Team,

1. I'm certain I've read/seen a reference that process control plans may NOT be substituted for work instructions. I don't see it in TS 7.5.1.2 ( except as,"...These instructions shall be derived from sources such as...") or the Big 3 OEM CSRs. Am I correct in this? And, if so...

2. What is the reference?

I would think this would depend upon the complexity of the specific task or job as to whether writtten instructions are necessary or not, but in any case a Control Plan is not meant to be an instruction on how to do a specific task or job.

Maybe one of the TS 16949 savvy folks can comment on this.

Team,

1. I'm certain I've read/seen a reference that process control plans may NOT be substituted for work instructions. I don't see it in TS 7.5.1.2 ( except as,"...These instructions shall be derived from sources such as...") or the Big 3 OEM CSRs. Am I correct in this? And, if so...

2. What is the reference?

I do not know of any reference for this sorry.
Any one else

Team,

1. I'm certain I've read/seen a reference that process control plans may NOT be substituted for work instructions. I don't see it in TS 7.5.1.2 ( except as,"...These instructions shall be derived from sources such as...") or the Big 3 OEM CSRs. Am I correct in this? And, if so...

2. What is the reference?


Work instructions are meant for all employees responsible for processes that impact product quality and they are to be available at the work station. A CP tells what to do. A WI tells how and what.

Where available, a control plan that specifies all necessary details one would expect in a work instruction (normally it specifies much more), is available at the work station and is understood by the employee responsible serves all the requirements. It will be perfectly acceptable. Just declare it in so many words in your system. The employee is supposed to be competent enough to handle rest of the job without written instructions. He knows how.

As Marc says, if the job is too complex and written instructions will make it simpler to handle, its always your choice to go in for separate WI.

Alternately, you may also design your own control plan cum WI. Remember, theres no standard format for CP or WI

There are jobs such as m/c setting, where control plans dont tell how to do the job. In such cases people do prefer to write WI if the job is too involved / a team is to do the job...

finally your reference -

ISO 9000 - see the definition of Competence.

TS clause 4.2.1d - Well, my CP doubling up as WI meets this requirement for me.

If you have located a reference that states to the contrary, I for one would definitely like to know.

Thanks for the input, team.

Potdar, you helped me to answer my own question. I looked up control plan methodology in the AIAG APQP manual to see what the requirement is, in response to your assertion. Immediately following the sentence that says an alternate format may be used for control plans, etc is, "The Control Plan does not replace the information contained in detailed operator instructions." (Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) and Control Plan, AIAG, p33).

I have taken that to mean that the CP can't be used as operator/inspection instructions, even though the control plan calls out all controls for the process. Potdar, do you have a different take on this?

Once again, thanks to all.:thanx:

Yes,I do have something to add. Possibly its a bit dificult to digest and may raise a storm.

To quote myself,
A CP tells what to do. A WI tells how and what.

So, as you have rightly quoted, a CP is not a WI. It may only form a part of it.

TS says that a documented WI is required in certain places. By definition, a WI is a level III document, that is supposed to be understood at the operator level providing sufficient details about a specific work to be done.

What is sufficient? For a competent operator on a simple job, knowing WHAT is sufficient because he knows HOW. I can give him the CP to use as his WI if he understands it. My CP should be simple enough for him - not something like a Family CP... His understanding should be demonstrable.

In the US as well as India, we tend to refer to AIAG documents as THE reference. We tend to forget that TS is a document prepared by the IATF, not by AIAG. The AIAG document on APQP is just one of the acceptable guidances. It is not THE only official method. Many other guidances are available from other contributing members. And you are still free to interprete and design on your own.

Please dont allow your own creativity to be killed. Without creative thinking, there is no improvement.

I did give some thought to citing AIAG documents as a reference on this. My thinking went thus: We're tier 1 to the Old 3. We're required to follow their CSRs, in addition to TS. AIAG is Voice of the Customer for the Old 3 and so may be viewed as CSRs. I hold our suppliers to the same standard.

Is this perspective incorrect?:confused:

AIAG is Voice of the Customer for the Old 3 and so may be viewed as CSRs.

Is this perspective incorrect?:confused:

I spent a lot of time on thinking whether I should put down these thoughts at all and then in what words. I hope many others might join in and voice their views on it. But here's what pushed me into it:

AIAG "guides" on the process of coducting APQP and "suggests" formats for CP. They don't force the formats on you and even state as much.

The customer, though he can and does spcify formats of documents that directly interact with him (a pre-despatch inspection inspection report, a PSW - not its attachments), has no business to bother about how you design and control your internal system documents (Quality Policy or even a WI)!. Why, though he suggests formats for CP, he is leaving even that to you.

The customer's Voice has a very limited range. He is bothered about QCD, being confident about it, and having inputs from supplier comply with his own system.

And then TS is certified by a third party, not by the AIAG or the customer (any more).

Just like you, I too would like to get more views on this.

Marc,

Ifyou read this, maybe you can elevate this to a higher level of discussion.

Marc,

Ifyou read this, maybe you can elevate this to a higher level of discussion.
I have read what has been posted but I'll leave it to the more qualified TS 16949 people to respond. I've sorta gotten away from the current TS 16949 requirements / interpretations as I've moved away from automotive.

AIAG 'manuals' are guidance / reference documents, but are often specifically called out by customers. However, when an AIAG manual leaves you an 'out' such as the actual form design, you can take that 'out'. My experience has been that as long as you have the minimum data requirements of the AIAG document (such as the data / content) such as in the Control Plan, there won't be an issue unless the customer specifies additional data / content.

I think Potdar is on the right track. The quote from the APQP manual with regard to a control plan not being a replacement for "detailed operator instructions" is intended to convey the idea that the existence of a control plan should not be used as an excuse for not having detailed written instructions when detailed instructions are necessary.

This is all about process control. When the process is designed, certain parameters, limits and requirements are established, and it's generally assumed that operators will have the requisite skills to do the job. A good process design should say, "If the process is operated according to the established controls and requirements, the output will conform to requirements."

The control plan shows the part and process characteristics that must be controlled in order to produce conforming output. If that level of detail is sufficient, then there is no need for separate work instructions, and the control plan becomes the work instructions, to the satisfaction of 16949.

Don't confuse the container for the thing contained.