AS91X0 Transition Deadline - New IAQG Decision - 2012

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Yesterday, during the AAQG/Registration Management Committee meeting, we were told that the IAQG accepted the proposal from the Other Party Management Team committee to allow for a "slight" deviation in the transition process.

According to the NEW resolution (yet to be formally published), organizations that have their AS certification transition COMPLETED (i.e. on-site audit performed) before July 1st, 2012 will not be suspended, even though it might take additional time for the potential NC's to be resolved/closed before a new certificate be issued.

The previous resolution stated that if the new certificates were not issued by July 1st, 2012, the organization certification would be withdrawn.

The "old" revisions of the AS91X0 standards will remain in effect until December 31st, 2012. After that date, they will be cancelled.

Organizations that fail to have their AS transition audits completed before July 1st, will have their certificates suspended and will have until December 31st to accomplish the transition. After that, their certification will be withdrawn in OASIS.

As for the consequences of being suspended, it varies depending on the registrant's customers policies. They might be put on probation by the customers, no new business awarded, etc.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
The OASIS website was updated today.

9100/9110/9120:2009 Transition Requirements Update:
The IAQG Other Party Management (OPMT) has updated the Supplement Rules Document (SR001 - Dated 25 Jan 2012) that provides transition requirements for all stakeholders (e.g., Accreditation Bodies, Certification Bodies, Certified Organizations). The document was updated to incorporate the IAQG Executive Committee's decision to adjust the consequences for not meeting the 01 Jul 2012 transition target date.

The IAQG Executive Committee's decision resulted in the following changes:
  • The 01 July 2012 target remains in place but the suspension process will be utilized in lieu of withdrawal.
  • The previous revision of the 9100/9110/9120 standards will not be cancelled on 01 July 2012; standards cancellation will occur in 2013.
  • Certified organizations that have not had their on-site audit activity to the 9100/9110/9120:2009 AQMS standards completed by 01 July 2012 shall have their certificate suspended. Suspension status will remain in effect until transition is completed or the certificate is withdrawn.
  • There will be no 9100/9110/9120:2009 transition audits after 01 Jan 2013. Failure to complete the on-site audit activity to the 9100/9110/9120:2009 AQMS standard by 01 Jan 2013 shall result in certificate withdrawal from OASIS. Should an organization's certificate be withdrawn then the initial certification process must be completed before a new certificate can be issued.
Certification Bodies must contact their respective clients to implement all required changes to certification status. In addition to the updated rule, this Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)link can also be used by stakeholders to further clarify the rules for transition.
The Other Party Management Team (OPMT) will continue to work with all stakeholders by communicating lessons learned and status progress as we strive to meet all transition requirements.
9104-001 Has Been Published - Transition Requirements Established:
The IAQG Other Party Management (OPMT) is pleased to announce that the 9104-001 "Requirements for Aviation, Space, and Defense Quality Management System Certification Programs" standard has been published in Europe as prEN9104-001 on 18 Jan 2012. It will be published in the Americas as AS9104/1 by 31 Jan 2012. Publication in Asia Pacific as SJAC 9104/1 will occur once translation activities are completed.
Transition rules to this new standard have been established via theSupplement Rules Document (SR002 - Dated 20 Jan 2012). These rules provide transition requirements and target dates for all stakeholders (e.g., Accreditation Bodies, Certification Bodies, Certified Organizations). Transition will be complete once accredited Certification Bodies have been re-accredited to the new standard. Certification Bodies will be contacting their clients to implement required changes.
The Other Party Management Team (OPMT) will continue to work with all stakeholders by communicating lessons learned and progress as we strive to meet all transition requirements.
 

Big Jim

Admin
Somehow this seems to be an inadequate response. Time will tell. If it is too little, we can only hope that more accommodations will be made.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Somehow this seems to be an inadequate response. Time will tell. If it is too little, we can only hope that more accommodations will be made.
It is always risky to make predictions, especially about the future...:tg: but I would not count on "additional accommodations" by the IAQG.

This transition process, in my opinion, only shows how many times the conformity assessment component of standards gets overlooked. Compared to the process of revising AS9100, AS9110 and AS9120, the revision of the AS9101 and AS9104A were painful. The FAQ document for AS9101D is already in revision # 5 and AS9104/1 revision took 5 years:mg:.

I do hope the IAQG takes notice of that for future transition processes. Don't underestimate the importance of the certification piece when transitioning standards, because some registrants and registrars will procrastinate, some auditors, resistant to change, will drop from the scheme; resources will become scarcer...
 
Last edited:

Big Jim

Admin
It is always risky to make predictions, especially about the future...:tg: but I would not count on "additional accommodations" by the IAQG.

This transition process, in my opinion, only shows how so many times the conformity assessment component of standards get overlooked. Compared to the process of revising AS9100, AS9110 and AS9120, the revision of the AS9101 and AS9104A were painful. The FAQ document for AS9101D is already in revision # 5 and AS9104/1 revision took 5 years:mg:.

I do hope the IAQG takes notice of that for future transition processes. Don't underestimate the importance of the certification piece when transitioning standards, because some registrants and registrars will procrastinate, some auditors, resistant to change, will drop from the scheme; resources will become scarcer...

Would it be too bold to say that it appears that they have their head in the sand?

Perhaps it would be more polite simply to say that they suffer from "group think".
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I believe the range of preparedness for this transition process exposes something that I have been talking about for a long time and few people pay attention to.

CB's have very diverse business models. Some of them do very little in terms of developing their auditors, planning for additional resources, hiring program managers, etc.; like many companies they go from crisis-management to fire fight. Never an ounce of prevention and foresight. Many of these CB's business model calls for having auditors-on file, i.e., having subcontracted auditors that they use when there is a job available. These CB's don't spend a dime training and developing their auditors and leave up to them to upgrade their credentials.

Other CB's made the investment and a concerted effort to qualify their AS auditors, early on and have been ready to support the transition process. While the resource demand affects all CB's inthe sector, some are much better prepared than others to cope with the demands of the IAQG transition requirements.

Unfortunately, too many registrants are oblivious to the CB's business models and decisions and how they get affected by it. Too many people think: an audit is an audit is an audit; an auditor is an auditor is an auditor; a certificate is a certificate is a certificate. Wrong they are. When they end up having a terrible experience, they tend to think that the same would have happened had they chosen another CB.
 
J

Julius

Sidney, Thank you for posting the information from the AAQG. I will pass it on to my clients.
Julius
 
J

Joy

I believe the range of preparedness for this transition process exposes something that I have been talking about for a long time and few people pay attention to.


CB's have very diverse business models. Some of them do very little in terms of developing their auditors, planning for additional resources, hiring program managers, etc.; like many companies they go from crisis-management to fire fight. Never an ounce of prevention and foresight. Many of these CB's business model calls for having auditors-on file, i.e., having subcontracted auditors that they use when there is a job available. These CB's don't spend a dime training and developing their auditors and leave up to them to upgrade their credentials.


Other CB's made the investment and a concerted effort to qualify their AS auditors, early on and have been ready to support the transition process. While the resource demand affects all CB's inthe sector, some are much better prepared than others to cope with the demands of the IAQG transition requirements.

Unfortunately, too many registrants are oblivious to the CB's business models and decisions and how they get affected by it. Too many people think: an audit is an audit is an audit; an auditor is an auditor is an auditor; a certificate is a certificate is a certificate. Wrong they are. When they end up having a terrible experience, they tend to think that the same would have happened had they chosen another CB.

Definitely people paid attention to it but they were probably confident that finally they will win and it is proved correct now.
But no reward for the well prepared CBs nor any punishment for those not prepared.The situation may be boon for those as they would be able to manage their audits when auditors would be available.Suspension has no meaning for many organizations and CBs.There was some provision to add extra audit MDs if audit is conducted during suspension period.Even that would help them and the organizations will be at receiving end.
IAQG should have considered some provisions of reward and punishment for the CBs and linked with the decisions.Else a three months extension could be better idea.
 

Buckyb

Involved In Discussions
As the new Management Representative and Quallity Assurance Manager, I was brought on board because the company was not ready for the transition audit and was suspended as a result. I have few precious months to form a game plan, develop, prepare and schedule our transition audit and still have time to answer any corrective actions before the clock strikes midnight. I wonder how many registrants face the same issue out there.

On a second note, we are a Boeing Supplier but provide ground support equipment only. However, as a Boeing Supplier we are still required to be certified to AS9100C. Anyone else facing the same requirement????
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Just as an anecdotal note, this morning I went to OASIS to check the number of AS91X0:2009 certificates. Adding up AS9100C, AS9110A and AS9120A certificates, OASIS show 7,554 certified sites.

Still, there are 7,369 sites certified against the "old" versions of the AS91X0 standards.

The IAQG expects that a small percentage (<5%) of AS certified organizations will voluntarily drop their AS certificates.
 
Top Bottom