Pinoy Entrep

ISO 10013, Guidelines for quality management system documentation, gives an example of a documentation structure for AS9100 quality management systems. While 10013 suggests using a three-level structure, most companies implement four-level documentation structures to include records, as required by element 4.2.4 Control of Records, of the AS9100 Standard. A typical four-level documentation structure includes: Quality Manual, level 1; Procedures, level 2; Instructions, level 3, and Records – level 4.

Actually, the documentation structure starts from the policy. The AS9100 policy defines, among others, the standards and regulations that an organization intends to comply with. If we choose to use this approach, our quality management system will have five levels, similar to the structure below:

9100 Quality Policy – level 1

AS9100 Quality Manual – level 2

SAE AS9100 Procedures – level 3

SAE AS9100 Instructions – level 4

9100 Records – level 5

Document titles for your AS9100 QMS

As you may have noticed, the titles of AS9100 documents in the structure above are quite short. Various companies use different conventions for their document titles. For example, one of my customers titled their quality manual as “SAE AS9100 Quality Management System Quality Manual.”

This tendency to use long titles and document identifiers like “Standard Operating Procedure” most likely comes from regulated industries. Even though I could not find a requirement for such title formats, overwhelming majority of companies still use these apparently outdated and ineffective conventions. If a short name sufficiently describes a document, let’s use it. I suggest streamlining all elements of AS9100 management systems. Consider this and do not make your AS QMS more complicated than it can be.

Document number formats for AS9100 Management Systems.

It is not a specific requirement of the AS9100 or any other standard to uniquely identify a part or a document. It is perhaps a common-sense measure and a worldwide practice in any documentation system, to give a document or a component a number and a title, and to identify its revision level. As documentation titles, document numbering is an area for creativity and an opportunity for optimization.

A company had some 45 employees. They had two part number formats: one for procedures, another for drawings. AS9100 Procedures used XX-XXX number format. Drawings were numbered as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000077-009. Assemblers simplified the system and called it “seven-seven.”

Is it acceptable to have long and difficult-to-read and remember numbers? Yes, of course! Is it practical? I do not believe so! In the example above, the procedure number, without the tab, contained seven digits. This meant that the system was prepared to handle almost 10 million document or part numbers (PN). The company had approximately 250 documents and probably would never go beyond 300. If nothing else, just reading these numbers with five sequential zeros may give one a headache. Surprisingly, this is not the worst case I have experienced! The company that won my “The Worst Part Number” Grand Prize assigned 12 (!) digits to their part numbers in the alphanumeric format.

I hope it is clear that only when extensive part numbers are justified, we do not have other options. If you build helicopters or satellites, you, no doubt, will need millions of parts and therefore will need long part numbers. If not, make your life easy and stay away from all those zeros. The most practical system I worked with used a three-digit format for their part numbers. 202, 203, 204, and so on. Worked just fine!

Another debatable issue with the part-numbering format is part number designation. Some systems associate a part number with a particular part type. For example, 10xxx indicates a procedure, 20xxx indicates a drawing, PLxxx indicates a policy-level document, and so on. My experience with a number of medical device manufacturers has convinced me in the benefits of a “no designation” system. Three systems that used designation I have worked with have failed.

My experience with a few airspace QMS that used designation approaches showed that “no designation” systems are more practical and flexible. Several QMS that used designation I have worked with have failed. Not long ago, one of our airspace clients mentioned that they ran out of range in their AS document numbering format. That management system in the beginning was set up to identify suppliers through a three-digit extension within the part number. While the company grew, the number of supplier increased beyond expectations and eventually the company needed more than 999 suppliers. This resulted in the document number format not being able to support new needs.

An alternative approach to part numbering is a “no designation” system, where parts are given sequential unique numbers within a specified format, regardless of their type, material, application or other attributes. After all, isn’t the part title the best designator? Seriously, through my entire professional career, I worked only with one company that did not use even document numbers. Their documents were simply identified by titles and a two-digit revision level, like Supplier Qualification Record AA.