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

SteelMaiden

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#51
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

If your system is all hard copy, what is the benefit of stamping (or putting in the footer, which is probably the better idea)? You are basically providing obsolete documents to your employees. I certainly understand the problem if people can take documnets out of the binders and walk away with them, but obsoleting all documents on a certain day is not really a solution is it? Or am I missing something (it happens.:))

I am also assuming that if your management does not want to provide electronic access, you probably don't have access to photocopiers at all points either? One thing I have seen work is to print the hard copies with a watermark in some color, so that photocopies will show the watermark in grey tone. An explanation is made in the procedure or manual stating that all copies without a colored watermark are considered to be obsolete unless the rev. date/version matches the copy in the controlled binder.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#52
Re: Stamping Documents with ‘For Reference Only’

...What do you think of stamping "This Document becomes obsolete 24 hours after <Current date>?"
Many folks do that. It does not slove all problems, but it may help. Test it on a couple documents first to see how it works.
 
H

hazrat71

#53
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
Here is the key to solving your problem: Make access convenient to those who must use the documents. Also, provide access only to the documents people use. Sounds like you need to seriously streamline your documentation (root cause). Why should people have to flip through a large binder to find the information they need? Break down the information so that the right data is communicated to the right people as directly as possible - combining the information into one place (a binder) hasn't saved you any effort or prevented any document control issues.

(BTW, management is unwilling to fund electronic distribution and access on the floor, even though cost savings can be demonstrated)
Centralized document control and distribution has proven ineffective in your case already, therefore, making it electronic will not solve the problem, and stands a good chance of making the data even less accessible than it is now. People are performing work away from computer kiosks right now as you read this post, and probably performing it competently without referring to a binder document either. So although you might save money in manhours, paper and binders, people still would not be using the electronic media because a) they may not be able to figure out or be comfortable with accessing it electronically; and b) it still takes them away from the task they are performing. Besides, every electronic system I have seen has the exact same problem you have now: People can't conveniently access what they need, so they make copies and squirrel them away.

A good first step is the most basic one in document control: determine which documents seem to be victims of poor control, and then find a way to make sure that people who need them have the most current version. You should also try to determine why these documents are changing so much that people end up with obsolete copies. Is it trying to cover too many functions and activities? If so, narrow the document content.

If the document naturally changes frequently, then decentralized control of it is a better bet. Determine what needs to be documented, and then determine the natural owner of the document: the person performing the task, or at least the most accountable level of supervisor or manager. They should be the one to write it, and, with proper approval from others who know applicable KPIs and requirements, should be the ones who are responsible for controlling and distributing it. This form of decentralized document control is perfectly acceptable under the standard, and is no more challenging or unreasonable than what you have now. Although some may define it as less "traditional," it appears tradition hasn't been doing you any favors...

What do you think of stamping "This Document becomes obsolete 24 hours after <Current date>?".
This is a quick fix that does not address the root of the problem, and will also create a whole new slew of nonconformities. I agree with others that stamps are unnecessary, but by the same token, there is no wording you can use on a document (either in stamp form, or in headers, footers or watermarks, etc.) that will accomplish the physical act of preventing someone using an obsolete or uncontrolled document. Similarly, the presence of such wording on a document will not exempt it from control requirements or associated nonconformities if it is found to have been used outside your defined tolerances (24 hours).

What you are indicating with such wording is that documentation is so unstable that it could change in 24 hours, and folks can't rely on anything they are reading in print for more than a few hours. This is not effective document control, nor does it promote effective communication, which is the primary purpose of creating the document in the first place.

All that is needed to demonstrate a document is controlled is for it to have a unique, traceable identifier (this does not have to be a number) and the revision status must be indicated. Password protection or other means of limiting access to the original demonstrates approval prior to use. Anything else is extra, and can potentially cause more nonconformities than it solves.

People who use the documents should be aware of which revision is current. You will greatly increase the likelihood of people knowing the rev level if the folks who use it are also the ones who wrote it. This will also solve problems with suitable access and appropriate distribution.

If people have responsibilities in the management system, and are accountable for the performance related to those responsibilities, then it is only logical that they should be responsible for the associated documentation.


Good luck!
 
Q

QualityDeb

#54
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

This is not so much a reply as it is a question related to the subject. I'm currentely trying to gain control of documentation at a company that has had very little in the past. I' m trying to determine what NEEDS to be controlled and what doesn't. We have a 6S cleaning checklist that we use to make sure an area is clean. We throw it away after use. I thought, GREAT, we do not have to control it! Then they tell me that it is posted in each area and is filled out daily for the month. Now what? I thought a "ref. only" might work but it doesn't reference anything. Any help would be appreciated!:D
 
#55
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

This is not so much a reply as it is a question related to the subject. I'm currentely trying to gain control of documentation at a company that has had very little in the past. I' m trying to determine what NEEDS to be controlled and what doesn't. We have a 6S cleaning checklist that we use to make sure an area is clean. We throw it away after use. I thought, GREAT, we do not have to control it! Then they tell me that it is posted in each area and is filled out daily for the month. Now what? I thought a "ref. only" might work but it doesn't reference anything. Any help would be appreciated!:D
It really depends on what you understand as 'controlled'. Clearly, a document stamped 'For reference only' should be controlled, since people need to be assured that it's the most applicable one to be used. This is why making *uncontrolled* documents 'For Reference Only' is a (bad) joke!

Deb, scroll down to the bottom of this page - you'll find countless other discussions about the same thing...or do a search within this sub-forum. We've kicked this one around endlessly...
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#56
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

This is not so much a reply as it is a question related to the subject. I'm currentely trying to gain control of documentation at a company that has had very little in the past. I' m trying to determine what NEEDS to be controlled and what doesn't. We have a 6S cleaning checklist that we use to make sure an area is clean. We throw it away after use. I thought, GREAT, we do not have to control it! Then they tell me that it is posted in each area and is filled out daily for the month. Now what? I thought a "ref. only" might work but it doesn't reference anything. Any help would be appreciated!:D

The ISO standards may allow a little wiggle room to designate a few documents as not controlled, ref only, or whatever. However, it flies in the face of the intent of doc control, which is to ensure that people have accurate and current info available and at hand. I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler to just control everything, at least with a date and the issuer in the footer. Nothing complicated. You will work harder trying to identify and "not control" a few documents than it would to sweep everything in. But establish a few levels of control, the lowest being as I said, a revision date, and perhaps a name of the issuer.
 
H

hazrat71

#57
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

This is not so much a reply as it is a question related to the subject. I'm currentely trying to gain control of documentation at a company that has had very little in the past. I' m trying to determine what NEEDS to be controlled and what doesn't. We have a 6S cleaning checklist that we use to make sure an area is clean. We throw it away after use. I thought, GREAT, we do not have to control it! Then they tell me that it is posted in each area and is filled out daily for the month. Now what? I thought a "ref. only" might work but it doesn't reference anything. Any help would be appreciated!:D
Sounds like you are talking about a form that becomes a record. The form is a document needs to be controlled (you want to ensure that people are entering the right data using the current approved format). Revision status and identification are required controls for each document. This can be as simple as giving the form a title (i.e., 6S Cleaning Checklist) and indicating the revision level (such as "A" or "1"). Since this document is posted in several different places, a distribution list that identifies all the locations might also be a helpful tool. Be sure to keep the methods of control consistent with other 6S principles that are in use - for example: if you have color-coded areas, color code the forms to match.

As for retention of the form once it is completed: at this point the form has become a record (by definition "a document stating results achieved or providing evidence of activities performed.") Revision status is no longer a control concern (records don't - and shouldn't - change!:D), so the focus is on retention and preservation. If you throw it away once complete, then your need to control the record is minimal (only while it's being filled out). Even so, you still need to identify how long each record is kept, who is responsible for keeping it and where it kept (so it is retrievable). Hopefully you are using and analyzing the data from this activity (otherwise why bother to record it at all??), so I imagine that some short retention time is at play here...

The most important concept in document and record control is the KISS principle. Don't create and maintain more documents and records that are absolutely necessary and useful, and keep control and access as lean as possible. Don't forget the original purpose for control is to ensure that people have access to relevant and useful information. Document and records can quickly create a a red tape nightmare if you don't keep it in perspective!


Best of luck!:bigwave:

"Only the mediocre are always at their best." - Jean Giraudoux
 
L

Lexylou

#58
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

Getting back to the "For Reference Only"...I have just had an exhausting day doing an internal audit of our system.

The lead toolmakers receive a master drawing at the start of a job that is controlled.

Problem #1 We are about 6 weeks away from our ISO Registration audit and realize that our engineers are stamping "For Reference Only" on additional copies of drawings used on processes in the shop. These copies are used by the NC dept. and Wire EDM dept to program their machines. They make notes on these copies and later file them into their job files. They imply that these are reference documents.
After reading this thread I'm realizing that these are still working documents and still need to be controlled somehow but not sure how to control a copy?

Problem #2 Apparently when there is a change to the Master drawings the lead toolmaker gets a new revision, but they do not make new copies of the changes for those depts. that have "For Reference Only" copies. So now, I not only have uncontrolled working drawings on the floor, I also have those dept.s that have "For Reference Only" working to an "outdated revision".
They really do not want new revisions because they tell me that they would than need to transfer all their notes (which wouldn't be a time savings) from the older revision copy. Anyone got any ideas how I can fix this :confused:...
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#59
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

The lead toolmakers receive a master drawing at the start of a job that is controlled.


Problem #1 We are about 6 weeks away from our ISO Registration audit and realize that our engineers are stamping "For Reference Only" on additional copies of drawings used on processes in the shop. These copies are used by the NC dept. and Wire EDM dept to program their machines. They make notes on these copies and later file them into their job files. They imply that these are reference documents.
After reading this thread I'm realizing that these are still working documents and still need to be controlled somehow but not sure how to control a copy?
The good news is that some of these may in fact be "controlled" even though they were incorrectly stamped "for reference." If the revision and rev dates are the same, then the info on the copies is the same as the master. Those are still in "control." Just stamped wrong.



Problem #2 Apparently when there is a change to the Master drawings the lead toolmaker gets a new revision, but they do not make new copies of the changes for those depts. that have "For Reference Only" copies. So now, I not only have uncontrolled working drawings on the floor, I also have those depts that have "For Reference Only" working to an "outdated revision".
They really do not want new revisions because they tell me that they would than need to transfer all their notes (which wouldn't be a time savings) from the older revision copy. Anyone got any ideas how I can fix this :confused:...

This is the very reason stamping "for reference only" is wrong. Because the information needs to be up-to-date. And, if they are not being controlled, how do you make sure all copies are updated when the info changes?

We work harder to not control them, than we would to simply control them in a simple proper manner.

When you issue copies, simply have a list of how many copies were issued, and where they are. When it changes, go fetch those specific assigned copies, and replace with the updated one. make sure you get them all. If you issued 5 copies, you have to track down all 5 copies. A "positive exchange."

As far as the notes, that's no big deal. If the annotated copy gets updated, mark the outdated one as OBSOLETE, and staple it to the back of the new one.

Make sure your procedure describes all these steps. That should work for you.
 
L

Lexylou

#60
Re: Stamping Documents that are not being controlled with ‘For Reference Only’

Helmut,

Thanks for the response. You are so right about working harder to try not to control them, these guys are good for trying to get out of doing more.
I can't tell you how thrilled I am about going in tomorrow and telling them that we need to stop and change this:sarcasm:

The thought had come to me about the stapling the new change to the older one. I hope they go along with this. I wouldn't have to hear their complaints about transferring their notes.

As far as knowing how many copies were issued and knowing where they are.....I'll have to figure out how to do this without causing sooo much pain. But the other auditor I was with brought this up several times today and here you go and mention it.

Thanks for all your input.
 
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