Document Control in an Engineering Company

[QAMTY]

Thanks ab001

Well, these processes (Sales, QC, Projects) are important in the development
of the Project, but as someone said here at cove " If the absence of documents
in a process become in a problem , document them"

In my case we don´t have problems in such departments, we find
problems in Fabricated equipment from workshops and in engineering´s documents.

So that´s the reason to control only QMS documents and Engineering documents


If I consider not included departments, in some way I have to develop procedures
more papers, more control and maybe is not worth the effort against the benefits

Will be right my assumption?

Please input comments

Thanks

 

[Ronen E]

Documenting what Sales and QC and Projects DO all sound like important things in your Product Realisation process (section 7)

What's the worst that could happen? You win a bid that you could never achieve profitably

, but

"Sales"
"QC"
"Projects"

Now that's what I call "big chunks".

Not everything "Sales" do have a *significant* *direct* bearing on quality. Heck, some of it have almost no such bearing
Same goes for "Projects" etc.
It takes more than 5 minutes to sort out what counts and what doesn't.

Have an excellent day,
Ronen.

 

[Ronen E]

In my case we don´t have problems in such departments, we find
problems in Fabricated equipment from workshops and in engineering´s documents.

That's a risky approach.

If you dig deep enough, you might find that some of your "engineering" or "fabrication" problems originate in some sales activity (e.g. contract review) or another non-obvious source.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Thanks ab001

Well, these processes (Sales, QC, Projects) are important in the development
of the Project, but as someone said here at cove " If the absence of documents
in a process become in a problem , document them"

In my case we don´t have problems in such departments, we find
problems in Fabricated equipment from workshops and in engineering´s documents.

So that´s the reason to control only QMS documents and Engineering documents


If I consider not included departments, in some way I have to develop procedures
more papers, more control and maybe is not worth the effort against the benefits

Will be right my assumption?

Please input comments

Thanks

, but

"Sales"
"QC"
"Projects"

Now that's what I call "big chunks".

Not everything "Sales" do have a *significant* *direct* bearing on quality. Heck, some of it have almost no such bearing
Same goes for "Projects" etc.
It takes more than 5 minutes to sort out what counts and what doesn't.

Have an excellent day,
Ronen.

That's a risky approach.

If you dig deep enough, you might find that some of your "engineering" or "fabrication" problems originate in some sales activity (e.g. contract review) or another non-obvious source.

Don't get hung up on the word "control" - think instead "manage." Too many folks get "control" all mixed up with "secure" or "security."

In plain language, document control is most often just another term for document management.

Management and control involve these activities (details of "how" to perform the activity change with the type of document):

1. creation (or adoption of some outsider's creation)
2. approval (some documents need more "eyes on" approval than others)
3. publication (means distribution to pertinent parties)
4. maintenance (storing them and keeping them safe from loss or unapproved alteration)
5. retrieval (being able to have the document when and where needed for reference)
6. retention (a plan, probably different for different categories of documents, of periodically reviewing documents in the system and making a decision if they are still required in the system as is or if they need to be revised, relocated to an archive from an active storage, withdrawn from any use and destroyed)
7. revision - just means starting over from the first activity

In an organization as small as yours, there probably is no need to restrict access to view any document from any member of your organization (this takes away a lot of security issues larger organizations have regarding access and their need for tighter security on some documents.)

"Contract Review" is another term that folks either "underthink" or "overthink."

The basic premise of contract review is to involve as many parties as necessary in an organization to determine if the organization has

1. capability
2. capacity
3. desire

to fulfill a contract according to the terms and conditions of the contract.Sometimes the decisions are simple, but often there are subtle factors which may require some research or expertise to decide. For example, my machining business often had proposals from prospects that were "no brainers" in terms of OUR capability or capacity, but research of a prospect diminished our DESIRE to accept a contract (credit or reputation of a customer was often a deciding factor.) Sometimes, we decided not to tie up capacity on a relatively low profit job if we thought we could find a more lucrative one (this often triggered heated discussions in our executive suite.)

Certainly, we expended more time and effort in contract review of large projects which would strain our capability and capacity for long chunks of time than on quick "once and done" projects which would have less impact. Contract review requires different rigor for different types of businesses. Certainly, custom projects for an individual customer might involve more rigor than for off-the-shelf sales to cash customers.

Added in edit:
It is important to understand the same factors of contract review apply regardless if you are customer or supplier. Does the supplier have sufficient capability, capacity? Do you research the supplier's reputation? Are the supplier's credit and "credit ability" sufficient to perform the contract? (You certainly don't want either supplier or customer to go bankrupt before the contract is performed!)

 

[ab001]

, but

"Sales"
"QC"
"Projects"

Now that's what I call "big chunks".

Not everything "Sales" do have a *significant* *direct* bearing on quality. Heck, some of it have almost no such bearing
Same goes for "Projects" etc.
It takes more than 5 minutes to sort out what counts and what doesn't.

Have an excellent day,
Ronen.

Sorry Ronen but I disagree.

You might dismiss them as "big chunks", I call them "big picture".
:myopic:

Look past section 4 on Documentation Requirements, and skip to section 7 on Customer-related processes.
Determining customer requirements (stated and unstated), statutory, ...
Contract Review.
Theses are the things you find after five minutes of thinking.

 

[Ronen E]

Sorry Ronen but I disagree.

You might dismiss them as "big chunks", I call them "big picture".
:myopic:

Look past section 4 on Documentation Requirements, and skip to section 7 on Customer-related processes.
Determining customer requirements (stated and unstated), statutory, ...
Contract Review.
Theses are the things you find after five minutes of thinking.

It's legitimate to disagree.

I didn't dismiss "Sales", for example, as not requiring any document control. I dismissed looking at this issue at a departmental level, i.e. either the whole of "Sales" activities need to be controlled, or none. This is what I meant by "big chunks". If you read my other post carefully, you'll see that I already pointed to the issue of contract review (so we agree on this one). I think the answer on whether or not to control should be answered separately for each process, sometimes even for a specific type of documents. If you can review that for a whole company in under 5 minutes... well, I'd like to hire your services!

 

[Wes Bucey]

It's legitimate to disagree.

I didn't dismiss "Sales", for example, as not requiring any document control. I dismissed looking at this issue at a departmental level, i.e. either the whole of "Sales" activities need to be controlled, or none. This is what I meant by "big chunks". If you read my other post carefully, you'll see that I already pointed to the issue of contract review (so we agree on this one). I think the answer on whether or not to control should be answered separately for each process, sometimes even for a specific type of documents. If you can review that for a whole company in under 5 minutes... well, I'd like to hire your services!

What, exactly, do you mean by "control?" Do you make a distinction between "control" and "manage?" If so, what?

In my view, the concept of Configuration Management may be what you really mean by "control," based on some of your comments. For my explanation of Configuration Management, see this post.

 

[ab001]

It's legitimate to disagree.

I didn't dismiss "Sales", for example, as not requiring any document control. I dismissed looking at this issue at a departmental level, i.e. either the whole of "Sales" activities need to be controlled, or none. This is what I meant by "big chunks". If you read my other post carefully, you'll see that I already pointed to the issue of contract review (so we agree on this one). I think the answer on whether or not to control should be answered separately for each process, sometimes even for a specific type of documents. If you can review that for a whole company in under 5 minutes... well, I'd like to hire your services!

Fair enough. I hadn't read your other post before i replied.

Five minute consult: works for some doctors. probably not so much if i were to charge by the hour

 

[ab001]

What, exactly, do you mean by "control?" Do you make a distinction between "control" and "manage?" If so, what?

In my view, the concept of Configuration Management may be what you really mean by "control," based on some of your comments. For my explanation of Configuration Management, see this post.

In my short experience, you have to tread carefully when talking "control" and "management".
You may be talking about controlling the document (just some words in a container)
People may hear you want to control their process (their work, their reason for coming to work).

After all, documentation is one of our (Quality) solutions to process control:
Say what you do (documentation)
Do what you say (work)
Prove it (audits, performance measurement,...)
Improve it (continual improvement, corrective/preventive action)