AJ you have a good basis for argument - I see a number of variables & possible good/bad outcomes to each side of the situation.
Originally posted by AJPaton:
The assignee is best able to assess how long the action items will take. However, should s/he include that information in the plan?
I for one would tend to agree - the assignee should take origional responsibility and include completion due timing as long as it is "REASONABLE" and "TIMLEY" to the task at hand. A free pass to set a date possibly years down the road is however not a good thing.
The responsibility for accepting the date supplied should/could be agreed and communicated to the assignees superior.
Sad part is that when you start "Setting Dates/timelines" that may/could be missed - what action steps would be included in the plan/procedures to cover a "missing the date issue" ?
It COULD turn into a "if I wait long enough the situation will go away item" and if nothing has been covered on the "what will happen if I just ignore it anyway" syndrome. - That would tend to give ammunition to anyone that really believes this ISO document stuff is "just bull" anyway.
IMHO PROJECTED could work - as long as there is a mechinisim in planning/procedure for moving the projected date due to unseen circumstances that come to light after the origional planning stage.... That way the assignees supierior would retain some semblance of "control" over what is or is not happening/when with the issue.
The final outcome of what works...where depends heavily on the individual workplace environment, commitment and attitudes.
[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 28 July 2000).]