Hello Folks,

I was wondering if this org chart is adequate, we are a very small company so we do not have all the departments and titles that a larger company would. I am just wodering if I have have to expand that lets say the office administrator also does AP/AR or that we don't really have a engineering department per se. Please let me know what you think as all info. is welcome.

Thanks,

Kris

Remove the names of the persons. People change, titles rarely do.

Hello Folks,

I was wondering if this org chart is adequate, we are a very small company so we do not have all the departments and titles that a larger company would. I am just wodering if I have have to expand that lets say the office administrator also does AP/AR or that we don't really have a engineering department per se. Please let me know what you think as all info. is welcome.

Thanks,

Kris

Looks ok to me, Kris, with one exception: I would remove the names of the people in those positions. Reason: the positions will remain (usually) long after the people have moved on. In case you have turnover in these positions, the org chart won't have to be revised every time someone changes positions, gets promoted, gets fired, etc.....

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

I thought it looked ok but I just wanted to make sure.

I would identify the Management Representative.

Hello Folks,

I was wondering if this org chart is adequate...
Hi Kris,

Since there are no requirements for an org chart in ISO 9001 I need more information. For any document there are at least two things I need to know before I can tell if it's adequate:

1) Who will be using this document ?
2) What information do they need from it? (What's it's intended purpose?)

I think it looks great, although you should identify the Management representative.

We originally did not list peoples names with the titles because we have several people doing more than one job here and we wanted each "job" kept seperate. Our auditors always complained that it didn't list the peoples names, but we refused to put them in for our own reason and since it's not required they could do nothing about it. We have, however, recenlty changed ours to list the people and condense our chart to one spot per person listing their job title(s) under their name.

I really have no issue with people's names in a small organization. In many cases, folks wear, like 15 hats and employees might not know who wears each hat. For example, one company I worked with had no purchasing department, or office. Even though more than one person could buy, only one had responsibiltiy for the process. If you asked anyone, the probably could not tell you who. The org chart with names lets folks know who wears what (which?) hats.

I would also add the Customer, if you are a Customer focused company.

I would also add the Customer, if you are a Customer focused company.

Interesting point here. I have never thought of that.

If it is used to assist ISO 9001 (i.e for 5.5.1) might also be an idea to add "Internal Auditor".

If it is used to assist ISO 9001 (i.e for 5.5.1) might also be an idea to add "Internal Auditor".

That is possible, but I feel that the process interaction would have that identified. But, it is a good point.

Names, no names, the choice is up to you. It would depend greatly on how often those people move around or your rate of turnover (which is probably not all that great in a company this size?). Do what works for you. Oh, not sure that you actually have to name/show the silent partner, because if he is truely silent, he probably does not influence the daily operation of the quality management system (depends upon how silent he wants to remain;)?) Don't think it would matter much. Make your system work for you.

What I see looks like it would pass muster, as long as you need an org chart (not required per the std, but a good visual way to meet the requirements) and that you do make sure to identify the management rep and his/her lines of reporting.

Looks ok to me, Kris, with one exception: I would remove the names of the people in those positions. Reason: the positions will remain (usually) long after the people have moved on. In case you have turnover in these positions, the org chart won't have to be revised every time someone changes positions, gets promoted, gets fired, etc.....

Hope this helps.

I would give my left leg if they would quit changing titles (positions) around here, but since that isn't happening, I have to change the org chart in the QM before each audit. :mad:

I do leave off names - ohterwise it would be twice as bad!

I would give my left leg if they would quit changing titles (positions) around here, but since that isn't happening, I have to change the org chart in the QM before each audit. :mad:

I do leave off names - ohterwise it would be twice as bad!

Remember...there is no requirement to have an Organizational Chart, just defined responsibilities.

Suggestion...remove the organizational chart from the QM. Therefore, you don't have to change levels of the QM every time there is a change in the Organization. Just my opinion.

I would give my left leg if they would quit changing titles (positions) around here, but since that isn't happening, I have to change the org chart in the QM before each audit. :mad:

I do leave off names - ohterwise it would be twice as bad!

I agree with Coury. I've never seen a reason to put an org chart in the quality manual. What's the purpose?