Using an "operator copy" of control plan?

[SteelWoman]

One of my managers asked if, in looking at our Control Plans as part of our transition to TS, if we couldn't come up with an "easier" version for our operators to use - the normal Control plan is rather confusing for John Average Operator - plus we use an "intranet" where all our procedures/control plans/controlled docs are available on computer at each machine - if they pull up a control plan on one of these the "presentation" of that form is not the best. In looking at the back of the APQP AIAG manual I noticed a Master Copy of a control plan followed by an "Operator Copy" - basically a stripped down/simpler version of the master control plan. I've frankly never noticed this before and wondered if any of you have successfully used this in your facility?

 

[Bob_M]

One of my managers asked if, in looking at our Control Plans as part of our transition to TS, if we couldn't come up with an "easier" version for our operators to use - the normal Control plan is rather confusing for John Average Operator - plus we use an "intranet" where all our procedures/control plans/controlled docs are available on computer at each machine - if they pull up a control plan on one of these the "presentation" of that form is not the best. In looking at the back of the APQP AIAG manual I noticed a Master Copy of a control plan followed by an "Operator Copy" - basically a stripped down/simpler version of the master control plan. I've frankly never noticed this before and wondered if any of you have successfully used this in your facility?

Instead of making 2 control plans per part (2 times the work to update and control), why don't you just try updating your control plans to include plain english John-Average notes and comments. If that's not good enough, mabye you need to better train John Average on HOW to read the control plans.

Side note/question: Can't you design you own Control Plan form and make it as easy to read/look at? Or do some OEMs require you use the OFFICIAL looking control plans?

Alternatively we have:
Control Plans
And detailed inspection forms/records which mirror the INSPECTION requirements from the Control Plans, but try to do so I plain english when possible.

NOTE: We are not QS or TS but we use Controls Plans anyways...

 

[Sam]

One of my managers asked if, in looking at our Control Plans as part of our transition to TS, if we couldn't come up with an "easier" version for our operators to use - the normal Control plan is rather confusing for John Average Operator - plus we use an "intranet" where all our procedures/control plans/controlled docs are available on computer at each machine - if they pull up a control plan on one of these the "presentation" of that form is not the best. In looking at the back of the APQP AIAG manual I noticed a Master Copy of a control plan followed by an "Operator Copy" - basically a stripped down/simpler version of the master control plan. I've frankly never noticed this before and wondered if any of you have successfully used this in your facility?

As long as they are controlled and traceable to the master control plan they would be acceptable.

 

[SteelWoman]

Instead of making 2 control plans per part (2 times the work to update and control), why don't you just try updating your control plans to include plain english John-Average notes and comments. If that's not good enough, mabye you need to better train John Average on HOW to read the control plans.

The control plans we use are in plain english, it's just that the format isn't very "user friendly" That's the part we're struggling with - trying to make it SIMPLE/IDIOT/MISTAKE proof.

Side note/question: Can't you design you own Control Plan form and make it as easy to read/look at? Or do some OEMs require you use the OFFICIAL looking control plans?

We're transitioning from QS to TS and TS (page 33) addresses pretty clearly the basic "parts" a Control plan must have - it follows the AIAG format. So I think we're stuck with that "higher level" document like it or not - I'm just trying to come up with a way to communicate the BASICS of that document in a format that is more user friendly. The example "Operator Copy" in the APQP seems designed for just that purpose, but I would really like to hear from anyone who's successfully used that in their system.

 

[howste]

I used to use AQuA software from Omnex for this. The database would have the entire control plan, but you could customize the output format to suit your needs. When I was asked for specific CP formats from customers (or for specific fields by auditors) I could show them exactly what they wanted without creating multiple documents. I would create electronic copies of CPs for operators that better met their needs, and would post them on the intranet. Does that sound close to what you want to do?

 

[SteelWoman]

YES! That sounds exactly like what I'm looking for! Thanks, I'll go google it and find the software. Thanks!!

 

[tomvehoski]

I have never liked the idea of issuing the full control plan to the plant floor - too much extra information that an operator does not need, and I agree it can be a confusing format. One of the best formats I have seen was a client in Mexico (small motors). Every station had work instructions which were 90% pictures with arrows, examples, etc.. Very easy to follow - I was able to understand them and can't read Spanish.

Send what works out to the shop floor. I agree it should be linked to the master control plan, but don't confuse an operator with a 10 page control plan if one picture will work.

 

[Bob_M]

I have never liked the idea of issuing the full control plan to the plant floor - too much extra information that an operator does not need, and I agree it can be a confusing format. One of the best formats I have seen was a client in Mexico (small motors). Every station had work instructions which were 90% pictures with arrows, examples, etc.. Very easy to follow - I was able to understand them and can't read Spanish.

Send what works out to the shop floor. I agree it should be linked to the master control plan, but don't confuse an operator with a 10 page control plan if one picture will work.

Good point.
Our "control plans" are very basic and easy to read (we're not QS or TS).
I never really considered the possibility of a 10 page control plan.
Ouch.

 

[Teknow]

One of my managers asked if, in looking at our Control Plans as part of our transition to TS, if we couldn't come up with an "easier" version for our operators to use - the normal Control plan is rather confusing for John Average Operator -

Might be a stupid question, but what use would "John Average Operator" have for the Control Plan?

 

[Bob_M]

I believe when created correctly and fully, they act as:
Setup Instructions,
Work Instructions, &
Inspection Instructions
So potentially you have 3 documents rolled into one...