Is a Procedure generally understood as 'Documented Procedure'

[Jen Kirley]

I don't have access to the book you have mentioned but am happy with my distinction:

• process - the things we do
• procedure - specified way to carry out an activity
• documented procedure - specified way to carry out an activity, but written down

Boris, your points are well taken and I agree with the above, but these days I content myself with someone who can use an apostrophe properly and words like you're versus your.

 

[Paul Simpson]

<snip> ... but these days I content myself with someone who can use an apostrophe properly and words like you're versus your.

 

[samsung]

But that's the interesting thing for me. Even though there is a normative reference to ISO 9000 (more later) and in 9000 it specifically states

NOTE 1 Procedures can be documented or not.

we still have around 50% of people answering a poll who believe 'procedure' means 'documented procedure.'

"Is a Procedure generally understood as 'Documented Procedure'?" from this I infer that the OP's focus seems to be about the general perception of people (possibly 'general' people, not specifically the quality fraternity) about the term 'documented procedure' and as far the 'normative reference' goes, most people (except the quality guys) don't ever read the standard. So when they are confronted with such a question, they generally think of a document in the same way as a 'document' is generally though of as a 'written down' piece of paper which in my opinion is not correct.

[*]documented procedure - specified way to carry out an activity, but written down[/LIST]

A document can also be a photograph, a video film, a master sample or the likes.

 

[Paul Simpson]

"Is a Procedure generally understood as 'Documented Procedure'?" from this I infer that the OP's focus seems to be about the general perception of people (possibly 'general' people, not specifically the quality fraternity) about the term 'documented procedure' and as far the 'normative reference' goes, most people (except the quality guys) don't ever read the standard.

IMHO the OP's question was directed at the quality guys and even that shows the 50:50 split. So perhaps even we don't read the standards.

So when they are confronted with such a question, they generally think of a document in the same way as a 'document' is generally though of as a 'written down' piece of paper which in my opinion is not correct.

I understand the point you are trying to make but it is not the method of documenting a procedure but whether the procedure has to be documented at all. I tried to make it clear in my tea making example of the distinction (as I understood the OP).

A document can also be a photograph, a video film, a master sample or the likes.

Agreed and, for example, a video can be one way of documenting a procedure. The master sample and photograph would, however, not be procedures as they merely record the output of the procedure (good or bad).

 

[samsung]

The master sample and photograph would, however, not be procedures as they merely record the output of the procedure (good or bad).

I didn't say they are procedures. I said these (media) can also be termed as documents to signify that a 'written down' piece of paper or anything else alone shouldn't be considered as a 'document'.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I didn't say they are procedures. I said these (media) can also be termed as documents to signify that a 'written down' piece of paper or anything else alone shouldn't be considered as a 'document'.

It helps if you quote the whole piece, samsung, and then there is no confusion - whether intentional or unintentional.
So when I said:

Agreed and, for example, a video can be one way of documenting a procedure. The master sample and photograph would, however, not be procedures as they merely record the output of the procedure (good or bad).

I was agreeing that your examples were all 'documents' and merely pointing out that your 'film' or my 'video' could be a documented procedure and the others would not.

Or am I missing something?

 

[samsung]

It helps if you quote the whole piece, samsung, and then there is no confusion - whether intentional or unintentional.
So when I said:



I was agreeing that your examples were all 'documents' and merely pointing out that your 'film' or my 'video' could be a documented procedure and the others would not.

Or am I missing something?

With no disregard intended, what I wanted to convey in my previous post is that it's just an image or a mindset that people frame up about something since their school days that fits firmly and often echoed in their thoughts & speech whether they are professionals or commoners. And the poll results have simply mirrored it.

In order to validate the above comments, a similar poll can also be conducted to have people's perception on how they look at the term 'work instructions' and I'm sure the response we would receive at the end, would perhaps not be any different from what we have seen in this poll.

 

[DrM2u]

(clip)And why various of the Standards are careful to specify documented /written procedure when they require same.

Exactly my point: if it is required to be documented then it should be spelled out as such, else leave it up to the organization/user to identify the need to document a procedure. I also agree to referencing the governing interpretations and definitions to ensure compliance.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Exactly my point: if it is required to be documented then it should be spelled out as such, else leave it up to the organization/user to identify the need to document a procedure. I also agree to referencing the governing interpretations and definitions to ensure compliance.

I go the other way. I wish ISO would take the 'infamous 6' out of the requirements for documented procedures and leave it to the organization to decide. I also don't think it is the organizations job to reference requirements (such as ISO clause numbers) etc. The auditor has a role to understand how the quality management system works in the context of the orgnaization.

Having said that I always provide a cross reference between policy, manual and documented procedures because it saves time.

With no disregard intended, what I wanted to convey in my previous post is that it's just an image or a mindset that people frame up about something since their school days that fits firmly and often echoed in their thoughts & speech whether they are professionals or commoners. And the poll results have simply mirrored it.

In order to validate the above comments, a similar poll can also be conducted to have people's perception on how they look at the term 'work instructions' and I'm sure the response we would receive at the end, would perhaps not be any different from what we have seen in this poll.

There is a pattern developing here. We start a debate and the debate diverges until there are two completely different threads. I think I will have to find some other topic to discuss.
:truce:

 

[smryan]

Around here not all procedures are documented, but there is the awareness that they need to be.... tribal knowledge just doesn't cut it any more. And we have some folk - operator and management level both - who feel that if its not documented in some way then you can't tell them they HAVE to do it that way and they can do it however they please. So yes, here "procedure" and "documented procedure" need to be synonymous.