Can you use pencil to sign documents, fill out forms, etc?

[The Specialist]

imposing strictures from other Standards or regulations than the one(s) in this forum, namely ISO 9000, 9001, 9004, NOT 17025.

I didn't realise this was a ISO 9000, 9001, 9004 only forum...
I do not directly deal with any of these standards.

Perhaps I should go.

 

[Bonhomme]

Records and everything else can be kept in blood

:mg: That's what you would call true body&soul implication (at least the french "corps et âme" applies)

 

[Junior Woodchuck]

Look, I don't mean to waste anyone's time here. I just wanted some clarification from people who know more than me....about the specifics regarding something that a consultant told our management. This is the company I work at and therefore spend a good amount of time at. So, to me....it is important that they understand the basics of a QMS and the requirements of ISO 9001 Standards. There are really big issues my company struggles with...so yes, you're right, there are bigger fish to fry...but my point is I don't think 4.2.4 should be summed up by telling my GM, "Don't use pencil on anything, or it'll be an automatic finding."

The company has a poor history of actually using a QMS and I've been working to get things turned around. Part of that starts with a proper understanding of what we need to focus on. Documents need to be "legible, readily identifiable, and retrievable".

 

[The Specialist]

Look, I don't mean to waste anyone's time here. I just wanted some clarification from people who know more than me....about the specifics regarding something that a consultant told our management. This is the company I work at and therefore spend a good amount of time at. So, to me....it is important that they understand the basics of a QMS and the requirements of ISO 9001 Standards. There are really big issues my company struggles with...so yes, you're right, there are bigger fish to fry...I don't think 4.2.4 should be summed up by telling my GM, "Don't use pencil on anything, or it'll be an automatic finding."

The company has a poor history of actually using a QMS and I've been working to get things turned around. Part of that starts with a proper understanding of what we need to focus on. Documents need to be "legible, readily identifiable, and retrievable".

I don't think you are wasting anyone's time here...

Quite an interesting discussion in respect of ‘why’ we do things the way we do… highlighted in part by JaneB’s interesting link article.

My I suggest (and I know that you are frustrated) that you satisfy yourself that you are, in theory, correct. But that you make it a moot point by using only ink anyway?

 

[Jim Wynne]

NASA spent millions developing a pen that would work in space...The Soviet Union gave the Cosmonauts pencils.

This is one of those urban legends that just won't die.
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=122893

 

[Junior Woodchuck]

My I suggest (and I know that you are frustrated) that you satisfy yourself that you are, in theory, correct. But that you make it a moot point by using only ink anyway?

I'm not frustrated by anyone here. I'm VERY GRATEFUL for all of your comments and feedback. I just found this website by googling my question yesterday, and so far I love what I've found. Amazed I'd never come across it before. But I think I explained in the original post, I kind of lost all involvement with ISO years ago and am just now finding my way back.

You're right that it's irrelevant since I never use pen...but when the consultant kept telling me that pencil = automatic finding, the argument for me wasn't about whether pencils should be used, but whether they could be used. And he wasn't talking about any of my records anyway. It still didn't matter. Maybe I just like to argue/debate. By the end of the night he'd started referring to me as 'the Attorney'.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Look, I don't mean to waste anyone's time here. I just wanted some clarification from people who know more than me....about the specifics regarding something that a consultant told our management. This is the company I work at and therefore spend a good amount of time at. So, to me....it is important that they understand the basics of a QMS and the requirements of ISO 9001 Standards. There are really big issues my company struggles with...so yes, you're right, there are bigger fish to fry...but my point is I don't think 4.2.4 should be summed up by telling my GM, "Don't use pencil on anything, or it'll be an automatic finding."

The company has a poor history of actually using a QMS and I've been working to get things turned around. Part of that starts with a proper understanding of what we need to focus on. Documents need to be "legible, readily identifiable, and retrievable".

I'm not speaking for Stijloor, but I think his frustration wasn't directed at you, but rather at consultants (and others, such as auditors) who don't understand the requirements and make stuff up. I think you're absolutely correct in questioning the consultant and I think this thread has confirmed your initial misgivings about his contention.

A lot of people expend a lot of wasted effort in trying to shield themselves from auditors who have their own (wrong) interpretations of the standards. Rather than doing something stupid and wasteful to avoid questions from auditors, whenever possible we should stand our ground (as you did with the consultant) and make them play by the actual rules.

 

[BradM]

Look, I don't mean to waste anyone's time here. I just wanted some clarification from people who know more than me....about the specifics regarding something that a consultant told our management. This is the company I work at and therefore spend a good amount of time at. So, to me....it is important that they understand the basics of a QMS and the requirements of ISO 9001 Standards. There are really big issues my company struggles with...so yes, you're right, there are bigger fish to fry...but my point is I don't think 4.2.4 should be summed up by telling my GM, "Don't use pencil on anything, or it'll be an automatic finding."

The company has a poor history of actually using a QMS and I've been working to get things turned around. Part of that starts with a proper understanding of what we need to focus on. Documents need to be "legible, readily identifiable, and retrievable".

Not a waste of anybody's time. Heck, we live for this stuff.

Myself I think it's better to try to avoid using pencil on records, especially if it's observable data. Coming from regulated industries where pencils are not allowed anyway, it has become more of an accepted practice to write everything in blue/black ink, and make notation on the document of errors.

However, developing things as a suggestion/good practice/best practice/ etc. is different that stating something is law. Depending on a particular process, there might be a need to write some things in pencil.

The thing is when people make things Law, or state something is required, when in actuality it may not be.

 

[BradM]

I'm not speaking for Stijloor, but I think his frustration wasn't directed at you, but rather at consultants (and others, such as auditors) who don't understand the requirements and make stuff up. I think you're absolutely correct in questioning the consultant and I think this thread has confirmed your initial misgivings about his contention.

A lot of people expend a lot of wasted effort in trying to shield themselves from auditors who have their own (wrong) interpretations of the standards. Rather than doing something stupid and wasteful to avoid questions from auditors, whenever possible we should stand our ground (as you did with the consultant) and make them play by the actual rules.

And the insanity continues from there. By not questioning things from an auditor, people will just "put something in place" to satisfy some audit finding. And instead of making the process better, it adds unneeded activities to the task, and many times, creates more chances for errors and problems than before. Then later, someone questions why something is being done. "Well... it's part of an audit finding..". Then you have to figure out can it be stopped, why it was done in the first place, etc. That's not progress to me.

I know we say it so many times here that it gets old. But it needs to be about adding value to the process; making it better. Not tying stones around the neck, so to speak, and burdening the process with myths, legends, and opinions about the standards that simply aren't there.

 

[The Specialist]

I'm not frustrated by anyone here. I'm VERY GRATEFUL for all of your comments and feedback. I just found this website by googling my question yesterday, and so far I love what I've found. Amazed I'd never come across it before. But I think I explained in the original post, I kind of lost all involvement with ISO years ago and am just now finding my way back.

You're right that it's irrelevant since I never use pen...but when the consultant kept telling me that pencil = automatic finding, the argument for me wasn't about whether pencils should be used, but whether they could be used. And he wasn't talking about any of my records anyway. It still didn't matter. Maybe I just like to argue/debate. By the end of the night he'd started referring to me as 'the Attorney'.

Sorry Brad... I meant; frustrated at the 'consultant' that you refer to!