other party management opmt 9104 1 special sub team recommendation summary n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Other Party Management (OPMT) 9104/1 Special Sub Team Recommendation Summary PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Other Party Management (OPMT) 9104/1 Special Sub Team Recommendation Summary

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

Other Party Management (OPMT) 9104/1 Special Sub Team Recommendation Summary - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 116 Views
  • Uploaded on

Other Party Management (OPMT) 9104/1 Special Sub Team Recommendation Summary . Tim Lee & Ian Folland June 23, 2010. Background. 9104/1 Ballot Failure The Dec 2009 ballot draft failed in Americas and Asia Pacific and stopped in Europe

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Other Party Management (OPMT) 9104/1 Special Sub Team Recommendation Summary' - denver


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
other party management opmt 9104 1 special sub team recommendation summary

Other Party Management (OPMT) 9104/1 Special Sub TeamRecommendation Summary

Tim Lee & Ian Folland

June 23, 2010

background
Background

9104/1 Ballot Failure

  • The Dec 2009 ballot draft failed in Americas and Asia Pacific and stopped in Europe
  • 9104/1 Sub Team and OPMT conducted extensive debate on “Show Stopper” issues but failed to reach any consensus.
    • Site definition
    • Audit day calculation for multiple sites

Go Forward – IAQG Council Direction

  • OPMT was directed to charter a focused team to conduct a non advocate review of the show stopper issues. Team shall be comprised of technical experts
    • Team launch - May 2010
    • Recommend a solution (June 23, 2010)
9104 1 special team
9104/1 Special Team

Ian Folland & Tim Lee – Facilitators

Team Members:

  • Roger Bennett - International Independent Organization for Certification (IIOC) – IAF MD 1 Convener and IAF MD 5 Co-convener
  • Reg Blake - Certification Body (CB) representing the Independent Association of Accredited Registrars (IAAR)
  • Norbert Borzek - German AB - DAkkS – Chair of the IAF Technical Committee .
  • Patrick Boucheron – Turbomeca, France, OPMT Voting Member
  • Buddy Cressionnie - IAQG 9100 International Document Representative (IDR)
  • Randy Dougherty – USA AB - ANAB Director – Chair of the IAF
  • Michel Jacquaniello – Zodiac Aerospace, France
  • Kunihiro Tanabe - Japanese AB - JAB
  • Norikazu Tsuchiya – KHI, Japan, OPMT Voting Member
team recommendations
Team Recommendations
  • The team developed a detailed document containing the following concepts:
    • Definitions and eligibility criteria for single site, multiple site, campus, several site and complex organizations;
    • Audit day calculations methodology for all organizational types;
    • Information in the form of a matrix and diagrams to help understand the different types or organizations
definitions
Definitions
  • The team recommended that the ICOP process utilizes as much of IAF Mandatory Document language as possible
  • Definition:
    • Site - A site is a permanent location where an organization carries out work or a service
  • Rationale:
    • Allows for dual certification (ISO and AQMS)
    • IAF language has been tested and currently in use by CB’s
  • Used to resolve the show stopper issue related to Site definition
organizational structure
Organizational Structure
  • Team has developed detailed definitions and eligibility criteria for the following organizational structures
    • Single Site
    • Multiple Site
    • Campus
    • Several Sites
    • Complex
  • The above takes into consideration the unique organizational structures that exist in the Aviation, Space and Defense industry today
example a campus
Example A - Campus

Must have a common quality management system

example b several sites
Example B - Several Sites

Must have a common quality management system

audit day requirements
Audit Day Requirements
  • Utilize audit day table contained in 9104-1 December 2009 draft.
  • Audit Day Calculations
    • Single Site – Number of employees – Reductions for ASRP and CAAT only
    • Multiple Site – Number of employees at each site. Reductions for ASRP and CAAT only
    • Campus – Total number of employees across all sites. No further reductions. 10% addition for auditing aspects of a campus and additional communication by audit team
    • Several Sites - Number of employees at each site. Maximum of 30% reduction for reduced scope complexity at each site
    • Complex – Combination of all the above. Audit time calculation will require approval by OPMT Sub Team
  • Use of Advanced Surveillance Reassessment Procedures (ASRP) and Computer Aided Auditing Techniques (CAAT) should be allowed (maximum 30% reduction)
  • ASRP shall not in itself be used to justify a reduction
certification matrix
Certification Matrix
  • Detailed matrix was developed to provide clarification
next steps
Next Steps
  • Deliver special team recommendations to 9104/1 team (July 1, 2010)
    • Request incorporation of special teams recommendations into updated 9104/1 draft
  • 9104/1 Sub team to continue with development process
    • Disposition of all 9104/1 comments
    • Ballot updated document
summary
Summary
  • The Team has delivered a recommendation that was on time and on target
  • Recommendation addresses key 9104/1 ballot failure issues - “Show Stoppers”
  • IAF representatives agreed to take lesson learned from this effort to drive IAF Mandatory Document changes (e.g. IAF MD 5 – Audit Day Calculations)
  • This should be an acceptable go forward proposal that provides for sufficient on site audit time needed for an “Effective” ICOP assessment