Clause 7.5.3 and Required Work Instructions

[Golfman25]

I have seen whole cars assembled without any written work instruction to the assemblers. They perform their tasks about 60 times an hour so they remember and KNOW what they are supposed to do and what the results are to be. Now somewhere the engineers have the drawings, have the flowcharts, have the programs that deliver the parts to right place at the right time. But no assembler could tell you where those things are. Nor should they have to. They are trained.

As someone who has spent many hours on the floor trying to assemble things with the written "instructions," I certainly hope the person who built my car can do it without referring to written instructions. I usually have some parts left over.

 

[Bev D]

They are experts. Honda Toyota both do it and I must assume the big 3 do it. It is eye opening. Most work instructions’ are crap. Written by people who have never done it themselves or at least not at production speeds. I once saw a 93 page work instruction. No one reads. Even if they can. Keep the tasks short (repeated every 1-2 minutes) and muscle memory takes over. use error proofing and the operators will be fine.

If an operator can tell you and show you what they are doing and an independent check confirms they are correct then they don’t need to tell you where the wordy things are.

 

[Ed Panek]

Also relevant is the resume, training, and education of the person performing the task. If a requirement for the position is a PhD in material science and 15 years experience in this materials testing and the instruction is to compare the tensile strength of two samples the actual directions could be very high level 1) Obtain samples from area X and Perform test 2) Document results in this online folder.

If someone with no training or education in that area were to do the job it might require step-by-step detailed directions.

 

[Mikey324]

One of the things we have done over the years is to try to eliminate non-value added forms and such. "Documenting" an instruction to sort the ones "with the hole," from the ones "without the hole" seems to fit non-value added.

I agree with you. We did this because I saw these "NC's" coming. Plus, a customer really wanted it... so we did it.

 

[Johnnymo62]

Right, but the listed conditions only apply when needed. For example, condition (g) states "actions to prevent human error." In a production environment that can include 100s of things. So we decide what is high risk and important and apply such actions. The low risk, non-important stuff we don't. But we get to decide the stopping point, not some auditor. Unfortunately, my CB felt differently.

I'm not saying ISO requires work instructions. It requires control.

Also, I think IATF does require instructions in 8.5.1.2.

There are 7 additions to 8.5.1 in IATF 16949.

 

[Golfman25]

I'm not saying ISO requires work instructions. It requires control.

Also, I think IATF does require instructions in 8.5.1.2.

There are 7 additions to 8.5.1 in IATF 16949.

Right, but not control of everything. Only control of that which matters or in other words, is "applicable."

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Honda Toyota both do it and I must assume the big 3 do it.

I have never been to a Toyota or Honda assembly plant, but I have heard stories of incredibly detailed and specific work instructions for Toyota and I would assume that to be a component of the Toyota Production System, heralded by many as the apex of production systems out there for mass volume lines. I can only guess that the rationale behind numbing detailed instructions is not only related to product conformity, but also process efficiency, attempting to eliminate the undesirable variation and any muda in the system.

As always, the need or not for development of detailed work instructions should be assessed based on risks. Risk. Based. Thinking. And, let’s not forget, even though most operators don’t need to refer to work instructions for work they do repetitively for obvious reasons, the existence of such documents can be used for both training and auditing purposes.

As more and more automation and robotic assembly becomes second nature in the manufacturing world, we will eventually see a decreased need for WI’s.

 

[Johnnymo62]

Are the IATF 16949, clauses 8.5.1.1-7 in addition to or under ISO 9001, 8.5.1?

 

[Bev D]

There may be some confusion here. “Standard work” does involve highly detailed and specific tasks laid out such that each task matches takt time. About 60 seconds. Each operator does exactly the same thing in the same way at the same speed. (High speed assembly lines can’t work without it) but these steps are t written down THAT would be muda and would prohibit quick changes to a process. The operators themselves usually determine the exact work within a constrained set operations. Training is hands on.

 

[Golfman25]

Are the IATF 16949, clauses 8.5.1.1-7 in addition to or under ISO 9001, 8.5.1?

The IATF clauses are in addition to ISO 8.5.1, which is incorporated by reference. IATF is being much more prescriptive in what it wants to see -- i.e.; verified job setups. ISO allows much more discretion to the company.