Layered Process Audit required by Chrysler - Is it as 'great' as Chrysler says it is?

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.

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?? )

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

MOPAR Suppliers

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

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....