We are going for our TS stage 2 audit next week and I have a Dilema with a CSR. I think I know the answer, but all advice is welcomed

We have Delphi as a customer, and part of their CSR's is a requirement for layered audits, to be carried out daily by op's staff, weekly by middle managment and monthly by the Plant Manager.

However we only do one product for Delphi, which runs (at most) two days,every three to four months (hardly seems worth the effort - I know). Does Delphi's requirement for layered audits only apply to their products and if so how will I ever be able to show compliance to this CSR if it hardly ever runs to be audited? Or must I carry out Layered Audits to the timescales given, regardless of what running

Our take is that the Layered Process Audit would only apply to Delphi specific product. As long as you have the procedure in place and functioning each time you run their product, you're covered.

If you really think about it, if each CSR was to apply to every part you manufacture, why would we (suppliers) be held accountable for anything regarding policies/procedures? In other words CSRs, if taken as meant to be applied "universally", could (most likely WOULD) conflict, after all this is the automotive world :bonk: . I don't think I'm expressing this as well as I should be - Every customer of ours has an idea that has helped them improve in some manner. Because it worked for them, they decide that ramrodding that same process down a supplier's throat will solve all their "supplier ills". It doesn't work that way. An example - Delphi pushes (forces?) the 5-Why approach to Problem Solving. Another customer of ours pushes a different technique (and on and on...). These are both CSRs but could not possibly be applied "universally" to all products. Yet we have to apply the specific format to reply to the specific customer. (As I've ranted before:rolleyes: ) a wonderful example of "value added" stuff we, as suppliers, are forced to go through and yet give price breaks every year.

Sorry for the disjointed response but I hope I've answered your question somewhere in there, from my perspective.

Thanks Bill, that pretty much sums up what I was thinking,

On a similar note I also received an interesting letter from Du Pont's plastic resin business today, stating that due to the excessive demands placed on them by the various CSR's, all their European sites are to drop TS certification, although they will still work in "compliance" to TS (if you can be, when you dont accept CSR's) and in their words "We will continue working with the industry to make ISO/TS 16949:2002 the tool it is intended to be"

Every customer of ours has an idea that has helped them improve in some manner. Because it worked for them, they decide that ramrodding that same process down a supplier's throat will solve all their "supplier ills". It doesn't work that way. An example - Delphi pushes (forces?) the 5-Why approach to Problem Solving. Another customer of ours pushes a different technique (and on and on...). These are both CSRs but could not possibly be applied "universally" to all products. Yet we have to apply the specific format to reply to the specific customer.
Right on.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Bill Ryan) Every customer of ours has an idea that has helped them improve in some manner. Because it worked for them, they decide that ramrodding that same process down a supplier's throat will solve all their "supplier ills". It doesn't work that way. An example - Delphi pushes (forces?) the 5-Why approach to Problem Solving. Another customer of ours pushes a different technique (and on and on...). These are both CSRs but could not possibly be applied "universally" to all products. Yet we have to apply the specific format to reply to the specific customer.

Yeah, you got it. I am wondering why we went to all the expense and training to get TS16949 certified because we are getting bombarded with CSRs, and supplier manuals, etc,etc,. What happened to the one uiniversal approved system. This is going back to the way it was done 30 years ago.
Every customer had their own system and came in to beat you up.:frust:

The TS doesn't help any by supporting the CSRs. I believe the CSRs should be put into the contract OR studied very carefully for ROI. At somepoint the cost of doing these CSRs is greater than the benefit of doing business.

At somepoint the cost of doing these CSRs is greater than the benefit of doing business.

Thats exactly where the company I work for is at the moment, but it's what someone just moving into automotive has to do to get a foot in the door

We are going for our TS stage 2 audit next week and I have a Dilema with a CSR. I think I know the answer, but all advice is welcomed

We have Delphi as a customer, and part of their CSR's is a requirement for layered audits, to be carried out daily by op's staff, weekly by middle managment and monthly by the Plant Manager.

However we only do one product for Delphi, which runs (at most) two days,every three to four months (hardly seems worth the effort - I know). Does Delphi's requirement for layered audits only apply to their products and if so how will I ever be able to show compliance to this CSR if it hardly ever runs to be audited? Or must I carry out Layered Audits to the timescales given, regardless of what running


CSRs, by definition, are Customer Specific Requirements, and as such, do NOT need to be applied "universally." If you find a particular requirement would be useful to a different customer, that is your prerogative, but it is not required.

I also sympathize with the proliferation of each customer coming out with their flavor of CSR requirements. It does miss the point. I think some are appropriate, but some merely take the place of a customer having to think things through.

The marketplace has a way of sorting it out over time.

May be worth checking with your Delphi SQA - we asked and received a written reply that "the layered audit process is not mandatory. You can therefore carry out your 'normal' audit process and act upon those results."

May be worth checking with your Delphi SQA - we asked and received a written reply that "the layered audit process is not mandatory. You can therefore carry out your 'normal' audit process and act upon those results."

Ah there in lies problem number 2, we inherited this jobn from our sister site in Wales when it closed around 2 years ago, we supply 2 parts to locations in India, Brazil and Poland, however no one in Delphi wants to accept responsibility for us, it has taken me around 4 months to get fully registered on their supplier portal, supplier performance was last carried out in June 2005 and when you try and speak to anyone in the organisation regarding CSR's or supplier performance you are passed around the globe with no end result.

However at least our TS stage 2 audit seems to be going well :D

...however no one in Delphi wants to accept responsibility for us, it has taken me around 4 months to get fully registered on their supplier portal, supplier performance was last carried out in June 2005 and when you try and speak to anyone in the organisation regarding CSR's or supplier performance you are passed around the globe with no end result... *sigh* - that sounds typical - unfortunately.

However at least our TS stage 2 audit seems to be going well :DGreat - good luck and let us know how the rest of the week goes!!:agree1:

Where is the requirement stated by Delphi? I do not see it in Section 8 of their Customer Specific Requirements (dated June 28, 2006). Is it in the Supplier Performance Development Process (SPDP) talked about in Section 7? I have not gotten my hands on that Process Documentation - yet!

I only came back into the automotive world, full-time employment, a month ago. The Internal Audit system is needing some work and the registrar knows it. The company has initiated a type of LPA system that covers the manufacturing processes and products across-the-board, but it has not been incorporated into the Internal Audit System. I am trying to determine if the LPAs could be performed in lieu of the Manufacturing Process and Product Audits. Someone (a quality professional at another company) told me that he thought that DELPHI required the LPAs to be 'above-and-beyond' your regular Internal Audit System. I have not confirmed this yet. Any recommendations and/or suggestions would be appreciated (other than those which would have me actually contacting DELPHI or my registrar to get direction).

Thanks,
Doug

Doug,

There is a hyperlink on page 11 of the Delphi Customer Specific Requirements that takes you to a several page document on layered audits.

Doug,

There is a hyperlink on page 11 of the Delphi Customer Specific Requirements that takes you to a several page document on layered audits.

Valeri,

Thanks for the lead! You at least forced me to go to the supplier portal to find the hyperlink. I was working off a copy of the pdf which did not have the hyperlink.

I have read the document, Layered Audits, but still do not know how it is 'couched' into the Supplier Performance Development Process (SPDP). Are the LPAs a requirement or a recommendation?

As for LPAs being in lieu of Manufactured Process & Product Audits, I have tried reasoning the theoretical differences between the two and end up confused. About the only difference that I can see is the type of Audit or level of independecy of the auditors. LPAs are supervisory/Management (First Party - Guarding Your Own Chicken Coupe) type audits of product realization processes whether the process is a manufacturing process / operation or not (Even the Delphi Document places the LPA in the Product Realization Section of the System and not in the Measurement, Analysis and Improvement Section), while Manufacturing and Product Audits are to be performed by auditors that ensure objectivity and impartiality to the audit (Second Party - Not Guarding Your Own Chicken Coupe). Both have the general purpose of determining conformance to the quality system requirements and determining the effectiveness of the process.

I know that I am to make the requirements work for me, but I still do not have a clear vision as to how to incorporate these requirements and not duplicate efforts. Right now we have personnel from various levels of management, from different departments (primarily the Production Department and the Support Departments - Engineering, Quality, Purchasing, & Sales) performing something called LPAs (the Checklist is even more involved than that listed in the Delphi Document), but the scheduling is just one level. Something like 12 - 15 audits are performed (scheduled anyway) each week and the results tabulated / paretoized and Corrective Actions assigned. It is quite a process, but it seems to be a mixture of the two concepts without being in clear compliance to either requirement (if LPAs are a Customer Requirement). If LPAs are not a requirement, then I would simply change the title from LPAs to Manufacturing Process Audits, where Product Audits and incorporated at various staged of production and Product Dock Audits are performed as required. If LPAs are required, then I would have to have management re-think how to comply with that customer's requirement.

Again, I am looking for your guidance and suggestions and/or recommendations, other than actually bringing the subject up to the customer and/or the registrar?

Thanks,
Doug

No!!!!!.

If you review the Delphi Specific Rquirements of June 2006, there is no "shall" requirement for LPAs.

Bob Abllondi:lmao:

No!!!!!.

If you review the Delphi Specific Rquirements of June 2006, there is no "shall" requirement for LPAs.

Bob Abllondi:lmao:

I would agree that you do not see "shall" in CSR, but our registrar audits it like it is.

Doug