Josh Santo, senior director of industry strategy and solutions at EASE, spoke more about the findings behind a full layered process audit (LPA) benchmark report of plant-floor quality audits. Data covered 2.3 million process checks spanning more than 2,200 manufacturing sites. The report not only highlighted the necessity of good leadership within generalized manufacturing success, but also its importance in audits and quality checks. 

Quality Digest: What findings in this study stood out to you?

Josh Santo: What hit hardest is that this report finally puts data behind conversations quality professionals are tired of having. They’ve been saying for years that leadership has to actively participate for LPAs to be worthwhile, and this data proves it.

In plants where leaders consistently participate in audits, the entire organization is 20% more likely to complete them on time. That result was highly significant statistically. It means that without that participation, you’re just setting yourself up for failure, for scrap, for rework, and for quality escapes and complaints.

The other big finding that stood out was the frontline findings gap. Layer 1 auditors, the frontline supervisors doing a massive number of these plant floor checks, are finding zero issues in 84% of their audits. Meanwhile, upper-level management uncovers findings in nearly half of their checks.

That tells you the people closest to the process aren’t really paying attention. They’re pencil-whipping. There are different reasons behind this, none of which are malicious, but it really comes down to people not understanding the value of the LPAs. And when your frontline isn’t enabled or engaged, the entire LPA system is compromised, because that’s where you have the most checks happening and the best opportunity to catch issues early.

That said, I was impressed by fact that manufacturers are doing more than 8,700 of these audits per year, and closing out 1,470 findings. It’s proof that LPAs work, as each one of those process issues was caught and corrected before it became a customer problem.

QD: Why do you think companies are failing to meet audit deadlines, and how do you see this improving?

JS: Leadership. What you accept is what you get. Right now, most organizations are accepting late audits and slow follow-up. You see it in the fact that only 27% of companies complete their audits on time. That means 73% have made it acceptable to do them late. And it shouldn’t be.

For some manufacturers, LPAs are a customer requirement, meaning you can’t do business with them without having an LPA program in place. Ask those customers what they’d accept. On-time everything will be their answer.

The data also show that nearly half of all audits take more than 15 minutes. That’s too long. The whole point of LPAs is that they’re fast, focused checks that should only take about 10 minutes. When audits feel like a burden to people, they get pushed to the end of the shift or skipped when production gets busy.

The data show that leaders participating in audits is an important lever for improving on-time audit completion across the board. Educating your team on the why behind the checks is also key. Finally, you have to keep audits focused on high-risk process steps and make sure questions are clear and easy to answer.

QD: How does a layered process audit enable companies to better meet those audit requirements?

JS: Many automotive and aerospace OEMs require their suppliers to conduct LPAs. We’re also seeing them spread to other manufacturing sectors because of their unique ability to prevent defects at the process level and help turn around struggling plants.

But I’d actually reframe this. If you’re doing LPAs just to meet a requirement, you’re doing it wrong. You do LPAs to deliver quality product on time to your customer. Compliance is a side effect of doing them well, not the reason you do them. The companies doing LPAs because they’re genuinely committed to a higher level of quality are the ones that get the most value from them.

When they’re working, LPAs create multiple layers of verification across the production process. A team lead checks critical process inputs daily. A supervisor checks weekly. A plant manager checks monthly. Even a VP might walk the floor to do an audit during a quarterly visit.

When every layer is engaged in the checks, it builds redundancy into the system. If one layer misses an issue, the next one catches it. But the truth is that the layered structure only works when every group is actively participating, which requires leaders to lead by example.

The other piece of this is that each layer brings a different perspective to the process. When a supervisor or plant manager is out on the floor conducting an audit, it also opens up real conversations with operators about quality. It reinforces expectations, gives frontline workers a chance to share their challenges and ideas, and shows that leadership actually cares about quality and the people on the line. 

This has one of the most powerful compounding effects on operating culture. People do their best work when leadership and supporting teams show them that they matter. That starts with listening, and you can’t listen if you don’t go to the gemba. LPAs get people to the gemba.

QD: How can we address, as Adam Wegel said, the issues of accountability and execution?

JS: There are two sides to this. First, it has to matter to leadership. Without that, nothing else works. Second, people at all layers need the right visibility. Visibility is the connective tissue that leadership needs to tie execution and accountability together.

Think about what visibility means in practice: knowing which audits are getting done and which aren’t, seeing findings and whether they’re being closed, tracking trends over time, and understanding whether you’re doing the right things at the right time in the right way. When you have that, you’re able to monitor the execution piece better so you can drive accountability around the right habits and behaviors.

Right now, only 28% of companies close more than 60% of findings on time. That means issues are sitting open, increasing risk and eroding trust in the system. People see that problems aren’t getting fixed. What they take away from that is that nothing’s going to get done when we raise issues. So why bother reporting them at all?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had this conversation with operators. Their feedback goes into a black hole, leaving them feeling unheard and unimportant.  I often hear, “Why should I bother to say anything? No one listens.”

Here’s the thing, though. Checking in with management, they are listening. But what they aren’t doing is giving their team visibility into how they’re taking action on their feedback. Visibility and accountability are a two-way street.

With better visibility, leadership can see those patterns and make sure problems are fixed. That’s a big part of getting people to care.

QD: What are leaders currently doing to make sure these critical checks get done, and that people in every part of the industry are engaged in making these solutions cohesive and consistent?

JS: Honestly, they’re scrambling. Maintaining a strong LPA program is hard, and even the best-run paper-based programs have major gaps. They’re time-consuming to manage, people forget audits or pencil-whip them, and it’s hard to address findings in a timely manner. So plants end up with issues that are happening repeatedly without ever addressing the root cause.

And that’s just talking about LPAs. How many other audit and inspection programs like 5S, safety checks, and more suffer from the same failings? The organizations that are getting it right are doing a few things differently.

They’re implementing digital tools that fill a lot of those gaps in terms of standardizing execution and giving leadership visibility into what’s actually happening. But tools aren’t enough on their own. The most disciplined plants have leaders who are active participants in LPAs, as I’ve mentioned.

The maturity model we introduce in the report discusses how plants with mature LPA programs also use audit data as a leading indicator. They’re reviewing completion rates and open findings in management meetings. They’re also communicating how the audits are generating real results and fewer fire drills. That’s how you get people to see LPAs aren’t just busywork, but something they care about because these checks make their jobs easier.