AS9100:C PEARs (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

[Big Jim]

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

I'm not sure that I agree that the audit standard is ahead of the requirement standard on this point. 8.2.3 has been greatly neglected in the past, and now they are catching up with actually pinning organizations down to doing something more than lip service to it.

The standards really could be clearer as to just what is meant by processes though. Many people are still back in the mistaken concept that processes and procedures are the same thing and this whole topic could have been expressed in a clearer manner.

 

[kgott]

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

John

What sort of questions might one ask to establish this assessment?

 

[Buckyb]

It's been sometime since I have responded to this thread but I have been following it since it started. The discussion has been extensive on this subject and very worthwhile. I agree that finally 8.2.3 is coming into it's own and has been overlooked in the past.

I am now in a new organization that has been suspended awaiting our AS9100C Transition Audit. As the Management Representative for the QMS, my first meeting with management dealt with processes and PEARs. Had we addressed our processes? Did we know what our processes were, identified them and how they interacted????......blank stares. Ater serveral weeks of intensive acclimation and training we are coming close to developing 11 product realization processes tied to Clause 7. The PEARs are ours and understood by us which we can now use to defend our processes and utilize them as part of our Internal Audit as well. There is no doubt that this will give us the advantage in our CB audit. It is much better to drive the train than let the Auditor do so because we didn't take the time to look at our process effectiveness ahead of time. Those out there who are "right" that PEARs are a AS9101 requirement are "dead right" because you have missed the point and have fallen on your sword.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

During the last IAQG meeting in San Antonio, TX, the 9101 Team worked really hard to make progress on the revision of the document. According to the material available from the meeting, it is possible that AS9101E be released around the February 2013 timeframe.

A critical proposed changed is the incorporation/modification of the OER and PEAR forms into the NEW PEAR form, a 2-page long form. So, the time being currently consumed to fill out the OER's might be significantly reduced, once the new 9101E document becomes effective.

 

[Big Jim]

During the last IAQG meeting in San Antonio, TX, the 9101 Team worked really hard to make progress on the revision of the document. According to the material available from the meeting, it is possible that AS9101E be released around the February 2013 timeframe.

A critical proposed changed is the incorporation/modification of the OER and PEAR forms into the NEW PEAR form, a 2-page long form. So, the time being currently consumed to fill out the OER's might be significantly reduced, once the new 9101E document becomes effective.

Maybe those guys don't have their heads burried in the sand afterall.

The OER is full of mistakes, omissions, is sometimes misleading, and certainly at minimum needed an overhaul.

Now if they would only address the areas where 9101 adds requirements that are not part of 9100.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Now if they would only address the areas where 9101 adds requirements that are not part of 9100.

Maybe you could provide a few examples so we could talk about this, since it is such an important topic.

As far as I can tell, AS9101D "adds requirements" to AS9100 audits, in the same manner that ISO 17021 "adds requirements" to ISO 9001 audits. For example, how many ISO 9001 nonconformities are written along the lines of "...there is no objective evidence of....." ISO 9001 does not contain the term "objective evidence".

The conformity assessment/certification process for sure adds requirements to auditors and CB's in a way to provide minimum levels of confidence to the users of the certificates. And registrants need to become more educated about the conformity assessment process, otherwise, they will be taken for a ride, as we see, customarily, in this very forum.

 

[Big Jim]

Maybe you could provide a few examples so we could talk about this, since it is such an important topic.

As far as I can tell, AS9101D "adds requirements" to AS9100 audits, in the same manner that ISO 17021 "adds requirements" to ISO 9001 audits. For example, how many ISO 9001 nonconformities are written along the lines of "...there is no objective evidence of....." ISO 9001 does not contain the term "objective evidence".

The conformity assessment/certification process for sure adds requirements to auditors and CB's in a way to provide minimum levels of confidence to the users of the certificates. And registrants need to become more educated about the conformity assessment process, otherwise, they will be taken for a ride, as we see, customarily, in this very forum.

I'll see if I can provide some examples later today. It will not be an all inclusive list though.

 

[Big Jim]

Maybe you could provide a few examples so we could talk about this, since it is such an important topic.

As far as I can tell, AS9101D "adds requirements" to AS9100 audits, in the same manner that ISO 17021 "adds requirements" to ISO 9001 audits. For example, how many ISO 9001 nonconformities are written along the lines of "...there is no objective evidence of....." ISO 9001 does not contain the term "objective evidence".

The conformity assessment/certification process for sure adds requirements to auditors and CB's in a way to provide minimum levels of confidence to the users of the certificates. And registrants need to become more educated about the conformity assessment process, otherwise, they will be taken for a ride, as we see, customarily, in this very forum.

PM sent.

 

[kgott]

Has anybody out there started using PEAR's internally? I am about to start a trial of adding PEAR's to my internal audits

Is'nt this something management are supposed to do? Ar'nt they supposed to study process data and act on the results?

Does AS9100 now say its the internal auditors job?

 

[Big Jim]

Is'nt this something management are supposed to do? Ar'nt they supposed to study process data and act on the results?

Does AS9100 now say its the internal auditors job?

It is management's job to manage the processes, and 8.2.3 says they will monitor and where appropriate measure their processes. The standard does not say how they are to measure them, and AS9101 does not require management to use the PEAR to do so. They can do it any way they choose as long as it is effective.

Management can choose to use the PEAR if they desire, but they are not required to do so.

CB auditors are required to use the PEAR. It's in the name. PEAR, Process Effectiveness Assessment Report. It's a CB auditor's required tool. Management can choose to ignore the PEAR as long as they have an effective method in place.

When you get right down to it, field 11 on the PEAR requires the CB auditor to record the organizations method of determining the effectiveness of each individual process.