John Deere Process Verification Audit - Instructions

Background
This on-site audit is intended for parts with a high level of criticality to determine the effectiveness and conformance of process controls when performing work for John Deere. The work performed can include manufacturing operations at a John Deere or supplier' facility, or operations sub-contracted (sub-tier). This audit may also be performed on similar parts when the work has not yet been sourced, or when preparing for full production. It is intended to be conducted by John Deere personnel familiar with the requirements of the JDSG223 Supplier Quality Manual, the requirements of the selected parts, and processes used in manufacturing the selected parts. This audit is not intended to cover the supplier's or John Deere's entire quality system. To conduct a thorough review of the supplier's quality system, an audit must be conducted an using the JDS-G223 Supplier Quality System Audit Questionnaire and led by a qualified Lead Auditor. A review of John Deere's quality system is conducted with internal audits by trained auditors or consultants. The lead auditor and team members must be qualified to conduct a Process Verification Audit.

Instructions
Prior to the on-site audit, review the most recent part specifications (drawing) and Control Plan on file for relevance, design level, and date. Also, review any other pertinent data or documents, such as key characteristics, Gage R&R studies, capability study information, Materials Engineering report / material certification, inspection data, FMEAs, internal and external failure data, and/or the supplier's internal procedures. Schedule the on-site audit with the part manufacturer at a time when the identified parts are being produced with the processes to be audited, and when manufacturing personnel are available to help guide the audit. The on-site audit is led by a qualified John Deere auditor trained in the Process Verification Audit process, and who is familiar with quality processes and tools. The audit team should have representatives who are familiar with the processes and parts being audited. The audit sequence should follow the order of the steps of the process. Score each question on the checklist with a whole number from 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest possible score. If the question is not applicable, select NA in the scoring field. NA questions are excluded from the final score Total Point and Percentage calculations. Scoring definitions are on the checklist. Up to five part numbers or families may be audited per worksheet. When all the questions are scored, a total score and percentage is automatically calculated. To display scores to the supplier, you may want to group the data by selecting "1" in the top left corner of the spreadsheet. This will hide the comment fields. Select "2" to display the comments. Non-conformances (all questions scored as 1) require corrective action. List the corrective action request description and other follow-up actions in the Audit Summary and Corrective Action section. Enter corrective action requests into NCCA. Document the NCCA number on the audit report.

Data Storage
After completing the audit report, please send it to your division quality audit system coordinator to file in Supplier Evaluation Tracking system located in JD Supply Network. Delete the audit instructions and change history prior to filing the audit. Completed audits can be viewed in Supplier Evaluation Tracking at this link: http://www.90.deere.com/suppmgmt/business_processes/strategic_sourcing_process/tools/supplier_evaluation _tracking/supplier_evaluation_tracking_index.htm

John Deere Process Verification Audit - Checklist

Supplier Name: Supplier Number: Supplier Address: Supplier Phone Number: Supplier E-Mail: Audit Team Leader: Reason for Audit: Date of Last John Deere Assessment or Survey (if any): Process(es) / Product(s) Audited: Note: Secure copy of certification(s) if not provided in advance Quality System Certification, Registrar, and Date of Certificate Expiration (ISO, ISO/TS, etc.): Environmental System Certification, Registrar & Date of Expiration (ISO 14001): Health & Safety System Certification, Registrar & Date of Expiration (ISO 18001): Supplier Fax Number: Audit Team Members: Survey Date(s): Supplier Contact(s):

Audit Summary and Corrective Action

Total Audit Points: Audit Summary: 0 Total Possible Points: 0 Percent: NOT SCORED

Corrective Action Required (if any):

NCCA #(s):

GENERAL SCORING CRITERIA Rating Does Not Apply Does Not Comply 2 Needs Improvement 3 Score ** NA 1 Ability to meet requirement in question: Requirement is not applicable. Requirement is not met or partially met. There is no evidence of implementation or documentation, or major inconsistencies in implementation or documentation (major non-conformance). Requirement is met but there are minor inconsistencies in implementation or documentation, or is in the early phases and only preliminary evidence of implementation effectiveness exists. Requirement is met, effectively implemented, and fully documented. Corrective Action No action required Requires Corrective Action Request (CAR), Document in NCCA Opportunity for Improvement. Recommend CAR, but not required No action required

Complies

** A supplier must have a score of 2 or greater on each of the questions to be acceptable.

93339247.xls.ms_office

Page 2 of 5

Print Date: 4/18/2012

John Deere Process Verification Audit - Checklist

Supplier Name: Survey Date(s): Score each question using a 1 to 3 point scale, where 3 is the best possible score. Input NA for non-applicable questions.

Process Verification Audit Checklist

Part Number(s) or Families:

A.
#
1

Document Control
Question
Is the part print to the current Revision Level? Comments: Are the Control Plan documents being used up-to-date? Comments: If the Control Plan at the supplier is not the same version as the one at John Deere, was the change process followed per JDS-G223? Comments: a Do the process control documents adequately address all process parameters and product characteristics? b Are the Product and Process Key Characteristics known, visible, and is there a documented control plan in place to continuously monitor the process control and capability? c If the part has Key Characteristics, have a Gage R&R and capability study been performed? d If the key characteristic has a Cpk < 1.33, does the Control Plan follow the requirements of the Continuous Process Monitoring Matrix? e Are cleanliness requirements documented on the Control Plan? Comments: Are the Process flow diagrams, PFMEAs, Capability Studies, and Gage R&Rs controlled and up-to-date? Comments: Are other pertinent process control documents up-to-date? (Examples: process sheets, inspection and test instructions, standard operating procedures, preventive maintenance instructions) Comments: Are Suppliers' (sub-tier) documentation of the above (questions 1-6) for key characteristics controlled and up-to-date? Comments: Are computer programs used in the manufacturing process secure, controlled and backed up? (Examples: CNC & PLC programs). Comments:

Score

B. Material and Process Control

9 a Is the Control Plan applied at each operation and being followed, from incoming material to shipping? b Is the frequency of inspection being performed as described in the Control Plan? c Are the inspection method and equipment being used as described in the Control Plan? d Do the operator instructions reflect the requirements of the Control Plan? Comments: 10 Do the sample size, frequency and sampling method take into account the sources of variation? (Examples: multiple machines or fixtures for same characteristic, multi-cavity molds for the same part, and changes over time, like tool wear and environment) Comments:

93339247.xls.ms_office

Page 3 of 5

Print Date: 4/18/2012

John Deere Process Verification Audit - Checklist

Supplier Name:
11 Are other pertinent process control documents in place and being followed? (Examples: process sheets, inspection & test instructions, standard operating procedures, preventive maintenance instructions) Comments: Is inspection data retained and stored appropriately? Comments: Are instructions included for packaging to protect the parts (both in-process & final) from damage & contamination, & are they followed? Comments: Are operators properly trained to perform their operations? Are appropriate personnel properly trained for performing work involving key product and process characteristics (especially for special processes)? Comments:

Survey Date(s):

12

13

14

C. Tools/Gages
15 Is there an understanding of which tools/gages are needed for each operation, and are the needed tools/gages at the work station? Comments: Are any tools/gages being used or needed but not called out? Comments: Does the operator understand the proper use of the tools/gages and is he/she using them properly? Comments: Is equipment, including tooling, properly maintained? Comments: Are all the gages calibrated and records retained? Comments: Do Gage R&R studies have acceptable results? Comments:

16

17

18

19

20

D. Corrective Action
21 Is the Reaction Plan listed on the Control Plan effective & being followed? Comments: Is there an adequate process for isolation & control of non-conforming material (inc. Customer Notification) & is it being followed? Comments: Is an effective closed-loop corrective action process, including identification of root causes, fully implemented? Does the supplier use NCCA, as appropriate? Comments:

22

23

E.
24

Change Control
What is the change control process, and is it effective? (All part and process documentation, including Control Plans, must be updated.) Comments: Are Change Control Procedures followed in accordance with JDS-G223 (Supplier Change Request)? Does this include applicable sub-tier suppliers? Comments:

25

F.

Scoring Summary Total Points 96 Maximum Points Possible Percent of Total Points Available (NA questions are excluded.)
93339247.xls.ms_office Page 4 of 5

0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

Print Date: 4/18/2012

John Deere Process Verification Audit - Change History

Date Division Who Made Changes Reason for Change 6-May-06 Ag Mark Pershing Proposed Form 28-Aug-07 Ag, C&F, Mark Pershing, Marilyn Adopted by Enterprise Team C&CE, Dumolien, Daryl Fortin, JDPS Gary Watson, Dan Falkenstein, Todd Herzog, Theodore Tyler

93339247.xls.ms_office

Page 5 of 5

Print Date: 4/18/2012