An AIAG publication is intended as a guide to aid the manufacturer, the consumer and the general public. The existence of an AIAG publication does not in any respect preclude anyone from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the publication. Please refer to the Maintenance Request Form at the back of this document to submit a request. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of an original work prepared by a U. All rights are preserved by AIAG, and content may not be altered or disseminated, published, or transferred in part of such content. The information is not to be sold in part or whole to anyone within your organization or to another company.
|Published (Last):||7 March 2019|
|PDF File Size:||11.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.10 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
An AIAG publication is intended as a guide to aid the manufacturer, the consumer and the general public. The existence of an AIAG publication does not in any respect preclude anyone from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the publication. Please refer to the Maintenance Request Form at the back of this document to submit a request. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of an original work prepared by a U. All rights are preserved by AIAG, and content may not be altered or disseminated, published, or transferred in part of such content.
The information is not to be sold in part or whole to anyone within your organization or to another company. Copyright infringement is a violation of federal law subject to criminal and civil penalties. Effective management of process capability requires the identification of sources of both special and common cause variation.
Once the sources are identified, corrective actions designed to address them must be effectively implemented and sustained. Employees do not refer to instructions or procedures before every step of a process; they often complete the processes by memory, which comes from repeating and practicing each step many times over.
Once necessary process changes are identified, employees must re-learn and adjust. However, it is very easy for employees to return to the old, familiar methods. Before , DaimlerChrysler and General Motors required different process review approaches, including different approaches for Layered Process Audits.
One of the principal purposes of industry standard practices is to address commonly observed issues that are not isolated to any one company, commodity, or process within the industry. Validation of process improvements and corrective actions is one commonly observed industry issue that can be directly improved by the use of Layered Process Audits, which are designed for this specific purpose. Layered Process Audits require that multiple operational levels within a manufacturing facility review the same key operational controls that ensure product quality.
Controlling quality at multiple operational levels is a key strength of Layered Process Audits. CQI-8 2 Issue: 1. CQI-8 3 Issue: 1. Effective management of process compliance requires the identification of sources of both special and common cause variation. Examples of special cause variation might include failure of one shift of personnel to follow the prescribed process.
Examples of common cause variation might include an inadequate FMEA for the manufacturing process. Once the sources are identified, the corrective actions designed to address them must be effectively implemented and sustained.
Employees typically do not refer to instructions or procedures before every step of a process; they often complete the processes by memory, which comes from repeating and practicing each step many times over. It is very easy for them to return to the old, familiar methods.
There might even be perceived incentives in place to follow the "tried and true" previous processes, even though studies have shown that the "tried and true" processes were not adequate to meet customer requirements.
Purpose of This Guideline Layered Process Audits reduce variation along the manufacturing line and up through the ranks of plant management.
However, if each customer OEM developed its own Layered Process Audit method, the effectiveness overall would be reduced.
The basic approach for the Audits is an established concept; therefore, there is no competitive advantage for any particular OEM to develop a custom approach. The competitive advantage, though, could lie in the chosen application of the common Audit approach. The concepts behind Layered Process Audits are not new. They find their origin in the well-known PlanDo-Check-Act continuous improvement cycle. This Guideline is not designed to introduce any significant improvements in the technology or application methodology of Layered Process Audits.
It is designed to provide a common framework of the definitions and standard approaches that can be adopted by any automotive OEM or supplier to an OEM tier 1 , at any depth in the supply chain any tier.
Each organization may choose to develop specific requirements for Layered Process Audits, for example, the frequency of the audits or the minimum topics to be included in the question sets.
Such specific requirements will augment the suggested framework defined by this Guideline. CQI-8 6 Issue: 1. It is recommended that a training program for Layered Process Audit auditors be based on material in this Guideline starting with this section. NOTE: While this Guideline describes the common fundamental requirements that DaimlerChrysler and General Motors have agreed upon, each company might have specific requirements such as particular processes audited, reporting format, audit maintenance, etc.
Table 1A lists the commonly defined steps. Table 1A. Typical Steps for Developing and Implementing Audits A cross-functional team identifies existing key process steps to audit.
These are selected based on risk to product quality including lessons learned, safety, criticality of process step, or product characteristic. Layered Process Audit items can also include past non-conformances, past customer returns, and past customer complaints. Layered Process Audits conducted in manufacturing facilities are owned by Manufacturing Management. Layered Process Audits reinforce existing processes and requirements and are not intended to develop pilot or draft processes.
Layered Process Audits are short in duration and are conducted according to a regular, planned cadence with specific criteria for frequency. Multiple levels of plant personnel audit the manufacturing process to the same questions; delegating is not acceptable. Audit results are recorded consistently, including corrective actions, and summarized for senior management review.
Areas audited are appropriate to the span of authority of the level of person auditing. The higher the level of management conducting the audit, the greater the span of control and therefore the number of audit items can increase. The multiple levels of plant personnel that audit must do so with a standard, common set of questions. Layered Audits are not intended to have multiple layers of management measure part characteristics. Audit frequency depends on personnel management level, not on availability.
CQI-8 7 Issue: 1. Audit questions are updated as required to incorporate the latest improvements and process updates based on audit findings, employee suggestions, etc. Layered Process Audits are monitored for completion and issues found. Root causes are then determined and appropriate questions are incorporated into the audits for recurring non-conformances.
The expected result of the Layered Process Audits is that customers benefit from reduced variation in the manufacturing process. While it might be possible to implement Layered Process Audits in non-manufacturing environments for example, Product Development , such usage might require a modified approach.
This Guideline describes the Layered Process Audit approach that has been effective in the manufacturing environment. The steps listed in Table 1A have the following characteristics: Require that personnel from the operations level through to plant senior management validate the implementation of defined manufacturing processes. Reinforce manufacturing process updates typically implemented as a result of a corrective action.
Focus on key processes and process steps identified as requiring special attention from multiple levels of plant personnel to ensure compliance due to their criticality to customer satisfaction.
Do not replace regular Quality Management System audits conducted by internal or external dedicated auditors. Therefore, the scope of a Layered Process Audit is limited to the identified processes and process steps requiring special attention due to their criticality to customer satisfaction rather than being a broad check of process compliance. Not keeping Layered Process Audits to their original intent by, for example, broadening them to include all processes or not updating their question sets, would likely reduce the benefits of the Audits and discourage their use.
A more detailed description of what Layered Process Audits are and are not is provided in section 1. CQI-8 8 Issue: 1. Other benefits are associated with the softer side of managing an organization, including increased floor time for plant management. Many organizations have observed that Layered Process Audits achieve the following: Measure and encourage work process standardization. Reinforce key or updated process steps, including safety requirements.
Openly publish what is important and what will be checked. Increase the interaction between plant management and line operators. Allow operators to provide first hand feedback to plant management and see immediate corrective action implementation where appropriate. Demonstrate the importance of key processes and key process steps by having plant management review those processes and steps with the operators.
Institutionalize training and process knowledge for operators and all levels of plant management. Reduce errors, reduce scrap, increase First Time Through, and therefore reduce costs. Improve product quality and customer satisfaction.
While these are typical benefits of Layered Process Audits, they might not be applicable to every organization. There might be other, more significant benefits that surface from using Layered Process Audit methodology. To paraphrase W. Edwards Deming, no one goes to work with the intention of doing a bad job. Therefore, everyone wants to know that he or she is doing a good job, for a variety of reasons, including personal pride, recognition, etc. If people need to know that they are doing a good job, they need to have metrics regarding their job.
This starts with the operator personally checking part quality and process compliance, without the fear of a "formal" audit. The first line supervisor checks key processes and process steps that everyone is aware of since they are on the published Layered Process Audit check-sheet. Process compliance feedback is immediate, as are any agreed-upon corrective actions. CQI-8 9 Issue: 1.
In this way, everyone is an auditor for Layered Process Audits. These "auditors" do not need Quality Management System auditor training since they are not Quality Management System auditors. Table 1B. Verification that processes and procedures are being followed. Owned by the operational group where the audit is conducted e. Conducted by multiple management levels of personnel in a given facility. A short list of key and high-risk processes, process steps, and procedures. Completed on a regular, pre-determined frequency.
Completed by the person identified in the audit plan in each layer of the organization. A method to verify and sustain corrective actions related to process.
Insight... Expertise... Results.
Excopt as noted above, all rights are reserved by AIAG and no part of thse materials may be reproduced, printed, stored ina rave ton, tananited nny fm by ary means elena, poacopying econ, ohne, out the por Inilten permission of Automotive Industry Action Group. Copyright infingement is 2 vation of federal a hl penalties. Automotive Industry Action Group makes no claim to any trademark ofa third pary, Trademarks of third patssincuded in these materials are the property of thar respective oumers. Atits core, LPAS are verifications that the most important standards and controls are in place.
CQI-8 Layered Process Audit Guideline
CQI-8 : Layered Process Audit Guideline, 2nd Edition