Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with "For Reference Only"

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#41
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

As an auditor, I would have a problem with it...because it just won't work! Why not just do what the standard requires, control the docs and data, and stop with all the games? Do you really think people are going to verify docs before use?
I think that what you're suggesting is exactly what we don't want--turning auditors--internal or external--into police forces. If I give people an easy way to verify the current revision, train them and impress upon them the importance of using it, then yes, I do think that people are going to verify before use. If people don't do it, you have a management problem that extends beyond the document control system. People need to be aware of the accepted practices, and to be expected to honor them as a condition of employment.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#42
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

I think that what you're suggesting is exactly what we don't want--turning auditors--internal or external--into police forces. If I give people an easy way to verify the current revision, train them and impress upon them the importance of using it, then yes, I do think that people are going to verify before use. If people don't do it, you have a management problem that extends beyond the document control system. People need to be aware of the accepted practices, and to be expected to honor them as a condition of employment.
Jim, you know me better than that. Obviously, I cannot tell a client they are not permitted to do that method. However, I do tell them it simply won't work. Inevitably, before the audit is over, we stumble over examples where it did not work.

Think about it, a company of say a 100 people, do you really want them to have to verify every document before they can use it? Do you really think people will interupt their work to continually double-check revision dates? It is unreasonable to expect. It simply does not work reliably. It is like prohibition. And, if you could make it work, what a waste of people's time...

Just so we don't have to put a simple, effective doc control process into place? It simply does not make sense except for docs that don't get used much. And, even then, there are better methids.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#43
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

Jim, you know me better than that. Obviously, I cannot tell a client they are not permitted to do that method. However, I do tell them it simply won't work. Inevitably, before the audit is over, we stumble over examples where it did not work.

Think about it, a company of say a 100 people, do you really want them to have to verify every document before they can use it? Do you really think people will interupt their work to continually double-check revision dates? It is unreasonable to expect. It simply does not work reliably. It is like prohibition. And, if you could make it work, what a waste of people's time...

Just so we don't have to put a simple, effective doc control process into place? It simply does not make sense except for docs that don't get used much. And, even then, there are better methids.
There might be better methods, depending on the circumstances. The requirement is to make sure that superseded versions of documents aren't inadvertently used. If a worker keeps an obsolete version on hand on purpose because he doesn't want to be bothered with verification or is mistakenly confident that the document hasn't changed, it's not a document control issue, it's a discipline (management) issue. It's no different from having work instructions that clearly require the use of tool x to do job y, and the worker using tool z instead.

We need to design processes that are proven to be efficacious, train people on how to execute them, and make sure that there is a clear understanding of what constitutes acceptable behavior. In any case where you might have found that people don't honor the system, it means that management hasn't done its job in creating "constancy of purpose," not that there's something wrong with the doc control system.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#44
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

There might be better methods, depending on the circumstances. The requirement is to make sure that superseded versions of documents aren't inadvertently used. If a worker keeps an obsolete version on hand on purpose because he doesn't want to be bothered with verification or is mistakenly confident that the document hasn't changed, it's not a document control issue, it's a discipline (management) issue. It's no different from having work instructions that clearly require the use of tool x to do job y, and the worker using tool z instead.

We need to design processes that are proven to be efficacious, train people on how to execute them, and make sure that there is a clear understanding of what constitutes acceptable behavior. In any case where you might have found that people don't honor the system, it means that management hasn't done its job in creating "constancy of purpose," not that there's something wrong with the doc control system.
Depending on circumstances is the key word. For seldom used documents, it might be suitable. For frequently used documents itis a terrible time waster. Can good management force people to follow the rules, even if they are wasteful of time. Sure, but that is not a good doc control method, nor good management. And, it will rarely if ever, actually work consistently.

But, it can be "compliant," if that is all someone wants. There are easier and better ways, IMO.
 

Wes Bucey

Quite Involved in Discussions
#45
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

Let's make something clear here BEFORE we all start tearing at each other's "pillars of reason."

The task of the organization (regardless of the da*n ISO guidelines) is to ensure EVERY document used in its business is the correct one at the time of use. "Correct" may be in reference to model number or revision date or any other criterion. There are a lot of ways to "goof proof" the process, but the bottom line is the organization has a SYSTEM which everyone in the organization who handles a document is aware of and can follow easily. Many factors enter into a "goof proof" system, but the primary considerations seem to be


  1. number of documents
  2. number of folks dealing with documents
  3. frequency of revision
  4. procedure in purging obsolete documents and replacing them with current (and correct) ones (Two main methods here: "push" and "pull")
I tend to agree with the thesis about how cumbersome and counterproductive it can be for the end user of a document to be the person responsible for determining the document is correct in every respect ("pull"). There are a number of methods to "push" ONLY the correct document before each use - they depend on number of documents, number of people, and financial considerations.

ALL the "push" methods I am aware of have a built-in redundancy of some sort to reduce the opportunities for error BEFORE any document is used in error. The discussion of such redundancies and other error-proofing might be the topic of discussion in a new thread.

The main point I'd like to make is some documents used in error have greater financial and legal consequences than others. I am aware of one situation where an organization did not notify an operator (in a due and timely manner) of a reduction in the order size because of an impending design change. The operator went on to make 10,000 pieces instead of 2,000 pieces. My comment: what operator, used to making 10,000 piece lots of a product, would ever think to check back to determine whether the order quantity had changed from the purchase order accompanying his first traveler? Was it really HIS responsibility to do so?

I've been writing about and giving presentations on the topic of document management and the sub topic of Configuration Management for nearly 30 years. Almost always, the main dysfunction I find in small to medium size organizations (which are striving to comply with newly mandated requirements to follow ISO, AS, TS, or even the old QS quality management systems) is trying to graft a document management system intended for giant multinational organizations dealing with
tens of thousands of documents on to a tiny organization dealing with dozens of documents.

If I have any plea, it is for organizations to be realistic in planning for current and future requirements and only implement as much complexity as the situation calls for.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#46
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

We need to design processes that are proven to be efficacious,
Indeed. And, as I believe, Helmut is making a very good point that auditors must provide feedback to the assessed organizations about processes that are not sustainable in the long run. Good auditors will provide feedback to their clients about the design of their processes. Because "compliant" processes that are not efficacious will not be sustained. Workforce discipline has a limit. Especially, we revolt against mindless non-value added bureaucracy of time consuming check and balances.

I agree with Helmut that having a process whereby users are expected to review a document revision, before it is used, is doomed to fail, because productivity expectations will trample over this step. Good documentation management systems will make sure that the users have the right version of the document when they need it, instead of expecting them to "double check" if that is the case. There is no requirement in ISO 9001 for the user to be able to know if the document they have at hand is the latest (or correct) revision.
For frequently used documents itis a terrible time waster. Can good management force people to follow the rules, even if they are wasteful of time. Sure, but that is not a good doc control method, nor good management. And, it will rarely if ever, actually work consistently.

But, it can be "compliant," if that is all someone wants. There are easier and better ways, IMO.
:agree1: I agree, Helmut. Good auditors will try to point out to their clients inefficacious processes. An unjustified resource-intensive process is prone to be disregarded by the workforce. We MUST provide this feedback to our clients, even though we can not (and should not) write it up as a non-conformity. The sad part is, because it can not be written up as a non-conformity, this type of observations are, for the most part, disregarded.
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#47
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

Depending on circumstances is the key word. For seldom used documents, it might be suitable. For frequently used documents itis a terrible time waster. Can good management force people to follow the rules, even if they are wasteful of time. Sure, but that is not a good doc control method, nor good management. And, it will rarely if ever, actually work consistently.

But, it can be "compliant," if that is all someone wants. There are easier and better ways, IMO.
I agree that the best method prevents use of obsolete documents--no argument there. Sometimes it's not practical, though. Another point I would make is that there are, in practice, very few "frequently used" documents in most companies.

Added in edit: The exception in terms of frequent use would be forms--I was thinking of procedures and work instructions in saying that there usually aren't many frequently-used documents.
 
H

hazrat71

#48
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

Do you really think people are going to verify docs before use?
:2cents:

The standard requires all personnel to be sufficiently competent and aware at their particular level to avoid nonconformities, and also requires roles and responsibilities to be defined and documented and communicated at relevant levels and functions of the organization. These requirements apply to document control.

Obviously, it is unreasonable to expect people to check each and every document prior to use, but the main reason that people would need to do this is because document control is authorized for too few, resulting in documents that are unfamiliar and/or irrelevant to the user and methods of control that are not natural to the way things are normally done.

In theory, centralized control seems more effective and efficient, based on an idea similar to that of “too many cooks spoil a good soup.” In practice, what you have is document writers who are not responsible for carrying out the activities described in a document, and, since they don’t really know what “needs” documenting, they document everything, and make it apply to everyone. This becomes the source of excessive and unfamiliar documentation that only a few people read: the people who control it, not the people who need it.

Well-organized and controlled documentation is more than just ensuring everyone has the right revision level. The information contained in any document must be accurate, which means it must come from the proper source and be available (and meaningful) to a relevant audience. Document controls, just like operational controls, need to be at the relevant levels and functions of the organization. Documents describe criteria for performing operations and functions. No one group or person can control all the different operations and functions at an organization. Why do we think a single source can and should issue and control the related documentation?

Also, is it really more effective and efficient to make the people who know best funnel all their information through a remote source at a lower level of understanding just to maintain a “one-size-fits-all” control method? The fact that persistent, repetitive document control issues are rampant in these types of systems would seem to demonstrate otherwise.

Another problem with centralized control is that it teaches people that document control is not their concern and creates yet another obstacle to establishing a systems culture where the right people at the relevant levels people understand what they need to do and are sufficiently competent to do it.
 
N

Noodles - 2009

#49
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

We have thousands of paper documents which are made accessible on the floor through document kiosks (large binders). Of course this is not always convenient for the operators, so they will sometimes remove the document from the binder, or make a photocopy (unauthorized) of it.

(BTW, management is unwilling to fund electronic distribution and access on the floor, even though cost savings can be demonstrated)

What do you think of stamping "This Document becomes obsolete 24 hours after <Current date>?".
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
#50
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

We have thousands of paper documents which are made accessible on the floor through document kiosks (large binders). Of course this is not always convenient for the operators, so they will sometimes remove the document from the binder, or make a photocopy (unauthorized) of it.

(BTW, management is unwilling to fund electronic distribution and access on the floor, even though cost savings can be demonstrated)

What do you think of stamping "This Document becomes obsolete 24 hours after <Current date>?".
Not stamping..too much work. Put it in the footer of the document when printed. No stamps needed. Describe this in your Doc. control procedure though...

Stijloor.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Stamping Documents as "Controlled Copy" - Clause 4.2.3 Document Control Stamp Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 17
J SPC - Stamping parts - Small batch size Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 6
J Raw material certificates - CC - Safety products - Sheet metal stamping IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
J Internal PPM's in a medium sized metal stamping plant Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 6
G Metal Stamping Process Audit Questions Manufacturing and Related Processes 8
T Technical automotive metal stamping cliffnotes needed! Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
V Process FMEA for Stamping Process FMEA and Control Plans 5
M Checking Fixture for Stamping Parts Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
P SPC Short Run Advice of a Stamping Process Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 3
M Supplier Nonconformances - Key Points to ask a Metal Stamping Supplier Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 7
Z Stamping Press Die Specification Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
H Determining Takt Time in Metal Stamping Lean in Manufacturing and Service Industries 9
S Cell Rubber Stamping PPM for Scrap Analysis Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 1
V Standard for Metal Stamping Deburring Process APQP and PPAP 5
C How to Reduce Inspection Frequency in Metal Stamping Company Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 4
A Looking for a Stamping Process Check List Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 3
T Metal Stamping Defect--Need Help with Corrective Action Manufacturing and Related Processes 5
Stijloor Date Stamping Wires and Wire Harnesses Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
M Practicality of Metal Stamping Attribute GR&R (Gage R&R) Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
D Quality Metrics and OFIs in a Metal Stamping Company Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
T Stamping Original Paper Document 'Record Copy' in Red Ink - Document Control Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
S Laboratory Scope for a Small Metal Stamping Company Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 7
C Metal Part Identification Methods (Stamping) Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
T Metal Stamping Process Audit / Knowledge required! Process Audits and Layered Process Audits 17
G Progression Stamping Operation (Galvanised Steel) FMEA example wanted Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
J Inspecting Outside Radii of a Small Steel Stamping Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 26
A Process Validation Format for Press (Stamping) Operations - Help needed APQP and PPAP 11
B Document Control (Stamping) - Is it necessary and why is it popular? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 20
D Metal Stamping Tooling Transfer Checklist Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
J Chrysler Gage Standard - Gage standard for all Tier II stamping gages Customer and Company Specific Requirements 3
M Product resourcing or transfer Checklist (APQP) to satellite metal stamping facility APQP and PPAP 3
S Work Instructions Required? Precision metal stamping, cnc machining and wire edm Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 7
M Implementing TS 16949 in a new stamping plant - Help please IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
S Is DFMEA of Stamping tooling / Injection mould required by TS? FMEA and Control Plans 1
H Bowed Steel Blanks in Stamping Process Manufacturing and Related Processes 26
H Capability Studies and Monitoring Runs at a Metal Stamping Facility Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 5
A Process or Work Instruction (WI) to Change a Progressive Stamping Die Manufacturing and Related Processes 2
M Date Stamping for Electronic signatures Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 3
H Ink for Stamping P/N and Revision on Metal Parts (instead of labeling) Manufacturing and Related Processes 6
R How to chart hole location? Stamping parts with 4 holes each Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 22
L What to monitor using SPC in Metal Stamping industry Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
S Short Audit Check List for Stamping Process needed General Auditing Discussions 3
W PPAP Submission Items - Metal Stamping - Tooling Transfer, Replacement, Refurbishment APQP and PPAP 6
L How to set the safety inventory? Stamping parts for motor lamination Manufacturing and Related Processes 3
L Attribute gage in stamping press as poke yoke Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 1
W Sample of Process FMEA for Progressive Metal Stamping needed FMEA and Control Plans 20
C Is stamping or press operation considered as noise pollutant? Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 9
P Measurement Resolution of In-Process Automated Inspection System - Stamping House Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 13
S Stamping part numbers on components for easy identification without a print change Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 5
Q Looking for example EC process flow that addresses feasibility - Metal Stamping ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom