posted 04 April 2000 02:28 PM               

My contention is that if you put a several page Level 3 Work Instruction in front of an operator, they will never look at it. They can't, they don't have the time.

I am setting up our documentation this way, and welcome your comments, suggestions, etc.

Level 1 = Standard
Level 2 = Standard (very brief and generic - same level 1 and 2 for all 3 sites in 2 different countries)

Level 3 = Flow Charts not over 2 pages max with annotations on the side if needed (temp, setting, rpm, etc.) This assumes the operator, assembler, machinist, etc., knows their job and is fully qualified. They therefore don't need a detailed work instruction.

Then as a "Phase 2" of this system, we will have very detailed Training Procedures. These will assume you know nothing and will take you through the process step by step. They will not be at the work stations, only the flow charts will be.

What do you think?

Will this pass QS-9000 auditing?

More importantly, do you agree with me that it makes good quality sense?

Thanks in advance for your input.

posted 05 April 2000 05:56 PM              

True ...

"Level 3 = Flow Charts not over 2 pages max with annotations on the side if needed (temp, setting, rpm, etc.) This assumes the operator, assembler, machinist, etc., knows their job and is fully qualified. They therefore don't need a detailed work instruction."

Provided all satuff is clearly labelled with a label that matches what you call it on the flow chart. Or, the flowchart has a diagram of the tool (not knowing how big or complex your things are makes it hard) with some indication of the sequence and location of the adjustments.

"Then as a "Phase 2" of this system, we will have very detailed Training Procedures. These will assume you know nothing and will take you through the process step by step. They will not be at the work stations, only the flow charts will be."

"What do you think?"
One problem ... what if the person has been off on vacation for a couple of weeks and wants to review one or more parts in detail - how will they get the detailed procedure? And no matter how superb the training, a newbie will want the paper security blanket of a fully-illustrated step by step walkthrough for the first couple of weeks.
One way to solve this is to start the work instructions with the work summary flow chart, AND have a detailed illustrated version on the next xx pages. At the appropriate points in the condensed version, refer to the detail page by number.
This allows the training department to lift the detailed instructions for their own use.

"Will this pass QS-9000 auditing?"
As long as you explain what to do, or where to go to get further instructions IF it is impossible to set the tool as specified, it should. That's where most "cheat sheets" get nailed - not in the level of detail, because thgat is not specified in ISO 9000, but because they don't explain what to do for exceptions.

This can be as simple as a blanket statement "If any valve cannot be adjusted to the stated pressure, contact your supervisor. (or refer to the troubleshooting guide if you will have one)"

posted 05 April 2000 06:04 PM               

As for the training manuals being available, I plan to eventually have them on the intranet. Every work cell has at least one computer tied in with the intranet. So in that sense, they will be available.

posted 12 April 2000 05:32 PM               

Question - Is the training manual on the intranet a "controlled" document?
Does it have to be?

Yes, we have our intranet documents set up as controlled documents. In fact they are only controlled on the intranet, the moment you print them, they become uncontrolled and for reference only.

I believe the training manual should be controlled because it is an extension of your process documents. I have never even thought of NOT controlling them.

posted 12 April 2000 07:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Biz:

Food for thought - our auditors considered any uncontrolled hard copy printout even if it was clearly marked as an invalid obsolete document - unavailable for use

---

So - technically... Any uncontrolled hard copy printout, even if it is clearly marked as an invalid obsolete document (or marked For Reference Only, for that matter), is technically unavailable for use in decision making. It's sorta like you can rough in a design with old prints but you need the 'latest' for verification of the design you come up with.

posted 16 April 2000 06:13 AM               

I like the idea of procedures / instructions being max 2 sides A4 preferably flowchart/visual format- presumably if so the backup detail will be documented elsewhere e.g. in a training document(which would need to be controlled)

posted 16 April 2000 04:36 PM               

I don't know of an "easy" way to make a significant change like that. I am not sure "easy" and "change" are two words that should be in the same sentence when you are talking about changing "the way we always do it" in an OEM environment.

I just firmly believe that we are kidding ourselves when we put multipule page, complicated documents in front of an operator, assembler, etc., and say they are reading and following the Work Instruction. Try to sit at that station yourself and "read" the procedure and keep up with the production flow. It normally doesn't work.

posted 16 April 2000 07:39 PM               

You missed our point 100%.

This is not to get QS/TS certified, this is a far better system. Operators don't/can't take the time to look at long, detailed procedures (I know companies with 10 second tach times for their automated production lines).

The baseline for this system is trained/certified operators. The person knows how to do their job and only needs the briefest of a Work Instruction (flow chart) with annotations.

The Training Manual is the detailed document. Assumes you know nothing - walked in off the street.

The Training Manual is available to experienced operators, should they ever need it.

Bottom line: Detailed Work Instructions don't work in most production lines. So if we really want our operators to follow the Work Instruction, then we had better do the following:

[1] Train them very well (certify)
[2] Put very consise Work Instr. in front of them. I like annotated flow charts for this.
[3] Make the training manual available.
[4] Audit them freq.
[5] Retrain/recertify periodically.

posted 17 April 2000 04:38 PM              

Here's the revolutionary way I am doing something similar ... I'm asking the operators to come to a consensus about what information needs to be together as a single work instruction, what they need to know at each work station, where 1-page setup parameter sheets would be useful, etc.
It's a production line, but they seldom make the same thing longer than one shift before they have to re-set the tools on the line for the next kind of product - lots of very detailed information they would rather NOT have to remember.

posted 18 April 2000 02:58 AM               

The more detailed "how to" will be compiled into training manuals held in a central location.(Hopefully this will meet the requirement for "job instructions should be available at the time needed without disruption to the job being performed by the operator"