Reference Card for Dimensions at QC on the Shop Floor

[qasclk]

I understand, But a requirement for checking to make sure you're using the current version is a form of document control. In such a case, regardless of how the reminder thing is marked, it's under control.

Some queries, By control, do we have to keep track of how many copies of referemce material are on the line? Must we explicitly note that there is a reference card out there with the information? That sounds like a lot of non value added work. I think if the referenced dimension or parameter is CTQ or a SC, then yes, all must be controlled. If not, I do feel that it is not a requirement

I think of the auditor wants to verify if the reference cards are up to date, the acid test will be to see if all the reference cards are of the same content, and are the same as the referenced WI. Correct? Technically, there is no violations of the requirements

 

[Mikishots]

I understand, But a requirement for checking to make sure you're using the current version is a form of document control. In such a case, regardless of how the reminder thing is marked, it's under control.

What I'm getting at is the definition of an uncontrollled document. It can be a degree of interpretation, but from my view it's very simple - a controlled document is a document whose revision, location and status is known to the organization (such as Document Control). If an individual makes a copy or takes excerpts from of that controlled document and keeps it for their own use, the organization cannot know that this copy exists; it is termed uncontrolled. When a revision is made, the owner of the uncontrolled document may not know it may no longer be valid.

The organization can understand that it is not always convenient or feasible to reference the controlled copy only (as they are often provided at the points of use electronically). Therefore, copies are often allowed with a strict rule: if you make a copy, it's OK for immediate use, but any subsequent use must be preceded by a check against the controlled copy. I know you understand this, but it's a point I'm trying to make clear.

Checking to make sure you're using the current copy isn't a form of document control, IMO. It's a simple rule that allows you to use an uncontrolled copy.

 

[Jim Wynne]

<snip>Checking to make sure you're using the current copy isn't a form of document control, IMO. It's a simple rule that allows you to use an uncontrolled copy.

Let see what ISO 9001:2008 (and by extenstion, TS16949) 4.2.3 says on the matter:

A documented procedure shall be established to define the controls needed
a) to approve documents for adequacy prior to issue,
b) to review and update as necessary and re-approve documents,
c) to ensure that changes and the current revision status of documents are identified,
d) to ensure that relevant versions of applicable documents are available at points of use, e) to ensure that documents remain legible and readily identifiable,
f) to ensure that documents of external origin determined by the organization to be necessary for the planning and operation of the quality management system are identified and their distribution controlled, and
g) to prevent the unintended use of obsolete documents, and to apply suitable identification to them if they are retained for any purpose.

(My emphasis)

In the scenario in question, (c), (d) and the first part of (g) have been satisfied, assuming that the OP's organization has addressed these things in their document control procedure. Requiring the operator to verify the revision status the reminder thing against the original document is a method of prevention of unintended use of obsolete documents.

In such a situation, it would be the responsibility of an auditor and not the organization, to demonstrate that the method is not effective.

 

[Mikishots]

Alright, I'll concede on this one. The only point I was trying to make is that those cards are a potential source of bigger problems; if they're allowed, there have to be rules regarding verification before use. That procedure that satisfies (g) would need to say "if you print it, you're responsible for checking the currency of it".

"Nobody told me there was a change" is not an acceptable excuse.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Alright, I'll concede on this one. The only point I was trying to make is that those cards are a potential source of bigger problems; if they're allowed, there have to be rules regarding verification before use. That procedure that satisfies (g) would need to say "if you print it, you're responsible for checking the currency of it".

"Nobody told me there was a change" is not an acceptable excuse.

I agree with you in principle. I have to wonder why if it's a simple thing to check the revision status, it's necessary to have that reminder thing in the first place.

 

[Mikishots]

I agree with you in principle. I have to wonder why if it's a simple thing to check the revision status, it's necessary to have that reminder thing in the first place.

I am continually shocked that it's necessary (but I shouldn't be by now). Convenience is a nasty bedfellow.