In all the presentations for LPA checklists and in reviewing completed/implemented checklists I have found no information/evidence regarding evaluation for "effectiveness". If an LPA is intended to fulfil the TS requirements for a "Manufacturing Process Audit", (clause 8.2.2.2) which TS requires "to determine its effectiveness", and if effectiveness is defined roughly as performance to objectives (process measures), then there appears to be a gap to requirements. Or am I missing something?:thanks:

Bingo! and welcome to the Cove!

I'm not sure if you've had a chance to perform a search on the topic here, but you might well find similar discussions. I, for one, have questioned the validity of the LPA approach as a substitute for any kind of regular quality audit, but since it's flavor of the month (and, I suspect they're done better than some internal audits) they get a lot of support. The LPA's don't actually look at the effectiveness, as you say, but (strangely) they are attributed with causing vast improvements in FPY.

Let's see if others give you their perspective........

I am a big fan and proponent of LPA and have observed companies improve their overall performance (customer satisfaction, scrap level, etc).

Currently I am assisting of one of clients implementing an LPA system in our of their plants. They have struggled for years with standard process/control plan audits.

On effectiveness: LPAs results must be rolled up (weekly, monthly) and reported to all parties involved. Action plans must be developed to reduce non-conformances found. The goal is to drive down N/Cs. I think if you know how to measure effectiveness of control plan audits, you know how to measure effectiveness of LPAs.

LPAs are short (max. 30 minutes, max. 10 questions or so), frequently executed by multiple levels of management, corrective actions are taken immediately when N/C are found. The goal is to reduce risk to your company. Risks include customer dissatisfaction, high scrap, high rework and so on.

In all the presentations for LPA checklists and in reviewing completed/implemented checklists I have found no information/evidence regarding evaluation for "effectiveness". If an LPA is intended to fulfil the TS requirements for a "Manufacturing Process Audit", (clause 8.2.2.2) which TS requires "to determine its effectiveness", and if effectiveness is defined roughly as performance to objectives (process measures), then there appears to be a gap to requirements. Or am I missing something?:thanks:


I would not recommend that your LPA should take the place of Mfg. Process Audits. The LPA's are fairly brief, and performed by personnel who often are not trained as auditors. They are intended as an overview.

Mfg. Process Audits give you the opportunity to do an indepth control plan audit, if you wish, which would provide a much better review. LPA's are good for catching low-hanging fruit, which is why the OEMs like them so much.

Good point.

If the OEMs like LPA very much and LPA catch low hanging fruit, suppliers should like LPAs as well.

Finding defects/problems before the OEMs do is what we all want. Think about all the resources (expedites, customer dissatisfaction, sorting cost, corrective action cost, travel cost, SQE/STA visits to your facility, etc) to could go wasted.

Good point.

If the OEMs like LPA very much and LPA catch low hanging fruit, suppliers should like LPAs as well.

Finding defects/problems before the OEMs do is what we all want. Think about all the resources (expedites, customer dissatisfaction, sorting cost, corrective action cost, travel cost, SQE/STA visits to your facility, etc) to could go wasted.


Yes, it is useful for any organization with low hanging fruit. It is similar to the concept of "Management by Walking Around" made popular a few years back.

But many of my clients are at < 5 ppm and 100% delivery. Unfortunately, they have virtually no low hanging fruit anymore. For them, this becomes a limited-value exercise.

After the intial rounds of LPA, I've had feedback that the returns diminish pretty rapidly. The comment made to me was that "it's tough going and asking the same questions of the same people when you know how they're going to react and you know you're not going to find anything".

Bingo! and welcome to the Cove!

I'm not sure if you've had a chance to perform a search on the topic here, but you might well find similar discussions. I, for one, have questioned the validity of the LPA approach as a substitute for any kind of regular quality audit, but since it's flavor of the month (and, I suspect they're done better than some internal audits) they get a lot of support. The LPA's don't actually look at the effectiveness, as you say, but (strangely) they are attributed with causing vast improvements in FPY.

Let's see if others give you their perspective........

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the feedback. However, it still doesn't answer the effectiveness part as required by ISO/TS. So, is this a situation where the organization must a.) do a better job of check list creation and b.) do a better job of record keeping, which clearly demonstrates that manufacturing process objectives are part of the LPA?

I am a big fan and proponent of LPA and have observed companies improve their overall performance (customer satisfaction, scrap level, etc).

Currently I am assisting of one of clients implementing an LPA system in our of their plants. They have struggled for years with standard process/control plan audits.

On effectiveness: LPAs results must be rolled up (weekly, monthly) and reported to all parties involved. Action plans must be developed to reduce non-conformances found. The goal is to drive down N/Cs. I think if you know how to measure effectiveness of control plan audits, you know how to measure effectiveness of LPAs.

LPAs are short (max. 30 minutes, max. 10 questions or so), frequently executed by multiple levels of management, corrective actions are taken immediately when N/C are found. The goal is to reduce risk to your company. Risks include customer dissatisfaction, high scrap, high rework and so on.

Thanks for the feedback. I am not much interested in the effectiveness of the LPA, but rather is the LPA - if it is intended to be equvalent to a ISO/TS manufacturing process audit -required to review the effectiveness of the manufacturing process? I have not observed anyone (during 3rd party assessments) actually reviewing the manufacturing process for effectiveness as recorded by the checklist or in the auditors notes. By effectiveness, I mean performance to objectives as defined by the organization.

The AIAG manual CQI-8 has a section on auditing the LPA process. Although I am not sure about how well it determines effectiveness. There are some common sense things that could give you an idea of LPA effectiveness. For example:
• Does the LPA keep bringing up the same issues?
• Are things improving overall?
• Are the issues moving away from compliance to prevention?
These are just some things you could use for effectiveness.

While I have an issue with using LPA to meet 8.2.2.2 (because of the prohibition of auditing your own work), tCQI-8 states on page 8 that it can be used to meet that requirement.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the feedback. However, it still doesn't answer the effectiveness part as required by ISO/TS. So, is this a situation where the organization must a.) do a better job of check list creation and b.) do a better job of record keeping, which clearly demonstrates that manufacturing process objectives are part of the LPA?

Both could be worked into the checklist, but one thing that will have to change is the requirement to have someone trained to do the LPA. One of the key points of the LPA 'sales pitch' given during the DCX training was 'anyone can do this'..................!!

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the feedback. However, it still doesn't answer the effectiveness part as required by ISO/TS. So, is this a situation where the organization must a.) do a better job of check list creation and b.) do a better job of record keeping, which clearly demonstrates that manufacturing process objectives are part of the LPA?

I am not sure if you saw my reply - post #4 on this thread. It is not "intended" to replace those mfg. audits. The requirements are different. If you put all these extra things in, then maybe they will be good enough.

I am not sure if you saw my reply - post #4 on this thread. It is not "intended" to replace those mfg. audits. The requirements are different. If you put all these extra things in, then maybe they will be good enough.

Helmut:
Are you aware that in the AIAG Guideline (CQI 8?) it categorically states that LPAs can be used to meet the requirement of ISO/TS 16949 Manufacturing Process audits...............?

Helmut:
Are you aware that in the AIAG Guideline (CQI 8?) it categorically states that LPAs can be used to meet the requirement of ISO/TS 16949 Manufacturing Process audits...............?


Yes, but as you point out, the auditors are not usually trained, etc.

I think there is a clash between the specific Chrysler and GM specific requirements and the generic AIAG effort. I think it can meet the requirements, if you do enough to it to make it robust. My bias, I guess, but I would judge it on a case by case basis.

And I would think that to make the required changes to the LPA checklist to get auditors to look at results etc. - plus the LPA's don't normally follow a process approach, then the time and effort invested would have been saved by sending some folks to regular intenal audit training........

I disagree that LPA auditors need a "internal auditor training". My experience is that LPA auditors are familiar with auditing (have been audited by 3rd party and internal auditors). LPA auditors need to understand the principles of auditing and the objectives of the LPA, but not how to run an opening/closing meeting, how to write and execute an audit plan, how to write a report, how to manage an annual audit plan, etc.

On effectivenees: Completed audit check lists should be rolled up into weekly and monthly reports, non conformances analyzed and actions to be planned. Customer satisfaction metrics could an indicator that the LPAs are effective. (no LPAs non-conformances leading to improved customer satisfaction metrics).

Kess:
I agree totally with your comments regarding not needing the whole 9 yards of auditor training. Indeed, I've suggested in other threads that the whole internal auditor training requirements (especially under IRCA/RABQSA etc) need to be changed to de-emphasize the external auditor behaviours you describe. On a side note, I don't think that having been audited makes anyone qualified to actually do an audit.........

My point is that in general the LPA's degenerate to being pencil whipped. There are a number of factors which contribute to this; untrained auditors, the checklist approach, compliance oriented, etc. etc.

I've seen that you have clients where they appear to have gone further with their LPA's which is excellent, but for the vast majority they are merely tolerated. As a result they should not be substituted for any other kind of internal audit of a manufacturing process.

I disagree that LPA auditors need a "internal auditor training".

CQI-8 makes it clear that LPA auditors are individuals auditing within the scope of their own authority. That means that each management level will be conducting LPAs consistent with their levels. The amount of training needs to be minimal. The greatest need is to make sure the audited items are those things that are critical to quality. I have found that this is where the competency is lowest (and where training is needed most). Supervisors and managers need to be able to take critical to quality things and translate those things into audit checksheet items.

As far as corrective actions, remember the LPA auditors are auditing their own departments and within their own span of authority. Therefore, they will be able to react quickly to anything that the LPA uncovers.

I disagree that LPA auditors need a "internal auditor training". My experience is that LPA auditors are familiar with auditing (have been audited by 3rd party and internal auditors). LPA auditors need to understand the principles of auditing and the objectives of the LPA, but not how to run an opening/closing meeting, how to write and execute an audit plan, how to write a report, how to manage an annual audit plan, etc.

On effectivenees: Completed audit check lists should be rolled up into weekly and monthly reports, non conformances analyzed and actions to be planned. Customer satisfaction metrics could an indicator that the LPAs are effective. (no LPAs non-conformances leading to improved customer satisfaction metrics).

I agree. LPA auditors are generally not trained auditors. However, Mfg. Process audits need to be performed by trained auditors. That is the problem with trying to make the LPAs do double duty. As Andy and I have suggested, it makes LPAs more than it is intended to do.

I agree. LPA auditors are generally not trained auditors. However, Mfg. Process audits need to be performed by trained auditors. That is the problem with trying to make the LPAs do double duty. As Andy and I have suggested, it makes LPAs more than it is intended to do.

Helmut,

Just for clarification....

But the expectation is that the folks conducting LPA's are competent to do so, yes?

Stijloor.

Helmut,

Just for clarification....

But the expectation is that the folks conducting LPA's are competent to do so, yes?

Stijloor.

Sure, competency is an expectation for all ISO areas. However, the LPA checksheets tend to be simple, verification checklists which should be easy for about anyone to do. Even managers can do them...:cool:

Sure, competency is an expectation for all ISO areas. However, the LPA checksheets tend to be simple, verification checklists which should be easy for about anyone to do. Even managers can do them...:cool:
And that is why they have to be easy....because managers should be doing them (he says and ducks)

I have combined LPA w/ process audits. Process audits being something different than "process approach". The LPA/process audits consist of questions that most anyone can determine whether it is correct or not.

Auditing the "quality system" requires a trained person. And then while auditing the quality system...you audit the "manufacturing process" using the "process approach".

Effectiveness is determined through the compiled reports (either weekly/monthly/quarterly) and lastly in management review.