A
CINDY said:
This week we have sent individuals to required training for Chrysler. The one day training class is required for all supplier manufacturing facilities providing parts to one or more of Chrysler Group's Powertrain plants. And oh yes, this must be imlemented by the third quarter of 2004.
Our Quality and Production managers attended yesterday, I will attend Friday. I have had the opportunity to review the training materials. The process itself is based on miltiple checks of each process by multiple individules from top management down. One process audit is completed daily by each shift by the supervisor, two process audits compelted by production manager weekly, and one process audit completed by managment each week. From the audits actions for corrections are documented and for each CA issued, history is maintained and verified to remain implemented. This total to a minimum of 15 pages of documentation, a minimum of 3.75 hour a week added to work load, and of course we must still reduce our product price by atleast 5%.
The Layered Process Audit looks like it could be a good tool to use on a continual basis but not to the extent they are suggesting.
Has anyone else attended this class yet? If so have you implemented it? If so, how time consuming is it? Have you seen any benefits?
I also was told that GM is utilizing a similar method. Anybody got samples of GM requirements on this.
Cindy
Our Quality and Production managers attended yesterday, I will attend Friday. I have had the opportunity to review the training materials. The process itself is based on miltiple checks of each process by multiple individules from top management down. One process audit is completed daily by each shift by the supervisor, two process audits compelted by production manager weekly, and one process audit completed by managment each week. From the audits actions for corrections are documented and for each CA issued, history is maintained and verified to remain implemented. This total to a minimum of 15 pages of documentation, a minimum of 3.75 hour a week added to work load, and of course we must still reduce our product price by atleast 5%.
The Layered Process Audit looks like it could be a good tool to use on a continual basis but not to the extent they are suggesting.
Has anyone else attended this class yet? If so have you implemented it? If so, how time consuming is it? Have you seen any benefits?
I also was told that GM is utilizing a similar method. Anybody got samples of GM requirements on this.
Cindy
It really is so nice to hear of yet another idea which can be regarded as old wine in new bottles. The underlying idea of "LPA" is nothing new - indeed it might be considered decades, if not centuries old.
Take the maritime industry and ships' engineering practice. Every watch the junior engineer goes around continuously monitoring the ship'sd machinery including all the engineering room processes: all observations and instrument readings are recorded in the watch log. The senior engineer for the watch checks (i.e. audits) that watch log and also does his own walk around cehecking the processes. Both engineers take whatever action is required to keep the process under control and note special needs for upcoming maintenance on the next watch or in port.
Every day, the chief engineer visits allequipment ocations, often with the ships master, noting the state of things and the entries in the log books. (And long before engines, sailing ships had similar (if less documented) practices.
In old fashioned factories, we had foremen, supervisors and shop managers who did much the same. Every day, every shift. Some even called such stuff, when done by "management" MBWA.
So, since managers etc should know what is going on, what hardship is it for them merely to (say) prepare a little checklist of what they want to look for and file it after ensuring whatever CA or PA is needed is done?
But, nowadays, too many managers etc are worried about such a burden claiming they do not have time. From my observations, if they spent half the time they spend on email that is supposed to be telling them what is going on, by actually finding out for themselves what is going on/ going right/ going wrong, LPA would be accomplished in a heartbeat. (And they would reduce the amount of dross that is in their email in-box.) So, I am skeptical of any claim that it would take any more time.
As to what benefit would top management get from participating - try these: improved communication; improved motivation of subordinate employees; actually knowing what is going on; being able to make better decisions.
Strip away the LPA label on the new bottle, and one sees it should not present a problem.
Hardheaded. My Mom would have said, "bullheaded".