Quality Digest

If an auditor based a decision solely on simply looking at an Org. chart, then that auditor is incompetent. The decision to NOT "pass" an organization must be based on a thorough assessment, interviews, reviewing records, artifacts, etc.

Dr Deming told us half a century ago that 85% of process problems are due to common causes, or systemic shortcomings to put it in English.

In 20 years of auditing ISO 9000 standards for accredited certification in the UK and NZ mostly, I have never come across a situation where a management rep has been able to expedite REAL systemic changes unless that person was the CEO, and has set up adequate and sensitive performance measures.

Sorry all, but the requirement is clear, the MR must have the responsibility and authority to make system changes that potentially apply to executives at the highest level. Even if the MR is a top level exec, that still leaves a veto in the hands of the CEO. The only approach that stands the reality test is for the CEO to be the nominated MR. Of course, this does not preclude the establishment of an appropriate reporting structure, but having the nominated MR at "level 3" say is not acceptable - unless a slice of the CEO's salary comes your way to cover the attendant abrogation of responsibility.

This give a simple test of commitment. If the CEO does not accept reposnsiblity for the QMS as defined by ISO 9k2k, even as tagged under AS9100, then there is noorganisational commitment to comply, and there is no basis for issuing a certificate worth more than paper and ink. Easy, eh?

To be a little more clear in this situation, we are a smaller company with a flat organization where all functional managers report to the President. There is a proposed re-org that would move the QA Mgr/Mgmt Rep under the Engineering Mgr. Several procedures (NC Material, MRB, etc.) have decisions being made by Eng and QA, with QA having the final say over quality matters. There is a perception that, due to the reporting structure, how many times can QA go against their manager's decisions without it affecting their performance reviews, increases, etc? Thus the conflict of interest. How would most AS9100 auditors handle this? I was looking for input before I had to inform our registrar of the change in the QMS.

This element does not require that the MR report directly to the president. Understand the difference between Top management and a member of management as sated in the requirement… "TOP management shall appoint…”. This does not require the MR to be Top Management, they simply have to have the freedom to resolve matters pertaining to quality. Again, this does NOT mean the MR has to be in charge of the quality department, they only have to be able within the Organization structure to have the authority to resolve matters pertaining to quality and the Management System. In many organizations the MR is in charge of the Management System not the Quality Department.

P.S. A registrar CANNOT require the MR report to the president, this is not a requirement! Any auditor who makes such a suggestion is out of line.

When my company went for its AS9100 cert., we were instructed by our registrar that the MR had to report directly to the President, any reporting to engineering or operations would be a direct conflict of interest. I agree with this position.