Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) is the structured method automotive suppliers use to plan a product launch, so that every requirement, risk and control is in place before production starts. The AIAG APQP reference manual, now in its 3rd edition (2024), defines the deliverables a cross-functional team produces and the gates where leadership decides whether the program may move on. It is the launch method automotive customers expect from suppliers working to IATF 16949.
The manual starts with Phase 0, Getting Started, and continues through five phases: Plan and Define Program, Product Design and Development, Process Design and Development, Product and Process Validation, and Feedback, Assessment and Corrective Action. Each phase ends at a gate: Program Concept, Program Approval, Design Feasibility, Process Feasibility, Launch Readiness, and Feedback, Assessment & Corrective Action.
In Zometric, a program created from the AIAG APQP 3rd edition template gets all 61 deliverables, gates 0–5 with their 80 gate items, a timing plan and the A-0 risk checklist in one step. Seventeen deliverables are linked to a live document, such as the PFMEA, a Control Plan or the PPAP submission, and take their status from it.
Six problems launch teams describe in their own words — and what changes when every deliverable points at the document behind it.
The program follows the phases and gates of the AIAG APQP 3rd edition, so the manual is the workflow.
Phase 0 · Getting Started
Choose the customer, parts, linked process project and template. Zometric creates the 61 deliverables, gates 0–5, a timing plan with one task per deliverable and a review per gate, and the A-0 checklist. If you are not design responsible, the design deliverables are set not applicable with your agreement reference.
Phase 0 · Getting Started
Answer the 45 questions of the A-0 Risk Factors checklist. Six or more gaps set the program risk level to High and three or more to Medium.
Phase 1 · Plan and Define Program
Set dates, dependencies and customer milestones, capture a baseline and let the team acknowledge the plan. Record the capacity plan with its OEE and utilisation check, the program risk register and the supplier list.
Phases 2–3 · Design and process development
DFMEA, Process Flow Diagram, PFMEA, Control Plans and the special characteristics are linked to their deliverables and report their own status. Overriding a derived status needs a written reason.
Gate 2 · Design Feasibility
Complete the App. D Team Feasibility Commitment and record its conclusion. Each team member signs it with an electronic signature, and Gate 2 cannot be approved without a conclusion.
Phase 4 · Product and Process Validation
The significant production run, PPAP submission and Production Control Plan report their status from PPAP and the Control Plan. A quality planning sign-off dated after the first shipment is flagged at Gate 4.
Gates 0–5 · Gate review
Open the review and the items fill themselves from the live data. Negative items get action plans, members add their e-signed approval, and the gate is decided Go, Go with conditions or No-go once a leadership representative has approved.
Phase 5 · Feedback, Assessment and Corrective Action
Record lessons learned for the next program. An engineering change after launch opens a change project scoped to the deliverables it affects, with Gates 3 and 4 by default.
Each capability is tied to a decision your team is already trying to make.
Every launch on one screen: current phase, red / yellow / green, next gate and days to it, percent complete, overdue items and open risk. A gate calendar lists the upcoming gate reviews across all programs.
Each gate has a readiness meter, the list of what blocks it and the critical path to reach it. Decide go, go with conditions or no-go — with e-signed approvals and re-confirmation when something changes after the review.
Deliverables read their status from the Process Flow Diagram, DFMEA, PFMEA, Control Plan and PPAP submission they point at. Release the document (and, for an FMEA, mark it complete) and the deliverable turns green by itself, with the provenance shown beside it.
A Gantt with baseline, plan and actual, dependencies and customer milestones. Drag a task and the forecast slip on the next gate updates. Late chains show negative float — so the conversation is about recovery, not about whose spreadsheet is right.
The A-0 to A-10 checklists, with A-1, A-6, A-7 and A-10 questions answered from the FMEA, Process Flow and Control Plan wherever the evidence exists. A gap answer with a responsible and a due date becomes an action automatically, and a checklist can be issued to a supplier to answer through the Supplier Portal.
Team feasibility commitment, capacity planning with an OEE and utilisation calculator, a program risk register and supplier readiness — the judgement calls of a launch, recorded next to the evidence they were made on.
A customer status report generated from the same data, OEM-specific templates, change projects for engineering changes after launch, and a lessons-learned library that feeds the next program instead of a slide deck nobody reopens.
Readiness counts the deliverables confirmed at a gate and the gate's items: completed deliverables plus answered items, minus negative items, divided by the total. The verdict follows fixed rules on top of the percentage, so a high percentage does not by itself mean go. Gate 3, Process Feasibility, confirms 10 deliverables and has 13 gate items.
| Case | Done | Answered | Negative | No plan | Ready % | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Done10 | Answered13 | Negative0 | No plan0 | Ready %100 | VerdictGo |
| B | Done8 | Answered13 | Negative2 | No plan0 | Ready %83 | VerdictGo with conditions |
| C | Done8 | Answered13 | Negative2 | No plan1 | Ready %83 | VerdictNo-go |
| D | Done10 | Answered11 | Negative0 | No plan0 | Ready %91 | VerdictNot ready |
Deliverables link to the live documents and read their state; nothing is copied into the program.
The DFMEA and PFMEA deliverables show the share of chains rated and the AP High chains still open, and complete when the FMEA is released and marked complete.
The preliminary flow chart and the Process Flow Diagram deliverables read the flow's release state and process steps, and answer A-6 questions from it.
Prototype, pre-launch and production Control Plans report their release and customer approvals. Gauges on their rows drive the MSA plan, and A-10 questions are answered from the plan.
The PPAP submission, significant production run and capability studies feed the Phase 4 deliverables and the Launch Readiness gate items.
APQP checklists are issued to a supplier, answered question by question in the portal and submitted back to the program.
A CAPA's lessons-learned prevention step adds a lesson to the APQP library, and the library can be searched from the CAPA page.
Run the program: edit the timing plan and team, record customer approvals, override a derived status with a reason, and approve and decide gates.
Work the deliverables, records and gate items, create action plans for negative items and add their e-signed approval to a gate.
Approve and decide gates. A gate decision needs at least one leadership approval.
Answer the APQP checklists issued to them through the Supplier Portal and submit them back to the program.
| Zometric APQP vs a spreadsheet or project tracker | Spreadsheet or project tracker | Zometric APQP |
|---|---|---|
| Deliverable status | Typed in by whoever updates the file | Read from the linked FMEA, Control Plan or PPAP, with the reason shown |
| Gate readiness | Judged in the meeting | Calculated from deliverables and gate items, with every blocker listed |
| Gate decision | Minutes and signatures on paper | Go, Go with conditions or No-go, with e-signed approvals and leadership sign-off |
| Timing | A Gantt chart kept apart from status | One plan: deliverable progress moves the timing tasks, with critical path and forecast slip |
| Checklists | Separate files per checklist | A-0 to A-10 and App. D in the program; gap answers become actions |
| Changes after a gate | Rarely noticed | Re-approved, or accepted with a reason, before the next gate |
| Customer reporting | Assembled by hand for each review | Status report generated from the program, as PDF or Excel |
| Reminders | Chased by e-mail | Owners reminded 3 days before a due date; escalation after 7 days overdue |
A status report with phases, gates, customer approvals, red deliverables, high-risk suppliers and open concerns, printable to PDF or downloaded as Excel.
Download the timing plan as CSV with baseline, planned and actual dates, float, critical path and forecast slip.
Issue APQP checklists to suppliers and receive their answers back in the program.
Programs, deliverables, gates, gate items, approvals, the portfolio, program metrics and the critical path are available through the REST API.
Straight answers to the questions teams ask before a demo.
APQP (Advanced Product Quality Planning) is the structured product-launch method defined in the AIAG APQP manual, now in its 3rd edition (2024). A cross-functional team works through Phase 0 and five phases, producing deliverables such as the DFMEA, PFMEA, Control Plans and PPAP, and leadership approves the program at a gate at the end of each phase.
Zometric ships a system template for the AIAG APQP 3rd edition (2024) with 61 deliverables, gates 0–5 with 80 gate items, and the A-0 to A-10 checklists plus the App. D Team Feasibility Commitment. Each deliverable carries its manual reference and its obligation, such as MUST or SHOULD.
Seventeen deliverables are linked to a live document and take their status from it. An FMEA is complete when it is released and marked complete, a Control Plan when it is released and any required customer approval is recorded, and the PPAP deliverable when the submission is approved. Switching a linked deliverable to a manual status needs a written reason.
Go means every gate item is acceptable; an unconditional approval is refused while any item is negative. Go with conditions allows negative items only when each has an action plan with an owner and a due date. No-go stops the program at the gate. Every decision except No-go needs at least one leadership approval, and Gate 2 also needs the Team Feasibility Commitment conclusion.
Yes. The system template can be duplicated for a customer, and its deliverables renamed, deactivated or added to. One customer template can be the default, so new programs for that customer start from it automatically.
Set the program to not design responsible and enter the reference of the agreement with your customer. The Design FMEA, design verification and design review deliverables are then set not applicable with that reference as the justification, and a check flags a missing agreement reference.
Yes. A checklist such as the A-9 sourcing checklist can be issued to a supplier through the Supplier Portal with a due date. The supplier answers it question by question and submits it, and the answers appear in the program.
A post-launch change opens a change project linked to the launched program. It keeps the same customer, parts and template, applies only the deliverables in the change scope, and runs Gates 3 and 4 by default. A PPAP change submission can be linked to it directly.
A 30-minute discovery call. A 2–3 week pilot on real factory data. Then scale at your pace.
