The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Auditing Quality and Environmental Management Systems > Process Audits and Layered Process Audits
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

Not sequentially following steps in a work instruction


Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links



Courtesy Quick Links

Links that Cove visitors will find useful in your quest for knowledge:


ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Standards Organization - ISO Standards and Information

Atul's
Quality Forum Online

Howard's
International Quality Services

Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum

Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology


Related LinkedIn Groups

ISO 9001 for Small Businesses

ISO 9001:2015 Revision Discussions

Information Security Community

Medical Devices Group

Quality and Regulatory Network

FDA (Food and Drugs)

AS91XX Series - Tips and Advice

View Poll Results: Not sequentially following steps is an audit finding.
If there is evidence, "Yes" it's a finding 4 22.22%
Without more knowledge, I say "No", not a finding 1 5.56%
I would definitely dig deeper before any citation 12 66.67%
Given the limited information, no way to accurately say 4 22.22%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 18. You may not vote on this Poll because you are not Logged In.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 17th April 2008, 10:52 AM
grego79's Avatar
grego79

 
 
Total Posts: 7
Not sequentially following steps in a work instruction

Audit scenario...

After reviewing assembly work instructions you find that the operator is performing assembly operation steps #5 & #6 out of sequence. You ask the operator "why would you arbitrarily decide to change work instructions steps" and they respond by saying - "It doesn't matter what steps you do as long as it all gets done."

Just looking for feedback and comments of how you would address this issue.


Grego

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 17th April 2008, 11:00 AM
Randy's Avatar
Randy

 
 
Total Posts: 8,349
Re: 9001:2000 Auditor Finding or Not!?

What are the requirements?

Are the requirements being met?

What is the definition of NC?

ISO 9000:2005

3.6.2
nonconformity
non-fulfilment of a requirement (3.1.2)

3.1.2
requirement
need or expectation that is stated, generally implied or obligatory

NOTE 1 “Generally implied” means that it is custom or common practice for the organization (3.3.1), its customers (3.3.5) and other interested parties (3.3.7), that the need or expectation under consideration is implied.

NOTE 2 A qualifier can be used to denote a specific type of requirement, e.g. product requirement, quality management
requirement, customer requirement.

NOTE 3 A specified requirement is one that is stated, for example in a document (3.7.2).

NOTE 4 Requirements can be generated by different interested parties (3.3.7).

NOTE 5 This definition differs from that provided in 3.12.1 of ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2:2004.

3.12.1
requirement
expression in the content of a document conveying criteria to be fulfilled if compliance with the document is to be claimed and from which no deviation is permitted


Use the Standard for your answer. When you use the Standard there is nothing left to haggle over. Now as to CA and cause, that is not the auditor's problem.
Sponsored Links

  Post Number #3  
Old 17th April 2008, 11:03 AM
BradM's Avatar
BradM

 
 
Total Posts: 5,816
Re: 9001:2000 Auditor Finding or Not!?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by grego79 View Post

Audit scenario...

After reviewing assembly work instructions you find that the operator is performing assembly operation steps #5 & #6 out of sequence. You ask the operator "why would you arbitrarily decide to change work instructions steps" and they respond by saying - "It doesn't matter what steps you do as long as it all gets done."

Just looking for feedback and comments of how you would address this issue.


Grego
Hello Grego

Is the operator correct? Does it matter?

I would be interested in the situation. If the work instruction was written with a sequential order, someone thought it was important and it should be followed. The operator(s) needs to be trained. If it truly does not matter, the procedure should be rewritten (doesn't matter).

Added Moderator Note: I revised the title for better applicability to the subject. If it is not correct or needs to be changed, please let me or another moderator know

Last edited by BradM; 17th April 2008 at 11:11 AM. Reason: Added Moderator Note
  Post Number #4  
Old 17th April 2008, 11:10 AM
GStough's Avatar
GStough

 
 
Total Posts: 1,136
Re: 9001:2000 Auditor Finding or Not!?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by BradM View Post

Added Moderator Note: I revised the title for better applicability to the subject. If it is not correct or needs to be changed, please let me or another auditor know


Or another moderator....
Thanks to GStough for your informative Post and/or Attachment!
  Post Number #5  
Old 17th April 2008, 11:12 AM
BradM's Avatar
BradM

 
 
Total Posts: 5,816
Re: 9001:2000 Auditor Finding or Not!?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by GStough View Post



Or another moderator....


For the love of everything.. please don't let another auditor know. Make them figure it out on their own.

Ok.... back to the ranch.
  Post Number #6  
Old 17th April 2008, 11:20 AM
Coury Ferguson's Avatar
Coury Ferguson

 
 
Total Posts: 4,316
Re: Not sequentially following steps in a work instruction

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by grego79 View Post

Audit scenario...

After reviewing assembly work instructions you find that the operator is performing assembly operation steps #5 & #6 out of sequence. You ask the operator "why would you arbitrarily decide to change work instructions steps" and they respond by saying - "It doesn't matter what steps you do as long as it all gets done."

Just looking for feedback and comments of how you would address this issue.


Grego
Does it improve the results (Time, Costs, etc)? If so, change the documentation, in my opinion.
  Post Number #7  
Old 17th April 2008, 11:26 AM
somerqc's Avatar
somerqc

 
 
Total Posts: 436
Re: Not sequentially following steps in a work instruction

As an internal auditor, my first question is "does it really matter?". Next, is it potentially a more efficient way of completing the task? Doesn't matter? Change instructions to indicate that. Is it better? Change it.

If it does matter and isn't better - determine if systemic or localized. May be a personnel issue rather than a system issue.



John
  Post Number #8  
Old 17th April 2008, 11:33 AM
Stijloor's Avatar
Stijloor

 
 
Total Posts: 14,993
Re: Not sequentially following steps in a work instruction

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by grego79 View Post

Audit scenario...

After reviewing assembly work instructions you find that the operator is performing assembly operation steps #5 & #6 out of sequence. You ask the operator "why would you arbitrarily decide to change work instructions steps" and they respond by saying - "It doesn't matter what steps you do as long as it all gets done."

Just looking for feedback and comments of how you would address this issue.


Grego
Grego,

Simple approach:

1. Interview other operators.
2. Verify impact of the out-of-sequence operations.
3a. If no impact, no action required.
3b. If impact, write nonconformity report.

Sometimes, in an effort to capture the process/activities, work instructions are written in an unnecessarily complex/detailed manner.

Stijloor.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > Common Quality Assurance Processes and Tools > Auditing Quality and Environmental Management Systems > Process Audits and Layered Process Audits

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Steps to Complete Quality Control Plans and Work Instruction dbproject Manufacturing and Related Processes 4 30th December 2013 09:40 AM
Process Flow Chart is a Work Procedure or a Work Guide, or a Work Instruction jm1231 Documentation Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 28 9th March 2012 12:52 AM
AS9100C Work Instruction Clarification - How detailed should a Work Instruction be? tqual AS9100, Nadcap and related Aerospace Standards and Requirements 10 12th February 2012 07:48 AM
Humorous work instruction - Relief Station Work Instruction Crusader Funny Stuff - Jokes and Humour 6 28th October 2008 04:53 PM
Work Instruction - TS 16949 - Is work instruction for packing and delivery mandatory sathis TS 16949 - International Automotive Quality Systems Standard 6 31st August 2005 01:24 AM



The time now is 01:35 PM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.


 


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies" -- The Elsmar Cove is *Copyright Free*.
A Peachfarm LLC Internet Property