CQI 8English2ndEdition 1

Th
CQI-8
2nd Edition
O is
E- rde doc
Th Do r nu um
an is d cum mb ent
d e i
is ocu ent r: 5 s lic
co m Si 43 en
py en te 92 se
rig t is Lic 6 d
ht o en to
pr wn se Da
ot ed E na
ec
te yb xp Ho
d th irat ld
an e io in
d Au n: g
ha to 6/ Co
s mo 10
be t /2 rp
or
en ive 01 at
io
wa Ind 4 n
The Catalyst for Peak Performance

te us
rm tr
ar y A
ke ct
d ion
ac
co Gro
rd u
in p
gl
y.
Insight
Results
Expertise
Layered Process Audits Guideline
CQI-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 Issued 01/2014
ABOUT AIAG
Purpose Statement
Founded in 1982, AIAG is a globally recognized organization where OEMs and suppliers unite to address and resolve
issues affecting the worldwide automotive supply chain. AIAG’s goals are to reduce cost and complexity through
collaboration; improve product quality; promote corporate responsibility, health, safety, and the environment; and
optimize speed to market throughout the supply chain.
AIAG Organization
AIAG is made up of a board of directors, an executive director, executives on loan from member companies,
associate directors, a full-time staff, and volunteers serving on project teams. Directors, department managers, and
program managers plan, direct, and coordinate the association’s activities under the direction of the executive
director.
AIAG Projects
AIAG promotes objectives primarily by publishing standards and offering educational conferences and training.
Member companies donate the time of volunteers to work at AIAG in a non-competitive, open forum that is intended
in p
rd u
y.
to develop recommendations, guidelines, and best practices for the overall good of the industry. A listing of current
co Gro
gl
n
projects can be found at www.aiag.org.
io
at
d ion
AIAG PUBLICATIONS
or
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
An AIAG publication reflects a consensus of those substantially concerned with its scope and provisions. An
Co
AIAG publication is intended as a guide to aid the manufacturer, the consumer, and the general public. The
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
existence of an AIAG publication does not in any respect preclude anyone from manufacturing, marketing,
te us
en ive 01
in
purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the publication.

ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
DISCLAIMER
ha to 6/
na
The Publisher does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, in relation to any information
d Au n:
Da
from this publication, and the Publisher does not assume any legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or
an e io
usefulness of any information from this publication.

d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
CAUTIONARY NOTICE
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
AIAG publications are subject to periodic review and users are cautioned to obtain the latest editions.
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE
ht o en
e i
Recognizing that this AIAG publication may not cover all circumstances, AIAG has established a maintenance
an is d cum mb ent
ec
procedure. Please refer to the Maintenance Request Form at the back of this document to submit a request.
Th Do r nu um
Published by:
Automotive Industry Action Group
E- rde doc
26200 Lahser Road, Suite 200

Southfield, Michigan 48033
is
Phone: (248) 358-3570 • Fax: (248) 358-3253

Th
O
APPROVAL STATUS
The AIAG Quality Steering Committee and designated stakeholders approved this document for publication in
d
January 2014.
AIAG COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICE:

© 2014 Automotive Industry Action Group, except that copyright is not claimed as to any part of an original work prepared by a U.S.
or state government officer or employee as part of the person’s official duties.
Except as noted above, all rights are reserved by AIAG and no part of these materials may be reproduced, reprinted, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of Automotive Industry Action Group. Copyright infringement is a violation of federal law subject to criminal and
civil penalties.
AIAG and Automotive Industry Action Group are registered service marks of the Automotive Industry Action Group. Automotive
Industry Action Group makes no claim to any trademark of a third party. Trademarks of third parties included in these materials are
the property of their respective owners.
© 2014 Automotive Industry Action Group
ISBN#: 978 1 60534-300 6
-1-
-2-
CQI-8
Th
O is
E- rde doc
Th Do r nu um
an is d cum mb ent
d e i
co m Si 43 en
py en te 92 se
rig t is Lic 6 d
ht o en to
pr wn se Da
ot ed E na
ec
te yb xp Ho
d th irat ld
an e io in
d Au n: g
ha to 6/ Co
s mo 10
be t /2 rp
or
en ive 01 at
io
wa Ind 4 n
te us
rm tr
ar y A
ke ct
d ion
ac
co Gro
rd u
in p
gl
y.
CQI-8
FOREWORD
This guideline will help you utilize Layered Process Audit (LPA) as a tool to take your organization to the next level
of performance.
At its core, LPAs are verifications that the most important standards and controls are in place. In a larger sense,
LPAs provide constant attention to the core processes of an organization -- by all levels of management. A well
deployed LPA system drives a culture of accountability, process control and continuous improvement. The result of
this minimal effort is tighter alignment toward organizational goals – which is a key to success in this highly
competitive global marketplace.
If you’ve implemented LPAs but consensus in your organization is that it is non-value added, we believe aspects of
this manual will help you see LPA in a new light. Debugging your existing LPAs should start with a review of the
questions on your check sheets. In Section 4 of the guideline, we share techniques for writing questions that are
value-add, rather than ‘classical’ quality checks. Other aspects for fine-turning your LPAs can be found in Section 6.
in p
rd u
y.
If you’re new to LPAs, you can create LPAs that impact Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as Safety, Quality,
co Gro
gl
n
Cost, Delivery and Morale. Since reaching established goals for these measures is in the interest of everyone in an
io
at
organization, it makes sense that all levels, or layers, of management participant in LPA deployment and on-going
d ion
or
audits.
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
The critical success factors for a value-add LPA are addressed in this revision of CQI-8:
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
x Top management support

ld
be t /2
Ho
x Communication of the value to employees

s mo 10
ha to 6/
x
na
Impactful audits
d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
is
Th
O
-3-
-4-
CQI-8
Neil Taylor
Arun Prasanna
Bryan C. Book II
Robert D. Francois III

Th
O is
Murray J. Sittsamer (Chair)

E- rde doc
Th Do r nu um
an is d cum mb ent
d e i
co m Si 43 en
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
py en te 92 se
rig t is Lic 6 d
ht o en to
pr wn se Da
ot ed E na
ec
te yb xp Ho
d th irat ld
an e io in
d Au n: g
ha to 6/ Co
s mo 10
be t /2 rp
or
en ive 01 at
io
n
Tenneco, Inc.
wa Ind 4
te us
rm tr
ar y A
Chrysler Group LLC
ke ct
Johnson Controls, Inc.
d ion
ac
The Luminous Group LLC
co Gro
rd u
in p
gl
y.
Magna Exteriors & Interiors AIM Systems
CQI-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT AIAG .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................................. 5
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 LPA DEFINITION AND PURPOSE...................................................................................................................................7
2 VALUE OF THE LPA MANAGEMENT TOOL ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 HOW WILL LAYERED PROCESS AUDITS BENEFIT THE ORGANIZATION?.................................................................................8
in p
rd u
y.
3 TOP MANAGEMENT PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 9
co Gro
gl
n
io
3.1 LPA PROCESS OWNER...............................................................................................................................................9
at
d ion
or
3.2 LPA PLANNING TEAM .............................................................................................................................................10
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
3.3 LPA SCOPE ...........................................................................................................................................................10
Co
3.4 CUSTOMER-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................................................11
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
3.5 PROCESS PRIORITIZATION .........................................................................................................................................11

ld
be t /2
3.6 AUDIT LAYERS ........................................................................................................................................................12
Ho
s mo 10
3.7 DEVELOPING TEMPLATES FOR AUDITING AND REPORTING ..............................................................................................12

ha to 6/
na
3.8 LPA PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................................................13

d Au n:
Da
an e io
3.9 STAKEHOLDER BUY-IN .............................................................................................................................................14

d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
4 DEPLOYMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 15
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
4.1 LPA IMPLEMENTATION TEAM WORKSHOP ..................................................................................................................15

pr wn se
te y
4.2 TRAIN THE AUDITORS ..............................................................................................................................................18

ht o en
4.3 COMMUNICATE THE LPA ROLLOUT TO THE PROCESS AREA ..............................................................................................18

e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
5 CONDUCTING THE AUDIT .................................................................................................................................. 19

Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
5.1 CONDUCTING THE AUDITS AND RECORDING THE FINDINGS .............................................................................................19

5.2 OBSERVATIONS AND PERSONAL INTERACTIONS.............................................................................................................19
is
Th
6 TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF LPAS ....................................................... 21

O
6.1 TOP MANAGEMENT LPA REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 21

d
6.2 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF LPAS .......................................................................................................................21

APPENDIX A - WHAT IS LPA? ................................................................................................................................ 23
APPENDIX B – RASIC ............................................................................................................................................ 24
APPENDIX C – FREQUENCY OF AUDIT BY LAYER ................................................................................................... 25
APPENDIX D – AUDIT SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX E - EXAMPLE CHECK SHEET ................................................................................................................. 27
APPENDIX F – REPORTING EXAMPLE.................................................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX G - GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... 29
-5-
-6-
CQI-8
Th
O is
E- rde doc
Th Do r nu um
an is d cum mb ent
d e i
co m Si 43 en
py en te 92 se
rig t is Lic 6 d
ht o en to
pr wn se Da
ot ed E na
ec
te yb xp Ho
d th irat ld
an e io in
d Au n: g
ha to 6/ Co
s mo 10
be t /2 rp
or
en ive 01 at
io
wa Ind 4 n
te us
rm tr
ar y A
ke ct
d ion
ac
co Gro
rd u
in p
gl
y.
CQI-8
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 LPA Definition and Purpose

Layered Process Audits (LPAs) are management tools used to verify that work is done according to
established standards, to emphasize the importance of those standards, and to identify opportunities for
continuous improvement. LPAs can be applied to verify any defined process within an organization. A
process is the methodology and controls used to create a product or service. Some aspects of a process
are Machines/Equipment, Materials, Methods, Manpower, and Measurement.
Nonconformances such as costly recalls, warranty issues, and customer and employee dissatisfaction are
often caused by poor process control or by failure to follow the process instructions. Employees often
complete process steps from memory. When necessary process changes are identified, employees must
re-learn and adjust. It is very easy to return to the old, familiar methods.
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
LPAs are a structured way to verify that work is performed as originally intended, resulting in improved
gl
n
io
performance metrics. Because LPAs are conducted at the location where the process is being used, LPAs
at
d ion
or
also facilitate ongoing two-way communication between management and the process users. These
ke ct
rp
ac
interactions strengthen trust and demonstrate shared ownership in the work being done right.
ar y A
Co
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
The Layered Process Audit is actually more ‘verification’ than ‘audit.’ A Layered Process Audit verifies
te us
en ive 01
in
that controls are in place and the standard process is being followed . . . and followed correctly. Because
ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
LPA is not a control but a verification of a control, it does not belong in a Process Control Plan.
ha to 6/
na
When defining Layered Process Audits, it often helps to explain to personnel of all levels what Layered
d Au n:
Da
an e io
Process Audits are and also by explaining what they are not. The "is/is not" tool is recognized in many
d th irat
to
problem-solving disciplines. This has been applied to Layered Process Audits in Appendix A.
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
is
Th
O
-7-
CQI-8
2 VALUE OF THE LPA MANAGEMENT TOOL
2.1 How Will Layered Process Audits Benefit the Organization?

Effective Layered Process Audits provide management with verification of process conformance, identify
areas of potential process variation, and provide opportunities for continuous improvement of Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs). These outcomes can have a direct impact on the quality of the product the
organization ships to the customer. Ultimately, the improvements to the organization will have a positive
impact on business results.
When applied effectively, Layered Process Audits can provide specific benefits, including the following:
x Mitigating safety incidents (injury, near- accidents, lost time, etc.)
in p
x Reducing waste
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
x
io
Improving cash flow
at
d ion
x
or
Improving product quality and customer satisfaction
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
x Reducing quality incidents (errors, scrap, rework, etc.)
Co
rm tr
wa Ind 4
x
g
Increasing First Time Capability
te us
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
x Measuring and encouraging work process standardization
Ho
s mo 10
x Reinforcing key or updated process steps, including safety requirements

ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
x Increasing interaction between plant management and line operators

an e io
d th irat
to
x Allowing first hand feedback from operators to plant management

rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x Enabling management to implement corrective action and pursue continuous

ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
improvement
te y
b
ht o en
x Institutionalizing training and process knowledge

e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
x Reducing the overall cost of poor quality

Th Do r nu um
While these are typical benefits of Layered Process Audits, some might not be applicable to every
E- rde doc
organization. Conversely, as an organization implements Layered Process Audits, additional benefits may
is
become apparent.
Th
O
-8-
CQI-8
3 TOP MANAGEMENT PLANNING

In nearly every case, the most effective Layered Process Audits are those that are carefully planned rather
than hastily put together without a clear direction. A cross-functional approach to planning, with the
involvement and support of management, is critical to the success of any LPA program. When planning
an LPA program, there are several things that need to be considered:
1. LPA Process Owner – What individual will be responsible for the LPA program? Who ensures
that the audit is conducted and that the results are reviewed and acted upon?
2. LPA Planning Team – What departments and individuals will need to take part in planning the
LPA program?
3. LPA Scope – What areas or processes will need LPAs conducted?
4. Customer-Specific Requirements – What customer LPA requirements should the team be aware
in p
of when developing the LPA program?
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
5. Process Prioritization – What areas or processes show the biggest opportunities for improvement?
io
at
d ion
Which LPAs should be implemented first?
or
ke ct
rp
ac
6. Audit Layers – What levels of the organization will be involved in conducting the LPAs?
ar y A
Co
rm tr
7. Development of Audit and Reporting Templates – What will be the format for conducting the
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
LPAs? For reporting results and actions?

ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
8. Developing Metrics for LPA Effectiveness - What metrics or indicators will be monitored to
ha to 6/
na
ensure the LPA program is effective?

d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
9. LPA Procedure – What needs to happen in order to implement the LPAs? Who will do that?
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
What formats and report formats will be used?

p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
10. Stakeholder Buy-in – Are all of the involved departments committed to the LPA program? Is
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
there Top Management support and commitment? How is this support and commitment
e i
demonstrated?
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
3.1 LPA Process Owner

is
A single individual from Top Management should be assigned overall responsibility for the Layered
Th
Process Audits. This individual serves as the program lead and is responsible for the following:
O
x Obtaining audit results and records from each area of the organization;
d
x Ensuring that responsible individuals have developed corrective actions for issues
and implemented them according to schedule;
x Reporting to Top Management on the status of LPAs and implemented actions;
x Ensuring that LPA results and actions are communicated throughout the organization;
x Facilitating the addition of new processes to the LPAs;
x Creating, maintaining and updating, as required, the LPA procedure(s), templates,
and schedules.
Because Layered Process Audits are not simply another audit to be carried out by the Quality Department,
the LPA Process Owner role does not need to automatically belong to the Quality Manager. In fact, it is
recommended that the organization’s Operations (e.g., Manufacturing) Manager be designated as the LPA
Process Owner.
-9-
CQI-8
In addition to the LPA Process Owner, the manager in each area of the organization that performs the
LPAs must take ownership for their area. They will be responsible for ensuring:
x LPAs are conducted on time.
x LPAs are conducted by the designated team members.
x Corrective actions for issues in their areas are developed and implemented on
schedule.
x The department results are recorded and reviewed regularly.
x Resources are available and focused on corrective actions for the nonconformances
identified.
3.2 LPA Planning Team

The LPA Process Owner should assemble the Planning Team to begin developing the Layered Process
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
Audits. A cross-functional team should be created, with participation from—at a minimum—all the
gl
n
io
organization’s departments and levels that will be affected by the Layered Process Audits. Suggested
at
d ion
areas include but are not limited to:
or
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
x Operations / Manufacturing
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
x
te us
Production Control en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
x Human Resources
Ho
s mo 10
x
ha to 6/
Engineering
na
d Au n:
Da
x Maintenance
an e io
d th irat
to
x Sales / Finance
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x Quality
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
x Supply Chain
b
ht o en
x
e i
Material Control
an is d cum mb ent
ec
x Any other department or area affected by the LPAs

Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
3.3 LPA Scope

is
Th
As mentioned previously, the purpose of a Layered Process Audit is to verify that work is done according
O
to established standards, to emphasize the importance of those standards, and to identify opportunities for
d
continuous improvement. Processes included in Layered Process Audits should have the following
characteristics:
x Be in their final state (i.e., not under development). Layered Process Audits reinforce
existing processes and requirements and are not intended to develop pilot or draft
processes.
x Fully documented, including work instructions, control plans, etc. Layered Process
Audits check to an established standard.
x Be approved processes, either by customer or by management
x Be critical to customer satisfaction, satisfying government regulations, or the
performance of the organization. Layered Process Audits performed on low-risk
- 10 -
CQI-8
processes will have a correspondingly lower impact on the organization’s

performance.
The first action the Planning Team should take is identifying those areas and processes that will be
considered for inclusion in the Layered Process Audits. Using the above criteria, the Planning Team is
encouraged to consider manufacturing areas, non-manufacturing areas, and support functions. The general
rule should be “If a process is critical to the performance or functioning of the organization, check it.” On
the other hand, trying to include everything in the organization would likely reduce the LPAs’
effectiveness.
Note that in no circumstances does a Layered Process Audit replace internal or third party management
system audits.
3.4 Customer-Specific Requirements
in p
The Planning Team shall review and adopt Customer-Specific Requirements for the Layered Process
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
Audits. These can include specifications on frequency, participation, and scope, as well as others. When
n
io
developing the Layered Process Audits, the Planning Team should review the specific requirements for
at
d ion
or
each customer they interact with and ensure that all such requirements are incorporated into the program.
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
These should serve as program “minimums.” If the Planning Team is unclear on where to obtain these
Co
Customer-Specific Requirements, they should contact their designated customer representative for
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
direction or clarification.
ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
3.5 Process Prioritization

d Au n:
Da
an e io
With the scope defined and Customer-Specific Requirements identified, the Planning Team should focus
d th irat
to
on prioritizing which processes will have Layered Process Audits developed first. The Planning Team
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
should review each process’s performance to see which ones are causing problems of the highest severity
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
and/or frequency. Some examples of items to look for when prioritizing processes for the Layered Process
b
ht o en
Audits include but are not limited to:

e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
x High number of safety incidents / injuries

Th Do r nu um
x High number of customer complaints or quality spills from the process

E- rde doc
x High-risk or high-severity items from the PFMEA

is
Th
x High scrap rate / low First Time Capability (FTC)

O
x Low machine efficiency or high downtime / maintenance

d
x Process runs longer than originally intended (e.g., process was expected to run 2
shifts a day for 5 days but instead is running 24 hours a day 7 days a week)
Ultimately, certain factors will always make a process take priority over others when developing the
Layered Process Audits. Whenever a process is identified with one of the following characteristics, it
should receive a higher priority:
x Customer has mandated a Layered Process Audit.
x Process has caused a critical quality issue for one or more customers (such as
stopping the shipment of a product or resulting in a warranty field campaign).
x Process is regulated by government standards, especially safety or environmental.
- 11 -
CQI-8
x Process is critical to the functioning of the organization (i.e., the plant could shut
down if the process fails). For example, material management and tool maintenance,
etc.
3.6 Audit Layers

A Layered Process Audit gets its name from the requirement that multiple "layers" (i.e., personnel at
various levels) of an organization conduct the audit. Unlike an audit of a product characteristic or feature
that is typically conducted by an operator or a quality department team member, a Layered Process Audit
is conducted by personnel ranging from working-level team members to personnel at the highest levels of
the organization's structure. The Planning Team should determine what levels of management in the
organization will be required to take part in the program. Auditors should come from every area of the
organization because someone unfamiliar with a process will tend to objectively review evidence and can
have new insight to how it is working and/or how it should work. See Appendix C for an example.
in p
rd u
y.
Supervisors, team leaders, department managers, and Top Management should all conduct LPAs;
co Gro
gl
n
io
however, the organization’s top manager within the facility shall always take part. A Layered Process
at
d ion
Audit places people of multiple levels of the organization where the work is being done to verify critical
or
ke ct
rp
items. This facilitates communication between management and the working-level team members. The
ac
ar y A
Co
Layered Process Audit also demonstrates to all team members that these designated, critical items are
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
very important. In some organizations, visiting corporate executives should be included in the LPA
en ive 01
in
ld
schedule.
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
When higher levels of the organization are involved with verifying conformance to standards through
ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
interaction with front-line employees, this drives home the message that conformance to standards are
Da
an e io
important and the responsibility of everyone in the organization.

d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
3.7 Developing Templates for Auditing and Reporting

pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
The Planning Team should obtain or develop the standard templates to be used for the Layered Process
e i
an is d cum mb ent
Audits. This will ensure consistency across each department / area and prevent uncontrolled documents
ec
Th Do r nu um
from being used. The team should develop templates for LPAs to be performed in the organization and
E- rde doc
the templates that will be used for reporting LPA results. In addition, they should ensure that corrective
actions will follow the organization’s Corrective Action process and use the same format as detailed in
is
Th
that document.
O
Once developed, the templates should follow the organization’s Document Control and Record Retention
processes. They should be stored in a location that is known and accessible to all of the area-specific
d
process owners, such as a centralized database or web-based location. The LPA Process Owner is
responsible for maintaining and updating the templates, as required.
Examples of LPA templates are shown in Appendices E & F.
3.8 Developing Metrics for LPA Effectiveness

Layered Process Audits (LPAs) are more effective when their output is carefully monitored and, in the
case of nonconformances, corrective actions are implemented. Initially, it is helpful to monitor and
report conformance to set audit schedules. This will help establish accountability for those assigned to
- 12 -
CQI-8
conduct the audits. As the LPA system matures, the focus will shift from reporting audit events to
monitoring the effectiveness of the LPAs.
LPA reporting might include the following in Table 1:
Table 1: Sample LPA Metrics
Metric Measures
Percent of Audits completed (by Layer) Implementation of the program and assigned
in p
rd u
y.
LPA priority
co Gro
gl
n
io
at
d ion
Percent in Conformance (by Area) Percent of items checked that were observed to
or
ke ct
be in conformance with defined work standards,
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
settings, methods, technique, etc.
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
Corrective Actions completed (by Area) On-time completion of Corrective Actions

ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
Repeat Non-Conformance in LPA Effectiveness of Corrective Actions (e.g. 8Ds)

an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
KPIs (see section 2.1) Effectiveness of the LPA program (e.g., effect
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
on operating metrics)
b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
(See Appendix F for an example)

E- rde doc
is
Th
O
3.9 LPA Procedure

d
The Planning Team should document the LPA process in a standard “LPA Procedure.” When developing
the LPA Procedure, the Planning Team should consider all of the following:
x Conformance with Customer-Specific Requirements
x Roles and Responsibilities (e.g., an organizational RASIC – see Appendix B)
x Documenting and Implementing Corrective Actions
x Management Reporting
x Training Requirements and Records
The LPA Procedure should also include or make reference to the following forms:
x Process Prioritization List
- 13 -
CQI-8
x Schedule Template
x Check sheet Template
x Reporting Template
The LPA Procedure should be a controlled document that is approved by Top Management and made
accessible to all levels of the organization as needed.
3.10 Stakeholder Buy-in

The Planning Team shall ensure buy-in from all stakeholders of the Layered Process Audits. All
stakeholders should commit to follow the process by performing audits as scheduled, reporting results,
developing corrective and preventive actions for discovered issues, and ensuring those actions assigned to
them are completed by their target due dates. At a minimum, buy-in shall come from:
x The LPA Process Owner
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
x
gl
Management of each applicable department
n
io
at
x
d ion
Planning Team members
or
ke ct
rp
x Top Management (including the top manager in the facility)
ac
ar y A
Co
x Corporate Management
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
Without this buy-in, there is a strong likelihood that the Layered Process Audits will not have the support
ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
they need to provide true benefits to the organization.

ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
is
Th
O
- 14 -
CQI-8
4 DEPLOYMENT
After Top Management planning is completed, each process area can take the lead on how LPAs will be
used in their area. For that purpose, each process area that will adopt LPAs should form an ad hoc
Implementation Team. The primary deliverable of those teams is a process-specific LPA check sheet. It
is most helpful if a member from the Planning Team works as part of each Implementation Team to
provide consistency and a wider knowledge of LPAs. LPAs provide maximum benefit when Area
Managers take direct responsibility and become involved in their implementation.
The Implementation Team for each area might be composed of:
x The area or process manager/owner
x Associate(s)/staff who work in that area
Each process area is unique and will have its own best opportunities for LPA verifications.
Organizations might find that similar process areas will have similar questions. This could be helpful in
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
accelerating question development, but be sure that the base question template is composed of verification
gl
n
io
questions that are effective in improving results (KPIs).
at
d ion
or
When implementing LPAs in each process area, consider using the following procedure:
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
1) Conduct an LPA Implementation Team Workshop
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
a) Present an overview of the LPA process and its benefits

ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
b) Explain the target KPI metrics for improvement

ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
c) Develop audit check sheet questions

an e io
d th irat
to
2) Train the Auditors

rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
3) Communicate the LPA Rollout to the Process Area

ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
4.1 LPA Implementation Team Workshop

e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
4.1.1 LPA overview

E- rde doc
Each Implementation Team should get an overview of the LPA management tool and of the
is
Th
organization’s LPA procedure. This will educate the team on the intent and mechanics of LPA.
O
Participation of the Top Management group in the training should be encouraged because it will
reinforce the importance of the strategy and enable management to ensure that each area is
d
committing adequate resources.
4.1.2 Target KPI metrics for improvement

Once an area’s Implementation Team is trained, they should assess what Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) or performance measures need the most improvement. While LPAs often are
applied to improve Quality (scrap, ppm, FTC, etc.), they can also be used to address Safety
(accidents, lost days, near accidents, etc.), Delivery (downtime, days late, etc.), and other
metrics. While LPAs are often used to drive improvement in a KPI, LPAs can also be used to
maintain a KPI that is performing well.
- 15 -
CQI-8
4.1.3 Develop audit check sheet questions

One of the most critical elements of LPA implementation is defining the questions which will
go into an area’s LPA check sheet. A check sheet is composed of a series of questions, each
with an associated explanation of why that question was selected and a nonconformance
reaction plan.
Table 2. Format of Audit Check Sheet Questions
Question Explanation Reaction Plan
What/Where/How to Why the question was How to react if a

check selected nonconformance is
found
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
LPA check sheets are used to audit a specific process, not product, to ensure it is free of
gl
n
io
unwanted variation that could negatively affect the area’s selected KPIs. That said, it is not
at
d ion
or
reasonable to verify all aspects of a process every day – there just isn’t enough time.
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
As a general rule of thumb, a Layered Process Audit in an area should take 10 to 15 minutes (5
rm tr
to 15 questions) per shift, every day. When a process is more complex, or has more sources of
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
uncontrolled variation (e.g., manual assembly), then the LPA may require additional time and
ld
be t /2
Ho
questions.
s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
Question Creation:
d Au n:
Da
an e io
LPA check sheet questions should focus on process areas and not involve looking at parts for
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
potential defects. The focus of an LPA is to verify that defined process controls are in place and
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
the process is working as designed.

co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
LPA questions should be written to verify what is happening in real time. LPAs take a snapshot
ht o en
e i
of what is actually occurring compared to what is expected.

an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
Each question should be specific and meaningful to the process being audited.
E- rde doc
Before generating questions, review relevant risk aspects from the Quality Management System
is
(FMEA, 8D/NCR, Customer Concerns, Control Plan, Error Proofing verification, Lessons
Th
Learned, etc.). These are excellent inputs to help the Implementation Team identify the risks
O
and pin point the cause mechanisms that should be verified in the LPA.
d
When developing check sheets it is recommended to consider the following questions:

í To what extent could the process element or setting vary?
í How frequently could the process element or setting vary?
í What aspects of the process element or setting are least robust?
í If the process element or setting varied, how significant would be the impact?
í What process element or setting might negatively affect safety or regulatory
requirements?
í If the process element or setting requires error proofing, is the device functioning
effectively today and when was it last checked?
LPA questions should avoid terms such as ‘proper,’ ‘correct,’ ‘accurate,’ and ‘appropriate’
because it is not possible to verify a ‘proper’ setting without knowing the specifications and
tolerances for the setting.
- 16 -
CQI-8
All audit question responses should be:

‘Yes’ or ‘9’ for conforming
‘No’ or ‘X’ for nonconforming
The development of LPA questions should use objective criteria such as machine settings, detail
in work instructions/standard work, error proofing verification, or specific customer
requirements.
LPAs are intended to verify general work elements that have a direct impact on quality or are
likely to vary day-to-day. Examples include:
x Instead of asking “Is the operator trained?” verify that the operator is performing the task
according to the established standard/instruction. If loading a part incorrectly is known
to cause scrap, a LPA question would validate the operator’s technique vs. the standard.
x Instead of checking to see if Quality Alerts are posted, write LPA questions to verify that
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
the content of the instruction is being practiced at that moment of the audit.
gl
n
io
at
d ion
x Elements that are not likely to vary suddenly or covered in other audits (e.g.: calibration
or
ke ct
status, training status) do not add value to an LPA.
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
Question Explanation:
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
Many times auditors are not aware of a questions purpose or expected answer. To provide
ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
clarification to auditors, it is recommended each question have a defined purpose and an

ha to 6/
na
expected response.
d Au n:
Da
an e io
Answering the “Why?” about a question also verifies the value of the question and its
d th irat
to
relationship to KPIs, controls, and the process. For example, the question may be related to an
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
ongoing warranty issue or to a variation in an associated technique that led to a significant scrap
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
issue in the last quarter.

pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
Question Reaction Plan:

e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Questions should also have a reaction plan defining what to do as the first response if the item is
Th Do r nu um
found to be nonconforming. If the check sheet item is found to be nonconforming, the auditor
E- rde doc
should follow this pre-established reaction plan to prompt the responsible individual to correct
is
the situation. If the nonconformance found creates a suspicion of nonconforming product

Th
downstream from the current operation, the responsible individual may take the decision to
O
require containment and sorting to protect the customer and then initiate corrective action
analysis.
d
Question Fine Tuning:

After the questions are drafted, they should be reviewed with the Planning Team and tested with
one or two auditors conducting the audit in the process area. Their feedback should be used to
fine tune the wording and often make the questions even more effective in detecting
nonconforming situations.
- 17 -
CQI-8
4.2 Train the Auditors

Layered Process Audits are generally performed by people who may not have had auditor training. This
allows multiple sets of eyes to verify processes from different perspectives. LPA auditors provide
consistent surveillance and regular feedback to the facility’s Top Management.
LPA auditors do not need extensive training, but they do need to be oriented to the intent and mechanics
of conducting an audit. Training content may be taken from this document and from applicable Customer-
Specific Requirements related to LPAs. The best way to train auditors is with a brief overview of the
LPA management tool followed by practice audits with experienced mentors, using the check sheet for
the area(s) they may be responsible to audit.
Records should be kept to show evidence that auditors understand and can apply LPA concepts.
4.3 Communicate the LPA rollout to the process area
in p
rd u
y.
As LPAs get implemented in different areas of the organization, management should communicate to
co Gro
gl
n
io
employees in those areas the objectives of the LPA and how it might affect them. Employees who work
at
d ion
in areas that will be audited should know that they don’t have to do anything differently; the process is
or
ke ct
rp
ac
being audited, not the people. They continue to work according to standardized work instructions as
ar y A
Co
before, but now periodically, different LPA auditors will be coming around to verify work technique,
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
machine parameters, and other process elements that are important to quality and other KPIs.
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
Ho
After LPAs are implemented in the first few areas, success stories about improvement should be shared
s mo 10
ha to 6/
with areas that are considering how and where the LPA tool will help them.
na
d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
is
Th
O
- 18 -
CQI-8
5 CONDUCTING THE AUDIT

Once the audit questions, nonconformance reaction plans, audit layers, and audit frequencies have been
determined, the trained auditors can begin conducting Layered Process Audits. A significant part of the
audit process is ensuring that the audits are performed according to a schedule and that the results of the
audits are recorded.
5.1 Conducting the Audits and Recording the Findings

When conducting an audit, the assigned auditor should follow these steps:
1. Check the LPA schedule for audit assignment: date, time, process area.
2. Obtain the appropriate LPA check sheet (e.g., from person, physical, or server location).
3. Review the audit check sheet--before going to the area--to be familiar with the questions, any
in p
rd u
y.
changes to the questions, and the evidence that you will be verifying.
co Gro
gl
n
io
4. All layers should verify the layers below them are current with their recent required LPA checks.
at
d ion
or
ke ct
rp
5. Perform the audit according to the questions on the LPA check sheet. Be sure to fill out all
ac
ar y A
Co
relevant header information.
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
6. If the response to an audit question is ‘Yes,’ document it as such and then the auditor will move
ld
be t /2
Ho
on to the next question.

s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
7. If the response to an audit question is ‘No,’ then the auditor has found a nonconformance that
d Au n:
Da
requires corrective action as defined in the Reaction Plan. In the Comments section the auditor
an e io
d th irat
to
should include any observations regarding the nonconformance.

rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
8. The check sheet will provide the auditor with a reaction plan to follow if a nonconformance is
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
found for that question. If the problem is corrected during the audit, then actions taken are
te y
b
ht o en
recorded on the check sheet. The issue is still recorded as a nonconformance even though it is
e i
corrected and added to the management summary.

an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
9. Repeat issues may be a sign that there is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed.
E- rde doc
10. If the issue was not corrected, then it remains open pending a corrective action.
is
Th
O
5.2 Observations and Personal Interactions

d
The implementation of Layered Process Audits provides a unique opportunity for observations of the area
being audited by individuals whose day-to-day tasks may not include interaction with the areas audited.
These observations can be opportunities for improvement. Auditors who normally do not work in an area
can often see things that the frequent visitor overlooks. Auditors should be encouraged to include these
observations on the Layered Process Audit check sheets.
Layered Process Audits also provide an opportunity for interaction among individuals. This tends to
create a more cohesive environment among employees, departments, and management.
Finally, even when no nonconformances or observations are found, all LPA auditors--including Top
Management--provide value by acknowledging people’s effort in following standard work. It is advisable
that auditors provide positive feedback to the individuals with whom they interacted. Leaving people
with positive feedback reinforces the message that everyone is responsible for good manufacturing
practices and provides motivation to drive continuous improvement.
- 19 -
- 20 -
people.
CQI-8
Th
O is
E- rde doc
Th Do r nu um
an is d cum mb ent
d e i
co m Si 43 en
py en te 92 se
rig t is Lic 6 d
ht o en to
pr wn se Da
ot ed E na
ec
te yb xp Ho
d th irat ld
an e io in
d Au n: g
ha to 6/ Co
An Example of a completed check sheet is in Appendix E
s mo 10
be t /2 rp
or
en ive 01 at
io
wa Ind 4 n
te us
rm tr
ar y A
ke ct
d ion
ac
co Gro
rd u
in p
gl
y.
Positive feedback is a way to let employees know that LPA is intended to support the process and the
CQI-8
6 TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTINUOUS

IMPROVEMENT OF LPAs
6.1 Top Management LPA Review

Top Management should conduct reviews of the LPA at planned intervals. These reviews will reinforce to
the employees Top Management’s strong focus on LPAs and allow management to make adjustments
quickly, if needed. It is the responsibility of Top Management to review LPA metrics (see Table 1),
assess what’s working well and what’s not working well, and adjust LPAs as needed to improve Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs). Additionally, these reviews will provide objective evidence to support
Quality Management System and Customer-Specific Requirements for review of audit results.
LPA Review should:
x
in p
be part of regular operational/quality review meetings
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
x have a standardized agenda of review points
io
at
d ion
or
x review actions assigned at the last review, and verify effectiveness of competed actions
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
x review data/metrics ( LPA metrics and organization KPIs) – trends, repeat issues, LPAs
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
updated/reviewed to address top internal issues and all customer concerns
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
x
Ho
develop actions to address issues and continual improvement based on the data reviewed
s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
x assign actions (individual ownership and deadlines)

d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
Outcomes of the Management Review of LPA should:

py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
x
te y
remove all barriers to effective LPA implementation

b
ht o en
x
e i
prioritize resources to leverage value from LPAs

an is d cum mb ent
ec
x
Th Do r nu um
expand LPAs to other areas

E- rde doc
x reassess targets for continuous improvement of LPAs

is
x
Th
document continuous improvement as a result of LPAs

O
6.2 Continuous Improvement of LPAs

After assessing the metrics and effectiveness of the LPA program, management should consider adjusting
LPAs to address any weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. Typically, weaknesses or
opportunities for improvement that should be addressed include:
x Lack of management review or lack of full support by Top Management
x No consequences for not conducting audits
x Check sheets too long or cumbersome
x Questions that do not address the sources of process variation
- 21 -
CQI-8
x No feedback to operators
x Not grounded in daily routines
x Disciplined problem solving not being used to get to the root cause of problems found
x Not dynamically assessing risk (e.g.: FMEA, Customer Scorecard, KPIs, etc.) or ensuring they
are covered in LPAs.
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
io
at
d ion
or
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
is
Th
O
- 22 -
CQI-8
APPENDIX A - WHAT IS LPA?
Layered Process Audits are: Layered Process Audits are not:

1. Verification that processes and procedures are being 1. A quality audit of part characteristics.
followed.
2. Owned by the operational group where the audit is 2. Owned by any support group, (e.g.: Quality).
conducted, (e.g.: Manufacturing).
3. Conducted by multiple management levels of 3. Conducted only by an inspector or lab technician.
personnel in a given facility.
in p
rd u
y.
4. An audit consisting of quick, typically yes/no, 4. An audit that requires measuring parts or other
co Gro
gl
n
questions. product characteristics.
io
at
d ion
5. A short list of key and high-risk processes, process 5. A long “laundry list” of items that include items not
or
ke ct
rp
steps, and procedures. contributing to customer satisfaction.
ac
ar y A
Co
rm tr
6. Completed on a regular, pre-determined frequency. 6. Completed whenever the auditor has spare time.
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
ld
7. Completed by the person identified in the audit plan in 7. Allowed to be delegated by the responsible persons.
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
each layer of the organization.

ha to 6/
na
8. Completed on-site “where the work is done.” 8. Completed in the auditor’s office.
d Au n:
Da
an e io
9. A method to verify and sustain corrective actions 9. A method to determine corrective actions.
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
related to process.
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
10. A method to verify that quality documentation 10. An inspection method to add to the process control
pr wn se
te y
(instructions, control plans, etc.) is being followed. plan.

ht o en
e i
11. An audit with results that are reviewed by site 11. An audit with results that are filed away and not
an is d cum mb ent
ec
leadership on a regular basis. reviewed.

Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
12. An audit where non-conformances are addressed 12. An audit where non-conformances are noted and
immediately. addressed at a later time or after a certain number have
is
been accumulated.
Th
O
13. An audit typically planned for processes and 13. An audit to validate the operation of a machine.
procedures conducted by people.
d
14. A method to facilitate communication between 14. A method to identify the worst employees.
operators and management.
15. A method to stress the importance of complying with 15. A method to show personnel that “we’re watching
processes and procedures. you.”
16. An audit of selected processes and procedures / 16. A replacement for internal Quality Management
steps. System (e.g., ISO/TS 16949) audits.
- 23 -
CQI-8
APPENDIX B – RASIC
Team Member's
er
ad
Le
it
Un
rs
ge
Layered Process Audit Steps
ss
a
ine
am
an
t
en
M
Te
us
am
m
/B
a
ge
t
Te
re
en
es
a
sA
t
m
an
ing
en
ye
s
or
loy
es
M
id
plo
nn
dit
oc
es
p
p
Em
Pla
Au
De
To
Pr
Pr
1. Designate LPA Process Owner for the Sites I A
2. Identify the LPA Planning Team I A
3. Develop the LPA Procedure and forms I A
4. Develop the Layered Process Audit Check sheet I A R C C
5. Train the team on LPA Procedure & Audit Check sheet I A I
in p
rd u
y.
6. Site Top Management identifies - KPIs & Performance Metrics C A I
co Gro
gl
n
io
7. Develop an LPA Implementation schedule I A I
at
d ion
or
8. Conduct LPA in each area I A S
ke ct
rp
ac
I A S
ar y A
9. Develop and implement corrective actions Co
I A I
rm tr
10. Record and review LPA results in each area
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
11. Assign resources to corrective actions I A S

ld
be t /2
Ho
12. Analyze Area performance results & aggregate systemic causes and actions I A
s mo 10
ha to 6/
13. Site's Top Management conduct "Management Review"

na
C A I
- Evaluate KPI's, Performance Metrics & Overall Effectiveness of LPAs
d Au n:
Da
an e io
14. Apply Lessons Learned to improve the LPAs. I A S

d th irat
to
15. Communicate the status and results of the LPAs to all Stakeholders I A I
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
R: Responsible - The person who is ultimately responsible for delivering the task
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
successfully.
te y
b
ht o en
A: Accountable - The person who has ultimate accountability and approval authority;
they review and assure quality and are the person to whom “R” is accountable.
e i
an is d cum mb ent
S: Supportive - The team or person(s) supporting the "real" work with resources,
ec
time or other material benefit. They are committed to its completion.

Th Do r nu um
I: Informed - Those who provide input and must be informed of results or actions
E- rde doc
taken but are not involved in final decision-making.

C: Consulted - Those who provide valuable input. Their buy-in is important for
is
successful implementation.
Th
O
- 24 -
CQI-8
APPENDIX C – FREQUENCY OF AUDIT BY LAYER
Acme Automotive
Audit Assignment Matrix
Assigned Assigned
Management Management
Dept C
Dept D
Dept A
Dept B
Dept E
Dept F
Category Personnel Audit
Audit Layer (example) (example) Assignment
1st Layer of Supervisors

Management
Supervisor 1 Own Dept 1 per shift 1 per shift
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
io
at
d ion
or
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
ha to 6/
2nd Layer of Area Managers

na
Management
d Au n:
Da
Area Manager 1 Own Area <---------- 2 depts per week ---------->

an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
Area Manager 2 Own Area <- 2 depts per week ->

ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
3rd Layer of Plant Staff and

e i
an is d cum mb ent
Management Plant Manager

ec
Engrng Mgr Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week

Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
Quality Mgr Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week

is
Th
O
Tooling Mgr Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week

d
H.R. Mgr Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week
Training Coord. Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week
Plant Manager Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week
4th Layer Visiting

(as available) Executives or Determined
Various <----------- as visitors are available, 1 dept per visit ------------>
Visitors from by Site
other sites
- 25 -
CQI-8
APPENDIX D – AUDIT SCHEDULE

Acme Automotive
LPA Staff Level Audit Tracking Form
Week of July 19 Rolling 6 week schedule (drop and add four weeks every month)
Audit Frequency
Required Week Beginning: week 3 week 4 week 5 week 6
Layer 3 Staff Member 28-Jun 5-Jul 12-Jul 19-Jul 26-Jul 2-Aug
Checksht(s) Checksht(s) Checksht(s) Checksht(s) Checksht(s) Checksht(s)
Assigned Assigned Assigned Assigned Assigned Assigned
Sue, Plant Manager 1 per week

Dept A Dept B Dept C Dept D Dept E Dept F
Marco, Controller 1 per week
in p
Dept B Dept C Dept D Dept E Dept F Dept A
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
Gene, HR 1 per week
io
Dept C Dept D Dept E Dept F Dept A Dept B
at
d ion
or
Claus, Purchasing 1 per week
ke ct
Dept D Dept E Dept F
rp
Dept A Dept B Dept C
ac
ar y A
Co
Liu, Engineer 1 per week
rm tr
Dept E Dept F Dept A Dept B Dept C Dept D
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
ld
Arun, Quality 1 per week

be t /2
Dept F Dept A Dept B Dept C Dept D Dept E
Ho
s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
Total Plant Checks for the week 6

d Au n:
6 6 6 6 6
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
= Incomplete Audit
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
= Completed Audit
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
is
Th
O
- 26 -
CQI-8
APPENDIX E - EXAMPLE CHECK SHEET
PCA Acme Automotive

LPA - Process Control Audit
Process Line: Dept D Week Beginning: July 19

Instructions:
Process Desc: Widget Build and Cure
All questions are to be answ ered w ith a check "¥" a no "N" or non-
applicable "N/A" in the Corresponding day's box, 2nd Layer and 3rd Customer: World Motors Shift: 1
Layer Auditor's boxes. Non-compliances must have corrective
action recorded in the space provided & identified w ith either the Customer Parts: 42c, 28af, x29 and X30
letter of the day (M,T,W,R,F,S) or the date (MM/DD/YY) and the If this check sheet is being used for a
Customer Program: 04 & 05 XF
Auditor's initials. supplemental audit, indicate the auditor
When applicable:
2nd 3rd
name and date in the box below , then
1st Layer Checks enter findings in the appropriate
Layer Layer
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Checks Checks day-of-the-w eek column to the left.
Date of Audit (MM/DD) 6/28 6/29 6/30
6/29 6/30
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
Auditor's Nam e or Initials Corrective Action Taken
gl
Item#
n
Joe Joe Joe Liu Sue Include date and initials
io
Station These Item s are to be Checked Every Shift (if nonconformance found)
at
d ion
1 Temperature and Feed
or
Verify on the left-side readouts that the temperature of all
ke ct
rp
ac
oven zones are betw een 140 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit
ar y A
Co
and the belt is set at 2.5 feet per minute. 6/29 Joe: Zone three w as found at 135.
rm tr
Operator returned to 145. I checked
¥ X ¥
Sta 2 Improper temperature or feed could result in brittle
¥ ¥
wa Ind 4
g
te us
material and early failures. This had been a warranty en ive 01 product test data-- all w as fine. No
in
issue until LPA implemented (6/2004) further action needed.

ld
be t /2
1) move to proper set-points
Ho
Reaction
s mo 10
2) verify all other oven control settings

Plan
ha to 6/
3) notify supervisor
na
2 Retainer Installation
d Au n:
Da
Is the operator using the grease dispenser to apply grease to

an e io
the gasket prior to retainer installation? 6/28 Joe: Mary w as not aw are of need
d th irat
to
to use dispenser and dispenser w as

Sta 2 Absence or excessive grease could result in mis-
X ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ dry. We filled dispenser and Mary
rig t is Lic 6 d
located gasket, leak test failure or field failure.

py en te 92 se
began using. Detail w ill be added to job

x
ot ed E
1) Instruct operator and refer to job instruction instruction.

co m Si 43 en
Reaction
2) notify supervisor
pr wn se
te y
Plan
b
ht o en
3 Weld presence
e i
Verify that the operator is checking three w elds for location,

an is d cum mb ent
per the w ork instruction, and verifying the part is free of w eld
ec
spatter. 6/29 Joe: N/A - w eld stations w ere

Th Do r nu um
dow n for unplanned maintenance.

Sta 2 All three welds are important for frame strength and
¥ na ¥ na ¥
E- rde doc
therefore a safety concern. Spatter-free is a customer

requirement. 6/29 sam: Line dow n for repair.
1) Instruct operator and refer to job instruction
is
Reaction
2) with operator, check parts in Sta 10 through 15 for
Th
Plan
those three welds and spatter
O
2nd 3rd Week's Total of

1st Layer Checks
Layer Layer 1st Layer Checks for
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Checks Checks this shift
d
In Compliance - Total Number of Checkmarks in Each Column: Yes >

2 1 3 2 3 6
NOT in Compliance - Total Number of N's in Each Column: No >
1 1 0 0 0 2
Total Number of N/A's in Each Column: N/A >
0 1 0 1 0 1
Total Number of Items Checked during Audit
3 3 3 3 3 9
Each day should be totaled for compliance and recorded in the space provided.
Please list any additional quality or manufacturing concerns below (date and location; and condition, concern or question)
- 27 -
CQI-8
APPENDIX F – REPORTING EXAMPLE
Layered Process Audit Results

2013
Calibrations
% In Compliance Process
Operator Controls
Annual
Packaging
120.0% Instructions Non Conformances
Setup / Poka
Yoke
100.0% Material ID Customer Concerns
5S
80.0%
Customer PM
Concerns
60.0% PM Material ID
Setup / Poka Yoke
in p
rd u
y.
40.0% Operator Instructions
co Gro
gl
n
io
Process Controls
20.0%
at
5S
d ion
Calibrations
or
ke ct
rp
ac
0.0% Packaging
ar y A
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Co
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
Ja n Feb Ma r Apr Ma y Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
en ive 01
in
% In Compliance 99.1% 98.4% 99.0% 99.5% 99.7% 98.2% 99.6% 98.7% 98.7%
ld
be t /2
Ho
Ave# Items on LPA Audit 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

s mo 10
# Of LPA Audits 46 44 31 39 31 39 26 30 39
ha to 6/
na
Total # of Items Audited 460 440 310 390 310 390 260 300 390
d Au n:
Da
# of Items In Compliance 456 433 307 388 309 383 259 296 385
an e io
Non-conformances 4 7 3 2 1 7 1 4 5
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
Non Conformances
p
Ja n Feb Ma r Apr Ma y Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tota l
py en te 92 se
Customer Concerns 0 2 2 1 3 3 0 1 4 16
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
5S 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 9
te y
PM 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 6
ht o en
Material ID 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
e i
an is d cum mb ent
Setup / Poka Yoke 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

ec
Operator Instructions 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Th Do r nu um
Process Controls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
E- rde doc
Calibrations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Packaging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
is
Th
O
- 28 -
CQI-8
APPENDIX G - GLOSSARY
Audit: Systemic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it
objectively to determine the extent of which audit criteria are fulfilled.
Conformity: Fulfillment of a requirement
Corrective Action: Action to eliminate the cause of a detected nonconformity or other undesirable
situation.
in p
¾ NOTE: Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action is taken to
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
prevent occurrence.
io
at
d ion
or
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
Customer: The recipient of the organizations or supplier’s product or service.
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
Ho
Error Proofing: Refers to any devices and practices that prevent a failure mode from occurring.
s mo 10
ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
First Time Capability: Measures how many goods are produced correctly without flaws or re-work as
rig t is Lic 6 d
percentage of total units produced in a production process or value stream. This concept can also be easily
py en te 92 se
x
ot ed E
applied to the service industry as a measure of service or orders delivered satisfactorily to customers the
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
first time without any amendments, re-work, or complaints.

b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
Organization: Group of people and facilities with an arrangement of responsibilities, authorities and
ec
Th Do r nu um
relationships.
E- rde doc
is
Th
Performance Indicators: Key Outcome Indicator: KOI’s are metrics that are tied to an objective,
O
have at least one defined time sensitive target value and have explicit thresholds’ which grade the gap
between the actual values and the target.
d
¾ Key Performance Indicator: KPI’s are those metrics most critical to gauging progression toward
objectives. KIs are metrics that are tied to an objective, have at least one defined time-sensitive
target value and have explicit thresholds which grade the gap between the actual and the target.
¾ KPI/KOI Scorecard: A specific application of a scorecard, a KOI/KPI scorecard is used to
measure progress toward a given set of KPIs or KOIs.
Predictive Maintenance: Activities based on process data aimed at the avoidance of maintenance
problems by prediction of likely failure modes.
- 29 -
CQI-8
Preventive Action: Action to eliminate the cause of a potential nonconformity or other undesirable
potential situation.
¾ NOTE: Preventive action is taken to prevent occurrence whereas corrective action (3.6.5) is
taken to prevent recurrence.
Predictive Maintenance: Planned action to eliminate causes of equipment failure and unscheduled
interruptions to production, as an output of the manufacturing process design.
Procedure: Specific way to carry out and activity or a process
Process: Set of interrelated or interacting activities which transform inputs into outputs.
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
io
at
d ion
Product: Refers to physical objects or services produced by the process.
or
ke ct
rp
ac
ar y A
Co
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
Quality: Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfils requirements.
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
Ho
¾ NOTE: “Inherent”, as opposed to “assigned”, means existing in something, especially as a

s mo 10
permanent characteristic.
ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
Requirement: The specific requirement of the customer receiving the product. This requirement may be
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
anything from a functional characteristic (e.g., spins freely) to a specific, quantified characteristic (e.g.;
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
diameter must measure 10-15mm)

b
ht o en
e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Th Do r nu um
Stake Holders / Interested Parties: Person of group having an interest in the performance or success
of an organization.
E- rde doc
is
Th
Supplier: Organization or person that provides a product.

O
Top Management: Person or group who direct and control an organization at the highest level.
Validation: Confirmation, through the provision of objective evidence, that the requirements for a
specific intended use or application have been fulfilled.
Verification: Providing of objective evidence that a given item fulfills specified requirements.
- 30 -
CQI-8
MAINTENANCE REQUEST FORM

Name of Submitter: Date:
Company:
Company Address:
Phone: Fax: E-mail:
MAINTENANCE REQUEST
Page Number of Change:
Document Currently Reads:
in p
rd u
y.
co Gro
gl
n
io
at
d ion
or
ke ct
rp
Recommended Changes/Should Read:
ac
ar y A
Co
rm tr
wa Ind 4
g
te us
en ive 01
in
ld
be t /2
Ho
s mo 10
Reason for Change (Use additional sheets if necessary):

ha to 6/
na
d Au n:
Da
an e io
d th irat
to
rig t is Lic 6 d
p
py en te 92 se
Signature of Submitter:
ot ed E
co m Si 43 en
pr wn se
te y
b
ht o en
DISPOSITION (AIAG USE ONLY)

e i
an is d cum mb ent
ec
Manager’s Recommendation:
Th Do r nu um
E- rde doc
is
Th
Final Disposition:
O
Comments:
Note: Complete form and return to the AIAG Publication Specialist for consideration.
Automotive Industry Action Group • 26200 Lahser Road • Suite 200 • Southfield, MI 48033
Telephone: (248) 358-3570 • Fax: (248) 358-3253
Web: www.aiag.org
- 31 -

CQI 8English2ndEdition 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CQI 8English2ndEdition 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CQI 8English2ndEdition 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Th

The Catalyst for Peak Performance

purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the publication.

usefulness of any information from this publication.

26200 Lahser Road, Suite 200

Phone: (248) 358-3570 • Fax: (248) 358-3253

AIAG COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICE:

© 2014 Automotive Industry Action Group

ISBN#: 978 1 60534-300 6

x Top management support

x Communication of the value to employees

Robert D. Francois III

Murray J. Sittsamer (Chair)

3.5 PROCESS PRIORITIZATION .........................................................................................................................................11

3.7 DEVELOPING TEMPLATES FOR AUDITING AND REPORTING ..............................................................................................12

3.8 LPA PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................................................13

3.9 STAKEHOLDER BUY-IN .............................................................................................................................................14

4.1 LPA IMPLEMENTATION TEAM WORKSHOP ..................................................................................................................15

4.2 TRAIN THE AUDITORS ..............................................................................................................................................18

4.3 COMMUNICATE THE LPA ROLLOUT TO THE PROCESS AREA ..............................................................................................18

5 CONDUCTING THE AUDIT .................................................................................................................................. 19

5.1 CONDUCTING THE AUDITS AND RECORDING THE FINDINGS .............................................................................................19

6 TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF LPAS ....................................................... 21

6.1 TOP MANAGEMENT LPA REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 21

6.2 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF LPAS .......................................................................................................................21

1.1 LPA Definition and Purpose

2 VALUE OF THE LPA MANAGEMENT TOOL

2.1 How Will Layered Process Audits Benefit the Organization?

Increasing First Time Capability

x Reinforcing key or updated process steps, including safety requirements

x Increasing interaction between plant management and line operators

x Allowing first hand feedback from operators to plant management

x Enabling management to implement corrective action and pursue continuous

x Institutionalizing training and process knowledge

x Reducing the overall cost of poor quality

3 TOP MANAGEMENT PLANNING

LPAs? For reporting results and actions?

ensure the LPA program is effective?

What formats and report formats will be used?

3.1 LPA Process Owner

3.2 LPA Planning Team

x Any other department or area affected by the LPAs

3.3 LPA Scope

processes will have a correspondingly lower impact on the organization’s

3.4 Customer-Specific Requirements

3.5 Process Prioritization

Audits include but are not limited to:

x High number of safety incidents / injuries

x High number of customer complaints or quality spills from the process

x High-risk or high-severity items from the PFMEA

x High scrap rate / low First Time Capability (FTC)

x Low machine efficiency or high downtime / maintenance

3.6 Audit Layers

important and the responsibility of everyone in the organization.

3.7 Developing Templates for Auditing and Reporting

3.8 Developing Metrics for LPA Effectiveness

Table 1: Sample LPA Metrics

Corrective Actions completed (by Area) On-time completion of Corrective Actions

Repeat Non-Conformance in LPA Effectiveness of Corrective Actions (e.g. 8Ds)