I wanted to ask the members of the best forum on the web about this one.

We had the corporate audit team in our facility this week and they told me something that I had not heard before. They said that 8.2.2 (specifically 8.2.2.1, 8.2.2.2, 8.2.2.3,) is calling for layered audits.

Is this true?

Opinions?

:bonk:

I wanted to ask the members of the best forum on the web about this one.

Suckup! :D


We had the corporate audit team in our facility this week and they told me something that I had not heard before. They said that 8.2.2 (specifically 8.2.2.1, 8.2.2.2, 8.2.2.3,) is calling for layered audits.

Is this true?

Opinions?

:bonk:


Well, 8.2.2.1 calls for auditing the QMS, 8.2.2.2 calls for manufacturing process audits, and 8.2.2.3 calls for product audits. Isn't that pretty much what layered auditing means?

I was remiss when I tried to explain what they told me.

They siad that I would have to have different layers of the organization audit.
That the GM should audit,
That the Production Manager should audit.
That the employees in the different layers of the organization HAVE to audit their own layer.

While this is a good idea is it a requirement?


:confused:

I don't want to say "no" and be wrong about it. But I don't see in the standard where it says anything of the sort. Also, my company does not do this and nobody's taken away our certificate yet.

Maybe someone else could shed more light on it.

The Layered Audit is not required by TS, however it is a CSR (Customer Specific Requirement) for various organizations. You need to look at your customer specifics to determine you are required.

We are 2nd or 3rd tier automotive. Our customers are the ones that deal directly with Ford, GM, etc.

The only requirement that we have had so far is to be TS 16949.

To me, our corporate people are asking for something (although it's a good thing to do) that is not required under TS.

Thanks for the input!

:argue:

Dear dbzman

I think If I am right, layered audit refers to auditing the same process by different persons occupying positions in the different layers in management. One layer could be Marketing, the others could New Product Development, HRD and so on. Idea is to getting view of the same process from different angles.

Collecting data from different layers, the same needs be analysed and work out a way for improvement.

While the line you have mentioned about clauses 8.2.1, 8.2.2 etc serve the different process i.e., one is auditing the QMS, second is auditing the Product and third is auditing the Process. Hence, you see that there is nothing like layer sort of thing. All are auditing different perceptions in an organisation.

Please revert back if you feel differently

HS Anand

We had the same conversation in our organization and opted to not implement Layered audit and the Auditor was fine. In the case of a CSR DCX does require it for there PSO 5, Gm only requires it if you have QSB implemented. Ford does not have a requirement on this.

We have implemented QSB and with that Layered Audits.

Therefore it is not a required element in the TS. :cool:

Layered Process Audits (LPAs) is a DCX and GM requirement. The intent for TS is to meet Customer Specific Requirements which in this case is conducting LPAs. DCX has mandatory LPA training which is fairly inexpensive and provides DCX's LPA requirements. There are 2 types of LPAs: auditing the process and verifying error proofing/mistake proofing methods/devices. The LPA layers cascade throughout the facility, 1st layer=shift supervisors, 2nd layer functional area managers, 3rd layers top plant management.

We had the same conversation in our organization and opted to not implement Layered audit and the Auditor was fine. In the case of a CSR DCX does require it for there PSO 5, Gm only requires it if you have QSB implemented. Ford does not have a requirement on this.

We have implemented QSB and with that Layered Audits.

Therefore it is not a required element in the TS. :cool:

Pardon me, I'm a little confused by your answer. It is not expressly stated as a requirment in the TS standard. But your customers' specific TS requirements are also part of the TS standard. So, if you are a supplier to DCX or GM, then it is a "TS Requirement." So...wouldn't that make it a TS requirement for you?

Layered Process Audits are not an ISO/TS 16949 requirement! They are customer specifics. So, unless you have GM, DCX or Delphi as a customer, you don't have to do them. An LPA is simply a way of getting the various manufacturing processes for those customers to have their issues elevated through the 'layers' of management up to the most senior as a way of preventing 'latent' issues escaping to the customer. In my experience, although DCX will tell you they had sustantial FTC improvements, LPA's have the 'Hawthorne Effect' about them - while management take an interest, the people follow their work instructions to the letter - but what happens when no-one is looking? Sure, some stuff will be driven out, but will it fix the process which caused the issues in the first place? I believe that LPA's are simply an inspection activity rather than getting to the root of the problem - the reason that ineffective process and controls are launched in the first place - the APQP process! Until D and P FMEA's, PPAP's SPC etc are done effectively instead of being pencil whipped, the LPA's will always be 'shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted'...........
Andy Nichols

I believe that LPA's are simply an inspection activity rather than getting to the root of the problem - the reason that ineffective process and controls are launched in the first place - the APQP process! Until D and P FMEA's, PPAP's SPC etc are done effectively instead of being pencil whipped, the LPA's will always be 'shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted'...........
Andy Nichols
I raised a similar points here Auditor qualification in ISO/TS 16949 for different types of audits (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14152) and
Audit Differences - Process, Product, Internal? (4 questions) - TS 16949 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14147)
Does a LPA really count as a Manufacturing process audit as per 8.2.2.3 as its scope is very limited:confused:

Layered Process Audits are not an ISO/TS 16949 requirement! They are customer specifics. So, unless you have GM, DCX or Delphi as a customer, you don't have to do them. An LPA is simply a way of getting the various manufacturing processes for those customers to have their issues elevated through the 'layers' of management up to the most senior as a way of preventing 'latent' issues escaping to the customer. In my experience, although DCX will tell you they had sustantial FTC improvements, LPA's have the 'Hawthorne Effect' about them - while management take an interest, the people follow their work instructions to the letter - but what happens when no-one is looking? Sure, some stuff will be driven out, but will it fix the process which caused the issues in the first place? I believe that LPA's are simply an inspection activity rather than getting to the root of the problem - the reason that ineffective process and controls are launched in the first place - the APQP process! Until D and P FMEA's, PPAP's SPC etc are done effectively instead of being pencil whipped, the LPA's will always be 'shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted'...........
Andy Nichols


Absolutely correct, it is only a requirement if you are subject to the particular customer specific requirements. In that case, it is then a TS related requirement for that organization, because the structure of TS is such that the TS Standard and the relevant Customer Specific Requirements form the basis for TS for that organization. QS had the same thing with Section I and II back in 1998. The internet approach has just taken the place of Section II.

By the way, all the other comments about LPA's in particular. Very well stated. I believe it is a fix that works for DCX because they have so many unresolved problems and partially implemented systems. A well implemented and controlled system is the superior approach. But, in a less than perfect environment, perhaps LPA's can provide some value. Most of my clients don't do them because their customers don't require them, and their systems are quite robust already.

You could use an LPA as a Manufacturing Process audit, but it's scope is too limited. Also, in a conventional sense, a Manuf. Process audit is an audit of the relevant Control plan and associated work instructions. So in most cases, since an LPA isn't actually an audit of these key documents, they won't fly. Another issue is that DCX don't use control plans (except in one or two plants which are QS/TS compliant). Most DCX facilities are only ISO 9001:2000 (for reason we can't go into here..............) and are not required to have Control Plans in the same way as suppliers have.

Andy