References instead of Detail - Control Method and Reaction Plan

[vforge]

References instead of Detail

What are some thoughts on completing the control plan sections "control method" and "reaction plan" for instance with simply referencing an ISO, QS or TS standard number like 8.2.3.1 rather than providing more detail?

This shortcut seems to work against the idea of using the CP as a living document on the floor (unless everyone's memorized the procedure numbers) and doesn't exactly share approach with one's customer. But by referencing only a procedure number, there may be more room for interpretation/application, and perhaps reduce the number of document revisions when subtle methods or plans are revised. Thoughts?

 

[Howard Atkins]

What are some thoughts on completing the control plan sections "control method" and "reaction plan" for instance with simply referencing an ISO, QS or TS standard number like 8.2.3.1 rather than providing more detail?

This shortcut seems to work against the idea of using the CP as a living document on the floor (unless everyone's memorized the procedure numbers) and doesn't exactly share approach with one's customer. But by referencing only a procedure number, there may be more room for interpretation/application, and perhaps reduce the number of document revisions when subtle methods or plans are revised. Thoughts?

I think that this is to general but the reference can be to part specific operator instructions which then saves revisions of the control plan.
The customer could ask you to submit all refered to documentation and you might need customer approval for your "subtle changes"

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

This is how we "handle" our Control Plans-

We have four documents for our operators - Setup, Operator, Inspection, and TPM Instructions (a bit of a clumsy system, but it works for us). The Control Method column on the Control Plan states "per Operator Instructions" or whichever "Instruction" would be applicable. The "Reaction Plan" column references our Corporate NCM procedure number and informs the operator to let their Cell Leader know if there are any issues/questions with the process/product. This allows us flexibility in dealing with potential NCM and not getting hung with a finding against the Control Plan.

That being said, we would like the CP to "write" all the Instructions. The current software we use is not able to put them into a format our floor personnel would be comfortable with (or we just haven't learned how to make it work for us ).

IMO, there is nothing wrong with being "general" and tying in to your QMS, in fact, our auditor thought it helped "close the loop" plus actually made the QMS more prominent to our floor (at least part of it).

Bill

 

[bpritts]

Many of my clients put much of the detailled information in supporting
operator instructions and just reference it in the control plan. They find
that this allows them to tailor instructions to the specific operator.

In the typical situation there might be 10 - 20 operations on the CP and
they would say that this would be confusing for the typical operator, who doesn't care about the 9 - 19 operations that don't affect his/her work station.

Howard's point is correct that a customer may ask for the full documentation
as part of PPAP, and also that you need to be cautious when changing
the supporting documents -- if you change something that is a CP item
(e.g. frequency of checks) then a PPAP may be called for.

Both of these have happened on occasion.

So if there are a lot of operations with distinct operators and controls, I',m
for separating the details onto supporting documents.

Regards,

Brad

 

[Tom W]

We have gone the route of creating generic quality plans for what we call our standard services we provide. (Heat Treating). On the generics we reference several times to the shopfloor document , or what we call our Process Sheet which details all steps for the specific order to go through.
We also use the standard service quality plans as a baseline to create customer specific quality plans. when the customer requires them. We try to use the standard service whenever we can.

 

[FCP-filters]

referencing procedure #'s

maybe you should worry less about trying to appease one customer and develop a system that caters to your needs and simplifies the process on your end. It's common sense. From a document control standpoint alone, referencing doc's by a controlled # in a control plan is much more convenient and provides for a lot less follow up and minimizes confusion when procedures change. If the customer requires further classification of the procedural #, develop a matrix and include it with the PPAP submission.
As for a living document, yes, that is the goal of a control plan. But not on the shop floor. Operators dont use them. Work instructions make better sense. Those are detailed and specific enough to provide the info that an operator requires to perfrom his/her tasks.

BLK