AS9100:C PEARs (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)

[dsanabria]

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

Try these as a beginning point and modified them as required!

 

[rickpaul01]

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

Hi Sidney,
The reason I am getting confused is because of the PEAR instructions. It states the processes as “determined by the organization”. Again, what do you think the minimum might be?
Thanks
Rick

 

[dsanabria]

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

Try these as a beginning point and modified them as required!

OK - with attachments!

 

[Buckyb]

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

Our organization has had a number of discussions about this. We did a lot of research and decided it was up to us. We concluded that we could have as many or as few as necessary to express how we do business. I have attached a Process Matrix that we are using. Hope some find it useful. I have a vsd copy if anyone would like it to modify for your organization. Gotta love AS9100C

 

[howste]

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

Our organization has had a number of discussions about this. We did a lot of research and decided it was up to us. We concluded that we could have as many or as few as necessary to express how we do business. I have attached a Process Matrix that we are using. Hope some find it useful. I have a vsd copy if anyone would like it to modify for your organization. Gotta love AS9100C

Bucky, the diagram you have is very pretty. However, at the risk of beating a dead horse here (this has been discussed many times in other threads)...

Do you really just happen to have four processes in your system that just happen to have the same names as clauses 5 through 8 of AS9100? Is it coincidence that the "QMS Process Map" you created looks just like the diagram in clause 0.2 of the standard rotated 90°? If this is how your processes are identified in your manual, can you please explain how this diagram describes the interactions between the QMS processes?

 

[Big Jim]

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

Bucky, the diagram you have is very pretty. However, at the risk of beating a dead horse here (this has been discussed many times in other threads)...

Do you really just happen to have four processes in your system that just happen to have the same names as clauses 5 through 8 of AS9100? Is it coincidence that the "QMS Process Map" you created looks just like the diagram in clause 0.2 of the standard rotated 90°? If this is how your processes are identified in your manual, can you please explain how this diagram describes the interactions between the QMS processes?

The Deming Wheel just continues to be reinvented. Over and over and over again. But if it works for the standard, why not for the organization? I agree though, that it isn't likely that the process names are really the ones used by very many organizations.

 

[Buckyb]

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

I do appreciate most comments and feedback here but I have to take exception to the Demming comments. I came to this forum to seek help from folks who have been at this game for more years and with much more experience than I. However, I look at the attachments that dsanabria posted and other posts on this forum and I see little difference. The diagram doesn't just happen to look like clause 0.2 of the Standard, it is modeled after it intentionally, not coincidentally. Having said that here is our sub-processes using four colors to represent the four processes which also happen to match clauses 5 through 8 of the Standard. The attachment is how we function as a business which shows interaction of all the processes and sub-processes. We REALLY do business just as the flow diagram shows. Have I overlooked bread crumbs along the way?

 

[dsanabria]

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

I do appreciate most comments and feedback here but I have to take exception to the Demming comments. I came to this forum to seek help from folks who have been at this game for more years and with much more experience than I. However, I look at the attachments that dsanabria posted and other posts on this forum and I see little difference. The diagram doesn't just happen to look like clause 0.2 of the Standard, it is modeled after it intentionally, not coincidentally. Having said that here is our sub-processes using four colors to represent the four processes which also happen to match clauses 5 through 8 of the Standard. The attachment is how we function as a business which shows interaction of all the processes and sub-processes. We REALLY do business just as the flow diagram shows. Have I overlooked bread crumbs along the way?

See attachment: (Not posted before)

Take the linear and simple approached - then you could sub dive the process as required and develop a process approach that works for your company - note - this is the beginning process.

(Not a copy of the template that the standards shows. In addition, please note the clauses pertaining to each process is noted - thus 4.2.2 in merged into this simple flowchart.)

 

[NPatton]

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

I agree with Buckyb, the organization should be able to decide how many processes are identified. We call them our CORE processes and prefer to keep them at a minimum. Every thing else is an activity (ex. inprocess inspection, shipping). The measurements takes for our Core processes are supported by the data collected in various activities.

 

[Buckyb]

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

See attachment: (Not posted before)

Take the linear and simple approached - then you could sub dive the process as required and develop a process approach that works for your company - note - this is the beginning process.

(Not a copy of the template that the standards shows. In addition, please note the clauses pertaining to each process is noted - thus 4.2.2 in merged into this simple flowchart.)

Dsanabria,

I did see your three attachments several days ago in a post. Are you referring to one of these in your latest post or do you have another attachment that did not attach?