IAQG – Montreal
General Assembly
Survey
(October 7th, 2005)
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
General Assembly key figures :
✈ General Assembly Registration:
244 people
( 131 persons attending only the General Assembly )
[ by subtracting 113 people attending also the Council ]
( 25 Council meeting attendees not participating at the GA
4 Council members on 26 not attending the GA )
✈ Number of attendees participating to the survey :
47 people
( 36% of 131 people attending only the GA )
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
General
Assembly
Evaluation Form
used :
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey results
Survey Results :
Based on 47 feedback
IAQG General Assembly - Montreal [October 2005]
Survey Results
Average Response
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Please rate your overall satisfaction with the
IAQG meeting
Is the IAQG Strategic outlook consistent with
your needs?
Was the meeting pace appropriate?
Was the agenda the appropriate length?
Did the IAQG meet your expectations in terms of
the topics discussed?
Did the IAQG provide sufficient time for
questions?
Were clear action items established?
Did you experience open and cordial
discussion?
Did the hotel meet your expectations?
Was the IAQG location convenient?
Was the IAQG registration process effective?
Does the IAQG Website provide you with the
information you need?
4
4,5
5
3,96
3,70
4,15
4,11
3,89
3,88
3,03
4,24
4,56
4,36
4,40
3,95
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey results
+ (Rating above 3,5 / 5) :
 Overall satisfaction with the IAQG meeting: 3,96
 Strategic outlook consistent with needs:
3,70
 Meeting pace appropriate:
4,15
 Appropriate agenda length:
4,11
 Expectations in terms of topics discussed:
3,89
 Sufficient time for questions:
3,88
 Open and cordial discussion:
4,24
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey results
+ (Rating above 3,5 / 5) :
 Hotel meeting expectations:
4,56
 IAQG location convenient:
4,36
 IAQG registration process effective:
4,40
 IAQG website with information needed:
3,95
= (Rating between 2,5 and 3,5 / 5) :
 Clear action items identified:
3,03
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
Comments :
Based on 27 attendees providing comments
 General :
 IAQG presence or purpose not well understood or promoted
within OEMs own companies (1)
 Opportunity for Quality representatives at all levels to attend
meetings very constructive for whole community (1)
 Questions asked by attendees not answered effectively (1)
 GA, our chance to address “Voice of the Customer” : didn’t
come close to take advantage of it (1)
 Need interim milestones & real plans for IAQG projects;
not just “report on progress in 6 months (1)
 Chance to meet people exceptional (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 General (Cont’d) :
 Need to develop a general survey that all participants can fill
out to determine how various companies are doing in reaching
maturity in meeting 9100s requirements
– Survey of 20 well-focused questions to be submitted at each
IAQG meeting to measure our general progress (1)
 Summary list (with status & completion dates) of IAQG initiatives
would be very beneficial (1)
 Publish a list of attendees (1)
 Efforts laudable, effectiveness along with relevance and popularity
would increase if follow up is done on common themes brought up
by suppliers from previous meetings (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 Presentations :
 Available (4) and prior the meeting (2)
 More “Down to earth” results and presentations, too much detail (2)
 More Powerpoint presentations (1)
 Over use of acronyms (1)
 Presentations with duplication: IAQG overview & IAQG Strategy (1)
 Too many presenters reading slides (1)
 Projector screen too low (1)
 Some presentations too fast (1)
 Supplier presentations outstanding and 9103 excellent (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 Workshops:
 Split workshops in smaller room – Too noisy – Difficult to hear
– Too close together (7)
 Very efficient way of collecting data (1)
 Workshops scheduled to allow attendance to more than 1
workshop (1)
 Need more time during workshops (1)
 No very good introduction to working groups (1)
 Assign a facilitator for each workshop (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 Selling :
 No selling - Selling fine as long as doesn’t distract from business
- Selling to be limited and kept outside the area (4)
 OK for selling things at meetings (1)
 General Assembly Timing & Schedule :
 Allow more time for questions and give detailed answers (1)
 Addition of a pre-scheduled 15 minutes one-on-one membersupplier meetings (1)
 Meeting extension to 2 days (1)
 Friday’s agenda on Thursday, then have the reception (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 Agenda :
 More input from suppliers (being 50-70% of prime’s product)
should be solicited – Consider a small business “rep” being the
voice of small business as no small company is IAQG member (2)
 Need a better forum to share best practices – more on best
practices behind the spec. (2)
 More lessons learned on 9102 – Need to include how 9102 will
handle 3D models (1)
 Make more specific details of standard’s changes (1)
 Show more implementation experience (1)
 Answers or solutions to specific problems encountered at
supplies (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 Requirements / Standardization :
 Extra requirements of different major companies to be merged
in a new 9100 version to avoid multiple Quality system review (1)
 Harmonization & standardization work by IAQG so far with
minimal value to suppliers, no elimination of redundant audits,
specs and Quality system requirements (1)
 Parity / crossover equivalence for suppliers to be looked at (1)
 Registered to other Industry standards: find a way to accept
certified automotive suppliers with some delta requirements (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 Requirements / Standardization (Cont’d) :
 Need to revisit 9102 to be focused on production process approval
and not on 1st article inspection focused on part approval (1)
 Future of electronic documentation? Will it be standardized? (1)
 Tendency of NADCAP auditors to become standards developers
causes increase of costs without opportunity to provide definition
of those costs to customers (1)
IAQG Montreal
GA Survey comments
 Positive comments :
 Keep on the great work! We have been waiting a long time
for this! (1)
 Having reps from companies present their own personal
experiences really great! (1)
 2nd meeting attendance, this meeting much superior to Cincinnati
meeting – Good job! (1)
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
Back up
Detailed
comments
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
Survey comments
More PowerPoint presentations + available prior to meeting.
Selling things at meetings - OK.
Could you merge extra requirements of different major companies (Goodrich, Bombardier, PWC, Boeing,
Textron, etc.) to include that in a new revision of AS 9100 to avoid multiplication of review of our Quality
system? Show more implementation experience. Give more specific details of what will come on changing of
STANDARD. Make workshops in smaller room to facilitate discussion.
The concern raised regarding the tendency of Nadcap auditors to become standards developers causes the
increase in costs without the opportunity to provide definition of those costs to the customers.
PowerPoint presentations are very helpful [if they] will all be available
The workshop sessions were cumbersome - il would have been more informative if a short overview followed
by questions each session run several times with groups rotating through - unless you were at the table it
was difficult to hear.
More "Lessons Learned" on AS9102
Workshops too crowded, difficult to gather around + hear all comments, questions, answers, etc.
Great location!
Allow more time for questions & try to give detailed answers (afterwards if necessary)
No to the idea of selling products here.
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
Survey comments (Cont’d)
Pre-scheduled 15-minutes one-on-one member-supplier meetings could be added to the agenda. Member
participation could be voluntary.
Harmonization + Standardization work by IAQG so far has minimal value to suppliers. No eliminating
redundant audit, spec's, and quality systems requirements.
Workshops were too close together - too noisy.
I'd like to see standards/req'ts group look at parity/crossover equivalence for suppliers (ex.: specialty
suppliers).
Registered to other industry standards - can we find a way to accept automotive suppliers that are certified
to TS-STD - Perhaps with some delta req’ts??? Please consider. Soon.
Realizing that it would be difficult to accomplish, having presentation available before the conference
would lead to better questions and discussions.
Selling commercial product is fine as long as it doesn't distract from business.
I don't think IAQG's presence or purpose is well understood or promoted within the OEMs own Companies
Supplier presentations were outstanding.
9103 presentation was excellent.
Publish a list of attendees.
Selling should be limited and kept outside the area. It should not become a pain.
Workshops are a very efficient way of collecting data.
The opportunity for quality representatives at all levels to attend your meetings is very constructive for the
whole community.
Keep on the good work! We have been waiting a long time for this!
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
Survey comments (Cont’d)
I recommend that the meeting be extended to two days. The workshops should be scheduled so that one
may attend more than one workshop.
Q- What 's the future of electronic documentation in this industry? Will it be standardized?
More "down to earth" results and presentations instead of detailed high level strategic information.
If process control is at the top of the IAQG's agenda, then we need to revisit AS9102 specification to be
focused on production process approval and not on first article inspection which is focused on part
approval. We need to also included how AS9102 will handle 3D models.
P.S.: I was a part of the working group responsible for the rewrite of AS9102 in 2002/03.
If suppliers of "solutions" are to be included it should be in a show case type setting - allow more
demonstrations, etc.
More input from suppliers should be solicited as we are 50-70% of the prime's product.
The PowerPoint presentations were helpful along with a supplemental book. Hopefully the presentations
will be available on your website.
Most questions, concerns and or complaints came from small businesses who truly produce the parts for
the OEM's final product, but none of these small companies are members of IAQG. Consider a small
business "Rep" that could be the voice of small Business. Ombudsman
Need more time during the workshops.
Need a better forum for sharing best practices.
Workshop location could be improved - separate rooms, etc.
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
Survey comments (Cont’d)
More on best practices behind the spec
I have tried to advertise the event: attraction of SME depend on the content of the agenda to tease the
potential audience.
Chance to meet people like Bill Black was exceptional (fantastic access). It suggest to have the prime
stating for their company where they sit, what is in progress quality wise.
Answers or solutions to specific problems encountered at supplies. This interaction may encourage
more members to become more involved in discussion.
Too much detail provided in presentations.
Over use of acronyms e.g. ICOP, OPMT, OASIS
First two presentations (B.Black/G.Dion) included duplication.
I would like to see Friday's agenda on Thursday. Then have the reception, this would encourage
participation & networking
Your efforts are laudable. Your effectiveness would be increased, along with your relevance, and
popularity would increase if you followed up on some common themes from previous meetings brought
up by suppliers.
Too many presenters reading the slides.
Questions asked by attendees (especially Friday) were not answered effectively.
Friday was our chance to address "Voice of the Customer" and we didn't come close to taking
advantage of it.
Need interim milestones & real plans for IAQG projects; not just "report on progress in six months"
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
Survey comments (Cont’d)
Projector screen too low. People's head's cut off bottom 1/4 of screen.
Did not give a very good introduction to working groups. Need to provide better purpose, guidance, etc.
Need to prepare some specific questions to ask in each working group to generate discussion as well as
accept general requests/comments.
Need to have separate rooms for working groups - too noisy
Also need to assign a facilitator for each workshop plus note/comment recorder. Many important
comments/questions are being missed because facilitator trying to do both!!!
Having reps from companies present their own personal experiences really Great!!
Need to develop a general survey that all participants can fill out to determine how various companies are
doing in reaching maturity in meeting 9100, 9120,9130, etc. req'ts i.e. How mature is the company in
collecting & analyzing process capability data? How mature is company in translating high level customer
req'ts into detail part critical dimensions, features, etc. How capable is a company in etc., etc., etc.
Could have a survey of 20 well-focused questions that we could submit at each IAQG meeting to
measure our general progress in achieving our overall objectives.
IAQG Montreal
General Assembly Survey
Survey comments (Cont’d)
This is my 2nd meeting attended, this meeting much superior to Cincinnati meeting - Good Job!
Would like copies of presenter's materials (slides) at the time of the presentation rather than 1+ week
afterwards - Not all the best slides are in the meeting hand-out!!
Some presentations were too hurried, too fast.
A summary list (with status & completion dates) of IAQG initiatives, current tasks, etc would be very
beneficial
It would be preferential to have workshops isolated more from one another or acoustic panels/adjoining
rooms for each workshop. Unless one was sitting a one of the tables (small tables) the discussion and
interchange could not be heard. This was a disappointment