=
The Elsmar Cove Wiki More Free Files The Elsmar Cove Forums Discussion Thread Index Post Attachments Listing Failure Modes Services and Solutions to Problems Elsmar cove Forums Main Page Elsmar Cove Home Page
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Aerospace and Aviation Standards and Requirements > AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements
Forum Username

Search the Elsmar Cove
Custom Search
Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Follow Marc & Elsmar
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed  Marc Smith's Google+ Page  Marc Smith's Linked In Page   Marc Smith's Elsmar Cove YouTube Page  Marc Smith's Facebook Page  Elsmar Cove Twitter Feed
Elsmar Cove Groups
Elsmar Cove Google+ Group  Elsmar Cove LinkedIn Group  Elsmar Cove Facebook Group
Donate and $ Contributor Forum Access

Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:

Howard's
International Quality Services
Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting
Bob Doering's
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook
IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors
SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers
Quality Digest Portal
IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology
ASQ - American Society for Quality

Related Topic Tags
internal audits, pear (process effectiveness assessment report), as9100 - aerospace quality management systems
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12th May 2011, 01:53 PM
John Broomfield's Avatar
John Broomfield John Broomfield is offline
Advisor OR Auditor

 
Registration Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Age: 65
 
Posts: 1,904
Thanks Given to Others: 701
Thanked 1,065 Times in 730 Posts
Karma Power: 252
Karma: 6495
John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via Skype™ to John Broomfield
Bomb! Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by howste View Post

While the standard does stop short of requiring a record, it does state:

That's pretty hard to do without documented evidence. I certainly don't think it would be a bad thing to add required record(s) of this.

Following that logic, any time an organization doesn't meet a requirement, the auditor might provide consulting. However, if an auditor does provide consulting they're going out of bounds for their role.
Agreed, except the PEAR report has to be completed by the AS auditor before it has to be completed by the auditee.

__________________

John R. Broomfield

Adding value faster while preventing loss sooner

Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old 12th May 2011, 02:27 PM
howste's Avatar
howste howste is offline
Thaumaturge

 
Registration Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
 
Posts: 4,141
Thanks Given to Others: 992
Thanked 1,949 Times in 1,047 Posts
Karma Power: 490
Karma: 14860
howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by John Broomfield View Post

Agreed, except the PEAR report has to be completed by the AS auditor before it has to be completed by the auditee.
But the auditee doesn't have to complete it at all. Just like they don't have to complete the OER, QMS Process Matrix, NCR forms, Audit Report, etc. The PEAR is a tool for the auditor to record evidence of something that has been required since 2000.
Sponsored Links

  #43  
Old 12th May 2011, 04:14 PM
John Broomfield's Avatar
John Broomfield John Broomfield is offline
Advisor OR Auditor

 
Registration Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Age: 65
 
Posts: 1,904
Thanks Given to Others: 701
Thanked 1,065 Times in 730 Posts
Karma Power: 252
Karma: 6495
John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.John Broomfield is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Send a message via Skype™ to John Broomfield
Bomb! Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by howste View Post

But the auditee doesn't have to complete it at all. Just like they don't have to complete the OER, QMS Process Matrix, NCR forms, Audit Report, etc. The PEAR is a tool for the auditor to record evidence of something that has been required since 2000.
howste,

Sorry for not being clear on this.

PEAR is a new record that should exist before the auditor arrives.

Auditee managers are responsible for ensuring their processes are effective but many will not have recorded the results of their assessments using the PEAR format.

Instead of requiring this the auditor will make this record for them. Where the record shows a bad assessment the auditee will have the auditor's advice in the form of a completed PEAR.

I think they call this line of questioning "leading the witness".

Whatever it is called the AS auditor will be advising and losing independence.

John

__________________

John R. Broomfield

Adding value faster while preventing loss sooner
  #44  
Old 13th May 2011, 05:59 PM
dsanabria dsanabria is offline
Appreciated Member

 
Registration Date: Oct 2007
Location: United States, connecticut
 
Posts: 661
Thanks Given to Others: 162
Thanked 278 Times in 181 Posts
Karma Power: 98
Karma: 2149
dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.dsanabria is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna View Post

If you are referring to the Phase 2 Revision to AS 9100 Rev C thread that you started, you clearly stated a revision to AS9100 was in the works, which, as I replied in the thread, is years away. I clearly said (and it is on the record) that a revision to AS9101 was likely and is forthcoming. The 9101 group met in New Orleans during the last IAQG meeting and a revision is underway. You are committing the mistake of making this personal. I come here to exchange ideas, opinions and facts. It just so happens that I have been a member of the AAQG for a decade now and a member of the Leadership Team for a couple. So, I do see first hand the deliberations and the good intentions behind many of the changes. However, I have been in the management system conformity assessment business for over 20 years and I also know the mindset of MANY (not all) CB auditors that will DELIBERATELY refuse to change their ways, despite training, feedback, write-ups, etc...Many (not all) auditors working for CB's don't believe rules should apply to them, don't like to be questioned about their knowledge and (God forbid) their interpretations. Case in point: Why there are so many organizations out there scrambling to identify their QMS processes and explain how they monitor them? That has been a requirement of ISO 9001 since the 3rd Edition, published over 10 years ago. Why do we have requirements in the standard that are totally neglected and auditors never write them up? Simply because the auditor does not understand the requirement either.

When AS9100B (ISO 9001:2000-based) came about, there was a statistical analysis of the non-conformities being written up against that version of the standard and compared against the AS9100A (ISO 9001:1994-based) write-ups. Some people reached a conclusion that organizations were failing to move away from the elemental approach of a QMS to a process-based approach. My conclusion was different; in my estimation, the write ups were similar simply because AUDITORS will stick to their comfort zone. After all is so much easier to find obsolete documents being used, gages with expired calibration being used, a stamp missing on a traveler, etc...Where are the gutsy auditors that are courageous and competent enough to issue non-conformities against top management for disregarding customer feedback and failing to provide resources? They are a minority in the ICOP process. Unfortunately, the criteria for one to become an AEA allowed too many people who worked 3 or 4 decades in quality control to qualify as an auditor. Not their fault, but many of them will NEVER understand the big Q and big M in QMS. They are uncomfortable auditing outside of the shop floor. So, AS9101D and the associated AATT is an attempt to make it clear that high-performance, added-value audits have to be done in different way.

I will respond to the well thought out paper Bradley posted on another thread soon, but please don't take my feedback as personal response. At least is not intended that way.

I come here to keep the perspective about the ICOP Scheme "fair and balanced".
Thanks Sidney - sorry if I offended anyone
Thank You to dsanabria for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  #45  
Old 18th May 2011, 09:35 AM
Buckyb's Avatar
Buckyb Buckyb is offline
Involved in Discussions

 
Registration Date: Feb 2009
Location: USA
Age: 65
 
Posts: 57
Thanks Given to Others: 51
Thanked 48 Times in 19 Posts
Karma Power: 28
Karma: 383
Buckyb is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.Buckyb is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.Buckyb is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.Buckyb is appreciated, and has over 300 Karma points.
Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Wow; an exceptional and true response from Sidney. I have only been involved with AS9100 for the past four years but have experienced your exact comments with auditors and top managment. When is top management going to buy in to the real advantages of the Standard instead of lip service when the third party auditor is present? I live and breath the Standard in my efforts to improve our company processes yet during the last Management Review we held I was told by the CEO in the presence of all at the review to stop encouraging discussion, hurry up and move on so we can "get this thing over with". The same CEO who will receive nonconformities under AS9100C but will blame his "Management Representative", and those who worked to develop the QMS rather than holding himself and top management responsible. Until organizations see this Standard as a benefit to quality, I doubt much will change.
Thank You to Buckyb for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  #46  
Old 18th May 2011, 09:33 PM
howste's Avatar
howste howste is offline
Thaumaturge

 
Registration Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
 
Posts: 4,141
Thanks Given to Others: 992
Thanked 1,949 Times in 1,047 Posts
Karma Power: 490
Karma: 14860
howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.howste is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by John Broomfield View Post

howste,

Sorry for not being clear on this.

PEAR is a new record that should exist before the auditor arrives.

Auditee managers are responsible for ensuring their processes are effective but many will not have recorded the results of their assessments using the PEAR format.

Instead of requiring this the auditor will make this record for them. Where the record shows a bad assessment the auditee will have the auditor's advice in the form of a completed PEAR.

I think they call this line of questioning "leading the witness".

Whatever it is called the AS auditor will be advising and losing independence.

John
Sorry I missed your response before. I'll reply with what I said recently in another thread:

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by howste View Post

...auditors are not allowed to consult with audit clients. PEAR form block 11 asks for the "Organization's method for determining process effectiveness." If the organization doesn't have a method, then the auditor should state that the organization has no method, not make something up. When they write a nonconformity, they can't tell the organization what they need to do. They should tell them that they're required to have a method to monitor and/or measure the process that demonstrates its effectiveness, and take action if the process is ineffective. The organization is required to determine their own actions, just as they are for any other audit nonconformity.
Thanks to howste for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  #47  
Old 20th May 2011, 08:02 AM
Joy Joy is offline
Involved in Discussions

 
Registration Date: Mar 2006
Location: India
 
Posts: 416
Thanks Given to Others: 208
Thanked 110 Times in 77 Posts
Karma Power: 78
Karma: 1462
Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.Joy is appreciated, and has over 1300 Karma points.
Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

The situation of raising NCR due to non existence of perfomance measurement criteria will rarely happen,if phase-1 audit is done correctly.If you notice point #24 APPENDIX F AUDIT REPORT (Stage 1),it needs information on performance related to quality and OTD.So there is no chance of surprise in Phase-2 audit.

It may happen only there was no phase 1 audit and the client is transitioning from Rev.B.However,the requirement is not a new requirement.
  #48  
Old 26th May 2011, 06:55 PM
cettina cettina is offline
Shy Poster (1 to 5 Posts)

 
Registration Date: Jun 2010
 
Posts: 1
Thanks Given to Others: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Karma Power: 18
Karma: 10
cettina has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by John Broomfield View Post

All,

AS9101Ds PEAR is an example of the auditing standard getting ahead of the management system standard.

AS9100 and AS9110 should first require design of the product realization processes.

These standards should first require the recording of process effectiveness assessments in the monitoring and correcting of the realization processes (4.1 and 8.2.3).

Will history see AS9101D as a classic example of strengthening appraisal before requiring the prevention of nonconformity by design?

John
John
I am yet to see a completed PEAR can anyone show an example or two?
thanks for all of the posts great job.....
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Forum > Aerospace and Aviation Standards and Requirements > AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements

Do you find this discussion thread helpful and informational?


Bookmarks


Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
AS9100C PEAR (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report) for Design and Development dwend AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 6 18th February 2012 04:48 PM
AS9100 Rev C PEARs - Grouping Processes wayne.wilson7 Documentation Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3 21st September 2011 11:10 PM
Training Efficiency Assessment - Evaluate the Effectiveness (Clause 6.2.2 c) Sardokar Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 3 9th September 2011 05:34 AM
AS9120A Process Effectiveness Assessment Report Forms Big Slim AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 23 9th August 2011 07:26 PM
Need some information on Training Effectiveness Assessment Form ramaramji1998 Documentation Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3 6th December 2005 05:27 PM



The time now is 07:29 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


   


Marc Timothy Smith - Elsmar.com
8466 LeSourdsville-West Chester Road, Olde West Chester, Ohio 45069-1929
513 341-6272
NOTE: This forum uses "cookies".