AS9100:C PEARs (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

[howste]

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

howste and Joy,

"Sorry, I thought you had asked how we did that for ourselves not for you as auditors."

I'm glad that your system has been implemented for your own benefit, and not just as window dressing for an auditor.

"OK, you'll see that each of our management system's key processes has a documented process objective to inform anyone who is competent to monitor the process of what to expect. Our routers also specify process control and verification criteria for effective monitoring and measurement."

Great, I don't remember you mentioning the process objectives before when I asked about the criteria you use for monitoring and measurement. Can you show me the documented process objectives then?

"You are quite welcome to accompany any one of us (operator, supervisor, manager) in monitoring our processes for effectiveness."

Thanks for the offer, but there are a couple of other things I'd like to see first that might save us some time. Can we review the information regarding trends in your processes from your data analyses, and the information on process performance reviewed in your management review process?

"I understand that you as AS auditors have to complete process effectiveness assessment reports. I am glad that we do not have to keep such records. But we would appreciate a copy of each PEAR you complete and any recommendations that you may have."

You'll receive copies of the PEAR forms in the audit report. As CB auditors we're not allowed to make recommendations, but I'm sure that as we review the information together you may note areas that might warrant some increased attention or actions.

 

[John Broomfield]

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

Great, I don't remember you mentioning the process objectives before when I asked about the criteria you use for monitoring and measurement. Can you show me the documented process objectives then?

"We know of no other way that a process can be assessed for its effectiveness than against its objectives."

"We design our key processes to prevent nonconformity and input the process objectives to the design of each key process. Here you can see the process objectives stated in our documented procedures (much better than stating the procedure's Purpose). Our routers also refer to the relevant system documents for each part and assembly so the planned results are understood by everyone involved."

Can we review the information regarding trends in your processes from your data analyses, and the information on process performance reviewed in your management review process?

"The only process data we analyze is the number of times the specifications for each key process need updating (from the mark-ups I mentioned earlier). Frequent Updating (FU) trends may cause redesign of the specification, the process or parts of the process perhaps with mistake-proofing so product nonconformity is prevented. We design our key processes to prevent product nonconformity, we try not to rely on verification of the product."

"Production may suggest/request improvements of Process Engineering at any time. Process Engineering uses information from its process redesigns to continually improve its key process for designing key processes."

"Process Engineering reports their knowledge of shortfalls in process performance and makes further improvement recommendations for our management system at the Management Review meetings."

"Process Engineering can show you examples of the FU trends and their actions to yield effective processes and prevent product nonconformity."

"You will have to ask our CEO for the management review records although she does post (on our bulletin board in the training room) a 'State of Our System Report' on the performance of our management system for all authorized persons to see and be encouraged for its ongoing use and improvement".

John

 

[Joy]

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

"The only process data we analyze is the number of times the specifications for each key process need updating

Data on performance!

Process Engineering uses information from its process redesigns to continually improve its key process for designing key processes."

Data on continual improvement!

"Process Engineering reports their knowledge of shortfalls in process performance and makes further improvement

Data on process performance!

"Process Engineering can show you examples of the FU trends and their actions to yield effective processes and prevent product nonconformity."

Data on process performance!

"You will have to ask our CEO for the management review records although she does post (on our bulletin board in the training room) a 'State of Our System Report' on the performance of our management system

Data on process performance/QMS performance!

So, you have enough data for PEAR feedingeven though the non existing requirement of keeping records for performance is not met.

 

[Buckyb]

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

I have followed this thread for the last several weeks which started because one of the auditees out there wanted an example of a PEAR. I was also looking for an example and I can't blame Phiobi for the request after all this discussion that has followed.

I would like to thank Howste, Joy and John for some very good posts over the last few weeks. However, I am still at a loss in dealing with PEARs. I have the mindset that it is better to be prepared and have your processes identified ahead of time than let the auditor determine them. Oh and "process owners" doing this? Yes they should but remember my post (page 6) earlier about management buy in. As I read through AS9100C, AS9101D over and over "process" is kicked around in every way and fashion. I looked at the Standard and said "hey, there are four processes here which match the Standard; 1, Product Realization; 2, Resources; 3, Management Responsibility and 3, Measurement, Analysis and Improvement." Great, that matches the Standard and each of these major processes have a number of sub-processes also within the Standard. Plus you could throw in "Customer Focus/Satisfaction" as a additional process and really wow the auditor. Then I'm thinking, "here I am mirroring the Standard again". Or as it was put somewhere "regurgitating" the Standard to fill all the squares. My point is that I could have 4 processes or 100.....who is to say I'm right or wrong? The new "process approach" audit is a crapshoot as I see it. 100s of organizations are not prepared for Rev C because they have no concept of what to expect. Only the auditors know and they can't provide feedback. I guess the only way to survive this is to pay for the high dollar training classes out there that boast they will prepare you for Rev C. Do I hear the ring of a cash register somewhere in the background? Oh bye the way, I still haven't seen an example of a PEAR in this post.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

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

I have the mindset that it is better to be prepared and have your processes identified ahead of time than let the auditor determine them.

Sorry, but it is not "better". It is a REQUIREMENT. In 4.1, 4.2.2 and in many other places of the AS9100 standard. If an organization can not identify it's (macro) QMS related processes, it is a clear indication that they don't understand the process approach to a QMS and have a basic and fundamental flaw, in terms of QMS deployment. The following quote is attributed to Dr. Deming:

“If you can't describe what you are doing as a process, you don't know what you're doing.

 

[Joy]

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

Oh bye the way, I still haven't seen an example of a PEAR in this post.

Why you are worried about PEAR?Auditors (many) are struggling with this.You just keep your performance data available.Auditor will verify that and record in PEAR to decide whether you stand in 4 or 1. 4 is great but 1 is a major non-conformity.

You mentioned the worry about spending dollars to understand requirement of AS9100 Rev.C.You can manage it if you are religiously involved with Rev.B.Identify the gaps and hit one by one.If face difficulty in understanding.post in the forum.I can assure you that you will get better responses.Already many issues are discussed in different threads.

 

[Big Jim]

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

I have followed this thread for the last several weeks which started because one of the auditees out there wanted an example of a PEAR. I was also looking for an example and I can't blame Phiobi for the request after all this discussion that has followed.

I would like to thank Howste, Joy and John for some very good posts over the last few weeks. However, I am still at a loss in dealing with PEARs. I have the mindset that it is better to be prepared and have your processes identified ahead of time than let the auditor determine them. Oh and "process owners" doing this? Yes they should but remember my post (page 6) earlier about management buy in. As I read through AS9100C, AS9101D over and over "process" is kicked around in every way and fashion. I looked at the Standard and said "hey, there are four processes here which match the Standard; 1, Product Realization; 2, Resources; 3, Management Responsibility and 3, Measurement, Analysis and Improvement." Great, that matches the Standard and each of these major processes have a number of sub-processes also within the Standard. Plus you could throw in "Customer Focus/Satisfaction" as a additional process and really wow the auditor. Then I'm thinking, "here I am mirroring the Standard again". Or as it was put somewhere "regurgitating" the Standard to fill all the squares. My point is that I could have 4 processes or 100.....who is to say I'm right or wrong? The new "process approach" audit is a crapshoot as I see it. 100s of organizations are not prepared for Rev C because they have no concept of what to expect. Only the auditors know and they can't provide feedback. I guess the only way to survive this is to pay for the high dollar training classes out there that boast they will prepare you for Rev C. Do I hear the ring of a cash register somewhere in the background? Oh bye the way, I still haven't seen an example of a PEAR in this post.

If you have a copy of AS9101D then you have the PEAR form. That's where it came from.

 

[Buckyb]

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

Joy,

Thanks for your input and I agree that many are struggling with AS9100C....auditors and auditees alike. This forum has provided volumes of information and I find it a great resource. We have done very well for the last 4 years under AS9100B. We have a QMS in place which has served us well. However, I don't believe we will be where we need to be with Rev C. I realize that process effectiveness is the key. I just don't think our company as a whole is concerned with this. Our QMS has always been left to the few to manage and handle the "pesky" auditors during the audit. My other struggle is to prepare 8 Internal Auditors under Rev C to think "process, evidence and QMS Matrix" as brought to you by AS9101D. This is a whole different way to audit than what we have had in the past. This is where the forum comes in as I am able to seek valuable opinions and insight. Thanks to all.

 

[rickpaul01]

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

Hi All,
I am a minimalist and would like the auditor to apply PEAR’s to as few processes as possible. Does anyone have a clear understanding of the minimum number of processes required? For example, we do very little product design. So, can I ignore that process?
Thanks
Rick

 

[Sidney Vianna]

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

Hi All,
I am a minimalist and would like the auditor to apply PEAR’s to as few processes as possible. Does anyone have a clear understanding of the minimum number of processes required? For example, we do very little product design. So, can I ignore that process?
Thanks
Rick

The process is very straight forward, and specified in the AS9101D document: AS A MINIMUM, the CB auditor will generate a PEAR form for EACH of your product realization processes. So, product design and development is part of the product realization process cycle, THUS it can not be ignored. Actually, it MUST not be ignored.