Uncategorized

Today, 12 November 2026, is World Quality Day. The Chartered Quality Institute runs World Quality Week from 9 to 13 November under the theme „Quality: powering performance.“ It is a good theme — and an uncomfortable question for many organisations: can you show, in money, what quality powers in yours?

The gap

According to ASQ, the ASQE 2025 Insights on Excellence report found that only 31% of respondents feel they fully understand the impact of quality costs on their organisation’s financial performance. When fewer than one in three fully understand it, quality easily looks like overhead in a budget discussion.

The framework already exists

ASQ describes four categories of quality cost:

• Prevention costs — incurred to prevent or avoid quality problems.
• Appraisal costs — measuring and monitoring activities.
• Internal failure costs — defects found before the customer receives the product.
• External failure costs — defects found after the customer receives it.

A pragmatic start

From my own experience in quality management: most organisations already have the data. Scrap is booked. Rework hours are on job cards. Complaint costs sit in a separate account. What is missing is someone who puts the four categories on one page.

Start with external failure. One customer complaint — investigation hours, travel, replacement parts, credit note — usually makes the point faster than any presentation.

Three actions for this week

1. Pull scrap and rework totals for the last twelve months.
2. Cost one recent customer complaint end to end.
3. Show both numbers next to your prevention budget at the next management review.

Sources

• CQI — World Quality Week 2026, quality.org
• National Today — World Quality Day (12 November 2026), nationaltoday.com
• ASQ — Cost of Quality (COQ), incl. ASQE Insights 2025, asq.org

Most supplier scorecards I review answer one question very precisely: how bad was last quarter? Delivery in percent, ppm, number of complaints. All useful. All late. By the time a ppm figure turns red, the parts are already in your stock or at your customer.

What the standards require

ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4.1 requires criteria for the evaluation, selection, monitoring of performance and re-evaluation of external providers. The IAQG’s IA9100 Key Change Summary (November 2023) strengthens clause 8.4 with direct and sub-tier control. Neither standard prescribes which indicators to use. That choice is yours — and it decides whether monitoring warns or just records.

Lagging indicators (keep them)

On-time delivery, defect rate in ppm, number of customer complaints, cost of nonconformance. They show results. They do not show where the next problem comes from.

Leading indicators (add them)

From my own supplier audit experience, these five move before the ppm does:

Age of open corrective actions. A SCAR open for more than 60 days without effectiveness evidence is a risk, not an administrative backlog.

Repeat findings. The same root cause category twice in twelve months means the first fix did not work.

Key personnel changes. Quality manager, lead inspector, special-process operator. Ask for notification in your quality agreement.

Sub-tier changes. New heat-treat or plating source without notification. You only find out if you ask.

Late or incomplete paperwork. Certificates of conformity arriving after the parts, or with gaps. Paperwork discipline drops before product discipline does.

How to use it

Do not build a 40-line scorecard. Pick three leading indicators, define the threshold that triggers a conversation, and review them monthly for your top-risk suppliers.

Three actions

1. Add „age of open SCARs“ to your scorecard this month.
2. Put personnel and sub-tier change notification into your quality agreements.
3. Review leading indicators monthly for your top ten suppliers by risk, not by spend.

Sources

• ISO — ISO 9001:2015, clause 8.4.1, iso.org
• IAQG — IA9100 Key Change Summary, clause view (November 2023), iaqg.org

Wer als Qualitätsmanager, Prüfer oder Auditor aus dem DACH-Raum in die USA geht, stellt schnell fest: Der deutsche Abschluss ist viel wert, aber niemand liest ihn von selbst richtig. Drei Themen sollte man vorher klären.

1. Abschluss lesbar machen

Meister, Fachwirt und Techniker stehen im Deutschen Qualifikationsrahmen (DQR) auf Niveau 6, gleichwertig mit einem Bachelor (IHK). In den USA gibt es dafür keinen automatischen Abgleich. Üblich ist eine Credential Evaluation durch einen Anbieter, der Mitglied bei NACES ist. NACES nannte im Juni 2026 18 Mitgliedsorganisationen, darunter World Education Services (WES) und Educational Credential Evaluators (ECE).

2. Zertifikate, die US-Arbeitgeber kennen

In den USA zählen vor allem ASQ-Zertifikate. Sie setzen meist Berufserfahrung voraus, europäische Jahre zählen mit. Beispiele: CQIA ab 2 Jahren Erfahrung, Six Sigma Green Belt (CSSGB) ab 3 Jahren, CQA und CQE ab 8 Jahren, davon 3 in entscheidender Funktion. Für den CQE ersetzt ein Bachelor 4 Jahre Erfahrung.

3. Luftfahrt: Lizenzen sind nicht übertragbar

Wer in einem FAA-Instandhaltungsbetrieb (Part 145) in den USA Freigaben unterschreiben soll, braucht nach 14 CFR 145.157(a) ein Mechanic- oder Repairman-Zertifikat nach Part 65. Eine EASA-Part-66-Lizenz ersetzt dieses Zertifikat nicht automatisch. Das sollte man vor einer Zusage klären, nicht danach.

Aus meiner Erfahrung

Ich bin Industriemeister und arbeite seit 2023 von Florida aus. Mein Eindruck: In US-Gesprächen zählt weniger der Titel als der Nachweis. Welche Lieferanten, welche Normen, welche Audits, welches Problem nachhaltig gelöst? Wer das mit Zahlen belegen kann, ist im Vorteil.

Fragen?

Kurze Fragen zum Ablauf beantworte ich gern. Für Visums- und Rechtsfragen gehört ein zugelassener Anwalt an den Tisch.

Quellen

• IHK — DQR: Deutscher Qualifikationsrahmen, ihk.de
• NACES — Members, naces.org
• ASQ — Zertifizierungsseiten CQIA, CSSGB, CQA, CQE, asq.org
• U.S. Government — 14 CFR 145.157, law.cornell.edu

In Germany, „Industriemeister“ says a lot. In a US hiring conversation, it often says nothing — not because it is worth less, but because nobody on the other side knows what it means. I hold the Industriemeister qualification myself, so this one is personal.

What the German qualification is worth at home

The German Qualifications Framework (DQR) places Meister, Fachwirt and Techniker at level 6 — the same level as a university bachelor’s degree. The IHK describes them as being on the same level as a university bachelor’s degree.

Why that does not travel automatically

The United States has no federal equivalent of the DQR, and US employers rarely know the dual vocational system. To make a foreign qualification readable, candidates use a credential evaluation. NACES, the National Association of Credential Evaluation Services, founded in 1987, listed 18 member organisations in June 2026, including World Education Services (WES) and Educational Credential Evaluators (ECE). Their reports translate a foreign qualification into a US-equivalent statement.

Where it pays off directly: ASQ

ASQ certifications accept education as partial replacement for experience. For the Certified Quality Engineer (CQE), eight years of experience are required; a bachelor’s degree waives four years, an associate degree two, and a diploma from a technical or trade school one year. How ASQ treats a specific German qualification is ASQ’s decision — a credential evaluation is the sensible document to bring.

What US hiring managers ask instead

From my own experience on both sides: US interviews focus less on the title and more on scope. How many suppliers? Which standards? Which audits did you lead? Which problem did you close, and how do you know it stayed closed? A German CV that lists qualifications but no results loses here.

Three practical steps

1. Order a credential evaluation from a NACES member before you apply.
2. Rewrite your CV around results and numbers, not titles.
3. Add one ASQ certification as a recognisable signal; check the experience rules first.

Sources

• IHK — DQR: Deutscher Qualifikationsrahmen, ihk.de
• NACES — Members, naces.org
• ASQ — Certified Quality Engineer (CQE) requirements, asq.org

Few topics in aerospace quality produce more speculation than IA9100. So let us separate what the IAQG has published from what the market expects.

Confirmed by the IAQG

The IAQG’s IA9100 Key Change Summary (clause view, November 2023) lists the changes the revision team is working with. The ones with the biggest impact on suppliers:

• Clause 0 and 5: organisational culture and ethical behaviour as part of an effective QMS; leadership promotes an ethical work environment.
• 7.1.7 Information security: a new requirement to safeguard the QMS.
• 8.1: APQP named as one method for operational planning and control.
• 8.1.3 Product safety: the former notes become requirements, including identification of hazards and safety risks and the safety impact of changes.
• 8.1.4 Counterfeit parts: notes become requirements, including training, an obsolescence monitoring program and traceability.
• 8.4 External providers: clause restructured, adding direct and sub-tier control.

The single global designation „IA“ will replace the regional AS, EN and JISQ designations.

Expected, not yet confirmed

The IAQG decided to sequence IA9100 after ISO 9001:2026, which was published on 16 September 2026. Industry commentary (Apex Quality Assurance, July 2026) expects publication in Q4 2026 and a transition period of about three years. Until the IAQG publishes the standard and its transition rules, treat any exact deadline you read as an estimate.

What to prepare now

From my own audit experience, three of the confirmed changes are where most suppliers have real gaps today: information security, sub-tier control and counterfeit prevention. None of them can be fixed in the four weeks before a transition audit.

1. Information security: document who can change QMS data, drawings and inspection records, and how access is reviewed.
2. Sub-tier control: list which processes your sub-tier suppliers perform for you and which requirements you flow down.
3. Counterfeit prevention: show training records and an obsolescence watch for at least your critical parts.
4. Product safety: identify safety-relevant characteristics and how changes to them are assessed.
5. Planning: if you already use APQP elements, map them to 8.1 now.

Sources

• IAQG — IA9100 Key Change Summary, clause view (November 2023), iaqg.org
• ISO/TC 176 — ISO 9001:2026 has been released! (September 2026), committee.iso.org
• Apex Quality Assurance — IA9100 in June 2026: What Aerospace Organizations Should Know Right Now (2 July 2026), apexqualityassurance.com

Almost every quality team I speak to has tried an AI tool. Very few have changed how their quality system works because of it. The data says the same.

The numbers

McKinsey’s State of AI survey (fielded 4 May to 8 June 2026, 1,719 participants in 97 countries) reports that nearly nine in ten respondents use AI regularly in at least one business function. 44% report scaling AI across the enterprise, up from 38% a year earlier. 37% attribute at least some EBIT impact to AI. Only 6% qualify as high performers with 5% or more EBIT impact.

In quality engineering — software testing in this case — the World Quality Report 2025 by OpenText, Capgemini and Sogeti (more than 2,000 senior executives, 22 countries) shows the same pattern: 89% are piloting or deploying generative-AI workflows, yet only 15% have reached enterprise-wide deployment. Top barriers: data privacy risks (67%), integration complexity (64%) and hallucination and reliability concerns (60%).

What that means for the quality manager’s job

From my own perspective as a consultant, and this is opinion, not data: AI is moving the quality manager’s work from producing documents to judging them. Drafting a procedure, summarising an audit report or clustering nonconformities takes minutes now. Deciding whether the output is correct, traceable and fit for an authority audit still takes a professional.

Three shifts I see:

From author to reviewer. The skill is to spot what is missing, not to write faster.

From data collection to data quality. AI on poor nonconformity data produces confident nonsense. The data model behind your NCR system matters more than ever.

From tool rules to governance. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 provides a management-system standard for AI. Under the EU AI Act, transparency obligations under Article 50 apply from 2 August 2026, while the Digital Omnibus (Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, in force since 27 July 2026) moved high-risk obligations to 2 December 2027 (Annex III) and 2 August 2028 (Annex I).

A note on cost

The ASQE 2025 Insights on Excellence report found that only 31% of respondents fully understand the impact of quality costs on their organisation’s financial performance. AI that speeds up reporting without that understanding will not move EBIT either.

Three actions

1. Pick one use case with measurable output — for example NCR clustering — and measure time saved and error rate.
2. Define who reviews AI output and how that review is recorded.
3. Clean your NCR categories before you feed them to any model.

Sources

• McKinsey & Company — The state of AI (survey fielded May–June 2026), mckinsey.com
• OpenText, Capgemini, Sogeti — World Quality Report 2025 (13 November 2025), capgemini.com
• ASQ — Cost of Quality, incl. ASQE Insights 2025, asq.org
• ISO/IEC — ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Artificial intelligence management system, iso.org
• White & Case — EU AI Omnibus enters into force, amending the AI Act (July 2026), whitecase.com
• Lewis Silkin — The Digital Omnibus on AI enters into force today (27 July 2026), lewissilkin.com
• Jones Walker — Yes, August 2 Still Matters (16 July 2026), joneswalker.com

ISO 9001:2026 was published on 16 September 2026. ISO/TC 176 confirms that organisations certified to ISO 9001:2015 have until 30 September 2029 to complete their transition. Three years sounds long. For organisations that also hold aerospace certificates, it is not, because IA9100 will follow on top.

What changed — clause level

Quality culture and ethical behaviour. Both are now explicit requirements. Top management is required to promote a quality culture and ethical behaviour (clause 5.1.1; DQS also points to awareness requirements in 7.3).

Risks and opportunities, separated. Clause 6.1 now distinguishes between determining and addressing risks (6.1.2) and opportunities (6.1.3).

Climate change. The climate-change wording introduced by the 2024 amendment is now part of the main text in clauses 4.1 and 4.2.

Documented information. The wording „maintain documented information“ is largely replaced by „available as documented information.“

Annex A. Substantially expanded guidance — with no new obligations.

What did not change

Before publication, several commentators expected new requirements on artificial intelligence and digitalisation. According to the published-text analysis by 9001-2026.com, no new requirements on AI, digitalisation, cybersecurity or sustainability were added to the standard itself.

The aerospace angle

The IAQG deliberately sequenced IA9100 to follow ISO 9001:2026. As of this writing, IA9100 had not been published; industry commentary expects publication in Q4 2026 and a transition period of around three years. Its confirmed changes include a new information security requirement (7.1.7), product safety and counterfeit-part prevention notes turned into requirements (8.1.3, 8.1.4), and stronger sub-tier control in 8.4.

My view

From my own work with management systems: „quality culture“ will be the hardest clause to audit and the easiest to fake. A poster is not evidence. Look for decisions where quality won against schedule — and whether they were documented.

Three actions

1. Buy the standard, read clauses 5.1 and 6.1 first.
2. Agree the transition audit date with your certification body before mid-2027.
3. If you are aerospace-certified, plan one combined transition for ISO 9001:2026 and IA9100.

Sources

• ISO/TC 176 — ISO 9001:2026 has been released! (September 2026), committee.iso.org
• ISO — ISO 9001 Quality management systems — Requirements (Edition 6), iso.org
• DQS — ISO 9001:2026 changes, timeline and transition, dqsglobal.com
• 9001-2026.com — ISO 9001:2026 is published: the high-level changes at a glance, 9001-2026.com
• Intertek — ISO 9001:2026 key updates and transition guidance, intertek.com
• Apex Quality Assurance — IA9100 in June 2026 (2 July 2026), apexqualityassurance.com
• IAQG — IA9100 Key Change Summary, clause view (November 2023), iaqg.org

Wer aus Deutschland, Österreich oder der Schweiz in den USA im Qualitätswesen arbeitet, spricht meist gutes Englisch. Trotzdem gibt es Wörter, die gleich aussehen und etwas anderes bedeuten. Aus meiner eigenen Erfahrung: Im Audit oder in einer Reklamation kann so ein Wort für echte Missverständnisse sorgen.

1. Reklamation ist nicht „reclamation“

„Reclamation“ bedeutet im Englischen das Zurückgewinnen, zum Beispiel von Land oder Material. Eine Kundenreklamation heißt „complaint“ oder, wenn es um Geld geht, „claim“.

2. Eventuell ist nicht „eventually“

„Eventually“ heißt „schließlich“ oder „irgendwann“. Wer „we will eventually deliver“ schreibt, sagt: Wir liefern, nur später. Für „eventuell“ passt „possibly“ oder „maybe“.

3. Bekommen ist nicht „become“

„Become“ heißt „werden“. „We become the parts on Monday“ klingt für Amerikaner seltsam. Richtig ist „we receive the parts“ oder „we get the parts“.

4. Sensibel ist nicht „sensible“

„Sensible“ heißt „vernünftig“. Ein sensibles Bauteil ist ein „sensitive part“, eine sensible Information ist „sensitive information“.

5. Kontrolle ist nicht immer „control“

„Control“ bedeutet im Englischen eher steuern und beherrschen. Ein „control plan“ ist ein Produktionslenkungsplan, kein Kontrollplan. Die Prüfung eines Teils heißt „inspection“.

6. Termin ist nicht „term“

„Term“ ist eine Bedingung oder Laufzeit, etwa in „terms and conditions“. Ein Termin ist ein „appointment“ oder „meeting“, eine Frist ist ein „deadline“ oder „due date“.

Mein Tipp

Lieber einfach und eindeutig formulieren als elegant. In Audits, Berichten und Reklamationen zählt, dass jeder dasselbe versteht.

Welches Wort hat bei euch schon für Verwirrung gesorgt?

Quellen

• Cambridge Dictionary — reclamation, eventually, sensible, control, term, dictionary.cambridge.org
• Duden — eventuell, Termin, duden.de

Many people who move into a US repair station come from manufacturing, from an EASA environment or from another industry altogether. They need two things quickly: what the regulation requires, and where to learn the rules without starting from zero.

What the regulation requires

14 CFR 145.163(a): a certificated repair station „must have and use an employee training program approved by the FAA that consists of initial and recurrent training.“ 145.163(b) requires that the program ensures each employee assigned to maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations or inspection is capable of performing the assigned task. Records: 145.163(c) — individual training documented in a format acceptable to the FAA and retained for at least two years. Revisions go to the responsible Flight Standards office under the manual procedure required by 145.209(e).

Human factors: a difference to EASA

EASA Part-145 requires human factors training, with continuation training in each two-year period (AMC2 145.A.30(e)). Under FAA Part 145, human factors content is strongly recommended in the approved program but is not a regulatory requirement, as FAA guidance discussed by ARSA has confirmed. People coming from Europe often assume the opposite.

Courses that suit newcomers

AEA — Certified Repair Station Training. Five days at AEA headquarters in Lee’s Summit, Missouri. Topics: US regulations for repair stations (Part 145 and interfacing parts), preparing for an FAA audit using AC 145-5 and FAA Order 8900.1, and hands-on drafting of repair station manuals, quality control manuals and training programs. Price: USD 799 for AEA members, USD 899 for non-members. The January 11–15, 2027 session was listed as sold out at the time of writing, so watch for added dates.

ARSA — Part 145 Online Training Series. Four sessions covering subparts A and B, C, D and E of Part 145. The live sessions ended on August 26, 2026; recordings are available on demand, with individual hours or a discounted bundle.

My suggestion for a first 90 days

From my own experience working with teams that move into a US repair station: read Part 145 in full once (it is short), take one structured course, then read your own Repair Station Manual against 145.209. In that order. The course makes the manual readable.

Sources

• U.S. Government — 14 CFR 145.163 Training requirements, law.cornell.edu
• AEA — Certified Repair Station Training, course page, aea.net
• ARSA — Part 145 Training Series, arsa.org
• ARSA — FAA Releases Inspector Guidance on Human Factors Training Programs (6 September 2008), arsa.org
• Transport Malta — IAN 07 Human Factors Training, transport.gov.mt

A certificate on file, a completed self-assessment, a clean scorecard. For many European OEMs, that is what supplier qualification for a US source looks like in practice. It is efficient. It is also blind in three places that only show up when someone stands on the shop floor.

What the standards ask for

ISO 9001:2015 clause 8.4.1 requires organisations to determine and apply criteria for the evaluation, selection, monitoring of performance and re-evaluation of external providers. Aerospace raises the bar: the IAQG’s IA9100 Key Change Summary (November 2023) restructures clause 8.4 to add „direct and sub-tier control“ and turns counterfeit-part prevention notes into requirements in 8.1.4, including training, obsolescence monitoring and traceability. None of that can be verified fully from a desk.

Blind spot 1: the sub-tier

From my own supplier audit experience: the document package describes the supplier. It rarely describes the supplier’s suppliers. Heat treatment, plating, NDT and special processes are often outsourced. On site, you can ask for the last three purchase orders to sub-tier sources and check whether your flow-down requirements appear on them.

Blind spot 2: the revision on the bench

The quality office holds the current drawing. The machine on the floor holds the one that was printed last year. Only a walk to the workstation shows which one is used.

Blind spot 3: the people behind the certificate

A certificate confirms that a system existed on the audit day. It does not show staff turnover since then. In a tight US labour market, the inspector who knew your part last year may be gone. On site, a ten-minute conversation tells you more than the training matrix.

When a desk review is enough

Low-risk, catalogue items with stable history. For anything with special processes, safety relevance or a new part number, plan a visit — or have someone local visit for you.

Three actions

1. Rank your US suppliers by risk: special processes, safety-relevant parts, new part numbers.
2. For the top tier, request sub-tier purchase orders before the audit.
3. Put one bench-level drawing check on every audit agenda.

Sources

• ISO — ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems — Requirements, clause 8.4.1, iso.org
• IAQG — IA9100 Key Change Summary, clause view (November 2023), iaqg.org