PPAP — the Production Part Approval Process — is how a supplier proves, before shipping in volume, that it understands every customer requirement and that its production process meets them consistently at the quoted rate. The proof is a file of up to eighteen elements, summarised on a signed Part Submission Warrant. It is defined in the AIAG PPAP manual, and IATF 16949 requires a product approval process in clause 8.3.4.4.
Eighteen elements, five submission levels, and level 3 is the default unless the customer says otherwise. The numbers a reviewer checks first are the production run (at least 300 consecutive parts), capability (Ppk above 1.67) and the measurement system (Gage R&R below 10%). And the element list is numbered in submission order, not build order — teams that work through it from 1 to 18 measure parts with gauges nobody has validated yet.
Download the PPAP checklist
All eighteen elements with what each must contain and where it usually fails, a status and owner column, and a place to note where the evidence sits. The second sheet is the five submission levels; the third is the triggers for a new submission and the numbers a reviewer checks. No signup, no email.
PPAP checklist — Excel (.xlsx)
Status drop-down per element, Open highlighted in red, three sheets: elements, levels, triggers and numbers.
PPAP checklist — Word (.docx)
The version for a launch review meeting, or to adapt into your own supplier quality procedure.
PPAP checklist — PDF (print)
Three printable pages — the copy that goes in the front of the binder while the file is being built.
The 18 elements — what each must contain
Not every element applies to every part. A supplier that is not design-responsible has no DFMEA; a part with no appearance requirements needs no appearance approval report. But an element that does not apply should be marked as not applicable, with a reason — a silent gap reads as an omission.
| # | Element | What it must contain | Where it usually fails |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Design records | The drawing and specifications at the revision on the purchase order, plus the bill of materials for assemblies. | The revision in the file is not the revision on the purchase order. |
| 2 | Authorized engineering change documents | Every change already in the product but not yet on the drawing, with the customer’s authorization. | A change is running in production and exists only in an email. |
| 3 | Customer engineering approval | Evidence of approval where the customer requires it. | Assumed not required, without asking. |
| 4 | Design FMEA | The DFMEA for the part, if you are design-responsible. | Left out without explanation. |
| 5 | Process flow diagram | Every step from receiving to shipping, including inspection, rework and scrap loops. | Shows the intended process rather than the line as it runs; rework loops missing. |
| 6 | Process FMEA | One row per step of the flow diagram, with actions for the high-risk failure modes. | Steps do not match the flow diagram; actions never reach the control plan. |
| 7 | Control plan | Every characteristic with method, sample size, frequency and a reaction plan for suspect product. | The reaction plan reads “notify supervisor”; PFMEA actions are missing from it. |
| 8 | Measurement system analysis | Gage R&R and other studies for every gauge the control plan names. | The study was run on a different gauge from the one the control plan specifies. |
| 9 | Dimensional results | Every characteristic on the drawing measured against its tolerance, for each cavity, mould, die or line. | Balloon numbers do not match the drawing; one cavity measured on a multi-cavity tool. |
| 10 | Material and performance test results | Results against every material and performance requirement on the drawing and specifications. | A material certificate offered instead of results against your own specification. |
| 11 | Initial process studies | Capability (Ppk) for the special characteristics, from the significant production run. | Too few readings, or parts that were not consecutive. |
| 12 | Qualified laboratory documentation | The scope and accreditation of every laboratory that produced results in the file. | An external lab whose ISO/IEC 17025 scope does not cover the test performed. |
| 13 | Appearance approval report | Colour, grain and texture evaluation for parts with appearance requirements. | Missing where appearance requirements exist. |
| 14 | Sample production parts | Parts made on production tooling, with production gauges, operators and rate. | Parts from prototype tooling or a pre-production cell. |
| 15 | Master sample | A retained sample, identified and signed off, kept for as long as the part is active. | Not retained, or not identified as the master. |
| 16 | Checking aids | Every fixture and gauge used on the part, with calibration and MSA. | A fixture used for inspection that is neither in the MSA nor calibrated. |
| 17 | Customer-specific requirements | Evidence against every requirement in the customer’s own supplier manual. | Treated as optional — every customer adds its own. |
| 18 | Part submission warrant | The one-page summary, signed, with every field completed. | Signed before the rest of the file was complete. |
Elements 6 and 7 are the pair reviewers read together: every high-risk failure mode in the PFMEA should appear in the control plan with a control and a reaction. Both documents have their own pages here — the FMEA template and the control plan, whose reaction-plan column is where most files are weakest.
Build it in dependency order, not in number order
The eighteen elements are numbered the way the file is submitted. They cannot be built in that order. Three examples: customer-specific requirements are element 17 but change what every other element must contain; checking aids are element 16 but have to be validated before a single dimensional result (element 9) means anything; and the measurement system study is element 8 but must be finished before the production run that produces elements 9, 10, 11 and 14.
- Read what the customer wants. Customer-specific requirements (17), design records (1), engineering changes (2) and any customer engineering approval (3). This is the phase that decides the submission level and which elements apply.
- Define how you will make it. Design FMEA if you are design-responsible (4), then process flow (5), process FMEA (6) and control plan (7) — in that order, because each one is built from the one before it.
- Prove you can measure it. Checking aids (16) and measurement system analysis (8), plus the scope of every laboratory you will use (12). A gauge that fails its Gage R&R after the run has made every measurement from that run worthless.
- Run it and measure it. The significant production run, and from it: dimensional results (9), material and performance tests (10), initial process studies (11), appearance approval (13), sample parts (14) and the master sample (15).
- Sign it. The part submission warrant (18) — last, because it declares that everything above it is true.
The five submission levels
The level decides how much of the file goes to the customer. It does not decide how much of the file you build: at every level, the supplier is expected to have the complete file available.
| Level | What goes to the customer | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Part submission warrant only — plus the appearance approval report for appearance items | Low-risk parts and repeat business, at the customer’s discretion |
| 2 | Warrant with product samples and limited supporting data | Moderate risk; the customer states which data |
| 3 | Warrant with product samples and complete supporting data | The default unless the customer specifies another level |
| 4 | Warrant and other requirements as defined by the customer | Customer-defined combinations |
| 5 | Warrant with samples and complete supporting data, reviewed at your manufacturing location | High-risk parts — the customer comes to you |
When a new PPAP is required
Approval is for a part made a particular way. Change the way, and the approval no longer describes what you ship. The standard triggers:
Any one of these means a new submission
- A new part, or a part new to this customer
- Correction of a discrepancy on a previously submitted part
- An engineering change to design records, specifications or materials
- New, additional or modified tooling (perishable tools excepted)
- Tooling or equipment transferred to a different plant or an additional location
- A change of source for subcontracted parts, materials or services, such as heat treatment or plating
- A change in the manufacturing process or method
- Production from tooling inactive for volume production for twelve months or more
- A change to a test or inspection method
The one most often missed is the sub-supplier change. Moving plating to a cheaper shop is a purchasing decision on your side and a process change on the customer’s — and discovering it through a field failure is how a PPAP question becomes an 8D.
The numbers a reviewer checks
| What is checked | AIAG default | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Significant production run | 1 to 8 hours of production, at least 300 consecutive parts | Unless the customer specifies otherwise |
| Initial process study size | At least 25 subgroups and 100 readings | From consecutive parts of the significant run |
| Ppk — meets acceptance | Greater than 1.67 | |
| Ppk — may be acceptable | 1.33 to 1.67 | Contact the customer before submitting |
| Ppk — does not meet | Below 1.33 | Expect to submit a corrective action plan |
| Gage R&R — acceptable | Below 10% | Of tolerance or process variation, per the AIAG MSA manual |
| Gage R&R — may be acceptable | 10% to 30% | Depends on the application and the customer |
| Gage R&R — not acceptable | Above 30% | |
| Record retention | As long as the part is active, plus one calendar year |
These are the AIAG PPAP and MSA defaults. Your customer’s specific requirements override every one of them — which is why element 17 comes first in the build order above. Read the customer manual before you plan the production run, not after it.
When a PPAP comes back
A rejected submission returns with reasons, and correcting a discrepancy is itself one of the triggers for a new submission — so the second file is a full file, not a patch. Where the gap does not affect safety or function, a customer may grant interim approval: shipment for a limited time or quantity while a corrective action plan is completed. Treat it as a deadline, not an approval.
The failure modes are the same ones that get 8D reports rejected: evidence referenced but not attached, a control plan that does not match the PFMEA, a reaction plan that is an instruction rather than a barrier, dates that contradict each other. A PPAP file is where those weaknesses are cheapest to fix, because nothing has shipped yet.
Frequently asked questions
What is PPAP?
PPAP — the Production Part Approval Process — is the automotive industry’s standard way for a supplier to prove, before shipping in volume, that it understands every customer requirement and that its production process can meet them consistently at the quoted rate. It is defined in the AIAG PPAP manual, and IATF 16949 requires a product approval process in clause 8.3.4.4. The evidence is a file of up to 18 elements, summarised on a signed Part Submission Warrant.
What are the 18 elements of PPAP?
Design records; authorized engineering change documents; customer engineering approval; design FMEA; process flow diagram; process FMEA; control plan; measurement system analysis studies; dimensional results; material and performance test results; initial process studies; qualified laboratory documentation; appearance approval report; sample production parts; master sample; checking aids; customer-specific requirements; and the part submission warrant. Not every element applies to every part — but an element that does not apply should be marked as such, not silently left out.
What are the five PPAP submission levels?
Level 1: the part submission warrant only, plus an appearance approval report for appearance items. Level 2: the warrant with product samples and limited supporting data. Level 3: the warrant with product samples and complete supporting data. Level 4: the warrant and other requirements defined by the customer. Level 5: the warrant with samples and complete supporting data reviewed at the supplier’s manufacturing location. Level 3 is the default unless the customer specifies otherwise.
When is a new PPAP submission required?
For a new part; to correct a discrepancy on a previously submitted part; after an engineering change to design records, specifications or materials; for new, additional or modified tooling; when tooling or equipment moves to another plant; when the source of a subcontracted material or service changes; after a change in the manufacturing process or method; when production resumes on tooling inactive for twelve months or more; and after a change to a test or inspection method. Customers can add their own triggers.
What is a Part Submission Warrant?
The Part Submission Warrant, or PSW, is the one-page summary at the top of a PPAP file. It identifies the part and revision, states the reason for submission and the level, declares that the samples are representative of production and that all requirements are met, and is signed by an authorised supplier representative. It is the only element submitted at every level, which is why an incomplete or prematurely signed warrant is one of the most common reasons for rejection.
What Ppk does PPAP require?
The AIAG default is a Ppk greater than 1.67 to meet the acceptance criteria. Between 1.33 and 1.67 may be acceptable, and the supplier should contact the customer before submitting. Below 1.33 does not meet the criteria and a corrective action plan is expected. The study is normally drawn from at least 25 subgroups and 100 readings of consecutive parts from the significant production run. Customer-specific requirements override these defaults.
What happens if a PPAP is rejected?
The customer returns the submission with the reasons, and the supplier corrects the file or the process and resubmits — correcting a discrepancy is itself a trigger for a new submission. Where the gap does not affect safety or function, a customer may grant interim approval, allowing shipment for a limited time or quantity while a corrective action plan is completed. Interim approval is a deadline, not an approval.
What is the difference between PPAP and APQP?
APQP — Advanced Product Quality Planning — is the planning framework that runs from concept to launch. PPAP is the approval step near its end: the evidence that the planning worked. Most PPAP elements, such as the process flow, PFMEA and control plan, are APQP outputs; PPAP collects them and adds proof from a production run. German OEMs commonly use the VDA Volume 2 production process and product approval instead of, or alongside, PPAP.
Related resources
- Control plan — element 7, and the reaction-plan column reviewers read first
- FMEA template — elements 4 and 6, with the S×O×D scoring
- FMEA guide — DFMEA vs PFMEA and the regulatory context
- 8D rejected by the customer — the same evidence failures, after the part has shipped
- 8D report template — for when a PPAP-approved part fails in the field
- SIPOC — the process boundary before you draw the flow diagram
- FMEA / RPN calculator — score the PFMEA on screen