Clause 7.5.3 and Required Work Instructions

[Randy]

I find it hard to imagine someone was dumb enough to write this up. I know that I am too naive. The harm this kind of stupidity causes is unknown in its scope, but it does indeed do harm.

It's probably one of those NC's writtem to get a KPI out of the way

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The race to the bottom, the commoditization of “ISO certification”, the price pressure on registrars and all of the additional contributors has led us to the current state of morons and their checklists. Read the article from 2006 @ Article on concerns over price pressure effects on to Registrars

 

[Big Jim]

I'm amused at Nigel Croft's quote of "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys".

 

[Golfman25]

• There is no requirement in 7.5 to document what was determined not to be necessary.
• There is no requirement in 7.5 to document how this determination was reached.
  • E.g., if you had done a PFMEA, you might have had a mention of work instruction with a low risk RPN, and that shows you had thought about it. However, there is no requirement for a PFMEA or such.
• There is no mention or implied requirement of documentation in the definition of 'determined' in 9000:2015 3.11 ("Terms related to determination").

So for the heck of it I followed up with the question to show me where it's required -- i.e.; show me the shall. Answer: 7.5 -- the shall is applicable to the whole clause. Seems they are completely oblivious to the fact that there is not requirement to document a non-document.

I'm paying $3,000+ for this crap.

 

[Gauge Girl]

People can successfully carry out tasks without work documented instructions and have done so for centuries & millenia......... How many documented instructions were there for the Bushmen of the Kalahari to find water? How about documented instructions for the success of armor makers in the Middle Ages? How about documented instructions for the Vikings to make it across the Atlantic? What about documented instructions for the Babylonia to make mud bricks for their cities?

Don't get all wrapped around the axel.

"I personally think" ....and that's where the problems start, the auditor "thinks" but doesn't really "know".

I just said I personally think so that no one would take offense. Extra information or communication offered to an operator is never a detriment

 

[Randy]

I'm paying $3,000+ for this crap.

For closure of a minor nonconformity? Are you ^*itting?

Is it requiring an additional onsite visit for closure or what?

 

[Golfman25]

For closure of a minor nonconformity? Are you ^*itting?

Is it requiring an additional onsite visit for closure or what?

No that's the whole thing. Audit. Fees, etc.

 

[Golfman25]

I just said I personally think so that no one would take offense. Extra information or communication offered to an operator is never a detriment

Never? What if the WI identifies things to look for that aren't applicable in this production run? Spending time looking for something that doesn't exist isn't a detriment?

 

[Randy]

I just said I personally think so that no one would take offense. Extra information or communication offered to an operator is never a detriment

You've never encountered a truly hardcore craftsman or professional I'm guessing. Never served in the military either, one never gives advice not asked for or sought.

 

[Johnnymo62]

I have seen Operators overwhelmed with too much information. Most just quit paying attention which defeats the purpose of the info.

NAVY
Never
Again
Volunteer
Yourself