LPAs (Layered Process Audits) and TS 16949 Clause 8.2.2.2 - Quick Question

[jkittle]

I have been searching the forum and reading for an hour or so and I'm still confused.

I understand that LPAs are customer specific requirements (which we are required to do). But can I satisfy the TS clause 8.2.2.2 "Manufacturing Process Audit" with my LPAs?

I was given a little flack on this.

[Howard Atkins]

Originally Posted by jkittle

I have been searching the forum and reading for an hour or so and I'm still confused.

I understand that LPAs are customer specific requirements (which we are required to do). But can I satisfy the TS clause 8.2.2.2 "Manufacturing Process Audit" with my LPAs?

I was given a little flack on this.

According to CQI-8 Layered Process Audits Guideline published by AIAG

Layered Process Audits can be considered a process audit as required by ISO/TS16949:2002, Section 8.2.2.2, Manufacturing Process Audit.

Page 8
I think this is wrong as it does not go deep enough but ......

[jkittle]

I thought so. So how do we satisfy this requirement? It seems that all we do is audit. I have to do internal audits, LPAs, product audits and now I have to do something different to satisfy process audits.

[Helmut Jilling]

Originally Posted by jkittle

I have been searching the forum and reading for an hour or so and I'm still confused.

I understand that LPAs are customer specific requirements (which we are required to do). But can I satisfy the TS clause 8.2.2.2 "Manufacturing Process Audit" with my LPAs?

I was given a little flack on this.

The best way to do manufacturing process audits is by doing a thorough walkthrough of your control plan. Do it well, and it will pay dividends. I agree with Howard, LPAs might be compliant, but very light for this.

Product audits can be combined with that, or done as part of your regular production process, maybe as a dock audit at the end of the lines.

LPAs can be useful, if you have low-hanging fruit, or as a tool to get management out on the floor, if that is an issue.

[Bear41]

Two points about LPAs that are often missed is that they are (1) the "check" for using Standardized Work Instructions consistently and (2) to ensure that mistakeproofing devices are functioning. You need both of those for LPAs to have any value. These audits should be short and to the point. They should not duplicate an ISO-internal audit and there should be a reaction plan for every nonconformance found. The reaction plan should allow for a "fix" on the spot. I've seen them as an extremely effective tool.

[AndyN]

Good posts and Helmut has it in a nutshell (d*mn, he's good!). The requirement is that you audit each manufacturing process, which is a little ambiguous, IMHO. Does that mean the transforming process (like stamping, welding, painting molding etc.) or from the moment the raw materilas arrive until they are shipped? - one could say that they too are manufacturing processes. I have elected to take the same approach as Helmut and follow the control plan, normally from the placement of materials at the 'machine' to the point of a finished part, with no adverse comments from external auditors.

The LPAs don't go far enough and although the authors of the LPA guideline state that they can be used in place of auditing a manufacturing process, they usually don't follow the 'process approach' and one thing often overlooked is the fact that the auditors are often not trained in the use of the core tools, which internal QMS auditors have to be - especially if they are to audit the manufacturing processes!

[jkittle]

All very good comments/points. Now let me switch gears on all of you a little.

We have had high praises on our control plans from our registrar and customers because of the great amount of detail we place in them, however they are extremely long and not very user friendly to the floor personnel. Some our control plans are 75 pages long and very cumbersome to go through. Has anyone broke up there control plans so that it is broke out by department/process responsibility and what do you think about doing this? I would like to take only the part of the control related to the operator and have it at the machine for use.

And last, back to the original question, how would you recommend documenting the process audit to the control plan to satisfy 8.2.2.2?

[Helmut Jilling]

Originally Posted by jkittle

...Some our control plans are 75 pages long and very cumbersome to go through. Has anyone broke up there control plans so that it is broke out by department/process responsibility and what do you think about doing this? I would like to take only the part of the control related to the operator and have it at the machine for use.

A lot of companies follow this approach if their products tend to be very similar. You can also do a Family approach to control plans if there is much commonality.

And last, back to the original question, how would you recommend documenting the process audit to the control plan to satisfy 8.2.2.2?

I recommend writing right on a copy of the control plan. Check the items reviewed, and scribble notes and names right in the margins or on the back sides.