AS9100 In Transition

October 27th, 2009 at 03:50pm Teresa Beach-Shelow

Since our area is one of the largest Aerospace Clusters in the USA—yes we are! The Aerospace Standard is an issue for many readers. For over a year they have said changes are coming. I am sure you have noticed increased audit days required for your company when you are scheduling annual and recertification audits. Often from (1) day to (3) days, thus triple the costs! I disagree with this but that is another discussion. Below is an update as to the status of the next revision level for AS9100. Some very different requirements are being put on auditors. There is already a shortage of AS auditors. The fact that Big Wind and other emerging markets are requiring this level of certification and as companies try to scramble to participate in the more “healthy” Aerospace Market it should be interesting to see how this all plays out. Going straight to the issue that is on many people’s minds: When will we be able to make the certification transition to Revision C of AS9100? The answer to the question is not fully known. 

Before any of us can be certified to AS9100C, our aerospace auditors must undergo recognized training and pass a test to perform audits against that standard. The IAQG sanctioned training for auditors, has not been developed yet. Actually, at this moment, the IAQG is deciding on who will be the organization awarded with the contract to develop the training.

A pivotal issue for the training is also the release of AS9101 Revision D. As previously communicated, the next version of 9101 will be a significant departure from the current version of the document. The upcoming 9101D document will no longer be a checklist, as the current one is, but rather a standard providing both guidance and requirements on how to plan, execute and report audits performed to the 9100, 9110 and 9120 standards. It contains some very interesting concepts, such as requirements for auditors to assess and report not only on the degree of conformity to requirements, but also on the effectiveness of the processes in reaching certain objectives. Auditors will have to carefully evaluate the process and report the results via a specific form, the PEAR form (Process Effectiveness Assessment Report). Below is an excerpt of the latest DRAFT of the 9101D guidance/requirements:

4.1.2.5 Process Performance and Effectiveness
The audit team should audit processes to sufficient depth and detail to evaluate if the organization’s processes are capable of meeting planned results and performance levels, including applicable customer specific targets.
The audit team should evaluate, as appropriate, that processes:
a) are identified and appropriately defined;
b) are sequenced and interactions are defined;
c) have process input/outputs, activities, and resources defined;
d) have responsibilities assigned and responsible functions identified;
e) have relevant process controls defined;
f) have the availability of resources and information required to operate and support associated activities, including appropriate training and competency of personnel;
g) are monitored, measured, and analyzed against planned results (determination of process effectiveness);
h) have actions implemented to achieve planned results and to promote continual improvement; and
i) are effective in achieving the desired results (e.g., verify performance information available - percentage of nonconforming parts/products, percentage OTD).
 
9101D will also require auditors to gather and use data about customer satisfaction and the percentage of the aerospace business as relevant input, as part of the audit planning process. OASIS feedback entries about the organization’s performance will also be used as part of the audit planning process.

Once again, an excerpt of the DRAFT of 9101D states: The audit planning should take into account:
a) the scope and complexity of the organization’s quality management system;
b) the processes of the organization, including their sequence and interactions;
c) the criticality of products and processes;
d) product related safety issues (e.g., airworthiness issues, reporting to customer and/or authorities);
e) results of internal audits;
f) previous audit findings;
g) the KPIs and trends for quality and OTD;
h) previous management review results;
i) customer satisfaction and complaints log, including feedback requests received by the CB (e.g., items identified through OASIS feedback process);
j) customer specific, statutory, and regulatory quality management system requirements;
k) performance data available from the customers;
l) changes to organization (e.g., structure; facilities; business strategy; processes; technologies; a review of requirements from new aviation, space, and defense customers); and
m) the audit team member required background/experience and desired competencies.
The audit team leader shall use organization’s customer feedback requests, including those received through OASIS, to assist with audit planning for surveillance and re-certification audits. The audit activities shall be prioritized based upon performance data for business risks that can impact the customer (i.e., customer concerns, customer special statuses) and on low performing processes.

As an input into the audit planning process, the audit team leader shall obtain information from the organization regarding their customers on the proportion of aviation, space, and defense business each customer represents, based on their approximate percentage of business. The audit team leader shall ensure that the amount of audit time planned on auditing any one customer’s specific quality management system requirements is consistent (approximately) with the proportion of aviation, space, and defense business each customer represents (e.g., customer X may only have 20% of the business so do not spend 80% of the time verifying customer X’s specific quality management system requirements).
 
So, as you can see, the revision of the 9101 document will introduce some significant heightened expectations for the audits conducted under the ICOP Scheme. Is Rockford part of the discussion?

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized