Documents of external origin not identified? ISO9001 Clause ISO 9001:2000 5.4.1

[Stijloor]

Identify it as being in your inventory. Know where you have all copies. Occassionally verify whether there have been revisions to the manual or not.

Ditto.

Stijloor.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Identify it as being in your inventory. Know where you have all copies. Occassionally verify whether there have been revisions to the manual or not.

Thanks. I think my take on this is just different. If we focus on the case brought up today which re-started this thread, we know that the manual is in our inventory, because the external auditor found it. Ironically, had the company hidden or trashed or recycled their maintenance manuals, the auditor would have nothing to write up...

If you benefit from having a list that tells you where the maintenance manuals are located, good. Most organizations that I know would consider that an unnecessary bureaucracy. Hopefully people doing the maintenance will have access to the manuals. Unless they have all been hidden, so the external auditors have less ammunition for write ups.
Occasionally calling the OEM and asking if the manual has been revised. Not a bad idea. I wonder how many organizations do that...Or if I don't do it, I must be violating an ISO 9001 requirement...which one....I am not sure.

 

[Stijloor]

Thanks. I think my take on this is just different. If we focus on the case brought up today which re-started this thread, we know that the manual is in our inventory, because the external auditor found it. Ironically, had the company hidden or trashed or recycled their maintenance manuals, the auditor would have nothing to write up...

If you benefit from having a list that tells you where the maintenance manuals are located, good. Most organizations that I know would consider that an unnecessary bureaucracy. Hopefully people doing the maintenance will have access to the manuals. Unless they have all been hidden, so the external auditors have less ammunition for write ups.
Occasionally calling the OEM and asking if the manual has been revised. Not a bad idea. I wonder how many organizations do that...Or if I don't do it, I must be violating an ISO 9001 requirement...which one....I am not sure.

Hello Sidney,

Is it fair to say (I use this example quite a bit), that document control is pretty similar to maintaining a library of useful and value-added information? Knowing what you have, knowing where it is, knowing who "owns" it, etc?

I am always concerned (see my earlier post in this thread) that it becomes a "legal/requirements" battle rather than determining what makes good sense for supporting the business and its processes.

Stijloor.

 

[somerqc]

We do use the manuals as "bible"s. In fact, they are maintained with the corresponding machine so they are easily available to the operator should he/she require it.

In fact, when I called the manufacturer about a particular manual as it had been damaged. They faxed me 3 erratas that had been released for other manuals that we had.

In this case, the control of these manuals was critical to ensuring the process was followed as I noted in an earlier post (replacement of tools, and proper tools to use)

John

 

[Gary E MacLean]

...Or if I don't do it, I must be violating an ISO 9001 requirement...which one....I am not sure.

You may be - depends upon the auditor of course.

4.2.3.d tells us to have relevant versions of applicable documents available at the point of use.

If a maintenance man says "I use the owners manual." Then that has become an applicable document. It should be available to the maintenance man and the revision should be relevant, or apropo to the version of equipment he is working on.

I have written a nonconformity on this situation and I am sure I will again.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I have written a nonconformity on this situation and I am sure I will again.

So, you write a company up if they don't have a process which by they "occasionally call the equipment OEMs" to enquire if they have revised the maintenance manual?

 

[Gary E MacLean]

So, you write a company up if they don't have a process which by they "occasionally call the equipment OEMs" to enquire if they have revised the maintenance manual?

No, not exactly, I write them up if they do not have their external documents clearly identified and controlled. To determine control it is really rather easy to simply call the OEM and inquire as to the latest. And yes, I have done this on several occassions during audits. So far in all cases things have been just fine but it is a quck and easy verifcation.

I drive a 2002 Impala. I come from the old school where oil must be changed every 3000 miles. My experience with this Impala has changed my way of thinking. I don't have to change the oil until the message light tells me to. That may be 4000, 5000 or even 6 or 7 thousand miles. The longest interval so far has been about 7500 miles. I would not have known this had I depended on the 1998 Impala owners manual. I may have saved several hundred dollars so far with that knowledge.

It's just the relevant version thing is all. It really isn't difficult, it isn't expensive, it isn't painful but it can very well be value added.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

No, not exactly, I write them up if they do not have their external documents clearly identified and controlled. To determine control it is really rather easy to simply call the OEM and inquire as to the latest. And yes, I have done this on several occasions during audits. So far in all cases things have been just fine but it is a quick and easy verification.

I don't understand. In a previous post you said that "occasionally" calling the OEM and verifying that the maintenance manual is still up to date is part of "controlling" maintenance manuals. So, you must expect the organizations you audit to have such process in place. Otherwise, how do they ensure that their maintenance manuals are "controlled"?

 

[Steve Painter]

There's a lot of discussion about value added/not value added, necessary/unnecessary, etc., and the debate can (and probably will) go on forever with very good points on both sides. Each company will have to decide what best suits them. Obviously from my initial post, I do not think that there is enough value added in controlling the, literally hundreds, of maintenance manuals residing in our Maintenance department.

However, strictly from a compliance standpoint, I believe I am on solid ground when I tell my auditor that I have not made these manuals a part of my quality system, and we choose not to control them.

Does anybody know of a requirement of the ISO standard that specifically does not allow me to take this stance?

 

[Stijloor]

Hello Steve,

Your quote: I do not think that there is enough value added in controlling the, literally hundreds, of maintenance manuals residing in our Maintenance department.

Why not getting rid of them? If not, include them in your electronic "rolodex", and voila! You know you have them, they can be consulted when necessary, etc. Make it easy and user-friendly. I have worked with a company - perhaps similar to yours - where hundreds of operator, maintenance, and programming manuals were maintained. It was not really a big deal.

Concluding...

Good and meaningful dialogue though...thank you all guys!

BTW: That's what makes The Cove a great forum!

Have a great and safe weekend.

Stijloor.