Elsmar Cove Forum Header Graphic 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
NQA-USA
NQA-USA
Miner's MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) Blog 
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
Search Elsmar
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
View Poll Results: Are you interested in a free webinar for this presentation?
Yes 11 91.67%
No 1 8.33%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this Poll because you are not Logged In.


Related Topic Tags
as9100 - aerospace quality management systems
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 30th April 2011, 06:00 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna Sidney Vianna is offline
Post Responsibly

 
Registration Date: Oct 2001
Location: California
 
Posts: 8,054
Thanks Given to Others: 1,705
Thanked 5,167 Times in 2,632 Posts
Karma Power: 926
Karma: 34448
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
I Say... Lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

The AS9100C Transition process is well underway. Thought of sharing some of early failure modes and start a constructive discussion. We must note that the audit protocol is stipulated in the Revision D of AS9101. One of the goals with AS9101D is to promote the concept of a process-based QMS and be asessed via process-based audits.

Despite the fact that the emphasis on process-based QMS was brought about (or emphasized) with ISO 9001:2000 (a decade ago), to this day, many organizations have not grasped the concept of processes; unfortunately, a significant percentage of auditors also did not comprehend the concept of process-based QMS's and allow organizations to attain and maintain certification certification, without ever doing the homework required in section 4.1 of the AS/ISO standards. Way too often organizations developed an extremely generic process map/flowchart to satisfy the requirement of
Quote:
4.1 General requirements
The organization shall establish, document, implement and maintain a quality management system and continually improve its effectiveness in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard.
The organization shall
a) determine the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization (see 1.2),
b) determine the sequence and interaction of these processes,
A too generic flowchart does not really identify the macro processes that apply to an organization. In many cases, this too generic flowchart could "depict" you, all of your competitors and the dry cleaning store down the road.

Another failure mode has to do with section 8.2.3 of the AS9100 standard. Although no new requirement exists in the latest version of the standard, due to field #11 of the PEAR form, many organizations fail to realize that they are not monitoring processes such as "product design and development", internal audits, purchasing and supplier evaluation, etc... Way too often companies only monitor production related processes with extensive array of indicators. Sometimes, however, the cliche' DO IT RIGHT, FIRST TIME & EVERY TIME should be extended to functions outside of the shop floor.

More to come...
Thank You to Sidney Vianna for your informative Post and/or Attachment!

Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 2nd May 2011, 04:13 PM
dsanabria dsanabria is offline
Appreciated Member

 
Registration Date: Oct 2007
Location: United States, connecticut
 
Posts: 697
Thanks Given to Others: 170
Thanked 292 Times in 191 Posts
Karma Power: 102
Karma: 2219
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: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Sidney;

The AATT materials were focused on the 22 pages of AS9101 pages.

All of the aerospace auditors hated the course because of the focus on technical items irelevant to the standrds.

Please forward to the powers that a process approach concept / checklist (yes - there are some good ones out there should have been provided during the course to everyone.

In fact, some Instructors are not providing the video presented on the AATT course because of the bias, non-educational value it suppose to have and because it takes to much time from what they perceived as .."Need to teach" material.

The "Process Approach" was not the focus, intent and purpose of the course - which I though it should have been. Therefore - auditors will continue to do what they know best - steady as it goes, fill out the new paperwork and register company.
Sponsored Links

  #3  
Old 2nd May 2011, 05:03 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna Sidney Vianna is offline
Post Responsibly

 
Registration Date: Oct 2001
Location: California
 
Posts: 8,054
Thanks Given to Others: 1,705
Thanked 5,167 Times in 2,632 Posts
Karma Power: 926
Karma: 34448
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by dsanabria View Post

Therefore - auditors will continue to do what they know best - steady as it goes, fill out the new paperwork and register company.
If the CB auditors don't change their ways and keep doing the same thing, make no mistake, there will be a serious shake up in the ICOP process. It is mind boggling how some people fail to see the writing on the wall. There are reasons behind the fact that the IAQG mandated all AS auditors to go through the AATT, before they are authorized to perform audits against the 2009 editions of the AS standards. There are reasons for the MASSIVE rewrite of AS9101.
If auditors fail to heed to the expected enhancements supposedly brought about with revision D of AS9101, the IAQG will be forced to devise another route, which could include the demise of the ICOP scheme and revert back to reliance solely on second-party audits. If CB auditors are not perceived to add value from the perspective of the users of the certificates, i.e., the registrants' customers, then some of us will no longer be invited to this party.

As for feedback to the powers to be, please note that the last hyperlink at www.iaqgtraining.com provides you with the means to relay feedback.
Thanks to Sidney Vianna for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  #4  
Old 2nd May 2011, 05:40 PM
dsanabria dsanabria is offline
Appreciated Member

 
Registration Date: Oct 2007
Location: United States, connecticut
 
Posts: 697
Thanks Given to Others: 170
Thanked 292 Times in 191 Posts
Karma Power: 102
Karma: 2219
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: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

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

If the CB auditors don't change their ways and keep doing the same thing, make no mistake, there will be a serious shake up in the ICOP process. It is mind boggling how some people fail to see the writing on the wall. There are reasons behind the fact that the IAQG mandated all AS auditors to go through the AATT, before they are authorized to perform audits against the 2009 editions of the AS standards. There are reasons for the MASSIVE rewrite of AS9101.
If auditors fail to heed to the expected enhancements supposedly brought about with revision D of AS9101, the IAQG will be forced to devise another route, which could include the demise of the ICOP scheme and revert back to reliance solely on second-party audits. If CB auditors are not perceived to add value from the perspective of the users of the certificates, i.e., the registrants' customers, then some of us will no longer be invited to this party.

As for feedback to the powers to be, please note that the last hyperlink at www.iaqgtraining.com provides you with the means to relay feedback.
Sad to say but the PRIME player love the ICOP system because of "LEAN QUALITY / MANUFACTURING" Concept. ICOP it's not going away. In fact in Connecticut - the Government supports LEAN over certification. In addition, the "bean counters" prefer the ICOP system because they do not need to have 2nd party auditors. A concept that military is fighting and loosing. The "bean counter" love LEAN because of transferring responsibilities and resources from from their budget to other organizations, busting unions, and transferring work overseas.

The ICOP ICOP system works to the advantage of the prime players and I don't see that changing.

What they want to see is a process approach training that is effective and a better flowdown of requirements to suppliers - (interview with 4 prime players) which as I speak the AATT it's not doing. There needs to be a seminar to show auditors how it is done and the CB, Training facilities and consultants are not fulfilling.

Sidney, the issue is not complaining or bring it up to another committee but rather it needs to be part of the long term comprehensive solution.
  #5  
Old 2nd May 2011, 05:58 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna Sidney Vianna is offline
Post Responsibly

 
Registration Date: Oct 2001
Location: California
 
Posts: 8,054
Thanks Given to Others: 1,705
Thanked 5,167 Times in 2,632 Posts
Karma Power: 926
Karma: 34448
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by dsanabria View Post

There needs to be a seminar to show auditors how it is done and the CB, Training facilities and consultants are not fulfilling.
The whole concept of having a single course developed and using the same material to train ALL AS auditors was devised exactly to minimize the variation and make AS auditors consistent and in line with IAQG expectations. If a 4-day course does not achieve that, do you really think a seminar will do it?

What we really need is for auditors to stop resisting change and follow the rules and standards. If they are incapable of understanding what a value-added audit is from the perspective of the registrant's customers (what AS9101D makes abundantly clear) they should not be part of the process.
Thank You to Sidney Vianna for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  #6  
Old 3rd May 2011, 07:53 AM
QE-Bob in Wisc QE-Bob in Wisc is offline
Involved in Discussions

 
Registration Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wisconsin
 
Posts: 12
Thanks Given to Others: 3
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Karma Power: 30
Karma: 15
QE-Bob in Wisc has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Sidney,
When you used the term "too generic" you went on to explain a little about how in depth the flow chart should be by identifying "macro processes that apply". Are you suggesting that the interaction mapping must be to the level of showing each macro process and all it's releationship to all processes? I am stuggling with this as I think talking to the releationships and showing evidence of the releationships during an audit would work. Example, if I show the releationship between purchasing and manufacturing in a process map (generic if you will) and then show evidence of how the purchasing elements interact with all of manufacturing wouldn't that meet the requirement?
  #7  
Old 3rd May 2011, 12:41 PM
Sidney Vianna's Avatar
Sidney Vianna Sidney Vianna is offline
Post Responsibly

 
Registration Date: Oct 2001
Location: California
 
Posts: 8,054
Thanks Given to Others: 1,705
Thanked 5,167 Times in 2,632 Posts
Karma Power: 926
Karma: 34448
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.Sidney Vianna is appreciated, and has over 1700 Karma points.
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by QE-Bob in Wisc View Post

Are you suggesting that the interaction mapping must be to the level of showing each macro process and all it's releationship to all processes?
Bob, I am not suggesting anything. I am just saying that organizations are being required to demonstrate compliance with some very basic requirements of the standard, which, IN MANY cases over the last decade, they have been allowed to "selectively" disregard. The requirements in question are:
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by 4.1 General Requirements

The organization shall
a) determine the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization (see 1.2),
b) determine the sequence and interaction of these processes,
and
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by 4.2.2 Quality Manual

The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual that includes
...SNIP....
c) a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system.
  #8  
Old 4th May 2011, 12:31 PM
dszeredi dszeredi is offline
Involved in Discussions

 
Registration Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
 
Posts: 26
Thanks Given to Others: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Karma Power: 26
Karma: 40
dszeredi has less than 100 Karma points so far.
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Sidney. I have read your input into the forum for many years and I completely believe that your thoughts and actions are done with complete integrity towards not only your beliefs but the aerospace industry as a whole. You have been to me personally, and to the forum a very valuable and considerate resource.
However, I agree with dsanabria in that the “PRIME love the ICOP system” and it is not going away, but for a slightly different reason. Essentially, ICOP was sold to the “regulating bodies” in civil aviation and to the military as a way to control suppliers in a more cost effective fashion that would produce the same or better results and costing less. The requirement to control suppliers was always up to the primes. They could never delegate the responsibility “that it wasn’t our fault but the suppliers” from the regulations nor the contracts. Essentially this was and still is “supplier control”. The ICOP system was a cost effective way of passing on the cost of “oversight” of suppliers to the suppliers.
But, it is very sad to say that ICOP has no teeth. The 3rd party auditor goes into a facility once or twice a year and can be conveniently ignored through a variety of methods if they raise issues that are not acceptable to the company. You may take issue with this, but I have seen it many times over. The Primes, or the companies that hold the contract with the supplier, do have teeth. They are buying from the company and are receiving material sometimes on a daily basis from them. They have entire QA departments set up for supplier management and processes in place to remove suppliers that are not performing. And yet, they are receiving nonconforming product from their suppliers and they can’t do anything about it? They still buy from them. How is this so? And then the primes indicate that the ICOP system is not working well enough! How is this possible? It is not the responsibility of the 3rd party auditor to control the supplier. It is the responsibility of the contract holder/prime to control them!!! It always has been by law as in the regulations or by contract in the case of the military.
As a 3rd party auditor, I am disgusted by the number of times “the ICOP” process has come back to me and said I have missed something in my audit that was of importance to some member company of the IAQG. I do not have the time to look at every single contract and requirement of each aerospace company that the supplier deals with. I can only take a realistic sample that is true to the safety of the aerospace industry and the integrity of an audit. I am bound to miss something. However, as I said above, it is the contract holder’s responsibility to manage the supplier not mine. So if I missed something, why did they not raise it as an issue with the supplier and make it visible to me (3rd Party Auditor) before I came to do the audit. Because, they did not look at it! They failed to manage their own suppliers and make visible a problem they had with them. It is only after the fact that the 3rd party auditor hears about it. Do I have time to deal with the infighting at the IAQG/AAQG/EAQG level between member companies? No!! Do I have to pander to one prime over another because they feel they should get preferential treatment even though they have never raised this as documented issue with the supplier? No!!!
Yes, ICOP will stay around because it is cost effective for the primes. Is it effective and efficient? Well, North American Automotive manufactures believed in QS/TS. The transplants like Toyota/Honda never required it. Did QS/TS save GM? Is there an elephant, or elephants, in the Aerospace room that look like GM? The ICOP TS auditor recertification process is a mess. What did the Aerospace community model its recertification process around?
Sidney, in the end when economic times are tuff somebody has to take the heat. In the Aerospace community, I have found that it is the 3rd party auditor that is blamed for poor performance from companies and oversight systems. So here we are. Retraining the 3rd party auditors to go into companies once or twice a year and effect change. Come on, who are we kidding?
As always
Cheers Dez
Almost forgot: I too subcribe to the saying a once "nonfamous politician" once said..."Truth is often associated with political suicide".

Last edited by dszeredi; 4th May 2011 at 03:00 PM. Reason: forgot to add little statement at end. :-)
Thank You to dszeredi for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
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
First Mile Stone/Cut-Off Date for AS9100 Transition - R.I.P. AS9100 Rev. B Joy AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 14 4th July 2011 07:16 AM
Lessons learned? Asked by my boss to compile a list of lessons learned Sean Kelley Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 33 30th March 2010 06:32 AM
Organizations rushing the transition to AS9100 Rev. C Sidney Vianna AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 22 8th July 2009 10:25 AM
Capturing Lessons Learned from a CAPA - One Point Lessons Fifi2006 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6 11th April 2006 08:50 AM



The time now is 01:26 PM. 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".