opening comments - performance review institute · web viewconfirmed minutes 2 1-feb-201 8 madrid,...

NMC PLANNING & OPERATIONSFEBRUARY 2018

CONFIRMED

CONFIRMED MINUTES21-FEB-2018

MADRID, SPAIN

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, 21-FEB-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., 21-Feb-2018.

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber NMC Voting Members Present (* Indicates Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Tomohiko Ashikaga Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.* David Bale Pratt & Whitney Canada* Richard Blyth Rolls-Royce Chairperson* Craig Bowden BAE Systems – MAI (UK)* Steve Dix Eaton, Aerospace Group

Rusty Freelen Lockheed Martin Corp.* Dave Hansen US Air Force* Wendy Jiang COMAC* Bob Koukol Honeywell Aerospace* Ralph Kropp MTU Aero Engines* Marc-André Lefebvre Héroux-Devtek* Jeff Lott The Boeing Company* Scott Maitland UTC Aerospace (Goodrich)* Robin McGuckin Bombardier Aerospace* Frank McManus Lockheed Martin Corp. Vice Chairperson* Roger Merriman Textron Aviation* Steven Meyer Spirit AeroSystems* Ana Ottani dos Santos Embraer SA* John Pfeiffer GE Aviation* Scott Porterfield Triumph Group* Fabrizio Quadrini Leonardo Helicopters* Per Rehndell GKN Aerospace Sweden AB* Davide Salerno Leonardo Aircraft* Victor Schonberger Israel Aerospace Industries* Lindsey Shaw Raytheon Co.* David Soong Pratt & Whitney* Scott Wheatley Rockwell Collins

Supplier NMC Voting Members Present (* indicates NMC Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

* Jim Cummings Metal Finishing Co. Chemical Processing* Dale Harmon Cincinnati Thermal Spray Supplier Support Committee Chair


CONFIRMED

* Tammi Schubert Helicomb International Measurement & Inspection* Christopher Webb PCC Structurals, Inc. Welding* Wilfried Weber PFW Aerospace GmbH Heat Treating

Task Group Chairpersons/Vice Chairpersons Present

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

Randy Armstrong Raytheon Co. CompositesChuck Beargie UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Conventional Machining as a Special

ProcessAlbert Berger GE Aviation Measurement & InspectionRoger Bloomfield UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) ElectronicsZeljko Calija UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Nonconventional Machining / Surface

EnhancementKent DeFranco Lockheed Martin Corp. SealantsMark Emerson Rolls-Royce Heat TreatingJocelyn Fortin SAFRAN Group Nonconventional Machining / Surface

EnhancementDavid Gil Alipi Honeywell Aerospace Conventional Machining as a Special

ProcessDan Graves UTC Aerospace (Goodrich) Materials Testing LaboratoriesManuel Koucouthakis Honeywell Aerospace Elastomer SealsHolger Krueger Airbus WeldingTim Krumholz Rockwell Collins Aerospace Quality SystemsVijay Kumar Lockheed Martin Corp. ElectronicsChris Lowe Spirit AeroSystems Aero Structures AssemblyJoel Mohnacky UTC Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand) CoatingsRichard Perrett GKN Aerospace CompositesDavid N. Royce Pratt & Whitney Nondestructive TestingUdo Schuelke Honeywell Aerospace CoatingsSteve Starr Honeywell Aerospace Chemical ProcessingBrian Streich Honeywell Aerospace Metallic Materials ManufacturingSteve Tooley Rolls-Royce WeldingCyril Vernault SAFRAN Group Heat TreatingShawn Vierthaler Spirit AeroSystems Chemical ProcessingTony Warren Airbus Nondestructive Testing

PRI Staff Present

Ethan AkinsJerry AstonMark AubeleMark BurvalNigel CookMarcel CupermanPhil FordSusan FraileyHannah GodfreyMichael GrahamConnie HessRob HoethMark HunkeleScott KlavonCrystal Kurtyka


CONFIRMED

Gabe KustraJim LewisBob LizewskiDave MarcyjanikJulia MarkardtChristine NesbittKellie O’ConnorJoe PintoKeith PurnellJustin RauschGlenn ShultzIan SimpsonAndy StathamLouise StefanakisJon 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 Craig Bowden and seconded by John Pfeiffer to confirm the minutes from the previous meeting. Motion passed and the October 2017 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.

Some of the current in-process items are:


CONFIRMED

eAuditNet enhancement request submitted – allow Auditees to have multiple audit contacts – targeted completion 2nd Quarter 2018

eAuditNet enhancement request submitted – allow Auditors to add questions/ comments to specific checklist questions during the audit process for potential revision of the checklist

Evaluating Effectiveness Survey given to auditors biennially to ensure that it addresses Audit Effectiveness and drives feedback from Auditors

Developing a process to get feedback from auditors after termination

Some other recent activities of the sub-team include:

Auditor Languageo Evaluated data for audits where auditor does not speak the same language as

the facility to determine if there are differences in the number of NCRs. 2.755 - All Audits 2.758 - English Countries 2.750 - Other than English 2.813 - Local Language Available - Not Used 2.763 - Local Language Available - Used

o No appreciable difference noted.o Task Groups are requested to work with their Auditors to identify if there are

other issues regarding language that the sub-team has missed. Feedback requested to Jim Lewis after June meeting

Task Group Root Cause Corrective Action (RCCA) Processo 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.

o Task Group to submit results of an RCCA investigation to NMC.o This will be piloted prior to adding it in procedure.

Moving forward, the Audit Effectiveness sub-team will become a permanent standing NMC Committee related to Continuous Improvement, which was approved in Madrid at the NMC Steering Meeting. The Committee will determine a metric that can be used to measure improvement in Audit Effectiveness and will continue to identify other improvement opportunities.

4.0 NADCAP AUDITEES WITHOUT A SUBSCRIBER

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

Some of the actions to address this issue include:

o Add statement to OP 1114 – Document revision process has started 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.

o Add statement to OP 1105 – Document revision process has started The Auditee shall identify all known Subscriber customers in eAuditNet prior to

the audit.


CONFIRMED

o Add required checklist question to t-frm-15 – Will be coordinated to complete with OP 1104 revision

Did the Auditee identify their known Subscriber customers in eAuditNet prior to the audit?

NA applies when there are no known Subscriber customers.o Identify auditees without a Subscriber customer with a Qualified Manufacturers List

(QML) designation. Requirements for this designation are: At least 1 in-process job must be to an aerospace or defense specification on

production material. Cannot be scrap hardware Cannot be test coupons (except of course for when the job is a test)

Acceptable if the end-user is not known or is a non-Subscribing prime, as long as the job is processed to an aerospace or defense specification.

The job can be reprocessing of a previously processed part as long as it does not affect hardware (e.g. no strip and recoat).

For testing, the job can be retesting of a previously tested specimen but must include the whole preparation and testing process.

The designation will be removed if an Add Scope audit is performed that includes an in-process aerospace/defense job audit.

Proposed to only be visible to Subscribers.

5.0 STANDARDIZATION COMMITTEE SUB-TEAM ON SUPPLIER MERIT

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 TG’s; 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 TG’s.

Stage 2: Standardize advisory process.

There are a few concerns that will need to be considered as the team’s activities move forward. These include assuring that the suggested new process does not significantly impact merit ratio, ensuring that it is clearly understood and ready for implementation (e.g. classification of NCR’s), and not to overwhelm Task Groups with advisories.

The sub-team has developed a proposed definition for “Potential Product Impact”: A nonconformance to 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 is recommending the following actions:


CONFIRMED

Revise the NCR Screen to remove the “Supplier to Evaluate Impact on Hardware” checkbox and replace with “Actual or Potential 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 took a small sample to conduct data analysis and determine the possible impact on merit from the proposed changes. However, analysis will need to be conducted on a statistically significant sample, therefore the Task Groups will eventually be requested to conduct this analysis on audits from their commodity. In preparation for this, the Task Groups are requested to provide feedback with their thoughts and concerns on this process to the sub-team, the team will work to provide further instructions with clear guidelines on how to perform this analysis.

ACTION ITEM: Task Groups to provide feedback to Mike Graham what their concerns are related to the Supplier Merit sub-team proposal, which was previously emailed to the Task Groups on 29-Jan-2018. (Due Date: 1-May-2018)

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff (Mike Graham) to distribute the definition of Potential Product Impact and additional guidance to the Task Groups. (Due Date: 15-Mar-2018)

6.0 OPTION B ACCREDITATION PROCESS

Bob Lizewski gave an update on the Option B Subscriber Accreditation process and how it works. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The primary difference between Standard and Subscriber Accreditation options is access to audit data, as only selected Subscribers can see Subscriber audit data. By using the Subscriber Accreditation option, Subscriber Auditees can limit access to their audit data. Subscriber Accreditation also provides the option of an alternative method for conducting audits.

There are two accreditation options for Subscriber Accreditation; A & B. Option A is identical to the Standard Option with the exception of data access. All facilities are audited by PRI Auditors, and the audits are eligible for the Merit Program. Option B is significantly different. The majority of audits are conducted by the Subscriber’s Internal Auditors that have been qualified to the Option B requirements, with only a sample of audits conducted by PRI Auditors. All facilities are audited annually, and merit is not available for Option B participants. An Option B Headquarters audit is conducted to ensure compliance with the Option B requirements defined in OP 1122, OP 1104 Annex A and OP 1116 Annex A.

7.0 AUDIT OBSERVATION REPORT


CONFIRMED

Bob Lizewski gave an update from the 2017 audit observations. There were 162 observations conducted, which was the highest number ever. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

There were 160 reports completed, of which 6 reports the Auditor Did Not Meet the expectation of the Subscriber. The most cited items for the Did Not Meet were: Effectiveness (of the Audit Criteria); Auditor verified and documented the applicable checklist questions that covered the entire scope of the audit; Auditor carries and refers to the checklist during the audit while in the shop; and Time (audit length). There were also some that were rated Meets, but Opportunity for Improvement, where the most cited items were: Auditor exhibited proper knowledge of PRIME/OEM requirements; Clarity (of the Audit Criteria); and Professionalism.

8.0 TASK GROUP REPORT ITEMS

8.1 HT and MTL Issue

Jim Lewis gave an update on the status of the issue between the Heat Treating (HT) and Materials Testing Laboratories (MTL) issue that was identified in October 2016. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The Heat Treat Task Group had requested that Heat Treat auditors witness the tests being carried out, but do not record the job audit data in the checklists. Since the previous meeting, the Heat Treat Task Group has agreed to withdraw this request. After being in place for over a year, the feedback from the HT auditors has not confirmed this as an issue. The Heat Treat and Materials Testing Task Groups will continue to work together to modify their Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)s to eliminate some of the confusion and come to mutually acceptable agreements.

This issue is now considered closed.

8.2 Planning & Ops Calibration Sub-Team

Chuck Beargie gave an update on the Calibration Sub-Team’s activities. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

The proposed definitions are:

Calibration — The controlled and documented process of comparing a monitoring and measuring equipment’s measurements to traceable standards over the utilized operating range. Then, if necessary, making the necessary adjustments to correct any out-of-tolerance conditions to assure required range, accuracy and resolution output of the instrument.

Standardization — For monitoring and measuring equipment that require adjustment due to normal drift based upon environment, age of probe, electronics, and other parameters, use of traceable calibration standards and a defined procedure to adjust the monitoring and measuring equipment’s measurements.


CONFIRMED

Verification — Using a traceable known stable reference, confirmation that the calibration or standardization of a monitoring and measuring equipment is acceptable without any form of adjustment.

It was determined that following the sub-team’s activities, this item should be closed, and now passed to the NMC, along with the feedback from the Task Groups to determine if we should move forward with a standard definition across Nadcap, or whether each Task Group should create their own definition.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to solicit feedback from the Task Groups on the definitions for calibration, standardization, and verification for consideration in determining the path forward. (Due Date: 1-May-2018)

ACTION ITEM: NMC to determine if the definitions are acceptable to standardize across Nadcap or if each Task Group should create their own definition, considering the feedback from the Task Groups on the current proposed definitions. (Due Date: 22-Jun-2018)

8.3 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 list will be distributed to the Task Groups and a place to house this information will be determined.

9.0 TASK GROUP DISCUSSION TIME

9.1 Planning & Ops Summary Report

Mark Aubele noted the report for each meeting is not being fully completed in preparation for each meeting. For more details, please see the attached presentation. The Task Groups are encouraged to bring items forward that they would like to discuss.

Richard Blyth also noted that the NMC Metrics Committee is also now presenting an equitable contribution metrics at each Nadcap Meeting.

9.2 Audit Failure Process Consistency

Due to time constraints, this item was not discussed, and will instead be discussed at the next PRI Staff Engineer (SE) SWAT team meeting.

ACTION ITEM: Audit Failure Process Consistency to be presented by Richard Blyth and discussed at PRI’s next SE SWAT Team meeting. (Due Date: 07-Mar-2018)

10.0 OTHER ISSUES / NEW BUSINESS / DISCUSSION

10.1 Control of data

The minimum amount of time that a Supplier Advisory is to be retained is 7 years. However, there was a concern that perhaps the history needs to be retained longer than that. It was noted that although 7 years is the requirement, in practice all advisories are maintained in eAuditNet since its inception in November 2002.


CONFIRMED

10.2 A question was asked by the Nonconventional Machining & Surface Enhancement (NMSE) Task Group regarding whether the number of audit days can be based to the number of machines and job audits. It was determined that the Task Group can make that decision, however the Task Group should consider a roll-out and notification plan to make suppliers aware.

ACTION ITEM: The NMSE Task Group to report back to the NMC Globalization & Strategy Committee in June 2018. (Due Date: 19-Jun-2018)

10.3 RAIL Review

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

10.4 Meeting Feedback

No feedback was received.

11.0 ADJOURNMENT – 21-FEB-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]