ZOLLVERA

Eliminate repetitive quality work

From specification to approved PPAP: Zollvera drafts requirements, FMEAs, special characteristics and the submission package. Nothing is released until the responsible engineer approves it.

Built by talent from
Technical University of Munich McKinsey & Company Siemens MAHLE
Product

APQP, from specification to release

APQP Phase 1 · Planning

Customer documents come in

You drop them as files. Each one is checked, fingerprinted and made readable page by page. Every statement made later stays bound to this revision, not to a copy of it.

Inspecification, drawings, standards, test plans, PDF
Outverified, referenced documents
Datapages, revision, fingerprint
INTAKE Rev. A SHA-256 SEALED
APQP Phase 1 · Planning

Requirements and characteristics are read out

Every requirement comes out with its page and the sentence it stands in. Every drawing characteristic comes out with its balloon and its tolerance. The standards behind them are resolved level by level.

Indocument pages and drawing sheets
Outrequirements and characteristics, each with its source
Datapage, excerpt, position, balloon, tolerance
SPEC · P. 31 EAA-SYS-THERM-0042 +135 °C · p. 31 · x 212 y 488 EAA-EMV-0087 CISPR 25 · p. 44 · x 96 y 210 EAA-SEAL-0112 IP6K9K · p. 58 · x 140 y 352 + 187 more, each with its source
APQP Phase 2 · Product design

Matched against your portfolio

The graph builds itself from what your company already owns: products, bills of materials, test reports, changes and past failures. Every connection says why it is there.

Inrequirements, characteristics, your product data
Outmatches and gaps against the portfolio
DataBOM, test reports, ECO, 8D
EAA-42 · K2 TEST REPORT BOM · 36 ECO-2214 8D · SEAL REQ
APQP Phase 2–3 · Design and process risk

Risks and special characteristics surface early

Where the required value and the proven value pull apart, the position falls out by itself. Missing evidence and contradictions appear at project start instead of at sampling.

Inmatches and deltas from the graph
Outranked risks, special characteristic candidates
Datamissing evidence, contradictions, inherited failures
PROVEN VS TARGET TARGET MOT-48-017 Δ 15 °C PCB-42-103 Δ 8 A SEA-12-044 no proof BRG-08-211 Δ 1,0 M CON-16-090 proven
APQP Phase 4–5 · Validation and launch

From the FMEA to the PPAP package

FMEA, control plan, measurement studies and the PPAP package are drafted from the same graph. Every row carries the requirement, the standard and the failure behind it. Ratings and approvals stay with the engineer. The system proposes, the engineer decides.

Inrequirements, standards, history
OutFMEA, control plan, MSA, capability, PPAP
Dataorigin per row, proposals, audit trail
COMPONENT ORIGIN · R S H S · O · D MOT-48-017 SEA-12-044 FMEA CONTROL PLAN C-001 Ø40±0.02 5/shift · SPC GAUGE STUDY %GRR 8.2 capable PPAP PACKAGE 8 / 16 ready S O D and every approval stay with the engineer
Engineering change

When something changes

APQP does not fail on the first draft. It fails on the third change, when nobody can say which documents still match. Zollvera keeps the chain consistent.

One tolerance changes. Zollvera shows what it touches.

Rev B becomes Rev C, ±0.02 becomes ±0.01. Zollvera shows which FMEA rows, control plan lines, MSA and capability studies and PPAP evidence are affected, with a visible diff and the reason for each. The same walk runs when the specification or a customer requirement changes. History is never overwritten.

Inengineering change, new drawing revision
Outaffected artifacts, each with reason and proposed update
DataFMEA · control plan · MSA · capability · PPAP
ENGINEERING CHANGE · EC-014 DRW-9481-220 Rev B · Ø40 ±0.02 Rev C · ±0.01 FME-114 design risk review CPL-201 control plan row review MSA-03 gauge study revalidate CAP-17 Ppk 1.56 → 0.78 recompute PPA-09 dimensional results outdated Same measurements, tighter limits, different verdict
Data sources

The knowledge is in house.
Zollvera makes it provable.

Zollvera pulls from the systems your engineering already runs on and binds every statement back to where it came from.

SAP
Siemens Teamcenter
PTC Windchill
Dassault Systèmes
Autodesk
Ansys
Output
01

Requirements with source location

Every statement bound to its page and its exact position in the document.

02

Obligations with evidence status

Proven, missing or contradicting. Per obligation, per standard.

03

Deltas against your portfolio

Target value against proven value, part by part.

04

FMEA skeleton with provenance

Three origins per row. Assessment stays with the engineer.

Outcome

What this changes

0%

less time on requirements analysis at project start

faster from specification to a reviewed FMEA draft

0%

of statements traceable to page and exact source position

Next step

Bring a real specification

Thirty minutes, your document, your standards. At the end you see which of your obligations stand there today with no evidence behind them.