Production Part Approval Process software that manages all 18 PPAP elements, tracks submission levels 1 through 5, handles OEM-specific requirements for GM, Ford, Stellantis, and Toyota, and eliminates the binder-and-spreadsheet approach that causes quality managers to spend 40+ hours assembling a single submission package. Built by FreedomDev in Zeeland, MI for the automotive suppliers who actually do the work.
Here is what a PPAP submission looks like at a typical Tier 2 or Tier 3 automotive supplier. The quality manager receives a PPAP request from their Tier 1 customer — or directly from a GM buyer through SupplyPower — for a new part number or an engineering change on an existing one. The submission requires up to 18 elements depending on the submission level: design records, engineering change documents, customer engineering approval documentation, 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 that ties the entire package together. These 18 elements are not optional checkboxes. Each one is a structured document with specific data requirements that must reference and link to other elements in the package. The control plan must trace back to every failure mode identified in the process FMEA. The dimensional results must map to every critical and significant characteristic on the drawing. The MSA study must cover every gage used to measure those characteristics. A single broken link in this chain — a dimensional result referencing a gage that was not included in the MSA study, or a control plan listing a characteristic not addressed in the FMEA — is a rejection.
At most Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers, these 18 elements live in at least five different places. Design records and engineering change documents sit in a document management system or a shared drive folder. The DFMEA lives in a separate Excel workbook maintained by the engineering team. The PFMEA and control plan are in another set of Excel files maintained by the quality team — often using the AIAG template spreadsheets that have not been updated since 2008. Dimensional results come from the CMM software or from manual inspection reports typed into yet another spreadsheet. MSA studies are standalone Excel files using the AIAG Gage R&R template. Material certifications arrive as PDF attachments from material suppliers and get filed in email folders or a shared drive. Process capability studies are calculated in Minitab or Excel. The Part Submission Warrant is a fillable PDF that the quality manager completes by hand, pulling data from all of the above sources. There is no system that connects these elements. There is no automated cross-referencing. There is no version control that ensures the control plan references the current FMEA revision when someone updates a risk priority number.
The labor cost of this manual assembly process is staggering for smaller suppliers. A Level 3 PPAP submission — the default requirement for most OEM and Tier 1 customers — takes a quality manager 30 to 60 hours to assemble for a moderately complex part with 40 to 80 dimensional characteristics. That is an entire work week consumed by document gathering, cross-referencing, formatting, and manual data entry for a single part number. A Tier 2 supplier running 200 active part numbers with a typical engineering change rate of 15 to 25 percent per year will process 30 to 50 PPAP submissions annually. At 40 hours each, that is 1,200 to 2,000 hours per year — effectively one full-time quality engineer doing nothing but PPAP paperwork. For a Tier 3 supplier with a two-person quality department, that workload means PPAP submissions compete directly with day-to-day quality management, incoming inspection, customer complaint responses, and internal audit preparation. Something always gets deprioritized, and it is usually the PPAP resubmission for the engineering change that came in three weeks ago.
Late or incomplete PPAP submissions have direct financial consequences that most suppliers underestimate until they experience them. Ford's GSDB scorecard tracks PPAP submission timeliness as a metric that directly affects your supplier rating and your eligibility for new business awards. GM's Supplier Quality Excellence Award (SQEP) program evaluates PPAP completeness as part of their supplier assessment. Stellantis monitors PPAP compliance through their supplier portal and factors it into sourcing decisions. A pattern of late PPAP submissions — even if the quality of the parts themselves is flawless — signals to the OEM purchasing team that your quality system is immature. That perception costs you the next program award, which at the Tier 2 level can represent $500,000 to $3 million in annual revenue. At the Tier 3 level, losing a program because of PPAP performance can mean losing your largest customer.
The problem compounds when OEM-specific requirements layer on top of the standard 18 elements. Ford requires specific formatting for their appearance approval process and has unique requirements for material reporting through IMDS (International Material Data System). GM mandates the use of their GP-12 Early Production Containment process alongside PPAP for new launches. Stellantis has customer-specific requirements that modify standard PPAP element formats and add documentation that the AIAG manual does not cover. Toyota operates on a different quality philosophy entirely — their supplier quality assurance process uses unique forms and expectations that map loosely to PPAP but require separate documentation workflows. A Tier 2 supplier serving three or four different OEM supply chains simultaneously must maintain multiple PPAP formats, understand each customer's interpretation of the AIAG standard, and track which customer-specific requirements apply to which part numbers. Managing this complexity in Excel and shared drive folders is not a quality system. It is a document scavenger hunt.
30-60 hours to assemble a single Level 3 PPAP submission manually for a moderately complex part number
18 PPAP elements stored across 5+ disconnected systems with no cross-referencing or version control
1,200-2,000 hours per year consumed by PPAP paperwork at a 200-part-number Tier 2 supplier
Late PPAP submissions damage OEM scorecard ratings and directly cost new program awards worth $500K-$3M annually
Engineering changes trigger PPAP resubmissions that quality teams deprioritize because of competing workload
OEM-specific requirements (Ford IMDS, GM GP-12, Stellantis CSRs, Toyota SQA) multiply documentation complexity
Broken traceability chains between FMEA, control plan, MSA, and dimensional results cause submission rejections
Two-person quality departments at Tier 3 suppliers cannot sustain PPAP volume alongside daily quality operations
Our engineers have built this exact solution for other businesses. Let's discuss your requirements.
FreedomDev builds PPAP management software that treats the 18 elements not as separate documents but as a connected data architecture where every element references every other element it depends on. When your quality engineer enters a characteristic into the control plan, the system automatically checks whether that characteristic has a corresponding entry in the process FMEA, whether a gage is assigned to measure it, whether that gage has a current MSA study on file, and whether dimensional results exist for the most recent sample run. If any link in the chain is missing, the system flags it immediately — not three days later when the quality manager is assembling the submission package and realizes the MSA study for gage G-0472 expired six months ago. This connected data model is the fundamental difference between PPAP software and PPAP file storage. Most suppliers who claim to have digital PPAP are really just storing the same disconnected Excel files and PDFs in a centralized folder structure. That solves the findability problem but does nothing for the cross-referencing, version control, and completeness verification that consume the majority of PPAP assembly time.
The software manages submission levels 1 through 5 as defined by the AIAG PPAP manual. Level 1 submissions require only the Part Submission Warrant and, for designated appearance items, an Appearance Approval Report. Level 2 adds sample product parts and limited supporting data. Level 3 — the default for most customer relationships — requires the PSW plus all supporting data and sample parts. Level 4 is the PSW plus whatever specific elements the customer requests. Level 5 requires the PSW, sample parts, and complete supporting data available for review at your manufacturing site. The system tracks which submission level each customer requires for each part number, ensures the correct elements are included in each submission package, and prevents submission of incomplete packages. When a customer changes the required submission level — a common occurrence when a Tier 1 escalates from Level 3 to Level 5 after a quality issue — the system identifies which additional elements need to be prepared and assigns tasks to the responsible engineers.
OEM-specific requirement management is built into the core workflow, not treated as an afterthought. The system maintains customer-specific requirement profiles for each OEM and Tier 1 customer. Ford's profile includes IMDS material data reporting requirements, their specific appearance approval forms, and Ford-unique documentation formats. GM's profile includes GP-12 Early Production Containment requirements, SupplyPower portal integration specifications, and GM-specific PPAP element formatting. Stellantis's profile includes their customer-specific requirements that modify standard element formats and their portal submission protocols. When a quality engineer initiates a PPAP submission for a specific customer, the system automatically applies the correct customer-specific requirements, generates the right forms, and includes the additional documentation that customer expects beyond the standard 18 elements. Your quality team does not need to memorize which customer wants what. The system enforces it.
The Part Submission Warrant — the document that every PPAP package leads to — generates automatically from the data already in the system. Part weight, material reporting, dimensional result summaries, engineering change levels, drawing revision numbers, supplier information, and the declarations that the quality manager must sign are all populated from the connected data model. The quality manager reviews the PSW for accuracy, applies their electronic signature, and the system generates the complete submission package in the format the customer requires: a structured PDF with all supporting documentation organized by element number, ready to upload to the customer's supplier portal or email directly to the customer quality engineer. The assembly process that takes 30 to 60 hours manually takes 2 to 4 hours in the system — and most of that time is the quality manager's review, not data gathering.
Every PPAP element for every part number is tracked in a single system with enforced traceability. The control plan links to the process FMEA by failure mode and characteristic number. Dimensional results link to the specific drawing revision and the specific gage used for measurement. MSA studies link to the gages referenced in the control plan. Material certifications link to the material specifications called out in the design record. The system validates these cross-references continuously — not just at submission time — so your quality team catches missing links weeks before the submission deadline instead of during the final assembly scramble. A dashboard shows element completeness status for every active part number: green for complete and current, yellow for complete but approaching expiration (MSA studies, calibration records), and red for missing or expired.
Each customer-part number combination carries a submission level that determines which elements are required. The system enforces submission level requirements at the package generation step: a Level 3 package cannot be generated if any of the required supporting data elements are missing. When a customer requests a different submission level than the default, the system recalculates the element requirements and generates a gap analysis showing exactly which additional elements or data points are needed. Level 5 submissions — where all data must be available for review at the manufacturing site — trigger a site readiness checklist that ensures physical master samples, checking aids, and hard-copy documentation are prepared and located in the correct areas for the customer visit.
The process FMEA and control plan are the backbone of every PPAP submission, and in most suppliers, they are the most disconnected. Our system links them bidirectionally. When a quality engineer adds a failure mode to the PFMEA, the system prompts them to define or confirm the corresponding control method in the control plan. When the control plan specifies a measurement method for a characteristic, the system verifies that the PFMEA addresses the risk of that measurement method failing. Risk Priority Numbers in the PFMEA update based on actual production data — defect rates, customer complaints, and internal scrap records feed back into severity, occurrence, and detection ratings. When an RPN crosses a threshold, the system flags the affected control plan entries for review and generates a PPAP resubmission task if the part number is in active production for a customer with an approved PPAP on file.
MSA studies — Gage R&R, bias, linearity, stability — are tracked per gage, per characteristic, with automated expiration monitoring. The system knows which gages are used to measure which characteristics on which part numbers, and when an MSA study expires or a gage calibration lapses, every affected PPAP package is flagged. Gage R&R results are stored with the full ANOVA or range method data, not just the pass/fail summary, so the customer quality engineer can review the complete study without requesting additional documentation. When new gages are introduced or existing gages are replaced, the system identifies all affected MSA studies and generates task assignments for the metrology team to conduct new studies before the next PPAP submission cycle.
Dimensional inspection data imports directly from CMM software (PC-DMIS, Calypso, PolyWorks, Mitutoyo MeasurLink) and manual inspection records. The system maps measurement results to drawing characteristics and calculates Ppk and Cpk values for initial process studies automatically. Results that fall below the customer's minimum capability index — typically 1.67 for initial process studies per the AIAG PPAP manual — are flagged with the specific characteristic number, dimension, and actual capability value. For balloon drawings, the system auto-generates a ballooned print with numbered characteristics that correspond to the dimensional result report, eliminating the manual balloon numbering process that takes quality engineers hours per drawing.
Customer-specific requirement profiles configure the system's behavior for each OEM or Tier 1 customer. Ford profiles include IMDS material reporting templates, Ford-specific appearance approval workflows, and GSDB scorecard metric tracking. GM profiles include GP-12 Early Production Containment integration, SupplyPower data formatting, and GM's unique run-at-rate documentation requirements. Stellantis profiles encode their customer-specific requirements that add or modify standard PPAP elements. Toyota profiles handle their Supplier Quality Assurance manual requirements, which diverge significantly from AIAG PPAP in terminology and documentation structure. When your Tier 1 customer has their own customer-specific requirements layered on top of the OEM requirements, the system supports multi-level CSR profiles that cascade from OEM to Tier 1 to your submission requirements.
The PSW is the final document in every PPAP package, and it summarizes data from every other element. Our system generates the PSW by pulling part weight from your material records, material reporting status from your IMDS submissions, dimensional result summaries from your inspection data, engineering change level and drawing revision from your document control system, and the supplier manufacturing site information from your company profile. Electronic signatures with date stamps satisfy the customer's requirement for authorized quality representative approval. The completed PSW and all supporting documentation compile into a single structured PDF organized by AIAG element number, ready for upload to the customer portal or email delivery.
When an engineering change affects a part number with an approved PPAP on file, the system traces the impact across every affected element. A drawing revision that changes a dimensional tolerance propagates to the control plan (updated tolerance and measurement method), the PFMEA (revised severity or detection ratings if the characteristic classification changes), the MSA study (gage capability re-evaluation if the tolerance tightened), the dimensional results (new sample measurements required), and the process capability study (new Ppk/Cpk calculation against the revised tolerance). The system generates a resubmission task list itemizing every element that must be updated, assigns tasks to the responsible engineers, and tracks completion against the customer's required resubmission date. No element gets missed because a quality engineer forgot that changing a tolerance on characteristic 14 also affects the MSA study for gage G-0472.
We were spending two full weeks assembling PPAP packages for our GM Tier 1 customer. We had three quality engineers and two of them spent half their time on PPAP paperwork instead of actual quality engineering. After FreedomDev built our PPAP system, a Level 3 submission takes a few hours. Our first-submission approval rate went from about 65 percent to over 90 percent because the system catches the cross-referencing errors we used to miss. We have not had a single missing-element rejection since go-live.
We walk your plant floor and sit with your quality team to understand exactly how PPAP submissions work today. Where does each of the 18 elements live? Who creates them? How do they get assembled into a submission package? How long does each submission take? Where do rejections happen and why? We inventory every OEM and Tier 1 customer you submit PPAPs to, document their customer-specific requirements, map which submission levels apply to which part numbers, and identify the specific pain points that cause the most wasted time and the most submission rejections. We review your last 10 to 20 PPAP submissions to identify patterns — common rejection reasons, elements that consistently delay submission, and cross-referencing errors that could have been caught earlier. Deliverable: a current-state PPAP process map with quantified time costs per element, a gap analysis against AIAG fourth edition requirements, and a prioritized implementation plan.
We design the connected data model that links all 18 elements. This is not a database schema exercise — it is a cross-referencing architecture that defines how characteristics flow from the design record through the FMEA through the control plan through the MSA through the dimensional results and into the PSW. We map every OEM-specific requirement profile and define how customer-specific requirements modify the standard element structure. We define data import specifications for your existing systems: CMM software output formats, ERP part master data, material certification PDFs, existing FMEA and control plan spreadsheets. We design the migration path for your historical PPAP data — approved submissions, archived packages, and in-progress submissions that need to be completed in the new system. Your quality team reviews and approves every cross-reference rule and validation logic before development begins.
We build the system in priority order: element tracking and cross-referencing first, PSW generation second, OEM-specific profiles third, and CMM/ERP integration fourth. Your historical PPAP data migrates in parallel — approved PSWs, dimensional result records, current FMEA and control plan data, active MSA studies, and gage calibration records. We test cross-reference validation against your actual part data to verify the system catches the types of errors your team has experienced in past rejections. Development includes the submission package generator, role-based access controls, and the dashboard views your quality manager and quality engineers need to manage their PPAP workload across all active part numbers.
Your quality team assembles their next 3 to 5 PPAP submissions using both the old process and the new system simultaneously. We compare the system-generated packages against the manually assembled packages element by element. Every discrepancy is investigated: did the system miss a cross-reference? Did the system apply the wrong customer-specific requirement? Did the PSW populate a field incorrectly? We also time the parallel process to quantify the actual time savings — most suppliers see 70 to 85 percent reduction in assembly time during parallel validation. Customer-specific formatting is validated by reviewing the system-generated packages against the OEM portal requirements or the Tier 1 customer's submission format expectations. No PPAP submission goes to a customer from the new system until the parallel validation confirms accuracy.
Once parallel validation confirms the system produces accurate, complete submission packages, your quality team transitions to the new system for all new and resubmission PPAPs. Training covers the daily workflow: initiating a new PPAP submission, entering and importing element data, running cross-reference validation, generating PSW and submission packages, tracking engineering change resubmissions, and managing the element completeness dashboard. We configure alerts for MSA expirations, gage calibration lapses, and approaching customer submission deadlines. Post-cutover support runs 60 days to handle edge cases, unusual part configurations, and customer-specific formatting adjustments that emerge during real submission cycles.
| Metric | With FreedomDev | Without |
|---|---|---|
| Submission Assembly Time (Level 3) | 2-4 hours | 30-60 hours manual |
| Cross-Reference Validation | Automated, continuous, every element linked | Manual review during final assembly only |
| Missing Element Detection | Real-time flagging as gaps appear | Discovered during submission or after rejection |
| OEM-Specific Requirements | Customer profiles auto-applied per part number | Quality manager memorizes or looks up per customer |
| Engineering Change Impact | Automatic propagation across all 18 elements | Manual trace through disconnected files |
| MSA/Calibration Expiration | Automated monitoring with advance alerts | Discovered when assembling PPAP or during audit |
| PSW Generation | Auto-populated from system data, electronic signature | Manually completed fillable PDF |
| Historical PPAP Retrieval | Instant search by part number, customer, date, status | Searching shared drives, email, and physical binders |
Schedule a direct technical consultation with our senior architects.
Make your software work for you. Let's build a sensible solution.