Clause 7.5.3 and Required Work Instructions

[Mikey324]

The IATF clauses are in addition to ISO 8.5.1, which is incorporated by reference. IATF is being much more prescriptive in what it wants to see -- i.e.; verified job setups. ISO allows much more discretion to the company.

IATF is another reason we have sort/rework instructions... ISO is more open to the organizations needs.

 

[Big Jim]

I spent something close to five years working on a General Motors assembly line in my much younger days. I started off doing the same job over and over every night until annual model change and the next years cars were started. The revised job was usually only slightly modified. As time went on, I learned other jobs in the same area of the plant and become a replacement operator, one that replaced absentees, and at that point I could be working any of roughly 40 to 50 jobs with no advanced notice. If I wasn't needed by my foreman, I could be loaned out to any position in the body shop. If the body shop didn't need me I was loaned out to anywhere in the plaint. The variety of work was very broad. I could be welding in the body shop one day, painting cars the next, and adjusting headlights in the final area before shipping the next day.

I never saw a work instruction of any kind for any of those jobs.

Later still when I was a technician in dealerships, the closest thing to a work instruction was a shop manual. I very seldom needed to crack one open because of the level of training and experience.

There are very many applications where work instruction are not needed.

I certainly don't have any to perform audits or provide consulting.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Not automotive, but one of our members was lost this year after not following documented procedures that addressed risks.

While doing NDT inspections on shipboard steam plant piping, not having our test procedures out and open while working was a very serious offense.

So I agree that work instructions are not always needed, but there certainly is a place for them.