NATOPFP UNCLASSIFIED

1
AQAP 2070 Development Andy Oldershaw AQAP 2070
Action Team Chairman
2
This session is intended to brief you on

• Why AQAP 2070 is being revised

• The development plan
• The concept
• The strategy
• The schedule

• How the revision relates to concerns raised
  during last years Host Nation Conference

Your views are encouraged throughout
3
Why AQAP 2070 is being revised
Last years Host nation conference, provided a
substantial input to an AQAP 2070 review.
The review resulted in an action team being
formed to assess how the feedback could be used
to improve AQAP 2070. The Action Team met in
December 2006 and drafted a proposal to the NATO
Working Group For Quality (WG/2)
4
WG/2 endorsed the Concept and Development
Plan Ref20070114-WG2 2070 Submission-V1-U
A 3 Stage Process

• Comment Disposition (Complete)

• Structure Development (Complete)

• Drafting (In progress)

The deliverable, to WG/2 Draft 1, October 2007
5
What did you tell us
The process is not applied consistently across
all participating nations
Process Discipline is lacking/process needs
revision
More flexibility is required
Communication can be improved especially relating
to risk and product information
AQAP 2070 is guidance opposed to must/shall
6
Acknowledgements / Acceptance / Completion
Notifications need Established and measurable
timeframes
Satisfaction feedback will be encouraged
New Policy 5 days for acknowledgement 20 days
for acceptance
Process Discipline Is Lacking/Process Needs
Revision
There will be a measurement and analysis section.
New more flexible forms
GQA can Start without Delegator go ahead
7
The process is not working
Risk information is not known or available
Consider no risk classification
Risks not identified
Consider no risk requirement in certain situations
Still tasking
GQA process now starts with new Policy, Guidance
on risk as a delegation decision gate
Risk introduced early in the publication
explaining how risk is the key to GQA.
Process Discipline Is Lacking/Process Needs
Revision
Assume Legal requirements are based on risk
No risk knowledge is a Risk
New Risk Form
Revised annex to amplify policy
8
Form too Cumbersome
The RGQA Form will be split into 3 Request
Acceptance Reporting
New Risk Form to travel with the other forms
More Flexibility
The form will include more open text fields,
allowing more specific communication
9
Tailor GQA to the situation
Limited GQA (The Fast Track)
Facility Wide GQA
More Flexibility
Standard GQA
10
Process communication is inconsistent at best
Communications
New communications policy up front
Participant feedback will be facilitated
New forms with open text fields to provide more
flexibility.
There will be a measurement and analysis section.
11
Consider minimum surveillance requirements
Delegators do not always provide enough
information
Guidance Opposed to Must/Shall
Policy setting out the essentials for the process
to work.
Guidance where it is needed
Policy will set out what minimum service that
will be provided
12
What will be different?
Risk Assessment Up front
Policy, Guidance Tools MUST/SHOULD/COULD
Feedback through the process will be facilitated
Who does what when will be clearer
A more linear stage by stage process.
13
What will be the same?
The basic process or underlying principles
You told us that the principles are correct, but
not applied
14
What will it look like?
Policy
Guidance
15

• Risk

The scenario Nations will not accept the new
version
The Cause Too many changes, difficult to
translate
The severity The revision will be cancelled or
restarted (Wasted resource)
The likelihood Medium
16
(No Transcript)