AS9100:C PEARs (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

[Phiobi]

Re: How IAQG plans to ensure that correct PEAR level determination is done by Auditor

Here is a sample of PEAR's done by a 3rd party auditor last December

Nice PEAR's though I would not expect many editors to complete them in such depth. Most of the guys I have seen doing the PEAR's only do them because they must, not because of the value... I hope over time this changes!

To update from the start of this thread I have now implemented internal PEAR use in multiple sites with mixed results:

1: A CB auditor actually made the company copy and paste them directly into his companies format for him
2: A CB auditor "suggested" there were too many processes so they all had to be changed
3: Some CB auditors loved them being used and worked with the company to get the best value out of them

I still think they are worth using in any company though!

 

[aavtqa]

Re: AS9100:C PEAR's (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

Same for me. If I don't pull, push, schedule, initiate and complete tasks then the tasks (CARs, Doc Revisions, Doc creation, etc) don't get done. aa

 

[aavtqa]

Re: How IAQG plans to ensure that correct PEAR level determination is done by Auditor

Thank you for the PEARs.
My auditor told me directly that I will do the PEARS for the next audit. aa

 

[dsanabria]

Re: How IAQG plans to ensure that correct PEAR level determination is done by Auditor

Thank you for the PEARs.
My auditor told me directly that I will do the PEARS for the next audit. aa

PEARS are the responsibility of the auditor - do not do their work. If he tells you that you need to do them - call the registrar.

 

[Phiobi]

Re: How IAQG plans to ensure that correct PEAR level determination is done by Auditor

PEARS are the responsibility of the auditor - do not do their work. If he tells you that you need to do them - call the registrar.

That is the exact issue I face week on week now. CB auditors MAKING (as the companies in question are scared of their SUPPLIER) functions use PEAR's when they don't want to or see value in it.
I see the value but if a client doesn't then they shouldn't. Unfortunately a few auditors, having now passed their Rev C training have taken to consulting during audits...

 

[howste]

Re: How IAQG plans to ensure that correct PEAR level determination is done by Auditor

Thank you for the PEARs.
My auditor told me directly that I will do the PEARS for the next audit. aa

Because of such auditors, the IAQG 9101 team recently issued FAQ 156:

Q. Is it required for an organization to assist in the completion of the PEAR(s) or OER?

A. Under 9101, Section 1.2 “Application”, the 9101 standard shall be used by the CB for certification audits of 9100-series standards. There is no requirement in 9101 for an organization to assist in the completion of the PEAR(s) or OER, with the exception of the acknowledgement box on the PEAR form. Throughout the audit process, the CB auditor will engage with the organization to facilitate the collection of information in order to complete the audit reports. The CB auditor is ultimately responsible for completing audit evidentiary records, and whilst there is no requirement placed upon an organization to provide recording assistance, the auditor may request such support.

You might consider forwarding this information to your auditor and asking why s/he is trying to force you to do something that the writers of the standard say you don't have to do...
The 9101 FAQ can be found here.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: How IAQG plans to ensure that correct PEAR level determination is done by Auditor

The 9101 FAQ can be found here.[/URL]

While we should be thankful that the IDR's and SDR's for the IAQG 9101 are so prolific and responsive to all the inquiries concerning the document, I hope they realize that we should not have that many questions if the document had been better developed. Also, some of the "frequently asked questions" in the document should have been answered as READ THE FREAKING DOCUMENT! In other words,the team should be more selective in accepting questions that really need to be answered.

 

[John Broomfield]

All,

Auditors creating records of process effectiveness evaluations because the management system does not specify this record is a mistake.

Hopefully AS9100D will specify the requirement for records of evaluations of process effectiveness by extending clause 7.1d:

"records needed to provide evidence that the realization processes are effective and resulting product meet requirements".

Then AS auditors no longer will be required to provide their auditees with records of their evaluations that the auditee should already have completed before the audit.

AS auditors will be able to get back to examining evidence of how the managers know (or not!) they are running effective processes.

John

 

[Big Jim]

All,

Auditors creating records of process effectiveness evaluations because the management system does not specify this record is a mistake.

Hopefully AS9100D will specify the requirement for records of evaluations of process effectiveness by extending clause 7.1d:

"records needed to provide evidence that the realization processes are effective and resulting product meet requirements".

Then AS auditors no longer will be required to provide their auditees with records of their evaluations that the auditee should already have completed before the audit.

AS auditors will be able to get back to examining evidence of how the managers know (or not!) they are running effective processes.

John

Nothing needs to be added to 7.1. It is already in 8.2.3. Putting it into section 7 would open up the possibility of claiming an exclusion. It would not hurt to make 8.2.3 more explicit, and that goes for ISO 9001 as well as AS91XX.

 

[John Broomfield]

Nothing needs to be added to 7.1. It is already in 8.2.3. Putting it into section 7 would open up the possibility of claiming an exclusion. It would not hurt to make 8.2.3 more explicit, and that goes for ISO 9001 as well as AS91XX.

Jim,

Agreed, that could be a problem unless clause 1.2 is also modified to stop exclusion of the planning clause 7.1.

Clause 8.2.3 does not specify any records of evaluating process effectiveness but it could.

My main point is that it is unfortunate that we have allowed the audit standard to get ahead of the requirements standards.

John