OPENING COMMENTS - Performance Review Institute · Web viewMotion made by Jeff Lott and seconded by Roger Merriman to confirm the minutes from the previous meeting with one amendment,

NMC PLANNING & OPERATIONSJUNE 2019

UNCONFIRMED

UNCONFIRMED MINUTES05-JUN-2019

PARIS, FRANCE

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, 05-JUN-2019

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., 05-Jun-2019 by NMC Chairperson Bob Koukol. This meeting is restricted to members of the Nadcap Management Council, Task Group Chairs (CHR) and Vice Chairs (VCH), and PRI Staff.

A quorum was established with the following representatives in attendance:

Subscriber Members Present (* Indicates NMC Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME

* Latch Anguelov SAFRAN Group* Tomohiko Ashikaga Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Chuck Beargie Collins Aerospace (Goodrich)* Marion Blacas Airbus Helicopters* Pascal Blondet Airbus Commercial Aircraft

Roger Bloomfield Collins Aerospace (Goodrich)* Richard Blyth Rolls-Royce* Craig Bowden BAE Systems – Air (UK) NMC Vice Chairperson* Florian Breyer Liebherr-Aerospace SAS* Daniel Calderwood BAE Systems – Air (UK)

Zeljko Calija Collins Aerospace (Goodrich)Tara Campbell Rolls-Royce

* Jeff Cerre Textron Aviation* Russell Cole Northrop Grumman* Alessio Colombara Leonardo Helicopters

Kent DeFranco Lockheed Martin Corp.Mark Emerson Rolls-RoyceJocelyn Fortin SAFRAN Group

* Rusty Freelen Lockheed Martin Corp.* Francois-Simon Gauthier Pratt & Whitney Canada

David Gil Alipi Honeywell AerospaceMitch Gourley Textron AviationClaudia Granados Honeywell AerospaceDan Graves Collins Aerospace (Goodrich)

* Greg Hall Northrop GrummanMilan Hanyk Honeywell AerospaceManuel Koucouthakis Honeywell Aerospace

* Bob Koukol Honeywell Aerospace NMC Chairperson* Ralph Kropp MTU Aero Engines AG

Vijay Kumar Lockheed Martin Corp.* Eric Le Fort Sonaca* Marc-André Lefebvre Héroux-Devtek* Jeff Lott The Boeing Company


UNCONFIRMED

* Dan Loveless Parker AerospaceChris Lowe Spirit AeroSystems

* Scott Maitland Collins Aerospace (Goodrich)Steve McCool Honeywell Aerospace

* Roger Merriman Textron Aviation* Steven Meyer Spirit AeroSystems

Joel Mohnacky Collins Aerospace (Hamilton Sundstrand)* Scott O’Connor Honeywell Aerospace* Alex Olmedo Triumph Group

Richard Perrett GKN Aerospace Filton* John Pfeiffer GE Aviation* Per Rehndell GKN Aerospace Sweden AB

Steve Row Collins Aerospace (Goodrich)* Davide Salerno Leonardo S.p.A. Divisione Velivoli* Victor Schonberger Israel Aerospace Industries* Lindsey Shaw Raytheon Co.* David Soong Pratt & Whitney

Steve Starr Honeywell AerospaceBrian Streich Honeywell AerospaceSteve Tooley Rolls-RoyceCyril Vernault SAFRAN GroupShawn Vierthaler Spirit AeroSystemsTony Warren Airbus Commercial Aircraft

Other Members Present (* indicates NMC Voting Member)

NAME COMPANY NAME TASK GROUP

* Jonathan Hebben Avcorp Composite Fabrication Supplier Support Committee* Elizabeth Herman Kaman Composites Composites

* Johanna Lisa Continental Heat Treating / Quality Heat Treating Aerospace Quality Systems

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

PRI Staff Present

Ethan AkinsDavid AlexanderJerry AstonMark AubeleLinda BeeneMark BurvalNigel CookMarcel CupermanRon CurryPhil FordSusan FraileyMike GrahamConnie HessRob HoethMark HunkeleSarah JordanScott KlavonGabe KustraJim LewisBob Lizewski


UNCONFIRMED

Dave MarcyjanikChristine NesbittKellie O’ConnorKeith PurnellJustin RauschGlenn ShultzIan SimpsonElizabeth StranoJohn TibmaA’Raiyna WashingtonKevin Wetzel

1.2 Bob Koukol 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 Jeff Lott and seconded by Roger Merriman to confirm the minutes from the previous meeting with one amendment, removing the action item related to the Nadcap General Requirements Checklist on page 6. Motion passed, and the February 2019 NMC Planning & Operations meeting minutes were approved as amended.

2.0 RAIL REVIEW – OPEN

Mark Aubele reviewed the current Rolling Action Item List (RAIL). For specific details, please see the attached RAIL in section 9.0.

3.0 PLANNING FOR A SUCCESSFUL MEETING IN BEIJING

Kellie O’Connor presented information on the upcoming meeting in Beijing. For more details, please see the attached information.

4.0 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Scott Maitland gave an update on the NMC Continuous Improvement Committee’s activities. For more information, please see the attached presentation.

OP 1117 Annex C is the annual report template for the results of the review of the Standard Dataset for Auditor Consistency. This report is submitted to the Oversight Committee for review. The CI Committee was asked to evaluate if the report was asking the right questions and seeking the right information.


UNCONFIRMED

The current questions being asked and information requested is:

Number of Auditors Reviewed. Number of Auditors identified as outside of the norm and reasons. Has a schedule been developed for Observation Audits? Percent of Schedule met over the past year. Problems encountered in development or compliance with schedule. Have TG unique training requirements for new Auditors been defined? Why or why not? Does the TG require annual proficiency assessments? Why or why not? Has the TG developed a specific Appendix for Observation Audits? Why or why not? Is additional data reviewed by the Task Group as part of Auditor consistency? If so,

would other Task Groups benefit from this? Does the TG wish to share any “best practices” that they have found to be effective?

The new proposed questions/information are:

Number of Auditors Reviewed. Number of Auditors identified as outside of the norm. Reasons. What actions are being taken to improve Auditor Consistency?

The proposal was accepted by the NMC. The information will still be reviewed by the NMC, but the Committee is asking for input from Task Group Chairs. If approved, the next step is to ballot the procedure.

Action Items #P&O-90 & 93 are now closed.

5.0 TRAINING ON OVERTURNING FAILURE BALLOTS

Russ Cole gave a presentation on Guidance for Overturning a Failure Ballot. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

During the October 2018 Planning & Ops meeting, the Standardization Committee was given an action to create guidelines related to reasons for overturning a failure ballot. Mike Graham reviewed a strawman proposal during the February 2019 NMC Standardization Committee Meeting. The NMC Members agreed conceptually with the idea that failures should only be rejected/overturned if the supplier did not exceed the failure criteria (i.e. the number of NCR’s, the number of cycles, and/or cumulative delinquency did not exceed defined limits).

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 failed (34% were reworked). 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. While the Task Groups have the right to make failure decisions, but the approach needs to follow a consistent process.

The following Guidelines are proposed to promote consistency:


UNCONFIRMED

Number of NCR’s

If in the view of the TG 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 Task Group resolution early in the process to avoid wasted “rounds” of response. Also, the version of OP 1110 effective 26-Nov-2018 limits the number of permissible cycles after a failure 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 communicate with the Staff Engineer. He/she can’t grant extensions in response due date but will likely be able to provide guidance with responses and timing.

Action P&O-94 is now closed.

6.0 NMC MERIT SUB-TEAM

Victor Schonberger gave an update on the Standardization Committee’s Merit Sub-Team. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

Following the June 2018 Standardization Committee meeting, Task Groups were requested to provide feedback with examples specific to their commodity on when a specification/drawing violation would not be considered a major finding. These examples were reviewed by the Sub-Team during the October 2018 Meeting. A merit impact assessment was then performed by the Task Groups following the October 2018 Meeting. In this assessment, each Task Group selected a sample of 5% of audits conducted between 01-Aug-2017 through 01-Aug-2018 with one or more nonconformances.

The Task Group Assessment on impact to Merit using the guidelines provided, resulted in a significant increase to the number of advisories that would be issued thereby a significant impact on merit. (Of the audits assessed, advisories go from 1% to 46%. Also, the number of majors increased by 12% and decrease by 5% of the audits, for net increase of 7%.) The NMC asked for TG support during the Feb 2019 P&O meeting for input on whether the advisory criteria used during this assessment are correct and if not what the criteria should be.

There was unanimous agreement on the approach taken for classification of major/minor NCR’s based on potential or actual product impact.

The remaining part that needs to be worked is:


UNCONFIRMED

To reach agreement on the criteria for issuing advisories. To make decision on the linkage between advisories and merit.

In summary, the following steps are proposed:

Remove Type P advisories from Merit Criteria (OP 1111). Keep Type C advisory as criteria for merit.

Require 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 Staff Engineer Review.

o This response is not counted as a “cycle” and will require an enhancement in eAuditNet and additional time for the SE/Reviewer.

Make sure it’s clear that only 1 advisory will be issued per audit. All Task Groups perform a revised assessment on impact to merit using new criteria.

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

ACTION ITEM: Mike Graham to write clear guidelines on how to perform the revised impact assessment on merit. (Due Date: 30-Aug-2019)

ACTION ITEM: All Task Groups to perform a revised assessment on impact to merit using new criteria. (Due Date: 30-Sept-2019)

7.0 NADCAP GENERAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

Bob Koukol noted that an action item was assigned during the last meeting on this topic. The action was captured incorrectly and should have been written as adding a question on compliance, not compliance jobs. This topic is currently being discussed by a sub-team of the Ethics & Appeals Committee.

Action P&O-96 to be closed to allow sub-team to provide recommendations, and the minutes to be edited as reflected in section 1.5 to remove the action from the Planning & Ops meeting minutes.

8.0 TASK GROUP DISCUSSION TIME

8.1 Beijing, China – P&O-92

At the February 2019 Nadcap Meeting, the Task Group Chairs were requested to develop an early outline for the Beijing meeting. The discussion is for best practices on how to have an effective and successful meeting.

It was asked if there would be translators provided in the meeting rooms. The answer is no, that there will not be translators provided, however we will have a few resources available in the PRI Beijing staff. It is recommended that Subscribers with regional representatives ask those representatives to attend the meetings to assist with the translation.

Mark Aubele asked if there were any Task Group Chairs who would not be able to attend the Beijing Nadap Meeting. Only one Chairperson was unsure if they would be able to attend.

ACTION ITEM: Task Group Subscribers to provide names of regional representatives and which Task Groups they are able to support with translation during the Beijing Nadcap Meeting to Kellie O'Connor. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2019)

8.2 ITAR Audits where there is no ITAR work

Bob Lizewski discussed action item P&O-71 and whether EAR99 is something that is truly export controlled, which would require Nadcap to send an unrestricted auditor. After researching, it was


UNCONFIRMED

determined that EAR99 material could be supported and a restricted auditor could be sent in those instances as long as the auditor was not affiliated with a US embargo country. This allows those suppliers to answer ‘no’ to the EC question when the only exported controlled work is EAR99.

Action item P&O-71 is now closed.

There is an informational hover button with guidance over the question, and there is additional guidance available in eAuditNet.

8.3 Auditors having internet access on audits

Jim Lewis gave a presentation on Auditors having internet access during audits, particularly for completing the scope verification process. For more details, please see the attached presentation.

A Staff Engineer SWAT Sub-Team reviewed this request and developed a proposed alternative. Scope verification will be performed in the Auditee’s eAuditNet account. The auditor will then confirm the scope in the Auditee’s account. Auditors will have special scope verification passwords which will not allow access to any other data than scope verification.

eAuditNet enhancement 1150 has now been submitted for this item.

It was noted that some companies have strict policies against any non-employee from accessing a company computer. PRI will look into retaining the existing system for scope verification to allow for these specific instances.

Action item P&O-82 remains open.

8.4 Task Group Members on various Committees

Bob Koukol noted that four Task Groups provided names of representatives on the Committees. It is important to have this information so Nadcap has a liaison with the various industry standard committees.

The Task Groups who haven’t provided the information are requested to send their lists to Mark Aubele ([email protected]).

Action item P&O-97 remains open.

9.0 OTHER ISSUES / NEW BUSINESS / DISCUSSION

9.1 The Electronics Task Group was running into an issue where they were being told they could only review hardware for Subscribers who Mandate the program. The Task Group looked for definitions of “Mandate”, and “Accepts” and found no guidance.

mailto:[email protected]


UNCONFIRMED

ACTION ITEM: Standardization Committee to provide formal definitions into PD 1100 of what is acceptable in terms of Subscriber work as it relates to the review of hardware during an audit. What Subscriber work is acceptable to look at during an audit? (Due Date: 24-Oct-2019)

9.2 Should we set aside time in Pittsburgh for an in-depth discussion related to Supplier Merit?

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to schedule a meeting during the October 2019 Nadcap Meeting for the Task Group Chairs, Vice Chairs and NMC to have an in-depth discussion regarding the Supplier Merit Sub-Team proposal. (Due Date: 24-Oct-2019)

9.3 Cyril Vernault asked the NMC to discuss if Nadcap can go in and perform an audit before an auditee closes operations even though their accreditation is still effective. This is in regard to t-frm-11 actions involving plant moves, ownership changes, etc.

Susan Frailey noted that she is planning to revise 1107 and if there is an ownership or other change, the Task Group can delegate the t-frm-11 responsibilities in certain instances.

ACTION ITEM: Susan Frailey to revise OP 1107 to include delegation criteria for when the Task Group delegates disposition of t-frm-11s to the Staff Engineer. (Due Date: 31-Dec-2019)

9.4 Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Task Group is having difficulty achieving their observation audit plan and is asking for NMC for guidance. It was noted that there are a few actions that were assigned this week to the NMC related to this issue and will be presented during the NMC At Large meeting tomorrow.

9.5 RAIL Review

Following all of discussions, the RAIL was reviewed, and the following action items were closed:

P&O-71 P&O-90 P&O-93 P&O-94 P&O-95 P&O-96

All new actions were added to the RAIL.

9.6 Meeting Feedback

It was noted that more time is needed in future Planning & Ops meetings for new business. It was also suggested that perhaps we should only introduce new participants, rather than passing the microphone to every individual, which would save time.

10.0 ADJOURNMENT – 05-JUN-2019

Motion made by Richard Blyth and seconded by Christopher Webb to adjourn. Motion passed and meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

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

mailto:[email protected]


UNCONFIRMED

***** 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:PD 1100 Standardization/Jim Lewis 31-Dec-2019OP 1107 Susan Frailey 31-Dec-2019