AS9100C PEAR (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report) for Design and Development

[dwend]

Greeting to all:

We have just finished our stage 2 to 9100C and got a minor NCR for failing to establish Design and Development effectiveness metrics. We are a small company dealing mostly in legacy products but have one production line where we take in 2 or 3 development projects per year. One of the suggestions internally was to create a "self assessment survey" to be completed after each project or during key phases as associated with 7.3.4. I am concerned that there may be too much "opinion" given with this approach but we do not have much "data" to work with so this may have to do. I am wondering if someone else has had a PEAR completed on D and D and what was used as measures of effectiveness particularly with a small operation in mind. Thanks in advance.....

[Chance]

In Reply to Parent Post by dwend

Greeting to all:

We have just finished our stage 2 to 9100C and got a minor NCR for failing to establish Design and Development effectiveness metrics. We are a small company dealing mostly in legacy products but have one production line where we take in 2 or 3 development projects per year. One of the suggestions internally was to create a "self assessment survey" to be completed after each project or during key phases as associated with 7.3.4. I am concerned that there may be too much "opinion" given with this approach but we do not have much "data" to work with so this may have to do. I am wondering if someone else has had a PEAR completed on D and D and what was used as measures of effectiveness particularly with a small operation in mind. Thanks in advance.....

I am interested with this one too.

[dwend]

Good, let me throw in some more thought. D&D is a slippery subject by definition as unlike established production processes, it is being "developed" and each situation has unique requirements. However there is a "process" established for project planning and review, tollgating and so on. But a "figure of merit" is hard to establish. We debated schedule deltas but that requires some discipline we lack and customers are always tinkering so it would require a large amount of offsets. Right now we are leaning to the self assessment for Continuous improvement and quality objective issues and customer quote acceptance and follow on orders and product acceptance as objective measures of success. Our D and D is exclusively custom product development so we can use the follow on business as evidnece of effectiveness. KISS approach is the best here but if you want to go off the deep end then pull up this paper:

http://www.plm.automation.siemens.co...cm641-4811.pdf

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by dwend

Greeting to all:

We have just finished our stage 2 to 9100C and got a minor NCR for failing to establish Design and Development effectiveness metrics. We are a small company dealing mostly in legacy products but have one production line where we take in 2 or 3 development projects per year. One of the suggestions internally was to create a "self assessment survey" to be completed after each project or during key phases as associated with 7.3.4. I am concerned that there may be too much "opinion" given with this approach but we do not have much "data" to work with so this may have to do. I am wondering if someone else has had a PEAR completed on D and D and what was used as measures of effectiveness particularly with a small operation in mind. Thanks in advance.....

The size of the operation has little or nothing to do with the effectiveness of the process! It's often an excuse given, but I've never found a good example to justify it!

The effectiveness of any design and development process can be seen in process and down stream, once the design is released to production.

In process can be the successful exit from design reviews (V & V). When in development at one company I worked, if there was more than 2 iterations of a development product in the engineering model phase, program management lost their jobs! The closer to market they got, the higher the stakes! Those measures were linked to time and costs, of course.

Also, once released into production, the number of rejects flagged and engineering changes issued from manufacturing or suppliers is also a tel-tale sign. You can measure 'FTC' in the first 30 days of production. FTC - first time capability or FTT - first time through. If design and development have a robust process and did their job, this should be fairly high - 80% or better...

[dwend]

Thx for the reply.....as far as size being an excuse I would suggest that several of the items you just cited are based on scale. An example of our business is a design for exactyly 3 units of one part on a one time basis. I would agree that design for manufacturability is one useful facet of D and D but only a part of it. Time and budget are other measures. The AS9100 in fact is pretty wrapped up in project planning and time. But I would agree that down stream is the most important indicator. But I find for our scope that assembly related issues can be pretty convoluted unless you have plenty of data to work with. Just my opinion I guess but keep the ideas rolling.

[dsanabria]

In Reply to Parent Post by dwend

Greeting to all:

We have just finished our stage 2 to 9100C and got a minor NCR for failing to establish Design and Development effectiveness metrics. We are a small company dealing mostly in legacy products but have one production line where we take in 2 or 3 development projects per year. One of the suggestions internally was to create a "self assessment survey" to be completed after each project or during key phases as associated with 7.3.4. I am concerned that there may be too much "opinion" given with this approach but we do not have much "data" to work with so this may have to do. I am wondering if someone else has had a PEAR completed on D and D and what was used as measures of effectiveness particularly with a small operation in mind. Thanks in advance.....

Keep it simple

D & D Effectiveness = RFQ (if product is accepted) - otherwise - out of scope.

From RFQ - to - Production ...

effectiveness will be determine if...

the metrics from clause 8.4 / 5.2 (as a minimum) have been met for that production line.

.

[Big Jim]

In Reply to Parent Post by AndyN

The size of the operation has little or nothing to do with the effectiveness of the process! It's often an excuse given, but I've never found a good example to justify it!

The effectiveness of any design and development process can be seen in process and down stream, once the design is released to production.

In process can be the successful exit from design reviews (V & V). When in development at one company I worked, if there was more than 2 iterations of a development product in the engineering model phase, program management lost their jobs! The closer to market they got, the higher the stakes! Those measures were linked to time and costs, of course.

Also, once released into production, the number of rejects flagged and engineering changes issued from manufacturing or suppliers is also a tel-tale sign. You can measure 'FTC' in the first 30 days of production. FTC - first time capability or FTT - first time through. If design and development have a robust process and did their job, this should be fairly high - 80% or better...

An appropriate KPI for design and development can simply be whatever you are measuring for product quality, which you have to do to address 8.4 b. What are you measuring to track product quality? First pass yield? Escapes? Warranty returns? Scrap? Rework? Etc.