TS 16949 Clause 4.2.2 c - Interaction of Processes - What does this mean?

[db]

On the assumption you meant written procedures, then I maintain that these are just one method of process control and - as I think the new ISO 9000 recognises - are optional.

Of course, there are plenty of cases where we'd be nuts to ditch written procedures. But historically, there are plenty of cases where a written procedure is simply unecessary bureaucracy.

You worry me Jim! You are absolutely dead on with my thinking here (Perhaps it is you who should be worried)

My feeling is, was and always shall be that if you need documentation you need documentation, and if you don't, you don't. By "need", in this case I am referring to necessity, not some external requirement (rule).

 

[db]

a person of learning

Okay, since I did not know the word, I guess I aint one!

IDIOT SAVANT

Perhaps that is what I am!

Thanks Sue! Now I'm all depressed!

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim/db

This mutual fondling across the atlantic by self important pompous intellectuals is really starting to pi..........

Sorry - forgot who I was for a moment

 

[db]

self important pompous intellectuals

I know you aint talkin to me. I didn't even know what "savant" meant! But you know even "self important pompous intellectuals" could be right once in a while (like a broke clock). But when two of them agree that they are both right.....look out!!!!

 

[Sam]

Ah c;mon M, Lets not get your Knickers in a twist.

 

[Mike S.]

Sorry for the confusion. I was using "savant" to mean someone who has an almost photographic memory. Anyone remember the movie "Rainman" where Dustin Hoffman could recite entire pages from the phone book?

Someone said it well -- if you need procedures, you need them. If you don't , fine. Do what works for you. I just think a blanket statement that "procedures are unimportant" is wrong, that's all. How can someone on the outside, unfamiliar with a particular business, say whether they are important or not to that business? Not even the great Deming can do that. To say otherwise is irresponsible IMO.

Now, if I could just get the procedure to get my computer working properly again...

 

[M Greenaway]

OK - how does this logic sound ?

If the only documents we produce are those that we need out of necessity for tasks which are not carried out often enough for the employee to remember how to do them, then surely he will naturally comply with the document as he will follow it line by line.

 

[M Greenaway]

Yoo hoo, idiot savants, can I have your attention please and bring you all back to the topic.

The qestion is 'when do we need procedures ?'.

The stock bland ISO9001 answer is where the absence of procedures (or indeed work instructions) would affect product quality.

Now we all accept that a written instruction, whether procedure or work instruction, serves the purpose of communicating information to an employee on how to perform a task, or series of tasks.

I think we would all agree that for someones day to day work, in which they are fully conversant, there is no need for them to have a written instruction - they know there job. So I think we would agree, as Mike suggests, that written instructions are required only for occasional tasks where the employee does not retain the instruction.

As such we would only have useful, value adding documentation where we need it - great.

So to re-itterate my previous point, wouldnt the employee naturally be compliant to these instructions, as he has to reference them for those once and a while jobs, and as such is probably inclined to follow them to the letter.

Therefore, as I see it, the only way a non-compliance can be found is if the employee is willfully neglecting to work to the written instruction. As such isnt the instruction essential to the correct execution of the task, but unimportant if the motivation of the employee is not there ?

Alternatively lets look at it another way. Lets assume that we work for a good organisation that conducts thorough process FMEA studies prior to going into full blown commercial production. The PFMEA may identify an area that requires greater control, wouldnt creation of a document to define that process point be merely a detection control as it relies on the operator detecting 'whatever' against the written document ? Wouldnt it be far better, if we could, to Poke Yoke the process and thus put in preventive controls rather than detection ??

In this scenario where does the importance of written instructions rank ???

 

[Mike S.]

M Greenaway said:

The qestion is 'when do we need procedures ?'.

The stock bland ISO9001 answer is where the absence of procedures (or indeed work instructions) would affect product quality.

I think we would all agree that for someones day to day work, in which they are fully conversant, there is no need for them to have a written instruction - they know there job. So I think we would agree, as Mike suggests, that written instructions are required only for occasional tasks where the employee does not retain the instruction.

I should clarify my position here. I do not consider "only for occasional tasks where the employee does not retain the instruction" as the only time to write procedures, but that is an important reason. Complex operations, even if performed often, may suffer w/o written instructions. Written instructions also serve to ensure everyone is doing the same thing when processes are separated in different locations; they serve as "knowledge preservers" to protect the company from loss of a key employee who was "the only one who knows how to do it"; they can serve as training aids to help the new employee get "up to speed" (until he/she can perhaps memorize the steps); they can serve to explain certain processes to customers when questions arise. There may be a few other reasons.

I agree that sometimes too many procedures are written, and we should carefully analyze whether they should be written (and how) on a case-by-case basis. Actually, I kinda like ISO's definition as to when to use them. JMO.

 

[M Greenaway]

OK Mike I would agree that we need all sorts of specific written instructions for one off tasks, complex tasks, and occasional tasks. All are required for the same reason however, people cannot retain the knowledge, so it is documented for their use, as such when it comes to doing the task they WILL reference the instruction because they simply have to. These instructions can take many formats, from shop floor production route sheets, manufacturing order paperwork, machine or process set up instructions, etc ,etc.

I was thinking more of the over arching procedures, or level 1 and 2 documents, as being less useful and unimportant.

For example someone working in a plating shop will need to strip and set various plating process lines due to various finishes and products which pass through the process lines. It would be difficult to retain the individual setting parameters for every single finish/product combination, as such it is good to document them, and doubtless the documents will be used.

However he sets the process lines every day, and has done so for 20 years, so does he need a higher level procedure telling him to look at the production order paperwork, reference the appropriate setting instruction, set the process, take first off samples, sign the production paperwork, etc ??