Skip to content
Field Report · Forge Tier · Automotive · Precision Manufacturing

Precision Components.

Central Bohemia, Czech RepublicActive since Sep 2025

Automotive tier-2 supplier. Three production lines. proALPHA ERP, 140 Excel workbooks, and paper lot cards connected through a unified manufacturing event model. No system replaced.

Executive Summary

A mid-sized Czech precision components manufacturer — stamped brackets, CNC-machined housings, connector assemblies for German tier-1 suppliers serving Volkswagen, Continental, and Stellantis programs — received a B-rating on a VDA 6.3 customer audit with traceability and corrective action scores approaching the C-rating threshold. The four-person quality team spent over half its working hours on manual documentation: compiling traceability records from Excel files, assembling 8D reports from paper logs, preparing PPAP packages from disconnected sources. A unified manufacturing event model was deployed connecting proALPHA ERP to barcode-based in-process quality data. Traceability queries now return in seconds. 8D preparation dropped from six to eight hours to approximately two. The VDA 6.3 follow-up audit score improved from 78% to 86%.

Traceability query<30sFrom 4–8 hours
Documentation burden−40–50%~140–175 hrs/mo redirected
8D preparation~2 hrsFrom 6–8 hours
VDA 6.3 score86%From 78%
01 · The Environment

The operation.

Three production lines across two halls: a progressive stamping line running Bruderer high-speed presses, a CNC machining cell with six Mazak turning centers and two DMG MORI 5-axis mills, and an assembly and packaging line with semi-automated gauge stations. Approximately 14 million components annually across 280 active part numbers, of which roughly 40 carry D/TLD safety-critical designation under VW Group Formel Q requirements.

proALPHA ERP handled order management, production scheduling, material planning, and shipping documentation including VDA 4902 transport labels. Quality data flowed through a separate channel: incoming inspection records, in-process measurements, and final inspection protocols lived in approximately 140 Excel workbooks maintained by two quality engineers. SPC analysis was performed in Minitab with data manually transcribed from paper gauge sheets.

There was no Manufacturing Execution System. Shop floor status was tracked on a physical whiteboard updated at shift handover. Barcode scanning existed only at the shipping station. Between raw material receipt and the shipping dock, traceability was maintained through handwritten lot cards traveling with material containers.

System parameters at engagement start
ERPproALPHA 9.2 — production orders, material planning, shipping, VDA 4902 labels
Quality~140 Excel workbooks — inspection records, SPC in Minitab (manual transcription)
DocumentationControl plans and PFMEAs as Word documents, versioned by filename suffix
Shop floorPhysical whiteboard — updated at shift handover, no MES
TraceabilityHandwritten lot cards between raw material receipt and shipping dock
Production3 lines: Bruderer progressive stamping, 6× Mazak CNC + 2× DMG MORI 5-axis, assembly
Output~14M components/year, 280 active part numbers, ~40 D/TLD safety-critical

Tier-2 automotive, ~€22–28M annual revenue. Three German tier-1 customers.

Annual output~14M parts280 active part numbers
Safety-critical~40 D/TLDVW Group Formel Q designation
Quality team4 engineers2 process engineers supporting
Customers3 tier-1sVolkswagen, Continental, Stellantis supply chain
02 · The Challenge

Three definitions. One word.

A VDA 6.3 process audit conducted by the facility's largest tier-1 customer in June 2025 scored 78% overall — a B-rating, but with individual scores on traceability (P6.3.2) and corrective action effectiveness (P6.5) falling to 4 out of 10. Under VDA 6.3 degradation rules, a further decline would trigger a C-rating: new business hold and mandatory IATF certification body notification. The corrective action plan required demonstrable improvement within six months.

The root problem was not that the facility lacked quality processes. Control plans, work instructions, and inspection protocols existed in documented form. The problem was that these processes had no shared structural definition of what constituted a reportable event. A “defect” meant three different things in three different production areas, tracked in three different formats, stored in three different locations.

The facility did not have a quality problem. It had a definitional problem: three production areas generating quality events under three incompatible definitions, with no shared event model capable of rendering them structurally comparable, traceable, or queryable.

Stathon engagement assessment
The entry point

Two previous consultants — one local, one a German automotive consultancy — had recommended implementing a dedicated CAQ system. Both estimated 12–18 months and framed the problem as software procurement. Neither had addressed the structural issue: without a shared definition of what a production event, quality event, and traceability event actually were, any new software would simply digitize the existing fragmentation.

Identified definitional gaps
GAP-01
Quality event

No unified definition. A “defect” in stamping meant a dimensional deviation at final inspection. A “defect” in CNC meant a surface finish nonconformity flagged by an operator. A “defect” in incoming inspection meant a material certificate discrepancy. Three event types, three formats, three storage locations, no structural connection.

GAP-02
Traceability chain

Between raw material receipt and the shipping dock, traceability was maintained through handwritten lot cards traveling with material containers. Cross-referencing a suspect batch required manual reconciliation of proALPHA purchase orders, paper inspection logs, lot routing cards, Excel records, and shipping documentation. Four to eight hours per query.

GAP-03
Temporal coherence

Production data lived in proALPHA with periodic CSV exports. Quality data lived in Excel workbooks. SPC data was manually transcribed from paper gauge sheets into Minitab. The data existed in abundance. The structural mechanism to connect it did not.

GAP-04
8D reconstruction

Each customer complaint required manual reconstruction across at least five disconnected sources: proALPHA shipping records, paper lot cards, Excel inspection workbooks, shift handover whiteboards, and paper-based incoming inspection logs. Six to eight hours for initial D2/D3 assembly.

03 · The Engagement

Three phases.

Forge-tier deployment. Four modules — Arché, Core, Athena, Aegis — deployed in phased sequence. proALPHA remained in place, unchanged. Excel inspection archives normalized into the event log. No system replaced.

Phase 1

Definition & Integration Spine

Weeks 1–6
ARCHÉDefinitional Authority
Five-day on-site mapping: 5 entity types (part, lot, raw material batch, machine, operator) and 4 event types (production, inspection, deviation, containment trigger)
Unified deviation definition replacing three incompatible “defect” concepts across stamping, CNC, and incoming inspection
Containment trigger rules: any D/TLD deviation, 3+ deviations in 24h rolling window, Cpk below 1.33 on last capability study
Schema reduced from 11 event types / 47 fields to 4 types / 28 mandatory fields after night-shift validation
COREOperational Continuity
proALPHA CSV extraction (4-hour cadence) for production orders, material movements, shipping records
Barcode scanning stations at 3 checkpoints per line: raw material issue, post-operation, pre-packaging
Zebra TC21 scanners + Samsung Galaxy Tab Active4 Pro tablets with schema-enforcing UI
340,000 historical records (3 years, 140 workbooks) normalized; ~12% tagged as partial traceability
AEGISSovereignty & Protection
RBAC: operator (scan/enter), quality engineer (query/report/edit), production manager (dashboard/escalation), customer-facing (read-only audit)
Full audit trail: every event creation, modification, query, and export logged with timestamp, user ID, action type
Designed for VDA 6.3 and IATF 16949 audit presentation — every traceability query reproducible from audit log

The first work was not integration — it was definition. The 34-page event schema specification became the reference contract for all subsequent integration work. Night-shift scan compliance reached 90% by Week 10 after two on-floor Czech-language training sessions.

Stathon deployment record
Phase 2

First Live Capabilities

Months 2–4
Real-time lot-level traceability

Forward trace (raw material batch → all shipped lots) and backward trace (shipped lot → all contributing batches, machines, operators, inspection results) return in under 30 seconds. During the January 2026 follow-up audit, the quality manager executed a live forward-trace query: from a randomly selected October 2025 batch, the system identified 14 production lots, 6 shipping consignments, and complete inspection history in 22 seconds.

Automated 8D pre-population

Customer complaint registration pre-populates the 8D template with all structurally connected data: shipped lot, production events, inspection events, raw material batch, machine and operator assignments, deviation events. Quality engineer focus shifts from data reconstruction to root cause analysis. First 11 reports averaged approximately two hours for initial completion.

Cpk threshold containment

In December 2025, a CNC turning center producing a D/TLD bore housing showed three consecutive lots with Cpk trending from 1.41 to 1.36 to 1.29 — crossing the 1.33 containment trigger. The quality engineer initiated containment approximately 2.5 hours before the lot would have reached packaging. Tool insert replaced, production resumed same shift.

Phase 3

SPC Deviation Flagging

Current · Advisory Mode

Athena's first operational layer: a rule-based monitoring engine continuously evaluating incoming inspection events against SPC control rules. A probabilistic drift risk score is assigned to each characteristic based on measurement sequence, historical capability, and criticality classification. Currently advisory-only pending 90-day calibration validation. Full production integration expected Q2 2026.

Calibration progress

Initial false positive rates on non-critical characteristics were approximately double the target. Two calibration cycles in January and February 2026 reduced them to within operational range. One additional validation cycle remains before active mode.

Incoming inspection scoring

Pilot evaluation: incoming inspection risk scoring for raw material batches, using supplier delivery history and material certificate deviation frequency to prioritize inspection effort. Currently assessed on sample basis against six months of historical data.

Predictive tool wear

On the development roadmap: linking deviation event patterns to machine and tooling lifecycle data. Objective is earlier intervention scheduling based on structural correlation rather than fixed maintenance intervals.

04 · Outcomes

What changed.

Five months of production operation. Figures reflect the state as of February 2026. SPC deviation flagging (Phase 3) is in advisory mode; operational results pending active-mode validation.

Traceability query
4–8 hours
<30 seconds
47 queries validated Nov 2025–Feb 2026
Documentation burden
~55% of capacity
−40–50%
~140–175 hrs/mo redirected to process improvement
8D report preparation
6–8 hours
~2 hours
Based on first 11 reports under new system
VDA 6.3 audit score
78% (B-rating)
86%
Traceability question: 4 → 8 out of 10
Traceability NCRs
Multiple findings
Zero
Follow-up customer audit Jan 2026
Containment speed
Next weekly review
Same shift
Cpk threshold trigger — 2.5 hrs before shipment
Nature of the change

The facility did not receive a software upgrade. It received a structural definition of what its production events, quality events, and traceability events actually are — and an operational layer that made those definitions continuous, queryable, and auditable.

Time redirected

The 140–175 hours per month freed from documentation have not been eliminated. They have been redirected from data reconstruction to process analysis, root cause investigation, and preventive action — work the quality team had previously deferred due to capacity constraints.

05 · Integration Position

What this infrastructure is.

Not a quality management system.

The Stathon infrastructure does not replace proALPHA, and it does not replace the facility’s quality documentation. It is the operational logic layer that connects what these systems contain into a structurally coherent, temporally continuous, and instantly queryable record. The ERP was not modified, not replaced, and not re-architected.

Definitional work before integration work.

What two previous consultants had framed as a 12–18 month CAQ procurement project was, in structural terms, a question of whether anyone was willing to do the definitional work first. The 34-page event schema specification — defining what a production event, a quality event, and a deviation event actually are — was the prerequisite for everything that followed.

The data existed. The meaning did not.

The facility was not missing data. It had 340,000 historical measurement entries across 140 Excel workbooks. What was absent was a structural definition connecting those measurements to the lots, machines, operators, and material batches that produced them. The event model did not create new data. It made existing data structurally addressable.

The integration is not visible from the surface. Its absence would be.

Stathon deployment conclusion
06 · What Is Next

Forward roadmap.

In production
Real-time lot-level traceability — forward and backward trace, sub-30-second response
Automated 8D data pre-population from the event log
In advisory mode
SPC deviation flagging — Cpk trend monitoring with probabilistic drift scoring
Incoming inspection risk scoring — supplier and batch risk evaluation
On roadmap
Automated PPAP dimensional result compilation
Customer portal traceability export
Predictive tool wear correlation
Q2 2026

SPC active mode

Transition from advisory to active containment prompts. Cpk trend monitoring triggers automatic containment workflows when flagged characteristics exceed configured thresholds. Pending quality management formal validation.

Q3 2026

Automated PPAP compilation

Structured extraction of inspection event data into PPAP-format dimensional reports. Eliminates manual re-entry of measurement results into customer-specific PPAP templates.

Q4 2026

Customer portal traceability export

Formatted traceability packages for direct upload to tier-1 supplier quality portals. Customer-specific format mapping from the unified event log.

07 · Engagement Parameters

Deployment record.

Engagement TypeForge Tier · Long-term infrastructure partnership
Engagement StartSeptember 2025
Current PhasePhase 2 — live traceability; SPC deviation flagging in advisory mode
Production Scale~14M components/year, 280 active part numbers
Revenue€22–28M annual
Staff~120 employees (4 quality, 2 process engineers)
Systems IntegratedproALPHA ERP · Barcode scanning (Zebra/Samsung) · Excel inspection archive
Compliance FrameworkVDA 6.3 · IATF 16949 · Formel Q · D/TLD characteristics

Stathon · Definitional Infrastructure Company. Client identity withheld by agreement. Deployment metrics reflect production conditions as of February 2026.