Quality by Design

When Quality Lives With Design

Quality problems are rarely mysteries; they’re usually missing threads. A dimension changes in design, the spreadsheet doesn’t, and the shop keeps measuring yesterday’s reality. Model-based quality fixes the thread. In Teamcenter Quality, you attach characteristics—the CTQs that really matter—to the model and keep them under the same governance as the EBOM. From that moment on, quality artifacts don’t chase design; they follow it.

Think of characteristics as the DNA that ties intent to verification. You define the feature (e.g., hole diameter), its tolerance, gauge method, and sampling rule; you link it to risk in FMEA and, where appropriate, to SPC targets. Because the characteristic lives with the item, any approved change can update the downstream plans automatically. No retyping columns. No broken references. And because Teamcenter tracks revisions, you can ask, “What changed in Rev D?” and get a crisp comparison—including characteristic adds, drops, or limits that shifted.

This has a flywheel effect on releases. Control plans and inspection plans are generated from governed data rather than built from scratch. Ballooning uses PMI that’s already associated to the model, so your characteristic list isn’t a guess—it’s a reflection. When an ECO moves a tolerance or selects a new option, the plan reflects it with the right effectivity and option context. Approvers review a plan that is specific to the configuration actually being released, not a generic template. That specificity is what accelerates PPAP/FAI and prevents last-minute scrambles.

It also changes who can contribute and when. Using Teamcenter’s visualization, reviewers without CAD seats can open the model, see PMI balloons, and verify that the characteristic truly maps to the feature they care about. Manufacturing can validate gauge access. Quality can confirm sampling aligns with risk. Sourcing can check that supplier obligations are clear. Feedback stays on the governed objects and the change, so audits can reconstruct the conversation long after launch.

You don’t need to boil the ocean to start. Pick a pilot assembly and run three simple moves: 

Evidence matters. Programs that pulled validation forward saw concrete benefits. Ford generated DPV and FMEA earlier from consistent Teamcenter work packages, reducing duplication and pre-launch rework; once the EBOM and quality artifacts shared governance, the team had fewer surprises at freeze. Your outcome will rhyme: faster decisions because context is visible, fewer escalations because traceability is complete, and steadier launches because the plan fits the product you’re actually building.

As you scale, variants won’t break your quality system. Characteristics travel with options and effectivity, so the EU model-year change that adds a reinforcement also adds the associated inspection points—only where they apply. If a controlled deviation is necessary, occurrence-based substitutes and change-driven effectivity keep the baseline clean while documenting what’s different for a specific lot or serial range. Your plans remain accurate without multiplying spreadsheets.

Accessibility isn’t an afterthought here. When you publish a screenshot of a ballooned PMI view, add alt text like, “Ballooned PMI for bracket Rev D showing CTQs 12–18 with tolerances.” If you share a short GIF of a revision compare, caption it, “Characteristic 14 tolerance tightened from ±0.2 to ±0.1; control plan step 20 updated.” These small practices let more teammates engage—including those reviewing on mobile or with assistive tech—and they improve audit clarity because context is explicit.

Finally, measure what you mean to improve. Track PPAP/FAI cycle time, number of post-release inspection plan edits, and the share of characteristics linked to risk and SPC. Celebrate trend lines. When those charts move in the right direction, you’re not just “doing quality”—you’re institutionalizing quality by design 

Ready to shift quality left?