Engineering · Manufacturing · PPAP Handbook
PPAP Authorized Engineering Changes and Customer Engineering Approval
How to control engineering deviations, unincorporated changes, approvals, waivers and internal process interpretations within a PPAP submission.
- Handbook chapter
- ~11 min read
- Source pages 2-2
- 6 source assessment prompts
- Dark / light theme ready
Executive summary
The uploaded assessment distinguishes two related controls. First, any change incorporated into product, part or tooling but not yet reflected in the released design record needs authorized engineering change documentation; anything that varies from the design record requires written and approved deviation authorization. Second, formal customer engineering approval is expected unless an engineering waiver is documented. The handbook objective is to prevent a PPAP from appearing compliant only because the approved exception or customer consent is hidden outside the package.
01How to use this chapter
This chapter separates the uploaded assessment criteria from practical KEVOS implementation guidance. The section titled Source-derived assessment criteria preserves the intent, terminology and checklist detail supplied in the uploaded PPAP Assessment. The surrounding handbook guidance explains how a manufacturing or supplier-quality team can organise evidence, perform a readiness review and spot gaps before formal submission. Where the uploaded source states a numeric threshold, edition reference or customer-specific expectation, it is identified as source-derived rather than presented as a universal rule.
Use the chapter in three passes. First, read the purpose and workflow to understand what the element is meant to prove. Second, work through the source-derived prompts against the actual part number, engineering revision and production process. Third, close the red flags and collect objective evidence before the package is released. For large PPAPs, record the evidence location beside each source prompt so another reviewer can repeat the assessment without relying on verbal explanation.
02Handbook workflow
- Identify every difference from the released design recordCompare the production condition with the drawing/specification baseline and list deviations, temporary changes and approved-but-not-yet-incorporated changes.
- Verify the authorizationConfirm that the deviation or engineering-change record is complete and carries the approvals required by the Organization/customer process.
- Define the boundary of the exceptionThe source expects practical limits such as number of pieces, time limit and forthcoming change information. A deviation should not become an open-ended substitute for a released design change.
- Include engineering consent or waiverAttach the formal customer engineering approval or controlled engineering waiver where the Organization requires it.
- Cascade the approved interpretationIf internal process instructions reinterpret or communicate design-record requirements to production, make sure those controlled instructions align with the approval and downstream control plan.
- Close the loopWhen the permanent design record is updated, retire or disposition temporary deviation documents in accordance with document control.
03Evidence package to retain
The assessment is stronger when each conclusion points to a controlled record rather than a statement that the requirement is “covered”. The following evidence set is a practical minimum for this chapter; actual customer and contractual requirements govern the live submission.
- Approved deviation or engineering-change document
- Approval signatures/status
- Quantity or time limits for temporary deviation
- Reference to the future permanent change where applicable
- Formal customer engineering approval
- Controlled engineering waiver when approval is waived
- Internal process instruction or controlled interpretation where used
- Evidence of linkage to control plan/work instructions
04Source-derived assessment criteria
The prompts below are taken from the uploaded 15-page PPAP Assessment and kept as assessment questions. The source uses the term “Organization” for the customer/receiving organisation in many places.
2.2.2 Authorized Engineering Change Documents
Authorized engineering change documents for those changes not yet recorded in the design record but incorporated in the product, part or tooling. Submissions shall include written and approved Deviation authorization for anything that varies from the Design Record.
- 1.If applicable is approved deviation attached?
- 2.Is deviation completely filled out?
- 3.Are proper approvals in place?
- 4.Does deviation clearly identify number of pieces, time limit, change forthcoming, ETC. information for proper PPAP disposition?
2.2.3 Customer Engineering Approval
Organization requires formal engineering approval unless engineering waiver documented and in place. Include any supporting documentation that formalizes Organization’s consent to the design (i.e. application checklist, functional specification, etc.) Include Internal (suppliers) documents that re-interpret Design Records, including Process Instruction sheets used to communication the Design Record data throughout the process. (see Control Plan and addendum for Process Instructions)
- 1.Formal controlled document for “Customer Engineering Approval”.
- 2.Formal controlled document of engineering waiver.
05Common red flags
These are practical review signals derived from the relationships and controls repeatedly required by the source. A red flag does not automatically mean the submission must be rejected; it means the condition deserves documented resolution before approval.
- Production condition differs from drawing but no deviation is attached
- Deviation is unsigned, expired or does not define its limits
- Customer approval is assumed from email conversation but no controlled approval exists
- Process instructions contain an interpretation that conflicts with the design record
- Temporary deviation remains active with no path to permanent change
- A waiver exists but its scope does not cover the submitted part or condition
06Cross-document interfaces
PPAP elements should not be reviewed as isolated files. Check the following interfaces for consistent part identity, revision, characteristic naming, operation numbering and control logic.
Design record
Confirm controlled linkage, current revision and consistent characteristic/process identity across this interface.
Control plan
Confirm controlled linkage, current revision and consistent characteristic/process identity across this interface.
Process instructions
Confirm controlled linkage, current revision and consistent characteristic/process identity across this interface.
Dimensional results
Confirm controlled linkage, current revision and consistent characteristic/process identity across this interface.
PSW reason for submission
Confirm controlled linkage, current revision and consistent characteristic/process identity across this interface.
Resubmission/change control
Confirm controlled linkage, current revision and consistent characteristic/process identity across this interface.
07Assessor close-out checklist
- The element is present or a controlled waiver/agreement explains why it is not required.
- The submitted record identifies the correct part number and engineering revision where applicable.
- The evidence is legible, understandable, controlled and traceable to the submitted product/process.
- Special characteristics and known customer concerns are treated consistently across related documents.
- Any nonconformance, temporary control, deviation or interim condition is visible and formally dispositioned.
- Actions have owners, due dates and objective closure evidence where the source expects corrective action.
- The final conclusion can be independently repeated by another reviewer using the package alone.
08Frequently asked questions
Is a deviation the same as a drawing change?
No. The source treats a deviation as controlled authorization for a condition that varies from the design record. A permanent engineering change should ultimately be incorporated into the controlled design record.
What should a temporary deviation define?
The assessment specifically expects practical disposition information such as number of pieces, time limit and information about the forthcoming change.
Can customer engineering approval be waived?
The source says formal engineering approval is required unless an engineering waiver is documented and in place.
Why include internal process instructions?
Because those documents may reinterpret design-record data for production. If they are part of how the requirement is communicated and controlled, they belong in the evidence chain.
09Source and limitations
Primary source: uploaded Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) Assessment / PPAP Submission Assessment, 15 pages, Quality-One. Source sections used on this page: 2.2.2 Authorized Engineering Change Documents, 2.2.3 Customer Engineering Approval. Approximate source page coverage: 2-2.
This KEVOS chapter is an educational and assessment aid. It preserves the uploaded document's criteria but does not replace controlled customer-specific requirements, engineering specifications, contractual requirements or an official PPAP/APQP manual. Where the source references “PPAP 4th edition”, AIAG methods, Organization systems or Organization-specific targets, those references are retained as source context rather than silently updated or generalized.
Handbook application: from concept to controlled practice
Purpose. This expanded section turns the original page into a practical handbook. It preserves the supplied material and adds a repeatable way to apply, check and review PPAP Authorized Engineering Changes and Customer Engineering Approval. It does not replace a contract, legislation, a controlled standard, competent engineering judgement or specialist advice.
The operating aim is to carry the subject from function and assumptions through design evidence, verification and controlled release. Read the original explanation first, then use the workflow and checks below to convert knowledge into evidence.
Apply PPAP Authorized Engineering Changes and Customer Engineering Approval by beginning with the duty, not the component or software command. Convert the key ideas—ppap, approval, authorized, changes, customer—into measurable requirements and interfaces. Record operating and non-operating environments, duty cycle, expected life, loads, energy sources, human interaction and reasonably foreseeable abnormal conditions. When a value is not a project requirement or verified supplier datum, identify it as an assumption or illustrative value.
Create a calculation and evidence trail that another competent person can audit. Every input should carry a source, unit, revision and uncertainty or tolerance where relevant. Every model should state its boundary conditions and limitations. Keep nominal capacity separate from design capacity, and keep verification margin separate from an arbitrary safety factor. If a code or standard governs the work, confirm the applicable edition and contractual status rather than copying a number from a secondary summary.
Design for manufacture, assembly, inspection, operation and maintenance at the same time. A technically valid geometry can still fail because it cannot be fixtured, measured, cleaned, guarded, reached or replaced. Review process capability, datum or reference strategy, tolerance accumulation, access, error-proofing and changeover. Where people interact with plant, apply the hierarchy of controls and consult those who will operate, clean, maintain and recover the equipment.
Plan verification before release. Define the characteristic, method, equipment, sample or test condition, acceptance criterion, record and responsible person. Validation then asks a different question: whether the resulting system is effective and suitable in the intended use context. A passed drawing check or analysis does not by itself validate usability, maintainability or production performance.
Step-by-step operating method
- Define the duty. Capture the required function, interfaces, operating environment, life, loads and unacceptable outcomes.
- Establish the model. Identify governing principles, units, material or process data, assumptions and uncertainty.
- Develop alternatives. Compare feasible concepts against performance, manufacturability, safety, maintainability and cost.
- Verify the design. Use analysis, test, inspection or demonstration with acceptance criteria defined before execution.
- Release and learn. Baseline the design, control changes, retain evidence and feed operating results into the next revision.
Illustrative design review record
Illustrative values only. Build a one-page record with the required function, input sources, assumptions, governing load or process condition, failure consequences, selected concept, verification method and acceptance criterion. Mark every numerical input as project requirement, verified supplier data, measured value, calculation output or assumption. Review the weakest evidence first. If an assumption can change safety, compliance, interchangeability or capacity, it must be resolved before release rather than buried in a calculation note.
| Evidence class | Question | Release expectation |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | What must the design do and under which conditions? | Approved and traceable |
| Input | Where did the load, property, tolerance or process limit come from? | Source, unit and revision recorded |
| Analysis | Which model and assumptions connect input to result? | Checkable calculation or simulation |
| Verification | How will conformity be demonstrated? | Method and acceptance criterion agreed |
| Validation | Will the solution work for intended users and conditions? | Representative use evidence |
Common failure modes and recovery actions
1. Watch for
Starting detailed design before interfaces and operating limits are agreed.
Recovery: Return to the governing definition or requirement and restate the decision in one sentence.
2. Watch for
Using catalogue or typical values as though they were certified project inputs.
Recovery: Separate evidence from assumption, assign an owner and set a date for validation.
3. Watch for
Checking nominal performance while ignoring tolerances, degradation and foreseeable misuse.
Recovery: Run a small counterexample, boundary test, pilot or independent check before proceeding.
4. Watch for
Confusing verification of requirements with validation of user need.
Recovery: Record the consequence, decision and rationale, then update the controlled baseline.
5. Watch for
Releasing drawings or procedures without configuration, inspection and change controls.
Recovery: Escalate when the issue affects safety, compliance, acceptance, material value or an agreed tolerance.
Review checklist
- What function and failure consequence govern this decision?
- Which inputs are measured, specified, assumed or illustrative?
- How will conformity be demonstrated and recorded?
- What change would invalidate the current evidence?
- Are mandatory requirements distinguished from recommendations and illustrative values?
- Are sources, assumptions, units, dates and versions recorded closely enough to reproduce the decision?
- Have safety, legal, ethical, stakeholder and operational consequences been considered at the appropriate level?
- Is there a named owner and a trigger for review, escalation, change or retirement?
Questions for deeper application
What is the most important distinction a practitioner must preserve when applying PPAP Authorized Engineering Changes and Customer Engineering Approval?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which assumption about ppap would change the result most if it proved false?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What evidence would allow an independent reviewer to reproduce or challenge the conclusion?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Which boundary, exception or failure case has not yet been tested?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
What must be handed over, monitored or reviewed after the immediate work is complete?
Answer with a fact or cited source where available. Where evidence is incomplete, record the assumption, consequence, responsible owner and next validation action.
Authoritative references and use notes
The sources below were selected as institutional or primary guidance for the broader practice. They support the handbook method; they do not imply that every statement or clause in a source applies to every project. Confirm the current edition, jurisdiction, contract and application before treating any requirement as mandatory.
- NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership — National Institute of Standards and Technology. Used for manufacturing productivity, quality, cost and capability improvement. Accessed 2026-08-13.
- Identify, assess and control hazards — Safe Work Australia. Used for hazard identification, risk assessment, controls and review. Accessed 2026-08-13.