Quality Manager's Role in AS9100 Rev. D

[Kronos147]

AS9100 Rev. D clause 0.2 introduces the seven management principles:
− customer focus;
− leadership;
− engagement of people;
− process approach;
− improvement;
− evidence-based decision making;
− relationship management

From my experience as a 3rd party auditor, the scope of the audit will be more focused on the process owner, their engagement with the management system and the requirements, and the consistency on how the evidence is obtained and reviewed in the decision making process.

This potentially changes the landscape of audits. The "Quality? That's the person in that corner office" mentality that is prevalent in too many organizations. Too often the 'management system' is a written by that person and top management is not engaged (or aware). That's sad. Companies like that do not reap the benefits of the management system.

I question if this could be a paradigm change in the Quality Manager role. As process owners engage, will the new role of a Quality Manager become something almost like a consultant? Will Quality Management be mapping out a system that meets requirements at the process level, perform internal audits, manage corrective actions, and contribute to the Management Review process by reporting on their processes. Will the job would be more of an educator, promoting awareness of requirements? Will it be one of a scribe, documenting the solutions process owners develop to meet the requirements?

 

[dsanabria]

AS9100 Rev. D clause 0.2 introduces the seven management principles:
− customer focus;
− leadership;
− engagement of people;
− process approach;
− improvement;
− evidence-based decision making;
− relationship management

From my experience as a 3rd party auditor, the scope of the audit will be more focused on the process owner, their engagement with the management system and the requirements, and the consistency on how the evidence is obtained and reviewed in the decision making process.

This potentially changes the landscape of audits. The "Quality? That's the person in that corner office" mentality that is prevalent in too many organizations. Too often the 'management system' is a written by that person and top management is not engaged (or aware). That's sad. Companies like that do not reap the benefits of the management system.

I question if this could be a paradigm change in the Quality Manager role. As process owners engage, will the new role of a Quality Manager become something almost like a consultant? Will Quality Management be mapping out a system that meets requirements at the process level, perform internal audits, manage corrective actions, and contribute to the Management Review process by reporting on their processes. Will the job would be more of an educator, promoting awareness of requirements? Will it be one of a scribe, documenting the solutions process owners develop to meet the requirements?

You need to understand that companies are there to make money and that titles are irrelevant. Management in small companies wear many hats so AS9100D becomes irrelevant - this the reality that auditors will face.

 

[Kronos147]

You need to understand that companies are there to make money and that titles are irrelevant. Management in small companies wear many hats so AS9100D becomes irrelevant - this the reality that auditors will face.

I think I do understand.

Recently key people left our organization and as we reshuffled responsibility, it became more critical that these new process owners understand the requirements.

Our transition audit is in August.

If another organization had that kind of an event, I could see them turning to their quality consultant to help with the transition, rather than having a full time quality manager.

In organizations, often people are promoted internally to Management Representative. Often the next audit the organization discovers how effective that promotion is (or is not). We know this is a challenging subject. I'm not sure organizations can succeed without subject matter experts.

 

[flintrock840]

I understand the idea of not being stuck on titles, but how do you prevent a conflict of interest when spreading the responsibilities of a quality manager onto various management personnel?
Doesn't the AS9100D require a management representative?
Does this person need to be on site?

 

[Big Jim]

AS9100 Rev. D clause 0.2 introduces the seven management principles:
− customer focus;
− leadership;
− engagement of people;
− process approach;
− improvement;
− evidence-based decision making;
− relationship management

From my experience as a 3rd party auditor, the scope of the audit will be more focused on the process owner, their engagement with the management system and the requirements, and the consistency on how the evidence is obtained and reviewed in the decision making process.

This potentially changes the landscape of audits. The "Quality? That's the person in that corner office" mentality that is prevalent in too many organizations. Too often the 'management system' is a written by that person and top management is not engaged (or aware). That's sad. Companies like that do not reap the benefits of the management system.

I question if this could be a paradigm change in the Quality Manager role. As process owners engage, will the new role of a Quality Manager become something almost like a consultant? Will Quality Management be mapping out a system that meets requirements at the process level, perform internal audits, manage corrective actions, and contribute to the Management Review process by reporting on their processes. Will the job would be more of an educator, promoting awareness of requirements? Will it be one of a scribe, documenting the solutions process owners develop to meet the requirements?

One huge flaw in what you have posted is the expectation that the management representative needs to be the quality manager.

What I do think is interesting is that ISO 9001:2015 made a big shift to put those duties on the shoulders of top management, and AS9100D softened this by shoving back in the old wording. That seems to create a bit of a conflict. What were they thinking?

 

[Kronos147]

One huge flaw in what you have posted is the expectation that the management representative needs to be the quality manager.

It's the way things are as I perceived as an ISO 9001 auditor with about 80 audits under my belt.

While I was doing that I stayed with ESM and during their audit, I was a contracted Management Representative.

I am no longer auditing, and back with ESM, but still as a contractor, just working more hours during this transition.

In the meantime, I hear from some of the clients I audited and see how they are doing on their transition phase. Some of them would love some help, but management doesn't seem to think that outsourced help in the management system is a good investment.

In some organizations, because there is a Management Rep who is also the quality manager, the system becomes 'distanced from reality' and requires this management rep to speak for process owners. I don't think that will work for ISO 9001:2015/AS9100 Rev. D.

A consultant has the opportunity to focus management on the management system during their time at the organization. Help plan, cheerlead NCR management, review/conduct internal audits, participate in management review.

Could a consultant be a better cost/benefit ratio to the in house quality manager model. As a rough example, if the consultant works 8 hours a week, for 52 weeks, at $100 an hour, it's $41,600. If a full time quality manager is 2 times that, and lends itself to the bifurcated environment of Quality Ideal System vs. Real Way, then what is the better method?

My initial thought is that it is a concept 'before its time' at this point. Management want more control than 'just' a contractor as MR.

 

[Eredhel]

I'm very glad we have things spread out more. I can't imagine dumping everything on a "QA Manager/Management Rep".

 

[Big Jim]

It's the way things are as I perceived as an ISO 9001 auditor with about 80 audits under my belt.

While I was doing that I stayed with ESM and during their audit, I was a contracted Management Representative.

I am no longer auditing, and back with ESM, but still as a contractor, just working more hours during this transition.

In the meantime, I hear from some of the clients I audited and see how they are doing on their transition phase. Some of them would love some help, but management doesn't seem to think that outsourced help in the management system is a good investment.

In some organizations, because there is a Management Rep who is also the quality manager, the system becomes 'distanced from reality' and requires this management rep to speak for process owners. I don't think that will work for ISO 9001:2015/AS9100 Rev. D.

A consultant has the opportunity to focus management on the management system during their time at the organization. Help plan, cheerlead NCR management, review/conduct internal audits, participate in management review.

Could a consultant be a better cost/benefit ratio to the in house quality manager model. As a rough example, if the consultant works 8 hours a week, for 52 weeks, at $100 an hour, it's $41,600. If a full time quality manager is 2 times that, and lends itself to the bifurcated environment of Quality Ideal System vs. Real Way, then what is the better method?

My initial thought is that it is a concept 'before its time' at this point. Management want more control than 'just' a contractor as MR.

If it works well for a company then there may not be a better method. What I was pointing out is that it need not be the same person. The problem with it being the quality manager is that often top management never fully buys into their quality management system.

The best answer is whatever it takes to get top management fully integrated into the quality management system. If they are not "all in" the system will suffer. When the system suffers, life is more difficult for all involved.

 

[Kronos147]

The problem with it being the quality manager is that often top management never fully buys into their quality management system.

That is too often the case.

 

[J.Enger]

As the Quality manager at my shop, and the Management Representative, I am tasked with getting us certified to AS9100D by the end of the year, but for hte most part, the first half of this yr has been more of trying to get the QA Dept back in shape. The company was without a QA Manager for a few months before I got here, and unfortunately he was more of an inspector and "yes man" to top management, not really a manager. It has been a struggle with alot of and and a whole lot of to get them to change their ways. Finally got the time to get the Quality Manual rewritten (shameless plug for views and input/feedback (broken link removed) ). Now to write up the new processes/procedures, et.al. to go along with it from the existing procedures and my notes from writing the QM.

I think having both hats, while beneficial for the company in terms of salary, can be a struggle for me at times. Luckily I have gotten some help from one of our long time inspectors and actually got her promoted to Lead Inspector to help take some of the day-to-day duties off my plate to get things done with the QMS.