What are you going to do now AS9101 Rev D is out?

[Joy]

How are they going to verify effectiveness of the training that is delivered to the 3rd party Auditors?

Simple way what they planned is the test after the training

As the objective is to improve the 3rd party audit quality,training effectiveness can be verified by assessing the audit quality only.I don't know whether IAQG is planning to measure process effectiveness of audit process.Ideally,they should implement this as the AS9101D is being introduced with that objective.

Probably they would select another easy option i.e feedback,from aerospace industry,certified organisation and auditor.

This can be a good point for discussion in our forum

Measurement of process effectiveness-3rd party aerospace audits in post AS9101D senario

 

[Phiobi]

I think what you're doing is good, and it probably won't hurt to make auditing easy for auditors, but I still see the implementation of the system as separate from the audit process. In the continual improvement cycle, implementation is the "plan" and "do," while the audit and follow-up activities are the "check" and "act."

Thanks!

I'm not trying to push my point but.... Having now seen the AS9101 Rev D I am able to adjust the internal auditing process, layout my QMS in a way that reflects the process audit the CB needs to perform and generally word and layout certain aspects of my QMS so as to speed up and improve my annual audits.
I feel it is also helpful looking at the list of evidence that an auditor is required to review - putting the specific "terms" into my procedures does not take away from my QMS in value terms but it does make each audit a lot easier.

I would also say that taking PDCA into account then aligning AS9100 Rev C and AS9101 Rev D means that I will have a full QMS that is effective, compliant and easily auditable.... thus I will get more value out of my audits and therefore complete the PDCA cycle.

 

[Joy]

easily auditable

Are you trying to develop auditor friendly QMS?

 

[Phiobi]

Are you trying to develop auditor friendly QMS?

I am... is that a bad thing?

I'm adding little things like all KPI's state the process (as defined in the QMS) they measure AND the clause they relate to. I'm also making a summary to each KPI called "The Effectiveness Level".

My feeling is that if a QMS is "easy" to audit then more time can be spent on value added activity than explaining the system. It also helps to ensure that the system can work and be audited without me having to be around

 

[alspread]

I am... is that a bad thing?

Absolutely not!
Any way to make the process go smoother and easier is okay by me.

We could always try to make it more difficult. That would be an interesting way to conduct the audit. make them work for it.

 

[John Broomfield]

I was wondering what everybody is now going to do?

For me the first step is read the doc, then I am going to review my current QMS. It is old, it is the usual setup of we found a gap write a procedure so we have 64 of the things.
From my initial review against AS9100 Rev C my new QMS will consost of:

Quality Manual =2 pages
Procedures = 22 x 2 (A3) pages

I plan to use 100% process based and flow based documents, but I wanted to see the final audit criteria before I started working on it....

Again, what is the general approach going to be for you guys out there?

Reading it with great interest. It is quite an opus. It thinks it is 24 pages long until page 25 when it decides it is 75 pages long!

It mixes recommendations with requirements so watch out for the shoulds and shalls.

4.2.2.4 refers to audit methods defined in the audit plan but the audit planning recommendations in 4.2.1 mentions no definition of the audit methods to be used (of course the whole plan is a method).

Clause 4.2.2.6 Audit Conclusions seems incomplete.

The PEAR is wonderful but it is sad to realize that some auditors have to be forced to apply clauses 4.1c and 4.1f!

It may change system and process auditing way beyond the AS&D industry...

Even though it is not a system standard it brings a level of rigor to registrar audit that recommends study of AS9101D, using some of its tools and updating your management systems based on what you discover before your first AS9101D with AS9100C certification audit!

More later...

 

[John Broomfield]

Reading it with great interest. It is quite an opus. It thinks it is 24 pages long until page 25 when it decides it is 75 pages long!

It mixes recommendations with requirements so watch out for the shoulds and shalls.

4.2.2.4 refers to audit methods defined in the audit plan but the audit planning recommendations in 4.2.1 mentions no definition of the audit methods to be used (of course the whole plan is a method).

Clause 4.2.2.6 Audit Conclusions seems incomplete.

The PEAR is wonderful but it is sad to realize that some auditors have to be forced to apply clauses 4.1c and 4.1f!

It may change system and process auditing way beyond the AS&D industry...

Even though it is not a system standard it brings a level of rigor to registrar audit that recommends study of AS9101D, using some of its tools and updating your management systems based on what you discover before your first AS9101D with AS9100C certification audit!

More later...

I strongly recommend that auditees conduct their own process effectiveness assessments before the auditor does. One could argue that PEAR already applies to 8.2.3 and 4.1 of ISO 9001 let alone AS91xx.

Ask the top manager to require the process owners or supervisors and managers to assess and record the processes for which they are responsible.

Here is an editable PEAR form for adoption, use and improvement. Inspired by but not a copy of Appendix C.

 

[Phiobi]

I attended the DNV webinar on AS9101. Tony Marino stated that the PEAR is only required for clause 7 but can be used for other clauses. I can't see anything in AS9101 Rev D that confirms this?? Or will this be in AS9104/1?

 

[howste]

I attended the DNV webinar on AS9101. Tony Marino stated that the PEAR is only required for clause 7 but can be used for other clauses. I can't see anything in AS9101 Rev D that confirms this?? Or will this be in AS9104/1?

Look at 9101D clause 4.2.2.5:

The results of effectiveness shall be recorded on the PEAR (see Appendix C) for each audited product realization process. The level of effectiveness for each process shall be recorded on the PEAR (statement of effectiveness level). If the level of effectiveness has been classified as a ‘2’ or a ‘1’, this shall result in a nonconformity being issued against 9100-series standards clauses 4.1.c and f (see clause 4.2.4).
NOTE 4: At the discretion of the audit organization, other processes can be recorded on a PEAR.

 

[Phiobi]

Thank you. I must have missed that NOTE twice now