This week we have sent individuals to required training for Chrysler. The one day training class is required for all supplier manufacturing facilities providing parts to one or more of Chrysler Group's Powertrain plants. And oh yes, this must be imlemented by the third quarter of 2004. :whip:

Our Quality and Production managers attended yesterday, I will attend Friday. I have had the opportunity to review the training materials. The process itself is based on miltiple checks of each process by multiple individules from top management down. One process audit is completed daily by each shift by the supervisor, two process audits compelted by production manager weekly, and one process audit completed by managment each week. From the audits actions for corrections are documented and for each CA issued, history is maintained and verified to remain implemented. This total to a minimum of 15 pages of documentation, a minimum of 3.75 hour a week added to work load, and of course we must still reduce our product price by atleast 5%.

The Layered Process Audit looks like it could be a good tool to use on a continual basis but not to the extent they are suggesting.

Has anyone else attended this class yet? If so have you implemented it? If so, how time consuming is it? Have you seen any benefits?

I also was told that GM is utilizing a similar method. Anybody got samples of GM requirements on this.

Cindy

Just started looking at Layered Audits two weeks ago - agree it is a wonderful thing and also that the extent DC expect it used is Pie in the Sky!

We decided to continue with our dock/process audit that currently exists and just add in some layers on top and obviously build a reporting, reviewing, documenting system, (a spreadsheet to be looked at in the production meeting)

Seems easy enough, just hope it meets requirements and adds an insight for the management layer. Its actually nice that it ties in with our TS upgrade and the new management involvement.

I havent had the pleasure of the "shall" statements first hand but our corporate director gave us a lengthy telecon on the joys of the layered approach as he had been on the course (why him?? what use is it to him?? :confused: )

DCX wanted management in the training so there was buy in and participation. We sent six individuals from our company. We all came back with a different look on it.

Good luck,

Cindy

Quick question. Does anyone know if this applies to mopar suppliers or is it just for suppliers to the assembly plants?

IMO - I would think that if you are expected to conform to a standard such as TS and you are expected to meet other customer specific requirements, then you are also expected to do layered auditing…

Check out the DC requirements on their supplier portal if you can
:o

The requirement for layered audits applies to the powertrain and component plants only.

Thanks for the replies.
It seems there are conflicting reports as I will try to explain:
The CSR`s for TS16949 state: organizations supplying components to DCX shall conduct layered process audits on all manufacturing and assembly lines that product components for DCX.

A supplier bulletin on the COVISINT website states:
LPA will be done for Chrysler group powertrain and component plant suppliers.
In bold towards the bottom of the bulletin it states:
A separate Chrysler group wide LPA initiative being conducted parallel to this powertrain initiative.

Do you think the Chrysler group wide initiative is the one referred to in the CSR`s for DCX?

I have some phone calls in to DCX to confirm what Sam says because that is what I thought until I started reading a little closer.

We could probably assume that the layered audit process will be applied to all DCX production.
MOPAR is not included in most of the DCX Quality inititives,i.e., powerway, prism etc. I don't see why they would be included in this new audit process.

We have been doing layered audits for GM... can anyone give a comparison of the two programs yet?

If you take the requirements literally, I doubt if either program is really possible.
We "audit" processes every shift, the supervisor "audits" this monthly and segment leaders "audit" this quarterly. Central audits check this yearly. It depends on the definition of audit i.e. the depth. Sooner or later someone may notice that there are never any weaknesses or corrective actions....

This week we have sent individuals to required training for Chrysler. The one day training class is required for all supplier manufacturing facilities providing parts to one or more of Chrysler Group's Powertrain plants. And oh yes, this must be imlemented by the third quarter of 2004. :whip:

Our Quality and Production managers attended yesterday, I will attend Friday. I have had the opportunity to review the training materials. The process itself is based on miltiple checks of each process by multiple individules from top management down. One process audit is completed daily by each shift by the supervisor, two process audits compelted by production manager weekly, and one process audit completed by managment each week. From the audits actions for corrections are documented and for each CA issued, history is maintained and verified to remain implemented. This total to a minimum of 15 pages of documentation, a minimum of 3.75 hour a week added to work load, and of course we must still reduce our product price by atleast 5%.

The Layered Process Audit looks like it could be a good tool to use on a continual basis but not to the extent they are suggesting.

Has anyone else attended this class yet? If so have you implemented it? If so, how time consuming is it? Have you seen any benefits?

I also was told that GM is utilizing a similar method. Anybody got samples of GM requirements on this.

Cindy


It really is so nice to hear of yet another idea which can be regarded as old wine in new bottles. The underlying idea of "LPA" is nothing new - indeed it might be considered decades, if not centuries old.

Take the maritime industry and ships' engineering practice. Every watch the junior engineer goes around continuously monitoring the ship'sd machinery including all the engineering room processes: all observations and instrument readings are recorded in the watch log. The senior engineer for the watch checks (i.e. audits) that watch log and also does his own walk around cehecking the processes. Both engineers take whatever action is required to keep the process under control and note special needs for upcoming maintenance on the next watch or in port.

Every day, the chief engineer visits allequipment ocations, often with the ships master, noting the state of things and the entries in the log books. (And long before engines, sailing ships had similar (if less documented) practices.

In old fashioned factories, we had foremen, supervisors and shop managers who did much the same. Every day, every shift. Some even called such stuff, when done by "management" MBWA.

So, since managers etc should know what is going on, what hardship is it for them merely to (say) prepare a little checklist of what they want to look for and file it after ensuring whatever CA or PA is needed is done?

But, nowadays, too many managers etc are worried about such a burden claiming they do not have time. From my observations, if they spent half the time they spend on email that is supposed to be telling them what is going on, by actually finding out for themselves what is going on/ going right/ going wrong, LPA would be accomplished in a heartbeat. (And they would reduce the amount of dross that is in their email in-box.) So, I am skeptical of any claim that it would take any more time.

As to what benefit would top management get from participating - try these: improved communication; improved motivation of subordinate employees; actually knowing what is going on; being able to make better decisions.

Strip away the LPA label on the new bottle, and one sees it should not present a problem.

Hello,

I just received an email from The Luminous Group, LLC for a "LPA-IN-A-BOX", has anyone seen this or used it? If so, is it worth the $699.00?

:thanx:

Dawn

Also see: DCX (DaimlerChrysler) Customer Specific Requirements July 2004 (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8923) and Layered Audit Chrysler.pdf (http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/Layered%20Audit%20Chrysler.pdf)

I attended the training at DCX a few weeks ago. It was actually really good stuff. A DCX manager from a powertrain plant gave an unsolicited testimonial that the LPAs have improved product quality tremendously.

I've always had to use inexperienced internal auditors so I would put together simple checklists for each element audited to kind of "error-proof" the process. The LPA process is similar--you make a simple checklist that any person can use to verify process controls, equipment maintenance, poke-yokes, and that work instructions are being followed.

The key is that all levels of management will regularly be on the shop floor making sure things are being done properly. My favorite auditor saying is: "If it's not being audited it's probably not being done". If implemented properly with adequate senior management "buy-in" I'm confident it will truly add value.

And I'm not naive--I've been in automotive quality for 20 years!

Good Morning,

Has anyone out here in Auditing Land created any LPA Training in PP? If so, would you like to share?

I have created one and would mind at all if someone would like to critique it.

Thanks a bunch.

:confused:

I have created one and would mind at all if someone would like to critique it.
One slide that I had an issue with was where you said that the training would be "painless". However, the following slide removed the issue! I really liked that! I might steal the concept.

On a technical note, the forms you showed are initially overwhelming. You might want to prep them at the previous slide. Take some time and go over the forms carefully. I also would not pass out any of the forms until after you have gone over them. Otherwise they will be trying to decifer the forms on their own, and you could lose them. Once you have gone over the forms, then pass them out, and go over them again. I've found that to be a rather effective method of introducing complicated forms. It kinda takes the fear out of the stuff.

Overall, it is a good presentation! Let us know how it works out.

These ideas are for you or anyone to use. The Cave hes helped me so much.

The presentation will be given to all levels of management. So I did want to spread some humor.

Thanks for the feedback. The check sheet are also difficult for me to absorb.

Maybe this is the reason :bonk: Hardheaded. My Mom would have said, "bullheaded".

I won't be giving this presentation until the week after Thanksgiving, so I have plenty of time.

How was the presentation received?

These ideas are for you or anyone to use. The Cave hes helped me so much.

The presentation will be given to all levels of management. So I did want to spread some humor.

Thanks for the feedback. The check sheet are also difficult for me to absorb.

Maybe this is the reason :bonk: Hardheaded. My Mom would have said, "bullheaded".

I won't be giving this presentation until the week after Thanksgiving, so I have plenty of time.

How was the presentation received?
I made a few adjustments and it was well received. Even made the manager's smile. Maybe it was the donuts.


Thanks for asking..

I made a few adjustments and it was well received. Even made the manager's smile. Maybe it was the donuts.


Thanks for asking..


That is a pretty good presentation, I think it can make everyone smile!

I created a very similar presentation for our plant (but no where near as humourous I must add! Well done on that)

I have one question about your LPA's that I am interested in hearing - how are you planning to review the information and thus generate the focus for the next layer of auditing?

Thats where we fall down just now as everyone rushes about auditing but no-one is taking the time to make sure the audits are value adding.

I'd be interested to hear how people are managing that aspect.

Jane :thanx:

Has anyone looked at man-hours involved in maintaining the LPA process? From what I've seen on the various presentations it appears it could be extensive, especially for operators and line supervisors.

I created a very similar presentation for our plant (but no where near as humourous I must add! Well done on that)

I have one question about your LPA's that I am interested in hearing - how are you planning to review the information and thus generate the focus for the next layer of auditing?

Thats where we fall down just now as everyone rushes about auditing but no-one is taking the time to make sure the audits are value adding.

I'd be interested to hear how people are managing that aspect.

Jane :thanx:

Currently our corporate people are developing our matrices for the next steps. When I get them, I'll gladly share them with you.

Does anyone have any examples of the "Lessons Learned" and how to implement them. I have put in place the LPA's but I am struggling with the Lessons Learned. Do they apply to all situations or only for reoccurring non-conformances?

Does anyone have any examples of the "Lessons Learned" and how to implement them.


The easiest way is to compile your results, identify the "big hitters" and show a reduction in occurances. Implementation can be as simple as increased awarness of an issue (i.e. keeping workstation free from clutter, etc.).

Just started looking at Layered Audits two weeks ago - agree it is a wonderful thing and also that the extent DC expect it used is Pie in the Sky!

We decided to continue with our dock/process audit that currently exists and just add in some layers on top and obviously build a reporting, reviewing, documenting system, (a spreadsheet to be looked at in the production meeting)

Seems easy enough, just hope it meets requirements and adds an insight for the management layer. Its actually nice that it ties in with our TS upgrade and the new management involvement.

I havent had the pleasure of the "shall" statements first hand but our corporate director gave us a lengthy telecon on the joys of the layered approach as he had been on the course (why him?? what use is it to him?? :confused: )
Have any of you that supply chrysler machined parts and send the data to Chrysler using software other than Powerway Software and the data was acceted by DCX?

A desperate Bob Ablondi

I have found very little information on the LPA process. Can anyone tell me where there may be text books and.or trainign available? I am lookign to due value added audits. The current intenral process auditsa is ok but it does not get the every day stuff.
Value added is a priority and the amiunt of time it woudl take to perform as well as an easy representation to management. I was thinking of a histogram when it was unacceptable with dates

Who have DCX suplier audit check list?

Why do you need it? Can you get a copy from your customer contact?

Please explain your situation.