Has anyone seen this guideline on Layered Process Audits?

I am interested in the comments made in the 'Foreword' and then (again) in the 'Background' and 'Summary', which state (in part);

"Industry data show that most manufacturing quality issues are caused by poor process control - often a failure.....to follow the required process steps".

and..........

"Employees typically do not refer to instructions or procedures before every step of a process; they often complete the process by memory....."

Does anyone know of the sources of "industry data" cited in this document? Does anyone have any comments regarding "operators not following their instructions" as a reason for quality issues.........compared, perhaps to Demings' musings........?

Andy

Has anyone seen this guideline on Layered Process Audits?

I am interested in the comments made in the 'Foreword' and then (again) in the 'Background' and 'Summary', which state (in part);

"Industry data show that most manufacturing quality issues are caused by poor process control - often a failure.....to follow the required process steps".

and..........

"Employees typically do not refer to instructions or procedures before every step of a process; they often complete the process by memory....."

Does anyone know of the sources of "industry data" cited in this document? Does anyone have any comments regarding "operators not following their instructions" as a reason for quality issues.........compared, perhaps to Demings' musings........?

Andy

Hi Andy

Here where I work, "operators not following their instructions" is an all too common reason for quality spills - with one caveat.

I would change it to read "operators not following their approved instructions".

"Someone" has "told them" to make a change from the formal method and has not taken the time to revise and retrain all the people.

That "someone" is never the operator...it is always a member of Demings beloved management.

So I think the failure is one of management to provide correct and current methods and educate all employees.

I can see LPA very easily being used to blame operators - Deming would not support this.

But a decent root cause done around why did they not follow procedures would soon reveal a system problem - possibly Deming would support this?

I guess it depends on the use made of the tool - and the bias of the tool user.

As a rough estimate, 80% of our spills are due to someone doing other than what is written down. When shown the document with the correct method (and their training record), we often get well "they" told me to.

I believe them....not their fault...you gotta do what your boss tells you to do...even when you know it is wrong. Shuttle o-rings is a sad case.

as a punitive tool (or result in such).

However, will they reveal that, in most cases, the reason for folks not following the work instructions results from some other process(es) not functioning effectively - like APQP??? (if you're an automotive supplier, who will have to do LPA). Or will they just be pencil whipped by the "auditors" (despite the guidance emploring us not to)??

What OEM actually involves their operators/associates in the development of PFMEA's/Control Plans/Work instructions? Since when did the new products teams ever utilize the vast, experience and resources available to them to ensure the process is well documented (as in something that operators can actually do.......

In the past I have seen station on a machining line (one that would be a candidate for LPA) and found that the associate had to gauge at least 15 features on one side of a component then 'leap' to the other side of the conveyor to gauge more, since the part couldn't be turned. And all in a very short cycle time!:eek: How could the operator 'follow instructions'?? I don't remember 'gymnastics' being on their competencies:mg:

An LPA would find this and fix it, obviously. :rolleyes:

But what part of the LPA would address this to the Launch Team or Process Engineering or the fact that the machining process was incapable, caused broken taps/drills because the run rate compromised quality for quantity.................????? Which manager is going to bring back that little snippet of info to 'Management Review' and understand where the business process that designed and then launched an incapable process?:nope:

Caster, thanks - we're on the same page.:agree1:

Anyone got a different experience?

Andy

I was tasked to implement Layered process audits. Does anyone have guidelines on this please.

I don't know that there published guidelines (except possibly with Delphi) but we go with:
* Operator - hourly checks of the process parameters
* Cell Technician - checks by shift
* Value Stream Mgr. - checks by week
* Plant Mgr. - checks by month

Each position has differing checklists to go by. We haven't had any issues with a customer (yet!).

Hope that helps some.

and I have a copy. I'm not certain if (due to the normal concerns) I should post it here, but there is one available. It's a combined effort from GM/DCX.

Andy

You can download the guidelines for Layered Process Audits from the AIAG website. The document number is CQI-8.

As far as I understand the document is a free to download only to members of AIAG everyone else needs to buy it.
If you search for layered audits or LPA you will find a lot of discussion and files.
Here are some to start with
What is a Layered Process Audit? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11170)
What is a 'layered audit'? Layered Process Audit (LPA) - A GM requirement? (http://http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=15854)

As far as I understand the document is a free to download only to members of AIAG everyone else needs to buy it.


Exactly the reason that I didn't post the .pdf as an attachment. The last thing I need is the AIAG sending me a cease and desist... However, the Fair Use provision of The Copyright Act of 1974 (?, I think is the date) says I can use it "for educational purposes"... but if I am correct, the AIAG may have a little more $$$$$$$ for attorney fees than I do :eek:

They'll come after me, not after you, but you made the right choice. Unless the AIAG notifies me otherwise it can't be posted here.

Here is a sample (attached) I found here last November. Maybe this will help you see how it works.

You can download the guidelines for Layered Process Audits from the AIAG website. The document number is CQI-8.

My company has an AIAG membership, so I get access to all their stuff.

The CQI-8 is a fine document, kudos to the authors.

If you are totally new to LPA, or you want one complete reference, I suggest you buy it, it is a bargain.

If you are willing to spend a few hours searching the Cove and googling, you will find all that it contains for free.

Can anyone give us a short, clear definition / summary of what a process audit is?

Thanks to all Cove members responded. I downloaded the attachements and it is really helpful. I certainly dont want the AIAG coming after you Marc. I checked AIAG Website and our company will purchase it. Castor i trust yoyr judgement on it being a fine document.
Once again thank for all the resposes.

Here is a .pdf that outlines the 14 step process.

and not one of them is getting management's support to do it! Well, I guess if it's mandated by the customer, we'll just get on and do it! But that's hardly a 'Best Practice' if there's no step to 'sell' the benefit to management!

Just 'form a team', like we haven't already got a ton of stuff to do. I've implemented LPA and it's not a simple as Luminous/DCX/GM would have you think it is.

Sure, one DCX plant got a big benefit to implementing LPA - from 44% FTC to 90 something! But did anyone ask who planned and released such a poorly performing process that only gives 44% FTC??:eek:

The guideline is 'o.k' but in the 21st century it's a bit off in it's assertion (in 4 places throughout the text) that the reasons for poor quality is that 'people don't follow work instructions'............Deming is spinning in his grave, poor fellow:rolleyes:

And, have the people who wrote this stuff ever heard of the 'Hawthorne Effect'? What about the other folks who write and release documents which can't be followed or processes which don't give a quality result.......will an LPA find that??

By all means implement LPA, but be careful. Everyone pencil whips them and after a while the low hanging fruit gets picked and it's just another quality chore for the Manufacturing Folks to bear.......:(

Messrs,

You are right about the LPA.The auditor let us do just as you said!