One day on-site. A clear, written report on exactly where your quality system stands against AS9100 Rev D or ISO 9001 — every gap identified, prioritized by compliance risk, with a realistic path forward.
A gap assessment is a structured evaluation of your current quality management system — or the absence of one — against the requirements of the standard you're pursuing. The output is clarity: exactly what you have, exactly what you're missing, and exactly what it will take to close the distance.
It's not a commitment to full implementation. It's the information you need to make that decision intelligently. Some organizations discover they're further along than they thought. Others discover they have more foundational work ahead than they expected. Either way, you leave with a clear picture rather than an estimate built on assumptions.
I conduct the assessment personally — reviewing your documentation, observing key processes, and talking to the people who do the work. The report reflects what I actually found, not what a template suggested I might find.
You have a deadline, a business relationship at stake, and no clear picture of how far you are from meeting the requirement. The gap assessment tells you whether you have months of work ahead or years — and what the critical path looks like.
Full certification implementation is a real commitment of time and money. Before you make that commitment, knowing what you're actually dealing with — not a generic estimate — is worth the cost of a single day.
A QMS that passed Stage 2 three years ago may have drifted from what's actually happening on the floor. An honest assessment before your next surveillance audit is far less painful than finding out during it.
The assessment covers every relevant requirement of the standard you're pursuing. Nothing is skipped because it looks inconvenient. Nothing is assumed to be in place because the documentation says so.
Review of existing QMS documentation — quality manual, procedures, work instructions, records — against the standard's requirements clause by clause. What exists, what's missing, and where documented procedures don't reflect actual practice.
Observation of key operational processes to assess what actually happens on the floor against what the procedures say. The gap between documented and practiced is where most audit findings originate.
Conversations with key personnel — operators, supervisors, quality staff, management — to understand how quality responsibilities are actually understood and executed day to day. Not what the org chart says, but what people actually do.
Review of quality records — calibration logs, training records, corrective actions, inspection records — to assess whether the evidence exists to support a registrar audit. Missing records are often the largest source of findings.
Evaluation of whether risk-based thinking is embedded in your operational planning and decision-making — not just described in a procedure. This is consistently one of the most-cited finding areas for small shops in initial certification audits.
Assessment of management review processes, internal audit practices, and the organization's overall quality culture. Certification is achievable without management engagement — but maintaining it isn't. This section assesses readiness honestly.
A gap assessment day is structured to cover the most ground in the least disruptive way. Most operations can accommodate the assessment without pulling people from production for more than an hour at a time.
Brief meeting with the owner or GM to confirm scope, timeline, and what I'm looking for. I describe the standard's requirements in plain language and explain what the day will look like. Usually 30–45 minutes.
Review of existing quality documentation — whatever you have. Quality manual, procedures, forms, records. I work from what's there, not from an expectation that everything should already exist. This is typically done independently without pulling staff.
Walk through the operation — production floor, inspection area, receiving, shipping. Observing actual work against documented procedures. This is where the gap between paper and practice becomes visible. Usually 60–90 minutes with minimal disruption to production.
Brief conversations with key personnel — usually 15–20 minutes each, minimal disruption. Paired with a review of quality records: calibration logs, training records, past corrective actions, inspection documentation. I'm looking for evidence, not perfection.
Preliminary findings shared verbally before I leave — the major gaps, the things that are closer than expected, and an early sense of timeline. No surprises in the written report; the debrief is where the honest conversation happens first.
The complete gap assessment report — every identified gap, prioritized by compliance risk, with effort estimates for closure and a recommended action sequence. A document you can act on, not a generic scorecard.
A gap assessment isn't always the right first step. Here's when it is.
A customer or prime has issued the requirement. You need a realistic timeline and cost estimate before you can make a business decision. The assessment produces exactly that — based on your actual state, not assumptions.
Your QMS was built for Stage 2. Three years have passed. Processes have changed, people have turned over, and you're not sure your documentation reflects reality anymore. An honest assessment before the registrar arrives is always better than finding out during the visit.
Certification implementation is a real financial and operational commitment. One day and a written report is a modest investment in making that decision with accurate information rather than generic estimates.
Schedule a free 30-minute call and tell me about your situation. I'll let you know whether a gap assessment makes sense as a first step, what it would involve for your specific operation, and what you'd walk away with. No generic pitch — a real conversation.
No pitch. No obligation.