When DaimlerChrysler launched its supplier requirement of LPA's the training sessions told the story of one of the DCX transmission plants which got a huge (40% or so) improvement in FTT, as a result of doing LPAs.

Do any Covers have any stories of the benefit to their organizations of performing LPAs? No 'feel good factors' here please, show me the data.......

Andy

When DaimlerChrysler launched its supplier requirement of LPA's the training sessions told the story of one of the DCX transmission plants which got a huge (40% or so) improvement in FTT, as a result of doing LPAs.

Do any Covers have any stories of the benefit to their organizations of performing LPAs? No 'feel good factors' here please, show me the data.......

Andy


A number of my clients do these, and about half actually claim to get benefits. Better awareness, better attention, some findigns of things needing fixing. ...but few can show me hard metrics, outside of the number of findings.

I'm not a big fan, but if they think they help, why not. They don't hurt.

I find the more robust the system, the less additional benefit derived from LPA's. But, if the system is weaker, LPA's help.

'H'
As I suspected, from your post and the lack of response overall, that LPA's are 'much ado about nothing'. Surely, there must be benefit from getting management engaged, but I think the forced nature of revisiting the scene of the crime over and again diminishes it.

I'll wait to be proven wrong...........

Andy

I agree with you Andy. Not only do such "over audits" eventually become rote, but when it's done because the customer says you have to, there's no cognitive incentive. External versus internal motivation.

From what I have read in the Cove, it seems that one really has to have a good grasp of the LPA process and how to do one properly/effectively to make a difference. I'll admit, our audit team does not completely understand the LPA deal. Everyone has commented on how they feel that they are not performing an effective audit by following the LPA process of auditing.
Is there a recommended/good book or video or canned training package of some sort for self-training?

None that I know of, that's worth a hoot.:rolleyes:

I've done them and put a LPA systems together and written the training for in-house use. I think it's more than simply training - there's a law of dimishing returns at play here...

Andy

I am planning on going to the ASQ Quality Mgmt Conference in Dallas next month and take the LPA course. But after reading this thread I am hesitating. Do you think it is a good idea?

If you have to implement LPAs, then you should get some training or implementation assistance, one way or another. That session may be useful to you.

Andy

I am planning on going to the ASQ Quality Mgmt Conference in Dallas next month and take the LPA course. But after reading this thread I am hesitating. Do you think it is a good idea?

What do you plan to get out of the training? Any training is good to at least go through if you have the time and money.

I've been going through this with a client - Delphi is hot on layered process audits promoting them as "the best thing since sliced bread". These are some of my thoughts:

As a caution: I hope you do not get the idea that auditing is the answer. Audits are not bad, but in a place your size and the complexity of the processes, daily monitoring by your quality manager and/or plant manager should keep things going 'as planned'.

If you have to depend upon audits to keep people doing what they should be doing, especially in a facility like yours, you're heading for failures because you start to depend upon the audits to keep order, which they will not do. One maintains order and consistency through daily monitoring by supervisors and managers. It is one thing for an audit, especially one that goes badly, to open peoples eyes. But as I told you going in - I cannot, nor can anyone in my opinion, audit out problems.

A company should never have to prepare for an audit, such as an ISO 9001 or customer audit, but many have to because they let things go out of control. If a company has to prepare for an audit, systems are knowingly not being followed. While I have worked with many major international corporations over the years, I have worked with a number of small companies over the years and there are several I still keep in contact with. Those I am sill in contact with are companies that never prepare for an audit. They don't have to. They do things according to procedures. They rarely have any audit findings and when they do it's typically something that is very minor. Several haven't had so much as a minor finding in several years or more. One is Eagle Chemicals. A small, family owned company much like your company. They're a 'good personality' company, as I call it. Very low turnover rate, most of the employees have been there for over 10 years. People know their job responsibilities, most are cross trained, and people do what their job requires. There is excellent communication between management levels and - Well, it's almost like being part of a family.

Just some of my thoughts... :2cents:

I believe that the use of auditing like this heralds a return to the era of QC, when inspection of product was 'king'. It didn't matter how product was designed or made, as long as it got by inspection. Rejects piled up and the actual cause was never identified.

I've seen this with the development of management systems. Like product, it doesn't matter how it's documented (designed) or implemented (made) as long as we can get it by the Auditor (QC).

Even this place has thousands of postings lauding what the auditor thinks about the company's management system.............very little is told about what management or the rest of the place gets from it.

LPA's just another form of QC - the cause of the issue (not following work instructions) hasn't been diagnosed yet and nor will it be fixed. It's often in the design of the work and its associated instruction, but who audits that process, I ask.

A well run internal audit program should be able to deliver much, much more than LPAs, but because Mr. LaSorda of DCX is the champion of LPA and internal audits don't have a champion, LPA will always be seen to be the 'fix'......

Andy

A company should never have to prepare for an audit, such as an ISO 9001 or customer audit, but many have to because they let things go out of control. If a company has to prepare for an audit, systems are knowingly not being followed.


This is the way I have prepared for audits for several years. If your system has matured correctly it doesn't require "cleaning up" things for the audit.:cool:

From what I have read in the Cove, it seems that one really has to have a good grasp of the LPA process and how to do one properly/effectively to make a difference. I'll admit, our audit team does not completely understand the LPA deal. Everyone has commented on how they feel that they are not performing an effective audit by following the LPA process of auditing.
Is there a recommended/good book or video or canned training package of some sort for self-training?

All I know is that Chrysler offers a session with the supplier training sessions they hold a few times a year.