Hi Everyone,
Last week, one auditor audits us and I don't know whether that is illegal or something because he tagged the nonconformance as illegal posting of work instruction. :bigwave: There were several memo were posted on the production line, this memo are actually reminders for operators which I think would not be part of work instruction. (Just a piece of reminder for them).
If that would be the case, how can we document the process of posting memo in our document control procedure? :frust: Can we generate a controlled form number for the memo?:confused:
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Vash

If you had an instruction that said "Make sure burr is removed" - for example, and that is required for every part, then you would want to incorporate into the regular instruction. If it said - "Scrap all cavity ## until further notice" - then you should have a way to control, and make sure that "further notice" is controlled. Ideally there would be an expiration date so that at least 1/month all of these types of instructions are reviewed for applicability.

I've used "temporary job instructions" in those instances where you want operators to do something for a short period of time. Keep them on a log, and review the log every so often. They are usually on "yellow" or different color paper for visibility.

If its simply reminders, then you need to decide how important the reminder is. If its really important, then make sure it follows regular job instruction procedures, even if its a separate posted memo for visibility.

I guess one way to test the importance is - if it accidently was removed tomorrow - what negative impact on quality could it have?

Laura

Hi Vash:)
I just want to share our experience where all our memo given to operators that relate to the product or process quality, we will transfer to a form call Quality Reminder (QR) and approved by manager. This QR we used has a control no and allocate it infront of related operators as a constant reminder for certain period e.g. for 1 month, 2 weeks or by production lot. We did mention this activity in our corrective action procedure and so far we did not receive any comment from 3rd party auditor.:cool:

Vash,

My procedures state that work instructions can be in the form of a memo, and the originator has control over that document. Short and sweet and to the point!

Regards,
CarolX

local control is my name for it. You can even call it a 'training tickler' if the requirements are also part of a published work instruction...controlled by the authority in the area..sign and date usually does it....with variations that are company specific of course.

Hi everyone, :bigwave:
What we did instead of creating a new specs, we incorporate it into the document control procedure, and we use a stamp to be controlled by the document control center. At present, no posting is allowed unless approved by the DCC and have it stamp using the DCC Posting Stamp.

Thanks for all who contributes. :)
Thank you very much.

Best regards,
Vash :cool:

Boy,

Will agree with Laura on this one. What happens if I, the janitor, decide to place a piece of paper found on the floor on a machine near the "real" work instructions?

Let's get real, work instructions have to do with processing a product!!!::::, not an instruction on how to drink out of the water fountain, or pee and flush the toilet.

The words that come to my mind are: personel responsibility and the real kicker, COMMON SENBSE.

Diatribe for the day, Al....

You know guys thats what happening now,even a short notice or a piece of reminder, it needto be documented. I just don't know whether, the one who audit us, knows what are the rules and policy with regards to posting. I don't know either :frust: whether that nonconformance is part of the QS9000 standards...we just don't know....and the saddest thing in our life, our GM seems to be agreeing what the auditor once said. "That all postings must be documented" ... :frust: even if there's nothing to do with processing of the product... Its very frustrating....:frust: Now where just following the ruling that: "The Boss Is Always Right!" :frust:


Vash

I've was just looking through the site when I came across this. I believe that the document end of the standard got way out of hand from the get go. My company went the entire gammit on the document control end too. We even had a procedure for how to type a letter. Until I met with a man by the name of George Hummel who really explained things to me. George is part of the oversite board. After George explained in detail the point of each element and I went back and read the requirements again. I was dumbfounded to find out all the mistakes that my company had made. Now my policy is SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY. Documenting unnecessary items will cause you more problems than good. Now my company has a quality manual (basically a rewrite of the standard) a procedure manual (layed out similiar to the requirements, but more personalized) covers each element. Then we have job tickets. These are our work instructions. Each one explains the details of that job. The size, material, dies, colors, alerts (temporary procedures put in place), blueprints, specification sheets. This makes my life so much easier. There is no need in the requirements to documents exactly how to create a work order (just an example). If you disagree tell me where you see it and I'll argue the point with you. Pay attention to where it states that it needs to be documented and where is says you need to have a system in place. I've been through several audits with my new systems in place. Not a problem. I was very proud of my last audit, only one non conformance. I challenge you to tell me where it states that all of this documentation is necessary.

Angela,

It was great to hear of your insight and the new approach you have implemented. I always took the principle in the 1994 version (something like ... where the absence of such would affect quality) to heart when mapping / writing a system.

I agree with those who have incorporated Quality Alerts or Warnings in place of memos, as well as Carolx's procedure. I've always stated that memos were the precursor to a documented quality system.

I'm new to the site and appreciate the pat on the back. My new understanding of the requirements has really opened up new doors for me. Our systems works for us now instead of us working for the system. My employees are much happier and much more open to expressing new ideas or concerns.

Angela said:

----X----
Now my policy is SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY. Documenting unnecessary items will cause you more problems than good.

----X----

Angela,

Good post. Full agreement here.

My company fell into the same pit at the start, and I think that was more of a rule than an exception back then. Most of us did...

/Claes

Barb said:

local control is my name for it.

Yep! :agree: And this can very easily fit into Angela's statement of simplification.

Angela, not to name drop, but George is a great and knowledgeable guy! I'm not sure he is a member, but next time you see him, have him join.

He has taught you well! Over documentation is one of the biggest problems I've seen.

Our systems works for us now instead of us working for the system

And that is the secret to a successful QMS. Unfortunately, we all know this secret, but can’t figure out how to make it work. Continue to post. Perhaps you could lead the rest of us into [how] you made it work for you.

I just had a training session three weeks ago with George. He informed me then that he was a member of the oversite board. I am having a conference call with him on Friday, maybe I can mention the forum to him then. As far as insight into how I made it work for me. Look at the standards again. Note where is says a procedure must be documented and where it says a system must be in place. Procedure must be documented means just that. A system must be in place does not mean you need to document it. Remember make it work for you. :)

DB;

Spoke with George Hummel on Friday. I told him that you had requested that he join the forum. He said that he had been a part of it before and might would consider getting involved again. He would be a wonderful contributor.:D

What is the theory on the need for documentation?

Kevin