Control of Posted Notices on the Floor - What is considered a "Work Instruction"?

[Tom Brown]

Thank you all for your comments.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Here's a solution: In your document control procedure, authorize management to approve posted "work aids" (or whatever you call them) via signature and date. You might also mention that work aids are disposed of when they are no longer needed and no revision history is maintained. (If you are in a 13485 company, instead of disposing of them, you should put them into some "archived work aids" folder. 13485 requires obsolete work instructions to be controlled like records.)
Then, arm a management-type with a sharpie and have him or her sign all posted instructions. It won't take very long at all. It's a silly exercise, but it will satisfy your auditor.
Who is your registrar, anyway?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

It's a silly exercise, but it will satisfy your auditor.

As long as people are willing to accept meaningless feedback such as this one, do silly things to appease an auditor, we will not extract the value we should from the certification process.

Many people would think that is easier to "accept this NC", pretend to do corrective action than to fight the auditor's write up. In my opinion, it is a big mistake. Auditors have to be challenged, especially when they forget common sense at home and don't understand that any audit has a scope. In this particular case, it seems to me that the auditor is extending ISO 9001 4.2.3 to an area of the organization that is not part of the QMS, and, thus, auditing beyond the scope of the audit.

My recommendation: appeal the NC because principles are important. If you are afraid of challenging a nonsensical NC, you will let external parties introduce dysfunction in your system.

 

[Jim Wynne]

As long as people are willing to accept meaningless feedback such as this one, do silly things to appease an auditor, we will not extract the value we should from the certification process.

Many people would think that is easier to "accept this NC", pretend to do corrective action than to fight the auditor's write up. In my opinion, it is a big mistake. Auditors have to be challenged, especially when they forget common sense at home and don't understand that any audit has a scope. In this particular case, it seems to me that the auditor is extending ISO 9001 4.2.3 to an area of the organization that is not part of the QMS, and, thus, auditing beyond the scope of the audit.

My recommendation: appeal the NC because principles are important. If you are afraid of challenging a nonsensical NC, you will let external parties introduce dysfunction in your system.

I agree completely. On the other hand, I also think that a proliferation of do-this-don't-do-that signs might be a sign (heh) of training issues in the company, along the lines of Marc's post. Nonetheless, in the situation at hand, anyone who believes that the auditor is right would have to also believe that the "Clean up After Yourself" sign in the lunchroom should also be controlled.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

Technically, management should be in control of any documented instructions personnel are expected to follow. In other words, if a posted instruction in any way affects how work is performed, that posted instruction is effectively a third level document. Of course, these must be work-related--restroom sign, clean up after yourself, etc. are out of scope. If management chooses to place any documents on the floor, they are responsible for controlling those documents. Its too bad auditors pick on this stuff, but I believe that you will lose an appeal.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Technically, management should be in control of any documented instructions personnel are expected to follow. In other words, if a posted instruction in any way affects how work is performed, that posted instruction is effectively a third level document. Of course, these must be work-related--restroom sign, clean up after yourself, etc. are out of scope. If management chooses to place any documents on the floor, they are responsible for controlling those documents. Its too bad auditors pick on this stuff, but I believe that you will lose an appeal.

So, are you saying that any and all documents developed by an organization, even those outside of the QMS, must comply with ISO 9001, 4.2.3?

 

[db]

Here is the real question (in my mind)....

Does this fall into 4.2.1?

It is clearly does not fall under a, b or c, so... what about d?

Is this a document, determined by the organization to be necessary to ensure the effective planning, operation or control of your processes? That is, if this sign were to be removed, would the process suffer?

If so... it has to be controlled. If not... it does not have to be controlled.

The standard tells you what needs to be done....

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

As I said, "Of course, these must be work-related--restroom sign, clean up after yourself, etc. are out of scope." So, no, only documents affecting product or process quality, or, QMS documents. Often the question is, what happens if the document is wrong? If the document is wrong and it doesn't matter, then take the sign down. If it's being wrong would cause a quality problem, it should be controlled.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

So, no, only documents affecting product or process quality, or, QMS documents.

Since you said you believe the OP would lose an appeal, you must believe that the laminated sign that tells employees to turn empty containers upside down could affect product quality. I can't see how that would be possible. Maybe you can elaborate your line of thought.

 

[ISO 9001 Guy]

I'm sorry, I didn't see the earlier parts of the thread. I thought the discussion was about posted "work aids." I just caught the propane work instruction thing. What an utterly pathetic finding. I agree that we need better quality in auditing and this a good example of why.