David_Lazarek
Registered
We are a small business, so many staff members serve in different functions (wear different hats so to speak)
We are in the process of updating the system manual for IATF. I am running into a lot of procedures and instructions that reference job titles that simply have never existed at the company. For example, the purchasing processes references a Purchasing Manager as having the responsibility for that process. We haven't had a person with that title in the 15 years I have been here. In the past, the General Manager was considered the "acting" Purchasing Manager.
I considered this update as a good time to change the process owners and responsibilities to the titles of the actual people in those roles. I was surprised at the level of push back I have received on this change. The MR, who updates the manual, is very upset. "You're turning the system manual into job descriptions!" "Every time we add a new position, we have to change the instructions?!"
I honestly thought the responsibilities were vague and misleading because of templates used as the basis for the manual before my tenure there. I didn't realize they were written that way intentionally. I still think its the wrong way to go, in my opinion. The way I am reading the standard is the process owners need to be clearly identified, and there should be evidence of their competence in that role. To me, listing a title that no one has occupied for decades would be a non-conformance to that requirement.
We are in the process of updating the system manual for IATF. I am running into a lot of procedures and instructions that reference job titles that simply have never existed at the company. For example, the purchasing processes references a Purchasing Manager as having the responsibility for that process. We haven't had a person with that title in the 15 years I have been here. In the past, the General Manager was considered the "acting" Purchasing Manager.
I considered this update as a good time to change the process owners and responsibilities to the titles of the actual people in those roles. I was surprised at the level of push back I have received on this change. The MR, who updates the manual, is very upset. "You're turning the system manual into job descriptions!" "Every time we add a new position, we have to change the instructions?!"
I honestly thought the responsibilities were vague and misleading because of templates used as the basis for the manual before my tenure there. I didn't realize they were written that way intentionally. I still think its the wrong way to go, in my opinion. The way I am reading the standard is the process owners need to be clearly identified, and there should be evidence of their competence in that role. To me, listing a title that no one has occupied for decades would be a non-conformance to that requirement.