Can any one help me with this issue? I have recently taken a new job with a tier one automotive company and the company has open issues from their last surveillance audit. The auditor was not pleased with their internal audits and said that they did not have adequate process audits and that they should look at a layered audit technique.

I have come from an ISO 9000 system and I’m not sure what the auditor is talking about. In the ISO system we focused on auditing the quality system and compliance to it and our own internal procedures.


Thanks for your help!!!

Look at the customer-specific requirements of the companies you do business with. For example, I believe Diamler-Chrysler requires layered process audits.

Yes, Dcx request this as customer specific requirements.... as well as GM on the QSB.

Jkittle:

Your auditor is out of line in suggesting them. There are many threads/posts here about the use of LPA's, however, they are fundamentally different to the process audits required by ISO/TS 16949.

Apart from anything else, there's no requirement to have specifically trained auditors and the whole LPA thing is supposed to be run by Manufacturing personnel, by preference. To use LPA's instead of correcting the real issue (which sounds like ineffective implementation of your QMS audits) is a receipe for disaster. This isn't advice based on theory, but the ongoing practical application of LPA's

Beware.........

Andy

Thank you to all of you for the information. I do want to clear up one thing though. The reason our auditor recommended the LPA's is because we are a tier two on a couple of parts that are DCX parts.

This actually brings up another question, as the tier two are we still required to do LPA's? The only thing our customer requires is the PSO for new parts.


Jerry

The PSO (Fifth edition) for new parts asks for LPAs, so, if your customer requires the PSO, then you have to accomplish the LPA requirement.

The PSO (Fifth edition) for new parts asks for LPAs, so, if your customer requires the PSO, then you have to accomplish the LPA requirement.

Not true:mg: .............unless your customer passes on the DCX PSO requirements. If they have their own PSO requirements, then, unless LPA's are in that requirement, you only have to do the PSO. I'm thinking that because you do DCX parts isn't sufficient a reason since they don't go directly to DCX (or do they?). I know of other companies who supply DCX as a level 2, but they only do LPA's because their customer requires them.

Andy

Thank you to all of you for the information. I do want to clear up one thing though. The reason our auditor recommended the LPA's is because we are a tier two on a couple of parts that are DCX parts.

This actually brings up another question, as the tier two are we still required to do LPA's? The only thing our customer requires is the PSO for new parts.

Jerry

You do not supply DCX, so you are not directly responsible to meet DCX requirements, except those passed down by your direct customer. You are permitted to do them, if you find them to be beneficial. It is also different if he "recommended" them, or if he required them.

Jkittle:

Your auditor is out of line in suggesting them. There are many threads/posts here about the use of LPA's, however, they are fundamentally different to the process audits required by ISO/TS 16949.

Apart from anything else, there's no requirement to have specifically trained auditors and the whole LPA thing is supposed to be run by Manufacturing personnel, by preference. To use LPA's instead of correcting the real issue (which sounds like ineffective implementation of your QMS audits) is a receipe for disaster. This isn't advice based on theory, but the ongoing practical application of LPA's

Beware.........

Andy


Dang...I find myself agreeing with everything Andy said here...Gosh, Andy, that makes me feel uncomfortable... ;)

PS: except for "suggesting" them. Suggesting is OK, requiring is not. But, I don't find them particularly useful, unless there is a lot of low haning fruit in your company. They are good for that.

Can any one help me with this issue? I have recently taken a new job with a tier one automotive company and the company has open issues from their last surveillance audit. The auditor was not pleased with their internal audits and said that they did not have adequate process audits and that they should look at a layered audit technique.

I have come from an ISO 9000 system and I’m not sure what the auditor is talking about. In the ISO system we focused on auditing the quality system and compliance to it and our own internal procedures.


Thanks for your help!!!


I am confused. This post says you are tier 1. At tier 1 for DCX, Layered audits are required. The other posts discuss tier 2. Tier 2 it is not required.

After reviewing Chrysler's Layered Process Audits (LPAs), I don't see why you would not be implementing them in your company. We don't call them LPAs. We just call them Process Audits. Our company has long since split our audits into various titles. ISO Audits (usually reserved for our external auditors) concentrate on all aspects of the the current ISO system and it's clauses. We arev accredited so we know our systems are in line and just need to be reviewed occasionally. We don't spend a lot of time on them. We have been accredited for 15 years.
We concentrate on Product and Process audits. In Product Audits we identify an order and the Auditor tracks it through the entire process both physical and paper trail. This helps to show us that our system is working on all levels and that links between processes are functional (No gaps). In our Process aAdits we identify a Work Instruction or Procedure and see if what is written is what we actually do. During both of these audits we look at waste streams (Time, Manpower, Resources etc). We also look at training, understanding of the process, inputs and outputs, customers, specifications etc. The effectiveness and efficiency for the want of better words. Our aim is not so much to validate mistakes but to offer improvement that benefits both the employees and the company. A process audit is a valuable tool that IMHO should be of the utmost importance to management.

After reviewing Chrysler's Layered Process Audits (LPAs), I don't see why you would not be implementing them in your company. We don't call them LPAs. We just call them Process Audits. Our company has long since split our audits into various titles. ISO Audits (usually reserved for our external auditors) concentrate on all aspects of the the current ISO system and it's clauses. We arev accredited so we know our systems are in line and just need to be reviewed occasionally. We don't spend a lot of time on them. We have been accredited for 15 years.
We concentrate on Product and Process audits. In Product Audits we identify an order and the Auditor tracks it through the entire process both physical and paper trail. This helps to show us that our system is working on all levels and that links between processes are functional (No gaps). In our Process aAdits we identify a Work Instruction or Procedure and see if what is written is what we actually do. During both of these audits we look at waste streams (Time, Manpower, Resources etc). We also look at training, understanding of the process, inputs and outputs, customers, specifications etc. The effectiveness and efficiency for the want of better words. Our aim is not so much to validate mistakes but to offer improvement that benefits both the employees and the company. A process audit is a valuable tool that IMHO should be of the utmost importance to management.


OK with the Mfg. Process and Product audits. How do you handle the System level process audits?

Do not know how your audits are done but if they are finding Nonconformities and are adding value to your company then I would tell the auditor to start his own company and do it how s/he wants. Too many try to make your system the way they want it. I think that there is another thread on this issue.

Dang...I find myself agreeing with everything Andy said here...Gosh, Andy, that makes me feel uncomfortable... ;)

PS: except for "suggesting" them. Suggesting is OK, requiring is not. But, I don't find them particularly useful, unless there is a lot of low haning fruit in your company. They are good for that.

"Resistance is futile................."

:lmao:

Andy