Howard Atkins said:
The control plans are growing to become unmanageable documents, I have seen those which have columns for maintenace etc.
I am moving to change these so that the CP will be the bare bones and there will be a much larger number of referenced documents.
There is becoming a situation whereby there is a need to update several documents with the same information, the CP the instructions by the operator, the corrective actions etc .
This to me is none value added or in other words a waste of time.
We started referencing our procedures in the "Reaction Plan" column, but, along with the procedure name we referenced the specific procedure number. As I was reviewing some of our Corporate Procedures recently I noticed we had changed the numbering scheme (due to upgrading from TS-"1st ed." to TS- "2nd ed."). Now I need to go through all Control Plans and make sure to only use the "generic" procedure name. So even though we "simplified" we didn't take it far enough. Although not caught in the audit last month, it surely will be noticed at some time in the future if not corrected.
Notts QA - Welcome to the Cove
Might I ask the reasoning behind adding a column to an already "clustered" document? I'm only curious because I tend to view the Control Plan as the "base" for writing instructions for our operators to produce the product and verify its compliance to the part drawing and established process parameters. The "Reaction Plan" column pretty much just references our nonconforming procedure and to notify their Supervisor should something be "out of whack". If a formal Corrective Action is necessary, that's the Supervisor's or Quality Manager's call. Basically, we just want the operator to fix the problem (if within his ability), document what he/she did, and get back to making good product.