Existing Toolroom Process Validation - Need to identify clauses addressed.

X

XIO549

Hi.

In your toolrooms, do you have machine operatives 'Sign-off' on a drawing(s) or record to show that they have completed a work instruction to the requirements (Work Instruction) issued?

What clause is this satisfying?

-----------------
I have an old QMS system that was here before I started, and our current model of operators signing on the provided area on a drawing is just not working, and possibly because the way the Drawing shows where their signature goes, is not universal to each type of machine operation, and in a lot of ways doesn't make total sense to All of the operators.

I would like to revise the process, but need to be sure that I am not eliminating a compliance anywhere to the standard.

I was thinking of just having a signature on each drawing issued, and the signature would simply mean " Completed to spec" as opposed to a list of standard meaningless obvious questions.

However, I first need to identify the Clauses that our current process addresses, so I can revise the Quality Manual in compliance. I really need to be sure that I have all angles covered before I propose this change for document revision.

Any help appreciated.

Xio
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
Re: Existing Toolroom Process Validation / Need to identify clauses addressed.

Hi.

In your toolrooms, do you have machine operatives 'Sign-off' on a drawing(s) or record to show that they have completed a work instruction to the requirements (Work Instruction) issued?

What clause is this satisfying?

-----------------
I have an old QMS system that was here before I started, and our current model of operators signing on the provided area on a drawing is just not working, and possibly because the way the Drawing shows where their signature goes, is not universal to each type of machine operation, and in a lot of ways doesn't make total sense to All of the operators.

I would like to revise the process, but need to be sure that I am not eliminating a compliance anywhere to the standard.

I was thinking of just having a signature on each drawing issued, and the signature would simply mean " Completed to spec" as opposed to a list of standard meaningless obvious questions.

However, I first need to identify the Clauses that our current process addresses, so I can revise the Quality Manual in compliance. I really need to be sure that I have all angles covered before I propose this change for document revision.

Any help appreciated.

Xio

Hi,
It could fall under 7.5.1 or 7.5.2 of ISO 9001, but the standard does not mention any signature. It is up top the organization to set criteria to meet requirements.
Probably a more detailed framework could be useful to better understanding of the issue.
However, I have seen the there is automation to solve the issue you are mentioning by mean of electronic traveller or database for equipment maintanance.
 
X

XIO549

Re: Existing Toolroom Process Validation / Need to identify clauses addressed.

Hi qusys

Thanks for the reply.

Ya, that's part of the question really; I don't see where our Procedure could possibly interpret that an operator should 'Sign-off' on their works.

In 7.5.2, I understand this to govern only "where the resulting output cannot be verified by subsequent monitoring", (ie: like a rocket can only be proved as working when its in Space).... am I wrong?

And, yes, I am in the process of determining a clear framework for what's required. (a) interpretation of what ISO 9001 is asking of us for this process, (b) how the last quality personnel here interpreted it (and created a procedure & record form, and (c) to understand a way of how we can more effectively comply, perhaps adding value and removing stigma of 'Box Ticking' exercises where practical.

Thanks for the reply - hope to hear back soon.

Xio
 
X

XIO549

Hi

New thought on the matter, (remembering that I am evaluating an old procedure in place here, with a view to making things simpler, and adding value to the process).

Looking at 8.2.4, I think that this is the clause that
determined our process for In-process Inspection.

That said,. the requirement is that we shall "Monitor & Measure" the product as being checked "at appropriate stages of the product
realization process" (aka/manufacture). And that said, this clause does
not show a requirement for maintaining a record of this check, just to make sure that its done. The evidence that we provide to show that this is done is surely contained in the Final Inspection Record, no? :eek: (What do you think?)

So, regardless of the number of steps that we take to end up
with a finished product, so long as we
"indicate the person(s) authorising release of product for delivery to the customer" then we are compliant.

If I'm reading this right, we never needed an
In-process Inspection Procedure before at all, but only a
Final Inspection Procedure that ensures that all steps of
the manufacture taken so far are "Monitored & Measured".

I dread to think what I am missing/ not seeing at this moment, ; I Need to step back and take a global view of it, and perhaps address the clauses of the standard again with this in mind, but interested to see what comments are made on this. :eek:

Thanks again.

Xio.
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
Hi

New thought on the matter, (remembering that I am evaluating an old procedure in place here, with a view to making things simpler, and adding value to the process).

Looking at 8.2.4, I think that this is the clause that
determined our process for In-process Inspection.

That said,. the requirement is that we shall "Monitor & Measure" the product as being checked "at appropriate stages of the product
realization process" (aka/manufacture). And that said, this clause does
not show a requirement for maintaining a record of this check, just to make sure that its done. The evidence that we provide to show that this is done is surely contained in the Final Inspection Record, no? :eek: (What do you think?)

So, regardless of the number of steps that we take to end up
with a finished product, so long as we
"indicate the person(s) authorising release of product for delivery to the customer" then we are compliant.

If I'm reading this right, we never needed an
In-process Inspection Procedure before at all, but only a
Final Inspection Procedure that ensures that all steps of
the manufacture taken so far are "Monitored & Measured".

I dread to think what I am missing/ not seeing at this moment, ; I Need to step back and take a global view of it, and perhaps address the clauses of the standard again with this in mind, but interested to see what comments are made on this. :eek:

Thanks again.

Xio.

The requirement 8.2.4 states that the evidence of the conformity to the acceptance criteria shall be maintained. So , you can mantain it in whatver shape of record ( electronic, paper etc...):bigwave:
 
A

albridgeuk

Hi Xio

the procedures you list would not be acceptable with the regulators in the pharmaceutical/medical device/biotechnical and aviation industries.
However the cost of conformance in these industries is understood and costed in.
I can't really help you without knowing exactly what standards you are required to comply with. However if you are required to operate in our industry, let me know and I will send you a free issue document that briefly and very practically takes you through the process.

Alex
Validation Online.
 
X

XIO549

Hi Alex.

Thanks for the reply. We are not in medical device manu, more in Product Design, R&D and building prototype tooling for R&D. So no need for 13485. just 9001,

The question is that I am trying to identify where the existing 'Procedure' of having individual machine operators sign off on each small stage of the machining on components, addresses the standard.

When I can confidently identify this in its totality, I would hope to look at stream lining the QMS Procedure for this, without loosing managements monitoring value, and hopefully to gain better moral for staff complying with the standard going forward.

Thanks again.

Xio
 
R

Randy Lefferts

In your toolrooms, do you have machine operatives 'Sign-off' on a drawing(s) or record to show that they have completed a work instruction to the requirements (Work Instruction) issued?

What clause is this satisfying?
Xio

Agree with qusys that it is most likely 7.5.1.
I don't see where our Procedure could possibly interpret that an operator should 'Sign-off' on their works.

Not everything you do is done to satisfy ISO9001. This is most likely just an internal requirement. They may have felt that having someone sign off when a job was completed would result in fewer jobs having missed steps. Just a business practice, not an ISO requirement.

Looking at 8.2.4, I think that this is the clause that
determined our process for In-process Inspection.

Most likely.

That said,. the requirement is that we shall "Monitor & Measure" the product as being checked "at appropriate stages of the product
realization process" (aka/manufacture).

As qusys pointed out, we do need to maintain evidence.

"Evidence of conformity with the acceptance criteria shall be maintained."



It sounds like your
'Sign-off' on a drawing(s) or record to show that they have completed a work instruction to the requirements (Work Instruction) issued
was just an internal requirement that was deemed necessary in order to ensure that the job instructions were completed.
Simply signing off that a job step was completed doesn't necessarily equal meeting ISO requirements. Are you sure this "signature" was your company's method of in process inspection?

I was employed at an aerospace company for a bit and each part produced had a job ticket / traveller that accompanied each part as the part made it's way through the shop. As the part moved through the plant, the ticket was signed/initialed by each person performing the work for the appropriate stage that the product was in. A job may have had 15 different stages before it was complete. 15 sets of initials ultimately made it to the traveller. This was to confirm that the individual process was completed. Within those 15 different "job steps" there may have been 3-5 (or whatever) in process checks that were initialled. However, the traveller itself wasn't the record that was kept as proof of in process inspection, a different record (CMM result) was the proof of the check. The ticket/traveller was just a "check list" of steps to be completed.

All this said, it seems as if your signoff's are just a checklist of job completion, not a "record" of inspection.

Keep in mind that not all procedures are in place to satisfy ISO 9001. Your company has to determine what is appropriate and important for you to be successful. So you will have procedures in place that are meant to satisfy an internal requirement (which typically satisfies a given ISO requirement). Your job signoff list sounds like one of them.
 
Top Bottom