No documents are involved in the rosy picture you paint, but reality in practice has a few snags - primary being "mission creep" where the "players" add or subtract parameters to a process as time goes on. Without the document for a reference, mission creep invariably leads to changes from the original plan. (sort of like a game of "telephone")
The process you describe depends on accurate "word of mouth" training from shift to shift and generation of worker to generation of worker. Rarely does such dependence on undocumented processes result in consistent application of the original process.
The process you describe is akin to showing one manager the blueprint of a product, removing the blueprint, and requiring him to maintain consistent production of the product from one or more operators when no operator has access to the original blueprint. Possible, but not probable!
Which is why this clause
allows some organizations with relatively simple processes to do without documentation, while in others, the "as applicable" spectre looms large.
We are not privy to the exact process under consideration, but it seems reasonable to infer it is complicated enough to have at least two different versions. Simple mistake-proofing by having a written work instruction is worth an OFI at least, wouldn't you agree?
The process you describe depends on accurate "word of mouth" training from shift to shift and generation of worker to generation of worker. Rarely does such dependence on undocumented processes result in consistent application of the original process.
The process you describe is akin to showing one manager the blueprint of a product, removing the blueprint, and requiring him to maintain consistent production of the product from one or more operators when no operator has access to the original blueprint. Possible, but not probable!
Which is why this clause
allows some organizations with relatively simple processes to do without documentation, while in others, the "as applicable" spectre looms large.
We are not privy to the exact process under consideration, but it seems reasonable to infer it is complicated enough to have at least two different versions. Simple mistake-proofing by having a written work instruction is worth an OFI at least, wouldn't you agree?
You make excellent points.
I am not opposed to documents supporting a process. But the OP pictured a situation where the process was not documented and where he apparently heard two different interpretations for this process. The point I was trying to make that even though the process was not documented, he could still note this as a nonconformity because the definitions were different.
Not knowing the complexity of the process and the required competencies, it may be necessary to document this process. But as we all know, having a documented process does not always assure compliance or consistency in practice.
Stijloor.