality or vehicle
performance, supplier shall notify Mazda in advance and obtain Mazda’s instructions for
identification marking location and method.
-Supplier shall discuss with Mazda if special parts delivery with traceability information is
requested. The special parts are such parts that are intentionally produced under the worst case
condition of process parameters or the parts that performance or quality is adjusted to the
specification limit.
2.5 Scope of “Request for Deviation”
Suppliers shall submit “Request for Deviation” if the requirements specified in “2.2.Document to Attach”
are not fulfilled, or if the delivered parts have any nonconformity to the design requirements.
NOTE;
-For detail of “Request for Deviation”, refer to “4.1.2 Requirements, (3) Control of
Nonconforming Parts, 4) Deviation”.
-As an exception, if the Production Validation Test is not completed until delivery of TT pars,
“Request for Deviation” is not required.
80
3. Identification of Parts Delivery
3.1 Identification for parts directly delivered to Mazda or delivered as Mazda Supplied Parts
(1) Identification of Delivery Lots
For details, see “JUMP-P system Operation Manual （P47）” issued by Purchasing. Table 3 and Table 4
show the excerpt.
When initial parts are delivered to Mazda, the delivery lots shall be identified with the Identification Tag
according to Table 3. After necessary entries on the Identification Tag have been filled in, the
Identification Tag shall be attached to the actual parts which are delivered to the designated parts
warehouse.
Table 3: Identification for parts directly delivered to Mazda or delivered as Mazda Supplied Parts
Type Identification Scope Form
Prototype Parts (M-1) Identification Tag
and DCV Parts (YELLOW)
All delivery lots
TT/PP Parts Identification Tag (BLUE)
Initial Mass
Production Parts and QRS SECTION 2
Identification Tag (BLUE) Identification of
KD/Service Initial
Parts Parts Delivery
Initial Parts after (Direct Delivery)
The first delivery lot
Design Change or Identification Tag (PINK)
Process Change
Initial Parts after
Identification Tag
Production Method
(YELLOW)
Change
NOTES;
- One set of the Identification Tag consists of tags for Prototype Fabrication Dept., Quality Dept.,
parts warehouse, and Information System. The Identification Tag is given from Mazda Purchasing
Dept.
-Identification Tag for Design Change (Process Change) shall be attached from the first delivery
of Initial Mass Production Parts.
-When parts already under submission are delivered to another parts warehouse, for the first time,
tags shall also be attached. In that case, circle “2. Under Delivery to another parts warehouse” in
the remarks section of the Identification Tag (blue), or Identification Tag (Pink), and enter the
name of the parts warehouse where parts are already under submission in parentheses. Also, write
down the Parts Submission Declaration No. in the border. The tags shall be attached to actual parts
and delivered to the designated inspection site.
There is no column for “Other plants / Parts shipped to warehouse” on the Identification Tag
(Yellow), so please fill in the warehouse no. in the NOTE section.
3.2 Identification for parts delivered as KD Parts
KD initial parts to be provided overseas and initial delivery parts shall be identified according to Table 4.
The Identification Labels shall be created by suppliers and attached to the delivery lot.
81
Table 4: Identification for parts delivered as KD Parts
Identification Tag
Prototype Parts (M-1)
(YELLOW)
and DCV Parts
and Identification Label All delivery lots
Identification Tag (BLUE)
TT/PP Parts
and Identification Label
QRS SECTION 2
Initial Mass Identification of
Production Parts and Identification Tag (BLUE) Parts Delivery
KD/Service Initial and Identification Label (Direct Delivery)
Parts and
Initial Parts after (Indirect Delivery)
Identification Tag (PINK) The first delivery lot
Design Change or
and Identification Label
Process Change
Initial Parts after Identification Tag
Production Method (YELLOW)
Change and Identification Label
NOTE;
The Identification Label shall be attached to an outside of each pallet or container.
3.3 Identification for parts delivered to Mazda from outside Japan

Initial parts delivered to Mazda from outside Japan shall be identified according to Table 5. The
Identification Labels shall be created by suppliers according to referenced form and attached to the
delivery lot.
Table 5: Identification for parts delivered to Mazda from outside Japan

Prototype Parts (M-1)
and DCV Parts
All delivery lots
TT/PP Parts
Initial Mass
Production Parts and QRS SECTION 2
KD/Service Initial Identification of
Identification Label
Parts Parts Delivery
Initial Parts after (Indirect Delivery)
The first delivery lot
Design Change or
Process Change
Initial Parts after
Production Method
Change
NOTE;
The Identification Labels shall be placed on both sides of 2 corners of individual carton or unit
pallet loads.
82
3.3.6 Specific Requirements for Particular Elements
3.3.6 B-1. Particular Element; “Verification for Engine Management System”
1. Purpose
This Document describes specific requirements as a particular APQP Element of “Verification Engine
Management System” for the purpose of eliminating potential failures predicted through design activities
for Engine Management System.
2. Requirements
2.1 Implementation Procedure
Suppliers shall discuss with the responsible Mazda Design Dept. and implement the activities specified in
the Table 1. The result of the activities shall be agreed with Mazda.
NOTE;
-DR-A: Design Review for Mazda Design Requirements
-DR-B: Design Review for Supplier Specific Design
-DR-C: Design Review for Design Completion
Table 1: Verification Activities and Requirements

Verification Contents of Verification Activities
Activity Item Target and Purpose Requirements
(Stage)
System-wide Concept Comprehend the Concept Design Supplier to comprehend the
Design System-wide Engine Management developing targets for vehicle and
as an important design engine performance, technical
information for PCM Specific approaches and road map to achieve
Design activities the targets, which are given by
Mazda.
Concept Design of PCM Comprehend technical Supplier to comprehend the
Hardware background, design intention and followings given by Mazda;
and information about relevant a) Changes from the former released
Mazda Design systems and components to the design requirements.
Requirements PCM, which are not fully b) Concerns from DRBFM of the
specified in the drawings, in order changes.
to perform robust specific design
for the PCM Hardware.
Concept Design of PCM Comprehend technical Supplier to comprehend the
DR-A
Software background, design intention and followings given by Mazda;
(After FD)
and information about relevant a) Changes from the former released
Mazda Design systems and components to the design requirements.
Requirements PCM, which are not fully b) Concerns from DRBFM of the
specified in the drawings, in order changes.
to perform robust specific design
for the PCM Software.
Schedule for Design and Share information about the Supplier to share information about
Development schedule for Mazda’s program program milestones and developing
milestones to promote supplier’s schedule, which are given by Mazda.
design and development activities.
Prototype build events Share information about the Supplier to understand information
applicable prototype build events about applicable prototype builds
at Mazda to promote suppliers for events at Mazda etc., which is
smooth deliveries according to explained by Mazda.
prototype orders.
83
Output from Specific Design Verify consistency between Supplier to present verification
of PCM Hardware Mazda’s design requirements result for consistency between
and supplier’s design Mazda’s design requirements and
specifications. supplier’s design specifications
based on changes from the base
product.
Electric Review existence of Mazda to review Mazda design
Control misinterpretation between requirements and design intention
Design Mazda’s design intention and are appropriately converted into
Specifications supplier’s Electric Control supplier’s Electric Control Design
Design Specifications. Specifications.
The Electric Control Design
Specifications shall be submitted
prior to this review.
Program Confirm that necessary design Supplier to submit Electric Control
Output from
Design information for accurately for timer, Flow Chart and Timing
Specific
Specification programing (coding) is Chart to Mazda.
Design of
prepared. Any Electric Controls related to
PCM
timing including all corresponding
Software
Test Specifications shall be
submitted.
Programing Verify that the programing Supplier to submit result of the
(coding) (coding) is appropriate. verification by check tools and by
check sheets to Mazda.
Program Tests Verify that the coded program Supplier to submit result of the
runs as required in the design verification for the program runs
specifications. according to the Test
DR-B
Specifications.
(Before parts
Status of Microprocessor’s Verify that the status of using Mazda to verify status of
delivery)
resources Microprocessor’s is processing load and memory usage
appropriate. in each function.
Supplier to submit a comparison
table to the developing targets and
a distribution map of functions in
the microprocessor in terms of the
timer or AD convertor.
Supplier Compatibility Verify supplier’s internal Supplier to explain design contents
design and development that are not shown in the Mazda
intention. design requirements for Mazda’s
approval.
Past Concerns Recurrence Confirm that preventive Mazda to confirm that the
Prevention actions are taken to prevent preventive actions are reflected
Past Concerns and necessary into supplier’s design
development and verifications specifications.
are completed. Supplier to submit result of the
corresponding development and
verification activities.
Part Development Chart a) Confirm status of design Supplier to submit the followings;
validation items (simulation, a) Status of design validation items
single part tests etc.) (simulation, single part tests etc.)
b) Clarify timing for Design including those result and
Completion and design and completion.
development. b) Part Development Chart where
developing items and the
corresponding design
specifications are shown.
84
Result for Review result of Supplier to submit result of verifications
Single Part simulation including including status of completion and check
Test single part tests. result for concerns identified at DR-B.
-The result shall show contents in
consideration of variation of PCM’s single
performance.
-The result shall show evidence that the
single part tests are completed with the
Validation compliance to test conditions specified in
Tests for MES including unique test conditions
PCM applied to each PCM line-up.
Hardware Output of Confirm consistency Supplier to submit result for consistency
Specific between Mazda’s between Mazda’s design requirements and
Design design requirements and supplier’s design specifications based on
supplier’s design changes from the base product.
specifications.
Result of Verify entire result of Supplier to submit result that shows the
Vehicle Tests vehicle tests and single corresponding tests defined in DR-B are
part tests. passed. Necessary tests or evaluations for
variation are also to be included in the result.
Electric Review existence of Supplier to submit evidence that shows
Control misinterpretation Mazda’s design requirements and design
Design between Mazda’s intention are appropriately converted into
Specification design requirements and supplier’s Electric Control Design
s supplier’s Electric Specifications.
Control Design The Electric Control Design Specifications
Specifications. shall be submitted prior to this review.
Program Confirm that necessary Supplier to submit Electric Control for timer,
Design design information for Flow Chart and Timing Chart to Mazda.
Validation
Specification accurately programing Supplier to present all test specifications
DR-C Tests for
(coding) is prepared. related to timing, which the test
(Before Design PCM
specifications require test patterns to be
Completion) Software
established.
Programing Verify that the Supplier to submit result of the verification
(coding) programing (coding) is by check tools and by check sheets to Mazda.
appropriate.
Program Review that Mazda’s Mazda to review test result based on Mazda’s
Tests design requirements and design requirements.
design intention are
completely realized into
the final program.
Status of Microprocessor’s Verify that the status of Supplier to submit result of the verification
resources using Microprocessor’s with passing status after processing load and
is appropriate. memory usage in each function is verified.
Supplier to submit check result that show a
distribution map of functions in the
microprocessor in terms of the timer or AD
convertor is appropriate.
Part Development Chart Confirm all tests and Supplier to present status of implementation
developing items are of all tests and developing items and they are
completed. validated.
Past Concerns Recurrence Confirm that preventive Supplier to submit result that shows the
Prevention actions are taken to preventive actions are reflected into
prevent Past Concerns supplier’s design specifications, and result
and necessary that shows the corresponding development
development and and verification activities are completed.
verifications are
completed.
Confirmation of Design Confirm that all Design Supplier to submit status of the Design
Concerns Closure Concerns are closed. Concerns with result that show a taken
solution for the Design Concerns is
appropriate.
85
Activity) Item Target and Purpose Requirements
Manufacturing process Audit on manufacturing and Supplier to request Mazda relevant
audit inspection processes in both organizations to perform a joint
supplier and Mazda. manufacturing process audit.
Supplier to submit result of the joint
audit that show the PCM
Verifications appropriately is produced and works
(From TT to in manufacturing processes in both
MP) supplier and Mazda.
Vehicle Tests prior to Mass Confirm quality with usage of Supplier to request Mazda relevant
Production mass production equivalent organizations to perform the Vehicle
vehicle by implementing tests Tests to be implemented. Any
defined from Past Concerns etc. concerns identified during the tests
shall be closed before MP.
3. Submission
3.1 Form for submission to Mazda
Suppliers shall discuss with Mazda Design Dept. and forms used for each verification result are agreed in
advance.
3.2 Timing
Suppliers shall submit in a timely manner according to the instructed Mazda milestones
86
3.3.6 B-2. Particular Element; “Verification for Body Sheet Metal Parts and Vehicle Fit and
Finish Parts”
1. Purpose
This document describes specific requirements for the particular APQP Element “Verification for Body
Sheet Metal Parts and Vehicle Fit and Finish Parts”. The purpose of this Element is to promote that
suppliers implement verification activities in collaboration with Mazda, and to ensure parts with 100%
quality assurance.
2. Applicability
The requirements specified in “3. Body Sheet Metal” shall be applied to all Body Sheet Metal parts and
the following requirements in “4. Vehicle Fit and Finish Parts” shall be applied to all Vehicle Fit and
Finish Parts.
NOTES;
-“Body Sheet Metal”, used for body in white, is designated by issuing “CONCEPT DRAWING
STRUCTURE AND INSTRUCTION OF INSPECTION TOOLS CONTAIN CHECKING POINT
DRAWING” from Mazda.
-“Vehicle Fit and Finish Parts”, used for vehicle interior / exterior, is designated by issuing
“CHECKING FIXTURE CONCEPTUAL DRAWING” from Mazda.
3. Body Sheet Metal
3.1 Requirements for Verification Activities
Suppliers shall discuss with the responsible Mazda Body Production Engineering Dept. or Mazda Quality
Dept. and shall complete activities according to the requirements specified in the Table 1.
87
Table 1: Requirements for Verification Activities on Body Sheet Metal
No Items Requirements
Before Tool Design
Important specifications such as locator and tack welding position on entire
assembly processes from single stamping components to shipping process
Assembly are to be agreed with Mazda before assembly process design at suppliers.
1
Process Design Suppliers to determine necessary corrective actions for any concerns pointed
out by Mazda, and to submit an action report to Mazda for approval before
starting fabrication of assembly process.
Suppliers to submit a list of Inspection System and Tool to Mazda. Mazda to
Inspection require suppliers to improve if any concerns are pointed out. The list after
Points and taking necessary corrections is to be submitted to Mazda for approval before
A Concept creating concept Inspection Tool drawings.
2
Checking Suppliers to submit a table of Inspection Points, and concept Checking
Fixture Fixture drawings for all modules to Mazda.
Drawings Table and the drawings after taking necessary corrections are to be
submitted to Mazda for approval before starting fabrication.
Man and Machine-hour and First Time Through are to be agreed with
Mazda before Press Tool design. MC to confirm that the Process Design
Press Process satisfies the agreements.
3
Design Suppliers to determine necessary corrective actions for any concerns pointed
starting fabrication.
Before Tool Fabrication
Suppliers to submit production Jig drawings (3D data of Jig’s entire
architecture and support documents are expected) and process drawings
Assembly (operating charts are possible) after creating 3D modeling.
1
Process Design Suppliers to determine necessary corrective actions for any concerns pointed
B starting fabrication.
Inspection After creating 3D modeling, suppliers to submit the Checking Fixture
Points and drawings (3D data of the Fixture’s entire architecture and support documents
Specific are expected) for the single stamping components as well as the modules.
2
Checking Suppliers to determine necessary corrective actions for any concerns pointed
Fixture out by Mazda, and to submit an action report to Mazda for approval before
Drawings starting fabrication.
One month before delivering the initial sample parts (to the earliest build event such as PCF, TT)
C Suppliers to create Inspection Data Sheet (IDS) according to the designated
Inspection Data
1 form "Inspection Data Sheet (IDS)" in QRS SECTION 2 and to obtain
Sheet (IDS)
approval from Mazda through review meetings.
After PCF
Parts When a Defect Correction Instruction Sheet (DCIS) is issued from MC,
Modification by suppliers to submit a quotation for modification expense and its duration to
D Defect Mazda for approval before starting the modification.
1
Correction To satisfy the required Cpk after the modification is a condition for putting
Instruction the expense on Mazda, otherwise, the expense turns out to be on the
Sheet (DCIS) supplier.
Before delivering Parts for TT/PP/MP
Achievement of Suppliers to achieve the Quality Control Criterion (Hold Point: PIST /
E Quality Control PIPC).
1
Criterion (Hold If the Criteria are not achieved before TT and PP, suppliers to submit an
Points) action report for Mazda's approval.
88
Terminology;
-IDS (Inspection Data Sheet)
-PCF: parts quality development processes from DCV to MP
-DCIS (Defect Correction Instruction Sheet): A request document to change design value.
-PIST: Percentage of Inspection points that satisfy the Tolerance indicated on the drawing = The
Number of inspection points that satisfy the tolerance / The Number of inspection points * 100
-PIPC: Percentage of process capability points of which process capability is greater than or equal
to 1.33. = The Number of process capability points that Cpk is greater than or equal to 1.33 / The
Number of process capability points * 100
3.2 Submission
The documents specified in Table 2 are submitted to Mazda Quality Dept.
Table 2: Submission Documents

Inspection
Build Submission
No Characteristics Inspection Sample Size Identification
Events Documents
(Check Points)
All Check -Sample Size required by
Points specified Mazda
a) IDS
in the IDS -For destructive inspections,
From (including
1 piece per a Build Event
A PCF-1 to destructive
Significant -Sample Size required by
Check inspection)
Check Points Mazda
b) Part Feature
specified in the
IDS
All Check -All pieces in case the The same serial
Points specified delivering lot less than 5 number used in
in the IDS products IDF shall be put
-5 pieces in case the on the
delivering lot more than 5 measured
products products as
-For destructive inspections, traceability.
1 piece per a Build Event Identification
Significant -Sample Size = “the products also needs to be
Check Points measured according to the put on the
a) IDS
specified in the general requirement – 5 measured
including products so that
IDS pieces
From TT to destructive Mazda can
Check Points -Sample Size required by
Initial MP inspection categorize in
required by Mazda
B And b) Part Feature the products
Mazda
MP in case c) PIST OK used for All
of Change Check Points in -All pieces in case the Rate(%)
association with delivering lot less than 5 Check Points,
Calculation Significant
product design products Procedure
changes -5 pieces in case the Check Points or
delivering lot more than 5 not.
products
-If the IDS is not affected by
a design change (for
instance, radius shape),
suppliers to submit a report
with inspection data
measuring quality internally
affected by the change
89
4. Vehicle Fit and Finish Parts
4.1 Requirements for Verification Activities
Suppliers shall discuss with the responsible Mazda Body Production Engineering Dept. or Mazda Quality
Dept. and shall complete activities according to the requirements specified in the Table 3.
Table 3: Requirements for Verification Activities on Vehicle Fit and Finish Parts
Before Checking Fixture Design
After the Concept Checking Fixture Specification is issued by Mazda,
the Concept Checking Fixture Drawings with Check Points for each
A module is to be agreed with Mazda before starting Specific Checking
Concept Checking
Fixture Design.
Fixture Drawings
In case the Concept Checking Fixture Specification is not issued,
suppliers to establish the Concept Checking Fixture Drawings according
to "4.2 Requirements for Fit and Finish Parts’ Checking Fixtures".
Before Checking Fixture fabrication
Suppliers to submit the Specific Checking Fixture Drawings (3D data of
B Specific Checking entire architecture) for each module to Mazda for approval.
Fixture Drawings Suppliers to determine necessary corrective actions for any concerns
pointed out by Mazda, and to implement the action into fabrication.
One month before delivering the initial sample parts (to the earliest build event such as DCV, TT)
C Suppliers to create Inspection Data Sheet (IDS) according to the
Inspection Data Sheet
designated form in QRS SECTION 2 and to obtain approval from Mazda
(IDS)
through review meetings.
Before Mazda Production Trial Runs
Suppliers to fabricate necessary Checking Fixtures according to "4.2.
D Verification for
Requirements for Fit and Finish Parts’ Checking Fixtures", and to verify
Checking Fixtures
accuracy of the Checking Fixtures. If any concerns are identified,
Accuracy
necessary corrective actions are taken into the Checking Fixtures.
During Mazda Production Trial Runs (including UCF)
E Suppliers to join in Mazda Production Trial Runs (including UCF) when

Verification for fit and
requested by Mazda. If any concerns are identified, necessary corrective
finish
actions are taken.
Before delivering Parts for TT/PP/MP
Achievement of Suppliers to achieve the Quality Control Criterion (Hold Point: PIST /
F Quality Control PIPC).
Criterion (Hold If the Criteria are not achieved before TT and PP, suppliers to submit an
Points) action report for Mazda's approval.
Terminology
-UCF: Unit Checking Fixture
90
4.2 Requirements for Fit and Finish Parts’ Checking Fixtures
Suppliers shall comply with the Concept Checking Fixture Specification. The requirements specified in
Table 4 are applied to suppliers’ Checking Fixtures in case that the Concept Checking Fixture
Specification is not issued by Mazda.
Table 4: Requirements for Fit and Finish Parts’ Checking Fixtures

Locating basis where the part is fixed to the Checking Fixture is to be
consistent to one for vehicle.
Dimensions of the Checking Fixture related to the fixing location are to be
equivalent to ones specified in design drawings of the matching
parts/products.
Removable structure is to be adapted to the Checking Fixture where fasteners
are used for part location fixtures to prevent all damage caused by repetitive
use.
While measuring the part, the condition of the part location to the Checking
Fixture is to be equivalent to vehicle condition.
Mounting blocks used for the location purposes and for measuring datum
Checking fixture
A shall be secured by more than 2 blocks.
Drawing
The removable location fixtures blocks are securely mounted to the Checking
Fixture after the part has been located in the fixture.
Material and Design of the fixing blocks are determined in consideration of
prevention of deformation, bending or wear.
The fixing blocks to have chamfer on edge.
When removing the part from the Checking Fixture, interference between the
part and the Checking Fixture is unacceptable.
Condition (shape or applied torque) of fixtures by fasteners is to be equivalent
to vehicle condition.
Symbols for the corresponding Check Points are to be individually marked on
the measurement blocks.
Verification for Checking Fixture Accuracy is to be recorded with passing
Verification for status.
B Checking Fixture There is no clearance between the blocks and the Checking Fixtures.
Accuracy Gauge R&R (*1) is to be implemented if applicable.
Calibration interval of the checking fixture is to be determined.
Part Necessary measurement devices or inspection tools, which ensure appropriate
C Measurement measurement with the Checking Fixtures, are defined.
NOTE;
(*1) Refer to “A-19. Measurement System Evaluation”

The designated form “Inspection Data Sheet (IDS)” shall be used.
91
3.3.6 B-3. Particular Element; “Quality Equivalence Verification”
1. Purpose
This document describes requirements for the particular APQP Element “Quality Equivalence
Verification”, which is positioned as a supplement toward the standard APQP Elements. The purpose of
this Element is, when suppliers change the original manufacturing location, the suppliers shall assure
product quality is equivalent to original one.

(17) Manufacturing Process Design and Concept Control (29) Production Validation Test
Plan (30) Process Capability Study
(18) Process FMEA (31) TT Parts Inspection
(21) Risk Assessment for New/Changed (Production) (35) Process Assurance Assessment
(26) Control Plan
3. Applicability
“Quality Equivalence Verification” shall be applied to the changes according to Table 2.
Table 2: Applicability of Quality Equivalence Verification

Reference from Category Applicable Changes
“A-1.Mazda Input Requirements, New products New products that are launched at different
Table 2” manufacturing location from the current
location producing similar or family products.
“4.1.2.Requirements, (2)Change MP products Change (1) in Change class 2 and change (1)
Control, 3) Production Method (with Changes) to (6) in Change class 3.
Change, Table 1”
4. Implementation Procedure
Suppliers shall fulfill the supplemental requirements specified in Table 3 in addition to APQP.
Table 3: Additional Requirements on the standard APQP Elements

Corresponding standard APQP Additional requirements described in Output
Elements
(17) Manufacturing Process 4.1 Development for Equivalent Concept Control Plan
Design and Concept Control Manufacturing Process Design and Control
Plan Plan
(21) Risk Assessment for 4.2 Clarification of Differences from the Survey on
New/Changed (Production) Base Manufacturing Process New/Changed
(18) Process FMEA 4.3 Risk Assessment and Preventive Process FMEA
Actions
(26) Control Plan Control Plan
(35) Process Assurance Process Assurance
Assessment Assessment
(29) Production Validation Test 4.4 Verification for Equivalent Product Quality Equivalence
Quality Verification Plan and
(30) Process Capability Study Report
(31) TT Parts Inspection
92
4.1 Development for Equivalent Manufacturing Process Design and Control Plan
-Suppliers shall define best practices for manufacturing process where similar product is currently
produced. (hereinafter called “base manufacturing process”).
-Manufacturing Process Design and Control Plan established in the base manufacturing process should be
transferred for ensuring the same level of process assurance.
4.2 Clarification of Differences from the Base Manufacturing Process
In comparison with the base manufacturing process, suppliers shall identify all differences (new and
changed) in the manufacturing system, production methods/techniques, Quality Control, inspection
techniques.
4.3 Risk Assessment and Preventive Actions
-“Process FMEA” shall be implemented in comparison with the one that has been established at the base
manufacturing process. Suppliers shall predict the same failure modes and ensure equivalent or less RPN.
Necessary preventive actions shall be taken for RPN higher than the base manufacturing process even
though it has achieved supplier internal general criteria.
-Suppliers shall emphasize a focus on unique or different manufacturing processes and predict all
potential failure modes.
-“Control Plan” shall be established in comparison with the one that has been established at the base
manufacturing process. The Control Items (both Product Quality Control and Process Parameter Control)
and the Inspection Frequency specified in the Control Plan shall be consistent if at all possible.
-Necessary Quality Control for unique or different manufacturing processes shall be established through
the relevant APQP Elements, and shall be incorporated into the Control Plan.
-“Process Assurance Assessment” shall be implemented in comparison with the one that has been
established at the base manufacturing process. Suppliers shall ensure the same level of process assurance
or above.
4.4 Verification for Equivalent Product Quality
-Results of measuring, testing or inspecting the product quality shall be verified in comparison with the
ones that have been proven at the base manufacturing process.
4.4.1 Verification Plan
-A verification Plan shall be established according to the requirements specified in Table 4.
Table 4: Planning Items and Procedure for Verification Plan

No. Planning Item Procedure
Product quality -Determine which product quality characteristics are measured in
characteristics comparison.
1 Although all characteristics on the design drawings should be measured
in principle, suppliers should select quality characteristics in
consideration of severity or unique/different manufacturing process.
Sampling method -Sampling size and method, which enable supplier to evaluate accurate
and sample size data and variation of the product quality, is determined. To evaluate the
2
variation, it is important to use Process Capability Index with having
enough sample size. Refer to “A-22 Process Capability Study”.
Verification method -Verification method and measurement systems are determined. To
and measurement eliminate any unexpected measurement error, suppliers should use the
3
system same measurement systems with having samples from the base
manufacturing process if at all possible.
Supplement for -It is expected that Validation Test cycles are to be continued until a test
“Product Validation sample is failed or its product functionality is completely lost (=
4 Test” Reliability limit) even though the test target cycles of the design
requirement are passed. Refer to “A-7. Design and Production Validation
Test”.
93
4.4.2 Verification and Result Analysis
-Suppliers shall implement verification according to the established verification plan. When reviewing the
results of verification, the measurement /testing data shall be compared to the base product quality to
assure no adverse variation exists.
-If there is unknown variation on a particular product quality and is regarded as a quality risk, suppliers
shall identify a root cause and take necessary corrective actions.
5. Submission
Suppliers shall submit documents according to the given submission level as specified in Table 5.
Suppliers shall also submit the documents when required by Mazda.
Table 5: Submission Documents of Quality Equivalence Verification

Submission Level
Submission documents
Lv.1 Lv.2 Lv.3
Concept Control Plan N N Y
Survey on New/Changed N N Y
Process FMEA Work Sheet (Both the Target and the Base) N N Y
Control Plan (Both the Target and the Base) N N Y
Process Assurance Assessment N N Y
Verification Plan Y Y Y
Verification Report Y Y Y
NOTES;
Legend symbol in the column of “Submission Level”;
Y = Submission is required. In case of “Lv.3”, suppliers shall submit documents through “Mazda
Joint Events”.
requires.
For “4.1 Development for Equivalence Manufacturing Process Design and Control Plan”;
“Process Flow Chart and Concept Control Plan” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
For “4.2 Clarification of Differences from the Base Manufacturing Process”;

The form “Survey on New/Changed” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
For “4.3 Risk Assessment and Preventive Actions”;

“Process FMEA Work Sheet” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
When submission required by Mazda, Process FMEAs of the base manufacturing process shall be
attached for comparison purposes.
“Control Plan” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.

When submission required by Mazda, Control Plan of the base manufacturing process shall be attached
for comparison purposes.
“Process Assurance Assessment” shall be referred to QRS SECTION 2.

When submission required by Mazda, Process Assurance Assessment of the base manufacturing process
shall be attached for comparison purposes.
For “4.4 Verification for Equivalent Product Quality”;

Any forms for “Verification Plan” are acceptable, if the requirements in Table 4 are fulfilled.
For “Verification Report”, the designated form “Quality Equivalence Verification Report” in QRS
SECTION 2 should be used. The supplier internal form is acceptable if all the requirements specified in
this document are fulfilled.
94
Chapter 4. Quality Assurance for Mass Production
This chapter describes quality assurance for mass production. Through implementing the specified APQP
Elements, suppliers succeed to realize the robust production where sufficient process assurance is
confirmed. From here on, suppliers shall control the mass production to maintain quality. In addition,
Continuous Improvement shall be implemented for a higher product quality and quality assurance.
Fig. 1: Key Flow of Quality Assurance for Mass Production
Chapter 4. Quality Assurance

for Mass Production
Mass Production Control
Control of
Maintenance
Chapter 3. Quality Assurance for New Product Launch

Change Control Preventive Actions
Feedback
Control of Corrective Actions

Nonconforming Parts
Internal Quality Audit

Continuous Improvement
Audit by a third party
Quality Target
Audit by Mazda
Setting
Action Plan Preventive Actions
Implementation Corrective Actions

Feedback
Field Claim Defect Information

Warranty Claims 12 months ppm Monthly Quality Report (MQR)
Input from Mazda
95
4.1 Mass Production Control
4.1.1 Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for Mass Production Control. The purpose is to
continuously assure product quality through implementing necessary controls such as “Control of
Maintenance”, “Change Control”, “Control of Nonconforming Parts” and taking corrective and
preventive actions.
4.1.2 Requirements
4.1.2 (1) Control of Maintenance
4.1.2 (1) 1) Process Control
Suppliers shall define documented procedures (such as an operation check, a facility check, a process
parameter check, Tools and Jigs check) and shall control 4M (MAN, MACHINE, MATERIAL and
METHOD) in the mass production processes. Those checks shall be implemented on a regular basis, for
instance, a checking interval is at the beginning, middle and end of production. An alternative way is daily,
weekly, monthly or annual controls.
-MAN; Confirm operators’ skills and education

Suppliers shall define necessary skills for operators performing production. Only the operators
who obtain the necessary skills shall work in the production.
Suppliers shall ensure that the operators keep the necessary skills by implementing periodical
education and monitoring the actual operations.
-MACHINE; Control Production Facilities, Tools, Jigs, Inspection Gauges, and Measurement Systems.
-MATERIAL; Control raw materials, perishable materials
-METHOD; Control document accuracy and effectiveness (Process Parameters, Operating Procedures,
Work Instructions, Test Instructions, and Production Techniques)
4.1.2 (1) 2) Product Quality Control (including Control of Quality Variation)
Suppliers shall implement product Quality Controls according to the Control Plan and verify that the
planned product quality is continuously assured. To control variation of the product quality especially for
the “Significant Characteristics”, use of Statistical Process Control (SPC) shall be implemented.
4.1.2 (2) Change Control
4.1.2 (2) 1) Design Change
4.1.2 (2) 1) a) APQP
When a Design Change arises, suppliers shall draw up APQP according to “3.3.2. Advanced Product
Quality Planning (APQP)” and implement necessary APQP Elements. If applicable, the particular APQP
Element according to “3.3.6 Specific Requirements for Particular Elements” shall also be implemented.
The applicable APQP Elements can be limited in consideration with affects of the Design Change.
4.1.2 (2) 1) b) Submission to Mazda
Before implementing a Design Change, suppliers shall notify the responsible Mazda Design Dept. for
Approval.
NOTE;
“Engineering Change Request” is to be submitted as a notification of the Design Change.
Before delivering the changed parts, suppliers shall submit a PSD with a package of APQP documents
according to Table 5 in “3.3.4 Submission” to Mazda for approval. Suppliers shall apply “submission
level for Mass Production Parts” which is specified by Mazda Mazda Quality Dept. at the beginning of
fiscal year.
96
4.1.2 (2) 2) Process Change
4.1.2 (2) 2) a) APQP
When Mazda Production Engineering Dept. or Mazda Purchasing Dept. initiates a Process Change
applicable only for the designated suppliers, APQP shall be draw up according to “3.3.2. Advanced
Product Quality Planning (APQP)” and implement necessary APQP Elements. If applicable, the particular
APQP Element according to “3.3.6 Specific Requirements for Particular Elements” shall also be
implemented. The applicable APQP Elements can be limited in consideration with affects of the Design
Change.
Before delivering the changed parts, suppliers shall submit a PSD with a package of APQP documents
according to Table 5 in “3.3.4.Submission” to Mazda for approval. Suppliers shall apply “submission
level for Mass Production Parts” which is specified by Mazda Mazda Quality Dept. at the beginning of
fiscal year.
4.1.2 (2) 3) Production Method Change
4.1.2 (2) 3) a) APQP
At any time a Production Method Change arises, suppliers shall control the change and verify that product
quality is not affected by the change. The product quality shall be equivalent before-and –after the
change.
Suppliers shall implement APQP or Quality Equivalence Evaluation in accordance to Table 1.
97
Table 1: Requirements for Production Method Change
Required Activity
Class
of Definition of Change Quality Quality
Change Assurance Equivalence
Activity Verification
(*2)
(1) Change of operator (including operator rotation)
(2) Periodical Change of cutting tool
(3) Changes due to facility maintenance, Initial
Periodical die maintenance. (*4) Sample
Class 1 N
(4) Change of material lot Inspection
(5) Change of production shift and Change-Over (*1)
(6) Change of process parameters within the allowable control range
(Specified in the Control Plan and/or the parameter sheet)
(1) Expansion or manipulation, renewal of the same designed facility, Y
jig, tool or die as the current one (*3)
(2) Change of production layout that requires relocation of facilities
within the current manufacturing location
(3) Use of component, material or subsidiary material that was stored
for more than 1 year (within the expiration date)
(4) Use of facility, jig, tool, or die that was idle for more than 6
months
(5) Change of Assembly Tag or Label (according to Mazda’s APQP
Class 2
requirement) (*2)
N
(6) Any Changes associated to a Design Change (*5)
(7) Any Changes associated to a VA/VE proposal (*5)
(8) Change of identification on parts apart from design requirements
(e.g. supplier internal marking color or position)
(9) Change of measurement system, inspection technique or
inspection frequency
(10) Change on packaging (small changes that does not require
approval from Mazda)
(1) Change of manufacturing location
(2) Change of production line (including expansion, integration,
transfer of production line)
(3) Change in Supply-Chain (or subcontractor)
(4) Change of production method or technique (e.g. from Y
automation to manual operation, from spot welding to arc (*3)
welding, from twice machining to single machining)
APQP
Class 3 (5) Change of materials including component materials
(*3)
(6) Change of process parameters beyond the allowable control range
(7) Change of production shift (e.g. from 1 shift to 2 shifts operation)

(8) Change of cutting tool design
(9) Use of temporarily production process due to emergency case N
(10)Change from the description in “Assurance Item List for System
Inspection”.(*6)
NOTES;
(*1) For the Class 1, suppliers shall perform an Initial Sample Inspection to verify that product
quality after implementing the change is equivalent to the quality before the change. A
documented procedure for the Initial Sample Inspection shall be introduced.
In case of (1) in Class 1, suppliers shall ensure to introduce an operator whose skills are equivalent
to the former operator. Operators who do not achieve necessary skills shall be trained. Untrained
operators cannot be utilized during mass production.
(*2) Suppliers shall determine the applicable APQP Elements that can be limited in consideration
with affects of the Production Method Change. If applicable, the particular APQP Element
according to “3.3.6 Specific Requirements for Particular Elements” shall also be implemented.
(*3) To be implemented in accordance to “3.3.6 B-3 Quality Equivalence Verification”. For the
98
Changes (5) and (6) in Class 3, partially “4.4 Verification for Equivalent Product Quality” in
“3.3.6 B-3 Quality Equivalence Verification” is to be implemented.
(*4) “(3) Changes due to facility maintenance, Periodical die maintenance” includes cleaning and
check up. Defects found from these factors will be referred to Class 2(1)
(*5)If the referring change is of class 3, then class 3 instructions are to be followed.
(*6) Inspections stipulated in “Assurance Item List for System Inspection” in Section “2.7
Inspection management for security components”. When the change content overlaps with
description of other change class, apply class 3.
The “Notification of Production Method Change” shall be submitted immediately after
planning the change and undertaking APQP activity even though it is planned at mass production
preparation process.

Suppliers shall submit necessary documents specified in Table 2 to Mazda for approval.
-Notification of Production Method Change

Only for Production Method Change Class 3, suppliers shall submit a “Notification of Production Method
Change” and APQP to Mazda Quality Dept. for approval. This is to be done right after the activity is
planned.
NOTES;
-“Notification of Production Method Change” in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
-In case that suppliers implement a Production Method Change associated with a Design Change,
the “Engineering Change Request” approved by Mazda Design Dept. shall be attached to the PSD.
-For a change in production method caused due to “2.7 Inspection management for security
components”, attach revised proposal in “Assurance Item List for System Inspection”.
-PSD
For Production Method Changes except Class 1, suppliers shall submit a PSD to Mazda Quality Dept. no
later than 2 weeks before the start of delivery. (Refer to “A-26. Part Submission Declaration”)
NOTE;
In case that suppliers implement a Production Method Change associated with a Design Change,
the “Engineering Change Request” approved by Mazda Design Dept. shall be attached to the PSD.
-Documents to be submitted to Mazda
For a package of APQP documents, suppliers shall refer to Table 5 in “3.3.4.Submission”. However,
instead of the submission level in Table 4 “3.3.4.Submission”, suppliers shall apply “submission level for
Mass Production Parts” which is specified by Mazda Mazda Quality Dept. at the beginning of fiscal year.
If the change is effective for a certain family of products or the similar commodities, the submission is
required to only the leading product.
Table 2: Submission Documents to Mazda

Notification Quality
of Production Equivalence A package of APQP
Category PSD
Methods Verification documents
Change Report
According to
Design Change N or ※Y Y N
“Submission Level for
Mass Production
Process Change N Y N
Parts”
Class 1 N N N N/A
Production
(1) N Y Y According to
Class 2
Method (2)to(10) N Y N
“Submission Level for
Change (1) to (6) Y Y Y Mass Production
Class 3 (7) to Parts”
(10) Y Y N
99
NOTES;
-“Submission level for Mass Production Parts” is specified by Mazda Quality Dept. at the
beginning of fiscal year.
-Legend symbol in Table 13;
Y = Submission is required.
requires.
*If the change refers to the changes in class 3, put “Y” even if it is a design change.
100
4.1.2 (3) Control of Nonconforming Parts
Suppliers shall ensure that any nonconforming parts are clearly identified and contained to prevent
unintended use or escape from the manufacturing process.
4.1.2 (3) 1) Nonconforming Parts from Markets and/or Mazda
Supplier shall handle statement described in the following section promptly.
Mazda may conduct rework action including recalls/service campaign and extend warranty period for
escaped non-conforming products or ones in which there is concerns to be escaped into market. To take
measures for these appropriately, supplier shall clarify the cause of non-conformity and report to Mazda
without any delay after specifying the scope with possible non-conformity on a reasonable basis based on
development record, changing point record of production/distribution process, lot traceability control, etc.
The supplier shall support for these measures upon consultation with Mazda.
4.1.2 (3) 1) a) Notification to Suppliers
Suppliers are notified by issuing “Corrective Action Sheet for Warranty Claim (Purchased Parts)” for
Warranty Claims and by issuing “Defect Information” for 0km-Claims.
In an emergency case that requires an immediate containment action, “Rejection Notice (hereinafter
called R/N)” is issued to the supplier.
4.1.2 (3) 1) b) Interim Action
-Containment Action
Immediately after receiving the notification, suppliers shall take necessary containment actions such as
sorting at Mazda parts warehouse, replacement, reworking to prevent any part shortages or line stoppages
at Mazda.
NOTES;
-For claims on prototype parts; to be communicated with Mazda Prototype Fabrication Dept.
-For claims on TT, PP, or MP parts; to be communicated with Mazda Quality Dept.
Until necessary corrective actions are completed and the certified parts arrive at Mazda, suppliers shall
perform 100% inspection or an alternative control to assure parts suspected. Certification labels/ marking
on effective deliveries shall be utilized to prove that parts conform to the design specifications.
Suppliers will be charged for associated costs if Mazda performs additional parts handling, sorting,
reworking, inspection and tests. (Agreement and Contract of the Claim Compensation)
-Response from Suppliers

Suppliers shall respond the determined interim actions to the responsible Mazda Quality Dept. Especially
those suppliers who receive an R/N shall be completed and returned to Mazda within 24 hours.
NOTE;
If the supplier does not return the R/N within 24 hours, Mazda will perform necessary interim
action and charge back the supplier to avoid any part shortage or line stoppages.
-Sorting at Mazda parts warehouse

When a sorting activity at Mazda parts warehouse needs to be implemented, the supplier shall perform in
accordance to the requirements specified in Table 3.
101
Table 3: Requirements for sorting activity at Mazda parts warehouse
Case Requirements Communication
with
by Supplier -the supplier shall determine the sorting procedure with Mazda Responsible
agreement and implement the sorting in accordance to the Mazda Quality
procedure. Dept.
-the supplier shall submit the sorting result to Mazda on a daily
basis
by Sorting -the supplier shall inform Mazda of commissioning a sorting
Company company, and make a contract with the sorting company.
-the supplier shall determine the sorting procedure with Mazda
agreement and implement the sorting in accordance to the
procedure.
-the supplier shall assign a responsible supervisor to control the
sorting activity.
-the supplier shall submit sorting result to Mazda on a daily basis
4.1.2 (3) 1) c) Reporting to Mazda

Suppliers shall submit a report in accordance to “4.1.2.(4) Corrective Action, 2) Reporting to Mazda”.
The supplier is not allowed to stop sorting activities without Mazda approval which is given only after
reporting that effectiveness of corrective actions taken is evident. The supplier should submit “Sorting
Stop Request” to Mazda as soon as Mazda approval is given.
4.1.2 (3) 1) d) Objection to Claim Responsibility determined by Mazda
If the supplier has an objection to the Defect Information from Mazda, the supplier shall notify Mazda to
start necessary discussions. If there is no objection within 5 working days after the receipt of the Defect
Information, the supplier’s responsibility for the claim becomes effective.
4.1.2 (3) 1) e) Collection of Claimed Parts
-For warranty claims
After receiving “Corrective Action Sheet for Warranty Claim (Purchased Parts)”, the supplier shall pick
the claimed part up at Mazda.
-For 0km-claims
After receiving “Defect Information”, the supplier shall collect the claimed part at Mazda. If there is no
response from the supplier within 5 working days such as a request for returning part back. Mazda is
allowed to dispose the claimed parts without the supplier’s consent.
4.1.2 (3) 2) Supplier Internal Nonconforming Parts
Suppliers shall ensure that any nonconforming parts are clearly identified and contained to prevent
unintended use or escape from the process where they are found. Once parts already delivered to Mazda
are affected by the nonconformities, suppliers shall immediately inform Mazda to discuss an interim
action to be taken.
4.1.2 (3) 3) Nonconforming Mazda Supplied Parts
If the supplier, who uses Mazda Supplied Parts, finds nonconformity at the supplier’s incoming inspection
or during production, the supplier shall ensure that the nonconforming parts are clearly identified and
contained to prevent unintended use or escape from the process where they are found. The supplier shall
inform Mazda of the nonconformity, as Mazda shall issue a Defect Information to the supplier who is
responsible for the claim on the Mazda Supplied Parts.
NOTE;
Mazda will charge the supplier, who is responsible for the nonconforming Mazda Supplied Parts,
all costs associated with parts handling, disassembling, reworking, replacement, inspection and
test at both Mazda and the supplier who uses the Mazda Supplied Parts. The costs will be charged
by Mazda Purchasing Dept.
102
4.1.2 (3) 4) Deviation
4.1.2 (3) 4) a) Scope of Deviation
Deviation applies to all nonconforming parts delivered to Mazda. Deviation approval is an authorization
when Mazda temporarily permits a certain quantity of parts to be supplied, even when they do not comply
with the design specifications or cannot complete the Production Validation Tests by the scheduled
delivery date. However, for prototype/DCV parts, consult with Prototype Fabrication Dep.
NOTE;
-Deviation is limited in a certain quantity of nonconforming parts or a certain period. It is not a
permanent authorization on such as a change of design specification.
As a rule, it is not appropriate to submit deviation for the reason to postpone the implementation
of design change. This is because it may cause quality problems. Any questions on
implementation date of design change, please consult with the relevant development team. Any
changes on the implementation date must be reported through the MGN using ”ECN effective date
change request”.
Deviation will be considered for approval only when the nonconforming parts will not affect the
following:
-Mazda’s brand image or marketability
-Function, performance or durability of the parts (evidence shall be provided.)
-Does not have any effect on assembly in manufacturing
4.1.2 (3) 4) b) Request for Deviation
For TT, PP and mass production, suppliers shall fully complete the form of “Request for Deviation” and
submit it to the responsible Mazda Purchasing Dept. For prototype and DCV, suppliers shall submit it to
Mazda Prototype Planning & Parts Procurement Gr.
The Request for Deviation is confirmed by Mazda Purchase Dept. and Quality Dept. and if necessary by
the Design Engineering Dept. After reviewing, the responsible Mazda Quality Dept. informs the supplier
of the result. If it is rejected, it is recorded as "Rejection", and is returned to the supplier.
(Refer to the form “Request for Deviation” in QRS SECTION 2)
4.1.2 (3) 4) c) Specific Requirements for Deviated Parts
-Suppliers shall isolate the deviated parts from the other parts in order not to mix.
-The deviated parts shall be identified by putting a mark on the deviated parts according to agreement
with Mazda.
-Delivery boxes or containers with the deviated parts shall be identified by attaching the label for
“Approved Parts for Deviation.”
-The deviated parts shall be delivered on the date specified in the Request for Deviation.
-If Deviation due to delay of Production Validation Tests requires to submit the Production Validation Test
Report to the responsible Mazda Quality Dept. as soon as the tests are completed.
5) Control of Insufficient documentation
“Insufficient documentation” is called when suppliers do not submit the required document to Mazda,
when it is not submitted by the required date, or when missing contents on the document are claimed by
Mazda.
To prevent the insufficient documentation, suppliers shall define an appropriate procedure to control the
insufficient documentation and implement the control.
Suppliers shall submit an 8D report for the insufficient documentation if a Defect Information is issued by
Mazda.
4.1.2 (4) Corrective Action
4.1.2 (4) 1) Implementation of corrective action
Suppliers shall identify a root-cause and implement a necessary corrective action for all nonconformities
to avoid recurrence. Suppliers shall define a procedure that fulfills the following requirements.
4.1.2 (4) 1) a) Identification of root-causes (in terms of Occurrence and Escape)
Not only a root cause in the physical aspect (why the nonconformity occurs) but also a root cause in the
systemic aspect (why quality assurance processes allow the nonconformity to escape) shall be identified.
103
When the quality assurance processes are reviewed, the corresponding processes for APQP shall be
focused.
4.1.2 (4) 1) b) Determination on control of nonconformity
Control of nonconformity shall be in accordance to “4.1.2 Requirements, (3) Control of Nonconforming
Parts”.
4.1.2 (4) 1) c) Determination on actions for recurrence prevention
Corrective actions shall include recurrence prevention to improve the quality assurance process where the
root-cause is identified. When the quality assurance processes are reviewed, the corresponding processes
for APQP shall be focused.
After taking corrective actions in the production process, improvement of process assurance index shall
be verified.
4.1.2 (4) 1) d) Deployment of recurrence prevention

The actions taken for the targeted nonconformity shall be reflected into the similar products or production
processes.
Improvement of the quality assurance processes for APQP shall be effective for the next new product
launch.
4.1.2 (4) 1) e) Review on effectiveness
Effectiveness of taken actions shall be reviewed in a short term by an appropriate method.
4.1.2 (4) 2) Reporting to Mazda
Suppliers shall submit a report to Mazda by the designated date. An interim report shall be considered
prior to the designated date if a report is not fully completed.
“Process Assurance Assessment” shall be attached to the report when actions were taken into production
process to improve the process assurance index. “Process Assurance Assessment” shall show where and
how the process assurance index is improved before-and-after.
NOTES;
The following Forms designated in QRS SECTION 2 shall be used.
-“Corrective Action Sheet for Warranty Claim (Purchased Parts)” for Warranty Claims
-“Quality Check Sheet” for concerns with Rework Action
-“8D Report” for 0km-Claims (claimed by Defect Information); supplier internal form is
acceptable if the same contents as the designated “8D Report” fulfilled.
-Not applicable for supplier internal claims
4.2 Market Quality Improvement
4.2.1 Purpose
This paragraph describes specific requirements for the purpose of improvement on customer satisfaction
and for reduction of warranty costs.
4.2.2 Requirements
Suppliers shall implement and/or join in the following activities based on agreement with Mazda.
4.2.2 (1) Corrective Actions for Warranty Claims
Suppliers shall implement necessary corrective actions for Warranty Claims triggered by the warranty
information and/or when Mazda requires “Corrective Action Sheet for Warranty Claim (Purchased Parts)”.
After problem solving is completed, a report shall be submitted to Mazda by designated date.
(Refer to “4.1.2 Requirements, (4) Corrective Action”)
NOTES;
-Suppliers shall accept these requirements even for parts which production have already been
stopped.
-Further investigation may be required to the suppliers if the initial investigation ends in NTF.
104
4.2.2 (2) Market Quality Improvement Activities
At the beginning of fiscal year, suppliers should establish annual improvement plan for the market quality
based on the given warranty information such as Warranty Claims 12 months ppm, R/1000 or a bill of
warranty claims.
At the end of fiscal year, suppliers should review on the taken actions and reflect the result of review into
the action plan of next fiscal year. Suppliers should present the corresponding evidences if requested by
Mazda or when Mazda visits the supplier.
Supplier should establish the necessary system to store and analyze the claim information from various
perspectives.
4.2.2 (3) Joint Activities with Mazda for NTF and/or technical concerns
4.2.2 (3) a) Participation in Joint Activities
Suppliers shall participate into the necessary joint activities as below for NTF and/or technical concerns
which need to be solved.
-Team Activity;
It is initiated by Mazda and the team including members from the supplier approaches NTF and/or
technical concerns.
-Vehicle Reproducibility Test;
This test is to be conducted at Mazda to reproduce the claim phenomenon on a vehicle level.
-Single Part Reproducibility Test at Mazda;
This test is to be conducted at Mazda to reproduce the claim phenomenon on a single part level.
-Single Part Reproducibility Test at Supplier;
This test is to be conducted at the supplier to reproduce the claim phenomenon on a single part
level. The supplier shall accept Mazda’s participation in the test. Test specifications are to be
provided to Mazda.
-Investigation at dealer;
This investigation is to be conducted at dealer to confirm the claim on a vehicle level if requested
by Mazda.
-Investigation at Mazda production process;
This investigation is to be conducted at Mazda production process to find out potential failures or
a root-cause. The supplier should provide a proposal for improvement.
4.2.2 (3) b) Reporting to Mazda
Suppliers shall submit a documented report where the investigation, tests, corrective actions taken
through the joint activities are summarized.
4.2.2 (4) Establishment of System and Organization
Suppliers shall establish the necessary system and/or organization in order to promote the relevant
activities (1) Corrective Actions for Warranty Claims, (2) Market Quality Improvement Activities and (3)
Joint Activities with Mazda for NTF and/or technical concerns.
4.2.2 (5) Reflection into Warranty Cost Compensation
Suppliers shall discuss with Mazda to adjust warranty cost compensation based on the result of relevant
activities.
105
Glossary
This table explains glossary of terms used in QRS.
Term Explanation
Automotive Parts Automotive Parts are an inclusive term for parts purchased for Mazda
mass production vehicles or industrial engines including Service Parts.
Service Parts Service Parts are parts that Mazda supplies to dealers for the purpose of
repairing vehicles in markets.
Accessories Accessories are parts developed or manufactured for the purpose of
assembling into vehicles at dealers or Mazda associated companies.
KD Parts KD Parts are parts that Mazda supplies to overseas Mazda associated
KD : knockdown assembly plants.
Mazda Supplied Parts Mazda Supplied Parts are materials, intermediate parts and/or components
that are supplied by Mazda.
Initial Parts Initial Parts are an inclusive term used for New Parts and Changed Parts.
New Parts New Parts are parts that suppliers newly receive a sourcing from Mazda
and parts that are released with a new part number.
Initial Mass Production Initial Mass Production Intensive Control is a special control implemented
Intensive Control at the initial stage of mass production. Stability of Product Quality and
Process Capability are verified through this Control.
Changed Parts Changed Parts are parts that are changed due to a certain reason after the
first PSD is approved.
Design Changed Parts Design Changed Parts are parts that are changed due to design changes.
Process Changed Parts Process Changed Parts are parts that are changed according to requests
from Mazda Production Engineering Dept. or Mazda Purchasing Dept.
Production Method Production Method Changed Parts are parts that are changed due to
Changed Parts changes in association with production such plant transfer, production
technique change. For details, refer to “4.1.2 Requirements, (2) Change
Control, Table 1”.
Mass Production Parts Mass Production Parts are parts that are manufactured at the supplier
according to the vehicle mass production plan.
VA/VE VA is an engineering approach to improve cost performance, which is
VA : Value Analysis applied to Mass Production Parts.
VE : Value Engineering VE is also an engineering approach to improve cost performance, which is
applied to New Parts.
Supply-Chain Supply-Chain is an entire relation of production and logistics from
materials, components to finished products.
MES : Mazda Engineering MES is an engineering document where necessary engineering standards,
Standard procedures for the product planning, the service in markets etc.
Process Parameter Process Parameter is an adjustable parameter that needs to be set in
production facilities and processes for the purpose of ensuring that product
quality is built up during processing.
Production Lot Production Lot is a unit of products manufactured under the same
condition, which quality is considered as equivalent.
Control Plan Control Plan is a document which defines Control Items for mass
production, which consists of “Product Quality Control” and “Process
Parameter Control”.
-“Product Quality Control” is an inclusive term of Control Items that
directly measure and inspect product quality.
-“Process Parameter Control” is an inclusive term of Control Items that
implement surveillance on Process Parameters during processing.
106
Term Explanation
APQP : Advanced Product APQP is a structured method of quality assurance for New Parts with a
Quality Planning detailed plan for the necessary activities including the quality assurance
activities required by Mazda.
APQP Phase APQP Phase divides APQP Elements into four phases and promotes that
suppliers perform periodical status controls.
Commodity Commodity is used as an expression of family parts. One commodity
consists of plural part references that have close similarity, and therefore
these parts can be controlled through a single APQP.
CFT : Cross Functional CFT is a special team forming specialists from design and development,
Team production readiness and mass production.
Functionality Functionality Development is an engineering approach to realize robust
Development product design which functionalities do not fluctuate under any market
circumstances or any varied vehicle usage of end customers.
Significant Parts Significant Parts are parts that have quality risks in association with
New/Changed or Past Concerns etc., which are designated by Mazda.
Significant Significant Characteristics are important product quality for mass
Characteristics production. For details, refer to “A-9 Significant Characteristics”.
Gauge R&R Evaluation Gauge R&R Evaluation is a method to evaluate Repeatability and
Reproducibility of measurement systems.
Repeatability is variation of measurement data obtained when an inspector
repeatedly measures the same product.
Reproducibility is another variation of measurement data obtained when
multiple inspectors repeatedly measure the same product.
Submission Level Submission Level is a categorization of documents to be submitted by the
supplier. There are two types of Submission Level for “New Parts” and
“Mass Production Parts”.
Submission Level for “New Parts” consists of Lv.1, Lv.2 and Lv.3 and is
applied to each New Part.
Submission Level for “Mass Production Parts” also consists of Lv.1, Lv.2
and Lv.3 and is determined by Mazda and applied to each supplier.
Design-in Design-in is an activity where the supplier performs target setting, design
and development and design drawing creation in corporation with Mazda
design and development team.
X-1 X-1 is one of prototype build events where Mazda performs advanced
design verification and crash performance toward new developing
functionalities on both the power-train and top-hat, and determines basic
design specifications.
M-1 M-1 is one of prototype build events where Mazda performs design
verification for the power-train and determines detail design
specifications.
DCV : Development DCV is one of build events where Mazda performs design verifications on
Confirmation Vehicle vehicle level.
TT: Tooling Trial TT is one of build events where Mazda implements tooling trial as
production readiness.
PP : Pilot Production PP is one of build events where Mazda implements production trial to
confirm process capability under the equivalent condition to the mass
production, and performs necessary operator training.
Acceptance Sample Acceptance Sample is criteria with using actual sample parts and used for
the abstract product quality, which has uncertain specification or is not
measurable in a quantified way such as operational feeling, color
unevenness, grain surface.
107
Term Explanation
Deviation Deviation is an authorization when Mazda temporarily permits a certain
quantity of nonconforming parts to be supplied, even when they do not
comply with the design specifications or cannot complete the Production
Validation Tests by the scheduled delivery date.
Past Concern Past Concern is a Design and/or process failure that the supplier actually
encountered at the base products, the similar products / techniques in the
past through businesses with not only Mazda but also the other OEMs.
Mazda Quality Mazda Quality Assurance Certification System is an own supplier control
Assurance Certification system where Mazda promotes suppliers to establish self-directive quality
System assurance and to implement necessary activities such as the continuous
improvement etc.
Rework Action Rework Action is the corrective actions that especially require reworking
activities and/or part replacement on vehicles within Mazda or on already
shipped vehicles from Mazda.(including recalls, service campaigns)
Critical Concern Critical Concern is the quality concern which requires Rework Action
and/or affects vehicle safety, regulation or important functionalities.
Mazda is to judge whether or not it is Critical Concern on every quality
concerns that require Rework Action.
Defect Information Defect Information is a 0km claim notification to be sent to the
responsible supplier with necessary information.
Rejection Notice Rejection Notice is a notification to be sent to the responsible supplier in
an emergency case when the failure forces Mazda to react an action such
as sorting activity.
Corrective Action Sheet Corrective Action Sheet for Warranty Claim is a document used for the
for Warranty Claim purpose of claim information and claim investigation to the responsible
supplier.
MQR : Monthly Quality MQR is a report that shows the supplier’s quality performance such as
Report 0km ppm, number of Rework Action, Warranty Claim 12 months PPM
etc. on a monthly basis.
Warranty Claim 12 Warranty Claim 12 months PPM is one of market quality index which
months PPM shows proportion calculated by (number of warranty claims in the last 12
months) / (total delivery quantity of the latest past 12 months).
R/1000 R/1000 is one of market quality index which shows number of warranty
claim out of 1,000 sale vehicles in markets.
NTF : No Trouble Found NTF is the case that any troubles cannot be seen on the parts collected
from the claimed vehicle. The case sometimes encounters no reappearance
of the claim phenomenon.
Quality Rank Quality Rank is a rank that defines importance of quality characteristics.
There are four ranks of Quality Rank (A, AR, B and C).
A Rank A Rank is the quality characteristics which can affect compliance with safe
vehicle operation.
A Rank is determined by Functional Safety Risk ASIL (Automotive Safety
Integrity Level) A to D which is developed from the parts chart on
“Functional Safety Standard (ISO 26262)”
AR Rank AR Rank is the quality characteristics which can affect compliance with
government regulations.
B Rank B Rank is the quality characteristics which can decrease remarkably
vehicle's marketability and damage the image of Mazda greatly and other
than A and/or AR ranks.
C Rank C Rank is the quality characterizes other than A, AR and/or B Rank.
108

QRS2012 Sec1 Rev4 201911 Eng

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

QRS2012 Sec1 Rev4 201911 Eng

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Requirements for Suppliers

Mazda Motor Corporation

Issue of QRS Revised edition vol.4, 2012

Issue of QRS 2012 Rev3

(1) New Product Quality Build-up

1.3 Text Composition

2.2 Communication with Mazda

2.2.4 Mazda Contact Information

Purchased Parts Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4496

Quality Operations Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4581

Body Plate Hofu PT Quality Tel:+81-(0)835-29-1113

Mazda Global Supplier Tel:+81-(0)82-287-4036

2.4 Mazda Quality Assurance Certification System

a) To Pass Quality Assurance System Audit by Mazda.

Quality audit by Mazda primarily focuses on the followings and confirm;

2.6 Fundamental Quality Controls

Table 2: Fundamental Production Lot and definition

Table 3: Quality Records and contents to be recorded

NO. Quality Records Contents to be recorded

1 Incoming Record Subcontractor’s name, material specification (component number),

2.6.2 Control of Mazda Supplied Parts

4 Operator Work Instructions c 10 2

Acceptance Sample Application

7 Delivery Record a 10 2 Refer to Table 3

PSDs (Parts Submission

Quality records related to

Contact for the target suppliers：

2.7.2 (3) Secured inspection management and storage of operation record

2.7.2 (4) Evidence attached for submission of Parts Submission Declarations

・Use the form of “ Parts submission declaration” in SecⅡ.

・Use the form of “Notification of Production Method Change” in SecⅡ

b. After the approval of “Notification of Production Method Change”

Follow the terms 2.7.2 (2)-2.7.2 (5) described above.

“APQP Phases” consists of;

Table 1: Position of APQP Phases to Mazda Mile Stones

3.3.1 (2) Activities at Each APQP Phase

3.3.2 (2) Linkage of APQP Elements

Start Main Stream

(2) Mazda Input Requirements

(7) Past Concerns (4) Concept Design Review

(8) Design Verification Test A3

(11) Specific Design Review

(24) Preliminary Production Trial Run and Development (DCV)

(15) DCV Parts Inspection (16) DCV Parts Examination

(19) Facilities, Jigs, and

(23) Process Parameters Setting

(24) Preliminary (35) Process Assurance Assessment

(29) Production Validation Test

(32) TT Parts (31) TT Parts

(36) Mass Production Trial Run (35) Process Assurance

(29) Production Validation Test

(30) Process Capability Study

(37) Initial Mass Production A1 A2

(38) Part Submission Declaration

APQP Phase 4 : Initial Mass Production Intensive Control

(39) Initial Mass Production Intensive Control

◆6 months after SOP (40) Lessons Learned

Table 3: Mazda Joint Events and implementation timing at APQP Phase

Table 4: Definition of Submission Level

Table 5: Submission Deliverables from APQP

Table 1: Linkage of APQP Elements

Table 2: Mazda Input Requirements to be collected and Scope