Good Morning Boys and Girls,
I have just received my AS9100 standard and have started collating the additional requirements from ISO9001.
(Sorry if this is a stupid question, but its monday morning after a LONG weekend)

7.5.1.5 in the AS9100 standard states:

'Where servicing is a specified requirement, service operation processes shall provide for
a. a method of collecting and analyzing in-service data,
b. actions to be taken where problems are identified after delivery, including investigation, reporting activities, and actions on service information consistent with contractual and/or regulatory requirements,
c. the control and updating of technical documentation,
d. the approval, control, and use of repair schemes, and
e. the controls required for off-site work (e.g., organization’s work undertaken at the customer’s facilities).'

If the parts that we manufacture, DO NOT have servicing as a requirement, do I need to do ANYTHING to satisfy this requirement. Our Quality Manual does not contain individual references to the standard, but is referenced in the procedures manual. I don't fancy writing a new procedure just to say that we don't do it! but there is nowhere in the 'manual' to reference it.

Any advice would be appreciated

Chris

In clause 4.2.2 of the standard, it indicates that you have to include in your quality manual the scope and exclusions along with the justifications for any exclusions.

You need a quality manual that meets the requirements of clause 4.2.2.

I agree with DannyK, you have to include in your quality manual the exclusions, as well as, the justification for those exclusions.

Also, required per 4.2.2, when referencing the documented procedures, the relationship of AS9100 and your documented procedures shall be clearly shown.

I have always had an index page for all the procedures (processes) and I would include servicing here with the note "N/A".

Now you are covered:D

If you don't do it, and it is not required to be done by you or at any time to you product claim an exclusion and justify it in your Quality Manual.

You'r claim of exclusion will be auditable and will have to pass the test.

In your quality manual you may take an exception to Clause 7.5.1.5 if your product does not required field service to keep it in good working order. If however the product does require field servicing that your organization does not provide then you cannot take exception.

In clause 4.2.2, Quality Manual the Bold Text after bullet point “A” does require that the quality manual show “the relationship between the requirements of this International Standard and the documented procedures” and this “shall be clearly shown”. One way to do this is to have a reference list of what is required by the Standard and which documented procedure addresses this requirement as an addendum to the Quality Manual.

We do perform service operations so I can't give an example specific to that - but here are the exclusions with justification that are in our Quality Policy Manual.

Noted Exclusions:

7.3 – Design and Development: Thread-Craft produces or repairs product to customer specified requirements and/or OEM specifications such as engineering drawings, product samples for reverse engineering, configuration management plans and technical orders. The customer’s design responsible function and/or the OEM has already developed, reviewed, verified and validated their design and has complete control of design changes. If at any point Thread-Craft wishes to suggest changes or improvements to product, the customer’s design responsible function is notified in order to review, validate and authorize any changes.

7.5.2 – Validation of Processes for Production and Service Provision: Thread-Craft does not have any processes that cannot be verified by subsequent measurement or functional testing. Special processes are subcontracted; requirements for validation of special processes are communicated to subcontractors in accordance with our Purchasing and Supplier Control Procedure.

Hi Jeff and others,

Just quoting your message Jeff as it speaks a bit to what I have a question about servicing and maybe some others can jump in.

I work for a company that manufactures as well as repairs aircraft parts.

There are two separate businesses here but we operate under one Quality system. We are in the process of responding to findings from our initial AS9100 audit. Later in the year, we will be going for AS9110 registration for the repair part the business.

One finding the auditor is adamant about is servicing. While we do no servicing of our product after delivery, we are being told that the warranty work we perform when parts come back is servicing and we cannot take the exception.

I tired to take the nonconformance route ( I.E. product coming back as not working is handled through our nonconformance procedure) but the auditor did not want to even entertain the idea of it.

The particular registers’ name is not important other then to say they are the company that gets a fair amount of bad press ( or discussion). You shouldn’t have a hard time figuring out who they are.

They seem to be auditing very tight ( we could all debate what that means but for now…) due to experiences they have had with primes ( Aerospace) looking at their registration audits and troubles they had some years ago with the industry thinking they were not doing very thorough audits.

That being said, does anyone have a better argument about how to take exclusion to the service provision, thanks.

TS

:thanx:


In your quality manual you may take an exception to Clause 7.5.1.5 if your product does not required field service to keep it in good working order. If however the product does require field servicing that your organization does not provide then you cannot take exception.

In clause 4.2.2, Quality Manual the Bold Text after bullet point “A” does require that the quality manual show “the relationship between the requirements of this International Standard and the documented procedures” and this “shall be clearly shown”. One way to do this is to have a reference list of what is required by the Standard and which documented procedure addresses this requirement as an addendum to the Quality Manual.

One finding the auditor is adamant about is servicing. While we do no servicing of our product after delivery, we are being told that the warranty work we perform when parts come back is servicing and we cannot take the exception.

I tired to take the nonconformance route ( I.E. product coming back as not working is handled through our nonconformance procedure) but the auditor did not want to even entertain the idea of it.
SNIP SNIP
That being said, does anyone have a better argument about how to take exclusion to the service provisionI believe the auditor is correct. Warranty work is part of post-delivery activities and can not be excluded (or deemed non-applicable) if your organization performs or outsources it. From the AS9100 Rev. C Coordination Draft:
7.5.1.4 Post-delivery support
Post-delivery support shall provide as applicable for the
a) collection and analysis of in-service data,
b) actions to be taken, including investigation and reporting, when problems are identified after delivery,
c) control and updating of technical documentation,
d) approval, control and use of repair schemes, and
e) controls required for off-site work (e.g., organization’s work undertaken at the customer’s facilities).
That is also supported by the note (which comes from the ISO 9001:2008 DIS to be incorporated as part of the AS9100 Rev. C document):NOTE Post delivery activities include, for example, actions under warranty provisions, contractual obligations such as maintenance services, and supplementary services such as recycling or final disposal.

I must know...I'm new to QA and attempting to register to AS9100B

Hi Jeff and others,

Just quoting your message Jeff as it speaks a bit to what I have a question about servicing and maybe some others can jump in.

I work for a company that manufactures as well as repairs aircraft parts.

There are two separate businesses here but we operate under one Quality system. We are in the process of responding to findings from our initial AS9100 audit. Later in the year, we will be going for AS9110 registration for the repair part the business.

One finding the auditor is adamant about is servicing. While we do no servicing of our product after delivery, we are being told that the warranty work we perform when parts come back is servicing and we cannot take the exception.

I tired to take the nonconformance route ( I.E. product coming back as not working is handled through our nonconformance procedure) but the auditor did not want to even entertain the idea of it.

The particular registers’ name is not important other then to say they are the company that gets a fair amount of bad press ( or discussion). You shouldn’t have a hard time figuring out who they are.

They seem to be auditing very tight ( we could all debate what that means but for now…) due to experiences they have had with primes ( Aerospace) looking at their registration audits and troubles they had some years ago with the industry thinking they were not doing very thorough audits.

That being said, does anyone have a better argument about how to take exclusion to the service provision, thanks.

TS

:thanx:

I'm new to QA and I am attempting to register our company to AS9100B

Is your auditor's initals LR?

I'm new to QA and I am attempting to register our company to AS9100B

Is your auditor's initals LR?

Welcome ValleyGirl,

I think being new to the QA field for a better understanding: there are some unscrupulous/scrupulous Registrars out there. If I am reading what they are referencing as their Registrar does not begin with LR, close but not there. Now I could be reading more into the statement:

The particular registers’ name is not important other then to say they are the company that gets a fair amount of bad press ( or discussion). You shouldn't’t have a hard time figuring out who they are.

But there has been a lot of bad (Fact or Fiction) press on this one I think they are talking about.

Now, how can we help you learn and understand more about the Quality Realm? Just ask.

If I am reading what the they are referencing as their Registrar does not begin with LR, close but not there. She was asking about the initials of the auditor, not the registrar. She already changed the post title, concerning the registrar she believes was being referred to.

She was asking about the initials of the auditor, not the registrar. She already changed the post title, concerning the registrar she believes was being referred to.

Thanks for your insight Sidney. I noticed that after I posted. Sorry if I may have confused the situation.