Actually, a second aspect of the original post was with respect to the following, as I read it:
> The new specification states that work instructions "shall
> be accessible for use at the work station without
> disruption to the job." My processes are all manual
> assemblies without a machine driven cycle time. With all
> my documentation located on PC's approxiametely 15' away
> from the work stations, will I have to go back to my
> manuals?
You have to use common sense. First of all, not every operation even needs a 'work instruction'. During the Design / Development stage, manufacturing should have been involved. At that time the team should have determined what documentation would be necessary - including 'work instructions'. Not to mention training and other aspects of the project.
I have been in companies that were so 'hi-tech' that every work station had a computer screen. That said, it was so advanced that, while not at work stations, every other computer 'station' included a scanner. Receiving scanned in documents received with shipments (along with other data input into their MRP system). RFQs are almost all paper - they were scanned when received. Heck - they scanned in just about everything. It was a small company which manufactures gaskets.
You have to be ready to explain what needs to be where and why. If, for example, an operator does not need constant access to a document to do his/her job, the computer being 15 feet away is fine. As was expressed in an earlier post, one company keeps binders in the work area. That's really no different than setting up a computer there set up to pull up required documentation. Binders - computer - what's the difference if it's 15 feet away? Which is fine - but again, what about where an operator needs an instruction right there in their face?
OK - now we're to the subjective area. Who needs an instruction in their face (so to speak)? Who decides? What are the determining factors? Can they be defined in words? This is where common sense comes into play.
How weird can this get? Extreme example. One client had an assembly line with vehicles coming down the line (bikes, not cars). During their ISO 9001 registration audit (this is back about 1997) the auditor did not like the idea that work instructions were posted behind each assembler's 'work space' and even suggested that the company put the work instructions on the wall on the opposite side of the line so a worker could "...look across the line and see what s/he has to do. That way the worker doesn't have to turn around..." We had to argue that the type would be too small to read. To implement that, all instructions would have to be in super large font on really big pieces of paper and that having to turn around was sufficient. A second factor was that there were assemblers on each side of the line - so while you could look around a bike, often the assembler on the other side would be blocking the view of the document. They went with us - turning around was OK in that 'situation' - but in my opinion that shouldn't have even come up.
That said, be ready to explain what you have where and be ready to discuss your rationalization. As I always say - One size does NOT fit all.