Job Router - Work Instruction? - Change Request

[Sidney Vianna]

To us, a more stringent document control procedure for routers has the potential to bind us and slow production. By enabling the floor managers to make changes as necessary to support production it gives us the flexibility that has been part of our success for the past 30 years.

I wholeheartedly support your line of thought. Any process needs to be designed for efficacy and sustainability. Way too often organizations develop document control systems that go overboard and require more functions than the ones necessary to review and approve changes. It is a sure fire way to slow them down. Nimble is good. As long as it is efficacious.

 

[AshleyE]

Do the managers update the router in the computer or do they just handwrite the corrections on the current router and then it is updated later?

Managers update the hard copy, the office staff make corrections to the computer (only if the corrections are signed/dated, otherwise they follow up) for the next time the job is run.

 

[klviper]

We are currently doing the samething. My issue is what if another order is placed before the current one makes it's way back to the office to be updated. The incorrect router will be printed out once again. Maybe it will go to a different opperator and the error this time will not be caught.

 

[AshleyE]

We deal with similar issues. Right now the floor updates the router (again) and continues with production, these edits are non-critical in 99% of cases. Anything critical is brought immediately to the facilties manager and handled from there. It's not ideal but we're working on improving the communication from the managers to the office to update the routing in the computer sooner to prevent recycling of incorrect routing.
Suggestions would be helpful from other companies that deal with routers.

 

[DrM2u]

I disagree that more stringent control would be necessary for the router because the product is inspected through the production process and then verified again in final inspection. To us, a more stringent document control procedure for routers has the potential to bind us and slow production.

Seems like you have a good and effective control system for the routers based on what you are describing. My challenge about the level of control was not ment to insinuate that the controls should be more stringent for routers but for the routers when compared to the rest of the documentation. In other words, why would you need more stringent controls for the rest of the documentation, as you have described? Here's my logic: when you change the router you change steps in the product realization process. When you change a procedure you change steps in whatever process is described by the procedure. So, what is the difference and is the difference that significant?!? I am not saying that what you are doing is wrong or right, just trying to understand the reasoning behing it.