Should I call this ?Blank Template? a Work Instruction?

[AeroSteve]

Hello All!
(We just recently got re-registered to the AS-9100C standard and I am now doing some much needed ?spring Cleaning? to our 18 year old band-aided, duct taped, patch worked quality manual!)
I need some help with this one:
Here is a basic example of the typed data contained on one of our QM ?templates? that we use to fill in information for various jobs. So this is printed out, then I would fill in the blanks for the particular job. It then goes into the job router for that job ? where it stays.

Horizontal Band Saw Setup Sheet
Customer___________
Part Name___________
Part#________________
Description of operation_________________
Machine #_____________________
Fixture #__________________
Material__________________
Blade Type________________
Blade Speed________________

This is just one example of about 35 other ?templates? similar to this one in our QM. To me, after it gets filled out, it would be a work instruction. My question though is can/should I call the blank ?template? a work instruction?
For the last 18 years, per our original consultant, these have all been labeled as records ? which I believe is wrong, because there isn?t any inspection data, PO#, Job#, etc. on the template (that info gets put onto a separate record).
So, I feel I should re-label all of these to something other than a ?record? ? I want to try and get it right this time!
Thanks in advance for any help someone would give us on this!

 

[NikkiQSM]

For the last 18 years, per our original consultant, these have all been labeled as records ? which I believe is wrong, because there isn?t any inspection data, PO#, Job#, etc. on the template (that info gets put onto a separate record).
So, I feel I should re-label all of these to something other than a ?record? ? I want to try and get it right this time!
Thanks in advance for any help someone would give us on this!

What is done with the completed form when you are done transferring the information?

Why not simply refer to it as an "Uncontrolled Document"? I would say if the completed documents are thrown away after the information has been transferred, that is what I would call it.

But if you are holding onto them, that would make them records.

Just my

 

[AeroSteve]

It stays in the job router. So, if at a latter date, we receive another order for that same part #, we already have the processing info from the 1st time we ran the job.

 

[Golfman25]

Seems to me it might be a distinction without a difference. Does it really matter what it is called?

I think that when it is blank and not filled in, it is a piece of paper. Ok, maybe it is a form or template. Once you fill it out, it becomes a work instruction. That's what I would do. Good luck.

 

[AeroSteve]

Okay, thanks that helps!

And, oh yeah, in our original consultant's defense, I think I remember back then, these did have a space where we would record inspection data for production parts -- that of course would make it a record. But, as I say, the inspection data is now on a separate record.

 

[Wilderness Woody]

Blank FORMS / TEMPLATES that are designed on purpose to be used to document process information are likely needed to be controlled documents for consistency. Control of electronic versions should be easy to control by limiting authorship rights and maintaining access point control. Forms (tier 4) would be elevated to process documentation/instruction (tier 3) when put to work in production and then retained as records.

 

[Mikishots]

Hello All!
(We just recently got re-registered to the AS-9100C standard and I am now doing some much needed “spring Cleaning” to our 18 year old band-aided, duct taped, patch worked quality manual!)
I need some help with this one:
Here is a basic example of the typed data contained on one of our QM “templates” that we use to fill in information for various jobs. So this is printed out, then I would fill in the blanks for the particular job. It then goes into the job router for that job – where it stays.

Horizontal Band Saw Setup Sheet
Customer___________
Part Name___________
Part#________________
Description of operation_________________
Machine #_____________________
Fixture #__________________
Material__________________
Blade Type________________
Blade Speed________________

This is just one example of about 35 other “templates” similar to this one in our QM. To me, after it gets filled out, it would be a work instruction. My question though is can/should I call the blank “template” a work instruction?
For the last 18 years, per our original consultant, these have all been labeled as records – which I believe is wrong, because there isn’t any inspection data, PO#, Job#, etc. on the template (that info gets put onto a separate record).
So, I feel I should re-label all of these to something other than a “record” – I want to try and get it right this time!
Thanks in advance for any help someone would give us on this!

I wouldn't call this a work instruction, because a WI is a document that tells you how to do something. This is a form that you would fill out to record what you did.

Blank, it's a form. Filled out, it's a record.

EDIT: Ahhh, wait now. I see what you're on about - this form would be filled out once, and become the standard work that an operator is required to follow; we use these where I work for welding, and call them Weld Process Specs.

In light of this, it's just a template. And it would comprise a work specification when completed.

 

[kgott]

Hello All!
(We just recently got re-registered to the AS-9100C standard and I am now doing some much needed ?spring Cleaning? to our 18 year old band-aided, duct taped, patch worked quality manual!)
I need some help with this one:
Here is a basic example of the typed data contained on one of our QM ?templates? that we use to fill in information for various jobs. So this is printed out, then I would fill in the blanks for the particular job. It then goes into the job router for that job ? where it stays.

Horizontal Band Saw Setup Sheet
Customer___________
Part Name___________
Part#________________
Description of operation_________________
Machine #_____________________
Fixture #__________________
Material__________________
Blade Type________________
Blade Speed________________

This is just one example of about 35 other ?templates? similar to this one in our QM. To me, after it gets filled out, it would be a work instruction. My question though is can/should I call the blank ?template? a work instruction?
For the last 18 years, per our original consultant, these have all been labeled as records ? which I believe is wrong, because there isn?t any inspection data, PO#, Job#, etc. on the template (that info gets put onto a separate record).
So, I feel I should re-label all of these to something other than a ?record? ? I want to try and get it right this time!
Thanks in advance for any help someone would give us on this!

Do you distinguish between a form and a template and if so why? Some do some don't. Either way I would controll it because of its importance in specifying or recording data that is used in the process of transforming customer inputs into outputs.

That's not say that once the data from the form, or the completed form itself has been electronicised that it cant be thrown away.

 

[drgnrider]

It stays in the job router. So, if at a latter date, we receive another order for that same part #, we already have the processing info from the 1st time we ran the job.

"Job Router" if this is maintained at the machine, call it a record. If this information is transferred to the printed routing (job traveler) and gets printed each time this part goes to this work center, call it a record with minimal retention.

 

[AeroSteve]

Thanks again for everyone's input!

To answer your question: Do you distinguish between a form and a template and if so why?

currently we don't have any documentation in our QMS that is labeled a form or a template -- although it sounds like it would be a good idea to start distinguishing these as templates.

I agree that these "templates" should be controlled -- I want to keep controlling them. (they have been revised many times throughout the years).

It seems to me: The main importance is to stop calling them Records. because we are careful not to put any "record like" info on them. And currently, because we are classifying them as records, they fall under Sec. 4.2.4 Control of Records; instead of Sec. 4.2.3 control of Documents. Which I feel is incorrect.

So, it seems to me not calling them records is the main importance, and I suppose it is of less importance what we decide to name them after that. So anyway it sounds to me like "template" is the best decision.

Thanks again for everyone's input -- I'm new to the forum and already have benefitted from everyone's help! (I'm looking forward to hopefully returning the favor to other members of the forum)