How long does AS9100 QMS need to be in place before the Audit?

[clintm6]

I recently had someone ask me if there is a minimum time that an AS9100 QMS needs to be in place before a Registration Audit (Stage 1) can take place. I have heard that 1 year is common, but I don't know if that is a requirement, or just a "rule of thumb". Does anyone know of a requirement for this and what Standard it comes from? Thanks in advance!

 

[isoalchemist]

Not from the AS world, but in general it is not how long the QMS has been in place as much as how long your process and the records documenting your process have been in place. In the other systems the auditors "like to see at least 6 months" of records to ensure that the processes that are defined have been implemented and are working.

If you just documented your existing system that you believe is compliant those records should exist and you should be good to go. If you had to add significant new processes (Corrective Action, Document Control, Audit etc.) 6 months to a year is more realistic.

I have never seen a hard time period defined.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I recently had someone ask me if there is a minimum time that an AS9100 QMS needs to be in place before a Registration Audit (Stage 1) can take place. I have heard that 1 year is common, but I don't know if that is a requirement, or just a "rule of thumb". Does anyone know of a requirement for this and what Standard it comes from? Thanks in advance!

If an organization seeks properly accredited and recognized AS9100 certification, the certification conformity assessment body performing the audit(s) towards attainment and maintenance of the AS9100 certification has to be perform the work in accordance with AS9101, currently in revision D, soon to be revision E.

That document requires the following, as part of the Stage 1 audit:

The audit team leader shall require the organization to provide the necessary information and documentation for review, including the following:

• description of processes showing their sequence and interactions, including the identification of any outsourced processes;

NOTE 1: The processes can be depicted in various ways [e.g., process maps, turtle diagrams, SIPOC method (breakdown of supplier, inputs, process steps/tasks, outputs, customer), octopus].​

• performance measures and trends for the previous 12 months;

• evidence that the requirements of the applicable 9100-series standards are addressed by the organization’s documented procedures established for the quality management system (e.g., by referencing them in the quality manual or by using a cross reference);

Please note the bold, enlarged bullet point.

 

[clintm6]

Thanks for the information!

 

[David Lu]

I recently had someone ask me if there is a minimum time that an AS9100 QMS needs to be in place before a Registration Audit (Stage 1) can take place. I have heard that 1 year is common, but I don't know if that is a requirement, or just a "rule of thumb". Does anyone know of a requirement for this and what Standard it comes from? Thanks in advance!

per FAQ 9101 #124 ,it is possible for company to get certified if they do not have aerospace business.further information could refer to www iaqg org / oasis, resolution 29# I am not allowed to send web address...

 

[Golfman25]

"? performance measures and trends for the previous 12 months."

That to me sounds like data, not necessarily having the whole system in place. Most companies have been keeping data and performance measures long before ISO/TS/AS etc. So one could conceivably have a system audited with less than 12 months implementation. However, with that said, I am in favor of running a system for as long as possible (i.e.; several years) prior to certification. When done right, formal certification is usually a breeze.

 

[AndyN]

"several years"? Most organizations coming to registration would never have that luxury... Customers say "jump", suppliers say "how high"...

 

[Quality Bryan]

I am also in the middle of this same issue as my organization is going from ISO 9001 to AS9100. Since we are currently ISO registered and in my opinion were already compliant to some aspects of AS9100, we are under the impression 6 months worth of AS9100 records combined with many years of ISO compliant record keeping should be suffcient for the auditors. We've yet to have our stage 1 so time will tell.

Thanks for the information!

Bryan

 

[Big Jim]

This may not be a popular comment, but one that should be said.

There is no requirement in AS9100C that ties you down to twelve months of performance data.

The requirement comes from AS9101D, the standard that the auditors are required to use to audit AS9100C. That's what Sidney quoted a few posts above.

This is an example of where AS9101D adds requirements. This should not be done. Every criteria that you need to follow should be in the standard that you are getting registered to and the supporting standards should be compatible.

That said, you are not likely to succeed in a fight against the establishment, but that doesn't make it right.

Anyone reading this thread should now be aware of this requirement and they would be well served to knuckle under and comply.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

This is an example of where AS9101D adds requirements.

The AS9101D requirements relate to the CERTIFICATION of organization's QMS's under the IAQG ICOP Scheme. If an organization wants to use AS9100, but doesn't need to be (properly) certified to that standard, then AS9101 is non applicable to the situation.

Just like ISO 17021 adds requirements for accredited certification against ISO 9001. There is a reason why we have standards defining the protocol and requirements for conformity assessment practices; otherwise attestations of conformance would carry very little confidence.