I'm new to the forum, and I'm looking for some constructive criticism of our draft quality manual - which is base on ISO 9001:2000. I would appreciated any suggestions for improving our draft manual from any forum members who have experience in developing this type of document.

I've attached a copy of our draft manual, which was created in Wordperfect, and converted to MSWord. I am certain that there are now some formating issues, but I recognize the more people use MSWord than Wordperfect.

Any input forum members can provide to me will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks :bigwave:

dcqual,
Welcome to the Cove. I might seem a bit harsh but this is one of my passions (sad I know - lol).

I only read a few pages before I realised this is pretty much the same as any number of Manuals that I have seen. They are a regurgitation of the standard with your companies name put in the correct places. Don't take offence as most QMs take on this design. My only points are

Is the manual beneficial to you and your company?
Will anybody in your company be able to read and understand what the document is about?
What does it achieve?
Is it an easy read?

A work instruction shows people How to do a Task
A Procedure defines a Process
A Quality Policy says 'This is who we are and what we do'
What do you want your QM to do? If it is to appease the registrar then you have a winner. If you want it to actually mean something to your workforce then try something different like make the manual into an intro to the company. The standard does not really dictate what the manual must contain so why not make it something worthwhile. We are redesigning our manual so we can give it to all new employees and it will show them what we do, what we make, who we are, where they fit in, what we stand for and what our processes are.
We can prove all of the other stuff to the registrar so we do not need to document such things as 'Normative References'. This is my opinion only and many big companies will always take the standard approach, which is what you have.

We are redesigning our manual so we can give it to all new employees and it will show them what we do, what we make, who we are, where they fit in, what we stand for and what our processes are.
We can prove all of the other stuff to the registrar so we do not need to document such things as 'Normative References'.

Greg,

Based on some of the other stuff you have done (which is quite good) I'd like to see this when you're finished with it (or even in-process) if you don't mind sharing it. I'd also like to know how it is received by your floor-level employees as well as the registrar. Do the floor-level employees "get it", do they use it, do they understand it, does it help them, etc. ?

I've leaned toward the regurgitation of the standard for the QM and used the procedures and (mostly) WI as the documents that the majority of employees would see and have a use for. But I can be swayed.

dcqual

I couldn't download your manual but from what Greg says I don't need to. Seem hundreds like it. I'm a auditor/certification manager with a UK certification body. I would suggest you write in the manual preface who the intended readers are and the purpose of the manual. If it is only for the registrar to demonstrate compliance then say so. But, as Greg says, its better if the manual has use to your company. I think its good to do it almost like a software product brochure/website. Drop ISOspeak and use simple language. The functions in your QMS are like functions of the software and you simply bullet its features and have a short intro text. You can even include photos/graphics to make it attractive. There is nothing wrong in trying to "sell" how good your system is. So the manual should be a roadmap/overview to cover all aspects of your system so the reader has a good idea of what it is and what it does. I'm sure your marketing people would love this because they then have something useful to give to clients to sell your company. Don't worry about the registrar. You cannot fail on a manual. Another style less work is simply to make it a collection of company policy statements on quality aspects. So you regurge the standard. In this case it is a formal statement of policy. A bit like privacy statements you see on many websites.

dcqual

Don't worry about the registrar. You cannot fail on a manual.

With all due respect, Denis, I think some folks here (and some I have spoken with) would disagree based on experience. People do get dinged and hassled and forced to change their QM by some auditors/registrars for not having every single "shall" covered to their satisfaction and all "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed in their QM.

Many folks doing these manuals are just trying to get their job (ISO registration) done with as little hassle and embarassment as possible, so they see the easiest and safest way to do so is to regurgitate the standard, lest they miss something. That doesn't mean they are all not concerned with quality, but they realize that rarely will anyone outside the registrar and the Q Manager read the darn QM and that most of the "meat" used by the rest of the organization appears in level 2 and 3 procedures and WI, plus training and intangibles like culture.

Maybe you are not like this,but from the perspective of the implementing writer of the QM, can they afford to take the chance?

JMO.

Thanks for comments thus far. I believe that I'm in the boat with Mike (JMO) at this point in time. This is the first quality management system for this organization, and although I didn't use the "shall" words, I have covered off all of the standards requirements and organized our manual to align with the standard, with the idea that this would be easy for both our management team and any furture assessor to follow. I recognize that a more liberal quality manual can be created, but since we're just starting out on this journey, I thought it best to stick to a proven approach.

dcqual

OK I see where you are coming from. I'm not criticising you but it's sad. Your job is not doing a manual for your quality system but simply doing whats needed to get ISO9001. Fair do's, you do what your boss tells you. That's the problem really. Management is not commited to having its own Quality System to meet its needs. It just wants ISO9001 and do the minimum required to get it. Basically thats sad (as I see it). You should have your own system which includes the elements of the standard. The standard is not saying this is everything your QMS should be. A great manual I recently reviewed explained the whole company system. Far more than just the requirements. Took me long time extracting just the relevant bits for me but the manual was useful for the company. It was a frachise operation and they gave it as a all you need to know to run the business document.

If your QM is not going to be used for any other purpose than submitting to the CB that is a lost opportunity. It can be a very powerful and useful document if done right. But fair do's if that's the sole purpose. My "gripe" is these QM templates that simply rephrase the standard without giving any specific information about how the company does things. I hardly bother reviewing QM's now. I read a couple of pages and know the rest. I've seen the template. I'd rather clients not have a QM and simply fill in a big questionairre.

If the auditor is finicky about the manual then he's missing the purpose. Probably just doing his job to keep his boss happy. The manual should be suitable for your organization not easy for him. But I accept that is the reality of life where you are. Your comment endorses what I said. You don't fail because of a manual. They may raise minor NCNs or desk study points but so what.

Anyway you know whats suitable for your organisation.