The DREADED...."White Out"!!! *insert scary music*

[Steve McQuality]

I know, this belongs in the "College Football" thread - but I'm making the stretch that it also belongs in the "White Out" thread as well...



Many opposing teams also "have a kitten" when they see this type of "White Out"!! :truce:

...sorry - couldn't resist... Back to the topic...

-Steve

 

[CarolX]

It is important as to whether the issue is a controlled document or if it is data collection. Changing controlled documents with white out - that becomes interesting. Did you change all of the copies? Did it need rev-ed? Some systems allow "temporary" changes as long as they are initialed and dated. Usually that will pass muster (do what you say....). But, if you see a print on the floor with white out and no initials - you have no idea if a person with the appropriate authority made that change. That would not pass.

As far as fixing data collection mistakes, you may pass an audit if you allow white-out in your procedures. Firestone may have not liked to put data on the overhead in court looking like that....but, that is beyond the discussion here.



Nothing is ever illegal until you get caught. Pencil is never a problem until one sheet gets smeared and a customer or third party auditor gives a finding for illegible document, and you need a corrective action. Until then, you are free to use crayons if you wish.

Sorry Bob - don't mean to sound harsh - but my statements have nothing to do with getting caught/rev changing/etc.

I will give you some examples of where we use white out on a regular basis -

First - we are a job shop - and we work to our customer drawings. We are very diligent about protecting our customers information. We do not use customer names, we assign a number to all our customers. ALL drawings received from customers have the customer name covered with white out.

Second - When we perform a first articles on all new parts. When out of tolerance conditions are noted - the engineer corrects the part program, re-runs the part and we re-inpsect the out of tolerance conditions and report the corrected findings on our original first article report. Some of our customers request a copy of our first article report - so in those cases, we "clean-up" the report - because to an outsider - the report would look very confusing.

The important things are what are the regulatory/legal/customer requirements and how is the white-out being used?

 

[bobdoering]

First - we are a job shop - and we work to our customer drawings. We are very diligent about protecting our customers information. We do not use customer names, we assign a number to all our customers. ALL drawings received from customers have the customer name covered with white out.

Even in a regulated industry I would use a forbidden bottle of white out to do this same thing, but I would photocopy the mess and control the photocopy (or scan). It was using the white out - but the end result was controlled.

Second - When we perform a first articles on all new parts. When out of tolerance conditions are noted - the engineer corrects the part program, re-runs the part and we re-inspect the out of tolerance conditions and report the corrected findings on our original first article report. Some of our customers request a copy of our first article report - so in those cases, we "clean-up" the report - because to an outsider - the report would look very confusing.

True, it may look confusing, but whiting out data would not be looked upon favorably. They would expect it to be struck out and rewritten. Some folks would rewrite the whole data sheet to get past that issue, walking both sides of that line. In industries that permit it, it is not so much of a problem because the form is controlled, not the data.

 

[gfreely]

Wow! Thanks to all for the great information and discussion!

I came from a govt background (blue or black ink ONLY, line out errors ONCE and ititial/date) , worked in Metrology for a while, and now work in oil & gas.

I have always taken it as red that it was "industry standard" for most industries, but now I am seeing it is not as B&W as I thought. Therefore, I will discuss with our Quality Systems Mgr about adding it into the procedure based on the "legibility", "controllability", and "traceability".

Too many times have I been forced to write up Corrective Actions or just plain sit on a managers desk because someone in the process flow "N/A"'d or used correction fluid on a controlled document (begins as a document and ends as a record) with absolutely NO record of who made the change or when. We had one instance where somebody put a gigantic "N/A" on a function test sequence in the process. Nobody knew who did it or why until I flagged it and investigated.

But these are all symptoms of a the lack of "control" in the doc world that I am working feverishly to heal before we end up with a different, much harsher kind of hurt....like no customers! :mg:

Thanks again everyone for the insight! I can always count on muliple responses from different viewpoints and various backgrounds to help me answer my burning questions! Covers rock

 

[Caster]

That is just a "bumper sticker" statement. The statement was not a matter of my ethical view, but rather a more "worldly" view that there are people who are willing to do a lot of "illegal" things, and will accept the interim consequences of what people may think of them. They do not really feel any remorse until they are caught and face the more dire consequences. Sometimes, even then they do not feel remorse for their actions - just for the fact they got caught. You see it in the news - and audits, in a less legal manner - all the time!

Thanks Bob, I knew this was not your opinion.

I come up against these people from time to time, and they really, really scare me. There is a cold, hollow, hole where their soul should be.

 

[Marc]

A "Blast from the Past" - Or, "This Old Thread" bump.