Attended the RMC (Registration Management Committee) meeting this week in Phoenix, AZ.

I would like to share with those of you, involved in the Aerospace Supply Chain, that the confidence in the value of Aerospace QMS certificates is eroding. It is possible (and likely) we will see a major restructuring of the Industry Controlled Other Party (ICOP) Scheme, presently deployed in the Aviation, Space & Defense sectors.

Soft grading of NC's, lack of depth in the audits, lack of auditor competence, etc... are being continuously reported. True corrective actions by many CB's does not seem to occur.

The situation is serious. As always, some CB's are only interested in the short term sales goals, jeopardizing the long term sustainability of the process.

Brace yourself. We will experience some turbulence.

For my edification, Sidney, who takes care of accreditation of AS9100 CB's and their training etc?

For my edification, Sidney, who takes care of accreditation of AS9100 CB's and their training etc?
According to the OASIS database, the following AB's are part of the Scheme:
Organization Location
ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board Milwaukee, WI United States
BMWAVienna, Austria
COFRAC Paris, France
ENAC Madrid, Spain
INMETRO Rio Comprido, Brazil
JAB Tokyo, Japan
SINCERTMilano(MI), Italy
Standards Council of CanadaOttawa, ON Canada
Swiss Accreditation Service SAS Bern-Wabern, Switzerland
TGA-German Association for Accreditation Frankfurt am Main, Germany
UKAS (note: IRCA performs auditor cert.) Feltham Middlesex, United Kingdom

I do know, however, that SCC has voluntarily withdrew from the process, recently.

What you've passed on as being reported is not, then, symptomatic of the Aerospace sector specifically - it's more of the same malaise in the general certification business!

What you've passed on as being reported is not, then, symptomatic of the Aerospace sector specifically - it's more of the same malaise in the general certification business!That is true. However, as we all know, the Civil Aviation sector is highly regulated. The regulatory agencies have "agreed" for the OEM's (and PAH's) to use the ICOP scheme as part of the regulatory mandate for supplier oversight. If the ICOP scheme does not provide confidence, as a component of the supplier oversight process, then it will not be endorsed by the regulatory agencies, and (shortly thereafter) cease to exist.
One can only imagine the repercussions to the certification industry, if the AS&D players were to pull out of the system, for lack of confidence....The impact would be felt way beyond the AS&D sector.

So, Sidney, it's this industry where everything hits the propeller............ :notme:

Joking aside, the potential exists for this to create a catastrophic "deep impact" on the certification industry. My frustration has to do with the industry inability to correct itself. The downward spiral which I have been talking about since 1994, the pleas from interested stakeholders (http://www.qualitydigest.com/may07/articles/02_article.shtml)not being listened to. It might all come to a head.

I don't want to sound as an alarmist, but a major crossroad is ahead of us. The A,S&D sector has little patience for lack of integrity, lack of confidence and non-value added work. Back in 2002, during a workshop we had in San Diego (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=27308&postcount=8), the message was: "We only have 1 chance to make this work".

Accountability. Massive doses of accountability. That is my prescription to heal the management system certification ailing industry. Just like chemotherapy, it would be painful and unsure. But the mess is deep and rampant. Sustainability of management system certification is not a given. It has to be earned. The process needs some serious re-thinking (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=21863).

FYI: Efficacy - I changed the thread title and all the post titles in the thread. Let me know if 'effectiveness' isn't the intended descriptor.

Marc, I had given thought to the title of the thread. In the context, I thought that efficacy was a better word than effectiveness, even though they are listed as synonyms.

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus (http://thesaurus.reference.com/help/faq/roget.html) - Cite This Source (http://thesaurus.reference.com/cite.html?qh=efficacy&ia=roget) - Share This (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/efficacy#sharethis)Main Entry: efficacyPart of Speech: nounDefinition: capabilitySynonyms: ability (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ability), adequacy (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/adequacy), capableness (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/capableness), capacity (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/capacity), competence (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/competence), effect (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/effect), effectiveness (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/effectiveness), efficaciousness (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/efficaciousness), efficiency (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/efficiency), energy (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/energy), force (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/force), influence (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/influence), performance (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/performance), potency (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/potency), power (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/power), productiveness (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/productiveness), strength (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/strength), success (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/success), sufficiency (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/sufficiency), use (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/use), vigor (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/vigor), virtue (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/virtue), weight (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/weight)Antonyms: ineffectiveness (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ineffectiveness), inefficacy (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/inefficacy), inefficiency (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/inefficiency)Notes: if something is efficacious, it is able to produce the desired result; efficacy means the power to produce effectsSource: (http://thesaurus.reference.com/help/faq/roget.html) Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2008 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

OK - There is a thread in the moderators forum about this and I made the change based on expected search terms people might use as well as for those for whom English is a second (or third, or whatever) language. I *can* change it back to efficacy if requested to.

That is true. However, as we all know, the Civil Aviation sector is highly regulated. The regulatory agencies have "agreed" for the OEM's (and PAH's) to use the ICOP scheme as part of the regulatory mandate for supplier oversight. If the ICOP scheme does not provide confidence, as a component of the supplier oversight process, then it will not be endorsed by the regulatory agencies, and (shortly thereafter) cease to exist.
One can only imagine the repercussions to the certification industry, if the AS&D players were to pull out of the system, for lack of confidence....The impact would be felt way beyond the AS&D sector.

Wow I hope these guys can do it.

I seem to recall QS9000 was killed in favor of TS16949 for similar reasons and the registrars were warned they had "one last chance to get it right".

TS is still here, and getting worse all the time (have you seen the new add on special process audits?)

A good "boot to the head" may wake em up or kill em, either way it would be good.

Wow I hope these guys can do it.

I seem to recall QS9000 was killed in favor of TS16949 for similar reasons and the registrars were warned they had "one last chance to get it right".

TS is still here, and getting worse all the time (have you seen the new add on special process audits?)

A good "boot to the head" may wake em up or kill em, either way it would be good.Please do not use a wide brush to paint this picture. The reality is: in the certification world, there are some serious, competent CB's trying to maintain the integrity of the system. However, there are also a lot of people working for CB's who are just concerned with the short term profit and have no scruples in doing whatever it takes to gain market share. Things such as "guaranteed certification".

The trend is the same in all sectors, with the exception of Automotive (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=174590&postcount=43), since the inception of the IATF led TS certification scheme. Not long ago ANAB issued Heads Up #94 (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU94.pdf) which states, in part:
There are customers of TL 9000 certified organizations who are questioning the validity of TL 9000 certificates and are concerned to the point that the customers are going back to second-party audits that had been stopped by most when TL 9000 was developed. Whether the concerns are validated with data or not is unimportant; what is important is that the telecommunication industry is losing confidence in the third-party conformity assessment process. This includes all of us and improvement must be made to gain that confidence back or the business will be lost.

I have a concern that it's too easy to blame the registration process and players, instead of levelling culpablity at (some of) the supplier organizations. You're correct Sidney, when you say there are many CBs and their auditors who do attempt to do a good job but there's also a whole lot of feckless management, management reps and consultants who spread the word about 'getting registered' as if they were selling the answers to the end of term exams! Meanwhile, the customers make unreasonable demands for 'getting registered' by ridiculous deadlines and at the same time demanding cost reductions.........:frust::mad:

I have a concern that it's too easy to blame the registration process and players, instead of levelling culpablity at (some of) the supplier organizations. That is why I say only with accountability at all levels we will fix this mess. The people that knowingly hire the services of the "path to least resistance" registrars are as guilty as the service providers. Consultants that have cozy relationships with less than ethical auditors are out there. Customers that don't keep their suppliers and their CB's accountable to the process are part of the problem. An accreditation process that believes that more bureaucracy will resolve an integrity problem is also misguided.

As you can tell, I am passionate about this issue. And very frustrated because in 1994 I started voicing my concerns over the process. And, as I mentioned before, we are in no better shape now then we were 10 years ago....

Just another indication of increased pressure in the ICOP Scheme. The AAQG (as a support sector for the IAQG) is trying very hard to drive the message that there is a sense of urgency in improving the effectiveness efficacy of CB audits conducted under the ICOP Scheme.

ANAB Heads Up # 116 (http://www.anab.org/HTMLFiles/docs/HeadsUp/HU116.pdf)


Issue: 116
Date: 2008/03/07
To: ANAB Accredited and Applicant CBs and Accreditation Assessors
From: Randy Dougherty, Vice President of Accreditation
Re: ANAB Investigation of Complaints from Boeing and Other Aerospace OEMs1

This issue is truly a heads up to CBs accredited for AS9100, AS9110, or AS9120. Expect a very prompt response by ANAB to any aerospace OEM (e.g., Boeing) complaint concerning an unresolved issue related to CB conformance to established aerospace requirements. Expect ANAB to visit your office within days.
Most CBs accredited for AS9100, AS9110, or AS9120 are already aware that OEMs such as Boeing conduct “validation” audits of their suppliers that have accredited certificates, and if they find any issues they initiate a complaint or request for information with the CB. The CB is provided an opportunity to investigate the issues and respond with the action they plan to take.
Within the past several months, Boeing has raised an issue directly to ANAB regarding the lack of effectiveness and timing of responses by CBs. The lack of timely and adequate response has led them to begin promptly escalating these to ANAB as complaints. And I regret to say that the timing of our response to some of these complaints was poor. ANAB is revising our process to improve the timing and effectiveness of our response to these complaints: We are assigning an ANAB AEA as the investigator, rather than the EATL, and we will be initiating investigations much faster, which is the reason for this Heads Up.
As with any complaint, ANAB will conduct an investigation o make an independent decision on the validity of the allegations in the complaint. And as with any complaint, ANAB will not invoice a CB if we determine the complaint is not valid or are unable to substantiate it. If we determine it is valid, we will bill the CB for our costs to investigate, report, and follow up on correction and corrective actions.
Considering that the CB will have an opportunity to resolve the issues directly with Boeing (or any other OEM following a similar process) and considering that ANAB will not invoice a CB if the complaint is not valid, it remains fully within the CB’s control to avoid any increased costs as a result of these efforts by ANAB and the industry to improve the process.

__________________________________________________________
1 Boeing is the only OEM that has been and is continuing to conduct validation audits. However, we have been informed by other OEMs that they are considering conducting similar, independent checks of suppliers with accredited certifications.

I wonder how much of Boeing's complaint volume has been triggered by its continuing problems with the 787 supply chain. Boeing has a lot of egg dripping off its chin with each announcement of further delays in delivering ANY of the 787 aircraft already ordered. Rumors abound of customers squeezing Boeing by demanding deep discounts in previously agreed prices to mollify the customers and prevent them from canceling orders. Increased expenses in the supply chain and shrunken retail sales prices probably makes Boeing a VERY unhappy observer of supplier shortfalls after receiving "clear" reports from 3rd party auditors.

From the guys in the trenches that live with the "we passed the AS audit why are you so concerned" it would be nice to see the suport from above at the ANAB.
:2cents:

I wonder how much of Boeing's complaint volume has been triggered by its continuing problems with the 787 supply chain. Boeing has a lot of egg dripping off its chin with each announcement of further delays in delivering ANY of the 787 aircraft already ordered. Rumors abound of customers squeezing Boeing by demanding deep discounts in previously agreed prices to mollify the customers and prevent them from canceling orders. Increased expenses in the supply chain and shrunken retail sales prices probably makes Boeing a VERY unhappy observer of supplier shortfalls after receiving "clear" reports from 3rd party auditors.Let me preamble my post by mentioning that I am not a Boeing spokesperson. Actually, there are a number of Boeing employees here at The Cove. They could do a much better job of posting on behalf of Boeing.

What I can say is that the problems associated with the efficacy of a significant percentage of CB audits under the ICOP process precede the 787 program. Certainly with a program so public and under so much scrutiny as the 787 program, and with a new business model where so much of the product being outsourced, problems with the Dreamliner suppliers are magnified.

However, as someone that has been involved with the Americas Aerospace Quality Group and the ICOP process for the last 6 1/2 years, I can attest that no other Aerospace organization dedicates so much resources and engages in the process as deeply as Boeing. I believe that Boeing, by supporting the ICOP process much better than any other AAQG member company, has earned the right to expect to receive, in return, confidence on the outcome of AB and CB audits.

Basically, certificates are supposed to mean something for the customers of the certified organizations. Instead of walking away, and revert to second party QMS assessments, they are trying very hard to correct the shortcomings associated with this process.

And for those in the Aerospace supply chain, if you don't like customer and regulatory oversight, be prepared. It is possible (and likely) that, as an outcome of concern over the adequacy of supply chain oversight, regulators might mandate increased and enhanced supply chain monitoring. At least for the organizations operating under the FAA jurisdiction.

A concern I have with a Boeing, or really anyones, follow-up after a CB is that unless the exact same sample is reviewed the results could be just another load of BS. This would entail looking at the exact same documents, records, interviewing the exact same people and asking the exact same questions getting the exact same responses, so on and so forth. What do you think the chances of all that happening are?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about.........I just finished an audit of a client we have had for years. The last external "audit" of a particular department found conformance as did the previous one and the one before that....this holds true for the internal audits done as well.

In the last five years this department, the procedures, records and everything about it may have been audited a dozen times both internally and externally. While observing a demonstration of product testing on an instrument I noticed something being done, actually it wasn't being done, inconsistant with what the procedure was telling me. When I asked about the deviation from the procedure neither the technician, the supervisor, my guide (who had last audited the department), the management rep, nor the engineering director were aware of what I was asking or talking about.

The procedure had a requirement for measuring a gap between some "jaws" used for holding material with a gauging pin prior to conducting the test (this was a tension test required to take the product to failure). However, before checking the gap with the pin, the pin was required to be checked against an NIST approved ruler graduated in 32nds of an inch......they didn't have a ruler like that in the entire facility, they were unaware of that requirement and the procedure had been in place since 1999..............the testing process had been verified as conforming more than once but here I come 9 years after and because my sample was different, my findings were different and my conclusion was different. This wasn't an aerospace audit and there isn't any potential for harm or anything like that. The engineering folks did agree that there could be potential for NC product under certain conditions because of the deviation I uncovered.

The same thing can happen with the follow-up audits related to the subject matter of this Thread. What this is telling me is the decision makers involved probably have no real understanding of the sampling process and the absence of absolutes that sampling presents.

A concern I have with a Boeing, or really anyones, follow-up after a CB is that unless the exact same sample is reviewed the results could be just another load of BS. This would entail looking at the exact same documents, records, interviewing the exact same people and asking the exact same questions getting the exact same responses, so on and so forth. What do you think the chances of all that happening are?

The same thing can happen with the follow-up audits related to the subject matter of this Thread. What this is telling me is the decision makers involved probably have no real understanding of the sampling process and the absence of absolutes that sampling presents.I vehemently disagree with the position that audits are snapshots which can not be validated. That kind of mindset (shared by many people in the CB community) is one of the fundamental problems we have in the certification sector. Many insiders like to hide behind the disclaimer that audits are limited, sample-based, time-constrained exercises and the absence of written non-conformities does not mean a healthy management system, blah blah blah. Anyone trying to defend that positions leaves the door open for people to question the value of such audits, if no sensible conclusion can be reached, after reading an audit report.

CB audit results are supposed to be representative of the management system efficacy. If aerospace suppliers with chronic quality escape problems undergo AS9100 audits and are consistently given high scores, and no nonconformities reported, we have an OBVIOUS mismatch between audit results and reality.

Furthermore, CBs (if they are doing their job in a proper manner) should not have disconnected "snapshot in time" audits, but a program of continuous and consistent audits, where, each time, we learn more and more about the registered organization, and have a chance to delve deeper in the effectiveness of the system being assessed.

So, while I agree with you that two separate audits will not likely look at the same specific details of the system being assessed, the overall conclusions of the audits should be similar, if conducted by competent auditors.

I find amazing that many in the CB community still embrace the nonsensical notion that there is no connection between a certified system and the output of that system. Do I need to remind anyone about the output matters ANAB Heads Up and APG paper?

Sooner or later, the Industry relying on 3rd party certificates will have to realize that they will never have consistent delivery if they allow so many CBs with a percentage of them not willing to take on the accountability associated with the certification product. Many just want the revenue stream with no responsibilty attached.

Actually, the IAF is working on a document defining the expectations of what a management system certificate should signify.

The old cliche' applies: Can the same minds who brought us to this dysfunctional situation take us out of this mess?

Maybe so, maybe not, but auditing is not an exact science and the process cannot be exacttly replicated and no matter how competent, auditors will see things slightly different ( I see Mojave White and you see Creamy White and we are both looking at the exact same wall in a room).

During a theoretical audit my assessment of records management of an organization that has departments A-Z, I assess A, K, M, T, & Y and base my conclusions on what I find and you come after me and assess B, F, N, S & X and come to different conclusions....which of us is correct especially when our conclusions are different? We both assessed the same requirement but our sample (the departments were different). Or better yet...we sampled the same departments but reviewed different records and the ones I look at are all messed up but the ones you looked at are fine. Who is correct here?

Now if whoever wants an absolute, 100% guarantee that conformance is being achieved across the board, at all times, in all areas then maybe they should go about changing the rules on how audits are to be conducted and allow for more time to be used to meet the requirement. I would be more than happy to fall back on my old White Collar Crime and Legal Drug Diversion investigator training and experience and really root out stuff if I were asked or required to do so. Trust me, if every dot and tittle ain't in the right place you'll get 20 years or in this case an NC. Is that what the expectations are?

Is that what the expectations are?The expectations from the people who instituted and developed the ICOP process were and are very simple: certificates must mean something. Certificates should provide a reasonable degree of confidence on the certified system robustness in delivering customer satisfaction, conforming products and take true corrective actions when things go wrong.

CB's who want to absolve themselves from that responsibility should have no place in the ICOP scheme. It is that simple.

Doesn't this have more to do with the established and accepted process than the CB?

I understand the concern and as someone who has personally been on the receiving end of parts/component failure during flight operations I absolutely know and have experience in the subject. (You ain't never had a thrill ride until you've actually used a Martin-Baker seat!:mg:)

Doesn't this have more to do with the established and accepted process than the CB?My personal opinion is that the Aerospace Industry was naive in the early days, by believing that an enhanced & augmented accredited process would be sufficient to filter the non-serious and incompetent players out of the scheme. I suspect that, by now, they realize that there is a tremendous variation in competence and seriousness in the CB community and, for the short-sighted stakeholders, the competitive nature of the certification process actually promotes and benefits the less serious and "path of least resistance" registrars.

Things are changing and will change rapidly and profoundly to attempt to fix the shortcomings. Remember, for example, some of the drastic changes from the failed QS-9000 certification process to the TS-16949 certification one.

But the mind set of accepting no responsibility for the correlation between a certificate you issue and your customers output will only change with clear demonstrations of punitive measures. Sorry, but the dangling carrot did not work, so the need to revert back to the stick strategy.

Outside of that option, we have few ones. OEM's contracting directly with CB's for supplier QMS oversight. Or IAQG direct approval of selected CB's, like the IATF process. Or, finally, a total abandonment of the CB participation in the process and reversion to the old approach of each OEM conducting redundant and inconsistent supplier QMS assessments.

Time will tell.

I agree with you on the time will tell.

Wow! I find myself in general agreement with Sidney on this aspect of third party audits.I vehemently disagree with the position that audits are snapshots which can not be replicated. That kind of mindset (shared by many people in the CB community) is one of the fundamental problems we have in the certification sector. Many insiders like to hide behind the disclaimer that audits are limited, sample-based, time-constrained exercises and the absence of written non-conformities does not mean a healthy management system, blah blah blah. Anyone trying to defend that positions leaves the door open for people to question the value of such audits, if no sensible conclusion can be reached, after reading an audit report.

CB audit results are supposed to be representative of the management system efficacy. If aerospace suppliers with chronic quality escape problems undergo AS9100 audits and are consistently given high scores, and no nonconformities reported, we have an OBVIOUS mismatch between audit results and reality.

Having dealt with the Boeing supply chain while I was in aerospace, I can tell you flatly customers wouldn't flinch at a finding like Randy's unless the product was nonconforming. Frankly, most customers don't give a rat's patootie about most of the technical points in a third party audit unless or until the "quality escapes" reach the customer's dock. Then, and only then, the feces hit the fan and everyone rushes to pinpoint the root cause and stop the bleeding.

No one in his right mind expects that a smoothly running business and quality management system guarantees there will be no glitches in quality. What they do have every right to expect, though, is any supplier registered to a Standard by a third party CB should be continually evaluating and attempting to improve his processes. The fact it took nine years for the glitch in process (apparently NOT in finished product) to be detected is less meaningful than how long it took the auditee to correct the situation once reported and, maybe even more importantly, the spirit in which the auditee took the NC (good grace or whine "it's not important" or some other defensive comment?)

It was a process and in finished product test as well.........:frust:

This was one of those that wasn't being looked for but jumped up and bit like a Rattler.

If I remember correct the intial comment from my guide was "Oh SH***************T!" The same comment was echoed one or twice over the next few minutes by others.

In retrospect there was real no potential for harm, this was one of many tests and there has been no history of NC product related to this, but everyone received a wakeup call.......this eximplifies (I hope that's the correct word) what I was trying to point out. My sample of a process that had been looked at many times before was not exactly the same and a different conclusion was arrived at. Someone else could very well follow me, looking from a slightly different perspective and find where I "missed" something...You can't find it all.

You can't find it all.No, you can't find it all, but you can (and we should) correlate the outputs of the certified system with the audit results. That is the concept of OEM "validation audits". If a CB certifies an organization with major gaps in terms of conformance to a standard and/or if a CB is continuously giving a "clean bill of health" with high scores in the 9101 checklist and no nonconformities reported to an organization, while their customers are receiving non-conforming products, failing to respond to customer complaints, chronically late in their deliveries, it is time for that CB to to have it's judgement day.

And, hopefully, the ripple effect is that registrants will re-think their CB selection criteria and start demanding seriousness, professionalism and competence of CB's and it's auditors.

I'll agree with you here for sure.

I'll agree with you here for sure.Hallelujah!:rolleyes:

And, as a side comment, at this moment, we have 2 CB's with their AS accreditation suspended by ANAB.....

Is it because of an administration thing or an operational thing?

Is it because of an administration thing or an operational thing?As you know, ANAB does not disclose the reasons for CB suspension. So, I have no way of knowing it. The interesting thing is:since the inception of the ICOP Scheme, the number of CB suspensions is way high and concentrated on the CB Aerospace scope of accreditation. Which indicates (to me, at least) that the Aerospace Industry is putting pressure on AB's.

I figured the rumor mill mught be working better for you than for me. I've been so busy in "my" world that I've pretty much blocked all the non-essential stuff out.

I figured the rumor mill mught be working better for you than for me. I've been so busy in "my" world that I've pretty much blocked all the non-essential stuff out.I consider anything that might be denigrating the integrity of the accredited certification process very important.

And, as a side comment, at this moment, we have 2 CB's with their AS accreditation suspended by ANAB.....Make it 3.

I wrote an article for Quality Digest on the issue of potential upcoming changes to the ICOP Scheme. The article is available via this link (http://www.qualitydigest.com/may08/articles/05_article.shtml).
Any <constructive> feedback on the article would be appreciated.
http://www.qualitydigest.com/may08/Images/AS9100.jpg

Sidney

Just completed reading your article about the ICOP issues and was wondering if you can answer the following if possible:

When AAQG holds its CB auditor workshop in Long Beach, California in July 14-15, 2008 will this be open to all parties involved in the process (customers of CB’s) or just CB auditors?

What happed to the OEM oversight of the CB’s? I remember when AS9100A was rolled out our CB explained that OEMs would be performing oversight audits of the CBs and to expect that at some point there might be an OEM auditor performing a witness audit of our CB auditor during one of our regularly scheduled surveillance audits.

By the way I think your article address many of the CB auditor issues we have seen here on the cove, Thank you.

When AAQG holds its CB auditor workshop in Long Beach, California in July 14-15, 2008 will this be open to all parties involved in the process (customers of CB’s) or just CB auditors? The target audience for the workshop is the CB auditors and people involved with training CB auditors, but I believe that they have not closed the door to other interested parties. If they reach capacity, they might dismiss people who do not currently work as a CB auditor, but I am not sure if we would reach capacity of the room. Check the information available via the link below:

RMC Meetings/Workshops

July 14-17, 2008
Long Beach, California
Information/Registration (http://www.sae.org/servlets/aerostd/committeeHome.do?comtID=TEARMC)

What happed to the OEM oversight of the CB’s? I remember when AS9100A was rolled out our CB explained that OEMs would be performing oversight audits of the CBs and to expect that at some point there might be an OEM auditor performing a witness audit of our CB auditor during one of our regularly scheduled surveillance audits.The oversight of AB's, CB's and auditors is happening and it will probably be augmented. One of the current concerns is that the sample of witnessed audits is too small. Check this link (http://www.iaqg.sae.org/iaqg/meetings/2008naples/downs.pdf)for a presentation on the ICOP Other Party Management Team "state of the union" .

At the outset of another RMC meeting, and getting closer to the release of 9104-1 and 9104-2, it looks like significant changes will be implemented in the ICOP scheme.

Examples of proposed changes:

Audit-days: The new tables in the 9104-1 document should increase audit days for 9100/9110/9120 audits and, basically, eliminate, potential reductions. The only allowable reduction will be when an organization is not responsible for the design of the products.

Auditor rotation: No audit team leader can be assigned for an organization beyond two certification cycles (i.e., 6 years).

Auditor re-assignment request: The registrant will have to soundly substantiate their request for an auditor re-assignment. The idea is that if auditor does his/her job and reports significant non-conformities, the organization should not be able to request that auditor NOT to come back, for spurious reasons, in order to avoid future thorough audits.

Certificate transfer: No certificate transfer from a CB to another would be possible until all NC's issued by the current CB are satisfactorily closed. Further, the new CB must perform a site visit before they issue a new certificate.

Transition to 17021: If a CB misses the September 15 transition deadline, ANAB stated that they will be automatically dis-accredited. According to an IAQG resolution, if a CB loses it's accreditation, it can not re-apply to the ICOP Scheme for a minimum of 12 months.

Multiple sites covered in a single certificate: Several proposed changes. Main issue is the estimation of audit days for each site.

Soft grading: If an auditor is caught "soft grading" NC's, the CB will be suspended.

More to come... Next AAQG/RMC meeting in Seattle, in September.

Attention Users and Stakeholders of the IAQG ICOP Process of Certification of AQMS Standards:
Please reference the IAQG ICOP Update at this link:
http://www.sae.org/servlets/newsletter?LINK=IAQG200902a002&PID=45701267 (http://www.sae.org/servlets/newsletter?LINK=IAQG200902a002&PID=45701267)
...for information about the following:
- Background on the ICOP Process
- OPMT Background
- 2009 Improvement Activities
Regards,
Rick Downs
IAQG ICOP Chair