Company Confidential 1 Revisiting CB Use of AS9101 Rev D Tim Lee 12 March 2012.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) :2009 Revision Workshop Tony Marino The Boeing Company Other Party (OP) Assessor Workshop.
Advertisements

Module 13 Oversight Assessment of Auditor Authentication Bodies
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) 1 Other Party Management Team (OPMT) Resolutions Stanley Faust Spirit AeroSystems Other Party.
ISO 9001 : 2000.
IAQG OPMT OP Assessor Training Module 3 Preparing for the Face to Face Training: Instructions & Communication February 2015.
ISO 9001 Interpretation : Exclusions
IAQG OPMT OP Assessor Training Oversight Assessment of Training Provider Approval Bodies February 2015 Module 14.
Company Confidential AS 9101E Documentation and Execution Brian Geer (Lockheed Martin) Paul Dionne (ABS QE) 9101 Revision Team 1 AAQG Auditor Workshop.
TS16949 requirements Subjects –Audit planning –Recertification audit requirements –Auditing Remote supporting functions.
ISO 9000 Certification ISO 9001 and ISO
BS EN ISO 14001:2004 Madlen King BSc MSc MIEMA EMS Lead Assessor Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Ltd BS EN ISO 14001:2004.
Module 12 Oversight Assessment of Accreditation Bodies Office and Witnessed Assessment February 2015.
TC176/IAF ISO 9001:2000 Auditing Practices Group.
The Value of Using the Process Approach for Internal Auditing Frank Sidorowicz TL 9000 Program Director Orion Registrar, Inc.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) 1 AQMS Accreditation Programs ANAB Findings Atlanta, GA July 22, 2010 Steve Holladay ANAB,
ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board FQS Accreditation for forensic testing agencies Lori Gillespie RMC ~ 18 July 2012.
Effectively applying ISO9001:2000 clauses 5 and 8
Quality Management Systems P.Suriya Prakash Final Mech Vcet
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee 1 AS9104/1 Certification Structures - Client and CB Agreement July 17, 2014 Tim Lee Chair - IAQG.
Company Confidential 1 AS9104/1 Transition and Oversight Assessment of Accreditation Bodies Tim Lee 12 March 2012.
IAQG OPMT OP Assessor Training SMS, CBMC and OASIS Oversight Assessment February 2015 Module 16.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) & Auditor Workshop 11 ‘Top Ten’ Things Auditors Should Know About 9104/1 Boston, MA July 22,
ISO 9001:2000 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
Company Confidential Improvement Opportunities for Audit Reporting Tony Marino and Rick Downs July 19-20, 2012 Registration Management Committee RMC Workshop.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) & Auditor Workshop 11 ‘Top Ten’ Things Auditors Should Know About 9104/1 OP Assessor Workshop.
Company Confidential 1 AS9104/1 Transition and Oversight Assessment of Certification Bodies Mike Roberts 12 March 2012.
ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001:2015 Summary of Changes
4.3 Document control 4.4 Review of requests, tenders and contracts
Non-conformity Reporting
Paul Hardiman and Rob Brown SMMT IF Planning and organising an audit.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) :2009 Revision Workshop Tony Marino The Boeing Company Other Party (OP) Assessor Workshop.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) Other Party Management Team (OPMT) Resolutions San Diego, CA January 19, 2012 Stanley Faust.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee (RMC) AS9104/2A Presentation San Diego, CA January 17, 2013 Tim Lee The Boeing Company 1 Other Party.
Other Party Management Team (OPMT) Status Briefing Americas Aerospace Quality Group (AAQG) Registration Management Committee (RMC) Tim Lee – Chair The.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee RMC Auditor Workshop Charleston, SC July Supplemental Oversight AS9104/2A & Special.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee 1 Lessons Learned from Accreditation Assessments - ANAB Perspective July 19, 2012 Steve Holladay.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee RMC Auditor Workshop Charleston, SC July 2015 The OASIS Feedback Process Empowering Communication.
ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board. Accredited Certification Bodies (CBs)  36 AS9100  12 AS9110  27 AS9120 Applicant CBs  4 AS9110 Increased Surveillance.
CSOC – Certification Structure Oversight Committee Application Guidance October 2015.
Webinar FSSC audit report 7th september 2015
Company Confidential 1 AAQG RMC 9101:2009 Revision Workshop Prepared by IAQG 9101 Team 19 July, 2010 Atlanta Ga. “It’s All About Performing” Quality Management.
It was found in 1946 in Geneva, Switzerland. its main purpose is to promote the development of international standards to facilitate the exchange of goods.
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee 1 AS9104/1 Certification Structures July 22, 2015 Tim Lee Chair - IAQG OPMT The Boeing Company RMC.
Internal Auditing ISO 9001:2015
Company Confidential Registration Management Committee 1 July 17, 2014 Bryan Blunt IAQG OASIS Administrator OASIS Tools for Continuous Improvement / Next-Gen.
Company Confidential IAQG Workshop October 21, IAQG Workshop 9100 Certification Scheme Certification status – Changes implemented Tim Lee The Boeing.
RMC Auditor Workshop Charleston, SC July 2015 Registration Management Committee Company Confidential RMC Auditor Workshop Charleston, SC
TC176/IAF ISO 9001:2000 Auditing Practices Group.
ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board. Accredited Certification Bodies (CBs)  36 AS9100  12 AS9110  28 AS9120 Applicant CBs  2 AS9100 (US & Israel)
A LOOK AT AMENDMENTS TO ISO/IEC (1999) Presented at NCSLI Conference Washington DC August 11, 2005 by Roxanne Robinson.
9101 Forms July 20-21, Revision Team Paul Dionne
ISO/IEC
So where in ISO is Process?
Prepared by Rand E Winters, Jr. ASR Senior Auditor October 2014
NEEDS & EXPECTATIONS: INTERESTED PARTIES TO ISO & AS9100
ISO 9001:2015 Auditor / Registration Decision Lessons Learned
Registration Decision Criteria
HIGHLIGHTING THE KEY CHANGES
Witness Assessment AS9104/2A
IAQG 9101:2009 Revision IAQG General Assembly Munich, 15 Oct. 2009
AS9104/1 Transition and Oversight Assessment of Accreditation Bodies
EN/AS/SJAC 9101 Re-Write EN/AS/SJAC 9101 Audit Process Coordination Draft IAQG Working Group Prepared by: Tony Marino The Boeing Company Supplier Quality.
How to conduct Effective Stage-1 Audit
Americas Aerospace Quality Group Registration Management Committee
Tim Lee The Boeing Company Chair IAQG OPMT October 22, 2010
ANAB AQMS Activity 2011 ~ to date July 2011
Nonconformity Writing
Presentation transcript:

Company Confidential 1 Revisiting CB Use of AS9101 Rev D Tim Lee 12 March 2012

2 AS9101 Rev D Fundamentals 9101 defines requirements for the preparation and execution of the audit process It defines the content and composition for the audit reporting of conformity and process effectiveness, based on –9100-series standards requirements –the organization’s quality management system documentation, and –customer/regulatory requirements It builds on and mandates requirements and guidelines in ISO/IEC and ISO Reminder

3 AS9101 Rev D: CBs have now been using AS9101 Rev D for some time and for all 91XX:2009 transition audits We have learned that auditing practices and use of 9101 is inconsistent We need to improve the effectiveness of CBs auditing and audit reporting to ‒ Detect and stop nonconforming practices before they become normalised ‒ Ensure that CB clients and their clients gain benefit from the audits and the audit reports ‒ Build and retain confidence airworthiness and other authorities confidence in the ICOP scheme

4 Review of CB Audit Reports: The IAQG OPMT carried out a review of sample reports in October 2011 ABs have also been reporting findings made as a result of witnessed assessments and review of CB audit reports Following slides provide information on those findings and will help prepare you for assessments you will carry out There will be IAQG OPMT material in future that focuses on positive models for improvement

5 General 9101 Report Findings: Established audit objectives are not always in line with the example in 9101 instructions e.g. ‘Upgrading of certification to 9100:2009’ Audit Plans and OERs do not always demonstrate that an interview with top management has taken place Annex E audit conclusions are weak in relation to overall performance, effectiveness and compliance of the QMS of the client organisation or in respect of the audit objectives often providing stories of the client history.

6 General 9101 Report Findings: Forms are not being filled accurately from 9101 instructions Stage 1 form is incorrectly populated with regard to Aviation, Space and Defence business and associated employees Forms other than the OER are being modified Previous version 9101 forms are being used on occasions e.g. for NCRs Annex E not being completed until after all of the NCRs raised were closed out i.e. completed at final situation not situation at closing meeting

7 General 9101 Report Findings: Recommendations being made incorrectly: ‒ Recommendation for certification made even though NCRs are raised (i.e. wrong recommendation box ticked) Virtually no use of Annex G for complex clients with more than one site Lack of understanding that a second Annex E is required after a visit to close out NCRs Decision-making is not finding and resolving issues in audit reports ‒ No specific requirement for decision-makers to attend AATT or similar to understand 91XX:2009 and AS9101 Rev D requirements on auditors

Report Findings – QMS Matrix: The QMS Matrix does not always contain all processes of the client QMS Matrix does not contain sub-processes or valued-added activities QMS Matrix completed with X rather than the required C or N

Report Findings - PEARs: Processes that contain clause 7 of 91XX:2009 requirements do not have an associated PEAR in all cases PEAR forms not always contain a description of the process and interactions that is sufficient to understand the client’s process (or meet requirements) Clauses recorded on the PEAR are not always consistent with QMS matrix or listed as ‘see QMS Matrix’ PEAR process measures do not always contain targets

Report Findings – PEARs: PEAR process measures accepted are not always consistent or applicable to the control of the process Actual process performance is not always reported Improvement actions against performance below target do not in all cases result in process achieving targets but process described as ‘Level 3’ Improvement actions are not described just recorded as ‘in place’

Report Findings – PEARs: Several processes effectiveness measures described but actual performance data not reported against all them Process effectiveness not always recorded on the PEAR Audit conclusions and process effectiveness determination contain information that appears to be nonconformities but no conformities raised. PEARs do not always contain the detail of the audit trail to confirm the process is deployed, working and effective as described by the client

Report Findings – NCRs: Incorrect classification of nonconformities against the 9101 definitions (previous pre version definitions are still being used) Containment, root cause and corrective actions being accepted by auditors even if they don’t address or fully address the nonconformity raised Details of the verification activity are not always described on the NCR form

13 General Report Findings - OERs: OER forms are not being fully populated – many boxes have no objective evidence (or reference to a PEAR) OER does not have columns correctly completed with required C or NCR PEAR forms reference the OER however no objective evidence recorded in the OER at the reference point

14 Additional Feedback: Because a stage 1 was not mandated for transition insufficient planning is taking place ahead of the on-site transition audit to fully inform the audit team Performance measures set by the company are not traced back to the customer or other requirements to confirm validity of target Auditors are guiding or prompting the client as to the ‘correct’ number of processes Auditors are seeking to minimise the number of PEARs to be raised by compressing processes together at a higher level e.g. ‘Manufacturing’

15 Oversight and 9101 During oversight you will see 9101 in use: –As part of the audit process requirements during witness assessments –As part of the overall set of records held by the CB to demonstrate the audit process In both cases you will be looking to see that 9101 requirements have been followed but also that CB audit teams –Audit processes and process performance –Follow and demonstrate the required focus elements –Conduct a competent audit that demonstrates the overall QMS performance and effectiveness –Audit conclusions reflect the audit trail and findings

16 Oversight and 9101 Think about how the OEM will use the audit report, to understand: –How their supplier works –How effectively the client is turning customer requirements into deliverables –If the supplier will deliver conforming products on- time –Where the weaknesses in the suppliers management system exists –How effectively the supplier is fixing problems and improving to deliver conforming products on time –If further assessment of the supplier is required

17 Approach to oversight Use the QMS Matrix to quickly understand the established processes Use the PEARs to gain an understanding of –What each process does – inputs to outputs –How the process works - activities –How the process is measured and monitored –If the measures are appropriate to the process –How the process is performing against targets –If not performing effectively what the supplier is doing to improve and if that improvement is working If you can’t determine these items then the PEAR is not complete or effective

18 Approach to oversight Where the PEAR identifies nonconformity –Follow the nonconformity Nonconformities: –What were they? –Is the statement of nonconformity actually a statement of nonconformity? –Is the nonconformity consistent with the issue identified? –Was it correctly graded? –What caused it? –How was it contained and corrected? –What was used to verify the correction? –Is the process now conforming and effective?

19 Approach to oversight What are the other nonconformities? –Should they have been inside the PEAR? –Are they correctly graded? Review the OER if you need detail on a specific item or from a PEAR prompt Review the audit report –Does it reflect the audit results? –Does it draw appropriate conclusions? –Are the conclusions in line with the results and the audit objectives? Is the recommendation appropriate given everything else?

20 Approach to oversight The certification decision –Who took the decision? –Were they competent? –Were they effective? Was the complete report uploaded to OASIS? –Correctly? –Everything uploaded that was supposed to be? –Uploaded before previous certificate expired? –Uploaded within correct timescales? »Last day of surveillance + 90 days »Certification decision + 30 days

21 Forms Focus – QMS Matrix (Annex D) QMS Matrix: –To be completed by the audit team for each visited site to demonstrate which processes and quality management system clauses have been audited –Relates the Suppliers’ processes to clauses within the 91XX:2009 standard Why useful? –Identifies which processes contain clauses that fall within clause 7 of 91XX:2009 –Each product realisation process is to be recorded on a PEAR (see 9101 clause ) –Quick cross check to determine if the CB has raised sufficient PEAR (see 9101 clause 3.7) forms.

22 Forms Focus – PEAR (Annex C) Process Effectiveness Assessment Report: –Defined as ‘A document stating results and providing evidence of determination on the effectiveness of a process’ –Each product realisation process is to be recorded –Content is to reflect 9101 clauses and regarding process management and process performance and effectiveness –9101 Clause NOTE 2: »If clause 7 of the 9100-series standards and its’ sub- clauses are associated with processes that are addressed by PEARs, the objective evidence is only required to be documented on the PEAR. In such case, the PEAR number should be referenced in the OER.

23 Forms Focus – PEAR (Annex C) Process Effectiveness Assessment Report: –9101 Clause NOTE 4: »At the discretion of the auditing organization, other processes can be recorded on a PEAR –The results of effectiveness shall be recorded on the PEAR (see Annex C) for each audited product realisation process. –The level of effectiveness for each recorded process shall be recorded on the PEAR (statement of effectiveness level). –The level of effectiveness for each recorded process 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).

24 Forms Focus – PEAR (Annex C) Statement of Effectiveness: Instructions:

25 Forms Focus – PEAR (Annex C) Turn to PEAR form and instructions page Review form and associated instructions and note the following –Box 4 – Requires the OASIS OIN number –Box 9 - Process details, including associated process interfaces »Summarise the process activities, inputs, and outputs; including the identification of associated process interfaces –Box 10 – Applicable AQMS Clause(s) »Identify the applicable primary 9100/9110/9120 clause(s) for this process.

26 Forms Focus – PEAR (Annex C) Review form and associated instructions and note the following –Box 11 - Organization’s method for determining process effectiveness »Describe the method used by the organization to determine process effectiveness »[e.g., identification of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and associated targets, process capability data]. –Box 12 - Auditor observations and comments supporting process effectiveness determination »Annotate relevant objective evidence, observed conditions, data, information, comments, etc. to support the auditor's statement of effectiveness or ineffectiveness, as indicated in Box #13. »This evidence can replace the evidence in the OER

27 Forms Focus – PEAR (Annex C) Example PEAR: Purchasing Process –Example has three parts; bad example, good example and the form instructions as below: –Discuss the examples

28 Forms Focus – OER (Annex A) Objective Evidence Record: –A document recording objective evidence of the audit findings, including reference to the reviewed or observed procedures, records, products, processes, and associated NCRs and opportunities for improvement. –9101 Clause »The audit team shall record detailed objective evidence (e.g., reviewed procedures, shop orders, training records, products, verification records). »The objective evidence shall be on a standardised form [i.e., the OER (see Annex A)], or on the CBs own documentation. In this case, the CB document shall meet the intent of the OER. »The completed forms shall be included in the audit records maintained by the CB.

29 Forms Focus – OER (Annex A) Objective Evidence Record: –9101 Clause continued … »NOTE 1 Population of the OER may start during the Stage 1 audit to record the documents reviewed. »NOTE 2 If clause 7 of the 9100-series standards and its’ sub-clauses are associated with processes that are addressed by PEARs, the objective evidence is only required to be documented on the PEAR. In such case, the PEAR number should be referenced in the OER. –No other form can have an equivalent or alternative developed by the CB for its own use –Discussion Point: »What would you expect a CBs own documentation to look like that meets the INTENT of the OER?

30 Forms Focus – NCR (Annex B) Nonconformity Report: –The NCR (see Annex B) shall be used to record nonconformities; –Each NCR shall contain only one nonconformity. –When nonconformities are identified, the audit team shall categorize the nonconformity as ‘major’ or ’minor’, according to the definitions provided in section 3 of »Please read 3.2 – Major Nonconformity »Please read 3.3 – Minor Nonconformity »Discussion Point: »What has changed in these definitions from the previous 9101 document?

31 Forms Focus – NCR (Annex B) Nonconformity Report: –The need for containment in accordance with the organization’s corrective action process shall be reviewed by the audit team. »Please read 9101 clause 3.1 Containment –Recurrence of the same or similar nonconformity found during consecutive audits at a particular site/location shall be considered as a failure of the corrective action process (see 9100-series standards clause 8.5.2) and shall result in a major nonconformity being issued.

32 Forms Focus – NCR (Annex B) Nonconformity Management (9101 clause 4.2.4) : –Turn to 9101 clause and read the clause –Note the timescales set out in this section: »… 7 calendar days after the audit when the nature of the nonconformity needs immediate containment »… next 14 calendar days to reach agreement with the audit for the effectiveness of the action taken »a maximum of 30 days from the end of the on-site audit to agree corrective action(s) and corrective action plans –Discussion Point: »According to ISO or 9101, what is the maximum time a nonconformity report can remain open before verification activities are required to be completed? »Consider Initial audit, Surveillance, Recertification

33 AS9101 Rev D FAQs Answers to Frequently Asked Questions have been developed Available on the IAQG Website at: uirements.htm uirements.htm

34 91XX:2009 Questions? Refer to Deployment Support Material i.e. FAQs, Clarifications, Changes and rational and Auditor Guidance Material Available on the IAQG Website at: uirements.htm uirements.htm

Questions? 35