Lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Are you interested in a free webinar for this presentation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#11
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Thanks for the thorough reply. I find somewhat amusing that (apparently) some of the ICOP Scheme stakeholders don’t either understand the fundamentals of the process or don’t believe that they need to be a part of the solution to make this industry controlled other party process work. I have attached a file with an executive overview of the ICOP Scheme.
However, I agree with dsanabria in that the “PRIME love the ICOP system” and it is not going away, but for a slightly different reason. Essentially, ICOP was sold to the “regulating bodies” in civil aviation and to the military as a way to control suppliers in a more cost effective fashion that would produce the same or better results and costing less.
As I mentioned more than once here, the primes have “sold” the ICOP process to the Regulatory Agencies (e.g. the FAA) as a viable component of the mandatory supplier oversight expectation. FAA Order Number 8120.12A, dated 07/16/2010 and titled Production Approval Holder Use of Other-Parties to Supplement Their Supplier Control Program stipulates:
PAHs are required by part 21 to have a quality system that ensures articles produced by suppliers conform to the approved design and are in a condition for safe operation. The use of other-party organizations to perform supplier surveillance and assessments and to provide supplier registration may be part of a PAH’s supplier control program if appropriate controls are in place as described in this order. A description of these other-party services is provided in the following paragraphs.

a. Contracted other-party supplier surveillance and assessments is a method whereby a PAH contracts with an other-party, such as a consulting firm or contract quality assurance company, for the purpose of surveilling and/or assessing a PAH’s supplier. Standards to be used by the other-party are agreed upon in advance by the PAH and the other-party.

NOTE: Contracted other-party supplier surveillance and assessments does not include persons with the same responsibilities and chain of command as those directly on the PAH’s payroll or who work exclusively to the PAH’s supplier surveillance group’s procedures. These persons are considered part of the PAH’s supplier surveillance group.

b. Other-party registration is a method whereby a supplier contracts with an appropriately
recognized or accredited other-party for the purpose of obtaining a registration. The recognized or accredited other-party organization is normally a professional society, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers, the National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, or an ISO 9000 registrar accredited by a group such as the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB). Registration indicates that the supplier has satisfactorily demonstrated an inspection and quality control system or manufacturing process that meets the requirements of the other-party on a continuing basis.

c. With other-party registration, the supplier is placed on the other-party’s list of registered organizations or receives a certificate of registration identifying the requirements that have been met. Periodic follow-up evaluations are conducted by the other-party to verify continued compliance with its requirements. A PAH may contract to obtain registration for its own specific functions and may also contract to obtain registration of one or more of its suppliers for specific functions. In most cases, however, a supplier initiates its own contract for registration
.
The requirement to control suppliers was always up to the primes. They could never delegate the responsibility “that it wasn’t our fault but the suppliers” from the regulations nor the contracts. Essentially this was and still is “supplier control”.
That is still true. As made it clear by the FAA order mentioned above, the PAH are the ones that have responsibility for supplier oversight. They can’t and are not absolving themselves of the responsibility for monitoring suppliers. ICOP Certification is NOT (AND WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE) a replacement for prime’s responsibility of performing adequate supplier oversight. It is supposed to be a COMPONENT of the supplier oversight process.
But, it is very sad to say that ICOP has no teeth. The 3rd party auditor goes into a facility once or twice a year and can be conveniently ignored through a variety of methods if they raise issues that are not acceptable to the company. You may take issue with this, but I have seen it many times over.
If the INDUSTRY (OEM’s and regulators) reaches a conclusion that CB’s are incapable of maintaining the credibility and trustworthiness of the AS certificates they issue and maintain, then, we should NOT be part of the aero supply confidence chain.
The Primes, or the companies that hold the contract with the supplier, do have teeth. They are buying from the company and are receiving material sometimes on a daily basis from them. They have entire QA departments set up for supplier management and processes in place to remove suppliers that are not performing. And yet, they are receiving nonconforming product from their suppliers and they can’t do anything about it?
If the primes can do anything and everything, then, and once again, there is no place for CB’s in this game. CB's are only involved in the ICOP scheme because some people believe that we can do a better job of assessing management systems against standards. But that, in itself, is not sufficient in terms of supplier assessments. Actually the poorly-written note in AS9100C 7.4.1 reminds us of that
NOTE One factor that can be used during supplier selection and evaluation is supplier quality data from objective and reliable external sources, as evaluated by the organization (e.g., information from accredited quality management system or process certification bodies, organization approvals from government authorities). Use of such data would be only one component of an organization’s supplier control process and the organization remains responsible for verifying that purchased product meets specified purchase requirements.
And then the primes indicate that the ICOP system is not working well enough! How is this possible? It is not the responsibility of the 3rd party auditor to control the supplier. It is the responsibility of the contract holder/prime to control them!!! It always has been by law as in the regulations or by contract in the case of the military. As a 3rd party auditor, I am disgusted by the number of times “the ICOP” process has come back to me and said I have missed something in my audit that was of importance to some member company of the IAQG. I do not have the time to look at every single contract and requirement of each aerospace company that the supplier deals with. I can only take a realistic sample that is true to the safety of the aerospace industry and the integrity of an audit. I am bound to miss something. However, as I said above, it is the contract holder’s responsibility to manage the supplier not mine.
Once again, if any CB auditor believes s/he has no impact over the registrant’s QMS, they should recuse themselves from the process. If an auditor does not believe s/he can make a professional assessment of an aerospace supplier QMS and deny certification (putting teeth) to undeserving systems, then they can’t add value to the primary stakeholders in the process.
So if I missed something, why did they not raise it as an issue with the supplier and make it visible to me (3rd Party Auditor) before I came to do the audit. Because, they did not look at it! They failed to manage their own suppliers and make visible a problem they had with them.
AS9101D makes it very clear that the CB auditor MUST delve into the complaints and feedback from customers. If the customers fail to do proper supplier management, as you infer, and fail to communicate with suppliers about their failures, obviously, the CB auditor can not use a crystal ball to figure out what is going wrong. But, in those cases where the customers have provided feedback, that DATA MUST be used by the CB auditor, as part of the planning and focusing of the audit process.

Yes, ICOP will stay around because it is cost effective for the primes. Is it effective and efficient? Well, North American Automotive manufactures believed in QS/TS. The transplants like Toyota/Honda never required it. Did QS/TS save GM? Is there an elephant, or elephants, in the Aerospace room that look like GM? The ICOP TS auditor recertification process is a mess. What did the Aerospace community model its recertification process around?
I think many people must wake up and realize the new reality of the North American Automotive Industry. Some paradigms have substantially shifted in the last couple of years, including a perception of product quality, reliability and supplier relationship. The IATF has come on the record, more than once, showing dppm data from certified suppliers and showing TREMENDOUS improvement on supplier hardware quality improvement. From 400-500 to 10-15 dppm in less than a decade. TS-16949 certification is one of the attributed contributors to the performance improvement.
Sidney, in the end when economic times are tuff somebody has to take the heat. In the Aerospace community, I have found that it is the 3rd party auditor that is blamed for poor performance from companies and oversight systems. So here we are. Retraining the 3rd party auditors to go into companies once or twice a year and effect change. Come on, who are we kidding
As I said above, if an auditor believes s/he is irrelevant in terms of supplier QMS performance, then they should find another profession. AS auditors that are interested solely in the revenue stream of the audits, but don’t want co-share responsibility for the certified QMS performance, don’t want to be co-accountable for the aero-supply chain collective improvement are not part of the solution of the ICOP process.

In my dealings with the AAQG folks, I meet a lot of people (from the OEM’s) interested in IMPROVING the process, not pointing fingers. I think we MUST all realize that it is a collective effort. Only with collective accountability at all levels, any industry-controlled oversight process, be it the IAQG ICOP or the IATF TS programs will bring about the performance improvements we all want to see.

To be honest, when I read your post, as passionate and eloquent as you are, I could only see finger pointing in the other direction. As long as auditors, CB’s, AB’s, OEM’s, training providers, regulatory bodies, etc… keep pointing fingers in all directions, but the mirror, we are not working towards a sustainable ICOP program.
 

Attachments

Elsmar Forum Sponsor
D

dszeredi

#12
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Hi Sidney. Thank you for the thoughful response. However, TS was not responsible for the increase in quality performance in the Automotive Market. Market conditions and competion was. And now being felt in the Aviation/Aerospace Industry.
Cheers Dez

Ooops forgot again. Yes, the Aerospace Industry will get exactly the type of auditor that it wants. Just as the Automotive Industry has done, and the Commercial Pilot Licensing program got with the (Colgan Air Inc., a division of Pinnacle Airlines Corp) crash in Buffalo. Economics Sidney, economics.

Cheers
Dez
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#13
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Next week, I will be presenting on the "early lessons learned from the AS9100C Transition Process" topic to both the Los Angeles and Orange County Chapters of ASQ. The Orange County presentation will take place on August 9th, from 5:45 to 6:45 PM at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Santa Ana/Orange County Airport‎, 201 East MacArthur Blvd., Santa Ana, CA 92707. For registration, please visit http://www.asqorangeempire.org.

The same presentation for the Los Angeles chapter of ASQ will take place on the 10th of August. For more information on location and time, please browse http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...ol1R2efBbl3fjLJLFR0K5RijadnXXnl_kEhaScGRYhzc=

I will run the same presentation as a free webinar, later. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
#14
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Sidney,
When are you posting the presentation?Please don't use the customer need identification process for good stuff.Many will be helped by it:)
 

Buckyb

Involved In Discussions
#15
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

This is a great thread with great inputs. We just finished our AS9100C Audit and thanks to folks like Sidney, Dsanabria and Howste we came out very well. Their inputs in these forums over the last few years helped us immensely in preparing for Rev C. Although we had a few NCRs in other areas, we only received one minor based on Rev C in the risk management area. Our preparation for the Audit was on target thanks to this forum. The CB Lead Auditor said our QMS Process Map based on 4.1 was the best he had seen to date. In 8.2.3 our processes were identified and were being monitored and measured where applicable. The audit as a whole was process based as we expected. For those who have not been audited yet I can only say pay attention to the Standard; it is your Bible to success under Rev C. Think process....not procedure and be ready to provide results that prove your processes are effective.
 

Buckyb

Involved In Discussions
#17
Re: Early lessons learned from the AS9100 Rev. C Transition Process

Excellent article on lessons learned Sidney. I would agree that many registered organizations were unaware of how AS9101D and the PEAR would impact their audit. Many underwent the transition not understanding what their Certification Body Auditors were focusing on. Processes without definable measurables took a toll. I remember there was much discussion about all the training and preparation that the CBs and Auditors were getting under for AS9100C but information at the organizational level was very limited. As I have stated previously, this forum and those who contribute to it made the difference to many of us in the "trenches". Thanks.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Lessons Learned Implementing ISO 50001 (Chemical Engineering Progress) Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 0
tnorton Lessons learned from implementing Customer Complaints Customer Complaints 1
R IATF 16949 Clause 6.1.2.1 - Lessons Learned and Risk Analysis IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6
M What do the terms "Lessons Learned" and "Best Practices" mean ? Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 2
M Linking Risk Management with Lessons Learned ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
D Lessons Learned - from ANAB 2013/06/06 AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
J Three Best Practices and Lessons Learned in APQP APQP and PPAP 1
P Implementing a Lessons Learned Program Benchmarking 2
P Lessons Learned Identification - Potential Preventive Action Responsibilities Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 4
L Lessons Learned from our recent ISO/TS 16949:2009 Surveillance Audit IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
T Lessons Learned - Document Control? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 6
T Lessons Learned in a Product Development Project Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 2
H Capturing temporary actions in PFMEA in terms of manpower, lessons learned FMEA and Control Plans 9
M "Lessons Learned System" - Evidence for Audit IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
D Lessons Learned Reporting/Utilizing Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 1
S Lessons learned? Asked by my boss to compile a list of lessons learned Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 33
ScottK Lessons Learned so far from my current ISO9001 adventure ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 23
G What to present for 'Lessons Learned" from audits to Sony Ericsson - Supplier to SE Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
A Manufacturing Lessons Learned - New product from Design into Manufacturing Design and Development of Products and Processes 4
F Capturing Lessons Learned from a CAPA - One Point Lessons Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
B Example of Lessons Learned Plan Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 4
U Applying Lessons Learned to other products Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
PatMaz Help creating a Lessons Learned Database Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 3
J Implementing a Pull System in a manufacturing line? Lessons Learned? Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
G Gage R&R derivation with respect to ndc - Lessons Learned Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 2
C MSA on CMM Hard Learned Lessons - Look Before you Leap Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 13
J Database Lessons Learned - Real issue with the quality of the data being entered Philosophy, Gurus, Innovation and Evolution 0
D 4.1.1 Lessons Learned - Use of Design Data - How to Implement Design and Development of Products and Processes 5
B Lessons Learnt template - Information Security Management System Experiences Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 1
S How to Capture and Share Project Lessons and Improvement Ideas? Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 6
RoxaneB Life's Lessons Amidst the Blooms Imported Legacy Blogs 2
P Kaizen your life with the Ten Lessons for Good Health World News 15
S Single Point Lessons Used in Production - Seeking Examples Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 21
S Training technical operators on production floor - E.g. Single Point Lessons Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 5
T Corporate Lessons Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 2
C Quality Lessons from the Field - The need to understand your true costs The Reading Room 18
A Corporate lessons Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 7
C Shakespeare's Lessons in Leadership: Macbeth The Reading Room 30
C Shakespeare's Lessons in Leadership: Hamlet Registered Visitor Articles Archive 64
C 6 Business Lessons From Martha Stewart Coffee Break and Water Cooler Discussions 4
M Is a Lesson not Learned if there is no Corrective Action? Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3
L Lesson Learned Database for Audits Internal Auditing 4
Sidney Vianna Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships in the real world - GM learned a lesson? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 1
Q Lesson Learned or OFI (Opportunities for Improvements)? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 2
M Lesson Learned Cards for Problem Solving and Prevention after 8D Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 1
K Time Management - Lesson Learned , Decades Ago Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 0
Chennaiite What is meant by 'Lesson Learned' in the context of Problem Solving Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 6
T What have you learned today...? Imported Legacy Blogs 1
B Lesson Learned Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 6
Q All I Need to Know About Manufacturing I Learned in Joe's Garage Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 0

Similar threads

Top Bottom