Documented Information - Periodic Review of Documents? IATF 16949:2016 / ISO 9001:2015

[Johnny Quality]

Hmm...

It might be worth asking her what she would like to see in the update, we may have all missed something.

Are you in a position to push back against this finding? Would it be worthwhile?

 

[Mike S.]

If I understand correctly, the document has not been revised in 7 years but the content is still good, there is no need to revise the information contained in the document. However, an auditor wants it to be updated. Correct?

I see nothing in 7.5.2, or all of 7.5 period, that requires a document be updated at any specified interval.

Common sense tells us if the process changed but the controlling document did not change, then that is a problem. But why change it for an arbitrary reason like "X amount of time has passed"?

I think your auditor is creating a requirement that does not exist. Tell him/her "show me the specific 'shall' that I am violating".

 

[blackholequasar]

I agree with Mike S - if you don't specifically define "our organization SHALL review documents every 2 years (or whatever)" then you're not violating your own processes and there is no actual definition of time... They can recommend you document a review, but they can't really nail you on something that isn't defined. They're kind of stretching. Did they bring it up as an OFI or an actual finding?

 

[Johnnymo62]

At a prior company, we added this into our internal audits. The process owner would sign that the process and documents have been reviewed for suitability and adequacy. It is on the internal audit report form.

I do not think it should be on each document.

 

[QChas]

Not sure what you mean by "outdated". We have some Procedures and Work Instructions dating back to 2005 when we implemented ISO that have never been updated. Keep it simple ..... Say what you do and do what you say. Maybe your work instructions have too much detail. Some examples I have seen include "must use a red pen", "when taping a box closed use 7" of tape", etc. In these cases procedures were updated to state "must be in ink" and "use approximately 7" of tape". Again look at the work instruction. Do you need a "see spot run" or will a simple flowchart work.

 

[eule del ayre]

Hmm...

It might be worth asking her what she would like to see in the update, we may have all missed something.

Are you in a position to push back against this finding? Would it be worthwhile?

Sorry to say, im just a member for the audit team, just a PCO/metrologist/engineer, she's my supervisor though

 

[eule del ayre]

If I understand correctly, the document has not been revised in 7 years but the content is still good, there is no need to revise the information contained in the document. However, an auditor wants it to be updated. Correct?

I see nothing in 7.5.2, or all of 7.5 period, that requires a document be updated at any specified interval.

Common sense tells us if the process changed but the controlling document did not change, then that is a problem. But why change it for an arbitrary reason like "X amount of time has passed"?

I think your auditor is creating a requirement that does not exist. Tell him/her "show me the specific 'shall' that I am violating".

that's what im thinking, that's why i ask you guys, this had been bothering me ever since, first and foremost, if the document was complying and nothing violates the process included, why call it out?

 

[brandieb1230]

Good morning sir, what i mean by updated is that our company was founded year 2000 but there are work instruction that are outdated but the process is still the same, is that a findings? that's what i've been pointing about, if you find a document that's not updated, for example the work instruction was dated way back 2013, but no change in the process, still the same, do you still need to call that out? and i don't really see where in the standard.

Do you have proof the document was reviewed and when?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Do you have proof the document was reviewed and when?

That's the kind of bureaucracy expectation that adds no value and just creates animosity towards "quality professionals". If there is any question if the document reflects the current process, just go and check for yourself.

Creating a "record" that document has been reviewed and deemed current is just MUDA.

 

[Teyla]

I would agree with @Sidney Vianna and @blackholequasar
Really looking to find out what would be at the end.
I don't understand why some people are complicating things and creating issues where there are no issues!
We are changing WI, SOP, etc. when certain changes happen. So from change to change...