Do people read PEARS (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report)?

[dsanabria]

Hi folks;


After an impromptu survey among Quality Managers, we all came to the same conclusion that only a hand full of people glance at the PEARS (PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT REPORT).

The logic behind it is that it really does not any value...

The 3 & 4 grading is OK since there is nothing to do about it and the 1 and 2 are given when a NCR is issued.

The comments are boring and do not add value and they are a duplication of the information on the Matrix. .

What the agreement and consensus is that they enjoy OFI (opportunity for Improvements) - verbal and written and NCR.

So... do you agree that PEARS are ineffective? if so why!

 

[nacnack]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

Good day, I've done over 600 aerospace audits and I would say less then 1% of the quality managers I've asked during a return visit has ever looked at the PEARS. The organization's are only concerned about clearing the NCR's, Areas of Concern and OFI's on the final report. The Quality Managers state they are too busy to rifle through all those documents to get the same information from the final report and NCR's.
It's allot of work on our part to make them as detailed and comprehensive as possible only to find out later they in most cases just archive them on their hard drives. They neither understand or care about the 1-5 scoring of the PEARS which I can't blame them at all considering the struggles the industry has trying to understand the logic behind it (Hence the low passing % of AS9100D auditor's).
For the Auditor planning his/her next audit, they are an invaluable wealth of information (if done correctly) but to the organization bring audited, from my discussions..... No value at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Randy]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

One of the main reasons I refused to become an aerospace auditor, very little value added trash for the client

 

[howste]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

The main thing I like about the PEARs is that they push the auditor to actually look at metrics and not just conformity to requirements. If the metrics indicate that a process isn't effective, then they should make sure that something is done about it.

Also, as Nacnack pointed out, they can be very useful planning documents for later audits. They can shorten the learning curve at an organization you haven't audited before.

 

[A6Intruder]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

Pears are static (noise) as far as I am concerned; if the auditor cannot adequately describe the violation in the NCR, then he/she is not doing the job they are paid to do.

 

[dsanabria]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

Also, as Nacnack pointed out, they can be very useful planning documents for later audits. They can shorten the learning curve at an organization you haven't audited before.

While agreeing with this statement... I want an auditor to audit with out preconceived information gathered from the PEAR. I want an auditor without an agenda so for young auditors - it is not a good practice to read past reports. They might have been poorly written or they had issues with the company or possibly had no clue what they were doing so ... Auditors do each process as if it were the first time and come to a conclusion without any aids.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

During some of the AAQG meetings that I attended, still clearly remember some similar feedback about "mandatory forms" associated with the IAQG audit protocol.

The feedback provided by the OPMT was always along the lines that such records were necessary to provide assurance to the regulatory agencies that there would be trails of audit evidence to be reviewed by regulators, if and when needed.

Should not need to remind us all of some of the horror stories of investigations on the performance of problem suppliers, responsible for multiple quality escapes, impacting and disrupting the aerospace supply chain, but, had perfect scores and zero nonconformities during the previous 3-5 years as per their CB's.

PEARs serve some useful purposes of forcing the registrants to do things like:

1. identify which indicators they use to measure process effectiveness
2. identify who the process owners are
3. describe the process interactions/interfaces, etc...

We have to remember that, taking into account the context of the ASD supply chain, there are interested parties beyond the CB auditors and the registrants quality managers which have an interest in making sure processes are being assessed robustly, thus the PEAR forms.

 

[dsanabria]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

During some of the AAQG meetings that I attended, still clearly remember some similar feedback about "mandatory forms" associated with the IAQG audit protocol.

The feedback provided by the OPMT was always along the lines that such records were necessary to provide assurance to the regulatory agencies that there would be trails of audit evidence to be reviewed by regulators, if and when needed.

Should not need to remind us all of some of the horror stories of investigations on the performance of problem suppliers, responsible for multiple quality escapes, impacting and disrupting the aerospace supply chain, but, had perfect scores and zero nonconformities during the previous 3-5 years as per their CB's.

PEARs serve some useful purposes of forcing the registrants to do things like:

1. identify which indicators they use to measure process effectiveness
2. identify who the process owners are
3. describe the process interactions/interfaces, etc...

We have to remember that, taking into account the context of the ASD supply chain, there are interested parties beyond the CB auditors and the registrants quality managers which have an interest in making sure processes are being assessed robustly, thus the PEAR forms.

Hmmm this is a new one on me...

PEARs serve some useful purposes of forcing the registrants to do things like:


2. identify who the process owners are


Note: the discussion is not about the effectiveness of the PEAR - it is about the fact that few people read it, use it or has any use for it.

Most of the same information is also available in the Matrix and everyone of the Quality managers clearly states that whats add value are the OFI and / or NCR.

Most auditors use the Matrix as a place to write the details of the audit and copy / paste it to the PEARS.

Quality Manager enjoy the OER (which has been taken away) because there was a direct relationship to the standard and information to include KPI - which was effective.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

Hmmm this is a new one on me...

PEARs serve some useful purposes of forcing the registrants to do things like:


2. identify who the process owners are


Note: the discussion is not about the effectiveness of the PEAR - it is about the fact that few people read it, use it or has any use for it.

Most of the same information is also available in the Matrix and everyone of the Quality managers clearly states that whats add value are the OFI and / or NCR.

Most auditors use the Matrix as a place to write the details of the audit and copy / paste it to the PEARS.

Quality Manager enjoy the OER (which has been taken away) because there was a direct relationship to the standard and information to include KPI - which was effective.

I welcomed the passing of the OER. It focused on the minutia of the requirements while not providing enough help with the big picture. It gave you detail about the leaf but ignored that the leaf was part of a tree and that the tree was part of a forest.

I'm not fond of the PEAR either though.

 

[Mike S.]

Re: Do people read PEARS?

PEARs serve some useful purposes of forcing the registrants to do things like:

1. identify which indicators they use to measure process effectiveness
2. identify who the process owners are
3. describe the process interactions/interfaces, etc...

Sure, but the same could be accomplished by the standard simply telling us that these things need to be recorded, without requiring yet another special form to record it on. The PEAR, IMO, is simply to make the auditor's job easier, not to provide any benefit to the auditee.