Re: You have helped!
Originally posted by Laura
My main problem is, everyone feels the need to document everything they do right down to how they clean the toilet (exagerration but you know what I mean). They are confusing work instructions with procedures so I am finding myself combing out the detail and trying to create procedures which are useful and relevant. The reason people aren't using the system at the moment is b/c there is too much information.
With ISO 2K I can make the system more process based and make people look at what they do and how it fits into the big picture.
The only issue is, is that they all want to write everything down including aspirations and when I try to explain that what they are writing in their procedures is subject to audit and therefore non-conformances they look at me as if I was barking !!
[/B]
Just a word of caution... Remember that a procedure is a way of doing something - written or not. ISO 9001:2000 is being heralded as a 'relief' from documentation, but that's mostly a smokescreen.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a documentation proponent. I have cited in many threads where clients were in large part impressed that going through implementation didn't produce the documentation avalanche expected. From one client:
--> You're advice was extremely important. Especially important,
--> at least in my opinion, was your help in determining where we did
--> not need to document every last thing (by using training, etc.). I
--> think that without this input, we would have spent a lot more time
--> writing things that we did not need and wasted a lot of peoples'
--> time. We were able to get the audit done in a year while we are
--> achieving record sales and profits. Who can argue with that?
That said, whether a procedure is documented or not is irrelevant with respect to the fact that if it's un-documented it will still be checked by sampling people.
Most people are focused on their area and other areas which it most interfaces with. If you have a distributed documentation control system (departments can originate and control their own documentation - particularly level 3 documents) much of this becomes moot. Let them write and control what they believe should be documented above and beyond QMS requirements if they feel more comfortable having a procedure documented.
> They are confusing work instructions with procedures
Part of the problem is also how one differentiates between what a work instructions is and what a procedure is. Have you defined this anywhere - possibly in writing? I remember auditors who refused to accept flow charts as procedures not so many years ago and even auditors that defined a procedure only as a text document - if it wasn't written it wasn't a procedure. I know there are a number of threads here that discuss this issue because part of the problem is that what in your company you call a procedure in another they call it something else.
All this said, whether a procedure is written or 'trained', the details still have to be known and understood and followed.
> The only issue is, is that they all want to write
> everything down including aspirations and when I try to
> explain that what they are writing in their procedures is
> subject to audit and therefore non-conformances they look
> at me as if I was barking !!
If this is the case, then you need to bring the managers together and discuss the issue. It may be a good idea to give them a training session on procedures as your company defines them.
One large client I worked with started out with training for all managers in flow charting. This eventually led to their departmental process mapping. During this training the issue of how much detail to include was discussed as was the documentation system in general (the level II's were discussed and 'dissected' - especially document control and their respoonsibilities in their distributed control system). We basically held 4 sessions. The first was flow charting basics, next was review of existing level 2 flow charts, then came a Map Your Department (top level) exercise, and then they were set loose for a month and we had the 4th meeting where we discussed what they had written and what was not being written and why.
As a last word, it sounds like you're still using text procedures. Think flow charts and you'll see a serious shrinkage in the size, detail and often the number of documents. :thedeal:
