We are an OEM for the trucking industry, 3 sites, about 300 employees, currently ISO-9001 and moving to QS-9000 (and yes, probably later to TS and then ......?)

My contention is that if you put a several page Level 3 Work Instruction in front of an operator, they will never look at it. They can't, they don't have the time.

I am setting up our documentation this way, and welcome your comments, suggestions, etc.

Level 1 = Standard
Level 2 = Standard (very brief and generic - same level 1 and 2 for all 3 sites in 2 different countries)

Level 3 = Flow Charts not over 2 pages max with annotations on the side if needed (temp, setting, rpm, etc.) This assumes the operator, assembler, machinist, etc., knows their job and is fully qualified. They therefore don't need a detailed work instruction.

Then as a "Phase 2" of this system, we will have very detailed Training Procedures. These will assume you know nothing and will take you through the process step by step. They will not be at the work stations, only the flow charts will be.

What do you think?

Will this pass QS-9000 auditing?

More importantly, do you agree with me that it makes good quality sense?

Thanks in advance for your input.

It make every bit of sense. I know people typically don't read documents over 1 page! I've tried the flow chart and it works wonderfully. However, I was only successful in implementing them in a small percentage of documents... it seems that the engineers rather use text to be excessively descriptive (including a bunch of graduate level words) on operating a piece of equipment or operation. They seemed to forget who their audience is. Too bad, no one ever got to the end of the novel. Keep pushing for simplicity.

"My contention is that if you put a several page Level 3 Work Instruction in front of an operator, they will never look at it."

True ...

"Level 3 = Flow Charts not over 2 pages max with annotations on the side if needed (temp, setting, rpm, etc.) This assumes the operator, assembler, machinist, etc., knows their job and is fully qualified. They therefore don't need a detailed work instruction."

Provided all satuff is clearly labelled with a label that matches what you call it on the flow chart. Or, the flowchart has a diagram of the tool (not knowing how big or complex your things are makes it hard) with some indication of the sequence and location of the adjustments.

"Then as a "Phase 2" of this system, we will have very detailed Training Procedures. These will assume you know nothing and will take you through the process step by step. They will not be at the work stations, only the flow charts will be."

"What do you think?"
One problem ... what if the person has been off on vacation for a couple of weeks and wants to review one or more parts in detail - how will they get the detailed procedure? And no matter how superb the training, a newbie will want the paper security blanket of a fully-illustrated step by step walkthrough for the first couple of weeks.
One way to solve this is to start the work instructions with the work summary flow chart, AND have a detailed illustrated version on the next xx pages. At the appropriate points in the condensed version, refer to the detail page by number.
This allows the training department to lift the detailed instructions for their own use.

"Will this pass QS-9000 auditing?"
As long as you explain what to do, or where to go to get further instructions IF it is impossible to set the tool as specified, it should. That's where most "cheat sheets" get nailed - not in the level of detail, because thgat is not specified in ISO 9000, but because they don't explain what to do for exceptions.

This can be as simple as a blanket statement "If any valve cannot be adjusted to the stated pressure, contact your supervisor. (or refer to the troubleshooting guide if you will have one)"

"More importantly, do you agree with me that it makes good quality sense?"

The objective of good technical writing is to provide the NECESSARY level of detail ... no more, no less.

Thanks you both for your replies.

As for the training manuals being available, I plan to eventually have them on the intranet. Every work cell has at least one computer tied in with the intranet. So in that sense, they will be available.

One comment - don't over complicate the system.

Question - Is the training manual on the intranet a "controlled" document?
Does it have to be?

Typically your training manual will be a controlled document. It may change and you want a history of changes even if the only distribution is by your intranet.

Question - Is the training manual on the intranet a "controlled" document?
Does it have to be?

Yes, we have our intranet documents set up as controlled documents. In fact they are only controlled on the intranet, the moment you print them, they become uncontrolled and for reference only.

I believe the training manual should be controlled because it is an extension of your process documents. I have never even thought of NOT controlling them.

Food for thought - our auditors considered any uncontrolled hard copy printout even if it was clearly marked as an invalid obsolete document - unavailable for use

Originally posted by Jim Biz:

Food for thought - our auditors considered any uncontrolled hard copy printout even if it was clearly marked as an invalid obsolete document - unavailable for useThe key to this is Do you make any decisions based upon the document? You can have 'reference' documents, for example. When they say 'unavailable for use' there really should be a better understanding of what use is being adressed.

So - technically... Any uncontrolled hard copy printout, even if it is clearly marked as an invalid obsolete document (or marked For Reference Only, for that matter), is technically unavailable for use in decision making. It's sorta like you can rough in a design with old prints but you need the 'latest' for verification of the design you come up with.

The current system(?) I'm working with is certainly over complicated.
Level 1 : Group Quality Manual + Individual Site Quality Manual
Level 2 : Site Quality Operating Procedures + Individual Business Unit Operating Procedures (generally run to several pages of text)
Level 3 : "Work Instructions" - basically single page including photo's / drawings = training documents covering all aspects e.g. from machine parameter adjustment to checking / topping up lubrication oil. In addition "Setter Training Manuals" to cover the in-depth requirements

I like the idea of procedures / instructions being max 2 sides A4 preferably flowchart/visual format- presumably if so the backup detail will be documented elsewhere e.g. in a training document(which would need to be controlled)

Any suggestions on how to sort the maze of documents into manageable chunks????

Quote from Don:
---------------------------------------------
Any suggestions on how to sort the maze of documents into manageable
chunks????
---------------------------------------------

I don't know of an "easy" way to make a significant change like that. I am not sure "easy" and "change" are two words that should be in the same sentence when you are talking about changing "the way we always do it" in an OEM environment.

I just firmly believe that we are kidding ourselves when we put multipule page, complicated documents in front of an operator, assembler, etc., and say they are reading and following the Work Instruction. Try to sit at that station yourself and "read" the procedure and keep up with the production flow. It normally doesn't work.

I can only tell you Don, that I think it is worth the effort to break out the detailed, step by step, how too, from an overview. Assume the operator knows their job and just give them an outline in the form of a flow chart. Save the detailed many page procedures for the training manual.

I too, disagree and agree with these issues. It's very cumbersome to keep up with all these work instructions, but is it not the intent of QS to establish work instructions so everyone is doing things the same way? So an employee off the street can perform the duty? If you are only flowcharting to get a certificate for the standarad and they are useless on the shop floor; then you don't need them at all. Yes, they are cumbersome (and a headache) but when an operator needs them to do their job (which is what they are for) will the flowchart get them through?

Dawn:

You missed our point 100%.

This is not to get QS/TS certified, this is a far better system. Operators don't/can't take the time to look at long, detailed procedures (I know companies with 10 second tach times for their automated production lines).

The baseline for this system is trained/certified operators. The person knows how to do their job and only needs the briefest of a Work Instruction (flow chart) with annotations.

The Training Manual is the detailed document. Assumes you know nothing - walked in off the street.

The Training Manual is available to experienced operators, should they ever need it.

Bottom line: Detailed Work Instructions don't work in most production lines. So if we really want our operators to follow the Work Instruction, then we had better do the following:

[1] Train them very well (certify)
[2] Put very consise Work Instr. in front of them. I like annotated flow charts for this.
[3] Make the training manual available.
[4] Audit them freq.
[5] Retrain/recertify periodically.

I hope this further clarifies the idea.

Don asked:
>Any suggestions on how to sort the maze of >documents into manageable chunks????

Here's the revolutionary way I am doing something similar ... I'm asking the operators to come to a consensus about what information needs to be together as a single work instruction, what they need to know at each work station, where 1-page setup parameter sheets would be useful, etc.
It's a production line, but they seldom make the same thing longer than one shift before they have to re-set the tools on the line for the next kind of product - lots of very detailed information they would rather NOT have to remember.

I don't know enough about the process to make that sort of decision.

Thanks for the replies. I plan to move forward by determining what documentation is necessary to actually do any given job e.g. parameters / reference specifications / visual acceptance standards / reaction plans. These will be posted at the work station.

The more detailed "how to" will be compiled into training manuals held in a central location.(Hopefully this will meet the requirement for "job instructions should be available at the time needed without disruption to the job being performed by the operator"

Jim, your problem sounds familiar.
We've got Bills of Materials (BOM), which are locally controlled documents, and assembly drawings, electonically controlled by a separate entity.
The drawings support the BOMs, but the BOMs don't specify which revision the drawing should be at. Our auditor said that if the assembly drawings are used they should be controlled. Currently they're only controlled when they're on the network. Working on that one.
We could argue that the BOM is the document to build to, and general work instructions which cover families of assemblies cover the level 3 work instructions. Has this worked in the past?

The intent of a work instruction (in my opinion) is information that would fall out of the realm of the Job Title. In most cases it should be part specific (or machine specific). I have had very favorable results from combining my work instructiion into a process sheet. It covers all the Quality requirements for the operation that is being performed. It includes all the items that are covered in the control plan for that specific operation. The frequencies. dimensional and statistical requirements as well as any set up information are covered. Some items such as next operation and handling intructions can be covered in a title box format. I incorporate all this into a blueprint format on one page so that it can be placed or as I have done hung at the machine. I found that my operators are more prone to rely on the information in this format. I have had success and more importantly noticed that the operators take ownership because it is directly related to the task at hand.