The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  ISO 9001/4:2000
  Procedures

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Procedures
ISO dog
unregistered
posted 19 April 2000 09:39 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Only six procedures are specifically required for ISO 9K:2k (as opposed to 15 or so in ISO 9K:1994).

Obviously the committee wanted to cut down on the number of procedures. How are we supposed to document the other requirements withour procedures? Memos?

I'm not trying to be clever, I really don't know.

IP: Logged

Don Watt
Forum Contributor

Posts: 70
From:Notts,United Kingdom
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 20 April 2000 03:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Don Watt   Click Here to Email Don Watt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by ISO dog:
Only six procedures are specifically required for ISO 9K:2k (as opposed to 15 or so in ISO 9K:1994).

My view is that you develop the procedures necessary to run your particular type of business, therefore you may have only 6 or you may have 66 depending on your requirements (for example we have different procedures for process control depending on the nature & type of process).

As long as you cross reference which procedures relate to each clause in ISO you shouldn't run into problems.

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forum Wizard

Posts: 275
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 20 April 2000 10:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ISO-dog - Glad you asked the question --- I struggled a bit with that one myself.

If the final version requires only 6 procedures - thats from a numbereing viewpoint only. If you count each sub-clause as a separate procedure - include the new additions as separate procedure items then how many are required?

I did this a while back so the figures arent exact - but as I recall the number of sub-clauses in the 1994 version was almost 59 possibles (if you view all sub-sections like 4.1.2.3 as a candidate for a separate procedure. Counted the same way the new version was almost 66. I did not however make a determination of which sub-clauses can/should be easily combined. Our current system covered the 1994 version - 59 or so sub-clauses with 27 separately numbered
procedures. When the new version is final I'll determine which of these it make sense to add to and which need to be set-out on their own merits. But remunbering and reducing our system to 6 procedures that are 35-40 pages long seems to be a non workable option.

Regards
Jim

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 20 April 2000 11:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Let me just say this about the number of procedures.....its the people who count them that make all this "ISO stuff" less valuable. The standard is saying its important......so we require these as a minimum....(they can all be in one !!!!!...if you want one long one...as above) as long as it is formally documented, reviewed, authorized and referenced in the QA system manual. But hell...if absence of a procedure affects the product quality ...even if the standard doesn't specifically spell it out...you're gonna need a procedure...so what makes since...counting them or creating what you need as a company?

Its also my opinion that renumbering makes no since..I don't plan to recommend it...but I do plan to recommend, to new implementations, my favorite numbering system that has no tie to the standard paragraghs, except on the master list.

[This message has been edited by barb butrym (edited 20 April 2000).]

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forum Wizard

Posts: 275
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 20 April 2000 01:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Barb- Cant' say I totally disagree with your viewpoint- My interest in counting the sections -and the only value to it - lies in the fact that most of the people I work with internally really want to understand how many "action items" are required by the standards,how many have been added, and where the additions will be placed, so they can maintain a clear-path-to and easily find the relevant information. - therefore the identifying "action number" breakdown.

Who declared 6 are required - Where it started or Why the new version is being generally promoted as requiring only 6 procedures - I'm not sure of - but I do agree with you that how many "procedure documents" has little to do with satisfying the requirements as long as what you decide on covers all the required actions.

IP: Logged

isodog
unregistered
posted 20 April 2000 11:18 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Clarification alert!

When I wrote there were only six procedures required, I meant there was only six places in the DIS where it says "A documented procedure shall be established" 5.5.6, 5.5.7, 8.2.2, 8.3, 8.5.2, and 8.5.3 (count em!). This is in contrast to 1994's "The supplier shall establish, document, and maintain documented procedures..." that is in, I believe, in sixteen sections.
Surely you may write as many procedures as you want, but, for instance, 5.6 Management Review has no language requiring a procedure. If the committee wanted a procedure there, They would require one (since they do that in other sections, see above). My question is what the %$%#@ did they have in mind other than a procedure? If I could do it with a memo, the control overhead would be significantly reduced.
Dave

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 21 April 2000 08:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
now to take the other side......

if you don't need a procedure don't do one. the committee is allowing you options that would serve you better...if there are any. I typically do not do a management review procedure for instance....even for 9000.1994.
What do I do? A bit of meat to the QA manual describing an agenda, action log and minutes as the record.

Sometimes its semantics...a flow chart to me is a form of procedure and I let it stand alone, to others its not...its a "flow chart" and then they write it again, attach it, and then call it a procedure.

With so many variations, you gotta talk the same language before you get into interpretations, or at least be flexible. The committee is allowing you to present what works for you, just be ready to justify it.

IP: Logged

Jim Biz
Forum Wizard

Posts: 275
From:ILLINOIS
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 21 April 2000 01:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Biz   Click Here to Email Jim Biz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Barb: The more I think about this the more I tend to believe we are all pretty much on the same page here if we‚re as you point out „willing to take the flexible viewpointš. Number them - however, count them - however (or not) describe the size of the animal in numbers - paragraphs - pages „shall do‚sš or your own other terms so to speak. Define it as a procedure/document/flowchart/controlled memo or just plain „document referenceš --- if it satisfies your auditor∑.. However, address in writing all of the language in a fashion that that can be justified and proven during an auditing surveillance -- for your particular business.

Back to the original posted question: „How do they expect us to document this?š would everyone agree that we can do it „as we wishš as long as we write something addressing all the expectations that the standard contains in a reasonable manner?

IP: Logged

isodog
unregistered
posted 22 April 2000 09:52 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
But it makes a BIG difference if I create a procedure and control it than if I just write a memo about how I am going to do something like contract review.

doesen't it?
Dave

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 22 April 2000 10:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by isodog:

But it makes a BIG difference if I create a procedure and control it than if I just write a memo about how I am going to do something like contract review.

doesen't it?
Dave



Answer? Controlled memo (quality record).

You document what you need to document. Check against requirement. Ask: Do I need anything else?

The point of all this is that you have to be able to explain how people know what to do. If the folks on the dock all know that chemical product X-1235f1-4QQ cannot be shipped unless it's at least 45 degrees F outside because if 'spoils' if it is exposed to temperatures of less than 38 degrees F, then you don't need a procedure. As an auditor I'll pull 2 to 4 aside and ask about this product. "It's January and you have to ship product X-1235f1-4QQ to Genrad. What is the procedure?" I'll expect something like "...product X-1235f1-4QQ is temperature sensitive. In January it's typically cold so we require a heater reefer." Auditor: What is the requirement?" Auditee: "...If it's less than 45 degrees F outside, we require a reefer." Auditor: "...How do you know when it's below 45 degrees out side?" Auditee: "...We have a thermometer outside on the dock." Now if the employee really wanted to impress s/he could say "...I check the weather channel in the mornings and know what the predicted weather is along the route. So even if it's 48 degrees here and I'm shipping to Toronto, I know Toronto is expecting 15 degrees - So I order a reefer..." I won't go into whether the wearther channel is calibrated, but I think you get the idea. Does the employee understand the requirement and does the employee understand the implications of a screw up with respect to product thermal stability.

Quickly, I want to say I define a procedure as a way of doing something whether it is documented or not documented. No more, no less. Again, I do not define 'documented' as requisite to a methodology being called a procedure. If you ask how I start my car, I tell you how I do it. It is a procedure. It is my procedure. May be I derived it from my owners manual (that thing the manufacturers ensure are comprehensable to total idiots {...Do not start the car while in gear...}). It is my procedure - I don't need a flow chart. I know how to do it.

Let's face it. There have to be some road maps. How far and how deep you document is a function of how well employees are trained with respect to aspects such as process complexity, employee turn over rate for the position and numerous factors.

You simply determine what systems you have to document while considering you company.

If you're 12 souls and your turnover rate is 0 for the last 10 years (I actually had a client like this - no kidding), every one knows what to do so documented systems is not a big deal. Auditor asks and everyone can tell exactly what to do.

If you have 20,000 employees you are going to have many master systems documented (road maps). And in any given facility with respect to any local process and also with respect to aspects such as employee turn over rate, you have to determine what has to be documented and what does not. And you have to be ready to explain why you document what you do document and why you do not document what you do not document.

What you do not document, you must train.

Get out of the 'required procedures' trap.

Comments welcome.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 22 April 2000).]

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 23 April 2000 05:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When I write a management manual, I generally write the organisation's mission and vision statement first, then a policy manual then procedures. The idea being that the procedures should reflect company policy, which in turn should be directed at achieving the mission & vision.
Writing a policy manual has a few advantages:
You have something which you can give your customers, on which they can base their second party audit.
If the policies are based on national standards, you probably have compliance with local and federal laws. For example I always call up AS4000 General Conditions of Contract in my 'Contract Review' policy, and AS1101 Drawing practice in my 'Design Control' policy. If the management System extends to the Safety area I call up Australian Standards for such things as the Dangerous Goods /Hazardous Substances policies.
There are a large number but finite number of areas for which it is desirable to have policy statements. (I always include policies for the twenty elements of ISO9000:1994).
Once you have got the policy manual, writing procedures is easy. First thing I do is flowchart the delivery process, then write sufficient to cover it.
If your organisation is 'project based'. I would write a project management procedure, a site management procedure, an audit/nonconformance procedure.
In doing it this way I suggest you avoid writing things which are often (and properly) already laid down in standards.
(In the past I worked in the metal finishing area, I found the information tradesmen gave me was often in accordance with Australian Standards, although they had probably never seen the standards.)
It pays to keep in mind what you are trying to achieve:
Satisfy (even delight) your customer by supplying conforming product (to the contract - implied or explicit).
Deliver on time.
Do it right first time.
Comply with the laws - particularly in the health, safety and environment areas.
In other words - manage the operational risks (the risks associated with the delivery process) appropriately.

IP: Logged

isodug
unregistered
posted 02 May 2000 11:36 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think it makes a HUGE difference whether you write a procedure which must be controlled, all revisions subject to signoff, and control throughout the company; or you have a memo record which describes the operation of Purchasing or cailbration. Do you?

dave

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 05 May 2000 12:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I really believe that all procedural documents, policies and work instructions should be controlled. I worked in one establishment where the Foremen (supervisors) were directed by notes on scraps of paper, from engineers and planners further up the hierarchy. It was an unmitigated disaster. The stress effects were I suggest, exhibited in the number of these supervisors who retired on the Friday and were dead by Monday night (happened three times in about a year).

When preparing procedures, I usually prepare a draft to be signed by the section manager. Whether he talks to his staff before signing, is his problem.

IP: Logged

Tom Goetzinger
Forum Contributor

Posts: 123
From:Milwaukee, WI USA
Registered: Mar 99

posted 05 May 2000 10:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tom Goetzinger   Click Here to Email Tom Goetzinger     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My experience is that if you are going to rely on memos, you might as rely on word of mouth. Documented, controlled procedures make good business sense, and can have a very positive effect on the organizational performance. You can go overboard, of course, but done properly, controlled procedures are the only way to go. IMHO

IP: Logged

Alan Cotterell
Forum Contributor

Posts: 120
From:Benalla, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Oct 1999

posted 08 May 2000 06:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Alan Cotterell   Click Here to Email Alan Cotterell     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As I have said in other posts, I think it is important to document sufficient and appropriate information to control the risk of supplying a nonconforming product to a customer. I see ISO9000 as 'administrative risk control'.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!