Senior Manager, Quality Systems Engineering
Divergent · Torrance, CA · 1 mo ago
On-siteQuality Assurance$174k/yrFull-time
We need to output HTML fragment with sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. Only include sections if posting has real specific content. We must not repeat job title. Must not include Job ID etc. Must preserve all substantive info, no invented. Remove boilerplate like EEO, E-Verify, etc. Also remove navigation, legal, etc.
We need to parse the posting.
Key sections:
- About the role: The first paragraph(s) describing purpose and role. Could be "Purpose Divergent's Quality Systems Engineering organization exists..." etc. That is about the role.
- Responsibilities: The bullet list of duties: Own the Enterprise QMS, Lead development of DQMS, Lead and develop team, Run audit program, Sustain certification, Own document control, Drive corrective action, Own quality data triage, Partner across orgs. Those are responsibilities.
- Requirements: Basic Qualifications list.
- Qualifications: Preferred Qualifications list.
- Skills: maybe combine some skill statements? The posting includes many skill-like items within qualifications; but we can treat Skills as maybe derived from responsibilities? However we need to include a Skills section only if posting has real specific content for it. The posting does not have a separate "Skills" heading; but we could extract skill statements from qualifications? The instruction: "Use for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It suggests we can include Skills if there is content. The posting includes many skill-like items: "Ability to lawfully access information...", "Bachelor's degree...", etc. Those are qualifications. Skills could be things like "Experience with structured root cause...", "Experience defining requirements for and deploying quality systems software...", etc. Those are also qualifications. Might be okay to put them under Skills. But we need to avoid duplication. Perhaps we put Requirements = Basic Qualifications (including degree, years experience). Qualifications = Preferred Qualifications. Skills = maybe the skill-based items like "Experience with structured root cause...", "Experience defining requirements for and deploying quality systems software...", "Experience administering an electronic QMS...", "Experience leading digital quality...", etc. However many of those appear in Preferred Qualifications. The posting's Preferred Qualifications list includes many skill-like items. So we could treat Preferred Qualifications as Skills. But the instruction separate Qualifications and Skills; we could put Preferred Qualifications under Qualifications, and maybe Skills empty? But we must not emit a heading with filler. So we should only include Skills if there is real specific content not already captured elsewhere. Could we extract skill statements from the responsibilities? Eg "Own the architecture of the Enterprise QMS", "Lead the development of DQMS", etc. Those are responsibilities, not skills. The posting does not have a distinct Skills section; but we could still create a Skills section pulling out skill-based phrases from the qualifications (like "Experience with structured root cause...", "Experience defining requirements for and deploying quality systems software...", "Experience administering an electronic QMS...", "Experience leading a digital quality...", "Experience integrating quality data across MES, PLM, and ERP systems", "Experience deploying a layered process audit program", "Experience in additive manufacturing...", "Experience standing up or substantially restructuring a QMS", "Experience holding certification to both aerospace and automotive standards", "Hands-on ETQ Reliance administration experience", "Six Sigma Black Belt certification", "Experience supporting aerospace or automotive structures programs"). Those are indeed skill/experience items. So we could put them under Skills.
But we must not invent or summarize away detail; we must preserve all substantive information. If we move items from Preferred Qualifications to Skills, we are not losing info, just re categorizing. That's okay as long as we keep all info somewhere. However we must not duplicate. We could keep Preferred Qualifications as Qualifications, and Skills as empty? But we need to avoid empty heading. So better to treat Preferred Qualifications as Qualifications, and maybe Skills from the "Basic Qualifications" that are skill-based? But Basic Qualifications includes degree, years experience, ability to lawfully access info, etc. Those are more like requirements. So we can put Requirements = Basic Qualifications. Qualifications = Preferred Qualifications. Skills maybe we can omit because no explicit skill section; but we could still include Skills if we can derive from responsibilities? The instruction: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." So maybe we skip Skills entirely if not clearly present. The posting does not have a Skills heading; but we could still include a Skills section if we can find skill-specific content not covered elsewhere. However the Preferred Qualifications already contain skill-like items; but we could still call that section Qualifications and not have Skills. That seems acceptable: we have About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We need to check if Benefits, Pay, Schedule are present.
Benefits: The posting includes "What We Offer:" with bullet points: Holistic Compensation Package, Wellness and Time Off, Comprehensive Health and Wellness, Investment in Growth, Collaborative and High-Performing Environment. Those are benefits. So we should include Benefits section.
Pay: "Pay Range: $174,050 USD - $239,320 USD". So include Pay.
Schedule: Not mentioned explicitly. There's "Work Environment Onsite". No schedule like full-time, shift, etc. So we should not include Schedule because no specific content.
Thus sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Benefits, Pay.
Now we need to format with
for section headings (e.g. About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Skills, Benefits, Pay, Schedule)." It suggests we can include Skills if there is content. The posting includes many skill-like items: "Ability to lawfully access information...", "Bachelor's degree...", etc. Those are qualifications. Skills could be things like "Experience with structured root cause...", "Experience defining requirements for and deploying quality systems software...", etc. Those are also qualifications. Might be okay to put them under Skills. But we need to avoid duplication. Perhaps we put Requirements = Basic Qualifications (including degree, years experience). Qualifications = Preferred Qualifications. Skills = maybe the skill-based items like "Experience with structured root cause...", "Experience defining requirements for and deploying quality systems software...", "Experience administering an electronic QMS...", "Experience leading digital quality...", etc. However many of those appear in Preferred Qualifications. The posting's Preferred Qualifications list includes many skill-like items. So we could treat Preferred Qualifications as Skills. But the instruction separate Qualifications and Skills; we could put Preferred Qualifications under Qualifications, and maybe Skills empty? But we must not emit a heading with filler. So we should only include Skills if there is real specific content not already captured elsewhere. Could we extract skill statements from the responsibilities? Eg "Own the architecture of the Enterprise QMS", "Lead the development of DQMS", etc. Those are responsibilities, not skills. The posting does not have a distinct Skills section; but we could still create a Skills section pulling out skill-based phrases from the qualifications (like "Experience with structured root cause...", "Experience defining requirements for and deploying quality systems software...", "Experience administering an electronic QMS...", "Experience leading a digital quality...", "Experience integrating quality data across MES, PLM, and ERP systems", "Experience deploying a layered process audit program", "Experience in additive manufacturing...", "Experience standing up or substantially restructuring a QMS", "Experience holding certification to both aerospace and automotive standards", "Hands-on ETQ Reliance administration experience", "Six Sigma Black Belt certification", "Experience supporting aerospace or automotive structures programs"). Those are indeed skill/experience items. So we could put them under Skills.
But we must not invent or summarize away detail; we must preserve all substantive information. If we move items from Preferred Qualifications to Skills, we are not losing info, just re categorizing. That's okay as long as we keep all info somewhere. However we must not duplicate. We could keep Preferred Qualifications as Qualifications, and Skills as empty? But we need to avoid empty heading. So better to treat Preferred Qualifications as Qualifications, and maybe Skills from the "Basic Qualifications" that are skill-based? But Basic Qualifications includes degree, years experience, ability to lawfully access info, etc. Those are more like requirements. So we can put Requirements = Basic Qualifications. Qualifications = Preferred Qualifications. Skills maybe we can omit because no explicit skill section; but we could still include Skills if we can derive from responsibilities? The instruction: "Prefer a few substantive sections over many thin ones." So maybe we skip Skills entirely if not clearly present. The posting does not have a Skills heading; but we could still include a Skills section if we can find skill-specific content not covered elsewhere. However the Preferred Qualifications already contain skill-like items; but we could still call that section Qualifications and not have Skills. That seems acceptable: we have About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Benefits, Pay, Schedule. We need to check if Benefits, Pay, Schedule are present.
Benefits: The posting includes "What We Offer:" with bullet points: Holistic Compensation Package, Wellness and Time Off, Comprehensive Health and Wellness, Investment in Growth, Collaborative and High-Performing Environment. Those are benefits. So we should include Benefits section.
Pay: "Pay Range: $174,050 USD - $239,320 USD". So include Pay.
Schedule: Not mentioned explicitly. There's "Work Environment Onsite". No schedule like full-time, shift, etc. So we should not include Schedule because no specific content.
Thus sections: About the role, Responsibilities, Requirements, Qualifications, Benefits, Pay.
Now we need to format with headings, - for lists,
for prose.
We must not repeat job title. The title is "Senior Manager, Quality Systems Engineering". Not to be used as heading.
We need to preserve all substantive information. Let's extract content.
About the role: The purpose paragraph and maybe the first few sentences before "The Role". The posting: "Purpose Divergent's Quality Systems Engineering organization exists to make how Divergent works explicit, followed, and provable. The Senior Manager, Quality Systems Engineering leads that organization — owning the Enterprise Quality Management System that defines the company's processes and driving the systemic gaps that surface to closure. The role carries a build mandate alongside that stewardship: leading the development and direction of the Digital Quality Management System (DQMS), Divergent's internally developed platform for bringing part quality information into a single digital thread. It is accountable for the certifications that qualify Divergent to deliver into aerospace and automotive programs, and for the team that keeps the system honest."
Then "The Role" heading (but we should not repeat job title as heading). The content under The Role includes bullet-like paragraphs: "Own the Enterprise Quality Management System", "Lead the development of the Digital Quality Management System", "Lead and develop the Quality Systems Engineering team", "Run the audit program", "Sustain certification and compliance", "Own document control and management of change", "Drive corrective action to systemic closure", "Own quality data triage and reporting", "Partner across the quality organizations and the business". Those are responsibilities.
Thus About the role could be the purpose paragraph(s) before "The Role". We'll combine them into a
.
Responsibilities: list each of those bullet points as
- .
We need to keep the details inside each bullet. Let's copy them exactly as in posting but maybe trimmed.
Let's list:
- Own the Enterprise Quality Management System
Own the architecture of the Enterprise QMS end to end — the policy, procedure, and work instruction hierarchy that defines how Divergent designs, industrializes, and produces. Keep the documented system aligned with how work is actually performed across the Divergent Adaptive Production System (DAPS), retiring or rewriting process documentation that no longer reflects practice. Integrate quality requirements into the DAPS Product Life Cycle so that process controls are defined at the stage gates rather than reconstructed after the fact. Maintain the QMS as a single coherent system rather than a collection of departmental procedures, resolving conflicts and gaps between functions directly.
- Lead the development of the Digital Quality Management System
Own the vision, direction, and roadmap for the Digital Quality Management System (DQMS), Divergent's internally developed platform for consolidating part quality information into a single digital thread. Define the functional and data requirements for DQMS — what part quality information is captured, at which operation, in what structure, and to what standard of completeness. Lead the development effort in partnership with software, IT, and data engineering, acting as the owner who sets priority and sequence rather than as a downstream requestor. Retire the fragmented spreadsheets, local records, and disconnected systems that DQMS replaces, so that a part's quality history resolves to one location rather than to several partial ones. Establish the governance that keeps DQMS authoritative over time — data ownership, entry discipline, validation, and the relationship between DQMS and the existing systems of record. Build the business case and demonstrate return as capability is released, sustaining investment in the program across roadmap cycles.
- Lead and develop the Quality Systems Engineering team
Lead a team of quality systems engineers and document control specialists, setting priorities, balancing workload against audit and certification commitments, and owning hiring for the function. Build depth in audit practice, root cause methodology, and QMS administration so that the program does not depend on any single individual. Define what good looks like for the function's output — audit reports, CAPA records, process documentation — and hold the team to it.
- Run the audit program
Own the internal audit schedule, auditor qualification, finding classification, and escalation path. Lead layered process audits on the production floor, verifying adherence at the point of work and treating audit findings as signal about the system rather than about individuals. Serve as the primary interface for registrar, customer, and third-party audits, preparing the organization, managing the audit itself, and owning the response to findings through verified closure.
- Sustain certification and compliance
Maintain Divergent's quality certifications across AS9100, ISO 9001, IATF 16949 and Nadcap, owning surveillance and recertification readiness and the relationship with the registrar. Manage the differing and occasionally competing demands of aerospace and automotive certification within one coherent management system, rather than maintaining parallel systems per standard. Translate standard requirements into the company's own process language so compliance is a property of the operating system rather than a parallel activity performed for auditors. Anticipate the quality system requirements of new customer programs and industries, and close the gap before it becomes a condition of award.
- Own document control and management of change
Own ETQ as the system of record for controlled documents, revisions, approvals, and retention, including configuration of workflows and access. Administer the Management of Change process so that process, material, equipment, and supplier changes are assessed, approved, and documented before implementation. Enforce revision discipline and record retention such that any process can be reconstructed and evidenced on demand.
- Drive corrective action to systemic closure
Own the process CAPA pipeline, converting escapes, audit findings, and nonconformances into corrective actions that address the process rather than the instance. Set and maintain the structured root cause analysis method standards used company-wide, so investigations across quality, manufacturing, and reliability produce comparable and defensible conclusions. Verify effectiveness after implementation and reopen actions that have not changed the outcome. Escalate systemic gaps that exceed the reach of a single corrective action to the Senior Director, EHS and Quality with a defined recommendation.
- Own quality data triage and reporting
Consolidate nonconformance, issue, and risk intake into a coherent triage path with clear ownership and defined routing between the quality organizations. Define and report the metrics that show whether the quality system is working — audit finding trends, CAPA cycle time and effectiveness, document health, and certification status. Present quality system performance and risk to senior leadership with a clear position on what the data requires.
- Partner across the quality organizations and the business
Partner with Product Reliability Engineering on control plans, process validation, and the corrective action that follows a customer escape. Partner with Build Reliability Engineering on root cause method standards and on the qualification evidence that equipment must produce
- for lists,
for prose. We must not repeat job title. The title is "Senior Manager, Quality Systems Engineering". Not to be used as heading. We need to preserve all substantive information. Let's extract content. About the role: The purpose paragraph and maybe the first few sentences before "The Role". The posting: "Purpose Divergent's Quality Systems Engineering organization exists to make how Divergent works explicit, followed, and provable. The Senior Manager, Quality Systems Engineering leads that organization — owning the Enterprise Quality Management System that defines the company's processes and driving the systemic gaps that surface to closure. The role carries a build mandate alongside that stewardship: leading the development and direction of the Digital Quality Management System (DQMS), Divergent's internally developed platform for bringing part quality information into a single digital thread. It is accountable for the certifications that qualify Divergent to deliver into aerospace and automotive programs, and for the team that keeps the system honest." Then "The Role" heading (but we should not repeat job title as heading). The content under The Role includes bullet-like paragraphs: "Own the Enterprise Quality Management System", "Lead the development of the Digital Quality Management System", "Lead and develop the Quality Systems Engineering team", "Run the audit program", "Sustain certification and compliance", "Own document control and management of change", "Drive corrective action to systemic closure", "Own quality data triage and reporting", "Partner across the quality organizations and the business". Those are responsibilities. Thus About the role could be the purpose paragraph(s) before "The Role". We'll combine them into a
. Responsibilities: list each of those bullet points as
- . We need to keep the details inside each bullet. Let's copy them exactly as in posting but maybe trimmed. Let's list: - Own the Enterprise Quality Management System Own the architecture of the Enterprise QMS end to end — the policy, procedure, and work instruction hierarchy that defines how Divergent designs, industrializes, and produces. Keep the documented system aligned with how work is actually performed across the Divergent Adaptive Production System (DAPS), retiring or rewriting process documentation that no longer reflects practice. Integrate quality requirements into the DAPS Product Life Cycle so that process controls are defined at the stage gates rather than reconstructed after the fact. Maintain the QMS as a single coherent system rather than a collection of departmental procedures, resolving conflicts and gaps between functions directly. - Lead the development of the Digital Quality Management System Own the vision, direction, and roadmap for the Digital Quality Management System (DQMS), Divergent's internally developed platform for consolidating part quality information into a single digital thread. Define the functional and data requirements for DQMS — what part quality information is captured, at which operation, in what structure, and to what standard of completeness. Lead the development effort in partnership with software, IT, and data engineering, acting as the owner who sets priority and sequence rather than as a downstream requestor. Retire the fragmented spreadsheets, local records, and disconnected systems that DQMS replaces, so that a part's quality history resolves to one location rather than to several partial ones. Establish the governance that keeps DQMS authoritative over time — data ownership, entry discipline, validation, and the relationship between DQMS and the existing systems of record. Build the business case and demonstrate return as capability is released, sustaining investment in the program across roadmap cycles. - Lead and develop the Quality Systems Engineering team Lead a team of quality systems engineers and document control specialists, setting priorities, balancing workload against audit and certification commitments, and owning hiring for the function. Build depth in audit practice, root cause methodology, and QMS administration so that the program does not depend on any single individual. Define what good looks like for the function's output — audit reports, CAPA records, process documentation — and hold the team to it. - Run the audit program Own the internal audit schedule, auditor qualification, finding classification, and escalation path. Lead layered process audits on the production floor, verifying adherence at the point of work and treating audit findings as signal about the system rather than about individuals. Serve as the primary interface for registrar, customer, and third-party audits, preparing the organization, managing the audit itself, and owning the response to findings through verified closure. - Sustain certification and compliance Maintain Divergent's quality certifications across AS9100, ISO 9001, IATF 16949 and Nadcap, owning surveillance and recertification readiness and the relationship with the registrar. Manage the differing and occasionally competing demands of aerospace and automotive certification within one coherent management system, rather than maintaining parallel systems per standard. Translate standard requirements into the company's own process language so compliance is a property of the operating system rather than a parallel activity performed for auditors. Anticipate the quality system requirements of new customer programs and industries, and close the gap before it becomes a condition of award. - Own document control and management of change Own ETQ as the system of record for controlled documents, revisions, approvals, and retention, including configuration of workflows and access. Administer the Management of Change process so that process, material, equipment, and supplier changes are assessed, approved, and documented before implementation. Enforce revision discipline and record retention such that any process can be reconstructed and evidenced on demand. - Drive corrective action to systemic closure Own the process CAPA pipeline, converting escapes, audit findings, and nonconformances into corrective actions that address the process rather than the instance. Set and maintain the structured root cause analysis method standards used company-wide, so investigations across quality, manufacturing, and reliability produce comparable and defensible conclusions. Verify effectiveness after implementation and reopen actions that have not changed the outcome. Escalate systemic gaps that exceed the reach of a single corrective action to the Senior Director, EHS and Quality with a defined recommendation. - Own quality data triage and reporting Consolidate nonconformance, issue, and risk intake into a coherent triage path with clear ownership and defined routing between the quality organizations. Define and report the metrics that show whether the quality system is working — audit finding trends, CAPA cycle time and effectiveness, document health, and certification status. Present quality system performance and risk to senior leadership with a clear position on what the data requires. - Partner across the quality organizations and the business Partner with Product Reliability Engineering on control plans, process validation, and the corrective action that follows a customer escape. Partner with Build Reliability Engineering on root cause method standards and on the qualification evidence that equipment must produce