FOLLOW US Twitter CONTACT US FTJ Email address Phone number
 
SIX ISSUE ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION FROM JUST £235

Sea-change in aerospace/defence certification process

The International Aerospace Quality Group’s (IAQG’s) certification process for aerospace and defence organisations under the AS9100 series has undergone significant changes.

Although Certification Bodies (CBs) continue to use the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) baseline audit durations for initial, surveillance, and recertification audits, they now adopt a ‘performance-based’ approach which can increase/decrease audit durations depending on the risk posed by an organisation’s Aerospace Quality Management System (AQMS). These changes will affect all foundries currently certified to AS9100.

INTRODUCING OCAP AND PBS/RP

From now on, CBs will conduct a detailed risk and performance analysis of a foundry’s AQMS before determining the site audit duration and cost. This analysis, known as the Organization Certification Analysis Process (OCAP), is a comprehensive evaluation that influences audit time based on the foundry’s risk profile. The duration includes both on-site and off-site activities, such as planning, report writing, and the audit itself.

Additionally, there is a new optional process called the Performance Based Surveillance/Recertification Process (PBS/RP). This process allows foundries that can demonstrate a consistently high performing AQMS to reduce the duration of their surveillance and recertification audits. Conversely, a poor performing AQMS will be penalised by increased audit durations!

The CB process is based on data/information provided by the foundry itself together with demonstration of continuous maintenance of effective AQMS practices.

KEY ELEMENTS OF OCAP

OCAP involves scoring several risk and performance elements, with lower scores indicating better performance. These elements include:

 

1. Complexity of the Organisation

  • Single or multi-site.
  • Number and uniqueness of processes.
  • Scope size.
  • Scores: low (1), medium (3), high (6).

2. Internal Audit Program Performance

  • Effectiveness of internal audits.
  • Scores: low (1), medium (3), high (6).

3. On-Time Delivery

  • Meeting customer delivery targets.
  • Scores: exceeds (1), meets (3), below (6).

4. Conformity of Delivered Products/Services

  • Product/service quality.
  • Scores: exceeds (1), meets (3), below (6).

5. Customer Complaints and Feedback

  • Handling of complaints and feedback.
  • Scores: exceeds (1), meets (3), below (6).

6. Effectiveness of Operation Processes

  • Performance Evaluation Assessment Record (PEAR) scores from previous audits.
  • Scores: pear = 5 low (1), pear = 3-4 medium (3), pear = 1-2 high (6).

These scores combine to form a Total Risk Score, which categorises risk as high (25-36), medium (12-24), or low (6-11). This risk assessment impacts the audit duration:

  • High risk: Add ten per cent.
  • Medium risk: No change.
  • Low risk: Subtract ten per cent.

 

ADJUSTMENTS TO AUDIT DURATIONS

CBs may also adjust audit durations if certain processes are not present:

  • Management of the QMS: -10 per cent.
  • Design and Development of Products and Services: -20 per cent.
  • Control of Externally Provided Processes, Products, and Services: -15 per cent.
  • Control of Production and Service Provision: -20 per cent.

Audit durations can be increased to verify corrective actions or due to contractually mandated standards. An additional twenty per cent of the site audit duration is allocated for analysis, planning, and report writing.

Example calculation

For instance, consider a ‘make-to-print’ foundry with 165 employees applying for recertification. Based on IAF guidelines, the audit duration is seven days. Their risk factors might be:

  • Complexity: Low (score 1).
  • Internal Audit: High (score 6).
  • On-Time Delivery: High (score 6).
  • Product Conformity: Medium (score 3).
  • Customer Complaints: High (score 6).
  • PEAR Scores: High (score 6).

Total Risk Score: 28 (High risk).

Audit duration adjustments:

  • Risk Addition: +10 per cent (0.7 days).
  • No Design Process Reduction: -20 per cent (1.4 days).
  • Net Adjustment: -0.7 days.

Final audit duration:

  • Initial: seven days.
  • Adjusted: 6.3 days (rounded to six).
  • Plus, OCAP Activities: +20 per cent (1.2 days).
  • Final Duration: seven days.

 

PBS/RP FOR HIGH PERFORMERS

PBS/RP allows foundries to reduce audit time by up to 33 per cent per site if they demonstrate sustained high performance. Eligibility for this process requires:

  • Completion of one AQMS certification cycle.
  • Low or medium OCAP risk scores.
  • Effective internal audit program per ISO 19011.
  • Competent auditors with approved ASD lead auditor training.
  • Ethics policy and communication processes.
  • No major nonconformities or certificate suspensions in recent years.
  • Meeting customer satisfaction metrics.

Foundries that qualify and maintain PBS/RP status may see significant reductions in audit times and costs, although total reductions cannot exceed fifty per cent of the baseline duration.

 

CONCLUSION

The IAQG’s new certification processes mark a significant shift towards risk/performance based auditing. These changes are designed to improve supplier performance and provide greater confidence for the global aerospace and defence customers.

By maintaining high standards and continuously improving their AQMS, foundries can benefit from reduced audit durations and costs, turning these new requirements into opportunities for growth and efficiency.

It remains to be seen if a similar scheme will eventually be adopted for third party ISO 9001 certifications.

 

AUTHOR

Dr David Scrimshire is managing director of TEC Transnational. Contact:https://tectransnational.com/
 

Main image: Shutterstock