Personal Notes on Production Floor vs. Documented Work Instructions

[hogheavenfarm]

My concern here is that if work instructions are available, (and controlled), and these instructions are changed or modified, does the operator continue to work off his "old" instructions? In my experience, yes, they do. I personally dont allow these type of notes on the shop floor for this reason.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by SteelMaiden

I will join the camp asking why the operators feel the need to use personal notes instead of the work instructions.

A possible answer: efficiency and expediency. If an operator has to flip through several documents in a binder, until he finds the table or set up instruction he needs, that is unproductive time.

If we punish people for trying to be efficient and tell them they can have no memory aids, we are doing our organization a disservice.

The obvious concern, as already mentioned, is the risk of the notes not being updated when necessary. But that risk can be managed and mitigated. Disallowing aids is a counter productive measure, in my opinion.

[Neil V.]

BTW, Welcome, Fenway Frank!

In Reply to Parent Post by Fenway Frank

...My company has documented work instructions for these tasks, and the instructions are readily available. Interestingly, the notes were right on track with the documented instructions. Is this a nonconformance?

So are those against 'notes' thinking this is an NC?

[SteelMaiden]

We've already established that the notes are in agreement with the implemented instructions so....

I would probably look more closely to see if there is a training issue, there is an issue with how the work instructions are written, etc. I'd want to know why the same information that is supposed to be a controlled document is floating around in another format without control. Since the documents are already in the QMS, I would surely lean toward a nonconformance. If all information is as given to us here, no more, no less, yes.

[Jason PCSwitches]

Excellent post. I have 2 schools of thoughts.

1st - At some point auditors need to relax a little and evaluate if the process is being executed in the proper manner as prescribed in the procedure and not worry about tic-tack stuff. As stated in a prior post, as long as you could show me the process is effective and compliant to your procedures, and how changes to the relevant procedure would be communicated to ensure the operator is made aware, probably no problem. If it adds value with little or no risk, whats the problem?

2nd - Along the lines of the procedure not being clear, or saving time flipping thru a binder looking for work instructions, lets see what AS9100 has to say:

4.2.3 d. "To ensure that relevant versions of applicable documents are available at points of use".

Are they? If so, and you can prove effective document change control/notification, no worries IMHO.

[Groo3]

In Reply to Parent Post by Neil V.

BTW, Welcome, Fenway Frank!

So are those against 'notes' thinking this is an NC?

Nope, I'm in agreement with Wes's comments that it may be appropriate to mark this as an OFI (opportunity for improvement). I say write the OFI and move on. My personal preference is to see the hand written notes be the foundation of the procedure, and have the operator write the procedure or at the least, be an approver.

[Jennifer Kirley]

I do not think it is possible to write a procedure or work instruction that can be everything to everyone, including have "sufficient" detail and yet be small enough to manage.

I am inclined to say that to worry about updates is worthwhile, but if they are not moving their arms and legs to an open page's direction what difference would a change make then?

The organization gets to determine if it's allowable. I've done work in which working from memory or using handwritten or other supplemental notes was strictly forbidden. But their upkeep was a good deal of effort; keep that in mind when deciding the right thing to do.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by Groo3

Nope, I'm in agreement with Wes's comments that it may be appropriate to mark this as an OFI (opportunity for improvement). I say write the OFI and move on. My personal preference is to see the hand written notes be the foundation of the procedure, and have the operator write the procedure or at the least, be an approver.

My thought continues to be in the vein of Deming - if there is ANY issue, it falls squarely on management shoulders.

Questions for management (ala the 5 Ys, but why stop at 5):

1. If the "official" work instructions are available, WHY does worker feel need to use his own notes?
2. Are they more understandable in straightforward language?
3. Are they easier to access?
4. Are they more detailed with little "tricks of the trade?"
5. Do ALL operators refer to notes or only some?
6. How many operators rely on memory alone and never consult notes or official work instructions?
7. Do different operators have different notes?
8. Do ANY of the personal notes conflict with official version?
9. How long has this practice been going on?
10. Has it been going on through more than one audit? If yes, did other auditors note and ignore or not note at all?
11. How were the operators trained? Did trainers refer to personal notes during training or only the official WI?
12. And so forth and so forth.

As I wrote, an opportunity for improvement, but improvement of management practices, not the operators!