Approval of Grandfathered Documents - ISO 9000:2000 Clauses 4.2.3 a&b

[juliov]

Hi Quality Guys,

My company was registered to the ISO 9k2k in Oct. 2003.
Our documents previous to our registration in 2003 were "grandfathered". I am finding a few of our products' drawings from 2002 without the approval signature in the approval block of the drawing. Should we be approving those prints now? what is your take to ISO 9k2k 4.2.3, b.? IT has been 5 years the print is still valid, but still shows no approval. Comments?

 

[Randy]

Re: ISO 9k2k 4.2.3, a, b

Hi Quality Guys,

My company was registered to the ISO 9k2k in Oct. 2003.
Our documents previous to our registration in 2003 were "grandfathered". I am finding a few of our products' drawings from 2002 without the approval signature in the approval block of the drawing. Should we be approving those prints now? what is your take to ISO 9k2k 4.2.3, b.? IT has been 5 years the print is still valid, but still shows no approval. Comments?

What does your procedure require?

 

[juliov]

Re: ISO 9k2k 4.2.3, a, b

Our document control procedure is general and does not specifically address this issue, yes, we know that documents are to be controlled and thus we follow ISO 4.2.3, a,b,c, d, e, f, g. However, the grandfathered documents some are still current and the prints still do not show the approval. I guess if an auditor questions the lack of approval, we could say that since the doc was granfathered then the lack of approval is not needed. We could also say that yes, we do review the docs and update as necessary and as such the print is still ok. We could sign an approval whenever there is a change. comment.

 

[AndyN]

Re: ISO 9000:2000 (4.2.3 a&b) - approval of grandfathered documents

Juliov:
First (and I don't mean to be Mr. Obvious) you need to change your procedure to deal with this situation, otherwise the whole company will be here at the Cove asking the same question

It seems to me that you should make that procedure change along the lines of;

"Any drawing or specification which doesn't have clear identification of approvals shall be taken to the XXX to be reviewed and approved (XXX = whomever is the correct authority in your org.) before use".

This will allow an 'as needs' approach so you won't need exponential amounts of work to approve the docs, and youre still 'safe' from incorrect docs being used - and from an NC if audited.

 

[Randy]

Andy pretty well has it.

All you have to do is show adequate "control", and you're the one that determines how it is to be done. Whether the control is a signature, watermark, special stamp, or anything else determined adequate and effective by you really doesn't matter, as long as it is understood and performed as required.

 

[potdar]

Hi Quality Guys,

My company was registered to the ISO 9k2k in Oct. 2003.
Our documents previous to our registration in 2003 were "grandfathered". I am finding a few of our products' drawings from 2002 without the approval signature in the approval block of the drawing. Should we be approving those prints now? what is your take to ISO 9k2k 4.2.3, b.? IT has been 5 years the print is still valid, but still shows no approval. Comments?

You say you have some drawings predating your certification. How do you know their dates? Do you have a system for locating the date of approval? If you do, you could also give a blanket approval to all drawing before certain date till they get revised as per your current procedure.

Andy has suggested a preventive approach, much more preferable than a corrective approach suggested here. But this corrective approach is also equally acceptable if itsuits you better.

 

[juliov]

Hi Potdar,
The necessary info including date, drawing #, part #, etc are in each engineering drawing, even those before our registration to the ISO in 2003. What is missing in some of the engineering drawings predating our registration in 2003 is the "approval signature" Drawings after our registration in 2003 are all approved. What I was concerned is that when we send the docs to our customers the lack of approval in the drawing would be a red flag, how would our customers know that the doc is grandfathered? and thus they might question it. We do review our docs for adequacy. It seems that the signature will be included when we change the drawing. Comment.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Drawings after our registration in 2003 are all approved.

Is there any evidence of approval for the older drawings, such as ECOs or release documentation?

 

[juliov]

No, other than the drawing's number, drawing date, drawn by, date, scale
in some of the drawings prior to registration in 2003 there is no evidence of approval. If I were auditing the document the doc would be nonconforming to my criteria since no approval is evident.

The new drawings all are ok and signed for after registration to current date.
I just sent a drawing to a customer from prior to registration, however, I took the doc to the engineering manager to verify and get approval. He entered the approval and presto! I sent the doc. Is this needed?

 

[potdar]

Hi Potdar,
The necessary info including date, drawing #, part #, etc are in each engineering drawing, even those before our registration to the ISO in 2003. What is missing in some of the engineering drawings predating our registration in 2003 is the "approval signature" Drawings after our registration in 2003 are all approved. What I was concerned is that when we send the docs to our customers the lack of approval in the drawing would be a red flag, how would our customers know that the doc is grandfathered? and thus they might question it. We do review our docs for adequacy. It seems that the signature will be included when we change the drawing. Comment.

It will be a red flag to the customer only if it is his specific requirement (CSR) that the document has to be 'approved' by putting a signature on it. In such a case, he will definitely reject it. If not, he has no reason to bother. If he does, show him a copy of your procedure which regularises the grandfathered documents.

IN case of a specific CSR, you cannot grandfather the documents the way you wish. His wish becomes your command.