Layered Audits - Where to tie the layered audit process back to FMEA & Control Plan

Ragnar

Involved In Discussions
#1
Hello all! Any advice regarding how and where to tie the layered audit process back to FMEA's and Control Plans would be greatly appreciated. We are a tier 1 supplier to the "Big 3" of molded, painted and assembled fascia and body side moldings.
Thanks.

PS I hope I'm posting this question in the correct location within the forum.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
#2
LPA's to FMEA's...........?????

Well, that's an innovation! From the DCX training, there's no links they require and the LPA is simply an 'are the operators doing what we told 'em to?' kinda verification.:read:

Since the 'Big 3' don't generally have the FMEA or Control Plans available in the Plant (do they even use them?) the LPA isn't seen as linked to them. But it makes sense to do that. I would, however, suggest that what you're advocating is, in fact, a 'Manufacturing Process Audit' like ISO/TS requires.:yes:

Not to say you couldn't link LPA to the other documents, but it could get nasty:lol:

Andy
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#3
Ragnar said:
Hello all! Any advice regarding how and where to tie the layered audit process back to FMEA's and Control Plans would be greatly appreciated. We are a tier 1 supplier to the "Big 3" of molded, painted and assembled fascia and body side moldings.
Thanks.

PS I hope I'm posting this question in the correct location within the forum.
At first I could not understand what you were getting at then I thought.

The LPA is in fact an inspection and the items that are on the check-list are items that you are in doubt of them being adhered to. This means that in terms of FMEA the occurrence is higher than you want and despite that the LPA is inspection it is a form of prevention.
As a detection tool which as I see it then it cannot have a detection ranking of less that 7. This means that it is in fact not effective.
Is the LPA then an example of the customers wanting detection instead of prevention?
As a control with a defined frequency it must be in the control plan.
 
#4
Howard Atkins said:
At first I could not understand what you were getting at then I thought.

The LPA is in fact an inspection and the items that are on the check-list are items that you are in doubt of them being adhered to. This means that in terms of FMEA the occurrence is higher than you want and despite that the LPA is inspection it is a form of prevention.
As a detection tool which as I see it then it cannot have a detection ranking of less that 7. This means that it is in fact not effective.
Is the LPA then an example of the customers wanting detection instead of prevention?
As a control with a defined frequency it must be in the control plan.
I agree, Howard, that LPA is an 'inspection', but I don't believe that the idea is for the LPA to be part of the control plan nor the FMEA, as might other types of inspection. Don't forget that the LPA is only required to be done on a shift basis and wouldn't be fully effective as a 'product inspection' performed hourly or similar.

My experience has been with DCX LPA's and they don't mention it in their training as a requirement for a 'control' to be planned like that.
They do, however, require all levels of management to get involved to raise awareness of issues and escalate them for resolution - mainly because they didn't get involved before when things went wrong - now they're forced to.:agree1:

This is different, to my thinking, from a regularly planned inspection or test in a control plan, identified in a FMEA. Indeed, I have advised against using audits of most kinds from being used as a 'control'.:mg:

Andy
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#5
Not all LPA's are as a result of customer requirements and I was discussing those that are introduced without customer pressure.
I have a company that I am working with that is instituting them voluntarily before they even heard the phrase layered audit.
They have decided that the way of ensuring that certain issues stay alive is by using the layered audit.
They have just finished a 3 month cycle finishing with the CEO auditing the plant.
They are now learning from their mistakes and improving but want to extend the use.
The main problem is that the use of audit is a misnomer and confuses people. The LPA is not an audit, it does not use auditors but is an attempt to bring the management to the Gemba
Why is it so hard to get white collars to visit the factory floor?
AndyN said:
This is different, to my thinking, from a regularly planned inspection or test in a control plan, identified in a FMEA. Indeed, I have advised against using audits of most kinds from being used as a 'control'.
Whether it should be identified on the FMEA is only if it was implemented as a result of a legitimate concern and as an improvement.
As we have agreed it is not an "audit" but is in fact " regularly planned inspection or test" so that it should be on the CP.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#6
I thnk there's some confusion here.

Howard Atkins said:
They have just finished a 3 month cycle finishing with the CEO auditing the plant.
Howard Atkins said:
The LPA is not an audit
Howard Atkins said:
...we have agreed it is not an "audit"...
I don't agree at all that LPA isn't auditing. Of course it's auditing, and there's no reason that I can see to call it anything else. If the contention is that it's a form of inspection, then all auditing is a form of inspection, so the distinction is moot.

Howard Atkins said:
Whether it should be identified on the FMEA is only if it was implemented as a result of a legitimate concern and as an improvement.
The FMEA is not a document, it's a process. The document is a record of the process. If, as Howard says, the idea of LPA comes up as a possible form of action during the FMEA process, then it should rightly be a part of the record.

Howard Atkins said:
{LPA} is in fact " regularly planned inspection or test" so that it should be on the CP.
I think this is correct, but for the wrong reason. If LPA does indeed come up during the FMEA process and is incorporated as a "recommended action" as a result, there should be a corresponding entry on the control plan.

In answer to the OP's question, you should start with APQP (including FMEA) and work forward, which might result in using LPA as a control. If you're starting with LPA and working backwards to the FMEA, something's wrong. I understand that FMEA documents are to be considered dynamic, but if you understand the purpose of the FMEA process, you won't have much trouble with making connections between FMEA, the control plan, and any other types of process controls you might want to use. Think in terms of a continuum where there are no barriers or endpoints until you have a conforming product and a happy customer. The control plan doesn't start when the FMEA process ends; they're both a part of a larger process, as is LPA if you choose to (or have to) use it.
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Staff member
Admin
#7
JSW05 said:
I don't agree at all that LPA isn't auditing. Of course it's auditing, and there's no reason that I can see to call it anything else. If the contention is that it's a form of inspection, then all auditing is a form of inspection, so the distinction is moot.

The FMEA is not a document, it's a process. The document is a record of the process. If, as Howard says, the idea of LPA comes up as a possible form of action during the FMEA process, then it should rightly be a part of the record.

I think this is correct, but for the wrong reason. If LPA does indeed come up during the FMEA process and is incorporated as a "recommended action" as a result, there should be a corresponding entry on the control plan.

In answer to the OP's question, you should start with APQP (including FMEA) and work forward, which might result in using LPA as a control. If you're starting with LPA and working backwards to the FMEA, something's wrong. I understand that FMEA documents are to be considered dynamic, but if you understand the purpose of the FMEA process, you won't have much trouble with making connections between FMEA, the control plan, and any other types of process controls you might want to use. Think in terms of a continuum where there are no barriers or endpoints until you have a conforming product and a happy customer. The control plan doesn't start when the FMEA process ends; they're both a part of a larger process, as is LPA if you choose to (or have to) use it.
Jim I agree with you in most aspects. The question is what actually is an audit?
I have been trying to define this in a better manner.
I agree that in fact the LPA is an audit in the sense that it is :
  1. Planned- timetable
  2. Defined scope
  3. criteria
  4. methods
Where it is not an audit is in the fact that and
  1. at the operator level the auditor is auditing his own work!
  2. the auditors are not necessarily qualified.
Does this make it an audit with non conformancies in the implementation, or an inspection.
At the operator and even supervisor level IMO it must be an inspection
I have raised these issues before but there does not seem to be a consensus

Audit Differences - Process, Product, Internal? (4 questions) - TS 16949
Auditor qualification in ISO/TS 16949 for different types of audits
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#8
Howard Atkins said:
Where it is not an audit is in the fact that and
  1. at the operator level the auditor is auditing his own work!
  2. the auditors are not necessarily qualified.
Does this make it an audit with non conformancies in the implementation, or an inspection.
We're straying a bit :topic: here, but ...I've always had a problem with the idea that auditors shouldn't audit their own work. I guess I should say that I have a problem with the rationale behind that thinking; independent auditing is good in the sense that a fresh set of eyes might see something that has been overlooked, but I think that sooner or later, if everything is going to run smoothly, we have to be able to trust people.

As far as reason #2 is concerned, there are plenty of trained auditors who shouldn't be auditors, and I don't think there's any reason to assume that a person who understands the general principles of the exercise is going to be incompetent.

I think we're in agreement about incorporating LPA into the APQP process, though.
 
M

mneedha1

#9
Re: Layered Audits - Where to tie the layered audit process back to FMEA & Control Pl

The original question was regarding how to tie the Layered Process Audit (LPA) 'process' back to the PFMEA and then the Control Plan.

LPA is an audit of the process and therefore not really an inspection in the sense of inspection for the compliance of the product.

I believe that the output of the LPA process should correctly be seen as an input into process of continuous improvement of the PFMEA and Control Plan. As an example, if engineering estimates of occurence in the PFMEA are wrong, based on what the LPA process finds, then the PFMEA should be updated (improved). Then the Control Plan should be corrected to align with what the LPA process discovered.

So, a periodic rview of the agreement between the LPA results and the PFMEA 'ratings' might be worth pursuing.

mneedha1atvisteondotcom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
P

progressive post

#10
Re: Layered Audits - Where to tie the layered audit process back to FMEA & Control Pl

internal auditand surviellance audits,if carried out to the best of sincerity in a system,where the control plans takes care of slippages,the lpa and its cumbersome exercise can be avoided.
we need to perfect our management system.train operatiors to do their job well and ask the quality assurance to be thorough in their task compliance-then the system and the team shall deliver the goods more economically as well as sustaining the accountability of responsible guys in the first place.
we are in for simplification and out for creating dependability on internal customers level of interest-in chain of realisation cycle.could we call upon our groups to establish in real sense.
inspection of inspected lot and continuing this unto the end will take us to undesired end.we have companies in sight who ventured to make the performer accountable-quality assurance an assurer of assurance and the results have been fantastic.
let us not ignore roles of corrective actions and preventive actions groups working in close confirmity and bare weaknesses with machine,men, resource competence update,work culture and the management support.
by all this.i mean system in place in actual terms and for efficient working. two types of audits shouls be ok.regards.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Layered Process Audits - FCA 9.2.2 - Exemption Clause? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
J Requirements for Layered Process Audits including Maintenance, Shipping, Receiving IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
J Layered Process Audits using Kamishibai Board Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 3
P Interesting Discussion IATF 16949:2016 Clause 9.2.2.3 and Layered Process Audits IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 18
B Layered Audits using an iPad or other Tablet Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 6
S Help explaining LPA (Layered Process Audits) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
V QSB Layered Process Audits GM/OPEL Customer and Company Specific Requirements 3
R Layered Process Audits Procedure of Form Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 3
A LPA's (Layered Process Audits) for Non-Production Support Processes Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 13
C Handling Repeated Non-Conformities when doing Layered Process Audits Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 11
automoto Implementation of Layered Process Audits (LPA) Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 7
L Layered Process Audits: Efficiency, quality, safety or all the above? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 11
L Having faith in your Layered Process Auditors - Pencil whipping audits Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 8
A Definition Layered Process Audits - What are Layered Process Audits? Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 12
H LPA's (Layered Process Audits) - Evaluation of Effectiveness Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 22
J LPAs (Layered Process Audits) and TS 16949 Clause 8.2.2.2 - Quick Question Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 20
J Evaluating and Reporting the Results of Layered Process Audits Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 9
M The Difference between Process Audits and Layered Audits General Auditing Discussions 5
F Tell me about Layered Process Audits (LPA) Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 2
A Layered Process Audits - Getting Results? Show me the data! Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 11
J Does anyone have a procedure that covers Layered Process Audits Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 1
J Layered Process Audits vs. Internal System Audits Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 17
J Internal Process Auditing - Auditor Unhappy - Wants Layered Process Audits Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 13
T Does Delphi's requirement for layered process audits only apply to their products? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 15
Crusader Layered Process Audits - Recommended Reading? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 24
D Layered Process Audits? Are they required by TS16949? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 13
B Defining Top Management for Layered Process Audits Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 9
H Layered audit updates after COVID-19 shutdowns Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 0
K Differences between Manufacturing Process Audit & Layered Process Audit Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 4
K Layered Process Audit (LPA) Software IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
Stijloor AIAG Layered Process Audit 2nd Ed. (CQI-8) is now available. IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
H Layered Process Audit Hard Copy Records Retention Records and Data - Quality, Legal and Other Evidence 6
N LPA (Layered Process Audit) Program - Visual Shop Display Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 4
T Historical Backround of LPA (Layered Process Audit) Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 7
M Layered Audit Checklist with focus on daily quality General Auditing Discussions 3
Celtic Warrior Consolidating results of LPA (Layered Process Audit) for Management Review Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 13
A Access Database for LPA (Layered Process Audit) questions Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 3
V Layered Process Audit Schedule example Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 2
S Layered Process Audit Examples Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 4
I Can we use layered process audit (LPA) for HR Processes? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 9
L Layered Process Audit Basics Explained Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 5
N What is the Latin word for 'Layered'? Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 12
Q Layered Process Auditing (LPA) for a service provider Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 4
Douglas E. Purdy Delphi CSR (Customer Specific Requirements) and LPAs (Layered Process Audit) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
J What is meant by number of "items"? Chrysler Layered Process Audit Question Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 10
B Capability Based on Layered Go/No-Go Gages Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
P Layered Audit - Some questions to the Practitioners Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 16
Q Error Proofing Verification - Layered Audit Question Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 17
J Layered Process Audit Examples Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 25
P Layered Process Audit & the Document Audit - Can anyone explain to me, Please? Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom