Ensuring Quality in Space: A Conversation on Standards Across the Different IAQG Sectors

In this episode of the Quality Horizon Podcast, we are joined with Alfio Mantineo, the head of operations for the Product Assurance and Safety Office at the European Space Agency (ESA), discusses the significance of standards and guidelines in the aerospace sector, particularly in the context of international cooperation. Providing valuable insights into the critical role of standards in ensuring quality and compliance in the aerospace industry, highlighting the collaborative efforts of organizations like ESA, NASA, and JAXA within the IAQG Space Forum to foster global harmonization and improve industry practices.

The conversation centers around an article co-authored by Mantineo and his colleagues from ESA and the IAQG Space Forum, titled "Comparison of Standards and Guidelines in Use in Different IAQG Sectors for the Aerospace European Bulletin." A link to the article can be found here! 

Transcript

Susan Matson: [00:13 - 00:40] Greetings, everyone, and welcome. I'm your host, Susan Matson, and with me today is Alfio Mantineo. Alfio is the head of operations directorate for the Product Assurance and Safety Office of the European Space Agency, otherwise known as ESA. Additionally, he is the member of the 9100 writing team for the IAQG, the EAQG-IAQG Space Forum, and the AIM Core team member. Alfio, welcome to the show.

Alfio Mantineo: [00:41 - 00:42] Thank you. Welcome to you as well.

Susan Matson: [00:43 – 01:35] Thank you. So, recently you, along with some counterparts from both ESA and the IAQG Space Forum, collaborated on an article titled, Comparison of Standards and Guidelines in Use in Different IAQG Sectors for the Aerospace European Bulletin. Now, for those that are new to the show, IAQG is comprised of three geographic areas, the AAQG, which is in the Americas, the EAQG, which represents Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and the APAQG, Accompanying Member Companies within the Asia-Pacific region. But let's get back to the article. I want to let everyone know that we will include a link in the show notes so that you can read the full article yourself. Alfio, can we start off with you just giving us a highlight, an overall message of the article? What was it about?

Alfio Mantineo: [01:35 - 02:49] Basically, the article has been created following up interesting conversation we had within the Space Forum on the importance of explaining, first of all, the need of the standard. And the fact that standards are not something given for good, they evolve over time and they follow some needs. So we try to create a bit of a history about why the standards are being created and probably give also a glimpse of what we expect to be the revolution over time. Reflecting in particular the fact that from the geopolitics, there has been a strong increase of cooperation. And IAQG is an example of that. You mentioned the three sectors. In the past, those sectors were a little bit isolated, but now they feel the need to work together. So they develop standards for different needs, but those standards need to be used together because you have a common contract, common aims. I quote about the International Space Station as an example of international cooperation. So this gives an idea about why this is needed. Following some discussions, sometimes you have to go back again to the origin to explain the future.

Susan Matson: [02:49 - 02:58] Perfect example of why it was needed. What about today was the inspiration for doing it? Why now? Why putting this article out now?

Alfio Mantineo: [02:59 - 03:49] Basically, this article has been a very interesting follow-up from several events that happened within the IAQG. In particular, in the frame of the Space Forum, we felt the need of showing what are the peculiarities, and we can use this word, about space needs or space special aspect with the aerospace domain. We started within the IAQG into basically the activity we're doing, the Space Forum, to try to create a bit of a history about what are those key aspect, also make some distinction vis-a-vis, for instance, the normal aeronautical sector. From this one, we saw it could be a good idea also to explain how the different standards have been evolved and how they try to measure them together. In this case, IAQG played quite an interesting role.

Susan Matson: [03:49 - 04:06] Thank you. Now, for those listeners that may not be as familiar with the IAQG as we are, can you elaborate a little on the importance of the standards and the guidelines that are ensuring the quality and compliance for these projects that you're referring to?

Alfio Mantineo: [04:06 - 05:25] I think that also in the article we use an interesting metaphor. Normally, you understand how a thing is important when you don't have it. I mean, everybody gives for granted that you have electricity in your house and you don't think about it. You realize when you don't have it. In a way, standard can be seen the same way. Standard is a way to pass the knowledge of different people. Is it normally a gathering of best practice and experience codified? So they simplify also the life of person who not necessarily have a full understanding of the technicality behind it. But for instance, they know that they can refer to something, and by referring to it, they also have some legal element to create contract, to manage contract, even if they are not necessarily expert in specific domain. This is the reason why standards tend to be developed in particular from the customer point of view in order to monitor and implement correctly in the supply chain specific requirement and manage the legality of this one. This from legally aspect or supply chain management. At the same time, when you think about New kids on the block or newcomers want to do something in the business. The first thing they ask is how I do it. Tell me standard or tell me what they're supposed to do it. This is a very important aspect of standard. Try to address it.

Susan Matson: [05:26 - 05:51] The way you just described it, obviously standards are going to allow for simplification. of some complexities, right? Everybody is now following the same methods and processes, allows for probably even the simplification of contract requirements, right, in the overall supply chain. But how do different standards from various sources, globally speaking, impact that simplification?

Alfio Mantineo: [05:51 - 07:23] Basically, first of all, you have to consider that for good or for bad, it depends to whom you ask the question, is that you have a lot of required in the complex systems. So just for the peace of mind, referring to a standard that incorporate thousand of those required, simplify the aspect of managing a contract. And there's already something. Also, as I say, complex system, you cannot expect that everybody can master all the different disciplines. you need normally a big team, but from a contract point of view, you want to put together one single contract. Different standard helps in identifying the specific requirements and just referring to them with one single line. It may sound as a triviality, but in reality, this is one of the aspects that sometimes is very appreciated in the administrative management of contract. who's not an eligible part of managing the progress and development of complex systems and really doing progress into the sector of aerospace. Because at the beginning, you have to spell out everything. When you start understanding what is needed, then you refer just to a specific standard and then simplify a lot. Of course, then you can make a customization, you can remove some requirement, you can do a lot of things. But already the peace of mind of referring to something as Granted, this is what you're supposed to do. This is what you're supposed to comply with. Simplify a lot into the identification of what you need and what can be provided.

Susan Matson: [07:24 - 07:34] Interesting. So what would be some of the challenges faced when different stakeholders have the multiple standards for the same area?

Alfio Mantineo: [07:35 - 09:03] That's a typical example that was faced when the international cooperation started in the space sector, basically. As I say, normally standards are being created, you think about the defense sector, at national level, who really manage the contract execution with your industry. Then this is done at European level, but at the same time it was done in US, at the same time it was done in Japan and the other country. The point is, when you start making a cooperation, think about International Space Station as a very good example about that. how many companies, how many nations have been involved, one of the key should become, OK, so how can I be sure that what I refer to my standard will be acknowledged and compliant with what my colleagues in the other organizations are used to? So this was really one of the aspects that created the problem. This is from the point of view, if you like, of international cooperation. But now think about the aerospace sector. We have a big company that works across all the different nations. You can imagine the complexity of referring for each national contract to a different standard. You have to duplicate or triplicate the work just to assure the formal compliance with the requirement. So going toward a mutual acknowledgment of standard or higher level standard is always a simplification and means saving a lot of resources can be used for something better.

Susan Matson: [09:03 - 09:10] So that mutual recognition of the standards, how did you know the differences and the commonalities? You're in Europe. How did you know this?

Alfio Mantineo: [09:11 - 10:50] That's a very good question, because the point is at the beginning. you don't know the other standard. You start needed to learn about the other standard. This was done by ESA, JAXA, and NASA when we created this lateral group. Basically, one of the key issue was, let's study the standard. Working group were appointed in order to understand if the standard were equivalent, if the standard has some discrepancy, Also because sometimes the discrepancy may be very trivial in the sense that some requirements are not in the same standard with the same name on another one. So not as something you change, but simply just to put together this puzzle in a way that can be easily understood. And on this basis, assuring that if I make a contract with a company A in one European nation, then this contract will provide something that in Japan will be acknowledged as compliant with their own standard, as a mutual recognition. Of course, during this exercise, you also find out best practice that you say, oh, it makes sense to incorporate in our standard, or maybe you can give feedback about how things can be done differently. One thing is for sure is that usually standard developed in this way are normally done following the experience. You have the pioneering activities. Sometimes you have a problem and you learn from problem. And also you get more in a way sensitive to issues if you had a problem in that area. So you try to focus more this aspect in the standard, maybe in another nation that was like enough not to have this problem, be less sensitive. So this reflect also the sensitivity on specific domain.

Susan Matson: [10:50 - 11:17] So it leads to believe, how does the base form, the IAQG space forum, play a role? What is the role within this? I mean, you talked about NASA, JAXA, and ESA. Obviously, they easily align with the three different sectors, and you have the space forum of the IAQG, but how does their role in improving and moving forward in the guidance and the use of standards in the industry?

Alfio Mantineo: [11:19 - 13:19] I think, first of all, let me stress that ISA, JAXA, and NASA are all members officially of IAQG in the Space Forum. We have the privilege or even the duty of expressing our position about IAQG standard on the different ballot. But also, this is the occasion of providing, if you like, the customer point of view about industry development. And one of the key aspects that we noticed into the space forum, and this is why it was created, was mostly to stress the fact that the aerospace is not so, in a way, a simple domain. There is a lot of different nuances. And space requires to have some specific understanding. In particular, and this maybe is changing now over time, space was much more a kind of one-off development. You don't have the serial production like we have in the aeronautical sector. So there was a bit of a different approach, mostly we do prototypes and then one of them make another prototype. Now the market is of course evolving and you have a more commercial sector, This is also being reflected. But at the same time, the requirement you have for having a system flying in space and being far from Earth for several years is a different requirement than a system that you can do maintenance when it lands or after a period of time. Just to give an example, speaking about the European Space Agency, we have a mission that fly since 1999. OK, so still there. OK, and we hope to have even longer now speaking about XML. So the point is that in terms even on the reliability criteria can be more stringent. Because you have to last for much longer time.

Susan Matson: [13:20 - 14:02] So the the idea of coming together, collaborating together so that we have a stronger outcome in the end. For global harmony or harmonization, which is one of the things that the IAQG does look to do. You did provide some examples, but how do we look at specifically with the space forum evolve to address some of those unique challenges? You talked about a mission that's been out since 1999 and it's still going. So what are some of those unique challenges that are specific to space that we need to be paying attention to that just didn't exist before?

Alfio Mantineo: [14:02 - 16:09] I think more than one of the challenges that I expressed is the fact that so far mostly the development was focusing on one single prototype. So you make one single satellite, you make one single system and that's it. You don't make many of those or we don't have the same approach like you qualify a system and then you start making a production chain. But also you have sometimes the requirement about for instance radiation. the environment outside Earth is much more demanding in a way compared to the one within our atmosphere. And on top of that we have additional requirements that are coming from agreement that are learned over time. One for everything is about, I don't know, the zero debris charter. So the fact they want to minimize the space debris because it's getting very crowded. So this puts additional requirement on space system compared to what you put on systems that run on the ground. So example about the management of the thermal cycle or the qualification of the component, radiation has been one of the key element that we mentioned, but also just to quote an example, we have sometimes space missions that want to go very close to the Sun or to the Mercury. So you have very challenge with the high temperature that's supposed to resist and then cycle. So basically, if you like, is not the specific requirement itself that is very strange because you can have also in the aerospace sector very, in the aeronautical sector, very challenging requirements. But it's more the fact that there is an entire family because the domain where it's supposed to fly different than just flying the atmosphere. And this is why we sometimes within the aerospace sector now, you want to get more, sensitize your colleague understanding that space is slightly different than aeronautical. And this is the same reason why within the IAQG, there is also the defense forum, because also they have a slightly different requirement.

Susan Matson: [16:10 - 16:22] So let's talk about the human presence in space missions. How do these standards contribute to the safety and reliability of having our people come home, that go up into space?

Alfio Mantineo: [16:23 - 17:48] I think that's the aspect of reliability is something that all standards are about. Because I think if you like the reliability in the aeronautical sector, it's even more higher in terms of assurance of the success of the mission. But of course, you want to assure the success of the mission for manned mission, for unmanned mission as well. The point is that the fact is that you cannot perform maintenance in remote. Basically, the system has to last much longer then a system that you can, for instance, take off and landing after one day or after one month or whatever. The point is that reliability is one of the element that is associated to the length of the mission itself. The fact that you have a standard is going to tell you, of course, what are the steps to be taken into the process to ensure that all those reliability required, the process followed to building up the system has been respected. and also what's supposed to be the process itself. Because as I say, you have newcomers, they want to do the business, but they need to understand how to do it. Standard will help. I'm not saying it will do all, but it will help. For instance, within the IAQG, we also have the Supply Chain Management Handbook, who address the other aspect of the standard, basically the guidelines about how to do things. Gives us the framework. the start.

Susan Matson: [17:48 - 18:04] Yes. So let's talk future. In the article, you address how it came to be and where kind of we are now. But let's talk, you know, the future direction of the standardization, especially in that small to medium enterprises.

Alfio Mantineo: [18:04 - 19:31] What does the future hold there? I think that probably small and medium enterprise are those that I In principle gain more about the standard because they rely on the experience of other organization than in the past or higher level one. Because there is a say they can learn from what are the required that they can learn about with end books. All this work supposed to be done without the best practice so from this point of view is a very good element to start up the business. At the same time, it's also important that you can be reassured that all the work will be done in adherence to what is considered the best practice or the requirement to be complied with. Of course, this doesn't mean that periodically you don't need to review it. I mean, something will become so normal and common, you don't have to spell out anymore in the standard. It's normal business. At the same time, something is being too much demanding due to the evolution of technology, so you can be more relaxed in the requirement itself because already the common practice is already achieving some level of quality or reliability. Therefore, you can focus on the most important element to be controlled because at the end, when you have too many requirements, you have to ask about compliance, so it will take a lot of effort to verify each one of them. restructure the things because from administration point of view, it will become complicated to follow them up.

Susan Matson: [19:31 - 19:33] Always refining, always evolving, correct?

Alfio Mantineo: [19:33 - 19:42] Correct. So it's not a static thing. There has to be follow up and sometimes even the timeline from the new version becomes a challenging aspect.

Susan Matson: [19:43 - 20:18] Absolutely. Well, thank you. Thank you for joining us today. I really appreciate the time. The conversation was informative and I hope our listeners agree. As we continue to realize how integrated and global our society is, we're definitely going to need some more conversations like this. Best of luck in everything you're doing at ESA, and especially with the IAQG Space Forum, and everything that is in front of you, and wish you the best of success. Thank you. You're welcome. This is Susan Matson, and you have been listening to the IAQG Quality Horizon. Until next time, stay safe.