🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: bit.listserv.quality
Article #198

Re: ISO and Team Involvement: Approval Signatures??

#198
From: Bill A. Stetar
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:00
47 lines
3231 bytes
On 7/14/98 5:42 PM, Steven W Poole, (Steven_W_Poole@email.whirlpool.com),
wrote:

>We are currently revising our quality system, which hasn't been updated in
>a few
>years, to comply with ISO standards.
>
<SNIP>
>"What are the implications of having both management and hourly members of
>this
>committee sign and approve the Quality Manual? "

>Are registriars likely to question the responsiblity of committee members who
>are production employees once they leave the meeting? Also, are we setting
>up a
>document control nightmare by having that many signatures on a required,
>controlled document which may have to be re-approved every time one of the
>hourly members is replaced?

Steven:
My experience has been that ISO auditors do NOT examine the practicality
or legitimatcy of your processes. The critical questions are: Do you have
a process? Do you follow that process? Do you document your process? I do
not think you'll get feedback or answer on whether your approach meets
your needs or, in your case, whether production employees add value to
your process. For example, you could have a committee member who is a
clerk and knows nothing about the product/mfg process who is on this
committee. I don't think an examiner will remark: "This person is not
qualified to sign and approve the quality manual." Instead, you would get
dinged if your guidelines say "all" committee members must sign and that
person's signature is absent.

That said, you are probably headed for a "document control nightmare" or
at least a major bottleneck. I could foresee problems if you have a fair
amount of internal turnover (production people moving from one department
to another). Perhaps you could organize a pool of production employees
authorized to sign off, and amend your policy to require the signature of
one or more of these authorized production workers. Just a thought.

Respectfully,
Bill Stetar


 Bill Stetar, President                            voice: 615.244.2022
Performance Technology Group, Inc.                  fax: 615.244.2023
Nashville TN USA                                  ptg@internetMCI.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID: <0EWL00G4LQQ7GK@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1159be,4fd67a688ca7485e
X-Google-Attributes: gid1159be,public
From: "Bill A. Stetar" <ptg@INTERNETMCI.COM>
Subject: Re: ISO and Team Involvement: Approval Signatures??
Date: 1998/07/24
Message-ID: <0EWL00G4LQQ7GK@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET>
X-Deja-AN: 374598628
Sender: TQM in Manufacturing and Service Industries Discussion List <QUALITY%PUCC.BITNET@vtbit.cc.vt.edu>
Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU                              *
X-Sender: 108d4gkgab8a@mail24.internetMCI.com
Comments: ********************************************************
Approved-By: "Bill Casti (System Admin)" <help@QUALITY.ORG>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Received: from [166.55.52.166] (usr7-dialup38.mix2.Atlanta.mci.net) by PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET (PMDF V5.1-10 #27036) with SMTP id <0EWL00G4EQQ6GK@PM04SM.PMM.MCI.NET> for QUALITY@PUCC.BITNET; Fri, 24 Jul 1998 13:56:34 +0000 (GMT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.quality