Is it neccessary to sign the quality policy? We have the non conformity that we don't have the signed Quality policy on display. We had the argued that since the QA manual is signed & Quality policy is a part of quality manual so there is no need to sign the policy. Anyone can comment please!!!:confused:

Well, I can't comment too well on ISO 17025 as I don't have a copy but ISO 9001 certainly does not say that the policy shall be signed (5.3). I guess we consider it a controlled document in that it is subject to review and possible update so clause 4.2.3 says it shall be approved prior to issue - it does not say signed though.

It is not unreasonable to ask who has approved it but a typed name should suffice. This is especially the case with electronic systems of course.

Are you serious - the auditor gave you a NC for this ? If really true, bit too much.

Most policies have typed names and the actual signatures would be a part of the Quality manual. Apart from the signature, I would be interested in looking at the date too.

I'm not sure about 17025 either but I'm darn sure that 9001 doesn't require it.
Our registrar wanted to ding us for not having our "quality policy signed by the president" in the quality manual.

I agree with your logic - the policy is in the manual and the manual is signed, therefore the policy is signed.

I would contest it unless 17025 specifically states that the quality policy SHALL be signed.
Maybe it says "approved"... but "approved" does not necessarily equal "signed".

Is it neccessary to sign the quality policy? We have the non conformity that we don't have the signed Quality policy on display. We had the argued that since the QA manual is signed & Quality policy is a part of quality manual so there is no need to sign the policy. Anyone can comment please!!!:confused:

I just checked and it does NOT state in clause 4.2.2 that the quality policy must be signed.

In my view, signature is not important. If you show that the QP display and the manual are both same. Then it should be alright.

Also signature on the policy display - may give feel of organization commitment.

Based on QP only - objectives are derived.

A cheque book without a signature sent to a bank is acceptable?

Sridhar

Is it neccessary to sign the quality policy? We have the non conformity that we don't have the signed Quality policy on display. We had the argued that since the QA manual is signed & Quality policy is a part of quality manual so there is no need to sign the policy. Anyone can comment please!!!:confused:

Is this a controlled document? It probably is. As a controlled document, we would want to know where it was distributed like any other controlled document and who authorized the document. Does that mean that it has to have someone"s actual "John Henry" on it - no - but it does require a name like other controlled document unless you state in your quality systems that all controlled documents must be signed.

While it may not require an actual signature, I think that it would give the employees a higher reverence of the policy if it was signed.

Anyone can comment please!!!:confused:My only comment is to say no wonder ISO 9000 has so many detractors. We were asking that very same STUPID question in 1988, together with

Should a quality policy have a revision level?
does ISO 9000 allow for records in pencil?
can we use white out in our records?
and other useless, meaningless nonsensical questions.20 years later, the rookie auditors are asking the same garbage. Haven't we learnt anything? What value could a signature have there? If the auditor has any doubts the policy was endorsed by top management, just go and ask them...
It is sad that we are bound to repeat the same foolish mistakes over and over...

....Our registrar wanted to ding us for not having our "quality policy signed by the president" in the quality manual.

...


I would be pleased if the President KNEW the policy...never mind signing it...:D

You need proof that it went through an approval process - this does not mean a signature.

I just checked and it does NOT state in clause 4.2.2 that the quality policy must be signed.

Noticed which part of the woods you hail from so you may well be aware of the following. The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is a signatory to the APLAC/ILAC MRA. If you check their website, you will find interpretative notes which are to be used by their assessors. I have taken the liberty to cut and paste a few items from that document to show that there are different ways to approach the issue of signing the quality policy.

http://www.scc.ca/Asset/iu_files/criteria/1630_e.pdf

Management review: formal evaluation by top management of the status and adequacy of the management system in relation to the quality policy and objectives.

4.2.2
The Quality policy statement must be signed by top management, having the highest authority in the laboratory with the responsibility and authority for the budgeting of all necessary laboratory resources. If it cannot be signed (e.g. electronic systems) there must be a means of ensuring top management endorsement and control (document control) of the policy (password protection, directory rights, etc.). The management system objectives stated in the Policy must be measurable and must be reviewed during management review.

(Refer to the interpretative note Section 4.15.)

All requirements specified in 4.2.2 (a) to (e) must be documented

4.3.2.3
All documents in the management system (Quality Manual, policy, process, procedures, instructions and forms) must have a unique identification. It is not necessary for documents to be signed by the approvers to indicate that they are approved. Some electronic systems control the approval of documents without signatures. A laboratory could also have a paper based system without signatures; however, in this case, signatures should be a suggestion.

Notice that it says suggestion. Hope this helps.

I would be pleased if the President KNEW the policy...never mind signing it...:D


Heck, if the prez had heard about there even being one would suffice:lol:

"We have a policy? How long? What's it say?":frust:

Nowhere in the standard is there a requirement for a signature on a Quality Policy. It is not a record, under the definition. My advice: File an appeal with the auditor if he/she cannot show you where in the standard it is required. One thought though, if it is a requirement of your Quality Manual, obviously your stuck with it (or changing your manual). There is such a push inside most CRB's to get auditory consistency that I'm surprised the finding wasn't withdrawn (assuming the lead auditor reviewed the findings, of course:lmao:)

Hi,
Recently, I too had an experience with a CB during pre-audit, when similar problem of Quality Policy displayed were not signed. had come up. We showed that the Quality Policy in the Quality Manual was signed and that the Policy statement on display was no different. But the auditor did not agree and continued to insist. We however, were firm and we did not want to disturb the signatory of the company to sign in all the displays. Fortunately, the Auditor who came in for the Initial Audit did not raise any issue.
In my opinion, the signature in the Quality Manual is more than adequate.
Thanks

My only comment is to say no wonder ISO 9000 has so many detractors. We were asking that very same STUPID question in 1988, together with

Should a quality policy have a revision level?
does ISO 9000 allow for records in pencil?
can we use white out in our records?
and other useless, meaningless nonsensical questions.20 years later, the rookie auditors are asking the same garbage. Haven't we learnt anything? What value could a signature have there? If the auditor has any doubts the policy was endorsed by top management, just go and ask them...
It is sad that we are bound to repeat the same foolish mistakes over and over...

It ain't just rookie auditors, Sidney.
The registrar who made the same comment to me when doing a ISO9001 quality manual review is the director of auditing for his organization.
Then when the auditor got here, a guy who's been auditing us for 6 years for CE marking and has been doing ISO9001 auditing for about 10 years, it took me a half hour to convince him that it's approved just as any other controlled document.

I think some registrars like to dictate the system they want to see, standard be damned.

Noticed which part of the woods you hail from so you may well be aware of the following. The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is a signatory to the APLAC/ILAC MRA. If you check their website, you will find interpretative notes which are to be used by their assessors. I have taken the liberty to cut and paste a few items from that document to show that there are different ways to approach the issue of signing the quality policy.

Just a comment - their auditors are operating to ISO IEC 17025 - not ISO 9001 - it's not an excuse.

Just that accreditation body assessors operate to a different set of rules (and are a breed apart, IMHO). :lol:

Hi,
Recently, I too had an experience with a CB during pre-audit, when similar problem of Quality Policy displayed were not signed. had come up. We showed that the Quality Policy in the Quality Manual was signed and that the Policy statement on display was no different.

I'm not saying your CB auditor was right by any means - I'm just a bit confused about the logic of the argument.

If there is any document that should be signed it is the one on display to the workforce. If a signature has any value it is as a visual display of endorsement and commitment.

So the purpose of having the hidden document signed when the displayed version is not frankly baffles me ... :confused:

Yes. Sidney:

I thought that even years later, with the net, etc we would get rid of those rookie stupid "personal clauses" . As I say here, each rookie auditor has his own 9001 clauses and requirements!!

Here is a worrying thought about rookie auditors. I know 2 CB's who are actively trying to recruit new auditors and they both told me that there is a shortage of what they regard as experienced people wanting to work as a 3rd party auditor.

Now, this may be down to the CB's but I know them both well and I am not sure that is the case. The worry is that if there are no experienced auditors taking up the posts - we get more rookie auditors = more of this type of nonsense again.

Here is a worrying thought about rookie auditors. I know 2 CB's who are actively trying to recruit new auditors and they both told me that there is a shortage of what they regard as experienced people wanting to work as a 3rd party auditor.

Now, this may be down to the CB's but I know them both well and I am not sure that is the case. The worry is that if there are no experienced auditors taking up the posts - we get more rookie auditors = more of this type of nonsense again.

Now, Colin, knowing at least one of the CBs you work with it probably just is them! :lol: Only kidding. But perhaps:
Those of us experienced people in and around certification wouldn't want to be doing auditing day in day out
Maybe employing some "rookies" gives the CB the opportunity to train them so they get it right first time. There are plenty of experienced auditors posting here that have opinions I don't hold

It is a simple matter for any CB to publish guidelines and build a body of knowledge that their auditors work to. If they publish to their clients it also gets rid of the arguments between client and auditor as well. Perhaps we can start a thread and capture it in a "Top 100 NCs that aren't." :lmao:

What do you think?

Paul, I wouldn't argue with your comment about 'a certain CB' - they are not the same since I left :lmao:

Serious point though, during my time there I used to hold workshops with the auditors - both full time and associates - where we discussed exactly the things you mention. It was a way of ironing out what was and was not important. An auditor's life can be pretty lonely and if they don't get the chance to work in teams often - and most don't - how do they balance their judgement against that of their peers?

Just to add my experience- On our first audit by a major medical company we got written up because our Quality Policy sign (4 feet by 8 feet) didn't have a signiture. I refused to sign the audit and never heard any more about it.

Studies show that organizations that have their posted quality policy signed outperform the S&P 500 by 378%.
http://elsmar.com/jpg/sarcasm.gif

Studies show that organizations that have their posted quality policy signed outperform the S&P 500 by 378%.

ummm...is there a mutual fund I can trade on this factor...?

Studies show that organizations that have their posted quality policy signed outperform the S&P 500 by 378%.

And 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

And 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Now I heard it was 88.2% - Vic Reeves Guinness Ads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/859476.stm). :lmao:

Now I heard it was 88.2% - Vic Reeves Guinness Ads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/859476.stm). :lmao:

As far as I can tell, roughly 78.2% of the calculations regarding the percentage of statistics made up on the spot are about 75% accurate. Except this one, which is 100% accurate, of course. :tg:

If there is any document that should be signed it is the one on display to the workforce. If a signature has any value it is as a visual display of endorsement and commitment.

So the purpose of having the hidden document signed when the displayed version is not frankly baffles me ... :confused:

This illustrates the point perfectly as it is a statement of opinion, not fact. The fact is that the standard doesn't mandate a signature on the Quality Policy. If we (as an industry) allow auditors (me included) to get away with opinion-based auditing, then shame on us.

This illustrates the point perfectly as it is a statement of opinion, not fact. The fact is that the standard doesn't mandate a signature on the Quality Policy. If we (as an industry) allow auditors (me included) to get away with opinion-based auditing, then shame on us.Cogito, I agree with your underlying point. Auditors, when writing up non-conformities, must stick to requirements and factual evidence at hand. I wholeheartedly support that.

However, it is impossible for auditors not to bring their biases, cultural baggage, expertise, interpretations and opinions into an audit. The same requirement of the standard will be applied differently if I am auditing a nuclear power plant versus a dry cleaning shop. What I find concerning is to see auditors getting distracted and concerned over totally meaningless and valueless issues. It is like when an auditor sees something like the picture below, when conducting a safety management system audit, and his/her main concern is to go to HR to see if the people involved have a forklift driving certificate on record. :frust:
http://elsmar.com/jpg/forklifttoofar-thumb.jpg

Now please don't take this the wrong way .....

cogito, when you said:This illustrates the point perfectly as it is a statement of opinion, not fact. The fact is that the standard doesn't mandate a signature on the Quality Policy. If we (as an industry) allow auditors (me included) to get away with opinion-based auditing, then shame on us.In response to my post here, then you could at least have posted the full quote, otherwise it makes it look as if I am trying to impose my opinion re signatures on the OP. When, if you look at my whole post, you will see I said nothing of the sort.

Please excuse the added emphasis.
Just a comment - their auditors are operating to ISO IEC 17025 - not ISO 9001 - it's not an excuse.

Just that accreditation body assessors operate to a different set of rules (and are a breed apart, IMHO). :lol: No particular relevance to your post. I've just included it to show I'm not selectively quoting. ;)

I'm not saying your CB auditor was right by any means - I'm just a bit confused about the logic of the argument. This is where I am saying I do not agree with the OP's auditor querying the fact that the posted policy is not signed.

I then go on to say that the OP's argument to his / her CB auditor is the reason I am confused.

And now the bit you quoted:
If there is any document that should be signed it is the one on display to the workforce. If a signature has any value it is as a visual display of endorsement and commitment. Added emphasis here, my apologies for shouting. Signatures do have a perceived value - that is why we sign contracts. They demonstrate with our mark that we are the ones who endorse a particular statement or future action. Signatures are one way of demonstrating to others that we support (in this case) a policy.

So the purpose of having the hidden document signed when the displayed version is not frankly baffles me ... :confused:My summary. But what is the point of signing a document hidden away in a drawer except as a bureaucratic sop to an auditor.

So, I hope you will agree, no shame on me.

I do not care if a policy is signed or not. There are some arguments I do not understand and I feel comfortable questioning in the forum of the cove.

Long may it continue.