DaimlerChrysler Layered Process audit experiences per the DC CSR's

[cdaniels]

I posted the first two questions on the auditing forum but figured I would post it here to see if I received further responses. I also have an additional questions.

For those of you who have implemented a Layered Process Audit process per the DC CSR's, or have a good knowledge of their requirements, I was hoping for some insight on a couple of questions. If this has previously been addressed I apologize. I have searched the forums and not been able to find an answer, any links to previous discussions would be appreciated.

My questions are:

1. How far upstream of your processes did you involve in the LPA's? Did you just focus on the production aspects and go forward or did you go all the way back to receiving and receiving inspection? In the information I have I see that GM lists shipping/receiving in their scope, but I did not see a similar statement by DC.

2. Do you have each layer performing the same audit (ie using the same checklist) or do you have layer 2 making sure layer 1 was performing their audits and layer 3 checking on layer 2, etc. Again I see that GM uses this audit the auditor approach as an example of an LPA process, while DC is not as specific.

3. What type of system did you put in place to make sure the audits were taking place. Especially those weekly and monthly audits done by managers who are typically very busy and auditing is low on their priority list.

Thanks,
Charles

[Marc]

Originally Posted by cdaniels

I posted the first two questions on the auditing forum but figured I would post it here to see if I received further responses.

See DC Layered Process Audit Experiences per the DC CSR's for one response, but please carry on in this thread.

[Helmut Jilling]

Originally Posted by cdaniels

2. Do you have each layer performing the same audit (ie using the same checklist) or do you have layer 2 making sure layer 1 was performing their audits and layer 3 checking on layer 2, etc. Again I see that GM uses this audit the auditor approach as an example of an LPA process, while DC is not as specific.
Thanks,
Charles

The examples I have seen generally used the same checklists, but each layer of management keys in on slightly different aspects, coming from their different perspectives. Each layer of management sees things from different angles.

If the audits were exactly identical in every aspect, every perspective, there would be no benefit in doing layers. It would be redundant. Thus, the value comes from each layer of management seeing things from slightly different angles.

[Minvarian]

See the responses below:

Originally Posted by cdaniels

1. How far upstream of your processes did you involve in the LPA's? Did you just focus on the production aspects and go forward or did you go all the way back to receiving and receiving inspection? In the information I have I see that GM lists shipping/receiving in their scope, but I did not see a similar statement by DC.

Our LPA's cover production shipping / receiving and receiving inspection.

2. Do you have each layer performing the same audit (ie using the same checklist) or do you have layer 2 making sure layer 1 was performing their audits and layer 3 checking on layer 2, etc. Again I see that GM uses this audit the auditor approach as an example of an LPA process, while DC is not as specific.

All three layers use the same check-sheet. They are just broken out by the level.

3. What type of system did you put in place to make sure the audits were taking place. Especially those weekly and monthly audits done by managers who are typically very busy and auditing is low on their priority list.

We developed our own database that delivers audit sheets, includes a portal to submit results, and sends e-mail reminders to those layers that have not completed audits weekly.