Evolvement of quality management systems effectiveness assessment mechanism in aerospace industry

Аuthors

Korobeinikova E. S.

TECHNOCOM AVIA, 34, lit. A, Communication str., Strelna settlement, St. Petersburg, 198326, Russia

e-mail: katerina.yurkina@gmail.com

Abstract

Two significant disadvantages are inherent to the procedures of aerospace industry suppliers’ quality management systems (QMS) certification for compliance with whether the universal standard ISO 9001:2015 “Quality Management Systems – Requirements” or industry-specific AS/EN 9100:2016 “Quality management systems – Requirements for aviation, space and defense organizations” have two significant disadvantages. These disadvantages do not let the interested parties (primarily, customer companies and the State) to obtain maximum value added fr om external audits.

Firstly, only the inference on the compliance / non-compliance of QMS with the requirements of the declared standard is the result of certification, without quantitative estimation of the QMS maturity level of the monitored enterprise. Secondly, within the audit the QMS effectiveness is assessed in terms of achieving the results determined by each particular enterprise, whereas, there are quite specific indicators in the aviation industry, characterizing the effectiveness of the implemented systems and the competitiveness of the enterprise.

The aim of the article was to develop recommendations for improving the methodology of the QMS effectiveness assessing. Two trends of improvement were proposed, namely, creating a mechanism for quantitative assessment of the QMS effectiveness level, based on the AS9101 Standard for effectiveness assessing of separate processes, as well as detecting competitiveness rates of the enterprises critical to the specified industry (and, accordingly, clarifying the term “competiveness” for an aviation enterprise).

The first is the development of a mechanism for quantitative assessment of the QMS effectiveness level. The mechanism is based on the one used for assessment of the individual processes effectiveness in the standard AS 9101. The second direction is determining the competitiveness indicators that are critical for organizations of the aerospace industry (and, accordingly, clarifying the term “competitiveness” for aviation enterprises).

A quantitative assessment of the system effectiveness can be performed using the QMS assessment matrix (based on the PEM – process evaluation matrix – used in AS 9101). It is proposed to mark one of its axis with the level of the planned results of the activities

It is proposed to mark the level of planned performance results achievement on one of the matrix axes, and the level of implementation of the QMS standard requirements on the other. The final quantitative assessment of the QMS effectiveness is a score fr om one to four, obtained at the intersection of grades on both axes.

The planned performance results herewith, indicated on the second axis of the QMS assessment matrix, are computed as a complex indicator of the enterprise competitiveness.

This indicator will be computed by the formula:

where α_i is the weight of the indicator i, determined by experts;

c_i is the parametric index of the parameter i, computed by the differential method (the values of relative indicators determined by the industry are assumed as the base). Individual and group indicators, evaluated while computing the complex indicator, can be derived from the definition of the aerospace enterprise competitiveness specified by the author. Thus, the competitiveness is the ability of an enterprise to meet the consumer needs in terms of the competitive production. This means the qualitative production, corresponding to the consumers’ expectations on acquisition costs operation. It implies also the servicing quality, and related products and services in the necessary quantity and within the required terms, as well as demonstrating to the parties concerned (both direct customers and integrators of various levels, primes) the steady development in conditions of changing external medium, characterized by the costs cutting and profit rising. It should demonstrate also, the effective management, flexibility and ability to optimize their activities, including implementation of new management technologies, peculiar to the industry, namely increase labor productivity, maintain labor, scientific potential and cooperation expressed in the number of customers and partners increasing

С = f (C ; P; R; P; V; V; K; Q; N; m),

C_p — product competitiveness;

P — profit;

R — profitability;

P_T — labor productivity;

V_p — the volume of production;

V_r — sales volume;

K — human resources;

Q_coop — an indicator of cooperation activity (increase in customers, suppliers and partners while maintaining the existing ones);

N — scientific and technical potential (includes such indicators as growth in new technologies applicaton (including IT technologies), the volume of in-house development, R&D costs);

M — effective management (increase in use of new management technologies - for example, risk management, lean production and others).

Thus, due to the new methodology application, the QMS effectiveness esteems and the set of competitiveness indicators while QMS analysis of the existing aerospace industry enterprises, the audit emphasis are shifting from the system correspondence to the Standards requirements to the system effectiveness in terms of achieving specific indicators, important to the customers of the aviation industry. Besides, the audits results a cquire quantitative character and allow comparing various suppliers.

Keywords:

aerospace industry, certification, quality management system effectiveness, AS/EN 9100, AS 9101, enterprise effectiveness indicators

References

1. International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG), http://www.iaqg.sae.org/iaqg/

2. Goryachev V.G. Metody menedzhmenta kachestva, 2014, no. 12, pp. 18-24.

3. Cherkasky S. AS9100:2009 Carries an Impressive Payload. 2009. URL: https://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/twitter-ed/as91002009-carries-impressive- payload.html

4. Ritterbeck R. AS9100 Proves Its Worth, 2019. URL: https://www.qualitydigest.com/july05/articles/03_article.shtml

5. Roberts M.C. Aerospace Standards Embrace an Unlimited Future, 2013. URL: http://www.qualitydigest.com/feb07/articles/04_article.shtml

6. 9100 Series. 2016 Revision Overview. URL: https://studylib.net/doc/18602830/9100-series-2016-revision-overview

7. Shishkov G., Grishaeva S. Biznes-Klyuch, 2006, no. 6. URL: http://www.bkworld.ru/archive/y2006/n06- 2006/n06-2006_131.html

8. Lee T. Industry Controlled Other Party (ICOP). 9100 Certification Improvement Initiatives Robust–Recognized-Valued. 2011. URL: http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/events-docs-2011-05-10-05—ICOP-management.pdf

9. International Aerospace Quality Group, http://www.iaqg.org/oasis

10. Skripko L.E., Yurkina E.S. Russian and International aerospace industry enterprises quality management systems specifics. Aerospace MAI Journal, 2016, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 186-191.

11. Dem’yanovich I.V. Ekonomika i upravlenie, 2010, no. 11(72), pp. 120-123. URL: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/2011/03/03/1214893564/23.pdf

12. Konev K.A., Bulycheva A.A., Karimova K.A. Metody menedzhmenta kachestva, 2014, no. 2, pp. 28-33.

13. Kulikovskii S.A. Metody menedzhmenta kachestva, 2016, no. 5, pp. 12-17.

14. Metodika otsenki zrelosti sistemy menedzhmenta kachestva organizatsii. Moscow, SDS “Voennyi Registr”, 2016. URL: https://www.sds-vr.ru/assets/docs/MD_04_005.pdf

15. International Railway Industry Standard (IRIS), http://www.iris-rail.org/

16. Prosvirina N.V. Development and implementation of efficient production management principles based on lean production concept at the aircraft engine-building enterprises. Aerospace MAI Journal, 2017, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 223-232.

17. Novikov I.S. Development of a science-methodological support for quality management system effectiveness and efficiency improvement in aviation industry organizations.. Aerospace MAI Journal, 2011, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 276-280.

18. Opryshko Yu.V. Long haul passenger aircraft competitiveness evaluation model. Aerospace MAI Journal, 2016, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 233-244.

19. IAQG - Quality Management Systems Audit Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defense Organizations, http://www.sae.org/iaqg/organization/9101.htm

20. Rossiiskaya aviatsionnaya otrasl’: perelomnyi moment. URL: https://www.aviapanorama.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/spg_perelom.pdf

21. Mezhdunarodnaya organizatsiya grazhdanskoi aviatsii. URL: https://www.icao.int/pages/ru/default_ru.aspx/

22. Gorbashko E.A. Upravlenie kachestvom i konkurentosposobnost’yu (Quality and competitiveness Management), St. Petersburg, SPbFEU, 2001, 233 p.

23. Balynskaya N.R., Kuznetsova N.V., Sinitsyna O.N. Voprosy upravleniya, 2015, no. 2(33). URL: http://vestnik.uapa.ru/ru/issue/2015/02/17/