Processes that pass on paper, then drift on the floor.
Independent process audits, gap reviews and quality data support for automotive and aerospace suppliers — machine shops, weld shops, fabricators and special process houses. The work starts at the station: what the operator actually does, what the record actually says, and where the space between the two becomes a containment, an escape, or an audit finding.
Led by a former Quality Group Leader for Torque & Weld at GM Wentzville Assembly. No certificate mill, no software pitch.
Audit the process. Not the binder.
Five review areas. Scope is set by what the customer or registrar will actually look at, not by a template.
Process audits
The routing walked against the control plan: what the operator does, what the record says, and where the two disagree. Layered checks, reaction plans, and the shift-to-shift gaps that only show up on the floor.
Gap assessment · IATF 16949 / AS9100
A clause-level review of the quality system against what a registrar or customer auditor will hold you to. Returned as a ranked gap list with the evidence behind each one — not a score.
Torque & weld process review
Tool strategy and reaction plans, rundown and spindle capacity, torque data and traceability, weld parameters, PQR/WPS coverage, consumable control, and verification records that hold up on rewind.
Quality data system checks
Whether the data you already collect can answer a customer's question: capability, SPC, traceability, containment. Most systems collect the numbers; few can retrieve them by part, shift and date.
Special process readiness
Heat treat, coating, plating, NDT and passivation: supplier approvals, process certifications, and the evidence package a customer expects before a part is released to you.
What this is not
Not a certificate, not a scoring exercise, and not a rewrite of your quality manual. Every finding is tied to a requirement and to evidence someone can go look at.
Suppliers who get held to the process.
Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers
Carrying automotive or aerospace work today, with process control that lives in a few people's heads.
Shops entering the supply chain
Machining, welding or fabrication work that is being quoted for automotive or aerospace for the first time.
Preparing for a customer audit
A new-program launch, a customer on-site, or a registrar visit already on the calendar.
Repeat escapes and warranty
Containments and claims that trace back to the same process no matter how many times it is corrected.
Not a fit: a shop that wants a signed certificate with no work behind it. That gets said on the first call, with the reason.
Review, rank, fix. In that order.
Same shape every time: review the real process, rank what it is costing you, then fix the top of the list.
One-day or multi-day review
Scope set by the routings in question, not by a template. On the floor, at the station, with the records open — the operator interviewed, the check sheet read, the tool and the fixture looked at. One day covers a value stream; several days cover a plant or a full clause set. Price and scope are agreed in writing before the day is booked.
A ranked finding list
Each finding cites the evidence, the requirement it misses, and the risk it carries. Ranked by risk to the customer and to the release of the part — not by how quickly it can be closed or how good it looks in a summary slide.
The first three to five actions
The changes that remove the most risk first, written for the person who will run them, with an owner and a date. Enough to hold the next audit while the remainder is worked in order rather than all at once.
An owned system, if the fix needs one
Where the control needs a tool — torque data capture, weld traceability, layered audit tracking, a containment log — we build it and you own it, with no platform lock-in. It is a separate decision made after the findings, never the reason for the audit.
Twelve-plus years on the line side of the audit table.
Where the practice comes from, stated plainly.
12+ years in quality, most recently Quality Group Leader for Torque & Weld
Lean Six Sigma and Red X — every cause tested against data
Fixtures, tooling and tolerance before quality, not after
Justin Smith spent 12+ years in quality at General Motors' Wentzville Assembly, most recently as Quality Group Leader for Torque & Weld. Torque is one of the few processes where a part can feel right, pass visual, and still be wrong — the work is reading the data, the tool strategy and the reaction plan against the joint that was actually designed.
Weld quality runs on the same discipline: parameters, PQR/WPS coverage, consumable control, verification, and what happens the moment a check fails. Both areas are where a supplier's process control is either real or a binder on a shelf.
The problem solving is Lean Six Sigma and Red X, over a machining background — measuring, cutting and holding tolerance before moving into quality. That order matters at a supplier: most failures start at the spindle, the fixture or the setup, not in the inspection room.
No exaggeration in that summary. It is the same work, applied to the supplier side of the table.
Request an assessment.
Tell us the part, the process and the audit you are facing. If a fixed-scope review will not produce anything you can act on, that gets said before it is scheduled.
REQUEST AN ASSESSMENTCalls are answered by an AI that takes a structured message. Replies typically land the same day, or the next afternoon or evening — the team runs a third-shift schedule.
A fixed-scope process review: one value stream, one or two days on site.
Ranked findings with the evidence, then the first three to five fixes with owners and dates.
Fixed and agreed in writing before the day is booked. No hourly drift.
An owned system build if the controls need one. Optional, and priced separately.