Q
qualitytrec
if management defines the responsibility does it not mean, rather than imply, that the employee is required to do it?
Mark
Mark
Where is the Requirement that says employees have to follow work instructions?
V
vanputten
Hello All:
"Iif management defines the responsibility does it not mean, rather than imply, that the employee is required to do it?" I don't know. I guess but it wouldbe hard to audit this since it is an assumed requirement. I think defining something and requiring it be followed are very different.
Processes can be defined and understood without anything being written on paper. My wife and I have a process of walking the dog. I do it in the morning. She does it in the evening. Nothing written but a well understood and defined process. This can be corroborated via independent interviews.
Just becasue something has been defined doesn't mean there is a requriement to follow it either.
I think the best answer so far is the requirements of section 4.1 especially 4.1 f).
Thank you to all that helped me better analyze TS 16949.
Sincerley, Dirk van Putten
"Iif management defines the responsibility does it not mean, rather than imply, that the employee is required to do it?" I don't know. I guess but it wouldbe hard to audit this since it is an assumed requirement. I think defining something and requiring it be followed are very different.
Processes can be defined and understood without anything being written on paper. My wife and I have a process of walking the dog. I do it in the morning. She does it in the evening. Nothing written but a well understood and defined process. This can be corroborated via independent interviews.
Just becasue something has been defined doesn't mean there is a requriement to follow it either.
I think the best answer so far is the requirements of section 4.1 especially 4.1 f).
Thank you to all that helped me better analyze TS 16949.
Sincerley, Dirk van Putten
N
newlingd
I would issue the NC against 7.5.1 "The organization shall plan and carry out production and service provision under controlled conditions"
Regards
David
Regards
David
newlingd said:
Me too - "controlled conditions" and "planned arrangements".
Randy
Super Moderator
I'm sorry, but this doesn't look like an issue about a clause or sub-clause or any of that tripe...In fact it's one of the best "DUH" questions I've seen in a bit.
Here is the requirement "As long as you want the money I pay you, do as I ask!" Some follow on language could be "I will not ask you to violate any laws, personal ethics, moral obligations or commit any other act contrary to proper business and civily approved behavior in our culture."
Here is the requirement "As long as you want the money I pay you, do as I ask!" Some follow on language could be "I will not ask you to violate any laws, personal ethics, moral obligations or commit any other act contrary to proper business and civily approved behavior in our culture."
B
Bill Pflanz
Although it is informative to see all of the clauses that an auditor can write a non-conformance against, it seems to me that we are making it complicated. Dirk never did say whether "the important instruction" was a documented requirement.
If it was a documented requirement, then the simplist way to write the non-conformance is to identify the specific requirement so that there is no doubt about where the violation occurred. After all, it is possible that upon review, management may decide that the requirement is overly restrictive and the corrective action is to drop the requirement.
If the instruction was not documented but was verbal, then it is questionable whether it is even a requirement since you would expect all quality critical requirements to be documented. Communication involves acceptance of the message not just its delivery.
If the intent is to correct the problem in an understandable way, referring to some clause in the standard that even we have trouble interpreting is probably not value added. Just my
Bill Pflanz
If it was a documented requirement, then the simplist way to write the non-conformance is to identify the specific requirement so that there is no doubt about where the violation occurred. After all, it is possible that upon review, management may decide that the requirement is overly restrictive and the corrective action is to drop the requirement.
If the instruction was not documented but was verbal, then it is questionable whether it is even a requirement since you would expect all quality critical requirements to be documented. Communication involves acceptance of the message not just its delivery.
If the intent is to correct the problem in an understandable way, referring to some clause in the standard that even we have trouble interpreting is probably not value added. Just my
Bill Pflanz
Dirk - do you reference ISO shalls in all of your audit nc's? I usually don't, but I have worked in some environments (though not long for just this reason) where I couldn't get management to do anything about nonconformances unless I showed them where ISO said to do it.
I write them against the document, work instruction, procedure, whatever; this forces them to decide whether they need to enforce the document as is, or change or delete it.
I write them against the document, work instruction, procedure, whatever; this forces them to decide whether they need to enforce the document as is, or change or delete it.
Last edited:
V
vanputten
Randy:
How does one audit against this requirement, ""As long as you want the money I pay you, do as I ask!" Some follow on language could be "I will not ask you to violate any laws, personal ethics, moral obligations or commit any other act contrary to proper business and civily approved behavior in our culture."
To properly audit, a clear and understoood requirement is needed. If there is no requirement to compare facts against, then the outcome will be based on opinion. Without a clear requriement, one cannot be impartial and objective becasue the outcome is now based on opinion.
How does one audit against your statement above? May I simply identify things as nonconformances based on what I think? I would be interested to watch a 3rd party audit using the same methodology.
Thank you for professionally qualifying my question as a "DUH" even though you did not answer my question.
My intent of this entire thread was to disucss the fact that ISO 9001 and TS 16949 have many requirements and some very specific requirements but nowhere did the writers add an overt requriement that simply says "employees must follow instructions." To me, that seems to be a basic requirement that should be cleary included and not inferred or implied.
Thank you, Dirk
How does one audit against this requirement, ""As long as you want the money I pay you, do as I ask!" Some follow on language could be "I will not ask you to violate any laws, personal ethics, moral obligations or commit any other act contrary to proper business and civily approved behavior in our culture."
To properly audit, a clear and understoood requirement is needed. If there is no requirement to compare facts against, then the outcome will be based on opinion. Without a clear requriement, one cannot be impartial and objective becasue the outcome is now based on opinion.
How does one audit against your statement above? May I simply identify things as nonconformances based on what I think? I would be interested to watch a 3rd party audit using the same methodology.
Thank you for professionally qualifying my question as a "DUH" even though you did not answer my question.
My intent of this entire thread was to disucss the fact that ISO 9001 and TS 16949 have many requirements and some very specific requirements but nowhere did the writers add an overt requriement that simply says "employees must follow instructions." To me, that seems to be a basic requirement that should be cleary included and not inferred or implied.
Thank you, Dirk
Randy
Super Moderator
Employers have the right (legal obligation in fact) to require employees to meet requirements (rules, regulations, procedures and all that good stuff), except in touchy-feely good California I guess. Proof could be the documentation generated by an employer showing its action when requirements are not adhered to by its employees. Regardless of 9001, 16949, the Man-in-the-moon or any other dribble employers must document unacceptable or undesirable activities or actions of the individual employee to cover their fannies for a variety of reasons. The "DUH" was for the simple facts that I stated above. Meeting requirements existed long before this management system stuff was thought about, but people tend to take the simple and complicate it beyond recognition.
"Please do as I ask employee or you won't be an employee for long" There it is!
"Please do as I ask employee or you won't be an employee for long" There it is!
J
Jackson_kan
7.5.1.2
7.5.1.2
"The organization SHALL prepare DOCUMENTED WORK INSTRUCTION for all employees having responsibilities for the operation of processes that impact product quality…"
if you understand "shall' inTS & "documented work instruction" and also you can tell someone has not responsibilities for the operation of processes that impact product quality, then you may not get available for WI, otherwise, go back and make every single creature get WI.
7.5.1.2
"The organization SHALL prepare DOCUMENTED WORK INSTRUCTION for all employees having responsibilities for the operation of processes that impact product quality…"
if you understand "shall' inTS & "documented work instruction" and also you can tell someone has not responsibilities for the operation of processes that impact product quality, then you may not get available for WI, otherwise, go back and make every single creature get WI.
Similar threads
