Feasibility Of A Common Quality Certification System

		Documents Forum Both
RIAC Desk Reference > Publications > Journals > 1999 > 1st Quarter > Feasibility Of A Common Qua...	Login Register Forum Give Feedback

In a study sponsored by the US Army Aviation and Troop Command (ATCOM), IIT Research Institute (IITRI) was tasked to: ˇ Investigate the present quality programs used in commercial and military manufacturing, especially as they apply to aerospace-quality precision gears ˇ Characterize the present and prospective quality certification systems ˇ Assess the requirements and benefits of insti- tuting a common quality system This article summarizes the ensuing project, called the Feasibility of a Common Quality Certification System. The article provides back- ground information on the project, explains the focus on quality, discusses some founda- tional material on quality and process control, states the project objectives, provides the list of Interview Questions used in the project, summarizes the interview results, states the conclusions reached, and describes the recom- mendations made. Background The IITRI tasking was in response to Defense Acquisition Reform (DAR) within the Depart- ment of Defense (DoD) and the perceived high cost of a quality program as defined in MIL-Q- 9858A, Quality Program Requirements. DAR is most closely associated with a 29 June 1994 memorandum issued by Secretary of Defense William Perry. As Secretary Perry stated in the memorandum, the changes being made under DAR are intended to "increase access to com- mercial state-of-the-art technology and ... facilitate the adoption by its suppliers of busi- ness processes characteristic of world class sup- pliers." He also envisioned that "integration of commercial and military development and manufacturing will facilitate the development of dual-use processes and products and con- tribute to an expanded industrial base that is capable of meeting defense needs at lower costs." The Secretary's memorandum has dramati- cally changed the way that DoD will acquire future systems and equipment. A key element of his memorandum and of DAR is the reform of military standards and specifications. Since the release of the memorandum, all military standardization documents have been reviewed to determine if they should be: ˇ Retained as a performance-based document RAC is a DoD Information Analysis Center Sponsored by the Defense Technical Information Center and Operated by IIT Research Institute INSIDE T h e J o u r n a l o f t h e FEASIBILITY OF A Common Quality Certification System 5 Nanoscience 8 Industry News 9 New from RAC Special Insert SIDAC 16 From the Editor 16 Letters to the Editor 18 Calendar 21 More Significant Papers in Reliability Physics 22 Help from RAC 22 Call for Papers 23 Ordering Information By Ned H. Criscimagna and Ed Kozak Reliability Analysis Center First Quarter--1999 Nanoscience Nanoscience is one of six Strategic Research Objectives being supported by the Department of Defense to provide a sharper focus for selected research activities in areas considered to offer significant and comprehensive benefits to US national peacekeeping and warfighting capabilities. For a tutorial overview, see article on page 5. T h e J o u r n a l o f t h e R e l i a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s C e n t e r F i r s t Q u a r t e r 1 9 9 9 2 (with necessary revisions), interface standard, or test method standard, or ˇ Converted to handbooks, or ˇ Inactivated for new design (reprocure- ment only), or ˇ Deleted in favor of a commercial item description or in favor of a non-govern- ment standard, or ˇ Canceled Why Focus on Quality? Quality is a regulatory area that is per- ceived as a major cost driver for Depart- ment of Defense (DoD) contractors. It is estimated that prior to its cancellation, MIL-Q-9858A, the military specification for Quality Program Requirements, alone accounted for 10% of the additional costs attributed to DoD specifications and standards. Quality is also important for its effect on reliability. Inherent manufactur- ing defects degrade field reliability. Foundational Material on Quality and Process Control Historically, American industry and the Department of Defense have tended to attempt to ensure quality through exten- sive in-process testing and qualification (i.e., testing each part, subassembly, and assembly at numerous points in the pro- duction process). For example, MIL-Q- 9858A and MIL-I-45208A, Inspection System Requirements, which were canceled October 1, 1996, were viewed by many as being too inspection-oriented. "New" quality systems have demonstrated that quality and reliability can be ensured with process control and much less product inspection. Motorola, for instance, intro- duced its "6-sigma" approach to process control, and many companies as well as military agencies have adopted 6-sigma as a "standard" for process control. ISO 9001, the international standard for qual- ity management systems, is based on process control. Closely associated with process control is process capability. Whereas the goal of process control is to ensure that processes are in control from a statistical sense, the goal of process capability is to have processes that result in products with an extremely low percent of defects or out of tolerance parameters. Together, these two characteristics characterize potential man- ufacturing quality. The two key measures of the quality of a manufacturing process are Process Capability (Cp) and Process Performance (Cpk). Figure 1 depicts these two measures. Project Objectives The project had five objectives. Objective 1: Determine number of quali- ty certification systems that companies along the helicopter industry chain must meet. Objective 2: Determine what percentage of the systems are process-oriented or product inspection oriented. Objective 3: Determine what commonal- ity exists among companies' programs. Objective 4: Determine the savings that could be realized by a common quality system. Objective 5: Assess the impact of chang- ing from Mil Specs to Commercial Specs on key manufacturing processes. Project Approach The technical approach used for this proj- ect consisted of three tasks. ˇ Research the Single Process Initiative (SPI), Defense Acquisition Reform (DAR), and the Defense Standardiza- tion Program (DSP) ˇ Conduct interviews of companies repre- senting a broad cross-section of gear, engine, and helicopter manufacturers ˇ Analyze the results of the interviews and derive some general conclusions and recommendations regarding the feasibil- ity of a single quality process IITRI project engineers first researched the SPI, DAR, and the DSP. Under SPI, contractors may submit pro- posals to consolidate specific processes (e.g., soldering) at a single plant in cases where multiple types of processes are now required to satisfy the requirements of contracts from two or more military serv- ices. As part of its analysis efforts, IITRI also applied its knowledge of DAR and the status of efforts being made under the Defense Standardization Program to im- plement the direction given by Secretary Perry in his 29 June 1994 memorandum, "Specifications & Standards - A New Way of Doing Business." IITRI then selected companies to interview. Companies were chosen on the basis of their mix of commercial and tri- service customers. Three gear manufactur- ers, two engine manufacturers, and two commercial/military helicopter primes were selected to take part in interviews. Each selected company was called to identify a point of contact. In conversa- Figure 1. Process measurements Process Performance (Does not assume mean of process is on target) Cp = USL - LSL 3 Cpk = Min {(USL - ľ); (ľ - LSL)} 3 Pr obability of Occur ence Pr obability of Occur ence Parameter Value LSL Target Process USL Value Mean Parameter Value LSL Target USL Process Capability (Assumes mean of process is on target) USL = Upper specification limit LSL = Lower specification limit = Standard deviation Cp < 1 Generally considered poor Cp = 1 Generally considered marginal Cp 1.3 Generally considered good Min {a;b} = Smaller of the two values USL = Upper specification limit LSL = Lower specification limit = Standard deviation Cpk < 1 Considered poor Cpk = 1.5 Considered excellent (Goal of 6 programs) tions with the points of contact, IITRI explained the purpose of our project, secured agreement from the points of con- tact to participate in the interviews, and arranged a time and date for the inter- views. The purpose of the interviews was to discern the different types of quality programs in place at each company, the nature of those programs, and the under- lying reason for having each program. A set of interview questions were provided in advance to help the company prepare for the interview. The questions shown in Table 1 were asked in each interview. Finally, IITRI analyzed the minutes of the interviews, in the context of DAR, to draw conclusions regarding the project objectives and to recommend actions needed to implement a common quality certification program. Results of Interviews The majority of companies interviewed claim to use a Single Quality System. In most cases, the companies have taken the quality-related requirements of all cus- tomers and structured a quality system that meets the most severe of those requirements. Most of the quality systems are based on MIL-Q-9858A or ISO 9001 but other standards are used in a few cases. In addition to meeting the criteria of MIL-Q-9858A or ISO 9001, the sys- tems reflect customer-specific require- ments. Those interviewed cited the following benefits of a Single Process-Oriented Quality System: ˇ More on-time deliveries ˇ Fewer non-value-added activities ˇ Better quality ˇ Lower training costs Despite these benefits, the companies see little, if any, short-term dollar savings for either themselves or their customers due to investments in change and certifi- cation. In the long term, however, they anticipate lower forward pricing rates which should make them more competi- tive and lower the price of their products. It was clear from the interviews that ISO 9001 is gaining wide acceptance and use, especially by those companies that sell to European markets. Most of those using it have added their own "supple- ment" to address company or customer- specific requirements. Most consider 9001 to be more process-oriented than was MIL-Q-9858A. Although the compa- nies are emphasizing process control, most do not totally rely on it. For them, inspection remains an important, albeit lesser, part of their quality systems. Inspection is done much more in a more selective and focused manner than in the past. In some cases, inspection is per- formed by the process operator, rather than by "QC" inspectors. The prime contractors participate in the Single Process Initiative within DoD. Under SPI, as stated earlier, contractors can propose to consolidate specific processes (e.g., soldering) at a single plant in cases where multiple types of processes are now required to satisfy the require- ments of contracts from two or more mil- itary services. The companies believe their costs have been reduced and quality improved due to SPI. In dealing with their suppliers, the majority of those interviewed impose quality requirements based on their own single quality program. They also audit their suppliers' processes and products T h e J o u r n a l o f t h e R e l i a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s C e n t e r F i r s t Q u a r t e r 1 9 9 9 3 1. How many QA programs do you implement? ˇ Are any process-oriented? ˇ Do any rely on product inspection? 2. What are the reasons for implementing each of your programs (customer driven, company policy, govern- ment requirements)? 3. Which specifications/standards related to your QA pro- gram, developed by the following organizations, are cur- rently used by you or imposed on you? 4. Are any of your QA programs certified? ˇ If so, by whom? ˇ What are the benefits of being certified? ˇ What are the costs of becoming and remaining certified? 5. What primary activities are common to all your QA programs? Which are different? 6. What are the key performance characteristics or specifi- cations of your product? 7. What are the key cost drivers of each of your quality programs? 8. What QA programs do you impose on your suppliers? Do you audit/certify your suppliers? 9. Is any one QA program more effective than the others? If so, why? 10. If you have more than one military customer, are you familiar with the Single Process Initiative sponsored by the DoD? a. Have you submitted an SPI block change proposal to consolidate your QA programs? ˇ What investment was needed by you or by the customer? ˇ What risks did you and your customers identify? ˇ What benefits have you realized or expect to? ˇ What benefits have your customers realized or expect to realize? b. If you have not submitted a block change proposal, do you plan to do so in the near future? What is the reason you have not or do not plan to submit one? 11. If you have multiple QA programs for commercial and government customers, could they be consolidated into one common program? 12. As a (gear, engine, helicopter) manufacturer, what would you consider to be the two key manufacturing processes of making (flight critical gears, engines, heli- copters)? Table 1. Interview Questions T h e J o u r n a l o f t h e R e l i a b i l i t y A n a l y s i s C e n t e r F i r s t Q u a r t e r 1 9 9 9 4 using their own criteria. For lower tier suppliers, this means mul- tiple quality processes and multiple audits. Companies even impose their own Qualified Sources List (QSL) on their suppli- ers. A certain level of frustration was noted among the lower tier companies that were interviewed, culminating in a statement by one that "We need an OEM Single Process Initiative!" In many ways, the automobile industry faced a similar problem some years ago. By cooperatively adopting the QS 9000 series of doc- uments, the "Big Three" manufacturers simplified the "quality process" problem for their suppliers while ensuring a consistent- ly high level of quality in purchased parts and components. Each of the companies was asked to identify the key charac- teristics of and processes for aerospace gears. Perhaps not too sur- prisingly, the answers were very consistent. These criteria are carefully specified and monitored by gear manufacturers. They represent best practices learned through years of experience. Table 2 summarizes the key quality and certification processes and characteristics identified by those interviewed. Conclusions The conclusions, by project objective, are: Objective 1: Determine number of quality certification systems that companies along the helicopter industry chain must meet. Conclusion 1: Most companies have a Single Quality Process based on ISO 9001 or some "equivalent" standard. Although there are a number of different standards used, the systems are similar, although differences exist (see conclusion 3). The biggest problem is with lower tier suppliers who have to deal with these differences. Objective 2: Determine what percentage of the systems are process-oriented or product inspection oriented. Conclusion 2: Most of the companies interviewed use a process- oriented system although some inspection is included by all. Objective 3: Determine what commonality exists among com- panies' programs. Conclusion 3: A great deal of commonality exists among com- panies. Differences usually involve very specific criteria for acceptance, types and level of inspection, QSLs, etc. Objective 4: Determine the savings that could be realized by a common quality system. Conclusion 4: The interviewed companies see little, if any, short-term dollar savings for either themselves or their cus- tomers due to investments in change and certification. In the long term, however, they anticipate lower forward pricing rates which should make them more competitive and lower the price of their products. Additional savings could be realized if third-tier suppliers did not have to deal with different require- ments such as different QSLs for each customer for the same process. Objective 5: Assess the impact of changes of Mil Specs to Commercial Specs on key manufacturing processes. Conclusion 5: Companies have established the key design crite- ria for gears (and most agree on what these criteria are) and ensure that these criteria are met. The demise of specifications, past and future, military or commercial, will not affect the way in which these companies approach the design and quality control of their products. When necessary, companies have revised commercial specifications and adopted them as their own. Other conclusions not specifically linked to a project objec- tive are: Conclusion 6: ISO 9001 is gaining wide acceptance and ISO 9000 certification seems a general corporate objective. Conclusion 7: It is unclear how ISO 9000 certification would benefit lower tier suppliers with only US customers. Conclusion 8: The Single Process Initiative is most successful at the OEM (engine and helicopter) level. Lower tier suppliers to OEMs are still subjected to multiple audits, forms, Qualified Supplier Lists, etc. Conclusion 9: A process-oriented quality system, augmented with cost-effective inspection, is the best direction for the future. Recommendations To give relief to third-tier suppliers, the project team recom- mended that OEMs develop criteria for and foster reciprocity regarding: ˇ Audits of suppliers ˇ Certification of suppliers ˇ Qualified Supplier Lists The team also recommended that a quality system emphasize process control with inspection used selectively. Also, given the growing acceptance of ISO 9001 and the growing number of companies doing business in Europe, the team recommended that: ˇ The ISO 9000 series be adopted as the basis for Single Quality Systems, modified as necessary to address product inspection and other specific issues. ˇ US manufacturers strengthen/continue involvement in the US Technical Activities Group (TAG) to Technical Committee (TC) 176, to help in the revision and restructuring of ISO 9000-3, 9001, and 9004. These recommendations are consistent with the objectives of the Government and Industry Quality Liaison Panel, a coopera- tive association of 12 Federal Departments and Agencies, three industry associations, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society for Quality (ASQ). Heat treatment Balance Materials Geometry Grinding NDI Load share Tolerancing Table 2. Key Characteristics of and Processes for Aerospace Gears