opening comments - performance review institute · web viewconfirmed minutes 2 0-jun-201 8 london,...

NMC PLANNING & OPERATIONSJUNE 2018

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTES20-JUN-2018

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM

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

WEDNESDAY, 20-JUN-2018

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS

1.1 Call to Order / Quorum Check

The Nadcap Management Council (NMC) Planning & Operations meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m., 20-Jun-2018.

There was one invited guest of the Chairperson: Allen Schrandt (Textron Aviation).

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber NMC Members Present (* Indicates NMC Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Latch Anguelov SAFRAN Group* Tomohiko Ashikaga Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Inc.* Pascal Blondet Airbus Commercial Aircraft* Richard Blyth Rolls-Royce NMC Chairperson* Craig Bowden BAE Systems – Air & Information (UK)* Daniel Calderwood BAE Systems – Air & Information (UK)* Jeff Cerre Textron Aviation* Russ Cole Northrop Grumman* Bob Koukol Honeywell Aerospace* Ralph Kropp MTU Aero Engines AG* Marc-André Lefebvre Héroux-Devtek* Jeff Lott The Boeing Company* Scott Maitland UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)* Robin McGuckin Bombardier Aerospace* Roger Merriman Textron Aviation* Steven Meyer Spirit AeroSystems* Scott O’Connor Honeywell Aerospace * John Pfeiffer GE Aviation* Norberto Roiz-Lafuente Airbus Defence & Space* Victor Schonberger Israel Aerospace Industries

Allen Schrandt Textron Aviation

Supplier NMC Members Present (* indicates NMC Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

* Jim Cummings Metal Finishing Company Chemical Processing* Dale Harmon Cincinnati Thermal Spray Supplier Support Committee* Jonathan Hebben Avcorp Composite Fabrication Composites* Johanna Lisa Continental Heat Treating Aerospace Quality Systems* Tammi Schubert Helicomb International Measurement & Inspection* Christopher Webb PCC Structurals Inc. Welding


CONFIRMED

* Wilfried Weber PFW Aerospace GmbH Heat Treating

Task Group Chairpersons/Vice Chairpersons Present (*indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

* Chuck Beargie UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Conventional Machining as a Special Process

* Albert Berger GE Aviation Measurement & Inspection* Roger Bloomfield UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Electronics* Zeljko Calija UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Nonconventional Machining & Surface

Enhancement* Kent DeFranco Lockheed Martin Corp. Sealants* Mark Emerson Rolls-Royce Heat Treating* David Gil Alipi Honeywell Aerospace Conventional Machining as a Special

Process* Dan Graves UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Materials Testing Laboratories* Manuel Koucouthakis Honeywell Aerospace Elastomer Seals* Holger Krueger Airbus Commercial Aircraft Welding* Tim Krumholz Rockwell Collins Aerospace Quality Systems* Vijay Kumar Lockheed Martin Corp. Electronics* Chris Lowe Spirit AeroSystems Aero Structures Assembly* Joel Mohnacky UTC Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand) Coatings* Richard Perrett GKN Aerospace, Filton Composites* Amanda Rickman Raytheon Co. Materials Testing Laboratories* Dave Royce Pratt & Whitney Nondestructive Testing* Mike Schmidt GE Aviation Nonconventional Machining & Surface

Enhancement* Steve Starr Honeywell Aerospace Chemical Processing* Brian Streich Honeywell Aerospace Metallic Materials Manufacturing* Steve Tooley Rolls-Royce Welding* Cyril Vernault SAFRAN Group Heat Treating* Shawn Vierthaler Spirit AeroSystems Chemical Processing* Tony Warren Airbus Commercial Aircraft Nondestructive Testing

PRI Staff Present

Ethan AkinsJerry AstonLinda BeeneMark BurvalNigel CookMarcel CupermanPhil FordSusan FraileyConnie HessRob HoethMark HunkeleScott KlavonCrystal KurtykaGabe KustraJim LewisBob LizewskiDave MarcyjanikJulia MarkardtChristine NesbittKellie O’Connor


CONFIRMED

Keith PurnellJustin RauschGlenn ShultzIan SimpsonAndy StathamMichele StefanchikJon SteffeyElizabeth StranoJohn TibmaKevin Wetzel

1.2 Richard Blyth noted that this meeting is for NMC Voting Members, Task Group Chairs, Vice Chairs, and PRI Staff.

1.3 Code of Ethics, Anti-Trust & Conflict of Interest

The PRI code of ethics, anti-trust and conflict of interest policy was reviewed.

1.4 The Planning and Ops Agenda was reviewed.

1.5 Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes

Motion made by Mark Emerson and seconded by John Pfeiffer to confirm the minutes from the previous meeting. Motion passed and the February 2018 NMC Planning & Operations meeting minutes were approved as written.

2.0 RAIL REVIEW – OPEN

The current Rolling Action Item List (RAIL) was reviewed. For specific details, please see the attached RAIL.

3.0 AUDIT EFFECTIVENESS

Jim Lewis gave an update on the current activities of the NMC Audit Effectiveness sub-team. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The sub-team is currently working on an eAuditNet enhancement to allow Auditees to have multiple audit contacts – targeted completion 3rd Quarter 2018. In addition to this, Task Groups were requested to work with their Auditors during the Auditor Conference to identify specific issues related difference in language between Auditor and Auditee. Attendees are requested to provide any feedback from the June conference to Jim Lewis.

The team has developed a process for formal request for Task Group action when Subscribers identify issues that they feel should have been identified during previous Nadcap Audits. Task Group to submit results of a Root Cause Corrective Action investigation to NMC. The first one was piloted and resulted in a request to void it. The second one is currently in review by the Task Group. Lessons learned include: A need to document a process for voiding/requesting a void of a Task Group Corrective Action Report (TGCAR); TGCARs need to be presented to Task Groups


CONFIRMED

in a timely manner; and TGCARs should provide comprehensive data/information in support of the non-compliances they found - this would give Task Groups a better understanding of the issue(s) and enable a more effective TGCAR investigation with the potential for identifying opportunities for process improvement.

The Sub-Team has determined that it is time to go back to the Task Groups for additional feedback, as was done previously in 2015.

ACTION ITEM: Task Group Staff Engineers to allocate 30-minutes of time on their October 2018 Auditor Conference agendas to allow the NMC Audit Effectiveness team to address auditors. (Due Date: 31-Aug-2018)

Moving forward, this week was the last Audit Effectiveness Sub-Team meeting. NMC has approved forming a standing Continuous Improvement Committee, and all Audit Effectiveness activities will be incorporated into this committee.

4.0 NADCAP AUDITEES WITH NO AEROSPACE JOB AUDITS

Jim Lewis gave an update on the NMC Sub-Team related to Nadcap auditees without Aerospace job audits. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The sub-team has completed some actions to address this issue, including a revision to OP 1114, which was released 27-Apr-2018 (paragraph 4.5.1 Task Groups shall define a process to evaluate compliance with aerospace/defense requirements to ensure process capability when aerospace/defense production work is not available at the time of the audit and/or the Auditee has no Subscriber customers), as well as a revision to OP 1105, which was released 1-May-2018, effective 29-Jul-2018 (paragraph 4.3 The Auditee shall identify all known Subscriber customers in eAuditNet prior to the audit).

In addition to the above, additional actions are in process to address this issue, such as:

Add required checklist question to t-frm-15 regarding identifying customers There is a current proposal being reviewed to address NMC level requirements in

checklists which affects this eAuditNet enhancement to require Subscriber customers be identified prior to completing

scope verification Auditees will have options for None, Other, and Unknown, as well as the Subscriber

list An Auditee will not be able to proceed past scope verification without confirming that

they have reviewed their customer list and that what they’ve selected is accurate ECD Q3 2018

eAuditNet Enhancement 1064 submitted – Designation on the QML if in-process job audits could not be conducted on aerospace/defense parts

This will now be included in the QML redesign ECD Q1 2019

5.0 STANDARDIZATION COMMITTEE SUB-TEAM ON SUPPLIER MERIT


CONFIRMED

Victor Schonberger presented on the NMC Merit Sub-Team, which is part of the NMC Standardization Committee. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The sub-team has been working to address the following problems: prevent NCRs requiring Subscriber feedback to drive merit (and subsequently reduce appeals); reduce element of “luck”; standardize the process among Task Groups; standardize issuance of advisories among Task Groups; find a simple and fair solution. The team has determined a number of goals, divided into two stages:

Stage 1: Address the faulty process directly. Completely disassociate it from MRB Disposition of specific instances. Address conditions that have the potential to adversely impacts hardware. Standardize the process amongst Task Groups.

Stage 2: Standardize advisory process.

The team will also ensure that the new process does not significantly impact merit, ensuring that it is clearly understood and ready for implementation (e.g. classification of NCRs), and does not overwhelm Task Groups with advisories.

The sub-team is recommending the following actions:

Revise the NCR Screen to remove the “Supplier to Evaluate Impact on Hardware” checkbox and replace with “Potential or Confirmed Product Impact”.

Merit will be granted based on the info available at the time the audit is closed. A supplier advisory may be required if an issue is found to have actual or potential impact

on hardware at the direction of the Staff Engineer / Task Group chair. The auditor, reviewer, or affected Subscriber may identify the fact that there was hardware impact or they were concerned about the potential.

The sub-team proposed the following definition for Potential Product Impact:

A nonconformance to the technical requirements defined in the applicable specification, purchase order or drawing or any other circumstance that is likely to impact the integrity of the product;Or A systemic nonconformance that has a reasonable potential to cause impact to hardware if not corrected. (e.g. cases of failure to flow down customer requirements).

The sub-team requests each Task Group to develop their guidelines and examples; also discuss advisory process. Examples must take the new advisory process into consideration. Task Groups are to develop examples specific to their commodity on when a spec/drawing violation would not be considered a major finding based on the guidelines already developed by the merit team and submit to Mike Graham by 30-Aug-2018 for tabulation. The sub-team will review tabulated data the first/second week of September 2018, and depending on the outcome of the review, the team may opt to hold a conference call with the Task Groups (Chair/Vice Chair and SE) the third week of September to review their proposals with the Merit Team.


CONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff, Task Groups and NMC merit sub-team to investigate and make proposal to NMC Standardization Committee on changes to ‘Potential or Confirmed Product Impact’ NCR criterion. (Due Date: 18-Feb-2019)

Task Groups to make any changes as necessary by 15-Oct-2018. A go-forward plan would be developed and presented to NMC Standardization and rolled out in P&O at October Meeting.

November 2018-January 2019 – TGs perform assessment of 5% of audits to determine impact on merit

Mid-January 2019 – Merit Team to review results of assessment February 2019 – Merit Team Presents to NMC Standardization Note: based on the results of the evaluation, the merit (and failure) criteria may need to

be adjusted.

6.0 ITAR WHERE THERE IS NONE

This item was not presented, as the sub-team did not meet in London.

7.0 TASK GROUP REPORT ITEMS

7.1 Nonconventional Machining / Surface Enhancement (NMSE) Adding Days to Audits – P&O-77

The NMSE Task Group noted that they presented to the NMC Globalization & Strategy Committee, and it was approved to move forward with their proposal to change the audit length based on the number and types of machines. This was also then approved by NMC Steering.

This item is now closed.

7.2 Creation of Work Area for Staff Engineers – P&O-67

Justin Rausch reported on activity concerning the creation of a work area for Staff Engineers to discuss useful methods of training auditors. For more details, please see the attached document.

This item has now been created on PRI’s Sharepoint, and is now completed.

8.0 TASK GROUP DISCUSSION TIME

8.1 Audit Failure Process Consistency

Richard Blyth presented on Failure Process Consistency. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

During the 2017 Oversight audit, Observation #3 was initiated because it appeared that on at least some occasions the Staff Engineer recommendation for failure was being overturned by the Task Group. Following this, data was pulled to include every failure ballot in 2017 for all Task Groups. There were 142 audits submitted for a failure ballot; of those 48 were not subsequently


CONFIRMED

failed but were reworked or about 34%. 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.

Following this review, it was determined there are two prevalent reasons for re-work accounting for 77% of all re-worked audits: Number of NCRs and Number of Cycles. It is possible that the best way to handle this issue of inconsistency in regards to failure ballots is to simply discuss it in an open format among the Task Groups. There is no mandate coming from this meeting that is to be flowed down by the NMC. This effort was never meant to force certain behaviors. The only expectation is to have an open discussion with Task Groups and Staff Engineers sharing some best practices. Perhaps Task Groups can use the dialog to improve their own process as it concerns failure ballots.

Richard noted that there is no need to change the process or procedure unless the Task Groups discuss this and decide it is necessary.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to distribute presentation on Audit Failure Process Consistency to the Task Group Chairs and Staff Engineers for further discussion and review. (Due Date: 21-Jun-2018, COMPLETED)

ACTION ITEM: Each Task Group will review the Audit Failure Process Consistency data and submit results on slide 6 to Mark Aubele for reporting out at the October 2018 Planning & Ops meeting. (Due Date: 30-Sep-2018)

9.0 OTHER ISSUES / NEW BUSINESS / DISCUSSION

9.1 During the June 2018 Auditor Conference, multiple auditors have complained about not having internet access at suppliers’ locations. Is there something that can be done?

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to look at potential solutions for auditors having internet access during audits. (Due Date: 30-Sep-2018)

9.2 Auditor Observations

When a Subscriber is having an audit, is it acceptable for another member of that company conduct the observation?

A draft of this procedure is now in ballot, which states that this will be permitted, provided they are not responsible for that area (i.e. there is no conflict of interest).

9.3 The Heat Treating Task Group requested that when voting on an audit, and the voting member provides a comment, an email would be automatically sent to the Subscriber Voting Members of the Task Group to alert them of the comment.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff (Bob Lizewski and Jon Steffey) to investigate if changes to the e-mail notification which is sent when a Subscriber comments on an audit ballot, can include the actual verbiage rather than requiring login to eAuditNet to review. (Due Date: 30-Sep-2018)

9.4 Welding Task Group had a concern about one of their suppliers who were recently found to be conducting fraudulent activities. This supplier has now scheduled their next audit, and the concern is that they will achieve accreditation without the underlying issue being investigated and resolved.

OP 1124 is currently in ballot with a revision to address this issue. The NMC has formed a sub-team to determine whether the document revision would have addressed the recent issues regarding fraudulent activity.


CONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: The new NMC Sub-Team under Ethics & Appeals for fraudulent activity to investigate the process for re-entry into the Nadcap program after a Supplier’s accreditation has been withdrawn as a result of significant issues outside of the Nadcap audit. (Due Date: 28-Feb-2019)

9.5 What happens to the annual auditor consistency reports that get submitted to the Oversight Committee by the Task Groups? Where is the feedback on the comments they have made?

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to collate the Annual Auditor Consistency Report information that is provided by the Task Groups for NMC Oversight review and subsequent feedback to Task Groups if required. (Due Date: 30-Sep-2018)

9.6 Can the auditor handbooks be moved to the checklists folder in eAuditNet? It would be helpful to have all the documents in one location.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to evaluate if the handbooks can be placed in the Checklists folder on eAuditNet during SE SWAT. (Due Date: 30-Sep-2018)

9.7 RAIL Review

New actions identified during this meeting will be added to the RAIL. Action Items #56, 59, 68, 69, 70, and 72 were closed based on presentations/actions taken at this meeting. Action Items #45, #66, #67, & #71 remain open. All new actions have been added to the RAIL.

9.8 Meeting Feedback

No feedback was received.

10.0 ADJOURNMENT – 20-JUN-2018

Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.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]