IATF 16949:2016 Internal Auditor Certificate
NPD structure, APQP/PPAP readiness, project controls, EVM, SPI/CPI, and RAID management presented as a disciplined launch system.
← Back to homeNPD ownership for me is not a sequence of meetings — it is a continuous discipline that begins with investment validation and CAPEX approval, integrates tool lifecycle and amortization planning, and runs in parallel with change management costing across every gate.
Each phase has named deliverables, named owners, and measurable readiness criteria. The framework — at right — is one I have applied across automotive supplier, aerospace cabin-interior, and EV powertrain programs over the past eight years.
Launch planning is rarely a single-volume problem. A line built for PPAP capacity will be under-utilized at SOP, stretched at Planned Peak, stranded during volume crisis, and obsolete at Face-Out. Scalable configuration manages that arc deliberately — using a typed-equipment genome that rebalances as demand shifts.
D — Dedicated. Single-product capacity. Highest output, lowest flex.
S — Shared. Pooled across product families. Rebalanced by demand.
O — Other Dedicated. Dedicated to an adjacent product or family.
Layered over this — line-level ergonomic flow. Karakuri gravity-fed material exchange (replacing manual handling). Counter-clockwise operator-walk patterns that reduce 90° body rotation to 10°. Round-tube material guides for low-friction part transfer. Standard takt protected from operator fatigue.
Role mapping reflects launch program management accountability: driving timing, cross-functional readiness, escalation, and gate discipline while technical ownership remains with Engineering, Quality, Manufacturing, Metrology, Supplier Quality, and Operations as applicable.
| Phase | Deliverable | PM Role |
|---|---|---|
| Planning | PPAP Plan | Lead |
| Product Design & Development | Authorized Engineering Change Documents | Track |
| Bill of Materials | Coordinate | |
| Design FMEA | Support | |
| Process Design & Development | Process Flow Diagram | Review |
| Process FMEA | Review | |
| Control Plan | Review | |
| Customer-Owned Tools / Tool-Transfer Plan | Lead | |
| Weld Feasibility / Fixture Concept | Coordinate | |
| Supplier Technical Clarification Log | Lead | |
| Equipment Reuse vs. New-Build Business Case | Coordinate | |
| Special Processes — Coating | Track | |
| Product Validation | Dimensional Test | Track |
| PPAP Samples | Lead | |
| Prototype Build Feedback / Supplier Questions | Coordinate | |
| Weld Validation Plan | Track | |
| PPAP Master Sample | Track | |
| Production Process Validation | Measurement System Analysis | Track |
| Process Capability Studies | Track | |
| Part Submission Warrant | Support | |
| Capacity Analysis | Lead | |
| Safe-Launch / Run @ Rate Readiness | Lead |
EVM. Earned Value flatlined during a Q1–Q3 hold; the post-hold restart re-accelerated EV against a controlled actual-cost trajectory, with Actual Cost approaching ~690k by the eighth month.
SPI / CPI. Schedule Performance Index dipped during the hold and recovered post-restart; Cost Performance Index stabilized and improved — better cost efficiency relative to earned progress.
RAID. The hold drove RAID backlog aging; post-restart closure throughput accelerated and open items burned down month-over-month — visible in the RAID aging proxy at right.