Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- articles:pbs_rp_program [2023/01/17 17:10] – rrandall
+++ articles:pbs_rp_program [2023/05/15 09:56] (current) – rrandall
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Existing AS9100 Registered companies have the option to apply for the "Performance-based Surveillance/Recertification Process" (Described in [[https://www.sae.org/standards/content/as9104/1a/|SAE AS9104/1A]], "Appendix D"). This option allows for a 33% Reduction in the Audit Duration (Maximum of 50%). The criteria for this option are defined in AS9104/1A, "//Table D.1 - Performance-based Surveillance/Recertification Process Requirements//".
+<WRAP center round important 80%>
+As of May 2023 I've learned that ANAB has added requirements that will make compliance with the PBS/RP virtually impossible. And several CBs are already discouraging companies from opting into this program.
+</WRAP>
 ^  Table D.1 - Performance based surveillance/recertification process qualification  ^
@@ Line 21: / Line 25: @@
 C. Implementation of an Internal Audit Program in accordance with [[https://www.iso.org/standard/70017.html|ISO 19011]] can be subjective because [[https://www.iso.org/standard/70017.html|ISO 19011:2018, "Guidelines for auditing management systems"]] is a GUIDANCE document... NOT a standard. The word "shall" does not appear in any section of ISO 19011 other than the "Foreword".
-<note>I asked an AS9104/1A committee member "how" the AS9100 Auditors would be determining compliance with ISO 19011. His response was "//Based on our conversations within the writing team, the __intent__ of that standard is what they are going for.//" (sic) However, he also noted that "//the IAQG could always come out with a clear ruling//" (sic) at a later date.</note>
+<WRAP center round info 80%>
+I asked an AS9104/1A committee member "how" the AS9100 Auditors would be determining compliance with ISO 19011. His response was that the word "should" must be read as "shall".
+</WRAP>
 D. The "//PBS/RP Qualification Requirements and Criteria//" requiring internal auditors to have successfully completed an "Aviation, Space and Defense (ASD)" Lead Auditor Course provided by a "[[https://www.iaqg.org/oasis/viewtpab|Training Provider Approval Body (TPAB)]]" (Must login to [[https://www.iaqg.org/oasis/login|OASIS]] to view listing) is misleading because the ONLY TPAB in the USA is [[https://www.sae-itc.org/probitas/|Probitas Authentication]]; and they do not provide "Aviation, Space and Defense (ASD)" Lead Auditor Courses. Instead, they authenticate AQMS training courses and AQMS training provider administration practices. The [[https://www.iaqg.org/oasis/viewatp|ATPs - "Approved Training Providers"]] appearing in OASIS are all of their "Approved Training Providers" (Must login to [[https://www.iaqg.org/oasis/login|OASIS]] to view listing). \\
@@ Line 31: / Line 37: @@
 H. Meeting customer satisfaction metrics (established by the company), must be based upon customer-provided data. Due to the subjective nature of "Customer-Satisfaction Surveys" (e.g., [[https://www.typeform.com/|TypeForm]]), I generally discourage their use. However, in order to satisfy this requirement, there may not be sufficient alternative options. If a company does utilize these types of surveys, then I suggest that the surveys and resulting data be handled through the Marketing function rather than the Quality function (because Quality Professionals have little or no training in the development and use of these types of surveys).
-A better alternative is "Supplier Scorecards" provided from customers (e.g., [[https://www.cpars.gov/|CPARs - Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System]]), but these are not always available.
+A better alternative is "Supplier Scorecards" provided by larger aerospace customers (e.g., Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon) or [[https://www.cpars.gov/|CPARs (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System)]] provided by government customers. However, these are not always available.
+{{page>wiki:pathforward}}