|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 Documentation
 Blanks on Manufacturing work instructions
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Blanks on Manufacturing work instructions |
|
Matt Murdock unregistered |
posted 05 March 2001 02:08 PM
 
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 |
posted 05 March 2001 02:25 PM
 
Matt, 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: ie "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. ASD... IP: Logged |
|
Dan Larsen Forum Contributor Posts: 137 |
posted 05 March 2001 03:59 PM
Generally, I don't like blanks on instructional documents, but as Al mentioned just make sure your system is consistent and understood. One other thought...you 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 unregistered |
posted 05 March 2001 04:32 PM
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 |
|
D.Scott Forum Contributor Posts: 37 |
posted 06 March 2001 08:45 AM
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 |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
