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
  Blanks on Manufacturing work instructions

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:   Blanks on Manufacturing work instructions
Matt Murdock
posted 05 March 2001 02:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We utilize a generic setup sheet( work instructions) for our machines. Some fields are not applicable for certain machines. Is it necessary for these fields to be identifed as "n/a" or can they just be left blank. This issue has causes us some confusion. Any input is greatly appreciated.

IP: Logged

Al Dyer
Forum Wizard

Posts: 622
From:Lapeer, MI USA
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 05 March 2001 02:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Al Dyer   Click Here to Email Al Dyer     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

I don't see it as a major concern although it would be good to have a common methodology. Either on the form or corresponding procedure you could put some type of disclaimer:


"All non-applicable fields must be filled in with N/A"

"Blank fields on this form are considered not applicable"

I think as long as there is a common understanding there would be no internal or external (registrar) concerns, if you can justify and document your position.


IP: Logged

Dan Larsen
Forum Contributor

Posts: 137
From:Sussex, WI
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 05 March 2001 03:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Larsen   Click Here to Email Dan Larsen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Generally, I don't like blanks on instructional documents, but as Al mentioned just make sure your system is consistent and understood.

One other mention "confusion". It might be good to take a hard look at what's causing the confusion with a root cause analysis. Is the root cause a lack of uniform instructions or the presence of the blanks?

IP: Logged

Matt Murdock
posted 05 March 2001 04:32 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The confusion ( better term would be concern) relates to whether the blanks on these instructions can be viewed as a noncompliance by an external auditor.

IP: Logged

Forum Contributor

Posts: 37
From:Wellington, OH USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06 March 2001 08:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for D.Scott   Click Here to Email D.Scott     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Blanks are a big concern to our auditor. Sort of like the basketball ref who watches 3 seconds. We got a nonconformance for ONE. I don't like the idea of stating in the procedure that blank fields are to be considered as not applicable. What if the quality approval of set-up were left blank would it be not applicable? We are stressing that all blanks need to be filled in. If no data is applicable put N/A or - in the space. At least something to show it was addressed. BTW - has anyone else noticed that since "Concerns" were dropped, single observations have become nonconformances and "Opportunities" have become mandatory by next surveillance?

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!