to what extent do training instructions need to be controlled under ISO 9000:2000? I have work instructions for things like lab equipment and how to perform tests, but other areas within our plant like customer service and other admin functions have these elaborate highly detailed books that describe each and every daily task. My instructions all have titles and rev dates, etc. The ones in admin are not and are not even listed on the Master list of documents. Do they need to be?

ISO 9000:2000 aside, why would you not want to control these documents. If the answer is it is to time consuming to control them then look at your document control procedure.

To help ensure the tasks are done consistently control the documents that define the tasks.

to what extent do training instructions need to be controlled under ISO 9000:2000? I have work instructions for things like lab equipment and how to perform tests, but other areas within our plant like customer service and other admin functions have these elaborate highly detailed books that describe each and every daily task. My instructions all have titles and rev dates, etc. The ones in admin are not and are not even listed on the Master list of documents. Do they need to be?

My belief is that it is generally a good idea to have work instructions for White Collar workers, and they should be controlled documents. It is expensive to train administrative employees, and when they change jobs they tend to take a lot of knowledge with since it is not documented. On the job training should be structured and documented for all employees, from General Managers and all the way down.

Hi, and thanks for your replies. This is just a foreign concept to me. I understand having work instructions for tests so that all in the lab follow the same method and I understand the need for doc control of these. Guess I've always worked in small companies were you hire competent people in the first place and trust them to do their jobs.

From the point of view of ISO,a work instruction becomes relevent, when the absence of it:-

-affects the product/service while performing a process activity and
two trained employees do not perform a process activity in the same way.

All such work-instructions need to considered under document control.
Othes which do not fulfill the above criteria need not be a part of QMS.

Hi, and thanks for your replies. This is just a foreign concept to me. I understand having work instructions for tests so that all in the lab follow the same method and I understand the need for doc control of these. Guess I've always worked in small companies were you hire competent people in the first place and trust them to do their jobs.


If that always worked, we wouldn't need ISO...

to what extent do training instructions need to be controlled under ISO 9000:2000? I have work instructions for things like lab equipment and how to perform tests, but other areas within our plant like customer service and other admin functions have these elaborate highly detailed books that describe each and every daily task. My instructions all have titles and rev dates, etc. The ones in admin are not and are not even listed on the Master list of documents. Do they need to be?

Dont be over enthusiastic and exrecise caution in controlling the documents.

to what extent do training instructions need to be controlled under ISO 9000:2000? I have work instructions for things like lab equipment and how to perform tests, but other areas within our plant like customer service and other admin functions have these elaborate highly detailed books that describe each and every daily task. My instructions all have titles and rev dates, etc. The ones in admin are not and are not even listed on the Master list of documents. Do they need to be?

If the instruction defines and controls a document, it is part of the system and should be controlled.

Don't fall into the trap of installing every document under your doc control umbrella...sure it would be nice to have them all done but not everyone has the ability, time or resources to do it.
I know some people will tell you that everything that you do must be documented and iff this was the case you would need to write a procedure for filling work vehicles and changing light globes. WI are a minor part in the knowledge base of an employee. Life skills, previous training (trade, licenses etc) and on the job training encompass most of our knowledge and enables us to do our day to day functions. WI should be the 5% that we do not commit to memory or a basic step thru guide to a process or action. The something to fall back on.
In saying this, you should (if possible) get the Admin people to take QA on board and adopt the same doctrine as the rest of the company. We did not take admin under the QA wing but the layout for documents, numbering, revisions etc are all the same except they look after their own docs. they are also audited thru External Accounting firms so we do not do internal/external QA audits on them. Our safety and enviornement systems adopt the same philosophy as QA but they control their own docs. (I know it would be easier if we had an integrated system but it 'aint gonna' happen as too many poeple are protecting their jobs):rolleyes:

Here's the straight unadulterated answer to your basic question......

The same extent as every other system document

I feel a little differently...I think you need to look to the Standard for the "shall" and proceed accordingly. Whether "training" or operational, does the WI connect to any actual requirement of the Standard? Customer Service? Maybe. Other admin activities...less likely IMO. It's nice to have control of things, but maybe it ain't required. Weigh the impact of cluttering up your system with deluxe extras that drain energy, time, and resources.;)

Just a question: What, exactly and precisely, do you mean by "control" versus "management" of your documents?

I have been using the terms to mean that "control" is a subset of "manage" and, while all documents need to be "managed," not all need to be "controlled."

In my lexicon, "control" implies conditions on who may even VIEW a document, let alone copy it or perform a process based on the document.

The main reason for "control" is to assure no one uses an obsolete document to the detriment of the organization or its customers. A secondary reason may be to protect proprietary information.

With such an understanding, it is easy to realize not all documents need to be "controlled." It may be easy to manage documents so only the most recent version is available to folk who may perform an action based on the document, but no harm can result from training instructions still laying around for running an old Brown & Sharpe lathe if the organization has traded them all in on Mazak computer controlled turning centers.