AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modules

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I am sure other OASIS registered members have received the following email:
To: ICOP Accreditation Bodies and Certification Bodies
From: Rick Downs
The message below is going out to all individuals that have taken the AATT course. We wanted to make you aware of this guidance module as it will help clarify many questions regarding the completion of PEARs and NCRs resulting from certification audits for 9100/9110/9120:2009.
Thank you,
Rick Downs

IAQG Sanctioned Training Team Chair
The International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) is proud to announce the launch of the IAQG 9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report (PEAR) and Nonconformance Record (NCR) Review module. This module will be offered free of charge to all current and future IAQG Platform users who paid or will pay for the 9100 Online Component. It is available to English Platform users at this time. To access the module, please go to www.iaqgtraining.com and login with your email and password. You will find the module listed directly on the main screen after you login.
In an effort to improve the overall effectiveness of 9101 audit reporting, the IAQG formed an IAQG Other Party Management Team (OPMT) Audit Report Review Sub-Team. The team was tasked with reviewing completed 9101:2009 audit reports and providing feedback to stakeholders in the ICOP process.
The PEARs and NCRs provided in the online training module are actual PEARs and NCRs that were previously uploaded into the OASIS (Online Aerospace Supplier Information System) database, although references to the actual suppliers and auditors have been removed. The PEARs and NCRs have been reviewed by the IAQG OPMT Audit Report Review Sub-Team in conjunction with the 9101 Sector Document Representatives (SDRs) and the IAQG Document Representative (IDR).
The comments and recommendations were developed and reviewed by the Sub-Team, Sector Document Representatives (SDRs) and International Document Representative (IDR) for 9101 in order to provide clear, sanctioned feedback to ICOP stakeholders. It is important to note, that in most cases, the Sub-Team is not stating the PEAR is incorrect but rather it can be improved. However, it is clear the information recorded, in some examples, is simply insufficient and does not meet the intent of the 9101 standard. Included in the online training module are examples of what would be considered a best practice in completing the PEAR and NCRs.
 

DannyK

Trusted Information Resource
Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

I took the module training and found it clarifies the expectation for how the PEAR and Nonconformities should be filled out.
It was a worthwhile training.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

I took the module training and found it clarifies the expectation for how the PEAR and Nonconformities should be filled out.
It was a worthwhile training.
Thanks for the feedback, but what surprises me a little bit is the fact that AS auditors need clarification after attending the 4-day AATT course. Shouldn't that have been exhaustively discussed during the AATT course?

Looks like retraining of operators auditors is an accepted corrective improvement action, after all...:tg:
 
K

kiwisfly

Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

I don't think there is anything too startling in the new PEAR and NCR training material but can see that IAQG is trying to achieve more consistency in how PEARs and NCRs are written. I have penned a quick summary of the PEAR material below for those who do not have access to the IAQG training material:

PEAR
1. Box 8: Process Name as defined by the customer.
2. Box 9: Only the main clauses (primary requirements) need to be listed.
3. Box 10: Inputs-Activities-Outputs-Interfaces (summary only).
4. Box 11: Measures of Effectiveness to include performance targets.
5. Box 12: Evidence to support the process effectiveness assessment level grading. (reference back to the listed targets and actual performance)

One of the main issues I am finding is that companies don't have specific process measures for each of the processes they have nominated, and therefore ones I am obligated to report on the PEAR. Effectiveness can not directly be measured for that particular process leading to ambiguous comments about measures of effectiveness. There may be higher order measures (OTD and customer satisfaction) but it is a stretch to link all processes back to the main company performance metrics.

I suspect there will be several more NCRs for not having specific measures for each process reported on the PEAR. I would be interested in other auditor's views on this.

Cheers,
 

Big Jim

Admin
Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

I don't think there is anything too startling in the new PEAR and NCR training material but can see that IAQG is trying to achieve more consistency in how PEARs and NCRs are written. I have penned a quick summary of the PEAR material below for those who do not have access to the IAQG training material:

PEAR
1. Box 8: Process Name as defined by the customer.
2. Box 9: Only the main clauses (primary requirements) need to be listed.
3. Box 10: Inputs-Activities-Outputs-Interfaces (summary only).
4. Box 11: Measures of Effectiveness to include performance targets.
5. Box 12: Evidence to support the process effectiveness assessment level grading. (reference back to the listed targets and actual performance)

One of the main issues I am finding is that companies don't have specific process measures for each of the processes they have nominated, and therefore ones I am obligated to report on the PEAR. Effectiveness can not directly be measured for that particular process leading to ambiguous comments about measures of effectiveness. There may be higher order measures (OTD and customer satisfaction) but it is a stretch to link all processes back to the main company performance metrics.

I suspect there will be several more NCRs for not having specific measures for each process reported on the PEAR. I would be interested in other auditor's views on this.

Cheers,

What is really coming back to haunt the ISO 9001/AS9100 community is a total failure to explain what is required to fulfill element 8.2.3. For the first time there is a push for AS auditors to really audit 8.2.3, and the registrants still have never been told what is expected. Until this is better explained and understood by all involved, there will continue to be issues.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

For the first time there is a push for AS auditors to really audit 8.2.3, and the registrants still have never been told what is expected.
Jim, the first paragraph of AS9100C 8.2.3 is the same requirement that ISO 9001 has, and had, since 2000.

I think it is "telling" about the state of the conformity assessment sector that a stakeholder (the IAQG in this case) has to "force the issue" for registrants, CB's and auditors to PAY ATTENTION to requirements and assess conformance to it. It is sad that the audit profession, who makes a living from assessing if others comply with requirements, fail to do that, ourselves.

Selective assessment of requirements. That is what we realize we've been doing for too long. We should not be "pushed" to "really" audit any paragraph of the standards. We should do that, as our normal service delivery.
 
Last edited:

Big Jim

Admin
Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

Jim, the first paragraph of AS9100C 8.2.3 is the same requirement that ISO 9001 has, and had, since 2000.

I think it is "telling" about the state of the conformity assessment sector that a stakeholder (the IAQG in this case) has to "force the issue" for registrants, CB's and auditors to PAY ATTENTION to requirements and assess conformance to it. It is sad that the audit profession, who makes a living from assessing if others comply with requirements, fail to do that, ourselves.

Selective assessment of requirements. That is what we realize we've been doing for too long. We should not be "pushed" to "really" audit any paragraph of the standards. We should do that, as our normal service delivery.

Certainly, but it is also "telling" that there has never been a clear definition as to just what a process is. Until registrants understand, how are they going to fully comply with 4.1 and 8.2.3? Do you have any idea how many people still think the procudure = process?
 
J

Joy

Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

Even after a full training of 4 days,this re-orientation/reminder module needed for us.This shows that ground reality has not changed much.Though one reason could be pressure of meeting transition schedule.However the need to issue this module indicates that AATT is not effective as it was expected-the world will change but remained the same (with many).
More than the training module,I should blame the competency of trainers.Many did not have audit experience.Due to big demand of the AATT and market monopoly in initial days,the training provider used any trainer who made them available for four days , met the requirements and ready to invest for trainers course.So the expectation could not be communicated effectively to participants.Is IAQG doing some RCA for this and review the competency of trainers used by the training provider.

Later on some well known training providers and CBs got approval to conduct the training and I believe that the course was delivered by competent trainers.Though,I passed the AATT for all three in first attempt,I would love to attend the same if I find a competent trainer is delivering the same.

Like PEAR levels, IAQG may consider a grading system for auditors.On the basis of process effectiveness, we determine a PEAR level.So why not a grading system for us on the basis of audit process effectiveness?:tg:I know that many would not like this idea and difficult to implement but may change the world and some CBs.Those who want to improve,they would like this idea.Risk-faulty method may create some other problem,AATT and its effect has proved that:eek:
 
J

Jeff Frost

Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

Also another point to ponder is way, after all this training, is 2nd and 3rd party auditors still not performing process based audits. In the last 12 months I have had to explain were project management, risk management, and configuration management fall within AS9100C requirements so that these auditors did not have to re-interview personnel because they were following the AS9101 audit report as a checklist.
 

dsanabria

Quite Involved in Discussions
Re: AS9101 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report/Nonconformance Record Review Modul

Thanks for the feedback, but what surprises me a little bit is the fact that AS auditors need clarification after attending the 4-day AATT course. Shouldn't that have been exhaustively discussed during the AATT course?

Looks like retraining of operators auditors is an accepted corrective improvement action, after all...:tg:

From the other side of the pew...

I think that the examples that they presented were misleading and the explanations that they provided could easily be challenged and appeal.

Fascinating to me that 2 years later they are trying to correct the misconception of the process audit (which was not taught at the course).:2cents:
 
Top Bottom