9103 REVISION

KEY CHANGES, NEXT STEPS

VARIATION MANAGEMENT OF KEY CHARACTERISTICS
MAR-2020

Contact: André LACROIX, IDR-9103

[email protected]
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 Why To Change?
9103 Rev. A (2012)
The “IAQG 9103” needed to change, to:
• Align with 9100:2016 as well as with the newer 91xx standards such as 9138 (SPA) and 9145 (APQP)
• Assess all feedback, that were raised since the last review, and their dispositions
• Dispose those comments from 2011 remained open after the previous 9103 ballot

In addition, following the Kick-off Meeting April 2018, to:

• Consider the 9103 relationships with the AESQ standards 13002/13004/13006 for further alignments and to
avoid divergence as far as possible, in particular 13002 (alternate inspection), 13004 (PFMEA, CP), 13006‐draft
(process control)
 Close working together with AESQ representatives in the writing team!
AESQ: Aerospace Engine Quality Group
APQP: Advanced Product Quality Plannng
CP: Control Plan
PFMEA: Process Failure Modes, Effects Analysis
SPA: Statistical Product Acceptance
2
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 9103 Writing Team
As of Dec-2019
Kept informed:

• André LACROIX, ArianeGroup (IDR 9103) Jeff COPE, InspectionXpert

Alan W. DANIELS, Boeing
• Steven R. CASTLE, Raytheon Missile Systems (SDR 9103) Richard J. DICKSON, Verify Europe
• Tatsuya SHIRAI, KHI (SDR 9103) Robert HAARMANN, Hensoldt
David M. KARR, USAF LCMC (Liaison SAE AS6500)
• Philippe COSIO, Airbus Defence and Space (SDR 9145)
• Dan K. FITZSIMMONS, Boeing (IDR 9138)
• Jinfeng GENG, AVIC
• David D. GIBSON, Airbus 25 meetings
• Darren B. HUMPHREY, Lockheed Martin Aero since Apr-18
• Deborah OBERHAUSEN, UTC (IDR 9145) (Liaison AESQ)
• Li PING, AVIC
• Mani Rathinam RAJAMANI, Tata Adv. Sys.
AESQ: Aerospace Engine Quality Group
• Olga RUD, UAC AS6500: Manufacturing Management Program
IDR: IAQG Document Representative
SDR: Sector Document Representative

3
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 9103 CD Comments Disposition
IAQG Document Editor 18.03.2019
Airbus 29.03.2019
• 184 received comments as of 12-May-2019 (16 members + editor)
ArianeGroup 15.03.2019
• 26 additional comments from AVIC on 06-Jul-2019 Bharat Forge 01.04.2019
• 176 comments accepted, Boeing 11.05.2019
Collins Aerospace 29.03.2019
• 34 comments rejected FACC 01.04.2019
GE Avio 28.03.2019
MBDA 01.04.2019
NOTE:
MHI 29.03.2019
• The dispositions of comments as well as all minutes of meeting of the MTU 21.03.2019
writing team are available on the IAQG server: PFW 30.03.2019
https://www.sae.org/servlets/works/postDiscussion.do?comtID=TEAIAQ Raytheon 26.03.2019
G&docID=&resourceID=644791&inputPage=showAll SACC 13.03.2019
Safran 27.03.2019
Turkish Aerospace 01.04.2019
Universal Alloy Corp. 01.04.2019
AVIC 06.07.2019
4
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 9103 Key Changes
• Introduction: relationship with the other relevant IAQG standards clarified
• §3 (terms and definitions) Notes added for “KC” and following new terms introduced:
– Common cause
– Containment Plan
– Control Plan (CP) replacing the process control document (PCD)
– Design characteristics
– Design records
– Process capability
– Reaction Plan
• §4 (general requirements): introduction of the Control Plan, better alignment with 9138 and 9145
– E.g. the expressions “product KC” and “process KC” are now used in order to align with 9145.
• §5 (process model): has become a requirement and has been restructured in process-approach manner. For
better understanding of the requirements, clause titles have e.g. been added.
• New Appendix A (bibliography) with a list of international standards supporting implementation of 9103
• New Appendix C (Control Plan content requirements), adapted from 9145 Appendix C
– In order to ensure also that 9103 can remain a self-standing document (usable with and without APQP)
• New Appendix D (Reaction Plan content guidance) 5
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 What are “Key Characteristics”?
9100 §3.3 & Notes 9103 §3.8
• The definition of “Key Characteristic” (KC) as defined in 9100 is applicable to 9103.

• 9103 provides additional information, clarifying e.g. the meaning of “KC attributes”, “product KC”, “process KC”
and “substitute KC”.

• The 9103 standard is however not introducing the following wording as of today:
– “Candidate KC” at PDR (preliminary design review)
– “Firmed KC” at CDR (critical design review)
– “safety/critical KC” (design risk analyses)

6
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 What is 9103? What not?
Variation Management of Key Characteristics
• The management of “critical items” (e.g. 100% inspection mandatory) as well as the identification of “product
KCs” are out of scope of 9103.
– Those are addressed in the frame of design risk analyses (e.g. DFMEA) and declared by the Design
Authority
• Scope of 9103 is variation management, not risk mitigation nor control of nonconformities
– E.g. containment is already addressed in 9100 and not scope of 9103.
– The focus of 9103 is more on performance, tolerance variation, less on customer satisfaction
– Outside the approved perimeter, process capability is product assurance activity.
• 9103 addresses both “Control chart” and “process capability study”. Both are needed, should not be mixed
and nobody should replace the one with the other
– variation management begins with managing the amount of production between out-of-control points,
since so very much of the scrap, rework, repair, and fleet impact from quality issues is caused by out-of-
control conditions.
7
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 9103 Relationship Among 91xx Standards
9103 §0.2 Figure 1
 Phase 3: The sooner Key
Characteristics are identified and put
under production control, the sooner
the capitalization and optimization of
the processes can start.
 Phase 4: 9103 methods are used to
validate and demonstrate the
capability of the production
processes prior to serial production.
 Phase 5: 9103 focus is to further
improve the process maturity, reduce
the cost of variation, and increase
the probability of conformance rate
in delivered product while remaining
under the cost-effectiveness limit.

© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 General Requirements
9103 §4

4.3
4.1 4.4 4.5 4.7
4.2 Conditions 4.6
KC Variation
Preparation for
Restrictions Management
of Control Performing Personnel
Flow Down Application of Statistical and Control
Plan Inputs Statistical Competence
of Product of Switching Process Documentati
and Outputs Process and Training
KCs Rules Control on
Control

9103 scope: Out of scope:

• Process KC identification • Special requirements
• Control Plan • Critical Items
• Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) • Product KC identification (Design Authority)
• Statistical Process Control (SPC) • Nonconformity Control
• Variation reduction
• Process Performance Monitoring and Control
9
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 Process Model
9103 §5
5.2
5.3 Yes
5.1 Plan to 5.5
5.4 5.6 5.7
Ensure a
Operate the
Conduct Capable Take Action
Process on Continue to Manage
Performance Manufacturi from Study
Trial Basis to Analyze Data Monitor the Process
and KC ng or of Process
Generate for Action Process Change
Review Maintenance Performance
Data
Process
No
• 5.1: identify the process KCs with an appropriate Multi-
Functional Team (MFT): Program Management, Engineering,
• 5.5: Deploy reaction plan to deal with unstable process or failure,
Production (manufacturing and maintenance), Quality, etc.
perform measurement systems analysis to deal with incapable
• 5.2: Prepare the Control Plan, generate the process flow diagram process, implement containment plan
(PFD), perform process risk analysis (e.g. PFMEA)
• 5.6: Verify regularly process performance, review regularly
• 5.3: Plan the data collection method, produce trial parts to business indicators
achieve minimum variation, conduct gage R&R study
• 5.7: Document planned process changes
• 5.4: Review control chart to monitor process performance,
• 5.8: Maintain records of compliance
ensure on-going process capability, investigate out-of-control
conditions and sources of variation
10
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 9103 Next Steps (1)
• To progress in little steps…
– Step 1 (now): to finalize 9103 update with focus on the alignment with 9100:2016, 9138 and 9145 as first
priority (= initial mission of the writing team)
– Step 2 (started): Start discussion to review the interrelations between 9102/9103/9138/9145 and establish
a proposal for a future revised documentation structure (IDRs working group).
• After the ballot step, Cpk/Ppk/R&R terms will be reviewed with the 9138 team (e.g. distinctive sources of
variation, out of Control Plan frequency…)
• After the ballot step, the SCMH section 3.1 will to be reviewed / aligned. In addition:
– 9103 application example(s) could be added in the SCMH section
– 9103 recommends the use of PFMEA, however in some cases other process risk analyses approaches may
be relevant for the organization. Templates such as those defined in AS13004 Appendix H could be defined
in the SCMH section related to 9103.
– review of 9138/9145 related SCMH deployment support material to verify alignment
– Consideration of AS13006 Appendix D guidance material
11
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 9103 Next Steps (2)

• After the ballot step, change requests to other IAQG standards will be submitted to the IAQG Requirements
Team for ensuring alignment with the revised 9103, In particular:
o “control plan” definition and content (9145 appendix C)
o “critical item” definition reference (9145) – reference to 9100:2016 (definition now deleted in 9103)
o “design characteristics” definition (9102)
o “design records / design documentation” definition (9145)
o “FMEA” definition (9145)
o “Multi-Functional Team“ wording (9145 is using today “multidisciplinary project team”)
o “process capability” (IAQG Dictionary) – alignment with the term “capability”

12
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
 9103 Next Steps (3)
• For future update, a specific “9100, 9102, 9103, 9138, 9145 Coordination WG” has started to work.

– E.g. to clarify the way forward on the harmonization of IAQG definitions/requirements related to process
control across 91xx standards.

– Scope is to align/restructure/complement the standards 9100, 9102, 9103, 9138, 9145 and related SCMH
guidance material to ensure full consistency

– When technical experts have agreed on what and how to change, the teams will see how this can be done
in a coordinated approach in order to avoid different definitions in different standards.

– Way forward on the cooperation with AESQ (alignment of 91xx/SCMH and 1300x standards/guidance) for
better harmonization…

13
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)
© 2018 IAQG The IAQG is a legally incorporated international not for profit association (INPA) with membership from the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific Region (Rev. 08-2015)