I believe that the use of auditing like this heralds a return to the era of QC, when inspection of product was 'king'. It didn't matter how product was designed or made, as long as it got by inspection. Rejects piled up and the actual cause was never identified.
I've seen this with the development of management systems. Like product, it doesn't matter how it's documented (designed) or implemented (made) as long as we can get it by the Auditor (QC).
Even this place has thousands of postings lauding what the auditor thinks about the company's management system.............very little is told about what management or the rest of the place gets from it.
LPA's just another form of QC - the cause of the issue (not following work instructions) hasn't been diagnosed yet and nor will it be fixed. It's often in the design of the work and its associated instruction, but who audits that process, I ask.
A well run internal audit program should be able to deliver much, much more than LPAs, but because Mr. LaSorda of DCX is the champion of LPA and internal audits don't have a champion, LPA will always be seen to be the 'fix'......
Andy