Combining AS9100, ISO 9001, & PRI (NADCAP) into 1 Internal Audit

[gwells]

The Quality Manager believes that it is feasible to combine AS9100, ISO 9001, & Performance Review Institute (PRI) (NADCAP) AC 7118 Composites into 1 audit (internal). He is of the opinion that PRI checklists are detailed enough that AS9100 & ISO 9001 can be encompassed into 1 audit. Does this sound even possible? Anybody ever tried this, or is in the process of attempting it? We are certified to AS9100, ISO 9001, & an FAA Repair Facility. This sounds extremely time consuming and not exactly foolproof.
TIA/R: Gary Wells

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by gwells

The Quality Manager believes that it is feasible to combine AS9100, ISO 9001, & Performance Review Institute (PRI) (NADCAP) AC 7118 Composites into 1 audit (internal). He is of the opinion that PRI checklists are detailed enough that AS9100 & ISO 9001 can be encompassed into 1 audit. Does this sound even possible? Anybody ever tried this, or is in the process of attempting it? We are certified to AS9100, ISO 9001, & an FAA Repair Facility. This sounds extremely time consuming and not exactly foolproof.
TIA/R: Gary Wells

I'm thinking your QM doesn't know internal audits aren't against/about 'a standard'...it's not appropriate to be using standards like this as audit criteria for an internal audit, in my experience. Maybe you could shed some light on what he/you have done - for checklists - in the past for internal audits..?

[gwells]

In the past I have developed audit checklists or used pre-existing audit checklists developed by the previous QM. For PRI (Nadcap) we use their audit checklists. For AS9100/ISO 9001 audits I use checklists previously developed by the previous QM.
TIA/R: Gary Wells

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by gwells

In the past I have developed audit checklists or used pre-existing audit checklists developed by the previous QM. For PRI (Nadcap) we use their audit checklists. For AS9100/ISO 9001 audits I use checklists previously developed by the previous QM.
TIA/R: Gary Wells

Gary - thanks for that info. When I've taught/done/coached internal audits, we've always developed checklists specific to the particular audit assignment at that time. It was usually based on the company's defined (documented) process and controls. I can't remember ever using a checklist based on a standard.

Maybe that's where the QM's approach differs. He's probably used to doing large scale, standards based audits, rather than using the system as the criteria.

[Phiobi]

I think if you intend on performing an internal audit on, say your Heat Treatment PROCESS then yes you can cover ISO9001 / AS9100 and the NADCAP requirement in one go.
In the past I have established an audit on HT process using the check list (NADCAP) and adding in the company specific requirements (which covers AS9100).
My opinion is that when you audit an internal process, that is approved by NADCAP then your audit should / will cover all requirements (just make sure you look at your internal procedures AND the NADCAP check list requirements)

[Tom W]

JMO but my understanding is:

For NADCAP you must use their checklists and you must have each question answered yes through corrective action (if needed) prior to their on site audit.

For TS, AS and ISO you should NOT use standard based checklists for internal audits unless you are doing a compliance audit to the standard. Most systems are written to do two things: comply with the standard but more importantly to document the disciplined approach the company takes to produce the work needed (while meeting the standard requirements and customer requirements).

Internal audits that just audit against the standard will produce a system that meets the standard but quite possibly a system that is not followed or is wrong to the actual processes being used because I have yet to see anyone that produces product according to TS, AS or ISO...because they are not for this purpose. The standards lay out requirements for everything but making the parts.

The output of the process is what is sold - not the way you do purchasing, or management review or other standard requirements. These can help you be more successful but do not produce the products. Thus you have process driven systems and audits and then you have the old desk audit to make sure your system complies with the standard.

If you develop your system to comply with the standard; then cover how to run the processes you should rarely need to audit to the standard. Even through changes to the shop floor processes you should rarely be changing things that will impact the standard requirements.

[andygr]

You should perfromed a self audit using AC7118 to provide suporting evidance in the off chance that you get a finding durring your PRI audit to try and prevent the issuance of a second finding "ineffictive" self audit.
The other thing is that as part of the NADCAP approval is that you have to have a 3rd party approval of you QA system or have the QA system audit.
There is no reason you could not go thru the AC7118 audit check list first and use this review to cover similar questions covered in the AC7004 checklist. Audit what is left open on the AC7004 checklist and you would have your process and QA system covered fairly well.
Can you do more detail -sure- this would be based on how well you think you system is working. I would look to make sure I did enough job audits to cover the differances in your shop.

I think if you ask anyone who goes thru a Nadcap audit compaired to a AS9100 audit you will find that very few will say that the Nadcap audit is "easyer" than and AS9100 audit.

[Tom W]

In Reply to Parent Post by andygr

I think if you ask anyone who goes thru a Nadcap audit compaired to a AS9100 audit you will find that very few will say that the Nadcap audit is "easyer" than and AS9100 audit.

I would strongly agree with this. While the NADCAP audits can be very frustrating they are also better in a weird way because basically they just look at the facts (requirements set by NADCAP, your customers and yourself!) and decide if you meet them. Then the approach to fixing it and documenting the root cause and corrective action is much more intense and thorough.

In fact during the NADCAP audits they really hardly dive into system type things other than requirements for process related things. For example I do not think we even discussed our purchasing procedure during the last two NADCAP audits (for heat treat) but during the TS audit we spent hours on it...