I�

CQl�8
Layered Process Audits G�ideline
2nd Edition

'----'

-
�--

-
lnsight
·,
_ _.,,

\_.,

'- -··

Expertise
�-

_,

Results

·-

The Catalyst for Pea k Performance

_,
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

ABOUTAIAG
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 pian, 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
to develop recommendations, guidelines, and best practices for the overall good of the industry. A listing of current
projects can be found at www.aiaq.org.
AIAG PUBLICATIONS
An AIAG publication reflects a consensus of those substantially concemed with its scope and provisions. An
AIAG publication is intended as a guide to aid the manufacturer, the consumer, and the generai public. The
existence of an A/AG publication does not in any respect preclude anyone from manufacturing, marketing,
purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the pub/ication.
DISCLA/MER
The Publisher does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, in relation to any information
from this pub/ication, and the Publisher does not assume any legai liabi/ity far the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information from this publication.
CAUTIONARY NOTICE
AIAG publications are subject to periodic review and users are cautioned to obtain the latest editions.
MAINTENANCE PROCEDURE
Recognizing that this AIAG publication may not cover ali circumstances, AIAG has established a maintenance
procedure. Please refer to the Maintenance Request Form at the back of this document to submit a request.
Published by:
Automotive lndustry Action Group
26200 Lahser Road, Suite 200
Southfield, Michigan 48033
Phone: (248) 358-3570 • Fax: (248) 358-3253
APPROVAL STATUS
The AIAG Quality Steering Committee and designated stakeholders approved this document far pub/ication in
January 2014.

AIAG COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK NOTICE:

© 2014 Automotive lndustry Action Group, except that copyright is not claimed as to any part of an originai work prepared by a U. S.
or state govemment officer or emp/oyee as part of the person 's officiai duties.
Except as noted above, ali 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, e/ectronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of Automotive lndustry Action Group. Copyright infringement is a violation of federai law subject to criminal and
civil penalties.
AIAG and Automotive lndustry Action Group are registered service marks of the Automotive lndustry Action Group. Automotive
lndustry 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 lndustry Action Group

ISBN#: 978 1 60534-300 6

-1-
 CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance

-2-
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

FOREWORD
This guideline will help you utilize Layered Process Audit (LPA) as a tool to take your organization to the next leve!
ofperformance.
At its core, LPAs are verifications that the most important standards and controls are in piace. n a larger sense,
LPAs provide constant attention to the core processes ofan organization -- by all levels ofmanagement. A well
deployed LPA system drives a culture ofaccountability, process contro! 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.
Ifyou'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 ofthe
questions on your check sheets. In Section 4 ofthe guideline, we share techniques for writing questions that are
value-add, rather than 'classica!' quality checks. Other aspects for fine-turning your LPAs can be found in Section 6.
Ifyou're new to LPAs, you can create LPAs that impact Key Performance Indicators (KPis) such as Safety, Quality,
Cost, Delivery and Morale. Since reaching established goals for these measures is in the interest ofeveryone in an
organization, it makes sense that all levels, or layers, ofmanagement participant in LPA deployment and on-going
audits.
The criticai success factors for a value-add LPA are addressed in this revision ofCQI-8:
• Top management support
• Communication of the value to employees
• lmpactful audits

-3 -
 AIAG�
The cata/yst far peak performance
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
CQl-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
AB OUT AIAG .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................................... 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................................. 5
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 7
I
1.1 LPA DEFINITION ANO PURPOSE................................................................................................................................... 7
2 VALUE OF THE LPA MANAGEMENT TOOL............................................................................................................ 8
2.1 How WILL LAYERED PROCESS AUDITS BENEFIT THE ORGANIZATION? .................................................................................8
3 TOP MANAGEMENT PLANN/NG .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 LPA PROCESS OWNER............................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 LPA PLANNING TEAM ............................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 LPA SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.4 (USTOMER-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 11
I
3.5 PROCESS PRIORITIZATION......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.6 AUDIT LAYERS ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
3.7 DEVELOPING TEMPLATES FOR AUDITING ANO REPORTING .............................................................................................. 12
3.8 LPA PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.9 STAKEHOLDER BUY-IN ............................................................................................................................................. 14
4 DEPLOYMENT.................................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1 LPA IMPLEMENTATION TEAM WORKSHOP ..................................................................................................................15
4.2 TRAIN THE AUDITORS .............................................................................................................................................. 18
4.3 (OMMUNICATE THE LPA ROLLOUT TO THE PROCESS AREA .............................................................................................. 18
I
5 CONDUCT/NG THE AUDIT .................................................................................................................................. 19
I
5.1 (ONDUCTING THE AUDITS ANO RECORDING THE FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 19
5.2 OBSERVATIONS ANO PERSONAL INTERACTIONS.............................................................................................................19
6 TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF LPAS ....................................................... 21
6.1 TOP MANAGEMENT LPA REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 21
6.2 (ONTINUOUS 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-

V
AIAG�
The catalyst far peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

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 contro! 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.
LPAs are a structured way to verify that work is perfonned as originally intended, resulting in improved
performance metrics. Because LPAs are conducted at the location where the process is being used, LPAs
also facilitate ongoing two-way communication between management and the process users. These
interactions strengthen trust and demonstrate shared ownership in the work being done right.
The Layered Process Audit is actually more 'verification ' than 'audit.' A Layered Process Audit verifies
that controls are in piace and the standard process is being followed ... and followed correctly. Because
LPA is not a controI but a verification of a controI, it does not belong in a Process ControI Pian.
When defining Layered Process Audits, it often helps to explain to personnel of all levels what Layered
Process Audits are and also by explaining what they are not. The "is/is not" tool is recognized in many
problem-solving disciplines. This has been applied to Layered Process Audits in Appendix A.

-7-
 r-
r-

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
r-

2 VALUE OF THE LPA MANAGEMENT TOOL r

2.1 How Will Layered Process Audits Benefit the Organization? r

Effective Layered Process Audits provide management with verification of process conformance, identify
areas of potential process variation, and provide opportunities for continuous improvement ofKey
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 r

impact on business results. r

When applied effectively, Layered Process Audits can provide specific benefits, including the following: r
• Mitigating safety incidents (injury, near- accidents, lost time, etc.)
• Reducing waste
• Improving cash flow
• Improving product quality and customer satisfaction
• Reducing quality incidents (errors, scrap, rework, etc.)
• Increasing First Time Capability
• Measuring and encouraging work process standardization
• Reinforcing key or updated process steps, including safety requirements
• Increasing interaction between plant management and line operators
• Allowing first hand feedback from operators to plant management
• Enabling management to implement corrective action and pursue continuous
improvement
• Institutionalizing training and process knowledge
• Reducing the overall cost of poor quality
While these are typical benefits of Layered Process Audits, some might not be applicable to every
organization. Conversely, as an organization implements Layered Process Audits, additional benefits may
become apparent.

-8-
AIAG�
The catalyst ror peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

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 ofmanagement, is critical to the success ofany LPA program. When planning
an LPA program, there are several things that need to be considered:
1. LPA Process Owner- What individua! 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
ofwhen developing the LPA program?
5. Process Prioritization- What areas or processes show the biggest opportunities for improvement?
Which LPAs should be implemented first?
6. Audit Layers- What levels ofthe organization will be involved in conducting the LPAs?
7. Development ofAudit and Reporting Templates- What will be the format for conducting the
LPAs? For reporting results and actions?
I
8. Developing Metrics for LPA Effectiveness - What metrics or indicators will be monitored to
ensure the LPA program is effective?
9. LPA Procedure- What needs to happen in order to implement the LPAs? Who will do that?
What formats and report formats will be used?
1O. Stakeholder Buy-in- Are all ofthe involved departments committed to the LPA program? Is
there Top Management support and commitment? How is this support and commitment
demonstrated?

3.1 LPA Process Owner

A single individua! from Top Management should be assigned overall responsibility for the Layered
Process Audits. This individua! serves as the program lead and is responsible for the following:
• Obtaining audit results and records from each area ofthe organization;
• Ensuring that responsible individuals have developed corrective actions for issues
and implemented them according to schedule;
• Reporting to Top Management on the status ofLPAs and implemented actions;
• Ensuring that LPA results and actions are communicated throughout the organization;
• Facilitating the addition ofnew processes to the LPAs;
• Creating, maintaining and updating, as required, the LPA procedure(s), templates,
and schedules.
Because Layered Process Audits are not simply another audit to be canied 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-
 ,,--

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
,,--

,,--

,
In addition to the LPA Process Owner, the manager in each area ofthe organization that performs the ,
LPAs must take ownership for their area. They will be responsible for ensuring:
r
• LPAs are conducted on time.
r
• LPAs are conducted by the designated team members.
r
• Corrective actions for issues in their areas are developed and implemented on
r
schedule.
• The department results are recorded and reviewed regularly. r

• Resources are available and focused on c01Tective actions for the nonconformances r

identified. r

r
3.2 LPA Planning Team r

The LPA Process Owner should assemble the Planning Team to begin developing the Layered Process r
Audits. A cross-functional team should be created, with paiiicipation from-at a minimum-al! the
organization's departments and levels that will be affected by the Layered Process Audits. Suggested r

areas include but are not limited to:

• Operations / Manufacturing
• Production Contro!
• Human Resources
• Engineering
• Maintenance
• Sales / Finance
• Quality
• Supply Chain
• Materiai Contro!
• Any other department or area affected by the LPAs

3.3 LPA Scope

As mentioned previously, the purpose ofa Layered Process Audit is to verify that work is done according
to established standards, to emphasize the importance ofthose standards, and to identify opportunities for
continuous improvement. Processes included in Layered Process Audits should have the following
characteristies:
• 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.
• Fully documented, including work instructions, contro! plans, etc. Layered Process
Audits check to an established standard.
• Be approved processes, either by customer or by management
• Be criticai to customer satisfaction, satisfying govemment regulations, or the
performance ofthe organization. Layered Process Audits performed on low-risk

- 10 -
AIAG�
The catafyst for peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

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 fumctions. The generai
rule should be "Ifa process is criticai to the performance or functioning ofthe 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

The Planning Team shall review and adopt Customer-Specific Requirements for the Layered Process
Audits. These can include specifications on frequency, participation, and scope, as well as others. When
developing the Layered Process Audits, the Planning Team should review the specific requirements for
each customer they internet with and ensure that all such requirements are incorporated into the program.
These should serve as program "minimums." Ifthe Planning Team is unclear on where to obtain these
Customer-Specific Requirements, they should contact their designated customer representative for
direction or clarification.

3.5 Process Prioritization

With the scope defined and Customer-Specific Requirements identified, the Planning Team should focus
on prioritizing which processes will have Layered Process Audits developed first. The Planning Team
should review each process's performance to see which ones are causing problems ofthe highest severity
and/or frequency. Some examples ofitems to look for when prioritizing processes for the Layered Process
Audits include but are not limited to:
• High number ofsafety incidents / injuries
• High number ofcustomer complaints or quality spills from the process
• High-risk or high-severity items from the PFMEA
• High scrap rate / low First Time Capability (FTC)
• Low machine efficiency or high downtime / maintenance
• 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 ofthe following characteristics, it
should receive a higher priority:
• Customer has mandated a Layered Process Audit.
• Process has caused a criticai quality issue for one or more customers (such as
stopping the shipment ofa product or resulting in a warranty field campaign).
• Process is regulated by government standards, especially safety or environmental.

- 11 -
 r

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst far peak performance

• Process is criticai to the functioning ofthe organization (i.e., the plant could shut r
down ifthe process fails). For example, materiai management and tool maintenance,
etc.
r

3.6 Audit Layers

A Layered Process Audit gets its name from the requirement that multiple "layers" (i.e., personnel at
various levels) ofan organization conduct the audit. Unlike an audit ofa product characteristic or feature
that is typically conducted by an operator or a quality depaiiment 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 ofmanagement in the
organization will be required to take part in the program. Auditors should come from every area ofthe
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.
Supervisors, team leaders, department managers, and Top Management should all conduct LPAs;
however, the organization's top manager within the facility shall always take part. A Layered Process
Audit places people ofmultiple levels ofthe organization where the work is being done to verify criticai
items. This facilitates communication between management and the working-level team members. The
Layered Process Audit also demonstrates to all team members that these designated, criticai items are
very important. In some organizations, visiting corporate executives should be included in the LPA
schedule.
When higher levels ofthe organization are involved with verifying conformance to standards through
interaction with front-line employees, this drives home the message that conformance to standards are
important and the responsibility ofeveryone in the organization.

3.7 Developing Templates tor Auditing and Reporting

The Planning Team should obtain or develop the standard templates to be used for the Layered Process
Audits. This will ensure consistency across each department / area and prevent uncontrolled documents
from being used. The team should develop templates for LPAs to be performed in the organization and
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
that document.
Once developed, the templates should follow the organization's Document Contro! and Record Retention
processes. They should be stored in a location that is known and accessible to all ofthe area-specific
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 ofLPA templates are shown in Appendices E & F.

3.8 Developing Metrics tor LPA Ettectiveness

Layered Process Audits (LPAs) are more effective when their output is carefully monitored and, in the
case ofnonconformances, 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 -
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
Layered Process Audits
CQl-8
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

conduct the audits. As the LPA system matures, the focus will shift from reporting audit events to
monitoring the effectiveness ofthe LPAs.
LPA reporting might include the following in Table 1:

Table 1: Sample LPA Metrics

- "-, ..,.,,... , ... - ..,,..�

Metric
--
··..· ,.:I
- ,.---:: -11·-.Measures
. -� ...t.
- - ,--
'
"" - . .
' .. .. · _ ..'"j
'. · ., · --- - .,:j

Percent of Audits completed (by Layer) Implementation ofthe program and assigned
LPA priority

Percent in Conformance (by Area) Percent ofitems checked that were observed to
be in conformance with defined work standards,
settings, methods, technique, etc.

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

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

KPis (see section 2.1) Effectiveness ofthe LPA program (e.g., effect
on operating metrics)

(See Appendix F for an example)

3.9 LPA Procedure

The Planning Team should document the LPA process in a standard "LPA Procedure." When developing
the LPA Procedure, the Planning Team should consider all ofthe following:
• Conformance with Customer-Specific Requirements
• Roles and Responsibilities (e.g., an organizational RASIC- see Appendix B)
• Documenting and Implementing Corrective Actions
• Management Reporting
• Training Requirements and Records
The LPA Procedure should also include or make reference to the following forms:
• Process Prioritization List

- 13 -
 CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catafyst tor peak performance

r
• Schedule Template r
• Check sheet Template r
• Reporting Template r-
The LPA Procedure should be a controlled document that is approved by Top Management and made r
accessible to all levels ofthe organization as needed.
r

3.1 O Stakeholder Buy-in r

The Planning Team shall ensure buy-in from all stakeholders ofthe 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 r
them are completed by their target due dates. At a minimum, buy-in shall come from:
• The LPA Process Owner
r
• Management ofeach applicable department
r
• Planning Team members
• Top Management (including the top manager in the facility)
• Corporate Management
r
Without this buy-in, there is a strong likelihood that the Layered Process Audits will not have the support
they need to provide true benefits to the organization.

- 14 -
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

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 ofthose teams is a process-specific LPA check sheet. It
is most helpful ifa member from the Planning Team works as part ofeach Implementation Team to
provide consistency and a wider knowledge ofLPAs. 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:
• The area or process manager/owner
• 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
accelerating question development, but be sure that the base question template is composed ofverification
questions that are effective in improving results (KPis).
When implementing LPAs in each process area, consider using the following procedure:
1) Conduct an LPA Implementation Team Workshop
a) Present an overview ofthe LPA process and its benefits
b) Explain the target KPI metrics for improvement
c) Develop audit check sheet questions
2) Train the Auditors
3) Communicate the LPA Rollout to the Process Area

4.1 LPA lmplementation Team Workshop

4.1.1 LPA overview
Each Implementation Team should get an overview ofthe LPA management tool and ofthe
organization's LPA procedure. This will educate the team on the intent and mechanics ofLPA.
Participation ofthe Top Management group in the training should be encouraged because it will
reinforce the importance ofthe strategy and enable management to ensure that each area is
committing adeguate 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 -
 CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance

4.1.3 Develop audit check sheet questions

One of the most critica} 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 ofquestions, each
with an associated explanation ofwhy that question was selected and a nonconformance
reaction pian.

Table 2. Format of Audit Check Sheet Questions

Question Explanation Reaction Pian

What/Where/How to Why the question was How to react ifa

check selected nonconformance is
found

LPA check sheets are used to audit a specific process, not product, to ensure it is free of
unwanted variation that could negatively affect the area's selected KPis. That said, it is not
reasonable to verify all aspects ofa process every day - there just isn 't enough time.
As a generai rule ofthumb, a Layered Process Audit in an area should take 10 to 15 minutes (5
to 15 questions) per shift, every day. When a process is more compi ex, or has more sources of
uncontrolled variation (e.g., manual assembly), then the LPA may require additional time and
questions.
Ouestion Creation:
LPA check sheet questions should focus on process areas and not involve looking at parts for
potential defects. The focus of an LPA is to verify that defined process controls are in piace and
the process is working as designed.
LPA questions should be written to verify what is happening in real time. LPAs take a snapshot
of what is actually occurring compared to what is expected.
Each question should be specific and meaningful to the process being audited.
Before generating questions, review relevant risk aspects from the Quality Management System
(FMEA, 8D/NCR, Customer Concerns, Contro! Pian, Errar Proofing verification, Lessons
Learned, etc.). These are excellent inputs to help the Implementation Team identify the risks
and pin point the cause mechanisms that should be verified in the LPA.
When developing check sheets it is recommended to consider the following questions:
- To what extent could the process element or setting vary?
- How frequently could the process element or setting vary?
- What aspects of the process element or setting are least robust?
- Ifthe process element or setting varied, how significant would be the impact?
- What process element or setting might negatively affect safety or regulatory
requirements?
- If the process element or setting requires errar 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 -
 CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
The cata/yst for peak performance Version 2 lssued 01/2014

All audit question responses should be:

'Yes' or '✓' 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 generai work elements that have a direct impact on quality or are
likely to vary day-to-day. Examples include:
• 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.
• Instead of checking to see if Quality Alerts are posted, write LPA questions to verify that
the content of the instruction is being practiced at that moment of the audit.
• Elements that are not likely to vary suddenly or covered in other audits (e.g.: calibration
status, training status) do not add value to an LPA.
Ouestion Explanation:
Many times auditors are not aware of a questions purpose or expected answer. To provide
clarification to auditors, it is recommended each question have a defined purpose and an
expected response.
Answering the "Why?" about a question also verifies the value of the question and its
relationship to K.Pls, controls, and the process. Por example, the question may be related to an
ongoing warranty issue or to a variation in an associated technique that led to a significant scrap
issue in the last quarter.
Ouestion Reaction Pian:
Questions should also have a reaction pian defining what to do as the first response if the item is
found to be nonconforming. If the check sheet item is found to be nonconfonning, the auditor
should follow this pre-established reaction pian to prompt the responsible individuai to correct
the situation. If the nonconformance found creates a suspicion of nonconforming product
downstream from the current operation, the responsible individuai may take the decision to
require containment and sorting to protect the customer and then initiate corrective action
analysis.
Ouestion 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 -
 r

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catafyst for peak performance
r

4.2 Train the Auditors r

Layered Process Audits are generally performed by people who may not have had auditor training. This r

allows multiple sets ofeyes to verify processes from different perspectives. LPA auditors provide r
consistent surveillance and regular feedback to the facility's Top Management.
r
LPA auditors do not need extensive training, but they do need to be oriented to the intent and mechanics
r
ofconducting 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 briefoverview ofthe r
LPA management tool followed by practice audits with experienced mentors, using the check sheet for r
the area(s) they may be responsible to audit.
r
Records should be kept to show evidence that auditors understand and can apply LPA concepts.
r

4.3 Communicate the LPA rollout to the process area

r

r
As LPAs get implemented in different areas ofthe organization, management should communicate to
employees in those areas the objectives ofthe LPA and how it might affect them. Employees who work
in areas that will be audited should know that they don 't have to do anything differently; the process is r
being audited, not the people. They continue to work according to standardized work instructions as
r
before, but now periodically, different LPA auditors will be coming around to verify work technique,
machine parameters, and other process elements that are important to quality and other K.Pls. r

After LPAs are implemented in the first few areas, success stories about improvement should be shared r

with areas that are considering how and where the LPA tool will help them. r

- 18 -
AIAG�
The catafyst far peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

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 ofthe
audit process is ensuring that the audits are perfonned according to a schedule and that the results ofthe
audits are recorded.

5.1 Conducting the Audits and Recording the Findings

When conducting an audit, the assigned auditor should follow these steps:
l. Check the LPA schedule for audit assignment: date, time, process area.
2. Obtain the appropriate LPA check sheet (e.g., from person, physical, or serveu location).
3. Review the audit check sheet--before going to the area--to be familiar with thl questions, any
changes to the questions, and the evidence that you will be verifying.
4. All layers should verify the layers below them are current with their recent required LPA checks.
5. Perform the audit according to the questions on the LPAcheck sheet. Be sure to fill out all
relevant header information.
6. Ifthe response to an audit question is 'Yes,' document it as such and then the auditor will move
on to the next question.
7. Ifthe response to an audit question is 'No,' then the auditor has found a nonconformance that
requires corrective action as defined in the Reaction Plan. In the Comments section the auditor
should include any observations regarding the nonconformance.
8. The check sheet will provide the auditor with a reaction plan to follow ifa nonconformance is
found for that question. Ifthe problem is corrected during the audit, then actions taken are
recorded on the check sheet. The issue is still recorded as a nonconformance even though it is
corrected and added to the management summary.
9. Repeat issues may be a sign that there is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed.
1 O. Ifthe issue was not corrected, then it remains open pending a corrective action.

5.2 Observations and Persona! lnteractions

The implementation ofLayered Process Audits provides a unique opportunity for observations ofthe 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 visitar 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 -
 r

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
r-
Positive feedback is a way to let employees know that LPA is intended to support the process and the r-
people.
r-
An Example of a completed check sheet is in Appendix E
r-
r-

r-

r-

r-

r-

,-.

- 20 -
 CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
1he catalyst for peak performance Version 2 lssued 01/2014

6 TOP MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND CONTINUOUS

IMPROVEMENT OF LPAs

6.1 Top Management LPA Review

Top Management should conduct reviews ofthe 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, ifneeded. lt is the responsibility ofTop 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 ofaudit results.
LPA Review should:
• be part ofregular operational/quality review meetings
• have a standardized agenda ofreview points
• review actions assigned at the last review, and verify effectiveness ofcompeted actions
• review data/metrics ( LPA metrics and organization KPis) - trends, repeat issues, LPAs
updated/reviewed to address top internal issues and all customer concems
• develop actions to address issues and continua! improvement based on the data reviewed
• assign actions (individua! ownership and deadlines)

Outcomes ofthe Management Review ofLPA should:

• remove all barriers to effective LPA implementation
• prioritize resources to leverage value from LPAs
• expand LPAs to other areas
• reassess targets for continuous improvement of LPAs
• document continuous improvement as a result ofLPAs

6.2 Continuous lmprovement of LPAs

After assessing the metrics and effectiveness ofthe 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:
• Lack ofmanagement review or lack offull support by Top Management
• No consequences for not conducting audits
• Check sheets too long or cumbersome
• Questions that do not address the sources ofprocess variation

- 21 -
 r

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catafyst tor peak performance
r

• No feedback to operators r

• Not grounded in daily routines

• Disciplined problem solving not being used to get to the root cause of problems found r

• Not dynamically assessing risk (e.g.: FMEA, Customer Scorecard, K.Pls, etc.) or ensuring they
are covered in LPAs. r

r-

- 22 -
AIAG�
The cata/yst for peak performance
Layered Process Audits
CQl-8
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

APPENDIX A - WHAT /S LPA?

Layered Process Audits are:

,- - ·,1r".""•;s,-·•!",.,...
· -
_ , . -- - � - -- - - , -
Layered Process Audits are 'not:
. :,...,J --- . .,:·. _ .., -·-• _, ., .
, · , - : · - . ., - --0,·:7-;_-·-�---,:·,�w".l
._ :.:�
. . _. ,1;':,.;_,:___ -l,.�.::'.":-..• 'c.'.c'···-_'.:t
1. Verification that processes and procedures are being 1. A quality audit ofpart 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 !ab technician.
personnel in a given facility.
4. An audit consisting ofquick, typically yes/no, 4. An audit that requires measuring parts or other
questions. product characteristics.
5. A short list ofkey and high-risk processes, process 5. A long "laundry list" ofitems that include items not
steps, and procedures. contributing to customer satisfaction.
6. Completed on a regular, pre-determined frequency. 6. Completed whenever the audito� has spare time.
7. Completed by the person identified in the audit pian in 7. Allowed to be delegated by the responsible persons.
each layer ofthe organization.
8. Completed on-site "where the work is done." 8. Completed in the auditor's office.
9. A method to verify and sustain corrective actions 9. A method to determirre corrective actions.
related to process.
1O. A method to verify that quality documentation 10. An inspection method to add to the process contro!
(instructions, contro! plans, etc.) is being followed. pian.
11. An audit with results that are reviewed by site 11. An audit with results that are filed away and not
leadership on a regular basis. reviewed.
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
been accumulated.
13. An audit typically planned for processes and 13. An audit to validate the operation ofa machine.
procedures conducted by people.
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 ofcomplying with 15. A method to show personnel that "we 're watching
processes and procedures. you."
16. An audit ofselected processes and procedures / 16. A replacement for internal Quality Management
steps. System (e.g., 1S0/TS 16949) audits.

- 23 -
 r

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst tor peak performance
r

APPENDIX B - RASIC r

-...
Q)
r

r
Layered Process Audit Steps Q)

Q)

r
1. Designate LPA Process Owner far the Sites

2. ldentify the LPA PlanningTeam A r

3. Develop the LPA Procedure and forms A

4. Develop the Layered Process Audit Check sheet A R e e
5. Tra in the team on LPA Procedure & Audit Check sheet A
6. Site Top Management identifies -KPls & Performance Metrics e A
7. Develop an LPA Implementati on schedule A
8. Conduct LPA in each area A s
9. Develop and impl ement corrective actions A s
10. Record and review LPA results in each area A
11. Assign resources to corrective actions A s
12. Analyze Area performance results & aggregate systemic ca uses and actions A
13. Site's Top Management conduct "Management Review"
- EvaluateKPl's, Performance Metrics & Overall Effectiveness of LPAs
e A

14. Apply Lessons Learned to improve the LPAs. A s

15. Communicate the status and results of the LPAs to all Stakeholders A

R: Responsible - The person who is ultimately responsible far delivering the task
successfull
A: Accountable -The person who has ultimate accountability and approvai authority;
they review and assure quality and are the person to whom "R" is accountable.
S: Supportive -The team or person(s) supporting the "real" work with resources,
time or other materiai benefit. They are committed to its completion.
I: lnfarmed - Those who previde input and must be infarmed of results or actions
taken but are not involved in final decision-making.
C: Consulted - Those who previde valuable input. Their buy-in is lmportant far
successful implementation.

- 24 -
AIAG�
The catafyst for peak performance
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
CQl-8

APPENDIX C - FREQUENCY OF AUDIT BY LAYER

Acme Automotive
Audit Assiqnment Matrix
I I
Assigned Assigned I II
Management Management I I
Category Personnel Audit
::c.I �I
Audi! Layer (example) (example) AssiQnment
11 11
81 o 81 o
i . ····-· .. -+-- --
I
I I - ·- I
·1
·--·
1Super,isors I
..... ··-
I I
I 1 per shift I I
I
1st Layer of
;Super,isor 1 iOwn Dept 1 per shift I I
Management
'
I I
1

I
I
I I I
I I I ,·
iSuper,isor 2 :own Dept I 1 per shift 11 per shift I
I

I I I
I I I
I I I
!super,isor 3 1own Dept
I I 11 per shift 1 per shift
I I
... I L
1
... · I
I I
···-·· -· ·
1

I I
I I I
I I
;Area Managers I ....
2nd Layer of I
I 2 depts per week --> I
Management !Area Manager 1 Jown Area <--

I I
I I I
I

;Area Manager 2 [own Area I I 2 depts per week ->

I I I
<-

I I
. ..l I I I
IPlant Staff and I
. -
3rd Layer of ;
Plant Manager

I
iEngmg Mgr ! Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week
I
Management
'

I
I
I

louality Mgr i Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week

I
I
' I

jTooling Mgr , Rotate Depts.

i I 1 dept per week

I
I
\H.R. Mgr !Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week

;Training Coord. j Rotate Depts. 1 dept per week

I
4th Layer
(as available)
!Visiting
I Executi1.es or
iPlant Manager

'Various
:Rotate Depts.

! Determ ined
1 dept per week

as -;sitors are available, 1 dept per -;sii--->

I
-Visitors from Ìby Site
<--

:other sites I

- 25 -
 r

- -1-
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catalyst tor peak performance
r

APPENO/X D - AUDIT SCHEDULE

-
r

I-
Acme
- Automotive
-· .
r--
LPA Staff Level Audit Tracking Form
.,.
. -- i - :·· -

···-�
Rolling 6 wee_k schedule (!lrop and add four w_e�ks e_v.ery monl�l
7
_ _
Audil Frequency
I Required 1week 3 !week 4 Ìweek 5 week 6
.. ..
'-L�y�r 3_Staff Member 12-Jul 26-Jul ___ ?._:_Au_g
- Checkshl(s) Checksht(s)
A�si��ed Assigned Assigned
_ ..
jSue, Plani Manager 1perweek
Dept D Dept E DeptF

; Marco, Conlroller 1perweek

Dept E Dept F DeptA

,Gene, HR '1perweek
Dept F Dept-A DeptB

Claus, Purchasing ;1perweek

DeptA DeptB DeptC

Liu, Engineer 1 1perweek

DeptB DeptC DeptD

Arun, Qualily ì1perweek

DeptC DeptD Dept E

Tolal Plani Checks for IHe week 6 6 6 6 6 6

! -[ - ·-
�-��-- -,---· __J
l1ncompleti �u-dit
= ;completed Au�it

- 26 -
AIAG�
The catalyst far peak performance
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
CQl-8

APPENO/X E - EXAMPLE CHECK SHEET

PCA Acme Automotive

LPA - Process Contrai Audit

R-ocess Une: De pt D Week Beginning:=Ju=ty 1=s

- - - - -- = ===
lnstructions:
R-ocess Desc: Widget Build and Cure
AII questions are to be answered w ith a check"✓" a no "N'' or non­
applicable"N/A" in the Corresponding day's box, 2nd Layer and 3rd CUstorrer: World Motors Shift:
Layer Auditor's boxes. Non-cofl1)1iances 111Jst have corrective
action recorded in the space provided & identified with eilher the CUstorrer Parts: 42c, 28af, x29 and X30
letter of the day (M,T,W,R,F,S) or lhe date (MriNDD/YY) and the lf this check sheet is being used far a
CUstorrer R-ogram 04 & 05 XF
Auditor s initials. �W h - b- o,- ,-- supplerrental audit, indicate the auditor
- •- -•-P•_P_llc,
,nd Jrd narre and date in the box below, then
1st LayorChecks I
+
Layor Layor enter findings in the appropriate
Mon Tuo Wod Thu Fri Sat Sun Chocks Chocks day-of-the-w eek colurm te the left.
Date of Audi! (MMIDD) - 6/28 6/29 6/J0
6/29 6/30

Item# Auditor's Name or lnilials - Corrective Action Taken

Joe Joe Joe Liu Sue Include date and initials
These ltems are lo be Checked Every Shift
Station I (if nonconforrrance found)
1 Terrperature and Feed
Verify on lhe left-side readouls that lhe lerrperature of ali
oven zones are between 140 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit
and the beli is set at 2.5 feet per rrinute. 6/29 Joe: Zone three w as found at 135.
Sta 2 mproper temperature or feed cou/d resu/1 in brittle
materiai and ear/y fai/ures. This had been a warran/y ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ Operator returned to 145. I checked
produci test data-- ali w as fine. No
issue unti/ LPA implemented (6/2004L _ _ _ further action needed.
�
1) move to proper set-points
Reaction
) venfy al/ o/her oven contro/ se/1,ngs
Aan 2
3) notify supervisor
2 Retainer lnstallation
I
1s the operator using the grease dispenser to apply grease lo
the gasket prior to retainer installation? 6/28 Joe: Mclry w as not aware of need

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
te use dispenser and dispenser w as
Absence or excessive grease could result in mis-
Sta 2
located gasket, teak test failure or field failure.
_ _
X dry. We filled dispenser and Mary
began using. Detail w ili be added to job
1) lns ruct oper tor and refer to job instruction ins truction.
Reaction � �
) noltfy superv,sor
Aan 2

3 Weld presence
I
Verify thai lhe operator is checking lhree welds far localion,
per the work instruction, and verifying the pari is free of w eld
spatter. 6/29 Joe: N/A - weld stations were
Sia 2 1/ /hree ""/ds are impartant far frame slrength and
therefore a safety concern. Spatter -free is a customer ✓ na ✓ na ✓ down far unplanned rraintenance.

� -------- -
requirement.
1) /n�truct operator and refer to job instruction
6/29 sam Une down far repair.

· Reaction ) IMfh operator, check parts in Sia 10 /hrough 15 lor

Aan 2
those three welds and spatter
1st LayorChocks 2nd 3rd Wook's Total of
Layor Layer 1st LayerChocks far
Mon Tuo Wod Thu Fri Sat Sun Chocks Chocks lhis shift
In Compliance - Totat Number of Checkmarks in Each Column: Yos >
6
NOT In Compliance - Total Number of N's In Each Column: No>
o o o 2
Telai Number of N/A's in Each Column: N/A >
o
Tota! Numbor of Itoms Chocked durlng Audit
9
Each day should be lotaled for compliance and recorded In lhe space provided.

Please list any additional quality or manufacturing concerns below (date and location; and condition, concern or question)

- 27 -
 r

CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014
AIAG�
The catafyst tor peak performance
r

APPENO/X F - REPORTING EXAMPLE r

Layered Process Audit Results

r
2013
% In Compliance Process
Operator Controls
Ca I i brations
Annual
120.0% ,---------------------- lnstructions
�
Non Conformances
Setup / Poka
Yoke
Materiai ID ■ Customer Concems
i
�
-l
■ ss
80.0% +-f'-"r--!ll:'',-t---t<;il---f<',1��,a--i,llft---ll,(G---ffll-�1------
BPM

60.0% ·/-t:,;]--fl'!it-·t,l,ll-/l----iif.11----li!il--l�f--{P<I--I'<¾------- ■ Materiai ID

Cl Setup / Poka Yoke

40.0% -1-1•.a--t.··,if-·ll',l--ll,/s½--ll,Jl--l'l!ri--lE<----li!'.,I------ - Il Operator lnstructions

Il Proces s Controls

a Callbrations

.EPackagi�
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee

Jan Feb Mar Apr May I Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee
% In Compliance 99.1% 98.4% 99.0% 99.5% 99.7% 98.2% 99.6% 98.7% 98.7%
Ave# ltems on LPA Audit 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
# Of LPA Audits 46 44 31 39 31 39 26 30 39
Total # of ltems Audited 460 440 310 390 310 390 260 300 390
# of ltems In Compliance 456 433 307 388 309 383 259 296 385
Non-conformances 4 7 3 2 1 7 1 4 5
·l··
Non Conformances Jan Feb 1 Mar Apr May J Jun Jul Aug 1 Sep Oct ; Nov Dee Tota I
Customer Concerns o 2 2 1 3 3 o 1 4 16
5S 3 2 1 1 1 o o o 1 9
PM 1 2 o o o 2 o 1 o 6
Materiai IO o o o o o 1 o 1 o 2
Setup / Poka Yoke o 1 o o o o 1 o o 2
Operator lnstructions o o o o o 1 o o o 1
Process Controls o o o o o o o 1 o 1
Calibrations o o o o o o o o o o
Packaging o o o o o o o o o o

- 28 -
AIAG�
The catalyst for peak performance
CQl-8
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

APPENDIX G - GLOSSARY

Audit: Systemic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it
objectively to dete1mine the extent ofwhich audit criteria are fulfilled.

Conformity: Fulfillment ofa requirement

Corrective Action: Action to eliminate the cause ofa detected nonconformity or other undesirable
situation.
► NOTE: Corrective action is taken to prevent recurrence whereas preventive action is taken to
prevent occurrence.

Customer: The recipient of the organizations or supplier's product or service.

Error Proofing: Refers to any devices and practices that prevent a failure mode from occurring.

First Time Capability: Measures how many goods are produced correctly without flaws or re-work as
percentage oftotal units produced in a production process or value stream. This concept can also be easily
applied to the service industry as a measure ofservice or orders delivered satisfactorily to customers the
first time without any amendments, re-work, or complaints.

Organization: Group ofpeople and facilities with an arrangement ofresponsibilities, authorities and
relationships.

Performance lndicators: Key Outcome Indicator: KOI's 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 values and the target.
► Key Performance Indicator: KPI's are those metrics most critica! to gauging progression toward
objectives. Kls 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.
► KPI/KOI Scorecard: A specific application ofa scorecard, a KOI/KPI scorecard is used to
measure progress toward a given set ofKPis or KOis.

Predictive Maintenance: Activities based on process data aimed at the avoidance ofmaintenance
problems by prediction oflikely failure modes.

- 29 -
 r

CQl-8
AIAG�
r

Layered Process Audits r

Version 2 lssued 01/2014 The catalyst tor peak perf�rmance

Preventive Action: Action to eliminate the cause ofa potential nonconformity or other undesirable
potential situation. r
► NOTE: Preventive action is taken to prevent occurrence whereas corrective action (3.6.5) is r
taken to prevent recurrence.

Predictive Maintenance: Planned action to eliminate causes ofequipment failure and unscheduled
interruptions to production, as an output ofthe manufacturing process design.

Procedure: Specific way to carry out and activity or a process

Process: Set ofinterrelated or interacting activities which transform inputs into outputs.

Product: Refers to physical objects or services produced by the process.

Quality: Degree to which a set ofinherent characteristic fulfils requirements.

► NOTE: "Inherent", as opposed to "assigned", means existing in something, especially as a
permanent characteristic.

Requirement: The specific requirement ofthe customer receiving the product. This requirement may be
anything from a functional characteristic (e.g., spins freely) to a specific, quantified characteristic (e.g.;
diameter must meas re 10-1 Smm)

Stake Holders / Interested Parties: Person ofgroup having an interest in the performance or success
ofan organization.

Supplier: Organization or person that provides a product.

Top Management: Person or group who direct and control an organization at the highest level.

Validation: Confirmation, through the provision ofobjective evidence, that the requirements for a
specific intended use or application have been fulfilled.

Verification: Providing ofobjective evidence that a given item fulfills specified requirements.

- 30 -
 CQl-8
AIAG�
The catafyst for peak performance
Layered Process Audits
Version 2 lssued 01/2014

I MAINTENANCE REQUEST FORM

Name of Submitter: Date:
._,I
Company:

Company Address:

Phone: Fax: E-mail:

MAINTENANCE REQUEST
Page Number of Change:

Document Currently Reads:

Recommended Changes/Should Read:

Reason for Change (Use additional sheets if necessary):

Signature of Submitter:

DISPOSITION (AIAG USE ONLY)

Manager's Recommendation:

Final Disposition:

Comments:

Note: Complete form and return to the AIAG Publication Specialist for consideration.
Automotive lndustry Action Group • 26200 Lahser Road • Suite 200 • Southfield, Ml 48033
Telephone: (248) 358-3570 • Fax: (248) 358-3253
Web: www.aiag.org

- 31 -