Operator Decertification process

[MJW66]

I have a new opportunity whereupon we had a discussion of all of the expected requirements with our prospective customer. One of the requirements was that our company must have a formal operator decertification process and our customer drew references to AS9100, clauses 7.1.6, 7.2, 7.3, and 8.5.1. (Organizational knowledge, Competence, Awareness, and Control of Production and Service Provision). I reviewed those clauses, and I have also searched online where the result of my search was that the AS9100 standard does not EXPLICITLY require a decertification process for operators. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of traceability and documentation to ensure that operators are authorized to perform their roles and that their work meets the required standards.
What are your thoughts about the customer's claim that the AS9100 standard REQUIRES a company to have a formal operator decertification process?

 

[hogheavenfarm]

Sounds like it is exactly what you said, a "Customer Expected Requirement", CR's can be made part of any contract, hence the need for contract review in light of any specific requirements. You can create one, and thus meet their requirement, or you can indicate how you would normally "decertify" the operator (you may already have some informal procedure in place for this), or you can negotiate the requirement in some way, or simply say "no", we will not add a requirement that AS9100 doesn't "require" (show the shall). I am sure there are other options as well, but that would be my knee-jerk reaction, although to be honest, you may only be in a position to point this out to higher ups, and they will have to run with it. I keep separate notes on what I call "possible issues" that affect certain jobs and customers, simply as CYA for possible future defense when "executive decisions" override my advice.

 

[Big Jim]

I concur that the customer is over-reaching. As you sort this out, even when a customer is wrong, he is still the customer. Pick your battles.

 

[ChrisM]

"...the result of my search was that the AS9100 standard does not EXPLICITLY require a decertification process for operators. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of traceability and documentation to ensure that operators are authorized to perform their roles and that their work meets the required standards."
What AS9100 does require (like ISO9001 and other similar standards) is that operators are competent to perform their duties. You are correct that this does not explicitly require a decertification process but it implies that there should be a process to monitor competence. If someone is found "not competent" they could be supervised, re-trained or something else to get their competence back, it does not follow that they should be (immediately) decertified (and/or transferred to do other work) as soon as they are found "incompetent".
Maybe you just need to document what you do about monitoring competence and what steps to take when an issue with competence is found. That should then satisfy your customer.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

What are your thoughts about the customer's claim that the AS9100 standard REQUIRES a company to have a formal operator decertification process?

If the customer invokes conformance to SAE AS9162 standard, which deals with operator self verification, that standard mandates operator decertification controls. So, check if such standard is contractually specified.