Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Key changes to ISO 9001:2015 and 7 steps of 7Epsilon

5,716 views

Published on

This presentation highlights key changes to the upcoming ISO 9001:2015 quality standard and describes how '7 steps of 7Epsilon' satisfy its various requirements on risk based thinking, organisational knowledge and management review.

Published in: Data & Analytics

Key changes to ISO 9001:2015 and 7 steps of 7Epsilon

  1. 1. Key changes in ISO 9001:2015 Risk based thinking, Organisational knowledge and Management review Dr. Rajesh S. Ransing, Swansea University, UK Dr. Meghana R. Ransing, p-matrix Ltd., UK ‘7Epsilon for ISO 9001:2015’ training course slides www.7epsilon.org
  2. 2. ISO 9001:2015  ISO 9001:2015 will be introduced in September 2015  ISO 9001:2008 will no longer be valid from September 2018
  3. 3. ISO 9001:2015 – Main Changes  Focus on continually improving a substantially redefined ‘Quality Management System (QMS)’ rather than continually improving the effectiveness of an existing (and may be, inadequate) QMS.  One of the most significant but subtle change is at the top most level in the information provided for the management review and its output (clause 9.3 in ISO 9001:2015 and clause 5.6 in ISO 9001:2008)  ISO 9001:2015 management review requires consideration to:  Trends and indicators in the information on the quality performance  The effectiveness of actions taken to address risks & opportunities as specified in clause 6.1  New potential opportunities for continual improvement
  4. 4. 7Epsilon for ISO 9001:2015  The 7Epsilon approach:  discovers trends and indicators in the organization’s in- process data  directly addresses risks and opportunities as defined in clause 6.1  generates possible solutions (or new potential opportunities) for continual improvement  creates evidence on the effectiveness of actions taken to address risks and opportunities.  provides a structured methodology for ogranisational knowledge management
  5. 5. ISO 9001:2015 – Main Changes  2015 requires the management review to include decisions related to:  Continual improvement opportunities and  Any need for changes to the QMS (including resource needs)  In comparison, the 2008 version (5.6.3) only required decisions related to:  Improvement of the effectiveness of the QMS  Improvement of product with reference to customer requirements  Resource needs
  6. 6. What Vs How  ISO 9001:2015 focuses on ‘what’ needs to be done rather than ‘how’ it is done.  E.g. reference to use of statistical techniques in clause 8.1 of ISO 9001:2008 has been dropped.  We are also expecting AS9100:2016 which will be based on ISO9001:2015 to drop explicit references to methods such as Design of Experiments, FMEA from the clause 8.1 of AS9100:2009 and focus on what needs to be done.
  7. 7. ISO 9001:2015 – Main Changes  ‘Organizational knowledge’ and ‘risk based thinking’ concepts are explicitly defined  A requirement to maintain and retain ‘documented information’  Introduces 7 Quality Management Principles (QMP’s)
  8. 8.  Risk - An effect of uncertainty on an expected result  Uncertainty == deficiency of knowledge  Deficiency of knowledge are opportunities for creating additional knowledge (e.g. Tolerance limit optimization)  The effect of uncertainty manifests itself as deviation(s) from expected results ISO 9001:2015’s risk based thinking
  9. 9.  Risk - An effect of uncertainty on an expected result  Uncertainty == deficiency of knowledge  Deficiency of knowledge are opportunities for creating additional knowledge (e.g. Tolerance limit optimization)  The effect of uncertainty manifests itself as deviation(s) from expected results How is risk based thinking1 embedded in ISO 9001:2015’s clauses and 7Epsilon? ISO 9001:2015’s risk based thinking 1Ransing, R. S., Batbooti R, Giannetti C and Ransing M.R. An algorithm for knowledge discovery using risk based thinking and scores defined in a p-dimensional principal component space, (under review)
  10. 10. ISO 9001:2015 – Quality management system
  11. 11. ISO 9001:2015 – Quality management system No requirement to improve the QMS
  12. 12. ISO 9001:2015 – Quality management system
  13. 13. Clause 4 Context of the Organization  Clause 4 is generalized from the QMS to Context of the Organization. It forces you to think of internal and external factors and conditions that can influence organization’s ability to consistently provide products and services to customer expectations.  Requirements of ISO 9001:2015’s clauses 4.4 (a-h), 6.1, 7.1.6, 7.2, 7.5, 10.2 & 10.3 can be easily met with 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps to ERADICATE Defects  However, implementing 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects require organizations to first meet the requirements of ISO 9001:2015’s clauses 5.1, 7.1.1, 8.1, 8.5, 9.1, 9.3 with reference to resources, in-process data and management commitment.
  14. 14. Risk and ISO 9001:2015 Clauses  Clause 4: The organization is required to determine inputs and expected outputs of its processes, risks (effect of deficiency of knowledge i.e. deviations from expected outputs), opportunities (for additional knowledge) and plan and implement appropriate actions to address risks and opportunities.  Clause 5: Top management must show commitment and leadership to ensure that all aspects of Clause 4 are followed.  Clause 6: Organizations are required to take actions to address risks and opportunities.
  15. 15. Risk and ISO 9001:2015 Clauses  Clause 7: The organization shall provide the resources needed to establish, implement, maintain and continually improve Clause 4 including costs of addressing risks and opportunities as defined in Clause 6. It will determine organizational knowledge necessary to address risks and make it available to the extent necessary and ensure its employees are competent to address risks and opportunities. It will maintain documented information as evidence.  Clause 8: Organizations shall have processes to identify risks and opportunities in its operations and take actions to address risks and implement control of the processes.
  16. 16. Risk and ISO 9001:2015 Clauses  Clause 9: The organization is required to monitor and measure appropriate data and information to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness and conformity of addressing risks and opportunities and determine the need for new potential opportunities for improvement. Top management is required to review this information.  Clause 10: Occurrence of nonconformity is a deviation from the expected results i.e. a change in the risk. This clause requires organizations to improve by reacting to such changes in risks by implementing corrective actions, review its effectiveness and make changes to the quality management system (that includes organizational knowledge) if necessary.
  17. 17. Traceability in ISO 9001:2015 • Maintaining traceability is not a technological issue. • It is a cultural problem. • It is a top management problem. • in 2008 version (clause 7.5.3) is ‘product centered’. • Monitor product status throughout product realization • Unique identification of the product • Traceability in 2015 version (clause 8.5.2) relates to ‘process outputs’. • Monitor the status of process outputs throughout production • Unique identification of the process outputs • Process outputs include products, intermediate parts/components
  18. 18. Traceability in ISO 9001:2015 • Traceability in 2015 version (clause 8.5.2) relates to ‘process outputs’. • Process outputs include products, intermediate parts/components • Connect in-process data associated with intermediate parts to the final product • Traceability with the factor data (process inputs) is an implicit requirement for organizations as it becomes necessary to satisfy the requirements clauses 6.1, 4.4 c & g, 8.5.1 c • The organization is required to make necessary resources available (clauses 4.4 d, 7.1.1, 8.1 b-d, 8.5.1 e)
  19. 19. 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps to ERADICATE Defects2 2Roshan, H. M., Giannetti, C., Ransing, M. R., & Ransing, R. S. (2014, 19th - 21st May 2014). “If only my foundry knew what it knows …”: A 7Epsilon perspective on root cause analysis and corrective action plans for ISO9001:2008. UK Exchange Paper, 71st World Foundry Congress, Bilbao, Spain
  20. 20. ISO 9001:2015’s Clauses & 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps
  21. 21. ISO 9001:2015’s Clauses & 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps
  22. 22. ISO 9001:2015’s Clauses & 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps
  23. 23. ISO 9001:2015’s Clauses & 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps
  24. 24. ISO 9001:2015’s Clauses & 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps
  25. 25. ISO 9001:2015’s Clauses & 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps
  26. 26. ISO 9001:2015’s Clauses & 7Epsilon’s 7 Steps
  27. 27. 7Epsilon Approach  Embeds all 7 Quality Management Principles (QMP’s)
  28. 28. 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects 1. Acquire team members knowledge about  processes, their factors, responses and causal relationships 2. Gather process knowledge codified using  Process maps, SIPOC diagrams and cause and effect diagrams
  29. 29.  Process knowledge is  The understanding that Y = f(Xs)  How variability in Xs affects variability in Ys  Foundries rely on experts for process knowledge  Generic knowledge comes from experience, published literature  Foundry knowledge needs to be systematically collected, recorded for reuse  Systematic research on process factors and how they affect response with written descriptions 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects
  30. 30.  Objectives:  To determine trends in process settings to discover reasons of product non-conformity / responses (e.g. defects, material properties)  To transform in-process data into actionable information (e.g. optimal process parameter ranges)  To provide information relating to Opportunities for corrective actions 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects
  31. 31.  Knowledge discovery  in-process data is normally routinely collected, however, it is a requirement of ISO 9001:2015 (clause 9.1.1, 8.5.1 c and QMP 6 and for satisfying clause 6.1)  Perform rootcause analysis and discover correlations using penalty matrix approach  Prioritise patterns using p-matrix software 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects
  32. 32. Foundry example of risk based thinking  Investment casting process  Nickel based super alloy  Continual process improvement in melting sub-process  Discover product specific process knowledge
  33. 33. Sample Shrinkage and Chemistry data for Ni based alloy
  34. 34. Sample Shrinkage and Chemistry data for Ni based alloy
  35. 35.  Risk - An effect of uncertainty on an expected result  Uncertainty == deficiency of knowledge  Deficiency of knowledge are opportunities for creating additional knowledge (e.g. Tolerance limit optimization)  The effect of uncertainty manifests itself as deviation(s) from expected results  7Epsilon’s penalty matrix approach3  quantifies the effect of uncertainty by penalizing deviation from desired response and  links it with tolerance limit optimization and organizational knowledge ISO 9001:2015’s risk based thinking 3Ransing, R. S., Giannetti, C., Ransing, M. R., & James, M. W. (2013). A coupled penalty matrix approach and principal component based co- linearity index technique to discover product specific foundry process knowledge from in-process data in order to reduce defects. Computers in Industry, 64(5), 514-523.
  36. 36. Embedding risk based thinking Factor Scatter Diagram 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Zirconium • Uncertainty (or deficiency of Knowledge): • Is top, middle or bottom 50% optimal? • Is there any interaction with other factor ranges?
  37. 37. Embedding risk based thinking Response Scatter DiagramFactor Scatter Diagram • Deviation from expected results (or desired response values) is the effect of Uncertainty on an expected result • ISO 9001: 2015 defines this as Risk -0.01 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Shrinkage 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Zirconium • Uncertainty (or deficiency of Knowledge): • Is top, middle or bottom 50% optimal? • Is there any interaction with other factor ranges?
  38. 38. Embedding risk based thinking Response Bubble Diagram • 7Epsilon penalises3 deviation from expected results (or desired response values) • ISO 9001: 2015 terms this as changes in risks and requires organizations to address risks to achieve improvement. -0.01 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Shrinkage 100 Penalty Values 0 Penalty Values 3Ransing, R. S., Giannetti, C., Ransing, M. R., & James, M. W. (2013). A coupled penalty matrix approach and principal component based co-linearity index technique to discover product specific foundry process knowledge from in-process data in order to reduce defects. Computers in Industry, 64(5), 514-523. Factor Scatter Diagram 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Zirconium
  39. 39. Embedding risk based thinking Response Bubble Diagram • 7Epsilon penalises3 deviation from expected results (or desired response values) • ISO 9001: 2015 terms this as changes in risks and requires organizations to address risks to achieve improvement. -0.01 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.23 0.27 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Shrinkage 100 Penalty Values 0 Penalty Values 3Ransing, R. S., Giannetti, C., Ransing, M. R., & James, M. W. (2013). A coupled penalty matrix approach and principal component based co-linearity index technique to discover product specific foundry process knowledge from in-process data in order to reduce defects. Computers in Industry, 64(5), 514-523. 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Zirconium Top 50% Main Effects Bubble Diagram Bottom 50% • Transfer the response penalty values on all factor scatter diagrams. • Actions to address risks as required in the clause 6.1 are discovered
  40. 40. Interactions Bubble Diagram Penalty Matrix 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Observations No. %Zirconium Top 50% Main Effects Bubble Diagram Bottom 50% 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01 0.011 0.012 0.013 % Boron %Zirconium Embedding risk based thinking 7Epsilon’s Unique Penalty Matrix approach implements risk based thinking …
  41. 41.  Analyse p-matrix reports  Hypotheses on causation are established using knowledge acquired in Step 2  Hypotheses are potential solutions (or actions as in clause 6.1.2 a)  New tolerance limits proposed and  corrective action plan is outlined or collect more in-process data or conduct one or more design of experiments 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects
  42. 42. Prior to the 7Epsilon Quality Control Meeting • Every team member designs his/her version of a corrective action plan for confirmation trial by – observing penalty matrices (i.e. potential corrective actions) – Comparing trends with published literature for further insights into factor – response relationships (clause 7.1.6 b) – Using your domain knowledge (clause 7.1.6 a) • Turns insight into actionable information
  43. 43. 7Epsilon Quality Control Meeting • Review ALL suggestions • The final corrective action plan for validation trial is agreed • Perform a trial demonstrating reduction in the variation of response values • Discover new process knowledge • Record feedback and results from the confirmation trial • Create a preventive actions plan • Newly gained product specific process knowledge is reused.
  44. 44. Generating possible solutions… Generate possible solutions or new potential opportunities for continual improvement by discovering trends and indicators in the organization’s in-process data Presentations 6 - 7:. 1. create p-matrix input file and Output report – layout (6) 2. Interpret p-matrix report – single response (7)
  45. 45.  Confirmation trials are carried out to validate the hypotheses and create new product specific process knowledge  Optimal ranges for all the process variables (X) are determined  New product specific process knowledge is created in the form of  list of values with their new specification ranges 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects
  46. 46. Potential additional knowledge discovered Process Parameter Minimum Value Maximum Value Optimal Range Optimal Values Niobium 0.656 0.893 Middle 50% > 0.77 & < 0.827 Carbon 0.086 0.113 Top 75% > 0.095 & < 0.113 Iron 0.057 0.2 Top 50% > 0.114 & 0.2 Aluminium 3.059 3.306 Top 25% > 3.24 & < 3.306 Zirconium 0.019 0.05 Top 50% > 0.026 & < 0.05 Boron 0.007 0.012 Bottom 50% > 0.007 & < 0.009 Aluminium +Titanium 6.204 6.527 Top 75% < 6.299 & < 6.527 Cobalt 7.714 8.028 Bottom 50% < 7.714 & < 7.847 Nitrogen 11.4 38.95 Top 50% < 23.75 & < 38.95
  47. 47.  New knowledge obtained stored in knowledge repository in tabular form so that it can reused in Step 2  This is specific for a given part and process and becomes part of the organizational knowledge 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects
  48. 48. Product Specific Process Knowledge3 Organizational knowledge for a given product is i. the actionable information ii. in form of optimal list of measurable factors and their ranges (Niobium: 0.77% – 0.827%; Aluminium: 3.24% - 3.306% Zirconium: 0.026% – 0.05%; Carbon: 0.095% – 0.113%;) iii. in order to meet desired business goals (process responses) (e.g. minimize defect rates, porosity scores or rework time etc and/or maximize mechanical properties) 3Ransing, R. S., Giannetti, C., Ransing, M. R., & James, M. W. (2013). A coupled penalty matrix approach and principal component based co- linearity index technique to discover product specific foundry process knowledge from in-process data in order to reduce defects. Computers in Industry, 64(5), 514-523.
  49. 49.  Continually monitor performance and maintain accountability (4.4 e)  Ensure sustainability of this initiative with adequate resources (4.4 d)  The organisation specific 7Epsilon process knowledge repository can also be used to train operators and process engineers (7.2)  Store knowledge in repositories such as DSpace (7.5, 10.2.2, 10.3) 7 Epsilon Knowledge repository 7Epsilon’s 7Steps to ERADICATE Defects
  50. 50. Organizational knowledge4 and 7Epsilon 4Giannetti, C., Ransing, M. R., Ransing, R. S. et.al (2015) “Organisational knowledge management for defect reduction and sustainable development in the foundry industry”, International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science (IJKSS), 6(3), 18-37, July-September 2015.
  51. 51. Organizational knowledge and 7Epsilon
  52. 52. Knowledge Retention and Reuse  Preserve and continuously develop process knowledge by compiling a library of case studies  Store case study for reference and access in D-Space.  Continuously update the proprietary ‘actionable information’ or ‘knowledge’ by  Capturing industry specific product, design and in-process data and  Comparing it with the published literature  Most effective way of retaining expertise  Reuse Data by maintaining traceability on product characteristics, design and in-process data across sub-processes, product types and supply chain
  53. 53. 7Epsilon Knowledge Repository1 Refine process knowledge by compiling explanations for factor response relationships Process factors detailed description (influence of factors on response) Analyze In-process data Penalty Matrix reports Co-linearity index Develop hypotheses for new product specific process knowledge Innovate using rootcause analysis and conducting confirmation trials Corrective actions and update process knowledge Correction or Prevention Action Plan List of Factors and their product specific optimal ranges KNOWLEDGE REPOSITORY dpsace@7Epsilon Generic Foundry Process Knowledge Academia (Published Literature) Thesis Supplier Information Trade associations reports/data Product Specific Foundry Process Knowledge Process mapping diagrams List of factors/responses Product Specific Factor Ranges Knowledge Storage Process Engineer/ Operators/Students/ Academics Knowledge Transfer/Application Knowledge Creation (Internalisation) Enhanced Search (using shared vocabulary) Knowledge Retrieval Establish process knowledge Cause Effect Diagrams, SIPOC, Process Maps, FMEA, Factor Response Lists, Build Aspiring Teams and Environments by monitoring performance Store product specific process knowledge Literature Review 7ΕPSILON ERADICATE STEPS CULTUREOFINNOVATIONKNOWLEDGEDISCOVERY KNOWLEDGERETENTION ANDREUSE Knowledge Creation ( Combination) Knowledge Creation (Externalisation) Re-use product generic and product specific process knowledge Knowledge Retrieval Knowledge creation ( Combination) Knowledge Retrieval Knowledge Storage 1Roshan, H. M., Giannetti, C., Ransing, M. R., & Ransing, R. S. (2014, 19th - 21st May 2014). “If only my foundry knew what it knows …”: A 7Epsilon perspective on root cause analysis and corrective action plans for ISO9001:2008. UK Exchange Paper, 71st World Foundry Congress, Bilbao, Spain
  54. 54. Conclusions  Implementing 7Epsilon is the easiest option to satisfy the challenging requirements of ISO 9001:2015 on risk based thinking (clause 6.1), organizational knowledge (clause 7.1.6), quality management system (clause 4.4) and improvement (clauses 10.2 and 10.3).  Penalty matrix approach naturally creates the necessary ‘risk based thinking’ environment.  A knowledge repository can be used to maintain and retain ‘documented information’ as well as ‘organizational knowledge’.
  55. 55. Identification and planning of one scenario for a 7Epsilon in-process quality improvement project Transforming in-process data into reusable formats using foundry specific − traceability, − data collection and retrieval methods, − volume of data collection and time taken. Contact 7Epsilon team at www.7epsilon.org Conclusions Swansea University and p-matrix Ltd. accepts no responsibility or liability for any use of or reliance on this presentation or its contents

×