They’re both "final exams" before mass production, so why do some suppliers breeze through R@R only to be forced into overnight rework by 2TP? If you work in automotive parts, two abbreviations inspire equal parts love and dread: R@R and 2TP . Newcomers often mix them up, thinking, "Isn’t it just running the production line before mass production? How different can it be?" Very different. I’ve seen too many suppliers apply their American R@R mindset to a German 2TP audit, only to get schooled by the auditor on the spot. Let’s break down exactly how these two systems work. 01 The Definition: What is R@R? Let’s correct a common misconception: R@R stands for Run @ Rate , not Ready for Ramp-up. While the ultimate goal is "production readiness," the name itself reveals the core logic—running at the required pace. American OEMs ( Ford , GM , etc.) want to verify your production claims. If you say your capacity is fine, prove it by running at the actual produ...
In modern manufacturing, mistake-proofing (or poka-yoke) is widely adopted across various industries as a critical method for ensuring product quality. However, many companies commonly encounter a significant issue during its implementation: the development of mistake-proofing measures often lacks systematic risk assessment and appears to be based on intuition or ad hoc decisions, resulting in suboptimal effectiveness. A typical scenario is that a company maintains a detailed mistake-proofing checklist, which not only includes specific information about each characteristic but also clearly outlines the underlying principles, methods, and verification requirements for each mistake-proofing measure—and these measures are regularly validated. Yet, when tracing back to the FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documentation, one finds that the corresponding mistake-proofing information is missing. This raises an important question: why were certain characteristics selected for mis...