Attached is a procedure for writing documents. I pulled it from my achives as an example of a ludicrous document. :bonk: Believe it or not, this is real. I changed a few things to protect the innocent. Can you imagine auditing to this? Some people have just too much times on their hands. I would immediately cite the inappropriate use of the terms Header and Footers. :vfunny:

When I first came to work at this company over 9 years ago, I found something similar written by the ISO "Consultant". What a bunch of garbage!!!! Straight to the shredder it went....on it's merry way!

:vfunny:

Carol

Attached is a procedure for writing documents. I pulled it from my achives as an example of a ludicrous document. :bonk: Believe it or not, this is real. I changed a few things to protect the innocent. Can you imagine auditing to this? Some people have just too much times on their hands. I would immediately cite the inappropriate use of the terms Header and Footers. :vfunny:
Energy, it seems reasonable to me except I like having the revision history in the front of the document. :biglaugh:

Attached is a procedure for writing documents. I pulled it from my achives as an example of a ludicrous document. :bonk: Believe it or not, this is real. I changed a few things to protect the innocent. Can you imagine auditing to this? Some people have just too much times on their hands. I would immediately cite the inappropriate use of the terms Header and Footers. :vfunny:It may be ludicrous in Energy's opinion and mine, but I can attest that I have seen very similar wording and document length for a "document creation procedure" at dozens of companies.

Some time ago, I recall threads and comments about bloated Quality Manuals versus briefer ones. Laura even has a Landmark one that consists of two sides of one sheet of paper.

One company ($1 billion plus in sales) that had a "document creation procedure" similar to energy's had a 1,000 page QM PLUS thousands of pages of Procedures. (I have no idea how many "work instructions")

When the Configuration Manager of that company showed me the QM, he BRAGGED about how "cool" it was with absolutely no irony or sarcasm whatever. The "Procedure for Identifying Wires and Cables" ran close to 200 pages! I could only conclude someone in the organization had stock in all the paper companies and forests where pulp was harvested.

Aaaarrrrgh!!!!

Attached is a procedure for writing documents. I pulled it from my achives as an example of a ludicrous document. :bonk: Believe it or not, this is real. I changed a few things to protect the innocent. Can you imagine auditing to this? Some people have just too much times on their hands. I would immediately cite the inappropriate use of the terms Header and Footers. :vfunny:

I agree that the posted procedure is nuts -- waaaay too detailed and full of ... stuff. However, I have for several years always had a basic WI regarding minimum requirements for QA documents. Call it a procedure for writing procedures, or a WI for creating WIs. Whatever. It helped us.

The closest I've come is referring to a template (form) for all procedures in the document control procedure.

Did this company ever acheive ISO? :biglaugh:

The closest I've come is referring to a template (form) for all procedures in the document control procedure.
I've attached a template. I'm for uniformity, otherwise we'd have documents all structured differently and "personalized".

Did this company ever acheive ISO?
No!

After reading the procedure in energy's post, all I can say is, WOW!

Like Wes, I have seen many like it, having come into organizations and inherited those monsters. And like Laura, I almost always provide a simple template instead.

I did get a kick out of the statement at 5.4.6 that said in effect, "make the procedure steps concise", although this procedure (the model for making procedures) was six pages of the nine!!! :eek:

My guess is that nobody but the procedure writer has ever read that document. If fact the procedure writer probably doesn't follow it, but, instead, takes an old procedure or a template - deletes non-applicable information, and adds the new. We (my company) do not even have a procedure for making procedures, and we seem to get along fine.

When I first came to work at this company over 9 years ago, I found something similar written by the ISO "Consultant". What a bunch of garbage!!!! Straight to the shredder it went....on it's merry way!

:vfunny:

Carol

Was it something like *****tek? :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I've attached a template. I'm for uniformity, otherwise we'd have documents all structured differently and "personalized".



Ahhhh. Much better.

Attached is a procedure for writing documents. I pulled it from my achives as an example of a ludicrous document.
My word, Energy... :eek: That was about as far from the KISS principle as anything I ever saw. I didn't understand half of it, and it provided me with an instant headache. :bonk:

I did undestand one thing, though: A simple template could have replaced more than half the text and the rest wasn't worth keeping....

/Claes

My word, Energy... :eek: That was about as far from the KISS principle as anything I ever saw. I didn't understand half of it, and it provided me with an instant headache. :bonk:

I did undestand one thing, though: A simple template could have replaced more than half the text and the rest wasn't worth keeping....

/Claes

Unbelievable....The person I replaced had developed it due to pressure from a Consultant. I'm not sure that the Consultant had that in mind, but there it was. I became pretty good at Word, reverse engineering his documents when they had to be revised. For example, one method he used to space his lines was to use a 4 font with no text just for spacing. Sometimes a 2 font. You can see this in the revision blocks because he wanted them centered just so. At any rate, he went on to another place of employment with a 20K increase/yr. And, me, well you know the story! :confused: ;)

I became pretty good at Word, reverse engineering his documents when they had to be revised. That makes two of us, brother....:agree: Believe me, I know exactly what you're talking about.:vfunny:

/Claes

I agree that the document is overboard. There is a reason I have thought about becoming a consultant - things like that would drive me crazy. I could never even imagine trying to implement that or audit that. It would be a waste of time and resources, because I can bet that even the author didn't follow it to the letter. Man - what the heck was he thinking?

By the way Energy - can I copy that in to my QMS. I think it would work well. :biglaugh: :bonk:

I've attached a template. I'm for uniformity, otherwise we'd have documents all structured differently and "personalized".



Your template looks fine to me, Sheriff. And, as Claes said, it covers most of the useful verbiage in a much more user friendly way. But there had to be something more than just that, right? Like, how does the user know how to assign or be assigned a document number?

Is this the only document type that was ever generated there requiring guidance for the writer? For example, were there any templates for drawings -- like CAD drawings or part travelers, etc?

We find this humorous, but we need to beware. From the outside, much of "quality" might have this appearance.

* a recent discussion had 33 posts on which documents need to have a history, and what sort of history that should be. :rolleyes:

* another discussion covered calibrating tape measures. Honestly, wouldn't any production worker be equally amazed by folks creating documentation covering how to check if a tape measure is working properly? :bonk:

* any ISOxxxx or TSxxxx document probably seems inanely long and arcane to most executives. :confused:


I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, just point out that the "proper" level of preciseness and completeness depends a lot on your background and needs.

Tim

We find this humorous, but we need to beware. From the outside, much of "quality" might have this appearance.

* a recent discussion had 33 posts on which documents need to have a history, and what sort of history that should be. :rolleyes:

* another discussion covered calibrating tape measures. Honestly, wouldn't any production worker be equally amazed by folks creating documentation covering how to check if a tape measure is working properly? :bonk:

* any ISOxxxx or TSxxxx document probably seems inanely long and arcane to most executives. :confused:


I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, just point out that the "proper" level of preciseness and completeness depends a lot on your background and needs.

Tim

Tim, Oh Tim, Where have you been. It's just that, my friend. A game....one that has to played skillfully(sp?-Wes?) :vfunny: We are all out to help, but we seek to impress with our acquired knowledge. It's how we are. Great post...I like it! Kudos. ;)

Tim, Oh Tim, Where have you been. It's just that, my friend. A game....one that has to played skillfully(sp?-Wes?) :vfunny: We are all out to help, but we seek to impress with our acquired knowledge. It's how we are. Great post...I like it! Kudos. ;)I agree. It is a game (when we're here in comfort, sitting at our computers with a beverage in hand.) When we're on the firing line, though, it's like playing NFL football without helmet or pads - BRUTAL!

There are many organizations where failure to generate and use a document like Energy's first [horrid] example can put a Quality jamoke back on the bus to Palookaville. We act as a support network for each other when we face that opposing line. To paraphrase the Duval character in Apocalypse Now, those bosses "love the smell of fear in the morning." With input from our fellow Covers, we don't have to let 'em see us sweat.

Ah...the ever amusing requirement that states we need a document on how we control our documents. That is my favourite clause...totally circular in logic.

However, my organization is guilty of taking this to the extreme! We have our procedure on document control that refers to every work instruction associated with documents.


Creating a document
Revising a document
Reviewing a document
Obsoleting a document
Requesting a document modification
Approving a document
Controlling external documents
Engineering drawings control


For the record, this has not been a priority for me to revisit...to many other issues in our Management System have required my attention...until this year. Time to look at our document control system and process.

I admit our document authors and managers do not spend a great deal of time in the document control system (they are process engineers, maintenance planners, supervisors, etc...being a document author is a responsibility, but not there main one). The documents on document control were developed to remind them what to do when they needed to work on a document.

That being said, these documents need a serious revamp. They are all text, with basic flow charts included. As trained document authors, the work instructions should not need to explain everything in explicit detail.

So...wish me luck in 2004 as I tackle the document control system.

However, my organization is guilty of taking this to the extreme! We have our procedure on document control that refers to every work instruction associated with documents.


Creating a document
Revising a document
Reviewing a document
Obsoleting a document
Requesting a document modification
Approving a document
Controlling external documents
Engineering drawings control



Nothing extreme about the list. Unlike telling you how to "create" (Font style and size-margins, headers/footers) a document, :vfunny: Document/Record Control is a required written procedure. Want another 1994 example? ;)

We view this "Document for Creating Documents" as somewhere between silly and insulting. But beware, because this may be how "quality" comes across in general to many people.


* a recent thread discussed how to calibrate a tape measure. What do you supose the production workers think of bosses that can't figure out how to work a tape measure? :bonk:

* threre is always thread or two running here about "how do you interpret ISOxxxx.yy.zz.ww". If we find it confusing, what do you suppose executive think? :confused:

* another thread discussed (lazy?) workers who didn't properly fill out all the paperwork asked of them. Do you think they would be surprised that there is also a "Document for Creating Documents"? :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers - just point out that "quality" can come across as a lot of paperwork without any clear, direct benefit. One of the big challenges in the quality profession is to choose the right level of implementation for each situation AND to sell this position to the people involved.

Tim

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers - just point out that "quality" can come across as a lot of paperwork without any clear, direct benefit. One of the big challenges in the quality profession is to choose the right level of implementation for each situation AND to sell this position to the people involved.
Tim
Okay Tim, I think we get it. This post was very close to a repeat of your other one in this thread, including repeating "not trying to ruffle any feathers". I see by your profile that you are not in the manufacturing sector, rather you are from the "Education" arena. For many people who haven't enjoyed a working history in an environment where practical everyday "Q" problems exist, there is, I admit, what appears to be confusion. Trust me. These forums are not unlike throwing out ideas to students and soliciting feedback. These posts aren't meant to be read like a textbook. It's a compilation of experiences and advice from members who speak the "language". :vfunny: If you stick around a bit, you too, will begin to grasp it. ;)

Okay Tim, I think we get it. This post was very close to a repeat of your other one in this thread, including repeating "not trying to ruffle any feathers". I see by your profile that you not in the manufacturing sector, rather you are from the "Education" arena. For many people who haven't enjoyed a working history in an environment where practical everyday "Q" problems exist, there is, I admit, what appears to be confusion. Trust me. These forums are not unlike throwing out ideas to students and soliciting feedback. These posts aren't meant to be read like a textbook. It's a compilation of experiences and advice from members who speak the "language". :vfunny: If you stick around a bit, you too, will begin to grasp it. ;)Yep. Kind of like the difference between a math course and a philosophy course. In one, challenging the professor is tantamount to suicide; in the other, you get an "Attaboy!"

Ruffling feathers is subjective. The key to avoiding ruffled feathers may be in attacking the IDEA, not the person who propounds it.

Even so. Some of us have ultrasensitive antenna, which detect ALL dissent as a personal attack.:agree: :frust:

Sorry,

I must be going blind! :o

I looked but somehow didn't see my first post appear, so I thought I hadn't actually sent it. So I tried to remember what I said the first time and restate it. :bonk:

Tim

Yep. Kind of like the difference between a math course and a philosophy course. In one, challenging the professor is tantamount to suicide; in the other, you get an "Attaboy!"

Ruffling feathers is subjective. The key to avoiding ruffled feathers may be in attacking the IDEA, not the person who propounds it.

Even so. Some of us have ultrasensitive antenna, which detect ALL dissent as a personal attack. :agree: :frust:

"We view this "Document for Creating Documents" as somewhere between silly and insulting. But beware, because this may be how "quality" comes across in general to many people."

"just point out that "quality" can come across as a lot of paperwork without any clear, direct benefit."

"Even so. Some of us have ultrasensitive antenna, which detect ALL dissent as a personal attack."

:topic: Because we already went to reviewing an example of what document "overkill" is to what others may think about the "Q" profession, I'll just jump in and ask those with them antenna sensitivity problems to please turn them down. Especially, if they are tuned to "ALL" dissent. :vfunny: