AS9100:C Transition - Examples of what Key and Sub-Processes would be

[AndyN]

we have flow charts.

Then, as Sidney really says, no change needed! All that's really needed is to show how Risk Management is woven into the existing processes/procedures and how you manage that! I share Jan's frustration that all of a sudden, people believe they have to start over with these infernal diagrams when what they've got is perfectly good for their management! I truly believe they've been more of a curse than any perceived benefit...

 

[dsanabria]

Another tragic example of how Plexus (the sole 3rd party auditor training company) is IMPOSING their turtles on aerospace and automotive auditors. Auditors and many others perceive this to be a requirement and perception becomes reality.

I am not opposed to turtle diagrams, but I do not like to create the impression that this is a requirement.

Stijloor.

There are many examples that PLEXUS has imposed on Aerospace auditor - Turtles Diagram, Issuing Major findings on just about everything and the AATT training focus is on Pre-stage audits (Registrar deal with that)... I need to stop - my blood pressure ..... (I wonder who reviewed the course and what or how much.... kickback...never mind)

Anyway - thank You! I shall breath easier knowing that there are individuals that still could think :truce:

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I wonder who reviewed the course and what or how much.... kickback...never mind

There were numerous course providers who received the RFP and specification for the development of the AATT course. I personally know the IAQG people who were involved with the review of the course material and piloting it. While nobody claims to be perfect, the IAQG allows anyone who wants to provide constructive feedback to the course and material, to do so via the www.iaqgtraining.com website. I know for a fact that the IAQG took swift action on feedback received related to the 9110 AATT course.

As for the allegations of improper conduct by the IAQG people involved with the selection process of the training material developer, you are way off base. I don't understand how you can even suggest something like this. If you did not know, please be aware that there are influential people in the IAQG that visit this very discussion group. I am sure they will not appreciate comments that cast shadow over the integrity of the organization and it's volunteer members and brings the ICOP process into disrepute.

I would choose my words more carefully. Especially when posting in a very public setting.

 

[Stijloor]

Another tragic example of how Plexus (the sole 3rd party auditor training company) is IMPOSING their turtles on aerospace and automotive auditors. Auditors and many others perceive this to be a requirement and perception becomes reality.

I am not opposed to turtle diagrams, but I do not like to create the impression that this is a requirement.

Stijloor.

My observation about Plexus imposed turtle diagrams is not new...

http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=305137&postcount=3

Stijloor.

 

[dbaca0903]

Hi all,
We are currently certified to rev b, and are going to transisiton to c in the next couple weeks (last minute, i know). Anyway, we manufacture one type of product, with set processes that are documented. The scope of your registration is "manufacture of ..." no design. my question is, can we have one key process? and just call it "manufacture"? of course there are supporting processes that we would call out as supporting processes (customer requirements, contract review, inspection, shipping etc). do NEED any extra key processes? Thanks!