Difficult to ensure important project milestones
Difficulties controlling the date of sample production, ensuring part progress and quality, leads to delayed product launches.
Project Parts Coordination Management
This solution addresses the challenges of part collaboration in complex product projects by using critical parts as the management core and restructuring traditional project management models around part development activities.
Through cross-functional project teams, a unified project part list, standardized part business templates, and collaboration norms, the solution connects R&D, procurement, quality, and other internal functions, as well as OEM–supplier collaboration.
It significantly improves milestone achievement rates and ensures steady realization of project schedule, quality, and delivery objectives.
Through cross-functional project teams, a unified project part list, standardized part business templates, and collaboration norms, the solution connects R&D, procurement, quality, and other internal functions, as well as OEM–supplier collaboration.
It significantly improves milestone achievement rates and ensures steady realization of project schedule, quality, and delivery objectives.
Business Challenges
01
02
Inefficient cross-business collaboration
During product development, various business departments lack clarity in terms of when, how, and who provides part information, which undermines accuracy. When changes occur, information doesn't synchronize across departments, and timely feedback between departments is hard to guarantee.
03
Low communication efficiency between OEMs and suppliers
There is a multitude of information to be exchanged between OEMs and suppliers, involving numerous departments. Varying levels of information technology adoption among suppliers impact communication efficiency.
04
Traditional project management is difficult to implement
Business characteristics vary across the product development stages, making it difficult to use a unified project management model and project management platform. Traditional project management that tracks project plans using Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is cumbersome and non-targeted, making it difficult to ensure the authenticity and effectiveness of input data.
Solution Overview
Gant Software's parts-focused project management solution includes:
● Establishment of cross-functional project workgroups
Help enterprises establish cross-departmental workgroups around part-related tasks.
Help enterprises establish cross-departmental workgroups around part-related tasks.
● Acquisition of project part lists
Methods and procedural standards for acquiring project part lists.
Methods and procedural standards for acquiring project part lists.
● Parts business template solutions
Helps enterprises develop a complete set of part-business templates tailored to their specific circumstances.
Helps enterprises develop a complete set of part-business templates tailored to their specific circumstances.
● Part-related work specifications
Defines the procedures and standards for different business units to carry out part-related tasks
Defines the procedures and standards for different business units to carry out part-related tasks
Solution Values
Realize cross-functional department collaboration
Control the entire lifecycle of parts
Standardized project control approach for enhanced project transparency
Solve the problems of inputting information for project management
FAQ
Why is cross-functional collaboration so difficult in large vehicle / product projects? Why is the “Project Part Task List” so critical in large-scale projects?
+
Typical root causes include: inconsistent core part lists, fragmented information, unsynchronized changes, misaligned departmental priorities, and lack of standardized APQP working mechanisms.
At the core of all these issues lies the absence of a unified collaboration system built around the Project Part Task List. As the single source of truth for project collaboration, this task list defines:
• Which parts need to be developed?
• Who is responsible for each part and which suppliers are involved?
• Where do APQP, procurement, process engineering, and quality tasks originate?
• How are changes synchronized and what is their impact scope?
• Which parts have risks, schedule delays, or PPAP issues?
Without a unified project part task list, large projects inevitably fall into multiple crises: misaligned understanding of the same part across departments, delayed supplier task initiation, late PPAP and prototype deliveries, and concentrated issues before SOP.
Therefore, a unified Project Part Task List is the fundamental infrastructure for large-scale project collaboration.
At the core of all these issues lies the absence of a unified collaboration system built around the Project Part Task List. As the single source of truth for project collaboration, this task list defines:
• Which parts need to be developed?
• Who is responsible for each part and which suppliers are involved?
• Where do APQP, procurement, process engineering, and quality tasks originate?
• How are changes synchronized and what is their impact scope?
• Which parts have risks, schedule delays, or PPAP issues?
Without a unified project part task list, large projects inevitably fall into multiple crises: misaligned understanding of the same part across departments, delayed supplier task initiation, late PPAP and prototype deliveries, and concentrated issues before SOP.
Therefore, a unified Project Part Task List is the fundamental infrastructure for large-scale project collaboration.
Why is collaboration efficiency between enterprises and suppliers in APQP/PPAP processes generally low?
+
Typical problems include:
• Suppliers do not understand task priorities.
• Repeated and inconsistent document submission and review processes.
• Enterprises cannot track supplier progress in real time.
• Issues and closures are difficult to trace.
• Multiple communication rounds relying on emails, chat groups, and spreadsheets.
The root causes are:
• Lack of a supplier collaboration platform.
• Lack of task-driven mechanisms.
• Lack of standardized workflows and deliverable requirements.
• Insufficient project-level process transparency.
Ultimately, enterprises and suppliers lack a unified information source for parts, tasks, changes, and APQP status.
• Suppliers do not understand task priorities.
• Repeated and inconsistent document submission and review processes.
• Enterprises cannot track supplier progress in real time.
• Issues and closures are difficult to trace.
• Multiple communication rounds relying on emails, chat groups, and spreadsheets.
The root causes are:
• Lack of a supplier collaboration platform.
• Lack of task-driven mechanisms.
• Lack of standardized workflows and deliverable requirements.
• Insufficient project-level process transparency.
Ultimately, enterprises and suppliers lack a unified information source for parts, tasks, changes, and APQP status.
Why does change management easily lose control in large projects? How can enterprises achieve “change-driven collaboration and synchronization”?
+
Change becomes uncontrollable mainly because:
• Design changes are not delivered in time to procurement, quality, and suppliers.
• A single change affects multiple parts, suppliers, and plants.
• Manual synchronization causes omissions and delays.
• Impacts on cost, risk, PPAP, and prototype delivery lack visibility.
To achieve “change equals synchronization”, enterprises need to:
• Define explicit relationships between changes, parts, suppliers, and APQP tasks.
• Automatically distribute cross-functional change tasks.
• Visualize change impacts (delivery, cost, risk, prototypes).
• Automatically update data based on a unified project part list.
Change management is not about managing the change itself, but about managing its impact chain.
• Design changes are not delivered in time to procurement, quality, and suppliers.
• A single change affects multiple parts, suppliers, and plants.
• Manual synchronization causes omissions and delays.
• Impacts on cost, risk, PPAP, and prototype delivery lack visibility.
To achieve “change equals synchronization”, enterprises need to:
• Define explicit relationships between changes, parts, suppliers, and APQP tasks.
• Automatically distribute cross-functional change tasks.
• Visualize change impacts (delivery, cost, risk, prototypes).
• Automatically update data based on a unified project part list.
Change management is not about managing the change itself, but about managing its impact chain.
Why do “prototype development and approval” often suffer delays, rework, and quality inconsistency in large vehicle projects? How can enterprises ensure a controllable prototype process?
+
Prototype development and approval are highly interdependent across R&D, procurement, quality, and suppliers — and are often the root cause of project delays. Typical problems and solutions include:
• Unclear or inconsistent technical requirements. Enterprises must use a unified Project Part Task List + Latest Drawing Repository as the single source of truth (SSOT) for prototype technical requirements.
• Non-standard procurement processes and unclear supplier responsibilities. Enterprises must establish a structured prototype ordering and task workflow, automatically generating prototype batches, drawing versions, process requirements, supplier milestones, and logistics requirements — synchronized with suppliers in real time.
• Inconsistent approval standards and opaque processes. Enterprises must establish a unified prototype approval workflow covering technical, quality, performance/testing, appearance/packaging approval, deviations, and temporary approvals — enabling full traceability from submission to approval.
• Delayed synchronization of changes during prototype phases. Enterprises must ensure that design changes automatically trigger prototype tasks, identify impacted parts, push change information to procurement and suppliers, update prototype order versions, and visualize risks and delays — minimizing rework and misproduction.
• Disconnection between prototype approval and APQP/PPAP. Enterprises must treat prototype approval as a prerequisite input to PPAP, linking it with DVP&R, tooling/mold status, and supplier APQP progress to form an end-to-end quality planning chain.
• Unclear or inconsistent technical requirements. Enterprises must use a unified Project Part Task List + Latest Drawing Repository as the single source of truth (SSOT) for prototype technical requirements.
• Non-standard procurement processes and unclear supplier responsibilities. Enterprises must establish a structured prototype ordering and task workflow, automatically generating prototype batches, drawing versions, process requirements, supplier milestones, and logistics requirements — synchronized with suppliers in real time.
• Inconsistent approval standards and opaque processes. Enterprises must establish a unified prototype approval workflow covering technical, quality, performance/testing, appearance/packaging approval, deviations, and temporary approvals — enabling full traceability from submission to approval.
• Delayed synchronization of changes during prototype phases. Enterprises must ensure that design changes automatically trigger prototype tasks, identify impacted parts, push change information to procurement and suppliers, update prototype order versions, and visualize risks and delays — minimizing rework and misproduction.
• Disconnection between prototype approval and APQP/PPAP. Enterprises must treat prototype approval as a prerequisite input to PPAP, linking it with DVP&R, tooling/mold status, and supplier APQP progress to form an end-to-end quality planning chain.
Why are supplier quality issues difficult to detect and control in mass production? How can enterprises improve?
+
Key causes include:
• Insufficient APQP execution in early phases, allowing hidden defects to surface only in mass production.
• Supplier process changes not synchronized with OEM.
• Lack of cross-project and cross-product supplier quality data accumulation.
• Delayed risk warnings, with issues only discovered after escalation.
Improvement approaches include:
• Linking APQP results with mass production quality data.
• Integrating supplier change management with enterprise APQP processes.
• Building digital supplier risk and performance profiles.
• Establishing cross-project, cross-product supplier quality analytics.
In fact, over 70% of mass production quality issues originate from insufficient APQP execution.
• Insufficient APQP execution in early phases, allowing hidden defects to surface only in mass production.
• Supplier process changes not synchronized with OEM.
• Lack of cross-project and cross-product supplier quality data accumulation.
• Delayed risk warnings, with issues only discovered after escalation.
Improvement approaches include:
• Linking APQP results with mass production quality data.
• Integrating supplier change management with enterprise APQP processes.
• Building digital supplier risk and performance profiles.
• Establishing cross-project, cross-product supplier quality analytics.
In fact, over 70% of mass production quality issues originate from insufficient APQP execution.
Specialize for Excellence, Persevere for Success
181-1705-7169
Contact Us
Email: contact@gantsoftware.com
Tel: +86 21 58650908
Address: 2/F, Bldg. 3, No. 647 Songtao Road, Pudong New District, Shanghai, China
Follow us on WeChat
