NAFEMS QSS (Quality System Supplement) — International Standards for CAE Simulation Quality Management

Good question. NAFEMS's QSS—Quality System Supplement—is something that complements ISO 9001, specifically tailored for CAE simulation. ISO 9001 is a generic framework for "quality management of products and services," but it doesn't address simulation-specific challenges—for example, "Who performed the analysis?" "Was mesh convergence checked?" "How was model validation done?"

Exactly. QSS specifically defines four pillars:

• Standardization of Analysis Processes: Document "what to do and in what order" in procedures (SOPs)
• Analyst Competency Certification: Objectively prove a technician's capability through the PSE (Professional Simulation Engineer) qualification
• Model Review Procedures: A system for independent third-party review
• Result Verification Procedures: A framework for systematically implementing V&V (Verification & Validation)

For example, in aerospace, when EASA or FAA grants type certification based on simulation results, they increasingly require such quality management systems. The NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) is moving similarly in the nuclear field.

Of course. If you're proving aircraft wing strength via simulation, you must demonstrate "whether that analysis was done using reliable procedures" and "whether the analyst has sufficient competence." Precisely because the trend of reducing physical tests and substituting with simulation is accelerating, quality standards like QSS have become essential.

No, not at all. QSS is a supplementary layer built on top of ISO 9001. It takes the ISO 9001 Quality Management System (QMS) as a base and adds simulation-specific requirements.

The QSS framework is largely composed of five domains:

1. Governance: Defines policies, responsibilities, and authorities for simulation activities. Includes management commitment.
2. People: Analyst competency requirements, PSE qualification, education/training plans.
3. Process: Analysis procedure documents, model review, approval flow, change management.
4. Technology: Software/hardware selection criteria, configuration management, license management.
5. Data: Input/output data management, traceability, archiving policy.

It can be scaled according to size. For example, for a team of 5 engineers, just summarizing "who reviews" and "which solver version to use" on a single rule sheet is already proper governance. The important thing is converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. The essence of QSS is moving away from person-dependent quality control like "It's fine if veteran A looks at it" to creating a state where "anyone can guarantee a certain quality level by following the procedure manual."

NAFEMS doesn't officially prescribe a scoring formula, but many organizations quantitatively assess compliance with QSS requirements. For example, a model like this:

In aerospace, 90% or more is often required. In automotive, 70-80% is a realistic initial target. However, the goal is not "raising the score" itself; the essence is continuous improvement. It's important to have an attitude of turning the PDCA cycle and improving the score every year.

PSE (Professional Simulation Engineer) is an international qualification for CAE engineers certified by NAFEMS. It's set up by field, and currently includes the following categories:

• PSE-Structural: Structural analysis (linear/nonlinear)
• PSE-CFD: Fluid analysis
• PSE-Thermal: Thermal analysis
• PSE-Electromagnetics: Electromagnetic field analysis
• PSE-Multiphysics: Coupled analysis

Acquisition requires practical experience (typically 5+ years), recommendation, and a technical interview (portfolio-based). It's less about a written exam and more about evaluating "what kind of analysis you've actually done."

Honestly, recognition is still low within Japan. But among European aerospace tier-ones (Airbus, Safran, etc.), cases requiring PSE-equivalent competency proof from analysis personnel are increasing. As long as Japanese companies are part of the global supply chain, they can't remain unrelated. Especially in the context of "replacing tests with simulation" (Certificate by Analysis - CBA), proof of analyst competency will become essential.

Of course. QSS recommends defining a Competency Matrix. This is a table of skill items x levels, visualizing each analyst's competency.

Exactly. QSS requires defining the required competency level according to the "criticality" of the analysis. For example, a rule like: assign a Level 3+ analyst to analyses directly related to safety (e.g., aircraft fatigue life evaluation) and make independent third-party review mandatory.

PSE has CPD (Continuing Professional Development) requirements. You must continue a certain amount of annual learning/training to maintain the qualification. The CAE world advances rapidly, so knowledge from 5 years ago alone is insufficient. You need to keep catching up with new element technologies, solver function updates, and advances in V&V methods.

Specifically:

• Attending seminars/workshops hosted by NAFEMS
• Presenting/reviewing technical papers
• Organizing/participating in internal study sessions
• Challenging new analysis project fields

These are recorded and submitted for the PSE renewal review. It's a mechanism similar to lifelong learning for doctors.

The first step is gap analysis. Compare your current analysis processes with QSS requirements and identify "what's missing."

1. Current State Assessment: Does your current team have SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures)? Who does model review? How is solver version management done?
2. Gap Identification: For each of QSS's five domains (Governance, People, Process, Technology, Data), organize the difference between current state and requirements.
3. Prioritization: Start with high-risk areas (safety-related analysis, regulatory compliance).
4. Roadmap Creation: Phased implementation plan for 6 months, 1 year, 2 years.

You don't need to aim for 100 points right away. Starting with the "most painful point" is smart.

NAFEMS provides a QSS Self-Assessment Tool. It's a questionnaire of 50-80 items, in a format where you answer "Not implemented (0)", "Partial (0.5)", "Fully implemented (1)" for each item. For example, questions like:

• "Are analyst competency requirements documented?"
• "Is an independent model review process defined?"
• "Do you maintain a validated version list for the software used?"
• "Is complete traceability of analysis input data/results ensured?"
• "Is the mesh convergence confirmation procedure standardized?"

When first done, most organizations score around 40-60%. From there, you can set a concrete goal like "First, aim for 70%."

That's a very good point. The granularity of SOPs should be at a level where "a new engineer can read it and execute it without mistakes." Even things veterans think "that's obvious" should be documented.

Typical structure of a CAE SOP:

1. Scope: Which analysis types it applies to (e.g., linear static analysis, modal analysis)
2. Required Competency: The competency level needed to execute this procedure
3. Input Data Requirements: CAD data format, material data source, definition source for load conditions
4. Mesh Standards: Element type, minimum size, quality criteria (aspect ratio < 5.0, etc.)
5. Boundary Condition Check: Procedure for confirming physical validity of constraints
6. Analysis Execution: Solver settings, convergence criteria, computational resources
7. Result Verification: Mandatory check items (reaction force balance, energy conservation, mesh convergence)
8. Review/Approval: Who reviews, who approves
9. Record Retention: Storage location and retention period for input files, result files, reports

Actually, that's the point where QSS implementation shows the most effect. If someone says "Please reproduce the analysis from 3 years ago," and you have all the input files, solver version, and mesh settings ready, you can respond in 10 minutes. If not, it takes 3 days. Traceability is unglamorous but has a very high return on investment.

QSS recommends a three-stage review: