Nonconformity on managing documents for Electric Arc Furnace

[Ettore]

During the last Audit, the thirth parth Auditor has wrote down a "Non conformity" on point 4.2.3 of . ISO 9001:2000.
The object of "non conformity" was the Technical Specifications with the parameters used for the set-up of one of ours furnaces (EAF).

The specifications are managed by furnace managers that usually edit the specifications in a sql database ( they don't use papers).
After that from sql sever (liv III) the parameters are sended for every set- up (one specification for every kind of steel) to automation of the furnace (LIV II).
(if anybody is interested on here there is an exercitation with use of some of this specifications: http ://www .steeluniversity. org/content/html/eng/eaf-sim.asp - DEAD (404) LINK DECOUPLED)

The database takes note of the name of the manager that has changed the specifications but not of the scope of the changes, and they don’t use have registrations of obsolete specifications because in the last 20 years the managers haven’t had the necessity to have this kind of registrations.

Anyway the auditor said that isn’t easy understand:
who is tath has approved the last edition of the specifications,
the identifications of every specifications (that are called with the name of the steel),
the traceability of modifications.

Who is on the right side, the Auditor or the managers?

This kind of documents (technical) have to be controlled more than ours engineers are doing?

Ps. In the last 20 year the auditors (internal, second or tirth part ) have not seen this non conformity

 

[Houcka]

While I can understand the frustration behind being told that current operating practices have been wrong for the past twenty years, that doesn't excuse the company from correcting a nonconformity now that it has been brought to attention. ISO Clause 4.2.3 Control of Documents specifically says that changes to a document must be identified and that obsolete documents must be prevented from unintended use.

 

[Ettore]

While I can understand the frustration behind being told that current operating practices have been wrong for the past twenty years.

I'm sorry but the auditor didn't said that current operating practices have been wrong but issued a NCR about the controls of practices

changes to a document must be identified .

The change are identifyed, but isn't necessary take note of why is changed

and that obsolete documents must be prevented from unintended use.

What obsolete documents if they haven't ?

Bye

Have a good night

 

[SteelMaiden]

Your database should have a date/time stamp and record the person making the changes, right? So that is your documentation, your control should be in user priveleges, and there isn't a way for obsolete documents to be used, because your automation systems should only be using the current database. Is your auditor familiar with steelmaking and automation? It appears you are doing basically what every EAF operation is doing.

 

[Ettore]

Is your auditor familiar with steelmaking and automation?

The Auditors should be familiary.
Anyway I have asked to the managers of EAF to write like correction for NCR a simple matrix flow chart that will explain exactly what are doing for control this kinds of documents, meanwile i wrote down quality system procedures that explaine the responsability for control the technical documentation whit a matrix that for every kind of document explain who have the responsaibility for control the document that could change after changiging of customers engeeneeng standards (as required by ISO/TS 16949 point 4.2) . The matrix recall also if there are other documents like the new flow that EAF manager have planned to do.
Bye