Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo Especially for content not in the forum
Such as files in the Cove "Members" Directory
Social Distancing - It's not just YOUR life - It's ALL of OUR lives!
Me <——————— 6 Feet ———————-> You

Layered Process Audit Guidelines - The AIAG's CQI-8

#1
AIAG Guide - CQI-8 on LPA's (Layered Process Audits)

Has anyone seen this guideline on Layered Process Audits?

I am interested in the comments made in the 'Foreword' and then (again) in the 'Background' and 'Summary', which state (in part);

"Industry data show that most manufacturing quality issues are caused by poor process control - often a failure.....to follow the required process steps".

and..........

"Employees typically do not refer to instructions or procedures before every step of a process; they often complete the process by memory....."

Does anyone know of the sources of "industry data" cited in this document? Does anyone have any comments regarding "operators not following their instructions" as a reason for quality issues.........compared, perhaps to Demings' musings........?

Andy
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted
#2
Where I work

AndyN said:
Has anyone seen this guideline on Layered Process Audits?
AndyN said:

I am interested in the comments made in the 'Foreword' and then (again) in the 'Background' and 'Summary', which state (in part);

"Industry data show that most manufacturing quality issues are caused by poor process control - often a failure.....to follow the required process steps".

and..........

"Employees typically do not refer to instructions or procedures before every step of a process; they often complete the process by memory....."

Does anyone know of the sources of "industry data" cited in this document? Does anyone have any comments regarding "operators not following their instructions" as a reason for quality issues.........compared, perhaps to Demings' musings........?

Andy


Hi Andy

Here where I work, "operators not following their instructions" is an all too common reason for quality spills - with one caveat.

I would change it to read "operators not following their approved instructions".

"Someone" has "told them" to make a change from the formal method and has not taken the time to revise and retrain all the people.

That "someone" is never the operator...it is always a member of Demings beloved management.

So I think the failure is one of management to provide correct and current methods and educate all employees.

I can see LPA very easily being used to blame operators - Deming would not support this.

But a decent root cause done around why did they not follow procedures would soon reveal a system problem - possibly Deming would support this?

I guess it depends on the use made of the tool - and the bias of the tool user.

As a rough estimate, 80% of our spills are due to someone doing other than what is written down. When shown the document with the correct method (and their training record), we often get well "they" told me to.

I believe them....not their fault...you gotta do what your boss tells you to do...even when you know it is wrong. Shuttle o-rings is a sad case.
 
#3
I'm not sure that LPA's will be used........

as a punitive tool (or result in such).

However, will they reveal that, in most cases, the reason for folks not following the work instructions results from some other process(es) not functioning effectively - like APQP??? (if you're an automotive supplier, who will have to do LPA). Or will they just be pencil whipped by the "auditors" (despite the guidance emploring us not to)??

What OEM actually involves their operators/associates in the development of PFMEA's/Control Plans/Work instructions? Since when did the new products teams ever utilize the vast, experience and resources available to them to ensure the process is well documented (as in something that operators can actually do.......

In the past I have seen station on a machining line (one that would be a candidate for LPA) and found that the associate had to gauge at least 15 features on one side of a component then 'leap' to the other side of the conveyor to gauge more, since the part couldn't be turned. And all in a very short cycle time!:eek: How could the operator 'follow instructions'?? I don't remember 'gymnastics' being on their competencies:mg:

An LPA would find this and fix it, obviously. :rolleyes:

But what part of the LPA would address this to the Launch Team or Process Engineering or the fact that the machining process was incapable, caused broken taps/drills because the run rate compromised quality for quantity.................????? Which manager is going to bring back that little snippet of info to 'Management Review' and understand where the business process that designed and then launched an incapable process?:nope:

Caster, thanks - we're on the same page.:agree1:

Anyone got a different experience?

Andy
 
A

Allastair Mitchell - 2011

#4
I was tasked to implement Layered process audits. Does anyone have guidelines on this please.
 
B

Bill Ryan - 2007

#5
I don't know that there published guidelines (except possibly with Delphi) but we go with:
* Operator - hourly checks of the process parameters
* Cell Technician - checks by shift
* Value Stream Mgr. - checks by week
* Plant Mgr. - checks by month

Each position has differing checklists to go by. We haven't had any issues with a customer (yet!).

Hope that helps some.
 
#6
AIAG document is available.......

and I have a copy. I'm not certain if (due to the normal concerns) I should post it here, but there is one available. It's a combined effort from GM/DCX.

Andy
 
Q

QualityPhD

#7
You can download the guidelines for Layered Process Audits from the AIAG website. The document number is CQI-8.
 
Q

QualityPhD

#9
Howard Atkins said:
As far as I understand the document is a free to download only to members of AIAG everyone else needs to buy it.
Exactly the reason that I didn't post the .pdf as an attachment. The last thing I need is the AIAG sending me a cease and desist... However, the Fair Use provision of The Copyright Act of 1974 (?, I think is the date) says I can use it "for educational purposes"... but if I am correct, the AIAG may have a little more $$$$$$$ for attorney fees than I do :eek:
 

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#10
They'll come after me, not after you, but you made the right choice. Unless the AIAG notifies me otherwise it can't be posted here.
 
Top Bottom