In the development of a vehicle or component, reaching a prototype that “works” is not the end of the process. The product may show promising performance in early prototypes, but it may still be unclear whether the final design meets all of its requirements or whether the same performance will be maintained once the component enters the production process. For this reason, testing and evaluation activities in automotive projects are generally performed at different stages of product maturity, and the terms DV and PV are frequently used.
DV generally refers to Design Verification, while PV in many automotive development processes refers to Production Validation. At first glance, these may appear to be simply two consecutive testing stages, but their main difference lies in the engineering question they are intended to answer. In DV, the primary focus is on whether the design has met the defined requirements; in PV, the product is closer to production status, and the important question is whether a product built using production-representative parts, tooling, and processes can also maintain the expected performance.
However, DV and PV are not terms whose implementation details are exactly the same across all vehicle manufacturers and supply chains. The definition of Gates, specimen maturity levels, number of specimens, required tests, and entry and exit criteria for each stage may vary depending on the development process of the OEM, supplier, or project. Therefore, in practical applications of these concepts, the process and Requirements of the specific project must also be considered.
What Is DV or Design Verification?
Design Verification is a stage of the development process in which the evidence required to assess whether the design complies with the defined Requirements is collected. If the design requirements specify that a component must withstand a certain load, operate within a defined temperature range, achieve a specified service life, or comply with the requirements of a particular standard, DV should include an appropriate method for evaluating those Requirements.
This method does not necessarily have to involve physical testing. Depending on the type of Requirement, Verification may be performed through engineering analysis, calculation, design review, inspection, measurement, or Testing. However, in the automotive industry, a significant part of DV involves testing physical specimens because many structural, functional, and durability characteristics of a product need to be evaluated under defined conditions.
The key point is that the DV specimen should have reached a sufficient level of maturity for the test result to provide meaningful information about the intended design. If the specimen differs significantly from the target design in characteristics that affect the test, the result cannot be generalized to the final design without analysis. Therefore, the Revision, material, geometry, joining method, auxiliary components, and other relevant characteristics of the specimen should be known and documented.
What Characteristics Should a DV Sample Have?
The term “DV Sample” should not be interpreted as having one fixed definition for every company. In one project, a DV specimen may be manufactured using temporary Tooling while still representing the intended material and primary geometry; in another project, the OEM’s internal requirements may specify a higher level of maturity before DV can begin. What matters is that the project team understands which characteristics of the specimen represent the target design and which characteristics are still considered Prototype.
Suppose a Bracket in a DV specimen is manufactured using a process different from the final production process. If the test is sensitive to the structural behavior of that Bracket, this difference may affect the result and should be considered before interpreting the test. However, if the difference is unrelated to the Requirement being evaluated, the specimen may still be suitable for the specific DV objective. Therefore, specimen suitability should be assessed in relation to the test objective, rather than solely according to a Prototype or DV label.
This also demonstrates the importance of Configuration Management. A test result must be traceable to the specimen that was actually tested, meaning its Part Number, Revision, and relevant characteristics should be identified. If the design changes after DV, the impact of the change should be assessed to determine which previous results remain valid and which activities need to be repeated or supplemented.
What Is PV or Production Validation?
In Production Validation, the focus extends beyond the design itself, and the product is evaluated under conditions closer to production status. The objective is to determine whether a product manufactured using production-representative parts, materials, Tooling, and processes continues to meet the expected requirements and performance. For this reason, PV is not simply a repetition of DV using a new specimen; it addresses a different question concerning product performance under production-representative conditions.
A design may perform very well in engineering prototypes, but moving into production introduces additional variables. Process Tolerances, production Tooling, welding or assembly methods, suppliers, surface treatments, injection molding or forming processes, and other production factors can affect the final characteristics of the product. PV helps assess whether the product coming from a production-representative process continues to deliver the performance expected during development.
However, the extent to which fully Production-intent Tooling, processes, or components must be used should be determined according to the project definition. Without understanding the OEM’s development process, it cannot be assumed that every PV specimen across all industries and organizations must meet exactly the same conditions. The key principle is that the maturity level of the specimen and process must be consistent with the objective of Production Validation.
What Is the Main Difference Between DV and PV?
To simplify the distinction, DV primarily asks questions about the design, while PV focuses on the product produced through a production-representative process. In DV, we want to know whether the design meets the Requirements; in PV, we assess whether the expected performance is maintained when that same design is manufactured using processes, Tooling, and components closer to production conditions.
| DV – Design Verification | PV – Production Validation |
|---|---|
| Primary focus is on Design Verification | Focus is on the product in a near-production condition |
| conditionThe specimen must be suitable for evaluating the intended design | The specimen must represent the product and production process to the level defined by the project |
| projectDesign issues should be identified before the product is finalized | Issues arising from the transition of the design into production also become important |
| Some specimen components may still be Prototype if permitted by the project process | The use of Production-intent components and processes becomes more important |
| Design changes following a Failure may be expected | Changes may have a greater impact on production readiness and the project schedule |
This table provides a general framework and should not replace the project’s internal Requirements. Some OEMs have their own specific definitions for DV, PV, and specimen maturity levels, and the Supplier should follow the process applicable to the specific project.
Is DV the Same as Verification and PV the Same as Validation?
Not quite. The similarity of the terms may lead to the assumption that DV is exactly the same as Verification and PV is exactly the same as Validation, but this direct mapping can be misleading. Verification and Validation are more fundamental engineering concepts concerned with compliance with Requirements and suitability for the intended use, whereas DV and PV more often refer to stages and structures used to implement product development activities within a specific process.
As its name suggests, Design Verification is directly related to verification of the design, but Production Validation should not be interpreted to mean that the entire concept of Validation occurs only during PV. Validation activities may take place at different stages of development, and their exact structure depends on the project process. Therefore, it is better to first understand the fundamental difference between Verification and Validation and then interpret DV/PV within the context of the product development program.
The article “What Are Validation and Verification? The Difference Between Validation and Verification in the Automotive Industry” explains this distinction and the role of Testing in V&V in greater detail.
Why Is PV Still Needed After Successful DV?
Passing DV shows that the design has met the relevant Requirements in the evaluated Configuration and under the evaluated conditions, but an important question remains: Will the product that is actually manufactured behave in the same way? The gap between an engineering Prototype and a production component can sometimes be greater than it appears.
For example, a DV specimen may have been manufactured with high precision and under the direct supervision of the engineering team. In production, the component must be manufactured within defined Tolerances, using a repeatable process and at higher volumes. Changes in Tooling, welding processes, material suppliers, assembly conditions, or even tolerance stack-up can affect final performance. PV is one of the stages or activities that can help evaluate the transition from a “verified design” to a “product manufactured through a production-representative process.”
From this perspective, DV and PV are neither competitors nor unnecessary repetitions of one another. Each focuses on a different type of risk: DV primarily examines risks associated with the design, while PV helps evaluate the effects of transferring that design into a production-representative product and process.
What Happens If the Product Fails During DV?
A Failure during DV is not necessarily unusual or an indication that the entire project has failed. One purpose of performing Verification before production is to identify design weaknesses while there is still an opportunity to make corrections. If a specimen fails to meet a specific Requirement, the engineering team should investigate the Failure Mode and Root Cause and determine whether the problem originates from the design, specimen, manufacturing method, test Setup, or another factor.
After a correction is made, simply building a new specimen and repeating the test without assessing the impact of the change is not sufficient. A design change may affect other Requirements as well; therefore, an Impact Analysis should be performed to determine which Verification activities need to be repeated or supplemented. This is where Traceability between the Requirement, Design Revision, and Test Result becomes important.
From a project planning perspective, it is also advisable to allow time for the possibility of Failure during DV. If all tests are scheduled immediately before the next Milestone, a single Failure may leave the team without sufficient time for analysis, modification, and Re-Test, creating unnecessary schedule pressure.
What Does a Failure During PV Mean?
A Failure during PV can have a greater impact on the project schedule because the product has reached a stage closer to production. At this point, it is necessary to determine whether the issue originates from the design, production process, Tooling, material, assembly, Supplier Variation, or other factors associated with the production-representative specimen and process. If the design passed DV but the PV specimen fails to meet the same Requirement, a detailed comparison of the specimens and their manufacturing processes can provide important clues for identifying the Root Cause.
Corrective action at this stage may also be more complex. A design change can affect Tooling, a process change may require reassessment of manufacturing capability, and a change in Supplier or material may trigger additional Verification activities. For this reason, as the project moves closer to production, late discovery of a problem can have a greater impact on project cost and schedule.
This is one reason why development testing and Pre-Testing can be important at appropriate stages of a project. A Pre-Test cannot guarantee successful DV or PV, but in some projects it can reveal certain known risks before reaching the main Gate. The article “What Is a Pre-Test and How Is It Different from a Formal Test?” explains its applications and limitations in greater detail.
How Is DVP&R Related to DV and PV?
DVP&R, or Design Verification Plan and Report, is a commonly used tool for structuring Verification activities during product development. Depending on the organization’s process, this document may bring together the Requirements being evaluated, Verification method, applicable standard or Procedure, number and type of specimens, test conditions, acceptance criteria, responsibilities, schedule, and ultimately the result in a traceable structure.
The value of a DVP&R does not come from simply having a large table of tests. It should make it possible to understand why each test is being performed and which Requirement or risk it is intended to address. If a test is included in the plan but its relationship to a Requirement is unclear, an expensive activity may be performed without generating the evidence needed for an engineering decision. Conversely, if an important Requirement has no defined Verification method, there is a gap in the evaluation plan.
In some development processes, DV and PV programs are also managed within this structure or through related documents. The details of the format and terminology may vary between organizations, but the common principle is Traceability between the Requirement, evaluation method, specimen, and result.
Do DV and PV Tests Have to Be the Same?
Not necessarily, but any differences should have an engineering justification. Some Requirements may be evaluated during both DV and PV so that the design is assessed first and the Production-intent product is evaluated later. Some tests may be required only at one stage, while in other cases the number of specimens or Configuration may differ between the two stages.
For example, a key structural test may be performed during DV to evaluate the design and then repeated during PV using a production-representative specimen. In contrast, a specific development evaluation used only to choose between two Concepts may no longer be relevant during PV. The decision should arise from the Requirement, risk, and product development program rather than from a simple rule that “everything performed in DV must be repeated exactly in PV.”
This is also important from a cost perspective. Automotive tests can be time-consuming and, in some cases, destructive; therefore, effective planning should generate the necessary evidence without adding repetitive tests that have no clear purpose.
An Example: DV and PV in Vehicle Seat Development
Suppose a new vehicle seat is being developed. During DV, a specimen is built to the maturity level defined by the project, and its various Requirements, including dimensions, mechanism performance, durability, and structural requirements, are evaluated. For Requirements related to seat and head-restraint strength, tests associated with UN R17 may also be included in the Verification program.
If testing shows that the Frame undergoes unacceptable deformation in a particular area, the design is modified and the impact of that change on other Requirements is evaluated. Once the design reaches an appropriate maturity level and the project moves closer to production, PV specimens are manufactured using parts and processes that represent production to the level defined by the project. At this point, the question is no longer simply whether the CAD model and engineering design are correct; it is also necessary to determine whether the product manufactured through a production-representative process maintains the expected performance.
For information about one of the tests relevant to this example, the Vehicle Seat Strength Test – ECE R17 page is available on the TAT website.
How Do DV and PV Specimens Differ from TA and CoP Specimens?
These terms should not be mixed together. DV and PV primarily relate to the product development process, whereas Type Approval and Conformity of Production have defined roles within regulatory type approval processes. A DV specimen is used to evaluate the design, and a PV specimen is closer to production status, but these labels alone do not mean that the specimen is suitable for Type Approval or CoP.
In Type Approval, the specimen and Configuration must be consistent with the relevant Type and the requirements of the applicable approval process. In CoP, the objective is to assess the continued conformity of production products with the approved Type. Therefore, even if a PV specimen is very close to production, the PV designation alone does not establish that it also satisfies all specimen requirements for TA or CoP.
For this reason, the purpose of the test should be clearly defined when sending a specimen to the laboratory. The article “What Should Be Checked Before Sending a Vehicle or Component to the Laboratory?” separately discusses the differences between Validation, TA, and CoP specimens and the importance of Configuration, Revision, documentation, and Fixtures.
When Should the DV and PV Test Program Be Prepared?
The test program should not be created only after the specimen is ready and the project team has started looking for a laboratory. DV/PV planning should preferably begin as Requirements are being finalized and the development program is taking shape. At that stage, it should be determined how each Requirement will be verified, which tests require physical specimens, what specimen maturity level is needed, and which tests require dedicated Fixtures, special equipment, or scheduling coordination.
This also makes specimen planning possible. If a test is destructive, the specimen used may not be suitable for a subsequent activity. If several tests are performed on the same specimen, their sequence may be important. If PV depends on production Tooling, the availability of that Tooling must be coordinated with the test schedule. All of these factors demonstrate that Test Planning is part of the development program, not an activity that begins only a few days before the specimen is sent to the laboratory.
To review available tests and related standards, you can use the TAT Table of Available Tests. For projects where the Requirements, applicable standards, or test program still require review, TAT Engineering and Consulting Services can also support requirements review and the planning of testing and validation activities.
DV and PV Are More Than Labels on Specimens
One of the simplest mistakes in a project is to reduce DV and PV to the names of two groups of specimens: “these five components are DV, and those five are PV.” In reality, the value of these stages depends on the questions they are intended to answer and the evidence they generate for project decisions. If the specimen maturity level is unclear, Requirements are not linked to tests, or differences between the specimen and the target design or process are not documented, simply using the DV or PV label does not create engineering validity.
DV should help the project team make decisions about design compliance and maturity based on sufficient evidence, while PV should generate additional evidence about the performance of a product manufactured through a production-representative process. The stronger the Traceability between the Requirement, specimen Revision, test method, and result, the more defensible the decisions based on DV and PV will be.
Ultimately, the main question is not “Is this a DV or PV specimen?” A more precise question is: What level of maturity has this specimen reached, which Requirement is it intended to evaluate, how representative is it of the target design or production condition, and what project decision will the test result support? The answers to these questions are what transform DV and PV from commonly used labels into practical tools for product development and risk management.