Performance Review Institute



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

JULY 21 – 23, 2008

OMNI WILLIAM PENN HOTEL

PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

These minutes are not final until confirmed by the Task Group in writing or by vote at a subsequent meeting. Information herein does not constitute a communication or recommendation from the Task Group and shall not be considered as such by any agency.

MONDAY, JULY 21, 2008 – WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008

1.0 OPENING COMMENTS

Jeremy Phillips commented that all members should review and familiarize themselves with the ethics policy posted in the room.

1. Call to Order/Quorum Check

The meeting was called to order by Jeremy Phillips of Cessna at 8:00 am on Monday, 21 JUL 2008. A quorum was established with the 16 User Voting Members that were present.

ATTENDANCE

User Members Present (23):

Name Company

Jeremy Phillips Cessna Aircraft Chair

Windsor Amundsen Honeywell Vice Chair

Scott Patterson Goodrich Secretary

Silvia Baeza Vought Aircraft

Marc Belanger Bombardier Aerospace

John Biddulph Rolls-Royce PLC

Gary Burns GE Aviation

Tara Campbell Rolls Royce PLC

David Day GE Aviation AQS Liaison

Peter Edwards Airbus

Harold Finch Spirit AeroSystems Inc

Bill Fitzgerald Northrop Grumman

Mark Gleason GE Aviation

Mark Greiter Rockwell Collins

John Hammond Rolls-Royce Corporation

Glen Heide Boeing Company

Serge Labbe Heroux-Devtek

Susan Margheim Rockwell Collins

David McCallister Pratt & Whitney

Tim Myers Honeywell Aerospace

K.T. Quader Boeing Company

Angelie Vincent SpiritAero Systems Inc

Patricia Wesemann Boeing Company

Paul Woolley Rolls-Royce PLC

Other Participants/Members (23):

Name Company

Bryon Ater BG&S Peening and Consultants

Marie-Pierre Chevalier ARES Laser

Jerry Colombo Precise Machining & Mfg

Kevin Ellis Micro-Tronics, Inc

Steve Ganske Precise Machining & Mfg

David Jones Nex-Tech Processing

Jeff Jones Alloy Processing

Kazuhiro Kajima Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd

Alexander Klyuch Blades Technology Ltd

Kyle Lindsay Danville Metal

Ed Mayer Meyer Tool Inc

Jay McMurray Metal Improvement

Masahisa Minamide Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd

Harry Moser Agie Charmilles

Mark Molden Ferco Tech

Mike Nosek Micro-Tronics, Inc

Tim Scarlett Danville Metal

Rick Scott Rich Technology International

Jackie Sternot Pako, Inc

Gigi Streeter Barnes Aerospace

Yoshiomi Sukesada Asahi Kinzoku Kogyo Co., Ltd

Gary Thompson Darchem Engineering Ltd

Christian Tyroll Impact Finishers

PRI Auditor:

Peter Sjostrom

PRI Staff:

Joe Barr

Lisa Shultz

Rick Sovich

1.2 Approval of Minutes

Motion is made to accept meeting minutes from the February meeting in Rome. Meeting Minutes were unanimously approved.

1.3 New Task Group Members were unanimously voted into NMSE.

• Dave McCallister replaces Roland Hudon for Pratt Whitney

• John Hammond added as a representative for Rolls Royce Corp (Indy)

• Harold Finch was added as an Alternate Voting Member for Spirit AeroSystems Inc

1.4 Appointment of Secretary

Scott Patterson from Goodrich Corp volunteered to become the new Secretary for NMSE.

2. NMC METRICS AND STAFF REPORT

NMC Metrics and Staff Report were presented by Rick Sovich.

NMSE performance since the last meeting was reviewed. Task Group Cycle time was red for both Initial and Reaccred audits. Task Group cycle time is being effected by waiting until 7 full days which counts 8 days on the metrics and both active audit reviewer and back-up SE Staff Engineer are not delegated and require 14 days to close. The Task Group has requested the metric goal to be adjusted accordingly.

[pic][pic][pic]

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff is to request that the metric goal of Task Group Cycle time be adjusted to an achievable goal by the 31Aug2008.

Highlight: The overall NMC 2008 goal for Supplier Merit was >80% and the current status for NMSE as of Jun 08 is 89%. This is among the highest level of all Nadcap commodities.

Prime Balloting of audits by was discussed. We are getting excellent participation from most NMSE Primes for audit review; however we called upon Primes that were not participating to have a minimum of 10% audits reviewed. The results will be reported out at next meeting.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to create a Summary Chart on Task Group Review Prime Participation. Report out at next meeting.

Auditor capacity vs. demand was discussed. Cross-commodity training status of current auditors was discussed. Both auditors had training audits scheduled.

3. STAFF ENGINEER METRICS

Staff Cycle time for initial was red in June 2008. The Staff Cycle time was reviewed in depth and found to be a resultant of only two initial audits for the period. A suggestion by Gary Burns of GEAE, to establish a control point of 9 days maximum Staff Cycle time for Initial Audits was raised. This will insure that this metric is consistently met even during times of low numbers of audits in a period.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to establish a control point system for Staff Cycle time for Initial Audits at 9 days maximum per round. Due Date: 15 Aug 2008 for establishing a control point system. The effectiveness of the control point system will be reported out at next meeting.

4. DELEGATION STANDARDIZATION REVIEW AND REPORT

Per Standardization Team request, the NMSE Task Group actioned the following items:

• Staff Engineer discussed the standardized template with added verbiage to staff delegation box, addition of note 9 and change in title.

• Populate a template using NMSE commodity specific data:

– An evaluation of accuracy of the standardized form based on the “Rules and Guidelines” section was reviewed. The form was accurate.

• A Standardized “Staff Delegation Tracking template / form” was implement in order to monitor existing criteria set forth in current NOP-003 revision.

The Task Group to reviewed NOP-003 including para 4.1.1b requirement. Based on interpretation, NMSE develop a review method to quantify and incorporate existing standardized “Staff Delegation Tracking template / form”. The Delegation Review Team, consisting of Mark Gleason (GEAE) and Windsor Amundsen (HW) shall review any additional actionable item associated with Task Group Review of audits designated as oversight review. The Delegation Review team will decide if the actionable item meets the intent of NOP-003 para 4.1.1b requirement. Comments from NMSE Task Group: NOP-003 sect.4.1.1.c is not clearly written and may conflict with sect. 4.1.1.1.e.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to create a form to communicate actionable items to the Delegation Review Team. Due by 15 Aug 2008.

• A Delegation Report for Joe Barr, Marcel Cuperman, and Rick Sovich was presented. No concerns from the Task Group were raised.

[pic][pic][pic][pic][pic]

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff to add indications to the PRI Staff, Consultant Reviewer, and Auditor Report that indicate all training auditors.

5. Presentations

1. AUDIT GUIDELINES- How Job Audits Are Chosen

This presentation was given by K.T. Quader (Boeing) to provide a guideline for the auditors to help with job selection during the audit. He stressed for the auditor to check with the Supplier early on to confirm that parts must meet aerospace standards.

[pic]

ACTION ITEM: A flow chart based on the presentation “How Job Audits Are Chosen” is to be completed and presented at next meeting.

5.2 Nucap Management Presentation

An excellent presentation by Jon Biddulph was given on the Nadcap Users Compliance and Audit Program (NUCAP). The presentation is attached below.

[pic]

6. Opening Comments

Open Session start time 1:00

Introductions were made and reminder to read ethics card posted in the room.

1. Quorum Check

Quorum was established

7. ONE YEAR RESULTS FOR NEW CHECKLIST

A review of the Top 5 findings for the first complete year was presented. It was stressed to the Supplier present that a focus on these common findings in the pre-audit will help reduce overall NCR’s during the audit.

[pic]

8. DISCUSSION FOR REVISION OF CHECKLISTS

Specific examples were raised by Ed Meyer as examples of why the 7116 checklist needs revised. The following are the examples that were discussed.

• 4.9-a, Does the w/s instruction list a setting or range for every control or gage on the EDM Machine Power Supply. Ed believes it should state EDM Machine and Power Supply. A point was raised that due to the vast difference between machines and to not interfere with the suppliers process in regards to which gages are used to control the process, makes trying to control specific gages on the machine problematic.

• 4.2.2-a, Cathode, nozzle and stem holders? Yes, No Ed believes there should be a N/A option on this question.

• 4.10.b, Was thought to be a duplication of 5.1.b

• 9.1, Questioning whether this was a requirement or if N/A should be added. It was commented that this was required for safety reasons. Suggested that the reason should be added to the Handbook.

• 3.1-h, Feed-rate. Ed questioned whether it was necessary to control temperature? Mark Gleason and Arthur Corfe (NM auditor) believes yes.

ACTION ITEM: A comment will be crafted and added to the handbook for checklist question 9.1 detailing the safety concern.

ACTION ITEM: A “parking lot” for potential revision of the 7116 and 7117 Checklists will be started by PRI Staff by 15Sep08 to capture potential revisions and comments until enough is captured for a new revision.

9. BRAINSTORM TOPICS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS

• Review of self help for PRI websites and self-help

• Review of Auditor Handbook

• Get input from local supplier on training needs for the next meeting in Japan

• Review of where the requirements come from (what specifications, describe the process of development of a Nadcap requirements

• Supplier Symposium

ACTION ITEM: Rick Sovich and Yoshiomi Sukesada will coordinate suggestions for the Suppliers Symposium due by 15Sep08.

ACTION ITEM: Pri Staff will set up a survey method for all suppliers who register for the meeting to participate in setting agenda topics by 15Sep08

10. AUDITOR CONSISTENCY DEEP DIVE

• A deep review of Auditor consistency was presented and the top five findings appear to have lower numbers of findings and no major spikes then in previous reviews.

• Industry average NCR’s were compared against other commodities. It was noted that it is difficult to compare these numbers with SE and NM due to the differences in Task Group Check lists.

• It was pointed out that average number of findings for particular Prime suppliers is now available in eAuditNet.

• Overall auditor performance was reviewed for Jan through June and reviewer auditor ratings by the reviewer and Auditor ratings by the supplier. Question was raised about the relationship of negative supplier comments and auditors. For future reviews, it was recommended the charts be color coded to show which auditor received the negative comments?

• A discussion was held in regards to comments about auditors providing suppliers with process improvement suggestions. Four to five comments were highlighted for potential use as comments in future Auditor training.

• Auditor data for one year was compiled and sorted for # of NCR’s written. Audits with 0 NCR’s, a low level, and 5+ NCR’s, were reviewed for specific trends within the auditor base.

[pic]

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff will incorporate any identified trends within the auditor base into specific Auditor Training by 30Sept08 and report out at next meeting.

11. open items

• SE reviewed 3 proposals with the TG; Proposal #1 – Approve Marcel Cuperman as an SE auditor for combination Heat Treat audits while traveling abroad, particularly in Israel.

Action Item: TG to hold auditor interview (teleconference) with Marcel Cuperman. SE to arrange interview details with Jennifer Eckels.

• Proposal #2- Approve Rick Sovich as an NM and SE auditor.

TG Vote: Motion was made to approve Rick Sovich as an NM auditor with a minimum of three training audits, no interview will be required. Motion was seconded by Gary Burns. Motion carried with only one Prime Opposed (Boeing), and one prime abstaining.

• Proposal #3- Tabled for closed session on Wednesday afternoon.

12. Export control

Don Buehler with PRI gave a presentation on ITAR and export control regulations. Presentation will be posted on Prime and Supplier web pages on PRI’s website. A new web page has been created on PRI’s website for Export Control Issues.

13. Opening comments

Open Session start time 1:10

Introductions were made and reminder to read ethics card posted in the room

14. Quorum Check

At the time of the quorum check there were 9 TG members representing 9 Primes

15. SSC PRESENTATION

Dave Jones from Nex-Tech Processing presented the SSC update. Yoshiomi Sukesada has volunteered to become a SSC rep. In 2008, 70% of the Supplier voting members have been exercising their right to vote on ballots. Tonight’s SSC agenda includes a leadership update, topics for suppliers involved in NMC activities, ITAR/EAR update, and Standardization Team Activity.

Dave suggested that we move the SSC update to sometime Monday morning to better fit the schedules of suppliers that are attending the Supplier Tutorial.

[pic]

16. SUPPLIER’S VIEWPOINT – OPEN DISCUSSION

• Dave Jones from Nex-Tech Processing asked for volunteers from Primes and Suppliers to address supplier presentations and questions to the TG. Meetings would be held on a monthly basis to prepare Supplier Topic for the next TG meeting. Several discussions were held trying to discern the value of this committee and what the charter would be.

• Rich Scott suggested reviewing the top five failures in both NM and SE and discussing the root causes behind the failures would make a good topic for a future meeting. Rick also suggested that more suppliers need to get involved with TG meeting, and wondered if there was some type of enticement to get them involved. It would be helpful if some type of recognition for the supplier that participates and lead, in order to get supplier management to “buy-in” to sending representatives to the meeting.

• Ed Mayer asked if during the auditor training if any of the auditors expressed any concerns with specific checklist questions. Ed also expressed interest in reviewing checklist issues through this format.

• Rick indicated that in the future they would capture appropriate auditor issues with checklist questions and flow them down to the suppliers for their review.

• Harry Moser from Charmilles asked for input on what could be incorporated into their equipment that would help suppliers facilitate their Nadcap accreditation.

• Mark Gleason suggested breaking out NM and SE teams for the reviews and presentations.

• Gary Burns recommended that the primes not be involved for these meetings so as not to prevent open communication amongst the suppliers and that Rick facilitate the meeting.

• Rick Sovich suggested that a Prime volunteer be available for his consultation to support the supplier effort.

• Susan Margheim suggested that we go forward without the Prime involvement and re-evaluate the decision at the Dallas meeting. Any questions can be emailed to the entire TG.

• Discussion revealed that other TG’s have existing supplier groups that already function in a similar manner with specific charters.

• Jay McMurray commented that a similar attempt to form such a committee in the past failed due to lack of support from the suppliers.

• RR suggested that we set aside time at the TG meetings in order to facilitate face to face meetings.

• One supplier suggested the Primes should emphasize the importance of suppliers attending the Nadcap meetings.

• Dave Jones suggested that the suppliers have a one hour closed session in Dallas, send out meeting notice in advance, and break out in NM and SE groups. Dave asked the SE for a list of all suppliers and Rick Sovich will investigate if he can release that information. Some suppliers suggested that one hour is not enough, especially for the first meeting.

• Rick Sovich suggested that the suppliers investigate the models used by the other TG’s and incorporate the best practices.

ACTION ITEM: Dave Jones from Nex-Tech Processing to benchmark the best practices from the Chem processing TG, by the Dallas meeting.

ACTION ITEM: PRI Staff will add these ideas, brought forth during a Supplier Viewpoint Open Topic, as a topic of discussion to unify the go-forward direction by the Dallas Meeting.

17. SUPPLIER’S PERSPECTIVE

1. Characteristics of a Good Auditor

• Presented by Rich Scott, Rich Technologies Int’l.

• Much of the information was solicited from suppliers.

• Presentation is a draft and the goal is to use this information to help train internal auditors.

• The presentation provided characteristics of a good auditor for all phases of an audit from in briefing to out briefing.

• The presentation also touched on characteristics of a properly prepared supplier.

• The presentation provoked discussion on many audit topics.

• David Day suggested to add, “agree on a starting time” in order to be on time.

• The suggestion was also made to allow more time to handle translation time if the audit requires translation.

• A question was asked in regards to whether or not PRI auditors are trained in local cultural differences when traveling overseas.

• A suggestion was also made to include agreement on the schedule for the day, including lunch arrangements.

• A suggestion was made that the auditor should come with a prepared agenda and/or schedule for the audit. The schedule helps suppliers coordinate employees’ time.

[pic]

2. AC7716A Checklist from a EDM Manufacturers Point of View

• Harry Mosier from Charmilles prepared a presentation that examines the checklist from the perspective of an EDM manufacturer.

• Charmilles considers their equipment to have two power supplies, not just one as referred to in the checklist.

• Charmilles provided several suggestions for improvements to the checklists.

• One suggestion was to change the power supply terminology to “generator circuits”.

• Wire guides and wire transport systems were also suggested to be checked as part of the maintenance procedure.

• Wire type should be more specific as 3rd party wires do not match the machining characteristics of the machine manufacturer, and 3rd party wire tends to have more variability between batches.

• A comment was also made in regards to program names and revision levels.

• A question was asked in regards to clarification of the term polarity for EDM machines. Discussion was that with some older machines it was difficult to determine what the polarity was. Some newer machines control polarity through program control.

• The Charmilles input will be considered input for the next round of checklist revisions.

• EDM “0” recast was discussed. It was thought that “no visible recast at a specific magnification” would be a better wording than “0”.

18. BRAINSTORM NCR REDUCTION BASED ON DEEP DIVE

This topic was tabled and will be considered for another meeting.

19. Opening comments

Open Session start time 8:00

Introductions were made and reminder to read ethics card posted in the room

20. Quorum Check

3 representatives were present representing 11 primes

21. NEW SUPPLIER BUSINESS

• Dave Jones commented about auditors re-writing NCR’s after they had been accepted years ago. Jeremy indicated that specifics would have to be reviewed in closed session.

• Jay McMurray asked some questions about observation audits. Do the observers have to be licensed as well if it falls under ITAR? Are Prime NDA’s being honored during observation audits? Does PRI have a system to ensure that observation audit personnel don’t violate the above concerns? Rick Sovich to review questions with the appropriate PRI personnel.

22. Issues with rotating and tapping machine and new SE technology alternatives

• SE delivered presentation on behalf of suppliers not in attendance at the time.

• Speed variation was the result of the difference in electrical supply between the US and European locations, 50 hertz vs 60 hertz. The speed variance caused (may cause) the tapping speed to fall outside the limits and result in some Nadcap NCR’s. This speed in not adjustable.

• Suggested resolution is to widen the specification. Tests have shown that the change in range does not affect the process. This would be changed in the AMS specification.

• Discussion topic – How do we treat this if written as an NCR in a Nadcap audit? Handbook inclusion?

ACTION ITEM: Jay McMurray to report back decision of AMS committee and check with Jack Champagne about contacting rotap manufacturer at next meeting.

• Jay McMurray provided commentary on a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Jack Champaigne titled “Shotpeening Update” Jack was unable to attend the Nadcap session and requested Jay to provide narrative since he also sits on both committees.

• Gary Burns indicated that the Ultrasonic peening process is similar to a “ricochet” shot peen process.

• The balls used in Ultrasonic peening are typical larger than normal shot peen media.

• Qualification of the process is also different than standard shot peen qualification, (i.e. a statistical method without the use of Almen strips). The claim is that there is little variation in the process.

• Needle Peening is another new technology. Manufacturer is promoting the technology as a forming process.

• No industry spec is available to describe the process.

• Gary Burns described the process as being used for small areas as an alternate to flapper peening.

• AMEC will promote an industry spec even if the process if proprietary as long as the manufacturer has at least two customers.

• Jay also described the process as more of a field use technology that produces a very high compressive stress. It has been used on bridges.

• NDT for residual stress – Eddy Current NDT. The process is able to detect the cold working of the part.

• Jeremy indicated that his understanding is that the process can detect the depth of the compressive layers.

• There are still many questions regarding the use of this process and the technology is not considered proven or ready for industry use yet.

• Metal Improvement did a correlation study with other machines to verify that there was no difference with a rotap. But rather than contact customers for approval, MI purchased a new rotap.

• SE revealed that there are several manufacturers of rotating and tapping machines not just “ROTAP” that meet the specification.

• Boeing spec only requires rotap for incoming shot analysis and not for maintenance.

• A question was raised as to whether or not AMS 2431 requires rotap for maintenance. Jay 444 apparently also only requires it for incoming shot

• Jeremy indicated that he would not consider an alternative until AMEC can publish a new spec that proves correlation with other equipment.

• SE indicated that hand shaking typically produces a smaller result (less media in the pan) than a rotap machine. In other words, no correlation between the two.

• Magnetic shakers that do not rotate or tap are now on the market.

• Image analysis is also appearing in some high machines and could result in abandoning sieve analysis.

• The advantages of cut wire were discussed for information purposes. Special conditioned cut wire has become cheaper and is similar to cast shot in price. The cut wire can last longer and is cleaner than cast shot, particularly for low intensity peeing of aluminum and titanium.

• One supplier suggested that Nadcap should promote a better relationship with the SAE committees.

• Suppliers at the meeting asked for more training in RCCA technique. SE reviewed a prepared RCCA presentation with them.

[pic][pic]

ACTION ITEM: TG to evaluate possibly changing check list to specify that the rotap machine is required for “in use” media as well as incoming. Other option is to include in auditor handbook. Silvia Baeza will author possible changes to the wording for review and report out at next meeting.

23. AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING

• Dave Jones would like to hear about follow-up on AMEC ballot status at the Dallas meeting.

• Action Item: Jay McMurray volunteered to provide summary on Specification status far all future meetings.

• Ed Mayer wanted to make sure that previous ideas had been captured. SE indicated that they had already been captured in the minutes.

• Sue Margheim suggested another ITAR update.

• Christian asked about software control for automatic machines controlled by a computer. Can we modify the Nadcap checklist question to incorporate his concern? He has a frozen process that requires a program change each time, i.e. changing offsets, and has to revise the program each time. Impact finishers received a major NCR during an audit in regards to program control. Group discussion consensus was that this situation really doesn’t require revision control.

Action Item: Christian Tyroll at Impact Finishers to submit a brief presentation outlining his issue to be reviewed in closed session at the next meeting that he attends.

• Setting of the Agenda was tabled until the first conference with the Task Group in August 2008. More information is required prior to completing the agenda for Japan.

24. Additional Closed Meeting Discussion

1. Supplier comments regarding NCR from recent audit

• Supplier received an NCR for not documenting the number of pieces simultaneously machined in the workstation instructions. Supplier claims that the parts are not simultaneously machined, as one electrode is piercing the parts one at a time. Supplier feels that 7 parts with 7 electrodes would be simultaneously machined.

• Joe indicated that he agreed with the auditor findings for not documenting the number of parts in the stack. A Supplier rep at the time of the audit stated that if more than 7 parts were stacked in the tooling it would result in a dimensional problem.

• Supplier agrees that the number should have been stated in the work instructions, but feels that it is written against a different checklist question, or maybe the TG needs to look at clarifying the checklist question.

Action Item: Clarify simultaneous versus sequential in the NM auditor handbook. Mark Gleason will provide verbiage for Task Group review.

• Supplier was requested to send in his thoughts on this subject to be added to the parking lot for the next checklist revision.

Action Item: Joe Barr to follow up with the auditor as on-going training on simultaneous versus sequential manufacturing.

• Discussions led to the determination that perhaps the checklist does not have an appropriate question to handle this issue.

• TG Vote: A TG vote was taken and this particular NCR will be voided. All TG members voted in favor of voiding the NCR

2. New Members

• TG Vote: KT Quader proposed that Glen Heide be added as an alternate voting member for the TG, representing Boeing.

• TG Vote: KT Quader proposed that Scott Patterson be elected to the position of secretary for the TG. All TG members voted in favor of the proposal.

• TG Vote: Jeremy Phillips proposed that Paul Wooley become a voting member of the task group. This is his second consecutive meeting. All task group members voted in favor of the proposal.

• Prime Specific Supplement Sheets

• Review of NMSE RAIL

3. Yokohama Meeting

• Jeremy proposed that the TG hold a supplier symposium session only in Japan and limit it to a one day meeting. Also, hold another off site meeting prior to the Dallas meeting if necessary.

• Rick Sovich also suggested that NMSE Task Group we assess best practices from other task groups by attending other task group sessions during the open day on Monday.

• Gary Burns commented that not operating a full 3 day meeting could be viewed as insulting to the Asian market, and fewer Primes would attend.

• Option A – Meet two days in Japan

• Option B – Hold 1 day supplier symposium and hold another meeting at a different location prior to the Dallas meeting for three days.

• Option C – Ask if it is possible to get conference room time on Sunday – Tuesday, to facilitate the meeting.

Action Item: Rick to inquire with PRI Management about the options and report back to the TG via email.

4. Joe Barr Delegation

• Jeremy opened the discussion about early delegating Joe Barr.

• He has better than a 99% concurrence rate.

• He has been consulting since September and has completed about 50 audits.

• Mark Gleason suggested that we review the PRI statistics on Joe Barr.

• Several members expressed concern about early delegation

• Rick will assemble all metrics and prepare a report for the TG to review. This report will include which minimum qualifications have not yet been met. The Task Group was in favour of completing the form; however reservations were raised against early delegation and since Joe was close to completing all requirements for normal delegation. Normal delegation will be pursued and SE will complete form when all delegation requirements have been met.

5. Conventional Machining

• Sue Margheim indicated that there were some comments about starting a new TG for conventional machining. She commented that she felt that this should be an extension of the NM TG. Discussion was held, no consensus was solicited.

6. Commodity Succession Plan

• Informally agreed when Jeremy started that the term limit would be three years.

• Does the rotation have to be Vice Chair to Chair?

• TG Vote: Gary Burns proposed that we formalize the rotation from Vice Chair to Chair. – Proposal was removed from the table.

• TG agreed on no restrictions for term limits, tenure, etc.

7. NTGOP-001 Appendix XIII

• Rick reviewed changes to the appendix to be aligned with NOP 003, NOP 008, NOP011 and NTGOP 001.

• TG Vote: Rick will send out the changes for ballot. All members voted in favor of balloting.

25. NEXT MEETING

Meeting Oct 7 to 9, 2008

The next meeting will be in Yokohama, Japan

26. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned on 7/23/08 at 5:05.

Minutes prepared by: Scott Patterson/ Rick Sovich

Email address: rsovich@

|***** For PRI Staff use only: ****** |

| |

|Are procedural/form changes required based on changes/actions approved during this meeting? (select one) |

| |

|YES* NO |

| |

|*If yes, the following information is required: |

|Documents requiring revision: |Who is responsible: |Due date: |

| | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download