Verbal Instructions - How does it hold up against the standard?

[Qualqueen]

This looks to me like a classic example of why customer change requests ought to be logged somehow. A written procedure to do so isn't as important as actually making sure all the customer requests are accurately addressed.

This is less of an issue about internal communication and more about change control.

I can give you a prime example of what you speak. In 2004, we started a Prototype for a medical company. One of the notes on the drawing specified Y.S. 110K-135K PSI for the stainless steel used. I recall stating to the customer that suppliers have a minimum but not a maximum Y.S. I was told by them to keep running production while this was solved but the program was in its infantcy at that time so we agreed.

Needless to say it got pushed to the side until last week when our Customer realized that the C of C for the material stated 141 PSI and therefore didn't meet the print. The last 5 years of production, 40,000,000 components later - has all been the same (oh no, it's always been this way :mg but it took 5 years to catch up and now I have no documention stating this conversation occured and can't recall who. Any type of memo, email or initialed note would have saved me much aggrevation. Some day I'll learn to listen to those little voices in my head.

 

[Groo3]

Re: Verbal Instructions

For example, when you have a team of surgeons operating on a patient, performing incredibly complex procedures, they are exchanging critical information verbally all the time. In that scenario, to send written memos back and forth would be totally counterproductive.

... but also the suggestion that a group of surgeons cannot productively work with written instructions is spot on.

I agree as long as the overall goals of the surgery are documented and they are working off of those documented plans. And yeah, verbal communication to facilitate the written instructions would be expected... unless of course it doesn't matter whether or not they are removing your tonsils or performing a sex change operation ? :mg: For me, those kind of details matter.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but how is "recorded" different from "documented"?

Depends on the business... Our facility considers "documented" to indicate an entry on a form (hardcopy) and "recorded" can refer to either an electronic OR hardcopy entry. This would of course be clarified in the work instructions, "record in the database" or "document the results on the form", etc...

 

[Umang Vidyarthi]

I'm sure we all give or receive verbal instructions, but when it comes to important product related tasks, or customer requested changes, how does verbal comunication hold up against the standard?

It's difficult to prove that communication occurred without some kind of documented evidence. Remember the saying "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen". Imagine how the explanation of how the verbal instructions, customer-requested changes, etc. would go over in an audit....My guess is not very well.

It would be safer to document the communication, whether electronically or hand-written, just get it in writing!

Umang! How can you say that, my friend? Of course you may have some things undocumented! Some things might specifically be require to be recorded, but tmoreau didn't outline other than broad examples....

The key here is what is demonstrated as effective. The items listed by tmoreau may be significant and not well communicated 'just verbally', but the test is to ask the people for understanding. We know from practical experience that undocumented requirements are sometimes not well understood, but equally well, there are things done in many organizations which are very effective despite no documentation.

Andy, you have surprised me with your comment! Tmoreau's question is specifically w.r.t. the standards and so is my reply. G.S.Tough has also said the same thing in stronger words. Few others and Jim wynne also has expressed the same feeling. Your comment (bordering on sarcasm) is beyond the scope of my understanding. Anyway, we just agree to disagree with each other's point of view.

Umang

 

[AndyN]

Andy, you have surprised me with your comment! Tmoreau's question is specifically w.r.t. the standards and so is my reply. G.S.Tough has also said the same thing in stronger words. Few others and Jim wynne also has expressed the same feeling. Your comment (bordering on sarcasm) is beyond the scope of my understanding. Anyway, we just agree to disagree with each other's point of view.

Umang

Umang - no sarcasm intended, sir!! However, we're supposed to be discussing verbal instructions and the answers given have, subtly, turned to records without anyone noticing!

There's a big difference regarding the need for documenting instructions/process etc compared to recording the results of following them! Agreed, documentary records are necessary as a demonstration, apart from anything else - but you asked about verbal instructions!! No problems in the standard about their use is there?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Umang - no sarcasm intended, sir!! However, we're supposed to be discussing verbal instructions and the answers given have, subtly, turned to records without anyone noticing!

There's a big difference regarding the need for documenting instructions/process etc compared to recording the results of following them! Agreed, documentary records are necessary as a demonstration, apart from anything else - but you asked about verbal instructions!! No problems in the standard about their use is there?

The OP did indeed ask about verbal instructions, but as they pertain to "important product related tasks, or customer requested changes..." I don't think anyone believes that if we tell someone to pick something up and put it somewhere else that a record or some other form of documentation is needed. I'm not exactly sure what "important product related tasks" means in this context, so some form of documentation may or may not be needed. If "customer requested changes" aren't documented somehow though, there could be a problem vis a vis the standard.

 

[tmoreau]

The OP did indeed ask about verbal instructions, but as they pertain to "important product related tasks, or customer requested changes..." I don't think anyone believes that if we tell someone to pick something up and put it somewhere else that a record or some other form of documentation is needed. I'm not exactly sure what "important product related tasks" means in this context, so some form of documentation may or may not be needed. If "customer requested changes" aren't documented somehow though, there could be a problem vis a vis the standard.

One of the several CA's I'm working through provides a good example. Like all real-life scenarios, it was a comedy of errors which led up to a mistake valued probably at 25% of the total project cost.

Customer CAD data descibes an injection molded part via 3d solid geometry, and 3d wireframe curves represinting an insert split line. The split must be followed for cosmetic reasons.

The cad translation fails, and we jump through hoops to extract useable data. During a meeting, or some conversation, the designer is told to follow the curve data for the insert (which takes extra effort to retrieve from the database). Later, the project is shuffled around and another designer is asked to finish up. Right about this time, the customer sends new cad data and its just as corrupt as before. Hoop jumping ensues, and solid data is eventually extracted. The insert split line gets tweaked as a manufacturing impovement, eventually causing rejected parts and an expensive repair.

The split line was not evident in the new cad data recieved by the second designer due to the translation errors, and there was no written evidence/instruction to tip him off that it should be there.

The fix? While the idea to write down instructions relating to such important customer requirements was floated, it was ultimately rejected. The official fix is to repeat the earlier planning meetings in hopes that all such instructions are remembered and re-stated to any new team members.

I have a low confidence in this solution, and I think we are skirting the real issue.

Part of the problem is that the 'old regime' has (almost literally) BEAT employees into submission to follow verbal orders. Very militaristic. After giving orders, they wash thier hands of the situation. No follow up verification. If someone mis-heard a dimension, too bad, they screwed up. Its a morale killer and cause of a lot of tensions and bad habbits.

 

[AndyN]

One of the several CA's I'm working through provides a good example. Like all real-life scenarios, it was a comedy of errors which led up to a mistake valued probably at 25% of the total project cost.

Customer CAD data descibes an injection molded part via 3d solid geometry, and 3d wireframe curves represinting an insert split line. The split must be followed for cosmetic reasons.

The cad translation fails, and we jump through hoops to extract useable data. During a meeting, or some conversation, the designer is told to follow the curve data for the insert (which takes extra effort to retrieve from the database). Later, the project is shuffled around and another designer is asked to finish up. Right about this time, the customer sends new cad data and its just as corrupt as before. Hoop jumping ensues, and solid data is eventually extracted. The insert split line gets tweaked as a manufacturing impovement, eventually causing rejected parts and an expensive repair.

The split line was not evident in the new cad data recieved by the second designer due to the translation errors, and there was no written evidence/instruction to tip him off that it should be there.

The fix? While the idea to write down instructions relating to such important customer requirements was floated, it was ultimately rejected. The official fix is to repeat the earlier planning meetings in hopes that all such instructions are remembered and re-stated to any new team members.

I have a low confidence in this solution, and I think we are skirting the real issue.

Part of the problem is that the 'old regime' has (almost literally) BEAT employees into submission to follow verbal orders. Very militaristic. After giving orders, they wash thier hands of the situation. No follow up verification. If someone mis-heard a dimension, too bad, they screwed up. Its a morale killer and cause of a lot of tensions and bad habbits.

With respect, I think the example is not one of verbal instructions, it's to do with recording the reviews of customer requirements and their communication - which you are required to do under 7.2.2. That situation is in clear nc to the ISO 9001 requirements......

 

[Jim Wynne]

With respect, I think the example is not one of verbal instructions, it's to do with recording the reviews of customer requirements and their communication - which you are required to do under 7.2.2. That situation is in clear nc to the ISO 9001 requirements......

Once again, it is about verbal instructions, and directly addresses what the OP was asking about:

...when it comes to important product related tasks, or customer requested changes, how does verbal comunication hold up against the standard?

 

[AndyN]

Verbal communication isn't the problem with the standard per se. The organization is required to review and record the actions etc. (paraphrased)

In the posting is mentions that "While the idea to write down instructions relating to such important customer requirements was floated, it was ultimately rejected"

Surely, this is a non-conformity to the requirements of ISO 9001.......?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Verbal communication isn't the problem with the standard per se. The organization is required to review and record the actions etc. (paraphrased)

In the posting is mentions that "While the idea to write down instructions relating to such important customer requirements was floated, it was ultimately rejected"

Surely, this is a non-conformity to the requirements of ISO 9001.......?

Yes it is, but no one is saying that it isn't.