I have been searching the Cove for LPA's and I have learned a few things. But does anyone know of a really good book to purchase?
:thanx:

There is a guidline from AIAG, $50 if you are not a member for 30 pages.
They also have an even more expensive workbook
There are some good presentations in the attachments. Let us write the book with our discussions.
I understand your feeliongs for a book but I don't think there is a "really good" one
What do you want to ask, let's try

There is a guidline from AIAG, $50 if you are not a member for 30 pages.
They also have an even more expensive workbook
There are some good presentations in the attachments. Let us write the book with our discussions.
I understand your feeliongs for a book but I don't think there is a "really good" one
What do you want to ask, let's try

Well. I didn't know LPA's existed until I was perusing the auditing threads. Then I was wondering... what is an LPA and how does it differ from an internal audit? :confused: So then I searched for that in the Cove and found out some more....so hence my question about finding a "good book". I just want to read and learn....self-training. :D

It's an interesting story, some of which I have here.......

DaimlerChrysler has a new transmission plant in Kokomo, IN. When they launched the plant the product only had an FTC of about 47%. The (then new) Manufacturing EVP (Tom LaSworda) of DCX had used LPA's at GM (can't remember why, I was told but I've lost that detail!).

The LPA's at Kokomo increased the FTC to 95% and showed that assembly workers didn't follow their work instructions. As a result, DCX made it a requirement of their suppliers to do LPA's to feel the benefit........

As mentioned before, there's an AIAG Guideline on LPA. It states that industry data shows poor quality comes from people not following instructions, so LPA's ensure that they do.:notme:

To me this seems to be flawed data and doesn't consider one or two key points which should be addressed: -

The 'Hawthorne Factor' - the well documented issue that people do better if they think someone's watching.:agree1:

Deming's teachings which tell us that fear should be driven out of the workplace (how do you feel about being watched by the bosses' bosses) and that a defective process produces defects, no matter what the operator does. (The famous 'red bead' experiment).;)

Who said the work instructions can be followed? Who wrote them? Expeience shows W.I's are often ficticious and written by one group of people (engineers) for another group of people (operators).:rolleyes:

And......who launched a product with only a 47% FTC - what happened to the APQP process???????:mg:

Whoops.....

Andy

What is "FTC"?

Thanks for asking that question Jim, I thought I was the only one in the dark!

Thanks for asking that question Jim, I thought I was the only one in the dark!

No, I think there are lots of us here where the light doesn't shine :D

This is what I know about FTC:
Freedom Technologies Corporation
This is a leading provider of error proofing solutions in the automotive industry.

FTC = First Time Capability
aka
FTT = First Time Through
aka
FPY = First Pass Yield, et al

Andy

Like in my introduction post, no disrespect for the college crowd but.........I think all quality people should have to be an operator in order gain the real world knowledge of what's possible and what's fantasy.;) It wouldn't take long, 3 months would do it.

Try the web site Layeredprocessaudits.com
This maybe helpful....??

Thanks for the info.

I am working with a client on implementing LPAs. We are looking at ways to make it value added (they do not have a customer requirement to do LPAs) and reduce the administrative overhead (scheduling, tracking N/C, version control of documents, %complete and son. Googling LPA terms found this website that offers software as a service to help administering the LPA process.

www.lpaadmin.com (http://www.lpaadmin.com)

I discovered that site too. I reviewed the download and it looks like a very nice system...the one thing I didn't like was that they really do not share the cost? It seems to be based on how much of the system you will be using.
The same really could be created in Access. Just my 2 cents

Probably it could be made in access by an experienced programmer. On the other hand, it would take a lot time and effort specifying what you want exactly and then find someone to develop the application.

As part of the research for my client, I did talk to someone at the LPAADMIN company and the price is very reasonable. Give them a call or send them an email. The phone number is on the website.

You are correct; I will contact them and get the cost before knock it :o
Thanks!

Thanks for the info.

I am working with a client on implementing LPAs. We are looking at ways to make it value added

IMHO it's not worth it. Everyone, yes everyone I know who has been doing LPAs since they were required by DCX sees little to no benefit, once all the obvious issues are found and fixed. Takes about a month. Even a certain plant (involved in early LPA implementation) has it's management pencil whipping them. As one guy said to me, "Just how many times can you ask the same operators, the same questions and get a different answer....?"

BTW - doing them doesn't necessarily fix the cause of the problem, either!

If you don't have to do them to satisfy a customer, my advice is don't but beef up your internal audit..........

BTW - doing them doesn't necessarily fix the cause of the problem, either!

I don't think that is the systems fault is it? Who approves Corrective Actions? are they using the 5-why method?
Why not change the questions? Focus on another area? FIFO, Poke Yoke, Training, Quality Alerts, The reject process, the re-work process, Lean activites, safety observations, cost savings, Advanced print release, Quoting activities...and on-on..
This system in my mind is a living document, it should be reviewed, changed, made value added as if it was a FEMA.

That's what an effective internal audit system is for!

If you look into why LPAs started, the story isn't a good one (see other posts here). No-one fixed the APQP process............and what's the bets that when Cerberus start introducing new products, the same type of issues return?

If an organization had an internal audit program that did what it was supposed to do, instead of replicating the third-party process, those kinds of issues would have been found. Instead, because Chrysler thought it got good results, now everyone has untrained 'quasi-auditors' running around filling out a lot of checklists, without getting to the bottom of the issues. A lot of what we 'see' in Manufacturing' isn't their problem. It started somewhere else - Product/Process Engineering, materials control, HR, QA etc. etc. But it never gets reported in those areas like a true internal audit would.

Just like a lot of things in the automotive supply base, LPAs are 'personality-driven'. Just because some big-wig says they're good, everyone agrees, and the poor internal auditors are doomed to being 'got out' once a year.........

Andy,

I strongly disagree with you. I have seen personally LPA processes that are value added and are reducing risk for the company. LPA done right is championed by manufacturing, not the quality department.

Now, if the LPA is only to check the box, so that one can show to Chrysler or GM that we are doing LPA, that is the wrong approach.

Kees:
I guess my frustration with LPAs is that we had perfectly good answers in place and most organizations didn't use them - their internal audits. If these had been done properly and the folks at 'Corporate' had known that, they wouldn't have 'invented' yet another program to deal with the ineffectiveness of another. But that's 'Corporate' for you.

BTW - one Tier 1 I know of has an LPA which takes 40 minutes to complete..........

Friends,

I know of organizations that conduct LPA's all the time, but do not call it that. These managers and supervisors practice MBWA (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mbwa&btnG=Google+Search). Something that Leaders should do anyway. Because this did not happen, and management was often ignorant why serious problems occurred affecting the Customer, some OEM's made it a requirement.

Stijloor.

Andy,

40 minutes is too long. 20 minutes maximum. only high risks areas. The Tier 1 should review their LPA process and determine what can be improved. The LPA checklist might have grown over time and should be checked against the company current risks.

LPAs should be done daily and less frequently by others higher in the organization. (thanks to Stijloor) LPAs can be partially seen as MBWA in a structured, with follow-up and documented way. LPAs (when done right) gets management out on the floor, away from the email, blackberries, phone conferences and meetings.

In general internal audit are not done daily and same areas are not repeated for quite some time. Internal audits takes longer than LPA do.

Kees.
PS. Maybe we should continue this discussion in dutch.

PS. Maybe we should continue this discussion in dutch.

Kees,

Zou dat mogenlijk zijn hier? Would that be possible here?
Zou Marc dat goed vinden? Would Marc approve?
Laat ons maar in 't Engels communiceren. Let's just communicate in English.

Stijloor.

Andy,

40 minutes is too long. 20 minutes maximum. only high risks areas. The Tier 1 should review their LPA process and determine what can be improved. The LPA checklist might have grown over time and should be checked against the company current risks.

LPAs should be done daily and less frequently by others higher in the organization. (thanks to Stijloor) LPAs can be partially seen as MBWA in a structured, with follow-up and documented way. LPAs (when done right) gets management out on the floor, away from the email, blackberries, phone conferences and meetings.

In general internal audit are not done daily and same areas are not repeated for quite some time. Internal audits takes longer than LPA do.

Kees.
PS. Maybe we should continue this discussion in dutch.

Kees,

You're correct, internal audits are done less frequently, take longer, not repeated in some areas etc. etc. That's no reason to be doing LPAs to make up for inadequacies of the internal audit program. All the good thing you describe for LPAs are equally valid for a good internal audit. Why shouldn't Manufacturing Management be behind internal quality systems audits? If they were done to benefit the organization instead of being forced on them, using ISO as the stick and so on. An effective internal audit program would involve management, get them on the shop floor, be done frequently in areas which have issues, take a (relatively) short time, but as I've endeavored to point out in (many) other posts, internal audits are based on third party techniques. So let's go and fix what's not working first.

Indeed, one of the new dangers encountered with a program of LPAs running along side of internal audits is that when the quality auditors raise issues on the manufacturing line, often the response from management is 'We did an LPA and we didn't find anything wrong.......!"

Kees, we're not going to agree on this one, I'm sorry. Time will tell, I suppose......

Kees,

Zou dat mogenlijk zijn hier? Would that be possible here?
Zou Marc dat goed vinden? Would Marc approve?
Laat ons maar in 't Engels communiceren. Let's just communicate in English.

Stijloor.

Please see this postTransfer to ISO/TS 16949 - People from Belgium or The Netherlands here? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=173822&postcount=4)