FEATURED NEWS

Welcome back to the show. Heat Treat Radio host, Doug Glenn, wraps up a four-part series on CQI-9 Revision 4 changes with Acument Global Technologies’ James Hawthorne and Controls Service Inc. Justin Rydzewski. In this final episode, both of these experts give their advice on how to navigate and comply with Rev 4.

To find the previous episodes in this series, go to www.heattreattoday.com/radio.

Below, you can listen to the podcast by clicking on the audio play button or read the edited transcript.

The following transcript has been edited for your reading enjoyment.

Doug Glenn (DG):  We're here today with Justin Rydzewski who is the director of sales and marketing of Controls Service, Inc. in Livonia, Michigan and also with James Hawthorne, heat treat specialist at Acument Global Technologies.  Both of these gentlemen have been with us for two or three of the last three episodes that we put together.  James, was the committee chair, I believe that's the right title, for the Revision 4, and Justin, of course, was right alongside on the committee getting things done.  Gentlemen, first off, welcome back to Heat Treat Radio.

Justin Rydzewski (JR):  Glad to be here.

James Hawthorne (JH):  Thank you, Doug.  Glad to be here.

DG:  We've covered a lot of the major changes, a lot of the main points that people ought to know, on the first three episodes.  We want to wrap it up today by asking a couple of very practical questions, a couple of “opinion” questions, but, I think, also a couple of very practical questions on implementation, and things of that sort, of the new CQI-9 Rev 4.

Justin, if you don't mind, I'd like to start with you and address an issue that I think you and I touched on in the very first episode, and that was the difference between the CQI-9 standard and AM2750F, specifically, about the automotive industry.  Why doesn't it just adopt AMS2750F as opposed to having this separate CQI-9 standard?

JR:  I think that both specifications are appropriate for their industries.  But, there are some significant differences between the two.  First and foremost, one is intended for aerospace and the other for automotive.  AMS2750F, as we've mentioned in a previous episode, is a pyrometry standard, whereas CQI-9 is a system assessment; it is a process-based approach to things, whereas AMS2750 is more equipment based.  You classify things by temperature tolerances, by the instrumentation type that you have, whereas requirements within CQI-9 are generally based on your type of process and specific to your process, in particular.

I would say that the most significant difference between the two documents is AMS2750 is part of the NADCAP program and requires accreditation and an auditing body, PRI, to come out and say, “Yep, you're good to go.  Here's your certificate.  We'll see you in a year”.  CQI-9 is intended to be a self-assessment.  It's intended for heat treaters to implement themselves to provide them with a process of managing their heat treat and that doesn't require somebody to come in and accredit them and hand them a certificate.

There is a big difference between the two; they are not equals.  There are similarities, especially in the pyrometry section.  At one point, AMS was heavily sited inside of CQI-9.  Since its removal, however, we've had success, and that success has been measurable; it's been significant.  I would image that the OEs have been rather happy with what it is that they have there in the document, especially in the 4^th edition, and I think that the thought of going to an AMS2750 and abandoning CQI-9 is well outside the realm of plausible.

JH:  One thing I would add here is, if you read the headers for each section of the HTSA, section one is “Management Responsibility and Quality Planning”, section two is “Floor and Material Handling Responsibilities”, and section three is the equipment.  On the equipment side, you're going to get more into the pyrometry side of things- the metrology and the maintenance specifics to that equipment, as well.  So, the all-encompassing HTSA is a system that is a management system, or at least a system that you can develop a management system based behind, and ensure compliance.

DG:  For those who are just joining on this episode, HTSA, heat treat system assessment, is one of the main parts of the CQI standard.  Justin, I think your point is good.  James, I think, as well, the point is well taken.  CQI-9 is meant to be an internal tool, a continuous improvement tool that helps a company that is involved with heat treating to continually improve their process.  AMS2750F specifically, is pretty much exclusively a pyrometry certification program, where you've got to have somebody coming from the outside.  I remember, back in the day, when they were first starting one of the QS standards, they said, no longer are you going to have to comply or get qualified by this OE, or this prime, or this prime, now you can have one standard.  Has that been the case here?  Has it been effective in the automotive industry, CQI-9?

JH:  I think, 100%, Doug.  It's like IATF – all of the automotive industry has to be compliant to that.  Same thing with CQI-9.  It provides that commonality for all heat treaters in all the different processes that are employed at their facilities, or the multiple facilities that they may have.  For a company like ours, we have 8 companies in North America.  For the North American side of things that have heat treat furnaces in them, we have induction furnaces, we have carbonitriding furnaces, and we have stress relief furnaces.  So that commonality even helps us internally with our management system and how we take steps to provide that common approach and compliance to CQI-9.

[blockquote author="Justin Rydzewski" style="1"]The CQI-9 intent largely was that this is something that you can do yourself and implement yourself.  We'll provide you with the guidance and put it in simple terms and give you all the research you need to support this on your own.[/blockquote]

JR:  I think that also bodes well, up the ladder as well, for the OEs.  The more commonality that exists in the industry, the wider that, for lack of a better term, talent pool is.  The more people, the more sources that you can go to in order to have work done and have it what you expect it to be, from a quality standpoint.

I think one of the things that CQI-9 has done really well is they've made a concerted effort to make that document easier to understand and to simplify things down to just its bare bone necessities, whereas some of the other specifications that exist in industry can be lacking.  There is a real good reason why a lot of the work of some of those other pyrometry specifications out there are outsourced, because the expertise to adhere to those things and be confident that you're adhering to those things is possessed by an in-house team; they have to go outside.  The CQI-9 intent largely was that this is something that you can do yourself and implement yourself.  We'll provide you with the guidance and put it in simple terms and give you all the research you need to support this on your own.

DG:  I'm pretty sure, based on everything we've talked about, that you guys really like CQI-9.

JH:  100%!  I embrace it and our company embraces it.

DG:  So, I know you guys like it, you're the main cheerleaders.  What is your perception about companies outside of yourself?  Has it, in fact, been embraced, or has it kind of been “Heisman trophied”, the stiff arm – “We'll embrace you with one extended arm”.

JH:  If I may, I will say that it's been embraced across the industry through all heat treaters.  I think anywhere that anybody deemed it to be a burden, I think with the changes to the format, the added clarity, the improvements to the document, the knowledge base that's now been updated in the glossary, it is all going to help those guys cross any bridge that they were struggling with and make it better for them.

I believe we touched on a little bit in one of the past episodes, or maybe it was when Justin and I were talking about this offline, but one of our customers, who is a non-automotive customer, embraces CQI-9 and our systems and our approach to our heat treat.  That is a huge step because that particular company has a lot of internal specification as it pertains to heat treat, but CQI-9 is either equal to or exceeds what their expectation is.  It makes it easy for them to embrace it.  That was one of the things that was brought up in the roll-out presentation we did through AIAT – one of the other industries had mentioned they were following it.

DG:  It sounds like, overall, it has been fairly well embraced and this Rev 4 is going to make it even easier to cuddle up with a cup of hot cocoa and feel comfortable with it.

JR:  Generally speaking, in my travels, I have two categories of people that I come across.  You have the sort that is looking to embrace it.  They recognize that it's a “have to do” and they just want to know what the rules are.  They want to make sure that they understand what the rules are and that they make sense.  Maybe there is a point or two that they take exception to about, not fully understanding what the intent is of it, but, for the most part, by and large, they want to adhere to the requirements.  They recognize that they need to.

The other category includes those who fight anything that they're asked to do, no matter what it is.  “No, I don't want to do that.  We've been doing it this way forever.  Convince me, show me, that I'm doing it wrong.  I do some sort of subsequent testing and it always come out fine.  I've never had any complaints.  Why do I have to go do this?”  While that group is definitely the minority, I can tell you that that group, almost 100% of those people are going to be those types that you find more issues with than any other.  That's because they fight it and they try to find ways to circumvent things.  That's a real slippery slope there.

I think CQI-9 does a real good job at trying to keep things in its lane and recognize that if there's something that we're asking the heat treater to do, that that requirement needs to provide value on some level, or it needs to mitigate risk on some level, and a meaningful one at that.

You asked, “Do I like CQI-9?”  I like AMS2750 too.  There are some things in AMS2750 I like better than what we did in CQI-9.  Talking from experience of having to write some of the requirements in the document, and how difficult that can be to say what it is you want to say but in a manner that makes sense outside of your own brain, it's difficult.  I think AMS states some things very, very well.  I like their thermocouple calibration certificate requirements better than ours; I think they're more detailed.  But I think both work really well, and embracing it sometimes just requires a bit of an education or an understanding of the intent side of things, the purpose side of things.

DG:  When was CQI-9 Rev 4 released?

JR:  The last week of June.

DG:  It's been going on for months now.  How about timing?  I would imagine that a lot of people that are listening to this probably know that they need to comply with certain aspects of CQI-9.  What is the timing for them?  When do they need to have all their ducks in order?

JH:  During the roll out presentation, the OEMs made a joint statement.  We did that roll out presentation in September, and they essentially said that the time between the June release and that (roll-out) presentation was the grace period.  When the 3^rd edition expired, you have to do 4^th edition assessment and they will no longer accept 3^rd edition assessments at that point.  So, whenever your expiration is, you shall do it to the 4^th edition.

JR:  The 3^rd edition is officially obsolete.

DG:  So if you're doing another assessment, it's going to be a Rev 4 assessment.  Are there any other timing issues that people need to be aware of?

JR:  That should pretty much cover everything.  If you're outsourcing an element of your service or of a material, you should be specifying adherence or conformance to the 4^th edition at this point.

DG:  So, James, I want to address this next question to you, if you don't mind.  I know you said in your organization, you've got how many North American locations?

JH:  8 plants in North America.

DG:  OK, 8 plants.  And you've, obviously, rolled out Rev 4.  How did you handle the transition?  How did it go?  What was complicated and difficult, and how did you address it?

JH:  For me, I think it's a little easier, because I was in the room while we were writing the 4^th edition.  The heat treat systems for all of our locations, I wrote.  So, I have a very unfair advantage.  But, that being said, even knowing and being as intimate as I am with our own system and the 4^th edition of CQI-9, we have made a concerted effort to slow down the process of doing the heat treat system assessment and slow down the process of doing the job audit and doing the process tables to ensure that we are capturing everything.

We've made this statement many times, whether it was here with you or if it was through our roll-out presentation, it is essential to read this document.  It is essential to understand what's happening in it.  If it takes just a little bit of extra time to read a little bit further to do the checks and balances, pop into the glossary, just to make sure that you are answering the questions as compliant as you possibly can, is the most important thing.

A wise man told me once, Compliance is a circle and if you're just outside the circle, all I want you to do is get you just inside the circle.  And next year I'm going to tighten the circle a little bit and if you're still sitting outside, we're going to move you inside.  You don't have to hit a bullseye every time, but you have to be inside the compliance circle.  So, if you understand that, and if you manage it that way, it's going to make it easy and more effective.  Then, you can stick to the intent of the document, and the intent of the document is within the acronym itself of CQI-9: it's continuous quality improvement.  Never take your foot off the pedal.

DG:  Right.  It never ends.  Justin, how about you?  Same question.  I know you're going in through your company into a variety of other companies who are trying to comply.  What are you seeing, from their perspective, as far as the difficulty?  How are they handling it?

JR:  I think the most difficult aspect of things, I guess, is probably one of the most obvious: implementation.  You've been doing it one way for the last 8-9 years and now we're going to need to implement something new.  And when do you want to implement something new?  It's really nice when you work for an organization that has process specifications and certain test specifications very well defined, because then you can hold onto them and say, “Here are the things that we were doing,” and you can go through them and see where things need to be different.

Where they're less defined, or they're defined in some manner that is not on the forefront of things – like I define things in a quote or in a purchase order – those become difficult. There could be elements of implementing something too soon, and now, all of a sudden, I violate something that they've done internally, or sometimes if they had it stated internally for a requirement.

For us, the most difficult thing has been the implementation side of things.  It's meant a lot of conversations and trying to determine what this is going to look like, what things we are going to need to do differently, what things we want to check on, and the finally to, for lack of a better word, “coach” my customer along.  Here are things you need to consider, here are things you might need to do differently, here's how I would state it for the new edition for making revisions.  But to the horse that has been thoroughly well beaten, you have to read the document.

The CQI-9 audio book, coming soon, we'll have that on tape for you.  Whether you're driving to work or putting your kids to sleep, it will work either way.

DG:  Last question for you guys.  For a company who's wanting to become CQI-9 compliant, what are some of those must do's and what are some of the practical advice you've got for them as they start down that path?

JH:  If, I may, I think the first and most important thing there is to evaluate the talent that you have on site.  Who is your in-house expert?  Who is the guy that most fits what you need to be the driver of those next steps?  As long as you have that, and that guy understands your system, then the journey can begin and I think your process is more linear with less hills and valleys.  You start to win, and you start to win with less drop-off, and that's what you want to do.  First and foremost, have the right guy in place.

[blockquote author="James Hawthorne" style="1"]First and foremost, have the right guy in place. [/blockquote]

DG:  So, in your estimation, James, you're saying it's a personnel issue.  Right away, make sure you do a good assessment and get the right guy in the spot to oversee the process.

JH:  Right.  You don't want to be a commercial heat treater and you just hired a quality manager from a widget factory to come be the champion of your heat treat.  You want him to be a heat treater.  You want to have a heat treater in place that knows his stuff.

DG:  Right.  And who has an attention to detail, I'm sure.

JH:  I think it's important to the extent of what Justin was just talking about is, when that person talks to his suppliers, his service providers, you want to have somebody that has some wherewithal and understanding in that field so when that communication does take place, and you have folks like Justin and others in his field, trying to help educate the heat treater on what it takes to be compliant with, whether it's reporting, whether it's through the process or whatever, having that understanding is going to make even the service provider’s job easier.

JR:  I think that organizations that struggled with the 3^rd edition are probably going to continue to struggle with the 4^th edition.  If you're comfortable with the 3^rd edition and you're doing well with the 3^rd edition, the 4^th edition is going to be relatively easy to adapt to and to implement.  Like with any math story problem, you've got to write down what it is you know.  So you go through the document itself, you start making notes on things, you start citing where things might need to be different, you start red flagging things, you review what you have, may do a Ctrl + F for any mention of 3^rd edition and replace with 4^th edition, or something simple like that. It is what you have created and try to continue on with the successes you had for the 3^rd edition into that 4^th one.  If you've struggled with the 3^rd edition, the likelihood that you're going to struggle with the 4^th is also pretty great.  It is likely that the document isn't the issue, the issue is likely a lack of awareness.

It cannot go understated how valuable it is to invest in training, especially if you're bringing some new guy on to champion the effort, or if you've got a team that's eager and hungry and looking to prove their worth – get them trained.  It's readily available.  Our organization offers it, the AIG offers training on the HTSA side of things; there are plenty of organizations out there that will offer this training.  The benefits to working with a high-end service provider in many of these regards, is that they'll help you through the process as part of their service offering.  That's how the true value of a good service provider can be measured is in these sorts of situations.  I'd lean on your experts.  Invest in your staff.  Get the training to get everyone up to speed.

Again, if you fought it in the 3^rd, and your plan is to fight it on the 4^th, it's going to be an unenjoyable road and you might need to figure out ways to embrace what it is you know and acknowledge what it is you don't, and then fill those gaps in so that you can get to where you need to go.

To find other Heat Treat Radio episodes, go to www.heattreattoday.com/radio.