The APQP Process: How to Plan Quality Into Every Phase of Product Development

Starting the APQP Process: Before Phase 1

Before you formally enter Phase 1, there is groundwork to do. You need to establish the cross-functional team, define the project scope, and secure management commitment. Without these three elements, the APQP process will stall.

The cross-functional team should include representatives from quality, engineering, manufacturing, purchasing, and any other function that touches the product. In smaller organizations, one person may wear multiple hats, but the perspectives still need to be represented.

Management commitment means more than a signature on a charter document. It means providing time, budget, and resources for the team to do the work. APQP activities compete with daily production demands, and without management backing, production always wins.

Phase 1: Plan and Define the Program

Phase 1 is about understanding what the customer needs and translating those needs into measurable requirements. This is the foundation that every subsequent phase builds on. If you get this wrong, everything downstream is compromised.

Key Inputs

• Voice of the Customer (VOC) data, including complaints, warranty data, and feedback from similar products
• Customer specifications and engineering standards
• Regulatory and legal requirements
• Benchmarking data from competitors or best-in-class products
• Lessons learned from previous programs

Key Outputs

• Design goals (reliability, durability, performance targets)
• Preliminary Bill of Materials (BOM)
• Preliminary process flow chart
• Preliminary special characteristics list
• Product assurance plan
• Management support and resource commitment

The most important output of Phase 1 is a shared understanding across the team of what “good” looks like. If engineering and manufacturing have different interpretations of the customer requirements, problems are guaranteed.

Phase 2: Product Design and Development

In Phase 2, the engineering team creates the product design. This is where drawings are created, materials are selected, and the Design Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (DFMEA) is developed.

Key Activities

• Design reviews at regular intervals to catch issues early
• DFMEA development to identify how the design could fail and what the consequences would be
• Design Verification Plan and Report (DVP&R) to define testing requirements
• Engineering drawings with complete Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T)
• Material specifications and testing
• Prototype builds and testing

Prototype control plans are developed in Phase 2 to define how prototype parts will be inspected. These are not production control plans. They are typically more inspection-heavy because you are still learning about the product.

Design for Manufacturability (DFM) reviews should happen during this phase. Getting manufacturing input before the design is frozen prevents costly changes later. This is one of the highest-value activities in the entire APQP process.

Phase 3: Process Design and Development

Phase 3 shifts focus from the product to the manufacturing process. The question changes from “What are we making?” to “How are we making it?”

Key Deliverables

• Process flow diagram showing every step from raw material to finished product
• Floor plan layout optimized for material flow and quality
• Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)
• Pre-launch control plan
• Work instructions and operator training materials
• Packaging standards and specifications
• Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) plan

The PFMEA is arguably the most important document in Phase 3. It systematically identifies what could go wrong in each process step, rates the severity, occurrence, and detection of each failure mode, and drives actions to reduce risk. A well-developed PFMEA feeds directly into the control plan.

The pre-launch control plan bridges the gap between prototype and production. It typically includes more frequent inspections and tighter controls than the final production control plan because you are still validating the process.

Phase 4: Product and Process Validation

This is where you prove it all works. Phase 4 validates the manufacturing process through a significant production run using production tooling, production operators, and production rates.

Key Activities

• Production Trial Run (PTR) or Run at Rate using production conditions
• MSA studies on all measurement systems used for critical and significant characteristics
• Initial process capability studies (Cpk and Ppk calculations)
• Production validation testing
• Dimensional layout inspection of parts from the production run
• Compilation and submission of the PPAP (Production Part Approval Process) package

The production trial run must use actual production conditions. Parts made on prototype tooling or at reduced speeds do not validate your production process. Customers expect the trial run to demonstrate that you can produce parts at the quoted rate while meeting all quality requirements.

Once the PPAP is submitted and approved by the customer, you are authorized to ship production parts. The production control plan replaces the pre-launch control plan, and regular production begins.

Phase 5: Feedback, Assessment, and Corrective Action

Phase 5 is the continuous improvement phase. Production is running, but the APQP process is not finished. You are now monitoring the process and using data to drive improvements.

Key Activities

• Monitoring SPC (Statistical Process Control) charts for critical characteristics
• Tracking customer complaints and warranty data
• Reducing variation through process optimization
• Updating FMEA and control plans based on production experience
• Conducting lessons learned sessions
• Documenting best practices for future programs

The lessons learned activity is one of the most underutilized elements of APQP. Teams rush to the next program without capturing what worked and what did not. Over time, this creates an organization that repeats the same mistakes on every launch.

Gate Reviews: The Control Mechanism

Gate reviews are formal checkpoints between phases where the cross-functional team and management evaluate whether deliverables are complete and the program is ready to proceed. They are the quality control mechanism for the APQP process itself.

A typical gate review includes a review of open action items, a status update on each deliverable, a risk assessment, and a go/no-go decision. If critical items are incomplete, the gate does not open and the program does not advance.

Gate reviews require management participation. Without decision-making authority in the room, gate reviews become status meetings with no teeth.

Common Implementation Challenges

Compressed timelines. Customers frequently compress development timelines, forcing APQP activities to overlap more than they should. When this happens, prioritize the activities that reduce risk: FMEA, capability studies, and MSA.

Incomplete customer requirements. You cannot plan quality without clear requirements. Push back early when specifications are missing or ambiguous. Document assumptions and get customer agreement.

Siloed teams. APQP only works as a cross-functional effort. If engineering designs the product without manufacturing input, or if quality is brought in at the end, the process breaks down.

Documentation overload. Scale the documentation to the complexity of the product. A simple stamped bracket does not need the same level of APQP documentation as a complex electronic module. Focus on substance over volume.

Tools and Templates for APQP Execution

You do not need expensive software to run APQP effectively, though software can help at scale. At minimum, you need:

• A timing plan or Gantt chart to track milestones and deliverables
• An open issues list reviewed weekly by the cross-functional team
• FMEA templates (AIAG-VDA format is now the standard)
• Control plan templates
• Gate review checklists

Many organizations start with spreadsheets and project management tools before investing in dedicated APQP software. The methodology matters more than the tool. A disciplined team using Excel will outperform an undisciplined team using expensive software every time.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many people should be on an APQP team?

There is no fixed number. The team should include representatives from every function that affects the product: engineering, manufacturing, quality, purchasing, and logistics. For small suppliers, that may be 3 to 5 people. For complex programs at Tier 1 suppliers, it could be 10 or more.

Can APQP phases overlap?

Yes. The AIAG timing chart shows overlapping phases, and in practice, most programs have some overlap. The key is that critical deliverables from one phase must be complete before dependent activities in the next phase can begin meaningfully.

What happens if a gate review identifies incomplete deliverables?

The program should not advance past the gate until critical items are resolved. The team develops an action plan with owners and due dates. Non-critical items may be allowed to carry forward with documented risk acceptance.

How does APQP handle engineering changes after launch?

Significant engineering changes typically trigger a partial re-run of the APQP process. The scope depends on the nature of the change. A material change may only require updated material testing and a new PPAP, while a design change may require a new DFMEA, prototype testing, and full revalidation.

Is APQP training required?

IATF 16949 requires that personnel involved in product quality planning are competent. Most organizations fulfill this through formal APQP training from AIAG, accredited training providers, or internal training programs. Documented training records are typically reviewed during audits.

What is the difference between APQP and NPI?

NPI (New Product Introduction) is a general term for the process of bringing a new product to market. APQP is a specific, standardized methodology for NPI in the automotive industry. Many companies use “NPI” and “APQP” interchangeably, though APQP is more prescriptive in its requirements.

How do you measure APQP effectiveness?

Common metrics include on-time PPAP submission rate, number of open issues at launch, launch quality (PPM in the first 90 days), and the number of engineering changes after launch. Tracking these metrics across programs shows whether your APQP process is improving.