Inconsistent Application of Standardized Terminology in Quality Processes
Published .
Related
- AS9100
Topics
- definitions
- fai
- terminology
- interpretation
- training
- qms
A team preparing a First Article Inspection (FAI) package encountered multiple disagreements on documentation requirements. Personnel from different functions held conflicting interpretations of what constituted a 'design characteristic', an 'assembly' versus a 'detail part', and how to properly document standard catalog hardware.
The lack of a shared, precise understanding of definitions from the governing standard led to errors in the FAI. This included improperly ballooning a drawing, creating unnecessary FAI reports for standard parts, and incorrectly recording results for qualitative characteristics.
Key Takeaways
- The initial FAI submission was rejected by the customer due to documentation inconsistencies and failure to conform to the standard's requirements.
- The supplier had to expend additional resources to correct the FAI package, leading to a delay in product acceptance.
- The lack of a shared, precise understanding of definitions from the governing standard led to errors in the FAI.
Common Mistakes
- Missing balloon numbers on the drawing.
- Title block requirements not accounted for on Form 3.
- Drawing notes not captured as characteristics.
Best Practice
Organizations must ensure all personnel share a common and correct understanding of the specific definitions provided in governing quality standards. Relying on colloquial or assumed meanings for defined terms like 'shall', 'design characteristic', or 'part' can lead to process non-conformance and rework.
Reflects the recommended position based on community discussion and expert review.
Continue the conversation
Have a different interpretation or recent experience that adds nuance? The community keeps lessons sharp.
Ask LINK
Get an instant AS9102-grounded answer from our FAI assistant. The fastest path to a working answer for your own situation.