There is a trend away from processing mapping or process flow charting. Sure, they can help you understand how the process works, but they can also be confusing and sometimes add complexity that just isn't needed.
You can probably define your organization with just those three processes although it would help to somehow include more detail about just what is in those processes.
About the PEAR. When it was first introduced, aerospace CB auditors were not required to fill out PEARs for management activities, only product realization activities. That may be why our internal audit didn't include them. That later changed. Today they do need to. Keep in mind that the PEAR is only one tool the auditors use to perform the audit.
I'm amused that before aerospace CB auditors were required to fill out pears, they seem to like complex IOPs. They were even critical when they felt they were not complex enough. Although they should not have, some even left forms and instructions on how it should be done and would write nonconformances when they didn't see the complexity they felt needed to be there.
As soon as they were required to fill out PEARs, in mass that wanted fewer processes depicted on IOPs.
You are correct in that you should make sure that things line up with how you define your processes. That could be a reason for a nonconformance. It is evidence that you don't really understand your processes.
I will mention here that one of my pet peeves is that ISO hasn't helped here. They never have done a good job of defining the meaning of process. Until they do, there will always be controversy as to what need to be included in an IOP. It is clear from reading the standard that the term process may relate to manufacturing things such as how to assemble, how to weld, how to machine a part, how to fabricate, and so on. It is also clear that they are talking about business processes, such as purchasing, engineering, production, and sales.
There is great befuddlement here and will be until they come up with a better definition than "something that has inputs, adds value, and has outputs".
You can probably define your organization with just those three processes although it would help to somehow include more detail about just what is in those processes.
About the PEAR. When it was first introduced, aerospace CB auditors were not required to fill out PEARs for management activities, only product realization activities. That may be why our internal audit didn't include them. That later changed. Today they do need to. Keep in mind that the PEAR is only one tool the auditors use to perform the audit.
I'm amused that before aerospace CB auditors were required to fill out pears, they seem to like complex IOPs. They were even critical when they felt they were not complex enough. Although they should not have, some even left forms and instructions on how it should be done and would write nonconformances when they didn't see the complexity they felt needed to be there.
As soon as they were required to fill out PEARs, in mass that wanted fewer processes depicted on IOPs.
You are correct in that you should make sure that things line up with how you define your processes. That could be a reason for a nonconformance. It is evidence that you don't really understand your processes.
I will mention here that one of my pet peeves is that ISO hasn't helped here. They never have done a good job of defining the meaning of process. Until they do, there will always be controversy as to what need to be included in an IOP. It is clear from reading the standard that the term process may relate to manufacturing things such as how to assemble, how to weld, how to machine a part, how to fabricate, and so on. It is also clear that they are talking about business processes, such as purchasing, engineering, production, and sales.
There is great befuddlement here and will be until they come up with a better definition than "something that has inputs, adds value, and has outputs".
I am not agree or disagreeing - just following the standard
AS9101
3.9 Process Effectiveness Assessment Report (PEAR)
A document stating process evaluation results; providing evidence of conformity to requirements and process effectiveness.
AS9101
4.2.2.5.1 Process Results
The audit team shall record measures, targets, and values of KPIs related to each audited operational process (see 9100-series standards clause 8) on the PEAR (see Form 3 Section 2), taking into account the confidentiality of information
(see ISO/IEC 17021-1 clause 8.4 requirements).
NOTE 1: Upon mutual agreement between the organization and the CB, other processes can be recorded on a PEAR.