Layered Process Audits vs. Internal System Audits

[jkittle]

We are being required to do LPA's by our customer and I'm confused. Do layered process audits take the place of the old internal quality audits?? Do we have to do both and does anyone have a procedure that covers this process?

I'm reading up on LPA's and I'm starting to get the understanding I just don't know if we stop the regular internal in place of LPA's?????

[AndyN]

Jkittle:

If you look into the AIAG document on LPA's they are supposed to be run by you Manufacturing Management, so the 'objectivity' and 'impartiality' required would IMHO go out the window.

Also, you have to internally audit processes other than the manufacturing processes. Similarly, the requirements for training are different - none for LPA's but required for TS.

There are many other threads here about LPA's. My experience says beware of LPA's - a good internal qms audit tells much more about an organization than 'looking over' the shoulder of the operators all the time!!

Andy

[Duke Okes]

Originally Posted by jkittle

We are being required to do LPA's by our customer and I'm confused. Do layered process audits take the place of the old internal quality audits?? Do we have to do both and does anyone have a procedure that covers this process? I'm reading up on LPA's and I'm starting to get the understanding I just don't know if we stop the regular internal in place of LPA's?????

LPAs typically focus primarily on manufacturing processes (order fulfillment), so system audits still need to occur.

[jkittle]

Thank you to both of you this helps!!


Jerry

[Howard Atkins]

According to CQI-8 from AIAG.

Layered Process Audits can be considered a process audit as required by ISO/TS 16949 :2002, Section 8.2.2.2,.

Does IATF accept this?

[Marc]

Anyone with comments on this?

[AndyN]

May I?

The AIAG Guideline suggests that LPAs may be used to meet the ISO/TS 16949 requirement for 'process audits'. Actually, 'TS' requires each manufacturing process to be audited to determine its effectiveness, which isn't necessarily the same thing as an LPA, whose main purpose is to see if the instructions and other controls are being used. They are, however, not a substitute for qulity systems audits.

In another section, the AIAG consider the results of LPAs to be one of the 'audit' inputs to Management Review, which looks reasonable.

Now for my 'spin' -

Having attended all manner of training, implemented LPAs and researched them, I don't agree with the AIAG that an LPA can be a substitute for any kind of audit. Since the embrassing requirement for audits (ISO 9001:2000 8.2.2) is that audits be conducted by personnel who are objective and impartial (and there's no modification under section TS 8.2.2.2 that says otherwise), my assertion is that the people who do these Layered Process audits are not going to to be either objective or impartial!

Furthermore, the AIAG guide states that although they recommend a training be conducted on LPAs, the auditors do not need to be trained, in fact 'everyone is an auditor' - well, maybe, when h*ll freezes over....... Having worked with many trained internal auditors, even training doesn't always 'get it' for them, so heaven forbid the folks who audit without training.

Was that what you were asking for, Marc?

Andy

[Marc]

Well, I was researching several types of auditing and found this thread where Howard was sorta left standing without a response, so I asked for further comments. Your observation is appreciated. There is disagreement, especially with respect to what layered process audits are, for example, even between companies such as Ford and GM.