- 阅读权限
- 100
- UID
- 51752
- 注册时间
- 2009-1-13
- 最后登录
- 2012-2-4
- 金钱
- 1099
- 在线时间
- 494 小时
- 分享
- 0
- 精华
- 3
- 记录
- 0
- 好友
- 14
- 主题
- 99
- 日志
- 0
- 相册
- 0
- 帖子
- 660
- 积分
- 4996
- 威望
- 3
- 贡献
- 0
- 积极性
- 648
   
- 积分
- 4996
- 威望
- 3
- 贡献
- 0
- 积极性
- 648
|
发表于 2009-5-10 15:36:53
|显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 jelly1921 于 2009-5-11 14:07 编辑
以下是国外论坛对此问题的答复【时间关系,只能翻译大概意思——Jelly】:
Hi jelly1921,
Clause 4.2.3 is about Control of documents and I don't see it specifying what you are looking for. In my opinion you should comply with 7.4.1 - Purchasing process. But one of your procedures does not match practice. It should be updated. Talk to the managers and MR then decide which one to update.
应该符合7.4.1,但程序与实际不符,应更新
Regards,
Martin
*****************************************************
Actually, you ARE complying with Clause 7.4.1 second paragraph which also says, "Criteria for selection, evaluation and re-evaluation shall be established". You have a Purchasing Control procedure which talks about supplier evaluation and you have a supplier evaluation criteria document which also talks about it too.
What you are not complying with is Clause 4.2.1 a, b and/or c. You need to check for any revisions done (Amendment sheet of your procedure) specifically for this statement of when actually re-evaluations shall be conducted. If your supplier evaluation criteria document is the latest revision, thats probably the right one, then you need to accordingly update the Purchasing control procedure. This is part of effective document control.
你没有符合4.2.1 a,b和/或c)。需要检查版本修订情况,特别是再评价方面的叙述。如果准则最新,可能是正确的,那么你需要据此更新采购控制程序。
Ciao.
*****************************************************
What is the effective date of your system? If it is June, then the end of the year is May (never assumed that end of the year must be December). I would not fix the month for practical reasons.
体系的有效日期是什么时候?如果是六月,那么五月末(别老以为年底就是十二月)
有趣的答复——Jelly
*****************************************************
It is a safe practice to give yourself more freedom by specifying time as 'once in a year' in this case.By this you will not be tied-up to a short span of time to comply with the requirement.
Also never use the word 'All' ,(as in 'all processes' , 'all components', 'all personnel' Etc. )in any of your manuals and procedures.
规定“每年一次”你就有回旋的余地了。
别用“所有的”这样的词。
This will allow freedom for action and take away some tension from you .
V.J.Brahmaiah
Gud suggestion!!!——Jelly
*****************************************************
I assume that you've verified that the two documents actually do contradict each other, because they're not mutually exclusive--it's possible to do both. (正如王老师提到的那样——Jelly)What's actually happening?
假设确认两个文件矛盾,因为这两个文件不相互排斥,可能两个文件都执行。
It seems to me, if there is a conflict, that 4.2.3(A) is relevant:
Part of the criteria for "adequacy" of documents is that they aren't ambiguous and don't contradict other documented requirements. If we know that people are likely to be confused about when reviews must happen, neither document is adequate for its purpose.
如果文件不一致,我觉得与4.2.3a)相关。文件的充分性准则是文件明确,并且不与其它文件矛盾。如果我们发现在评审时人们搞不明白,那么文件就不是充分的
Jim Wynne
*****************************************************
Based on the details you've given(怨我没把整个题目翻译过去——Jelly), there isn't a nonconformity to speak of. You're citing two documents which each contain requirements. One states that re-evaluations occur each May. So, I'd look for evidence that the re-evaluations did occur in May. Then, the other procedure states that re-evaluations are completed at the end of the year. Consequently, I'd look for evidence that they re-evaluated at the end of the year. If evidence exists for both cases, I've verified that they've conformed to requirements. I try to find evidence that they've conformed to the standard, as well as their own procedures, before I need to record a nonconformity. Technically, they can document a different requirement in five procedures, if they wanted to. As long as those requirements conform to the standard, and they follow their procedures, there's nothing wrong. Insane, yes... wrong, no.想法不错,不过是够傻的了——Jelly
按照两个文件查,查五月份的评价,也查年底的评价。
So the real question is, did you look for evidence that re-evaluations were conducted in May and at the end of the year, or did you just stop when you found the "conflict"?
Incidentally, it really isn't uncommon to find different re-evaluation schedules. I've found many cases where companies had evaluation schedules for purchasing performance, then others for quality performance. They sometimes use a score card system, and the card travels with the vendor file. Each group participating in reviews records their data on the card, and it's evaluated at the end of the year.
随便说一句,发现不同的再评价时间表并不罕见。
Chris Ford
*****************************************************
Actually, these are ALL good answers, as far as they go, especially Chris's.
What you have encountered is an important aspect of Document Management - reviewing the organization documents (both internally generated and externally generated [customers and regulators]) on a regular, periodic basis to assure they are still pertinent to your operations and consistent with each other (Configuration Management) and have not become obsolete (Retention Policies.)
你所遇到的是文件管理最重要的部分——定期评审组织文件,确保文件与实际工作一致,并确保文件的一致性(技术状态管理)以及使文件别作废(保留策略)
It is good practice, when such discrepancies and inconsistencies and ambiguities are encountered, to re-evaluate the document with a view toward withdrawal or revision to make it consistent and pertinent to the on-going operation and to eliminate any potential confusion (and thus eliminate wasted time, effort, and expense in sorting out the confusion.
Wes Bucey
===================================================== |
|