AS9100D Process Map Requirements - PEAR Forms

[Mjtaur]

Hello all,

This might sound like a ridiculous question but here is the scenario:

Company has three processes: Management, Manufacturing and Purchasing.

Only Manufacturing and Purchasing have PEARs.

However, the QM process maps ARE interactions of all activities, but not titled, nor are the specifically just Manufacturing, Management or Purchasing. As a matter of fact, they are titled Quality Process map, Manufacturing Process map and Detailed Manufacturing Process Map. This leads me to believe those are our processes. But they are not. But again, the interaction is there.

I'm new to the company and have never seen it like this before. They have always passed audits like this, it just doesn't seem to fit. Should we not have specific maps, specifically for each process? Or does it matter, so long as the interactions are there? Does anyone have any advice or suggestions that can help? It would be greatly appreciated for any insight.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

It would be greatly appreciated for any insight.

I suspect this is an outcome of auditor laziness. During the flowdown of the PEAR forms, some external auditors thought it would be a good idea to (ARTIFICIALLY and UNILATERALLY) reduce the number of (product realization) process so they would have to fill out fewer forms.

The process is supposed to work the other way around, i.e., the organization is supposed to identify it's product realization QMS processes and the auditor is supposed to develop PEAR's for them. But many external auditors shortcut the processes to make their lives easier. Some auditors even outsource the filling-out of the AS9101 forms to the clients, in some cases, what totally contravenes the idea of a 3[sup]rd[/sup] party auditor doing his/her job. A little travesty, but the reality for some of the AEA's out there. Not all, but some.

 

[Mjtaur]

I definitely see your point. We are getting a new auditor. My ultimate fear is that they will not see it in the way our previous CB has see (or done). That they will look at our process maps, look at our PEARs for our internal audit and say, "Nope. They don't match." Major.

I really don't know if this is acceptable and not really sure what to do about it.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

You can use the PEAR for your internal audits, should you want to do so, but it is not a requirement.

The PEAR form is a requirement for the CB audits. They, the CB auditors, have to complete the form as part of the AS9101 audit process and upload them on to OASIS.

If the new auditor decides to create more PEAR forms to reflect your product realizations processes, that's exactly what s/he should be doing.

 

[dsanabria]

Hello all,

This might sound like a ridiculous question but here is the scenario:

Company has three processes: Management, Manufacturing and Purchasing.

Only Manufacturing and Purchasing have PEARs.

However, the QM process maps ARE interactions of all activities, but not titled, nor are the specifically just Manufacturing, Management or Purchasing. As a matter of fact, they are titled Quality Process map, Manufacturing Process map and Detailed Manufacturing Process Map. This leads me to believe those are our processes. But they are not. But again, the interaction is there.

I'm new to the company and have never seen it like this before. They have always passed audits like this, it just doesn't seem to fit. Should we not have specific maps, specifically for each process? Or does it matter, so long as the interactions are there? Does anyone have any advice or suggestions that can help? It would be greatly appreciated for any insight.

You need to look at your process and define it - flowchart works great but use your style. Identify the core processes and keep it simple (small shops can, large ones are more complex).

Identify the Core processes (hint Clause 8) with actual name, i.e. sales, purchasing, engineering, manufacturing - or what ever is applicable to your site. Establish reachable goals and monitor its performance.

3rd party auditors usually flow that process.

If you want - you could post it here for feedback.

 

[Mjtaur]

You need to look at your process and define it - flowchart works great but use your style. Identify the core processes and keep it simple (small shops can, large ones are more complex).

Identify the Core processes (hint Clause 8) with actual name, i.e. sales, purchasing, engineering, manufacturing - or what ever is applicable to your site. Establish reachable goals and monitor its performance.

3rd party auditors usually flow that process.

If you want - you could post it here for feedback.

We've identified the core processes of Manufacturing, Purchasing and Management. Their metrics are simple. Their interactions are found within the aforementioned process maps. However, the process maps have different nomenclature. My ultimate worry is that the auditor will say we have a conflict here because those are maps of "different processes," of which, should they be given KPIs? Basically, the maps and the processes we actually have, have different names, though our actual processes do have KPIs and are stated in Section 4.4.1c of our QM. Thoughts?

 

[dsanabria]

We've identified the core processes of Manufacturing, Purchasing and Management. Their metrics are simple. Their interactions are found within the aforementioned process maps. However, the process maps have different nomenclature. My ultimate worry is that the auditor will say we have a conflict here because those are maps of "different processes," of which, should they be given KPIs? Basically, the maps and the processes we actually have, have different names, though our actual processes do have KPIs and are stated in Section 4.4.1c of our QM. Thoughts?

Please explain what management does to the product and how they add value to it - how does the CFO, President, marketing, it add value to the product.

Core processes are part of Clause 8 - management is not in clause 8.

However, if you want to measure their effectiveness - good luck! an excellent exercise in futility.

If you can - can you post your process flowchart?

 

[Mjtaur]

If you can - can you post your process flowchart?

I would, but I'm not allowed to. It's a non-PEAR for our auditor, anyway. I guess they could look into MRMs, resources and continuous improvement in the context of planning our QMS and/or changes to our QMS and how that effects products - I haven't been involved in our previous audits, so I don't really know where our CB was going with it. The CB just listed it on the PMR as a process on our last audit.

Our "Main" Overview Flowchart goes from Creating a Quote/Contract Review, through Manufacturing to the Customer. Just general steps. Really generic. Which is good, because we are a small shop, anyway.

Then we have a "Detailed Manufacturing Process Flowchart," which just gets into more detail with manufacturing. I agree with this one, and think there is no problem. It's even referenced in our "Main" process flowchart.

Then comes the "Quality Process Flowchart." This starts with our Customers into Customer surveys/feedback to vendors/suppliers selection, to Top Management(and their actions), quality improvements, audits/corrective actions - more like a QA sort of aspect (we have never had a PEAR given on QA process and don't know why, given this "Process Map" for Quality. In either case, we don't otherwise state this as a "Process" with KPIs (continuous improvements/CA, so on and so forth). This sounds like where our CB was getting at with our Management "Process." Everything flows to and from, back and forth, to "Top Management Review and Actions." Like it's the center of the Quality Process Map.

I hope this semi explanation is good enough to stir some thought. I just don't really know if I need to scrap these flowcharts and strictly make flowcharts that are titled and specific to our "established" processes.

However, all of the interactions of our processes can be found on these flowcharts, even though they have different names, if you look for them. So, I'm not sure if I need to scrap them or not. I could just be too worried about what the auditor "wants," because we will be meeting them for the first time this go-round.

It looks as though our previous CB only went off of the "main" flowchart, as the auditor depicted in block 16 of the PEARs from previous years. He just copied and pasted the flowchart into that block for both PEAR processes. I suppose that was good enough for him.

 

[Big Jim]

Core processes are part of Clause 8 - management is not in clause 8.

Untrue. In fact auditors are trained to write up IOPs that don't include the management topics (sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, & 10).

It is common for them to be lumped together under one topic, sometimes call management or management support.

 

[Big Jim]

There is a trend away from processing mapping or process flow charting. Sure, they can help you understand how the process works, but they can also be confusing and sometimes add complexity that just isn't needed.

You can probably define your organization with just those three processes although it would help to somehow include more detail about just what is in those processes.

About the PEAR. When it was first introduced, aerospace CB auditors were not required to fill out PEARs for management activities, only product realization activities. That may be why our internal audit didn't include them. That later changed. Today they do need to. Keep in mind that the PEAR is only one tool the auditors use to perform the audit.

I'm amused that before aerospace CB auditors were required to fill out pears, they seem to like complex IOPs. They were even critical when they felt they were not complex enough. Although they should not have, some even left forms and instructions on how it should be done and would write nonconformances when they didn't see the complexity they felt needed to be there.

As soon as they were required to fill out PEARs, in mass that wanted fewer processes depicted on IOPs.

You are correct in that you should make sure that things line up with how you define your processes. That could be a reason for a nonconformance. It is evidence that you don't really understand your processes.

I will mention here that one of my pet peeves is that ISO hasn't helped here. They never have done a good job of defining the meaning of process. Until they do, there will always be controversy as to what need to be included in an IOP. It is clear from reading the standard that the term process may relate to manufacturing things such as how to assemble, how to weld, how to machine a part, how to fabricate, and so on. It is also clear that they are talking about business processes, such as purchasing, engineering, production, and sales.

There is great befuddlement here and will be until they come up with a better definition than "something that has inputs, adds value, and has outputs".