In your opinion...
1. (on 1st layer) What situation is better:
a) when supervisor is auditing his own process or
b) when supervisor is auditing other processes
2. (on 2nd layer) What situation is better:
a) when production managers and engineers are auditing production area or
b) when production managers, engineers, buyers, purchasing managers, sales managers, service managers are auditing production area
3. What should be the effect of LPA –
a) only temporary, containment actions (to correct nonconformity)
b) always corrective actions (focused on root cause)
c) always both
On every layer the same approach?
3. (on 1st layer) Who implement corrective actions in situation: supervisor found nonconformity in his own process? Supervisor found NC and the same supervisor implement CA?
4. Who and when review his corrective actions?
5. Who collects LPA reports from 1st layer? Only supervisors? Do they should prepare summary reports from their audits? For whom? In what form?

In your opinion...
1. (on 1st layer) What situation is better:
a) when supervisor is auditing his own process or
b) when supervisor is auditing other processes
2. (on 2nd layer) What situation is better:
a) when production managers and engineers are auditing production area or
b) when production managers, engineers, buyers, purchasing managers, sales managers, service managers are auditing production area
3. What should be the effect of LPA –
a) only temporary, containment actions (to correct nonconformity)
b) always corrective actions (focused on root cause)
c) always both
On every layer the same approach?
3. (on 1st layer) Who implement corrective actions in situation: supervisor found nonconformity in his own process? Supervisor found NC and the same supervisor implement CA?
4. Who and when review his corrective actions?
5. Who collects LPA reports from 1st layer? Only supervisors? Do they should prepare summary reports from their audits? For whom? In what form?

Answers: 1-a, 2-a, 3-a-every layer, 3 (first layer) - supervisor on own process, 4 -next layer, next LPA, 5-someone designated in production should coolect all sheets, analyse and report, for Production management.

The LPA report format has been posted here as a sample in an LPA thread, just do a search and you'll find it.

I have a problem - how to organize LPA corrective actions (on 1st layer).
For example... Team leader conducted LPA on his own line (1st layer LPA). He found 3 NC. He reported NC. Who should implement corrective actions? The same team leader? Who should verify corrective actions effectiveness? The same team leader?

Peters, I agree with AndyN answers.

1-a
2-b (involve all staff members in the LPA).
3-a (institute 8D process when necessary, e.g. repeat N/C)
4- next layer or designated person (for example Quality Manager, someone that understands corrective action process) when corrective action is complete. Verify also at next audit.
5- designated LPA person

The person that finds non conformity must address containment.

It is critical that the LPA process is championed by top management of the plant (plant manager and staff). Production has to be the leading the LPA process.

Keep the time to do an LPA down to 15-20 min. Limit the number of questions. Ask questions that can be answered with Yes or No. Questions should should include also why the question is on the LPA sheet.

Administration (reporting, audit scheduling, maintaining the sheets) can take a lot of time. There is software you can purchase that will reduce the administrative overhead of the LPA process. Check out http://www.lpadmin.com

Reports should be accessible to many people in your plant.

2nd question:
The corrective action should be verified by an 3rd person (not the teamleader).

In your opinion...
1. (on 1st layer) What situation is better:
a) when supervisor is auditing his own process or
b) when supervisor is auditing other processes
Unlike the other responders: do both. Once our supervisors got comfortable with LPAs, we started occasionally assigning an LPA outside their area in order to get the fresh set of eyes and independence from responsibility for the particular employee running the process.

3. What should be the effect of LPA –
a) only temporary, containment actions (to correct nonconformity)
b) always corrective actions (focused on root cause)
c) always both
Our approach is "both". Of course both options may not always apply. In addition, we find LPAs have a role in increasing awareness of the requirements for the process, whether it's inspection frequencies or required data on the paperwork, etc., for supervisor, employees and management.

3. (on 1st layer) Who implement corrective actions in situation: supervisor found nonconformity in his own process? Supervisor found NC and the same supervisor implement CA?
In our system, the auditor (regardless of layer), can assign corrective action to an individual; that individual is chosen based on the non-confomance found and which function is most likely to address the apparent root cause. Sometimes that's the production supervisor, sometimes it's Engineering, etc. Non-conforming reports are reviewed by the LPA administrator and corrective actions followed up. Summary reports are prepared for management.

As for the other questions: its better to involve as many functions in LPAs as possible. In some cases, your customer's requirements may specify participants and frequencies for doing and reporting audits.

B.G. Wiehle

Another question:
Which situation is better in LPA - when audit time is known for the audited person or not? (on 1st, 2nd and 3rd layer)
I'll be thankful for the answer...

Administration (reporting, audit scheduling, maintaining the sheets) can take a lot of time. There is software you can purchase that will reduce the administrative overhead of the LPA process.



I clicked the link, and it is taking me to a financial investing website. I'm very interested in this software, do you have another link?

Which situation is better in LPA - when audit time is known for the audited person or not? (on 1st, 2nd and 3rd layer)...

Which do you mean? time (date & shift) of audit or how long the audit takes?

The date of the audit should be recorded, because the audit is a snapshot in time (what was found at that moment). Depending on the circumstances and customer, you might want more precision (shift, time). We record scheduled date & shift and the date and shift the audit actually took place. The process is identified in the schedule.

How long the audit takes will be a function of the number and scope of questions, auditor experience, etc. We have designed our checklists so that audits take about 15 min, but that's an average. We don't track actual time taken.

B.G. Wiehle

Which do you mean? time (date & shift) of audit or how long the audit takes?

The date of the audit should be recorded, because the audit is a snapshot in time (what was found at that moment). Depending on the circumstances and customer, you might want more precision (shift, time). We record scheduled date & shift and the date and shift the audit actually took place. The process is identified in the schedule.

How long the audit takes will be a function of the number and scope of questions, auditor experience, etc. We have designed our checklists so that audits take about 15 min, but that's an average. We don't track actual time taken.

B.G. Wiehle

I think Peters is asking whether or not auditees should be informed in advance. The answer is "yes." Doing audits by ambush isn't good practice. Auditees should be able to know in advance so as to be available, and not have to answer a bunch of questions when something more important is going on. If you don't trust auditees to be forthright, you have a different problem that ambushing them isn't going to help.

For me - one of the most important problems in LPA is lack of NC in LPA. And management has problem: "why is so good when is so bad"?
1st layer auditors-supervisors don't want to have problems and don't want to see any NC. Or line workers do their job properly but only during the scheduled audit.
So I ask - Can 2nd layer auditors-managers/engineers/specialists do audit without announcement? Is it good idea?

What you are seeing is the called the 'Hawthorne Effect'. This is what people do when driving along the road, over the posted speed limit and they see the police. They slow down to the speed limit and later speed back up. Doing unannounced audits will not help the worker/management relationship, because it's like being 'found out' by your parents when you were young!

Just do the LP audits the way you do, and do better internal audits to discover why the process isn't performing the way management want it to. Some of the reasons that LPAs don't work is due to the fact that they don't investigate, they just do (mindless) compliance.

Maybe this is a problem of mistrusting.
Managers don't trust the supervisors and workers.
And workers, supervisors don't trust the managers.
Managers don't want to know supervisors/workers problems.
Supervisors and workers lie - "Everything is OK" (because they can't count on managers)
Managers think - "Let's do more audits. Let's implement LPA. It will be our tool for production control". They implement LPA and they have nothing.
Managers think - "Let's do audits without announcement. We will catch them"
I reflect... Is it good direction?...

Maybe this is a problem of mistrusting.
Managers don't trust the supervisors and workers.
And workers, supervisors don't trust the managers.
Managers don't want to know supervisors/workers problems.
Supervisors and workers lie - "Everything is OK" (because they can't count on managers)
Managers think - "Let's do more audits. Let's implement LPA. It will be our tool for production control". They implement LPA and they have nothing.
Managers think - "Let's do audits without announcement. We will catch them"
I reflect... Is it good direction?...

You are explaining the situation very well and LPAs will not help to resolve this.

I suggest that until there is a change of wind with management nothing will improve. It sounds like you have a great opportunity to lay out for your management team that audits (with, perhaps, the exception of LPAs) are there to help identify why the processes are not effectively delivering good performance. In fact, these performance issues should be what they are being measured on, by their management! So, if you can educate them to see that the internal audits are there to focus attention (for corrective actions) on the poor performance. LPAs are just about conformance, not performance.

I think Peters is asking whether or not auditees should be informed in advance. The answer is "yes." ...

I get it now!
Agreed that audits shouldn't be a surprise. However, LPAs are a little tricky in this regard. Since the auditor is auditing a process and may question an operator who happens to be responsible that day and shift, advance notice of that specific audit is limited.

Since production supervisors are the layer 1 auditors (daily audits), they have access to the schedule. Layer 2 (other management) and Layer 3 (top management) audits are less frequent (weekly or less). Depending on the audit program, any manufacturing operation may be fair game at any time (more like a snap inspection than a system audit).

Just like any audit, I, as a layer 2 auditor in our LPA system, introduce myself to the operator when I start and discuss findings with operator and supervisor afterward. That's courtesy as much as anything.

(I'll respond to the next posts separately)

B.G. Wiehle

I get it now!
Agreed that audits shouldn't be a surprise. However, LPAs are a little tricky in this regard. Since the auditor is auditing a process and may question an operator who happens to be responsible that day and shift, advance notice of that specific audit is limited.

Since production supervisors are the layer 1 auditors (daily audits), they have access to the schedule. Layer 2 (other management) and Layer 3 (top management) audits are less frequent (weekly or less). Depending on the audit program, any manufacturing operation may be fair game at any time (more like a snap inspection than a system audit).

Just like any audit, I, as a layer 2 auditor in our LPA system, introduce myself to the operator when I start and discuss findings with operator and supervisor afterward. That's courtesy as much as anything.

(I'll respond to the next posts separately)

B.G. Wiehle

This one of the reasons (IMHO) that the emphasis is on LPA ownership being with Manufacturing management, and not 'Quality', so they make provision for communications and reduce surprises. Doesn't always happen, tho'.

For me - one of the most important problems in LPA is lack of NC in LPA. And management has problem: "why is so good when is so bad"?
1st layer auditors-supervisors don't want to have problems and don't want to see any NC. Or line workers do their job properly but only during the scheduled audit.
So I ask - Can 2nd layer auditors-managers/engineers/specialists do audit without announcement? Is it good idea?

2 years ago, we were finding a similar effect when the metrics for the various audit layers were compared - typically the supervisors were finding only 1/2 as many non-conformances as layer 2 auditors. Reasons were
immediate fixes were not recorded as non-conformances (no further corrective action required)
misunderstanding of the requirements (variation not regarded as important)
familiarity with process leading to shortcuts during audit (assumed compliance)
The variation in NC rates was discussed with the supervisors. Also once in a while, supervisors get to audit in other areas, where they are not responsible for the operator. Our management supports better layer 1 auditing and the rates are much closer now.

B.G. Wiehle

:bigwave: also, take note the name of the Auditee and his/her position regardless it is 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd layer… not only it will add to your knowledge that there is such person exist on this planet… but also, it’ll give your audit evidence a more concrete findings during audit verification & validation…