Skip to content 
EN 
DE 
Summary: In quality assurance, there are many ways to achieve greater process stability. Two of the most proven approaches in manufacturing environments are the Gemba Walk and the Layered Process Audit (LPA). Both are well-established practices used across industries and implemented with considerable discipline. Yet their impact and purpose could hardly be more different.
What many companies overlook is this: the decision between implementing Gemba Walks or LPAs is far more than a methodological or operational question. It reveals how leadership is exercised, how quality is defined, and how digital tools are deployed – not just for monitoring compliance, but for actively optimizing performance and culture. In other words, it reflects the DNA of your quality system – and your company’s leadership philosophy.
Methodological Accuracy Meets Operational Reality
Layered Process Audits (LPAs) are precise. They provide structure, repeatability, and comparability. No area of production remains unmonitored for long. What is recorded on audit forms can be traced, aggregated, and documented.
But over time, audits risk becoming routine. Checklists replace critical thinking, and the process loses its edge.
On the other hand, Gemba Walks encourage observation rather than control. They invite dialogue, not judgment. In the realm of quality, this difference can be crucial: the gap between a documented issue and a genuinely resolved problem is often vast.
Why LPAs Alone Often Miss What Matters
In stable mass production environments, Layered Process Audits (LPAs) have their place. However, green checks on an audit form do not automatically equate to flawless processes.
In several medium-sized manufacturing companies using digital LPA solutions, this exact pattern emerged: audit results were excellent, but operational reality was only mediocre. The reason: Audit questions no longer reflected real-life shop floor problems. What was being audited was what had been defined at one point in time – not what was actually going wrong at present.
It wasn’t until supplementary Gemba Walks conducted by middle management that underlying causes, which had previously gone unnoticed, were uncovered: outdated work instructions, redundant queries, and informal shortcuts that were leading to errors.
Observing to Learn – Not to Judge
A Gemba Walk takes leaders to where operational challenges arise – not as controllers, but as attentive listeners. The conversations that occur on the shop floor cannot be fully replaced by any software or checklist. However, these discussions form the foundation for any quality system. After all, the best audits begin with dialogue, not a form field.
Without clear objectives, structure, consistent follow-up, and systematic implementation, the benefits of a Gemba Walk are limited. A Gemba Walk checklist can be helpful here – not as a rigid form, but as a digital guide: What should be observed? What questions are relevant?
How can Gemba Walks and Layered Process Audits improve efficiency?
By using Inspection Software for Manufacturing, you can streamline audits and enhance process visibility.
Gemba Walk vs. LPA: Situational Comparison
| Situation | Gemba Walk | Layered Process Audit |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction of a new production line | ✅ Early accompaniment of processes and identification of weaknesses | ⚪ Suitable once stable standards and processes are in place |
| Securing standard processes | ⚪ Observations hard to capture systematically, difficult to document | ✅ High reproducibility through structured check points |
| Digitalization of processes | ✅ Shows realistic challenges and user behavior | ⚪ Testing of digital standards, ideal for regulated processes |
| Complex interface processes | ✅ Helps to visualize interdepartmental interactions on-site | ⚪ Focused more on individual areas of responsibility |
| Environment with high quality pressure | ⚪ Supports quality awareness but hard to quantify | ✅ Provides clearly defined audit cycles and objective evidence |
| Introduction of new work methods | ✅ Feedback and acceptance can be seen directly in the process | ⚪ Systematic implementation may seem too formal too early |
| Risk-based process assessment | ✅ Subjective assessment possible, good starting point | ✅ Ideal for continuous evaluation of critical process steps |
| Cultural change in the plant | ✅ Fosters trust, openness, and cross-departmental exchange | ⚪ Risk: Could be seen as a purely control tool |
✅ Quick Tip
- Use Gemba Walks weekly, ideally led by team leaders or department heads.
- Keep LPAs short and focused—rotate topics to avoid audit fatigue.
- Always document insights from both methods centrally for review.
When to Use What: Gemba Walk or LPA?
Both methods have strengths—and limitations. The key is understanding when each is most effective:
✅ Use Gemba Walks when:
Your production is dynamic and changing often.
You want to uncover issues not documented in SOPs.
You aim to strengthen team communication and trust.
You need real-time insights into process effectiveness.
✅ Use LPAs when:
Your processes are stable and rely on strict compliance.
You need traceable, structured data for audits or KPIs.
You want to ensure consistency across shifts and sites.
You need a standardized framework to scale quality efforts.
The truth is: they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, relying on only one method often leads to failure. Gemba Walks without structure may miss repeat patterns. LPAs without human insight can overlook meaningful context. The most effective systems combine both approaches – creating a balance of structure and insight.
Image: Adobe Stock – Copyright: © KN Studio – stock.adobe.com
