The manuals are somewhat important, so it could appear logical to control them. However, as you said, you use the manual for reference and build the important information into your work instructions.
What does "used for reference" mean? Does it mean that the manual is
referred to when doing maintenance?
The only benefit to controlling them is to ensure that future revisions are propoerly reviewed and distributed.
Not true, at least not always. There's always a lot of talk around here about documents being "useful," meaning documents being regularly used in the operation of processes. This overlooks another important function of QMS documents, namely process design and control. When we design processes, one of the goals should be to establish a
proven method for obtaining the desired results. In many, possibly most, cases, the process must be operated as designed in order for the outcome to be predictable. In such cases, QMS documentation serves as a primary source for process operation. It may be that operators can be trained in accordance with the proven method, and never have to look at a work instruction. On the other hand, if someone comes along and says, I think we should do
x instead of what we have been doing, the document provides a point of reference for the established requirements, and should serve to notify everyone that they should do
x at their own peril.
A document doesn't have to be constantly read in order to be useful.
However, equipment manuals generally do NOT get revised, so you would never have to recall and replace the manual copies.
It's not uncommon at all for errata sheets to be published, and for previously undocumented safety issues to be addressed by equipment manufacturers. In point of fact, maintenance and operation documents
do get updated.
