Routers which follow a job through production processes contain processing information, test information, etc. As such they must be controlled documents.
Is a simple signed authorization on the router sufficient control for these documents? Must a master list show where these are on the shop floor? Must they be officially "removed" from the system at the completion of the job? How do other job shop operations handle and control these documents without undue red tape?
When using routers I tied them to a specific internal job number, product name, or customer PO number and cross-reference them to any customer drawing number as well. Approval of the router is by signature of the QA Manager and responsible engineer like with other docs like WI's. In my system, by policy, when the job is over routers are filed as a record and never "re-used", thus on-going revision control is not needed on the old routers. If a revision comes up which requires the router change in mid-job, we see if that router is currently in use via a search of current jobs and then hunt it down and change it if necessary. There is no "master list" of where each router is at every minute -- too much hassle. Even if no router was used and you only used a customer drawing as an indication of what to make, if the customer revised the dwg. and you were in production of that part, you would have to find the customer drawing on the shop floor and replace the old with the new, so the router should be controlled similarly it seems to me.
I'd be open to new/better/easier ideas if anyone has any -- but we're not yet in a position to do everything on computer (which would be easier) -- we gotta have hardcopies on the shop floor at this time.
We use a system similar to Mike's. The only difference is the router's are not "signed off" by QA or Engineering.
In our system, the router is developed by Engineering in the protoype phase. Only Engineering has access to this part of the computer system, and the router reflects which engineer is responsible. Any changes to the router is handled through our ECO system.
No place in the standard does it say that documents require "signoffs". How you "approve" documents is strictly up to you. (provided it works). Both Mike and Carol seem to have systems that work for them.
I never intended to imply that a "signoff" was required, I was simply saying how I personally handled the "approval" of the routers, which is required, while a "signoff" or signature, as db said, is not required. If you can show another effective way to approve docs. that works better for you, great.
Mike, sorry, after re-reading my post it does seem to be a bit harsh on you. I did not take your post as indicating signatures were required.
As far as signoffs go, in some organizations they are absolutely required (not by the standard, but by necessity - to maintain control). Other organizations use them as a matter of routine. But like we both said what ever you use must work for you.