opening comments - performance review institute · web viewunconfirmed minutes 04-jun-201 9 paris,...

NMC STANDARDIZATION COMMITTEEJUNE 2019

UNCONFIRMED

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES04-JUN-2019

PARIS, FRANCE

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Committee in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Committee and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

TUESDAY, 04-JUN-2019

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS

1.1 Call to Order/Quorum Check

The Nadcap Management Council (NMC) Standardization Committee was called to order at 9:00 a.m., on 04-Jun-2019 by Chairperson John Pfeiffer.

It was verified that only NMC Members and guests approved by the Chairperson were in attendance during this restricted voting members only meeting.

The following individuals were invited guests:

Stefania Della Ioio (Leonardo S.p.A. Divisione Velivoli)

Sheng Cheng (COMAC)

Stanley Trull (Honeywell Aerospace)

Florian Breyer (Liebherr-Aerospace SAS)

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Latch Anguelov SAFRAN Group* Tomohiko Ashikaga Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.* Marion Blacas Airbus Helicopters* Pascal Blondet Airbus Commercial Aircraft* Richard Blyth Rolls-Royce* Craig Bowden BAE Systems – Air (UK)

Florian Breyer Liebherr-Aerospace SAS* Daniel Calderwood BAE Systems – Air (UK)* Jeff Cerre Textron Aviation

Sheng Cheng COMAC* Russ Cole Northrop Grumman* Alessio Colombara Leonardo Helicopters

Stefania Dello Ioio Leonardo S.p.A. Divisione Velivoli* Rusty Freelen Lockheed Martin Corp.* Gina Fuzzell Lockheed Martin Corp.* Francois-Simon Gauthier Pratt & Whitney Canada* Emily Hoiles Eaton, Aerospace Group* Bob Koukol Honeywell Aerospace* Ralph Kropp MTU Aero Engines* Eric Le Fort Sonaca* Marc-André Lefebvre Héroux-Devtek* Jeff Lott The Boeing Company


UNCONFIRMED

* Scott Maitland Collins Aerospace (Goodrich)* Robin McGuckin Bombardier Aerospace* Roger Merriman Textron Aviation* Steven Meyer Spirit AeroSystems* Scott O’Connor Honeywell Aerospace* Alex Olmedo Triumph Group* Ana Ottani dos Santos Embraer* John Pfeiffer GE Aviation Committee Chairperson* Per Rehndell GKN Aerospace Sweden AB* Norberto Roiz-Lafuente Airbus Defence & Space* Davide Salerno Leonardo S.p.A. Divisione Velivoli* Victor Schonberger Israel Aerospace Industries* Lindsey Shaw Raytheon Co.* David Soong Pratt & Whitney

Stanley Trull Honeywell Aerospace

Other Members/Participants Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

* Jonathan Hebben Avcorp Composite Fabrication SSC* Tommy Howland Lee Aerospace ASA

* Johanna Lisa Continental Heat Treating / Quality Heat Treating AQS

* Tammi Schubert Helicomb International M&I* Christopher Webb PCC Structurals, Inc. WLD* Wilfried Weber PFW Aerospace GmbH HT* Gary White Element Middleburg Heights NDT

PRI Staff Present

Mark AubeleMike GrahamConnie HessScott KlavonJim LewisBob LizewskiKellie O’Connor

John Pfeiffer reviewed the safety information and emergency exits in the Meeting Room. All attendees were advised to inform PRI Staff of any emergencies.

The Code of Ethics, Anti-Trust & Conflict of Interest was reviewed by John Pfeiffer.

The Committee agenda was reviewed.

Motion made by Craig Bowden and seconded by Pascal Blondet to approve the February 2019 NMC Standardization Committee minutes from New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. Motion Passed.

2.0 SUPPLIER MERIT


UNCONFIRMED

Victor Schonberger provided an update on the Supplier Merit Sub-Team’s activities. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

During the October 2018 Planning & Ops meeting, the Task Groups were requested to conduct an impact assessment. In this assessment, each Task Group selected a sample of 5% of audits with one or more nonconformances conducted between 01-Aug-2017 through 01-Aug-2018. The results were received, and the sub-team collated the results. Data shows that there would be a significant increase in the number of advisories required which would have a high impact on merit. The Standardization Committee felt that the requirement to classify an NCR as major per the guidelines provided to the Task Groups was correct. During the February 2019 Planning & Ops meeting, volunteers were added to the Merit Sub-Team to assist the team in developing standard criteria for issuing advisories.

The team recommends the following:

The auditee be given 7 days to respond to Major NCRs identified as Potential Product Impact.

o If no response is received in this timeframe, the SE/Reviewer will draft an advisory and formally submit it for TG Chair approval per OP1109.

o If responses are received and serve to alleviate the concern for potential product impact, the SE/Reviewer will “deselect” the “Potential/Confirmed Product Impact” box on the NCR and enter an explanation of their rationale. An advisory is not issued.

o If the response does not alleviate the concern for potential product impact, the SE/Reviewer will draft an advisory and formally submit it for TG Chair approval per OP1109.

The Standardization Committee was asked to review and agree to moving forward with next steps of this proposal:

The sub-team has agreed to the revised advisory criteria as presented. Need to assure time for Auditee to provide response to potential product impact major

findings. This would allow 7 days from the date the audit is initially submitted for Supplier Review.

o This response would not be counted as a cycle and would require an enhancement to eAuditNet and additional time for the Staff Engineer / Reviewer.

Remove Type P advisories from the Merit Criteria (OP 1111). Type C advisories will remain as criteria for merit.

Make sure its clear that only one advisory will be issued per audit. All Task Groups to perform a revised assessment on impact to merit using new criteria.

o Consider impact at 30%, 40%, 50% of Majors

Motion made by Ralph Kropp and seconded by Richard Blyth to move forward with the proposal above, and also include an assessment of impact to Staff Engineer time. Motion passed.

ACTION ITEM: Merit Sub-Team to communicate this plan to NMC Steering and at Planning & Ops. (Due Date: 05-Jun-2019, completed)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to evaluate impact of Merit Sub-Team’s proposal on Audit Reviewer workload. (Due Date: 21-Oct-2019)

ACTION ITEM: PRI to schedule meeting with Staff Engineers and Task Group Chairs to walk through the process and expectations. (Due Date: 31-Aug-2019)


UNCONFIRMED

3.0 REASONS FOR OVERTURNING FAILURE BALLOTS

Russ Cole presented information from the sub-team discussing Reasons for Overturning Failure Ballots. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

During the 2017 Oversight Audit, observation #3 was initiated because it appeared that failure ballots were being rejected by the Task Group when the audit exceeded failure criteria. Data was pulled to include every failure ballot in 2017 for all Task Groups. There were 142 audits submitted for a failure ballot, of which 48 (34%) of the failure ballots were rejected. This data was then reviewed for trends, specifically in regard to reasons for failure and reasons why an audit wasn’t failed after a failure ballot was submitted. The two most prevalent failure modes were “B” (number of NCR’s) and “D” (number of cycles). These two reasons accounted for 38 of the 48 re-worked audits.

The Task Groups requested guidance to promote consistency in failure ballots. The task groups have the right to make failure decisions but the approach needs to follow a consistent process.

The team offered the following proposed guidance:

Number of NCRs

If in the view of the Task Group Subscribers, NCR’s were improperly classified (Major/Minor), grouped, or invalid and the corrected number falls below the failure criteria, the failure ballot should be rejected. The ballot comment on the rejected ballot would need to identify the specific NCR’s that would be revised and the rationale if they vote to reject the ballot.

Note: OP 1110 currently requires the following in paragraph 4.3.3.2: “Votes to not fail an audit shall include a rationale for voting not to fail.”

Number of Cycles

If the number of cycles in eAuditNet are not valid, the TG should reject the failure ballot if the number of actual responses would therefore be below the limit imposed by OP 1110 (i.e. response submitted in error which shouldn’t count as a valid round).

Note: Staff Engineers are encouraged to take NCR’s to TG resolution early in the process to avoid wasted “rounds” of response. Additionally, the latest version of OP 1110, effective 26-Nov-2018, limits the number of permissible cycles after ballot to two (2). After that a new failure ballot is required.

Number of Cumulative Late Days

If the Auditee was not at fault for the number of days of delinquency, the Subscribers should ballot to not fail (e.g. eAuditNet issues). Illness, holidays, etc. are not reasons to reject a failure ballot. If the auditee is having issues in these areas, they need to communicate with the Audit Reviewer. He/she cannot grant extensions to the response due date, but will likely be able to provide guidance with responses and timing.

This guidance can be distributed to all Subscribers following this meeting, will be presented at Planning and Ops, and can also be added to New Task Group Member training. This item will also be added to next year’s Oversight audit for review.


UNCONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to add the presentation to TG Training provided for new Subscribers. (Due Date: 30-Sept-2019)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to distribute this presentation to all current Subscribers. (Due Date: 30-Aug-2019)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to add to closed meeting agenda of all Task Groups in October 2019. (Due date: 28-Jun-2019)

4.0 REDUNDANT AUDITS – SSC INITIATIVE

Jonathan Hebben gave a presentation on the Supplier Support Committee (SSC)’s initiative on Redundant Audits. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The current definition of a redundant audit was reviewed and the NMC was asked if this definition is still applicable. Additional requests of the NMC were to communicate the definition to Suppliers, have Subscribers re-sign the pledge to reduce redundant audits, and for Subscribers to communicate the purpose for their visit when they go to a Supplier facility.

It was suggested that PRI create a form and set up a separate email for Suppliers to report redundant audits. The Supplier will be asked to answer several questions, for example:

Who is the Subscriber? What was the purpose of the visit? Was a Nadcap checklist used?

It was recommended that the Standardization Committee form a sub-team to review the suggested actions and offer a proposed solution. The following individuals volunteered for the sub-team: Johanna Lisa, Gary White, Tammi Schubert , Richard Blyth (Lead), Bob Koukol, Victor Schonberger, Jonathan Hebben, Rusty Freelen, Craig Bowden, Tommy Howland and Mike Graham.

ACTION ITEM: Redundant Audit Sub-team to review the existing definition of a redundant audit along with the suggested actions, and offer a proposed solution. (Due Date: 21-Oct-2019)

5.0 SELF AUDIT

Jonathan Hebben presented the results of a survey sent to audit contacts from companies who have had audits since the self-audit requirement was added for feedback on the process. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

There was a 76% approval rating of the current self-audit process. For the disapprovals, while data is still being analyzed, there are several consistent topics:

Handbook improvement


UNCONFIRMED

Online completion of self-audit Format issues with Word and PDF, should be able to provide in any type of format Should be able to edit or remove documents once uploaded (corrections) Deadline to submit the self-audit

Any comments that were related to specific Task Groups will be passed along to those groups. It was noted that these comments were related to pre-audit documentation rather than the self-audit process.

ACTION ITEM: The Self-Audit sub-team who worked on the original project will reconvene to review the feedback from this survey and provide a recommendation to the Standardization Committee for any actions and/or communications that should be taken. Note: Mike Graham to add John Pfeiffer and Jonathan Hebben to the team. (Due Date: 21-Oct-2019)

ACTION ITEM: Mike Graham to review guidance provided to Auditors to determine expectations conveyed regarding the extent of the review of the self-audit documents prior to the audit. (Due Date: 21-Oct-2019)

6.0 NEW BUSINESS

6.1 AC7000 (Nadcap General Requirements Checklist) is currently on hold awaiting enhancements within eAuditNet. The target date for completion is Q2 or Q3 of 2019.

6.2 Pascal noted that there are currently only three types of advisories (P, C, F). There are three new types of advisories that were added to OP 1109 (‘E’ for extensions, ‘S’ for suspension, ‘W’ for withdrawals), which was balloted and approved. This document is currently on hold awaiting enhancements in eAuditNet. The requirements have been written, and the target date of completion is July 2019.

There was also a question as to whether a Type Q advisory should be added for situations when there are significant issues with the quality management system?

ACTION ITEM: A sub-team was formed to develop a recommendation regarding Type Q advisories. The sub-team members are Pascal Blondet - Lead, Alex Olmedo, Scott Maitland, Jeff Lott, Scott O’Connor, Craig Bowden, and Bob Lizewski. (Due Date: 21-Oct-2019)

It was also noted that PRI is currently revising all advisory notifications to make them more clear and identify which type of advisory it is in the notification.

6.3 Will PRI be developing an ethical behavior training? The Ethics and Appeals Committee currently has two sub-teams working on the topic of ethical behavior, one of which is looking at procedures, and the other is looking at ways to detect and prevent this behavior. The teams are still reviewing data and are not yet ready to determine whether there will be a training or how to bring awareness to the issue. This will be communicated at a later date by the teams working on this issue.

7.0 ROLLING ACTION ITEM LIST (RAIL)

7.1 Mike Graham reviewed status of Open Action Items from previous meetings and the following were closed:

STND-311 STND-316 STND-317 STND-319


UNCONFIRMED

Any new Action Items identified in the minutes will be added to the RAIL.

ADJOURNMENT – 04-Jun-2019 – Motion made by Bob Koukol and seconded by Richard Blyth to adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Minutes Prepared by: Kellie O’Connor [email protected]

***** For PRI Staff use only: ******

Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting? (select one)

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*If yes, the following information is required:Documents requiring revision: Who is responsible: Due date:

mailto:[email protected]