CQI-14 Assessment Tool Final

CQI-14 Automotive Warranty Management Assessment Version 3, Issued 4/2015

Pre-Assessment Automotive Warranty Management Assessment Please note: For the purposes of this survey, "the organization" can mean "Company," "Division," "Department"

This is not intended to replace the full assessment. It is designed to provide an initial gap analysis of a warranty management process

Establishing the Baseline: Introduction to Warranty Number Circumstance or Condition The organization clearly defines ownership of the warranty P1 management process. P2

The organization defines a warranty strategy that drives behaviors and practices (e.g. annual improvement projects, APQP projects) which reduce warranty risk throughout the company.

Applicable CQI-14 Manual Section 1.2

1.2, 1.8, 3.8, 7.3

Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities (OEM Only) Number Circumstance or Condition

P3

The consumer's concern is thoroughly and accurately captured as a verbatim and after repair, the documentation is written up completely with accurate codes and diagnostic information, test data and replacement parts listed, including any digital media to support the repair.

Applicable CQI-14 Manual Section

2.2, 2.7

Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre-Program Activities Number

Copyright © AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group)

Circumstance or Condition


1



This is not intended to replace the full assessment. It is designed to provide an initial gap analysis of a warranty management process P4

The organization has established Lessons' Learned database that captures information such as reasons for FMEA and Control Plan changes, manufacturing or assembly improvements etc.

P5

The organization engages the supply chain to reduce warranty risks and there is a mechanism for the supply chain to share improvements.


3.1, 4.1

3.9, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

2




Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) Circumstance or Condition

Number P6

The organization's FMEA's identify risks from component and systems, Design for Manufacturing, Design for Assembly and Design for Serviceability.

Applicable CQI-14 Manual Section 3.4, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6

Containing Warranty Issues: Post-Start of Production Circumstance or Condition

Number


P7

The organization currently makes use of available warranty data systems and parts return resources which enables timely/regular communication to the warranty stakeholders.

1.3 , 1.4 , 1.5 , 5.1 , 5.2 , 6.1

P8

Organizations expand investigations beyond the component level to include system interactions, assembly, mating component, and handling/logistics conditions.

5.2 , 5.3 , 5.4 , 6.6

Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions Number




3




P9

The organization establishes agreements and reviews issues and corrective actions with partner organizations for improvements in design, specifications, logistics, handling, service procedures and other areas to reduce the potential for warranty events.

P10

The organization routinely investigates NTF in relation to the system environment.


6.1, 6.7

6.6

4




Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the Process Number



P11

The organization establishes yearly improvement targets and places higher priority on issues with high incident rates (vs. cost).

1.6, 7.1

Implementation Assessment Number



P12

The organization has an overall warranty management champion and defined, trained support identified.

Section 1

P13

There is evidence of warranty risk factor review in the decision making process of bidding or accepting a program.

1.8, 3.8

Effectiveness Assessment Circumstance or Condition

Number P14

Customer concerns and warranty performance are improving by showing a measurable difference in warranty events.


Applicable CQI-14 Manual Section 1.6, 7.1

5


alysis of a warranty management process

Finding/Observation

Scoring Guideline

Score 0-5

Yes = 5, No = 0

Yes = 5, No = 0

Score 0-5

Finding/Observation

Yes = 5, No = 0

Finding/Observation


Score 0-5

6


alysis of a warranty management process Yes = 5, No = 0

Yes = 5, No = 0


7



Score 0-5

Finding/Observation Yes = 5, No = 0

Score 0-5


Yes = 5, No = 0

Finding/Observation


Score 0-5

8



Yes = 5, No = 0

Yes = 5, No = 0


9



Score 0-5


Score 0-5


Yes = 5, No = 0

Score 0-5


Pre-Assessment Total: Pre-Assessment Score: Copyright © AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group)

0.00 0.00

10

CQI-14

Automotive Warranty Management Assessment Version 3, Issued 4/2015

Organization

Responsible Area

Section


Supplier

1. Management Introduction to Warranty / Establishing the Baseline

1.01 The organization has a defined warranty management process with defined ownership.

Supplier


1.02 There is upper management oversite of warranty management activities.

Supplier


1.03 Warranty management is part of the organization's business plan.

Supplier


1.04 Roles and responsibilities for warranty management processes within the organization are clearly documented and understood.

Supplier


Supplier

Applicable Manual Section

Recommended Evidence / Indicator

Evidence / Indicator Provided

Scoring Guideline

Organization chart information / structure, Procedures

Yes = 5, No = 0

Section 1, 7.3

Records of management reviews with teams

Yes = 5, No = 0

Section 1

Business plan shows warranty identified as a target area

Yes = 5, No = 0

1.2, 5.2

Warranty management roles and responsibilities are defined in job descriptions/procedure

Use scoring method table

1.05 The organization recognizes the consumer's expectations for warranty performance by establishing warranty management policy that incorporates the OEM's and Supply Chain's expectations, processes and targeted improvements.

1.2

Warranty policy, procedures, targets/objectives/metrics/ goals

Yes = 5, No = 0


1.06 The organization defines a warranty strategy that drives behaviors and practices (e.g. annual improvement projects, APQP projects) which reduce warranty risk throughout the company.

1.2, 1.8, 3.8, 7.3

Warranty plan, procedures, metrics, lessons learned database, documentation information shows reduction in start up / CPV/IPTV/PPM

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier


1.07 The organization holds regularly scheduled reviews of: warranty management performance (warranty trend charts), and on-going assessment of the warranty management culture.

1.2

Comparison: Trend Charts


Supplier


1.08 Do the meetings include a review of customer warranty metrics.

1.2, 1.6

Meeting minutes reflect review of customer warranty data

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier


1.09 The organization regularly carries out on-going assessment of its warranty management culture and identifies opportunities for improvement.

1.2, 7.3

Meeting minutes, reviews, assessments, etc.


Supplier


1.10 The organization shares warranty performance metrics with employees, customers and supply chain as an indication of the commitment to reduce incident rates.

Records of employee meetings demonstrating sharing of warranty performance


Supplier


1.11 The organization's management provides a supportive environment, and resources, at all levels, for employees to be Consumer-Centric focused to achieve reductions in warranty incident rates.

Organization chart information


Supplier


1.12 There is a mechanism for program risks to be assessed by the organization when reviewing, (a) Potential programs;(b) Terms and Conditions;(c) Applicable warranty agreements;(d) Program deliverables;(e) Expectations and requirements communicated to program partners;(f) Legal, regulatory and/or legislative requirements.

1.8, 3.8

Metric reviews


Supplier


1.13 The organization focuses on incident rate reduction over cost recovery as a priority, working collaboratively with partners to achieve improvements.

Forward, Introduction, 1.2

Review of goals


Supplier


1.14 The organization is accessing and utilizing available customer warranty data systems.

Procedures/passwords and visible access to customer warranty data systems/demonstrated


Supplier


1.15 The organization is proactively receiving and analyzing warranty field returns sent by the OEM or Supply Chain Partners and results are shared.

Supplier


1.16 The organization encourages activities that drive early problem detection and identification.

Supplier


1.17 The organization shares warranty data with supply chain partners.

Supplier


1.18 The organization provides adequate training to those involved with warranty data analysis, root cause problem solving including field return analysis, validation methods and adjoining systems training.


Section 1

1.2, 1.6, 3.9, 6.1

1.2

1.3, 5.2, 5.3

1.4, 1.6, 3.9, 5.1 , 5.2, 5.5, 5.7, Field returned product review 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7 reports/procedure 1.2, 6.5, 7.2 1.6, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2

1.1, 1.2, 3.10

Score 0 - 5


Procedures, documentation


Evidence of warranty data sharing with suppliers


Training records


11

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section



Supplier


1.19 Employees in the company have a stake in recognizing and accept ownership for warranty risk reducing actions.

1.2

Supplier


1.20 NTF's are viewed as an opportunity to further improve consumer satisfaction by applying continued, disciplined problem solving until the root cause is determined and eliminated.

1.2, 6.6

Supplier

2.01 Previous and current warranty is pulled for review to help determine improvements in design, materials, process or service required to reduce warranty risk in preparation of a new program, (a) Incident rate;(b) Warranty data analysis (analytics) results;(c) Partner organization 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Preassembly plant issues;(d) Past serviceability issues;(e) Organization's Program Activities own manufacturing or assembly issues;(f) Field return investigations results and root cause's;(g) Review of latest warranty repair center parts and data;(h) Extended service data review (if available);(I) Third party data that helps assess current performance levels.

Supplier

2.02 Surrogate program data is applied to understand warranty related 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Prerisks such as: like components or systems, JD Powers and Associates Program Activities data, scorecards, etc.

Supplier Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in PreProgram Activities 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in PreProgram Activities

2.03 NHTSA and other government databases are consistently reviewed for recalls and campaign information to help define risks. 2.04 TSB's are obtained, when available, and made accessible for review and improvement input.



Scoring Guideline

LPA records, maintenance records information shared with employees


NTF records, NTF Metric, Case studies


Metrics


3.2

Product development shows records of identified surrogate and review of issues/etc. and changes effected to design/process


3.6

NHTSA information review records

Yes = 5, No = 0

Records of TSB review inputs


1.3, 1.6, Section 3

3.10, 4.8, 5.6, 6.3

Supplier

2.05 Past T-G-W, T-G-R and corrective actions (like 8Ds, 5 Whys and 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Preother problem solving activity) are routinely reviewed for potential Program Activities improvements to reduce incident rate risk by the organization.

3.1, 3.3, 4,4

Process & Design FMEA evidence, meeting records/process line review records


Supplier

2.06 Does the organization utilize a procedure prior to launching a new production line; which entails a thorough review of all corrective 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Preactions, poke yoke, and error proofing implementations on previous lines Program Activities regardless of customer is undertaken to identify potential issues on the new line.

3.2, 3.3, 3.4

Procedure


Supplier

2.07 The organization has established Lessons' Learned database that 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Precaptures information such as reasons for FMEA and Control Plan Program Activities changes, manufacturing or assembly improvements etc.

3.1, 4.1

Evidence of Lessons Learned database

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.08 The organization routinely reviews internal quality records and Program Activities supply chain quality data for potential warranty risks.

1.6, 3.3, 5.2, 5.3

Reviews of project records


Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.09 Past FMEA's are reviewed by the organization for potential risks Program Activities and "needs improvement" identification, including development needs.

3.4, 4.1, 6.2

Records of FMEA reviews and improvements


Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.10 The organization reviews available high mileage data to verify or Program Activities identify potential reliability and durability performance issues.

3.5, 4.5, 5.8

High mileage data review records


Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.11 Design for Six Sigma opportunities are identified and/or Program Activities implemented to reduce warranty incident risks.

Program reviews include DFSS review records

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.12 The organization engages the supply chain to reduce warranty risks Program Activities and there is a mechanism for the supply chain to share improvements.

3.9, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

Records show supply chain improvements


Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.13 The organization has sufficient warranty process training for supply Program Activities chain partners.

3.9, 3.10

Training records


Supplier

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre2.14 Is the organization actively involved in Layered Audit Procedures? Program Activities

Referenced industry Layered Process Audit procedures

LPA records

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier

2.15 An Error Proofing checklist for design and process to include 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- manufacturing and assembly is utilized. Following launch, the assembly Program Activities checklist for Error Proofing effectiveness is incorporated in the Layered Audit Process.


LPA records


Supplier

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.01 The organization considers consumer use differences, by market, Product Quality Planning (APQP) for global platforms for both systems and components.

Documents, function analysis records, FMA. FMEA, QFD checklist, field benchmarking



3.7

3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 4.1, 4.5

Score 0 - 5

12

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section



Supplier

3.02 End-Of-Life products are captured, analyzed and compared to 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced design validation conditions to understand high mileage risks and Product Quality Planning (APQP) improvements.

Supplier

3.03 The organization's FMEA's identify all risks from component and 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced systems, Design for Manufacturing, Design for Assembly and Design for Product Quality Planning (APQP) Serviceability.

Supplier

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.04 The organization considers NTF's and how risk reducing activities Product Quality Planning (APQP) can be reflected in the FMEA's.

Supplier

3.05 The organization links FMEA's of the supply chain/customer to 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced their own FMEA's to increase risk detection and buy-in of reduction Product Quality Planning (APQP) activities.

Supplier

3.06 The organization correlates DVP&R results with actual field 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced performance data including warranty investigation results to verify that Product Quality Planning (APQP) the correct failure modes are being evaluated.

Supplier

3.07 The organization considers diagnostic methods and best practices to 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced allow for cost effective and timely root cause analysis and repair in the Product Quality Planning (APQP) design phase.

4.3, 4.7, 4.8, 6.3

Supplier

3.08 The organization applies effective problem solving tools (reference 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced AIAG CQI-20) to optimize: functional performance, manufacturing Product Quality Planning (APQP) operations, shipping/handling efficiency, defect free assembly and effective repairs.

3.7, Section 5

Supplier

3.09 The organization engages the supply chain with the OEM's Vehicle 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced Parts and Service organization to allow improvements in diagnosis, Product Quality Planning (APQP) repair tools and repair methods.

Supplier



Scoring Guideline

End of Life product vs. design validation documentation


FMEA records


3.7, 4.1, 6.6, 7.3

Documentation, FMEA checklist, information


3.4, 4.1, 6.2, 6.7

Organization/supplier FMEA linked


3.5, 4.1, 4.5, 5.5, 5.8

DVPR results correlated to field and warranty investigation results


Diagnostic methods such as, fault tree, fish bone etc., used in design phase


Problem solving tools such as AIAG ref. CQI-20 used to optimize operations etc. Documentation


4.3, 6.2

Evidence of involvement with Vehicle Parts and Service to support improvements

Yes = 5, No = 0

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.10 The organization allows supply chain partners to participate in the Product Quality Planning (APQP) review and validation of the Vehicle Service Manual.

4.3

Organization and supply chain involved in Vehicle Service Manual reviews. meeting minutes etc.

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier

3.11 The organization provides training to partners to improve parts 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced handling, component assembly processes, issue diagnosis and problem Product Quality Planning (APQP) resolution.

4.3, 4.7

Documented evidence of training supply chain partners in product handling, assembly and problem issue resolution


Supplier

4. Containing Warranty Issues: Post-Start of Production

4.01 The organization has a process to develop knowledgeable and trained staff to facilitate warranty monitoring.

3.10, 5.2

Organization chart, training records, goals.


Supplier


4.02 The organization has a documented procedure for managing and analyzing warranty returns, subsequent problem solving activities and utilization of investigation findings in future product development activities.

Supplier


4.03 The organization currently makes use of all available warranty data systems and parts return resources which enables timely /regular communication to the warranty stakeholders.

Supplier


4.04 The organization expands investigations beyond the component level to include system interactions, assembly, mating component, and handling/logistics conditions.

Supplier


4.05 The organization and partner(s) reach agreement for implementation of counter measures.

Supplier


4.06 The organization communicates implemented corrective action clean point dates and applies increased warranty monitoring at the time of new platform launch or change implementation.

Supplier


4.07 Applicable repair procedures and TSB's are pulled/reviewed/generated to support improvement in diagnostic and repair activities.

Supplier


4.08 The organization participates, when allowed, with diagnosis and repair of a vehicle at dealerships/fleet repair centers/OEM fleet service garages or other partner available vehicles.

Supplier


4.09 The organization has a process(es) defined to request a vehicle(s) for testing and investigative purposes from the OEM, other supply chain partners, vehicle rental companies, or employees.

Supplier


4.10 The organization prepares an investigative plan when reviewing dealer vehicles.


3.5, 4.5, 5.8

3.4, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6

1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 5.1, 5.5, 6.6, 6.8 Procedure, records

1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1

5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.6 6.1 1.6, 5.4, 6.1, 6.5

5.5, 6.3

5.7

5.7, 5.8

5.7

Score 0 - 5

Yes = 5, No = 0

Passwords and records etc. which demonstrate usage of all available data systems etc.


Investigation records show system interaction/mating product reviews


Records, audits


Records of clean point date communication contained in 8D's, 5Whys etc.


Procedure and record of TSB reviews


Records of contact and participation where allowed

Yes = 5, No = 0

Procedure and process for requesting test vehicles

Yes = 5, No = 0

Dealer vehicle procedure and specific investigative plans on record


13

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section


Supplier


4.11 The organization has defined process to notify the customer of potential suspect or nonconforming parts (service parts and supply chain).

Supplier

5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions

5.01 Warranty agreements are clearly defined at the time of sourcing for directed source components.

Supplier


Supplier




Scoring Guideline

Customer notification document (i.e., containment records)

Yes = 5, No = 0

1.8, 3.8, 6.7

Warranty agreement dates match source dates


5.02 The organization establishes agreements and reviews issues/corrective actions with partner organizations for improvements in design, specifications, logistics, handling, service procedures and other areas to reduce the potential for warranty events.

6.1, 6.7

Records of agreements and reviews with supply partners



5.03 This agreement(s) includes who is responsible (ownership) for each improvement step and timing (reference question #2).

6.1, 6.7

Agreements indicate ownership/responsibilities

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier


5.04 The organization and partner organization's FMEA's, Control Plans and other quality/engineering documents are updated after a warranty concern is addressed.

6.2, 6.7

Engineering documents, quality documents


Supplier


5.05 Cross-functional teams are engaged in the updating of FMEA's, Control Plans and other quality/engineering documents.

6.2, 6.7

Records show CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAM involvement


Supplier


5.06 Corrective actions are shared with partner organization; confirmation exists that their FMEA's test and/or measurement methods are updated.

3.9, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

Records show corrective action sharing with supply chain partners


Supplier


5.07 Warranty lessons learned are applied to all product lines, systems, processes, materials, etc. where applicable, to leverage improvement across a broader base of the business (i.e., Yokoten, Poka-Yoke, etc.).

3.9, 6.7, 6.8

Warranty lessons learned database/records show application across systems and product lines


Supplier


5.08 The organization has a formal process(es) for obtaining, reviewing and updating OEM: TSB's, service manuals, diagnostic processes, call center procedures and safety recall notifications.

6.3

Process

Yes = 5, No = 0

4.3, 6.3

Procedure

Yes = 5, No = 0

4.8, 6.3

Records of training material involvement with service personnel where allowed


Records of NTF reviews


Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier

5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions 5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions 5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions 5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions 5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions

5.09 The organization has a defined Design for Service process. 5.10 The organization participates in preparation of training materials and service personnel where allowed. 5.11 The organization routinely investigates NTF in relation to the system environment. 5.12 The organization uses a defined process for NTF root cause investigation. 5.13 The organization applies continual improvement practices to NTF process.

Supplier


Supplier

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.01 The organization tracks the available warranty data and understands Process the warranty trends including detection of emerging field issues.

Supplier

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.02 The organization monitors social media to identify consumer Process concerns as an early warning.

Supplier

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.03 The organization follows up with dealer technicians for additional Process claim information where permitted.

Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier


6. Continuous Improvement: Process 6. Continuous Improvement: Process 6. Continuous Improvement: Process 6. Continuous Improvement: Process 6. Continuous Improvement: Process

5.14 The organization confirms that the corrective actions are working and are effective based on ongoing warranty and quality metrics.

Institutionalize the 6.04 Warranty data is pareto charted to identify potential improvement targets. Institutionalize the 6.05 The organization establishes yearly improvement targets and places higher priority on issues with high incident rates (vs. cost). Institutionalize the 6.06 The organization implements continuous improvement activities which meet or exceed improvement targets. Institutionalize the 6.07 The organization periodically establishes agreed upon warranty improvement projects with partner organizations. Institutionalize the 6.08 Lessons learned are applied to future programs.

7. Implementation Assessment

I.01 The organization has a senior management-level champion who owns and defines the warranty management system with trained support identified.

5.9

6.6 6.6, Fig 9 (Ref. AIAG/OESA NTF Decision Tree) 6.6, Fig 9 (Ref. AIAG/OESA NTF Decision Tree)

Records of Decision tree use for NTF root cause investigation Decision tree expanded to show new and/or specific NTF paths

6.5, 7.2

Verification of corrective actions by metric tracking


1.3, 1.6, 5.2, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2

Trend charts, Pareto charts, specific issue lists, part return analysis results


Documented process

Yes = 5, No = 0

Dealer contact records


Pareto charts

Yes = 5, No = 0

Annual targets on metric

Yes = 5, No = 0

5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.5, 7.2 5.5, 5.6, 7.2 7.1 1.6, 7.1 1.6, 7.1, 7.3 6.1, 7.1 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 7.1 Section 1

Improvement targets are supported with action plans - records Supply chain partner warranty improvement project records Lessons Learned review records during program reviews Organization chart information

Score 0 - 5

Yes = 5, No = 0 Yes = 5, No = 0

Use scoring method table Use scoring method table Use scoring method table Yes = 5, No = 0

14

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section





Scoring Guideline

Supplier


I.02 The organization has defined warranty champion(s) responsible for coordinating resolution of warranty issues.

1.1

Job description

Yes = 5, No = 0

Supplier


I.03 Warranty training is provided to all cross functional staff and supply chain partners, including all warranty personnel. There is emphasis on the objective to satisfy the consumer through risk reduction activities that minimize incident rates.

Section 1, 3.9, 3.10

Training records Internal metrics


Supplier


Annual metrics set

Yes = 5, No = 0

Evidence of database access, passwords etc. Show me


Incident rate tracking tied to action plan


Warranty data deployed to all affecting areas


Warranty records/lessons learned database shows look across references and actions


6.6, 7.3

NTF defined process being applied and updated


3.5, 4.5, 5.8

End of life product analysis records, and records of updated Lessons Learned database


I.04 The organization sets warranty metric targets annually; targets are reviewed by senior management. I.05 Customer warranty database access is established and data is shared within the organization. I.06 Active projects to reduce the incident rates of NTF's involve partners/suppliers.

Supplier


Supplier


Supplier


I.07 Associates are involved with using the warranty data to perform their job functions.

Supplier


I.08 Warranty-related Lessons Learned database is populated with appropriate Look-Across activities.

Supplier


I.09 The organization applies and updates its defined NTF process as necessary.

Supplier


I.10 There is increased effort to analyze End-Of-Life products to validate DVP, FMEA's, durability performance and OEM reliability requirements. This data is applied to further improve quality /performance to meet consumer satisfaction targets and fed forward into Lessons Learned database for new program review.

Supplier


Supplier


Supplier Supplier Supplier

8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty Management Program 8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty Management Program 8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty Management Program

I.11 There is evidence of warranty risk factor review in the decision making process of bidding or accepting a program. I.12 Problem solving tools are applied and standardized to assist root cause analysis of warranty concerns, updated as necessary.

1.8, 3.8 1.7, Section 5

Yes = 5, No = 0 Use scoring method table

1.6, 7.1

Charts

Yes = 5, No = 0

1.6, 7.3

Reporting of warranty data, lessons learned data base

Yes = 5, No = 0

Project records

Yes = 5, No = 0

Evidence of improvement in measures demonstrated by project / issue documentation

Yes = 5, No = 0

Organization measures NTF vs. total claims

Yes = 5, No = 0

1.6, 7.1

NTF resolution - number of open items is decreasing


1.2

Organization chart information / structure

Yes = 5, No = 0

1.8, 3.8

Cross Functional Team reviews of contracts, warranty terms and conditions


Warranty plan, procedures, metrics, lessons learned database, documentation information shows reduction in start up / CPV/IPTV/PPM

Yes = 5, No = 0

Warranty management metrics report

Yes = 5, No = 0

Warranty policy, procedures, targets/objectives/metrics/ goals

Yes = 5, No = 0

Field returned product review reports/procedure


E.03 Regular data updates have been made available to the organization.

E.05 Detection-to-Correction measures are improving. E.06 Does the organization measure the NTF ratio to total claims? E.07 NTF resolution performance (e.g., ratio of NTF to total parts, time to resolve, etc.) is improving. 1.01 The organization clearly defines ownership of the warranty management process. 1.02 The organization performs cross functional reviews of warranty terms & conditions including warranty agreements.

3.9, 4.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

1.6, 7.3 1.7

OEM



1.2, 1.8, 3.8, 7.3

OEM


1.04 The organization uses benchmark data to drive warranty reduction to enhance consumer satisfaction.

1.6, Section 3, 6.5, 7.1

OEM



1.2

OEM


1.06 The organization is proactively receiving and analyzing warranty field returns.


Warranty risk reviews in contract / program reviews - records Evidence of problem solving tool use, fishbones, decision trees etc.

Yes = 5, No = 0

8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty Management Program

OEM

Section 3, 6.8, 7.3

Trend charts

Supplier

OEM

1.7, 1.8, 5.2

1.6, 7.1

E.04 There is increased evidence of cross function engagements with partners/suppliers with the problem solving of warranty concerns.

Supplier

6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 7.1

E.02 The organization meets/exceeds warranty metric targets set by organization/customer.


8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty Management Program 8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty Management Program 1. Management Introduction to Warranty / Establishing the Baseline 1. Management Introduction to Warranty / Establishing the Baseline

1.3, Section 3, 5.2, 5.3

E.01 Incident rates meet improvement targets.

Supplier

Supplier

1.6, 7.1

1.4, 5.1 , 5.5 ,5.7,5.8

Score 0 - 5

15

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section




1.6, 3.9, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

Evidence of supplier involvement/reviews of product returns etc.


Comparison: Trend Charts


OEM


1.07 Supply chain partners are integrated into the warranty management process.

OEM



1.2


1.2, 1.6


1.6, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2

OEM OEM

1. Management Introduction to Warranty / Establishing the Baseline 1. Management Introduction to Warranty / Establishing the Baseline

OEM


1.11 Field returned warranty parts investigation results are shared with supply chain partners.

1.6, 3.9, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2

OEM



1.2, 7.3

OEM



OEM



OEM



OEM



OEM


OEM

Meeting minutes reflect review of customer warranty data Evidence of warranty data sharing with suppliers


Scoring Guideline


Evidence that product/review reports are shared with customer/supply chain


Meeting minutes, reviews, assessments, etc.


Records of employee meetings demonstrating sharing of warranty performance




Review of goals


1.2, 6.5, 7.2

Procedures, documentation



1.1, 1.2, 3.10

Training records




1.2

LPA records, maintenance records information shared with employees


OEM



1.2, 6.6

NTF records, NTF Metric, Case studies


OEM

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities

1.2, 1.6, 3.9, 6.1

1.2

Forward, Introduction, 1.2

2.01 The consumer's concern is thoroughly and accurately captured as a verbatim. 2.02 "CCNDs" are captured and explanations are documented for 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities potential future review. 2.03 The repair order is completely and accurately filled out by the 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities Service Manager/Advisor.

2.2

Record


2.3, 2.2

Record

Yes = 5, No = 0

2.4, 2.7

Record


OEM

2.04 The Technician is able to access the necessary TSBs, repair 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities procedures, hot lines and other tools to adequately diagnose and repair a vehicle.

2.6, 4.8, 5.6, 6.3

Database access demonstrated/file records

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM


2.3

Record


OEM

2.06 After repair, the documentation is written up completely with 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities accurate codes and diagnostic information, test data and replacement parts listed, including any digital media to support the repair.

2.7

Records/documentation


OEM


Tagged parts/records


Record


Meeting minutes, records


OEM OEM

OEM OEM


2.05 The Technician documents and reproduces the consumer concern (cc) and root cause before proceeding with a repair.

2.07 Parts properly tagged for identification and stored for possible return per the OEM's procedure. 2.08 When requested by the OEM, parts are sent to the appropriate 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities return center with correct identification and claim data. 2.09 Consideration is given to having the OEM and/or supplier 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities participate in the diagnosis and repair of vehicles at dealerships or fleet centers.

2.10, 2.11 2.11, 5.1, 5.5,1.3 5.7, 5.8, 6.6

Score 0 - 5

16

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section



OEM

2.10 The OE organization has a formal procedure for creating / updating TSB's, service manuals, diagnostic processes, owner's manuals, and call 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities center service procedures which include where applicable supplier input / review of the material and these materials are made accessible to supply chain partners.

OEM

2.11 The supply chain has an opportunity to participate in the 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities development and review of the TSBs, service manuals, diagnostic processes, and call center procedures.

OEM


OEM

3.01 Previous and current warranty from areas listed below, is pulled for review to help determine improvements in design, materials, process or service required to reduce warranty risk in preparation of a new program, (a) Incident rate;(b) Warranty data analysis (analytics) results;(c) Partner 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Preorganization assembly plant (d) Past serviceability (e) Organization's Program Activities own manufacturing or assembly issues;(f) Field return investigations results and root cause's;(g) Review of latest warranty repair center parts and data;(h) Extended service data review (if available);(I) Third party data that helps assess current performance levels.

OEM

3.02 Past T-G-W, T-G-R and corrective actions (like 8Ds, 5 Whys and 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Preother problem solving activity) are routinely reviewed for potential Program Activities improvements to reduce incident rate risk by the organization.

OEM

3.03 Does the organization utilize a procedure prior to launching a new 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- production line; which entails a thorough review of all corrective Program Activities actions, poke yoke, and error proofing implementations on previous lines is undertaken to identify potential issues on the new model.

OEM

3.04 The organization has established Lessons' Learned database that 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Precaptures information such as reasons for FMEA and Control Plan Program Activities changes, manufacturing or assembly improvements etc.

3.1, 4.1

OEM

3.05 Surrogate program data is applied to understand warranty related 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Prerisks such as: like components or systems, JD Powers and Associates Program Activities data, scorecards, etc.

3.2

OEM

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.06 The organization routinely reviews internal quality records and Program Activities supply chain quality data for potential warranty risks.

OEM

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.07 Past FMEA's are reviewed by the organization for potential risks Program Activities and "needs improvement" identification, including development needs.

OEM OEM OEM

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in PreProgram Activities 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in PreProgram Activities 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in PreProgram Activities

2.12 Components from early launch claims, preferably 100%, are returned for investigation.

3.08 The organization reviews available high mileage data to verify or identify potential reliability and durability performance issues. 3.09 NHTSA and other government databases are consistently reviewed for recalls and campaign information to help define risks. 3.10 Design for Six Sigma opportunities are identified and/or implemented to reduce warranty incident risks.

6.3, 6.4


Scoring Guideline

Procedures


Records of supply chain involvement

Yes = 5, No = 0

5.1, 5.5

Record


1.3, 1.6, Section 3

Metrics


3.1, 3.3, 4,4

Process & Design FMEA evidence, meeting records/process line review records


3.2, 3.3, 3.4

Procedure


Evidence of Lessons Learned database

Yes = 5, No = 0

Product development shows records of identified surrogate and review of issues/etc. and changes effected to design/process


Reviews of project records


3.4, 4.1, 6.2

Records of FMEA reviews and improvements


3.5, 4.5, 5.8

High mileage data review records


4.8, 5.6, 6.3

1.6, 3.3, 5.2, 5.3

3.6 3.7

OEM

3.11 There is a mechanism for program risks to be assessed by the organization when reviewing the following areas: (a) Potential programs; 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre(b) Terms and Conditions;(c) Applicable warranty agreements;(d) Program Activities Program deliverables;(e) Expectations and requirements communicated to program partners;(f) Legal, regulatory and/or legislative requirements.

1.8, 3.8

OEM

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.12 The organization engages the supply chain to reduce warranty risks Program Activities and there is a mechanism for the supply chain to share improvements.

3.9, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

OEM

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.13 The organization has sufficient warranty process training for supply Program Activities chain partners.

3.9, 3.10

OEM

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre3.14 TSB's are made accessible for review and improvement input. Program Activities



3.10, 4.8, 5.6, 6.3

NHTSA information review records quarterly (minimum) Program reviews include DFSS review records

Score 0 - 5


Metric reviews


Records show supply chain improvements


Training records


Records of TSB review inputs


17

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section





Scoring Guideline

OEM

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.15 The company actively promotes the use of Layered Audit Program Activities Procedures.


LPA records

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM

3.16 An Error-Proofing checklist for design and process to include 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- manufacturing and assembly is utilized. Following launch, the assembly Program Activities checklist for Error-Proofing effectiveness is incorporated in the Layered Audit Process.


LPA records


OEM

4.01 The organization's FMEA's identify all risks from component and 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced systems, Design for Manufacturing, Design for Assembly and Design for Product Quality Planning (APQP) Serviceability.

3.4, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6

FMEA records


OEM

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.02 The organization considers NTF's and how risk reducing activities Product Quality Planning (APQP) can be reflected in the FMEA's.

Documentation, FMEA checklist, information


OEM

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.03 The organization considers consumer use differences, by market, Product Quality Planning (APQP) for global platforms for both systems and components.

3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 4.1, 4.5

Documents, function analysis records, FMA. FMEA, QFD checklist, field benchmarking


OEM

4.04 The organization links FMEA's of the supply chain/customer to 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced their own FMEA's to increase risk detection and buy-in of reduction Product Quality Planning (APQP) activities.

3.4, 4.1, 6.2, 6.7

Organization/supplier FMEA linked


OEM

4.05 The organization correlates DVP&R results with actual field 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced performance data including warranty investigation results to verify that Product Quality Planning (APQP) the correct failure modes are being evaluated.

3.5, 4.1, 4.5, 5.5, 5.8

DVPR results correlated to field and warranty investigation results


OEM

4.06 The organization considers diagnostic methods and best practices to 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced allow for cost effective and timely root cause analysis and repair in the Product Quality Planning (APQP) design phase

4.3, 4.7, 4.8, 6.3

Diagnostic methods such as, fault tree, fish bone etc., used in design phase


OEM

4.07 The organization applies effective problem solving tools (reference 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced AIAG CQI-20) to optimize: functional performance, manufacturing Product Quality Planning (APQP) operations, shipping/handling efficiency, defect free assembly and effective repairs.

3.7, Section 5

Problem solving tools such as AIAG ref. CQI-20 used to optimize operations etc. Documentation


OEM

4.08 End-Of-Life products are captured, analyzed and compared to 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced design validation conditions to understand high mileage risks and Product Quality Planning (APQP) improvements.

3.5, 4.5, 5.8

End of Life product vs. design validation documentation


OEM

4.09 The organization engages the supply chain with the OEM's Vehicle 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced Parts and Service organization to allow improvements in diagnosis, Product Quality Planning (APQP) repair tools and repair methods.

4.3, 6.2

Evidence of involvement with Vehicle Parts and Service to support improvements

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.10 The organization allows supply chain partners to participate in the Product Quality Planning (APQP) review and validation of the Vehicle Service Manual.

4.3

Organization and supply chain involved in Vehicle Service Manual reviews. meeting minutes etc.

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM

4.11 The organization provides training to partners to improve parts 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced handling, component assembly processes, issue diagnosis and problem Product Quality Planning (APQP) resolution.

4.3, 4.7

Documented evidence of training supply chain partners in product handling, assembly and problem issue resolution

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM



1.6, 5.4, 6.1, 6.5

Records of clean point date communication contained in 8D's, 5Whys etc.


OEM


5.02The organization and partner(s) reach agreement for implementation of counter measures.

Records, audits


OEM



5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.6

Investigation records show system interaction/mating product reviews


OEM


5.04 Applicable repair procedures and TSB's are generated to support improvement in diagnostic and repair activities.

5.5, 6.3

Procedure and record of TSB reviews


OEM


5.05 The organization makes available to its supply chain partners access to dealership investigations, problem resolution, and consumer concerns data.

Section 2

Dealer vehicle procedure and specific investigative plans on record


OEM


6.01 Warranty agreements for directed source components are defined at the time of sourcing.

1.8, 3.8, 6.7

Warranty agreement dates match source dates


OEM



6.1, 6.7

Records of agreements and reviews with supply partners



3.7, 4.1, 6.6, 7.3

6.1

Score 0 - 5

18

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section





Scoring Guideline

OEM



6.1, 6.7

Agreements indicate ownership/responsibilities

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM



6.2, 6.7

Engineering documents, quality documents


OEM



6.2, 6.7

Records show CROSS FUNCTIONAL TEAM involvement


OEM



3.9, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

Records show corrective action sharing with supply chain partners


OEM



3.9, 6.7, 6.8

Warranty lessons learned database/records show application across systems and product lines


OEM



6.3

Process

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM


6.09 The organization has a defined Design for Service process.

4.3, 6.3

Procedure

Yes = 5, No = 0

OEM


6.10 The organization participates in preparation of training materials and service personnel where allowed. NOTE: Not Applicable to OEM.

4.8, 6.3

Records of training material involvement with service personnel where allowed


6. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions 6. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions 6. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions

6.11 The organization routinely investigates NTF in relation to the system environment. 6.12 The organization uses a defined process for NTF root cause investigation. 6.13 The organization applies continual improvement practices to NTF process.

Records of NTF reviews




OEM OEM OEM OEM OEM OEM OEM OEM

7. Continuous Improvement: Process 7. Continuous Improvement: Process 7. Continuous Improvement: Process 7. Continuous Improvement: Process

Institutionalize the 7.01 The organization establishes yearly improvement targets and places higher priority on issues with high incident rates (vs. cost). Institutionalize the 7.02 The organization has an established warranty lessons learned database. Institutionalize the 7.03 Lessons learned are applied for future programs. Institutionalize the 7.04 The organization manages warranty improvement projects with supply chain partner organizations.

OEM


8.01 The organization has a senior management-level champion who owns and defines the warranty management system with trained support identified.

OEM


8.02 The organization has defined warranty champion(s) responsible for coordinating resolution of warranty issues.

OEM


8.03 Warranty training is provided to all cross functional staff and supply chain partners, including all warranty personnel. There is emphasis on the objective to satisfy the consumer through risk reduction activities that minimize incident rates.

OEM


8.04 The organization sets warranty metric targets annually; targets are reviewed by senior management.


8.05 Customer warranty database access is established and data is shared within the organization.


8.06 Active projects to reduce the incident rates of NTF's involve partners/suppliers.

OEM


8.07 Associates are involved with using the warranty data to perform their job functions.

OEM


8.08 Warranty-related Lessons Learned database is populated with appropriate Look-Across activities.

OEM OEM


6.6 6.6, Fig 9 (Ref. AIAG/OESA NTF Decision Tree) 6.6, Fig 9 (Ref. AIAG/OESA NTF Decision Tree)

Records of Decision tree use for NTF root cause investigation Decision tree expanded to show new and/or specific NTF paths

6.5, 7.2

Verification of corrective actions by metric tracking


1.6, 7.1

Annual targets on metric

Yes = 5, No = 0

Warranty Lessons Learned database

Yes = 5, No = 0

3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 7.3 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 7.1 6.1, 7.1 Section 1

Lessons Learned review records during program reviews Supply chain partner warranty improvement project records

Yes = 5, No = 0 Yes = 5, No = 0

Use scoring method table Use scoring method table


Yes = 5, No = 0

1.1

Job description

Yes = 5, No = 0

Section 1, 3.9, 3.10

Training records Internal metrics


Annual metrics set

Yes = 5, No = 0

Evidence of database access, passwords etc. Show me


Incident rate tracking tied to action plan


Warranty data deployed to all affecting areas


Warranty records/lessons learned database shows look across references and actions


1.6, 7.1 1.3, Section 3, 5.2, 5.3 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 7.1 1.7, 1.8, 5.2 Section 3, 6.8, 7.3

Score 0 - 5

19

CQI-14


Organization

Responsible Area

Section



8.09 The organization applies and updates its defined NTF process as necessary.

OEM


8.10 There is increased effort to analyze End-Of-Life products to validate DVP, FMEA's, durability performance and OEM reliability requirements. This data is applied to further improve quality /performance to meet consumer satisfaction targets and fed forward into Lessons Learned database for new program review.

OEM


8.11 There is evidence of warranty risk factor review in the decision making process of bidding or accepting a program.

OEM

8.12 Problem solving tools are applied and standardized to assist root cause analysis of warranty concerns, updated as necessary. 9.01 Incident rates meet improvement targets. 9.02 The organization meets/exceeds warranty metric targets set by organization/customer.

OEM


OEM

9. Effectiveness Assessment

OEM


OEM


9.03 Regular data updates have been is made available to the organization.

OEM


9.04 There is increased evidence of cross function engagements with partners/suppliers with the problem solving of warranty concerns.

OEM


9.05 Detection-to-Correction measures are improving.

OEM


9.06 Does the organization measure the NTF ratio to total claims?

OEM


9.07 NTF resolution performance (e.g., ratio of NTF to total parts, time to resolve, etc.) is improving.





Scoring Guideline

6.6, 7.3

NTF defined process being applied and updated


3.5, 4.5, 5.8

End of life product analysis records, and records of updated Lessons Learned database


Warranty risk reviews in contract / program reviews - records

Yes = 5, No = 0

1.8, 3.8

1.6, 7.1

Evidence of problem solving tool use, fishbones, decision trees etc. Trend charts

1.6, 7.1

Charts

Yes = 5, No = 0

1.6, 7.3

Reporting of warranty data, lessons learned data base

Yes = 5, No = 0

Project records

Yes = 5, No = 0

Evidence of improvement in measures demonstrated by project / issue documentation

Yes = 5, No = 0

Organization measures NTF vs. total claims

Yes = 5, No = 0

NTF resolution - number of open items is decreasing


1.7, Section 5

3.9, 4.1, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7

1.6, 7.3 1.7 1.6, 7.1

Score 0 - 5

Use scoring method table Yes = 5, No = 0

20

CQI-14


Scoring Guide For CQI-14 Automotive Warranty Management Assessment Please note: For the purposes of this survey, "the organization" can mean "Company," "Division," "Department"

Copyright © 2015 AIAG (Automotive Industry Action Group)

Organization

Supplier

Average - Score 0 - 5

Responsible Area

Section

0

Total Result


0.00

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre-Program Activities

0.00

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP)

0.00

0.00


0.00

0.00


0.00

0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the Process

0.00

0.00


0.00

0.00


0.00

0.00

Total Result

0.00

0.00

21

CQI-14 Automotive Warranty Management Assessment Version 3, Issued 4/2015 Responsible Area

Section 1. Management Introduction to Warranty / 0 Establishing the Baseline

Circumstance or Condition 1.01 The organization has a defined warranty management process with defined ownership.

1. Management Introduction to Warranty / 0 Establishing the Baseline

1.02 There is upper management oversite of warranty management activities.


1.03 Warranty management is part of the organization's business plan.


1.04 Roles and responsibilities for warranty management processes within the organization are clearly documented and understood.

0.00



0.00



0.00



0.00





0.00



0.00

0

0




Score 0 - 5

Prior Score

0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00

22


Section 1. Management Introduction to Warranty / Establishing the Baseline 0

Circumstance or Condition 1.12 There is a mechanism for program risks to be assessed by the organization when reviewing, (a) Potential programs;(b) Terms and Conditions;(c) Applicable warranty agreements;(d) Program deliverables;(e) Expectations and requirements communicated to program partners;(f) Legal, regulatory and/or legislative requirements.

Score 0 - 5

0.00



0.00


1.14 The organization is accessing and utilizing available customer warranty data systems.

0.00


1.15 The organization is proactively receiving and analyzing warranty field returns sent by the OEM or Supply Chain Partners and results are shared.

0.00



0.00



0.00


0.00



0.00



0.00

0



Prior Score

23


Section Circumstance or Condition 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.01 Previous and current warranty is pulled for review to help Program Activities determine improvements in design, materials, process or service required to reduce warranty risk in preparation of a new program, (a) Incident rate;(b) Warranty data analysis (analytics) results;(c) Partner organization assembly plant issues;(d) Past serviceability issues;(e) Organization's own manufacturing or assembly issues;(f) Field return investigations 0 results and root cause's;(g) Review of latest warranty repair center parts and data;(h) Extended service data review (if available);(I) Third party data that helps assess current performance levels.

Score 0 - 5

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.02 Surrogate program data is applied to understand warranty related risks such as: like components or systems, JD Powers and Associates 0 Program Activities data, scorecards, etc.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.03 NHTSA and other government databases are consistently reviewed 0 Program Activities for recalls and campaign information to help define risks.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.04 TSB's are obtained, when available, and made accessible for review 0 Program Activities and improvement input.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.05 Past T-G-W, T-G-R and corrective actions (like 8Ds, 5 Whys and Program Activities other problem solving activity) are routinely reviewed for potential 0 improvements to reduce incident rate risk by the organization.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.06 Does the organization utilize a procedure prior to launching a new Program Activities production line; which entails a thorough review of all corrective actions, poke yoke, and error proofing implementations on previous lines 0 regardless of customer is undertaken to identify potential issues on the new line.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.07 The organization has established Lessons' Learned database that captures information such as reasons for FMEA and Control Plan 0 Program Activities changes, manufacturing or assembly improvements etc.

0.00


Prior Score

24


Section Circumstance or Condition 2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.08 The organization routinely reviews internal quality records and 0 Program Activities supply chain quality data for potential warranty risks.

Score 0 - 5 0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.09 Past FMEA's are reviewed by the organization for potential risks and "needs improvement" identification, including development needs. 0 Program Activities

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.10 The organization reviews available high mileage data to verify or 0 Program Activities identify potential reliability and durability performance issues.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.11 Design for Six Sigma opportunities are identified and/or 0 Program Activities implemented to reduce warranty incident risks.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.12 The organization engages the supply chain to reduce warranty risks and there is a mechanism for the supply chain to share improvements. 0 Program Activities

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.13 The organization has sufficient warranty process training for supply 0 Program Activities chain partners.

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.14 Is the organization actively involved in Layered Audit Procedures? 0 Program Activities

0.00

2. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 2.15 An Error Proofing checklist for design and process to include Program Activities manufacturing and assembly is utilized. Following launch, the assembly 0 checklist for Error Proofing effectiveness is incorporated in the Layered Audit Process.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.01 The organization considers consumer use differences, by market, 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) for global platforms for both systems and components.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.02 End-Of-Life products are captured, analyzed and compared to design validation conditions to understand high mileage risks and 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) improvements.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.03 The organization's FMEA's identify all risks from component and systems, Design for Manufacturing, Design for Assembly and Design for 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) Serviceability.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.04 The organization considers NTF's and how risk reducing activities 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) can be reflected in the FMEA's.

0.00


Prior Score

25


Section Circumstance or Condition 3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.05 The organization links FMEA's of the supply chain/customer to their own FMEA's to increase risk detection and buy-in of reduction 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) activities.

Score 0 - 5 0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.06 The organization correlates DVP&R results with actual field performance data including warranty investigation results to verify that 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) the correct failure modes are being evaluated.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.07 The organization considers diagnostic methods and best practices to allow for cost effective and timely root cause analysis and repair in the 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) design phase.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.08 The organization applies effective problem solving tools (reference Product Quality Planning (APQP) AIAG CQI-20) to optimize: functional performance, manufacturing 0 operations, shipping/handling efficiency, defect free assembly and effective repairs.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.09 The organization engages the supply chain with the OEM's Vehicle Parts and Service organization to allow improvements in diagnosis, 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) repair tools and repair methods.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.10 The organization allows supply chain partners to participate in the 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) review and validation of the Vehicle Service Manual.

0.00

3. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 3.11 The organization provides training to partners to improve parts handling, component assembly processes, issue diagnosis and problem 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) resolution.

0.00

4. Containing Warranty Issues: Post-Start of 0 Production

4.01 The organization has a process to develop knowledgeable and trained staff to facilitate warranty monitoring.

0.00

4.02 The organization has a documented procedure for managing and analyzing warranty returns, subsequent problem solving activities and utilization of investigation findings in future product development activities.

0.00

4.03 The organization currently makes use of all available warranty data systems and parts return resources which enables timely /regular communication to the warranty stakeholders.

0.00

0




Prior Score

26


Section 4. Containing Warranty Issues: Post-Start of 0 Production

Circumstance or Condition 4.04 The organization expands investigations beyond the component level to include system interactions, assembly, mating component, and handling/logistics conditions.


4.05 The organization and partner(s) reach agreement for implementation of counter measures.

0.00



0.00


4.07 Applicable repair procedures and TSB's are pulled/reviewed/generated to support improvement in diagnostic and repair activities.

0.00


4.08 The organization participates, when allowed, with diagnosis and repair of a vehicle at dealerships/fleet repair centers/OEM fleet service garages or other partner available vehicles.

0.00

0.00


4.10 The organization prepares an investigative plan when reviewing dealer vehicles.

0.00


4.11 The organization has defined process to notify the customer of potential suspect or nonconforming parts (service parts and supply chain).

0.00

5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: 0 Actions/Solutions

5.01 Warranty agreements are clearly defined at the time of sourcing for directed source components.

0.00



0


Prior Score

0.00

4.09 The organization has a process(es) defined to request a vehicle(s) for testing and investigative purposes from the OEM, other supply chain partners, vehicle rental companies, or employees.

0


Score 0 - 5

0.00

27


Section 5. Preventing Future Warranty Events: 0 Actions/Solutions

Circumstance or Condition 5.03 This agreement(s) includes who is responsible (ownership) for each improvement step and timing (reference question #2).



0.00



0.00



0.00








5.10 The organization participates in preparation of training materials and service personnel where allowed.

0.00


5.11 The organization routinely investigates NTF in relation to the system environment.

0.00


5.12 The organization uses a defined process for NTF root cause investigation.

0.00


5.13 The organization applies continual improvement practices to NTF process.

0.00



0.00

0


Score 0 - 5

Prior Score

0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00

28


Section Circumstance or Condition 6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.01 The organization tracks the available warranty data and understands the warranty trends including detection of emerging field issues. 0 Process

Score 0 - 5 0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.02 The organization monitors social media to identify consumer 0 Process concerns as an early warning.

0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.03 The organization follows up with dealer technicians for additional 0 Process claim information where permitted.

0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.04 Warranty data is pareto charted to identify potential improvement 0 Process targets.

0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.05 The organization establishes yearly improvement targets and places 0 Process higher priority on issues with high incident rates (vs. cost).

0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.06 The organization implements continuous improvement activities 0 Process which meet or exceed improvement targets.

0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.07 The organization periodically establishes agreed upon warranty 0 Process improvement projects with partner organizations.

0.00

6. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 6.08 Lessons learned are applied to future programs. 0 Process

0.00

I.01 The organization has a senior management-level champion who owns and defines the warranty management system with trained support identified.

0.00


I.02 The organization has defined warranty champion(s) responsible for coordinating resolution of warranty issues.

0.00


I.03 Warranty training is provided to all cross functional staff and supply chain partners, including all warranty personnel. There is emphasis on the objective to satisfy the consumer through risk reduction activities that minimize incident rates.

0.00


I.04 The organization sets warranty metric targets annually; targets are reviewed by senior management.

0.00


I.05 Customer warranty database access is established and data is shared within the organization.

0.00

7. Implementation Assessment 0 0

0

0 0


Prior Score

29

CQI-14 Automotive Warranty Management Assessment Version 3, Issued 4/2015 Responsible Area 0 0 0 0

Section 7. Implementation Assessment

Circumstance or Condition I.06 Active projects to reduce the incident rates of NTF's involve partners/suppliers.


I.07 Associates are involved with using the warranty data to perform their job functions.

0.00


I.08 Warranty-related Lessons Learned database is populated with appropriate Look-Across activities.

0.00


I.09 The organization applies and updates its defined NTF process as necessary.

0.00


I.10 There is increased effort to analyze End-Of-Life products to validate DVP, FMEA's, durability performance and OEM reliability requirements. This data is applied to further improve quality /performance to meet consumer satisfaction targets and fed forward into Lessons Learned database for new program review.

0.00


I.11 There is evidence of warranty risk factor review in the decision making process of bidding or accepting a program.

0.00


I.12 Problem solving tools are applied and standardized to assist root cause analysis of warranty concerns, updated as necessary.

0.00

0

0 0

8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty 0 Management Program

E.01 Incident rates meet improvement targets.


E.02 The organization meets/exceeds warranty metric targets set by organization/customer.


E.03 Regular data updates have been made available to the organization.


E.04 There is increased evidence of cross function engagements with partners/suppliers with the problem solving of warranty concerns.


E.05 Detection-to-Correction measures are improving.


E.06 Does the organization measure the NTF ratio to total claims?


Score 0 - 5

Prior Score

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30


Section 8. Effectiveness Assessment of Warranty 0 Management Program

Circumstance or Condition E.07 NTF resolution performance (e.g., ratio of NTF to total parts, time to resolve, etc.) is improving.


1.01 The organization clearly defines ownership of the warranty management process.

0.00


1.02 The organization performs cross functional reviews of warranty terms & conditions including warranty agreements.

0.00



0.00


1.04 The organization uses benchmark data to drive warranty reduction to enhance consumer satisfaction.

0.00



0.00


1.06 The organization is proactively receiving and analyzing warranty field returns.

0.00


1.07 Supply chain partners are integrated into the warranty management process.

0.00



0.00






1.11 Field returned warranty parts investigation results are shared with supply chain partners.

0


Score 0 - 5

Prior Score

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00

31


Section 1. Management Introduction to Warranty / 0 Establishing the Baseline

Circumstance or Condition 1.12 The organization regularly carries out on-going assessment of its warranty management culture and identifies opportunities for improvement.



0



Score 0 - 5 0.00

0.00

0.00



0.00



0.00


0.00



0.00



0.00

0

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.01 The consumer's concern is thoroughly and accurately captured as a verbatim.

0.00

0

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.02 "CCNDs" are captured and explanations are documented for potential future review.

0.00

0

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.03 The repair order is completely and accurately filled out by the Service Manager/Advisor.

0.00

0



Prior Score

32


Section Circumstance or Condition 2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.04 The Technician is able to access the necessary TSBs, repair procedures, hot lines and other tools to adequately diagnose and repair a 0 vehicle. 0

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.05 The Technician documents and reproduces the consumer concern (cc) and root cause before proceeding with a repair.

Score 0 - 5 0.00 0.00

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.06 After repair, the documentation is written up completely with accurate codes and diagnostic information, test data and replacement 0 parts listed, including any digital media to support the repair.

0.00

0

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.07 Parts properly tagged for identification and stored for possible return per the OEM's procedure.

0.00

0

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.08 When requested by the OEM, parts are sent to the appropriate return center with correct identification and claim data.

0.00

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.09 Consideration is given to having the OEM and/or supplier participate in the diagnosis and repair of vehicles at dealerships or fleet 0 centers.

0.00

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.10 The OE organization has a formal procedure for creating / updating TSB's, service manuals, diagnostic processes, owner's manuals, and call center service procedures which include where applicable supplier 0 input / review of the material and these materials are made accessible to supply chain partners.

0.00

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.11 The supply chain has an opportunity to participate in the development and review of the TSBs, service manuals, diagnostic 0 processes, and call center procedures.

0.00

2. Consumer Event and the Dealership Activities 2.12 Components from early launch claims, preferably 100%, are returned for investigation.

0.00

0


Prior Score

33


Section Circumstance or Condition 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.01 Previous and current warranty from areas listed below, is pulled for Program Activities review to help determine improvements in design, materials, process or service required to reduce warranty risk in preparation of a new program, (a) Incident rate;(b) Warranty data analysis (analytics) results;(c) Partner organization assembly plant (d) Past serviceability (e) Organization's own manufacturing or assembly issues;(f) Field return investigations 0 results and root cause's;(g) Review of latest warranty repair center parts and data;(h) Extended service data review (if available);(I) Third party data that helps assess current performance levels.

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.02 Past T-G-W, T-G-R and corrective actions (like 8Ds, 5 Whys and Program Activities other problem solving activity) are routinely reviewed for potential 0 improvements to reduce incident rate risk by the organization. 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.03 Does the organization utilize a procedure prior to launching a new Program Activities production line; which entails a thorough review of all corrective actions, poke yoke, and error proofing implementations on previous lines 0 is undertaken to identify potential issues on the new model.

Score 0 - 5

0.00

0.00

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.04 The organization has established Lessons' Learned database that captures information such as reasons for FMEA and Control Plan 0 Program Activities changes, manufacturing or assembly improvements etc.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.05 Surrogate program data is applied to understand warranty related risks such as: like components or systems, JD Powers and Associates 0 Program Activities data, scorecards, etc.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.06 The organization routinely reviews internal quality records and 0 Program Activities supply chain quality data for potential warranty risks.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.07 Past FMEA's are reviewed by the organization for potential risks and "needs improvement" identification, including development needs. 0 Program Activities

0.00


Prior Score

34


Section Circumstance or Condition 3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.08 The organization reviews available high mileage data to verify or 0 Program Activities identify potential reliability and durability performance issues.

Score 0 - 5 0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.09 NHTSA and other government databases are consistently reviewed 0 Program Activities for recalls and campaign information to help define risks.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.10 Design for Six Sigma opportunities are identified and/or 0 Program Activities implemented to reduce warranty incident risks.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.11 There is a mechanism for program risks to be assessed by the Program Activities organization when reviewing the following areas: (a) Potential programs; (b) Terms and Conditions;(c) Applicable warranty agreements;(d) 0 Program deliverables;(e) Expectations and requirements communicated to program partners;(f) Legal, regulatory and/or legislative requirements.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.12 The organization engages the supply chain to reduce warranty risks and there is a mechanism for the supply chain to share improvements. 0 Program Activities

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.13 The organization has sufficient warranty process training for supply 0 Program Activities chain partners.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.14 TSB's are made accessible for review and improvement input. 0 Program Activities

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.15 The company actively promotes the use of Layered Audit 0 Program Activities Procedures.

0.00

3. Proactive Prevention: Lesson's Learned in Pre- 3.16 An Error-Proofing checklist for design and process to include Program Activities manufacturing and assembly is utilized. Following launch, the assembly 0 checklist for Error-Proofing effectiveness is incorporated in the Layered Audit Process.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.01 The organization's FMEA's identify all risks from component and systems, Design for Manufacturing, Design for Assembly and Design for 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) Serviceability.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.02 The organization considers NTF's and how risk reducing activities 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) can be reflected in the FMEA's.

0.00


Prior Score

35


Section Circumstance or Condition 4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.03 The organization considers consumer use differences, by market, 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) for global platforms for both systems and components.

Score 0 - 5 0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.04 The organization links FMEA's of the supply chain/customer to their own FMEA's to increase risk detection and buy-in of reduction 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) activities.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.05 The organization correlates DVP&R results with actual field performance data including warranty investigation results to verify that 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) the correct failure modes are being evaluated.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.06 The organization considers diagnostic methods and best practices to allow for cost effective and timely root cause analysis and repair in the 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) design phase

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.07 The organization applies effective problem solving tools (reference Product Quality Planning (APQP) AIAG CQI-20) to optimize: functional performance, manufacturing 0 operations, shipping/handling efficiency, defect free assembly and effective repairs.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.08 End-Of-Life products are captured, analyzed and compared to design validation conditions to understand high mileage risks and 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) improvements.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.09 The organization engages the supply chain with the OEM's Vehicle Parts and Service organization to allow improvements in diagnosis, 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) repair tools and repair methods.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.10 The organization allows supply chain partners to participate in the 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) review and validation of the Vehicle Service Manual.

0.00

4. Implementing the Lessons Learned: Advanced 4.11 The organization provides training to partners to improve parts handling, component assembly processes, issue diagnosis and problem 0 Product Quality Planning (APQP) resolution.

0.00




Prior Score

0.00

36


Section 5. Containing Warranty Issues: Post-Start of 0 Production

Circumstance or Condition 5.02The organization and partner(s) reach agreement for implementation of counter measures.



0.00


5.04 Applicable repair procedures and TSB's are generated to support improvement in diagnostic and repair activities.

0.00


5.05 The organization makes available to its supply chain partners access to dealership investigations, problem resolution, and consumer concerns data.

0.00


6.01 Warranty agreements for directed source components are defined at the time of sourcing.

0.00



0

Score 0 - 5 0.00

0.00



0.00



0.00



0.00



0.00


Prior Score

37


Section 6. Preventing Future Warranty Events: Actions/Solutions

Circumstance or Condition 6.07 Warranty lessons learned are applied to all product lines, systems, processes, materials, etc. where applicable, to leverage improvement across a broader base of the business (i.e., Yokoten, Poka-Yoke, etc.).






6.10 The organization participates in preparation of training materials and service personnel where allowed. NOTE: Not Applicable to OEM.

0.00


6.11 The organization routinely investigates NTF in relation to the system environment.

0.00


6.12 The organization uses a defined process for NTF root cause investigation.

0.00


6.13 The organization applies continual improvement practices to NTF process.

0.00



0.00

0

Score 0 - 5 0.00

0.00 0.00

7. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 7.01 The organization establishes yearly improvement targets and places 0 Process higher priority on issues with high incident rates (vs. cost).

0.00

7. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 7.02 The organization has an established warranty lessons learned 0 Process database.

0.00

7. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 7.03 Lessons learned are applied for future programs. 0 Process

0.00

7. Continuous Improvement: Institutionalize the 7.04 The organization manages warranty improvement projects with 0 Process supply chain partner organizations.

0.00


Prior Score

38


Section 8. Implementation Assessment 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0

0.00


8.03 Warranty training is provided to all cross functional staff and supply chain partners, including all warranty personnel. There is emphasis on the objective to satisfy the consumer through risk reduction activities that minimize incident rates.

0.00


8.04 The organization sets warranty metric targets annually; targets are reviewed by senior management.

0.00


8.05 Customer warranty database access is established and data is shared within the organization.

0.00


8.06 Active projects to reduce the incident rates of NTF's involve partners/suppliers.

0.00


8.07 Associates are involved with using the warranty data to perform their job functions.

0.00


8.08 Warranty-related Lessons Learned database is populated with appropriate Look-Across activities.

0.00


8.09 The organization applies and updates its defined NTF process as necessary.

0.00


8.10 There is increased effort to analyze End-Of-Life products to validate DVP, FMEA's, durability performance and OEM reliability requirements. This data is applied to further improve quality /performance to meet consumer satisfaction targets and fed forward into Lessons Learned database for new program review.

0.00


8.11 There is evidence of warranty risk factor review in the decision making process of bidding or accepting a program.

0.00


8.12 Problem solving tools are applied and standardized to assist root cause analysis of warranty concerns, updated as necessary.

0.00


Prior Score

0.00

8.02 The organization has defined warranty champion(s) responsible for coordinating resolution of warranty issues.

0

0

Score 0 - 5


0

0

Circumstance or Condition 8.01 The organization has a senior management-level champion who owns and defines the warranty management system with trained support identified.

39


Section 0 9. Effectiveness Assessment 9. Effectiveness Assessment 0

Circumstance or Condition 9.01 Incident rates meet improvement targets. 9.02 The organization meets/exceeds warranty metric targets set by organization/customer.

Score 0 - 5 0.00 0.00


9.03 Regular data updates have been is made available to the organization.

0.00

9. Effectiveness Assessment 0

9.04 There is increased evidence of cross function engagements with partners/suppliers with the problem solving of warranty concerns.

0.00

0 9. Effectiveness Assessment 0 9. Effectiveness Assessment 9. Effectiveness Assessment 0

9.05 Detection-to-Correction measures are improving. 9.06 Does the organization measure the NTF ratio to total claims? 9.07 NTF resolution performance (e.g., ratio of NTF to total parts, time to resolve, etc.) is improving.

0


Prior Score

0.00 0.00 0.00

40

CQI-14 Assessment Tool Final

Recommend Documents