I know this might seem like a dead horse to many, but I'm not satisfied that it is.

Is this a workable quality policy?


Continually Meeting Expectations

We will meet customer requirements in design and manufacturing, establish methods to measure the performance of our company, and encourage continual improvement in all aspects of business through compliance with ISO 9001.

Requirements per Iso9001:2008 section 5.3

Requirement A: Be appropriate to organization's purpose
Covered: Yes ("meet customer requirements in design and manufacturing")

Requirement B1: comply with requirements [of ISO standard]
Covered: Yes ("through compliance with ISO 9001")

Requirement B2: Use the words "continual improvement" (or for purists, demonstrate commitment to continually improve effectiveness)
Covered: Yes ("encourage continual improvement in all aspects of business")

Requirement C: Provide a framework for establishing & reviewing quality objectives
Covered: Yes ("establish methods to measure the performance of our company")

Requirement D: communicated & understood within the organization
Covered: Covered elsewhere, not as part of quality policy (see mgmt. review)

Requirement E: review for continuing suitability.
Covered: Covered elsewhere, not as part of quality policy (see mgmt. review)

Our quality policy was established simply as "Continually Meeting Expectations" some ten years ago. Without further explanation or argument, that seems to fail the requirements above (evidenced by reaction of auditors), so it is being expanded to serve an auditor (which is why it exists in the first place), not for any benefit to the company.

We all seem to ASSUME the typical interpretation that a "quality policy" is a laminated pocket sized lofty quote that everyone should memorize. Why? What is "policy"? Lets rephrase, you are asked "what is your countries foreign policy, and what does it mean to you?" How would you answer? Would you pull out a laminated pocket-copy and quote it in its entirety? I cannot determine how this quarter-page version of "policy" is supposed to help anyone or any organization.

You can see I am leaning toward a different interpretation entirely, what if:
This document and our procedures form the [COMPANY] Business Manual, otherwise known as a Quality Manual, Quality Policy, or Quality Management System.

The quality manual ("this document") is three pages, mostly diagrams rather than text. The procedures raise the total to 21 pages. Altogether, that's our policy. We could drop the "Continually Meeting Expectations" catch-phrase and the forget the expanded version. I cannot find a requirement in the standard that the quality policy be a statement, or that a quality statement exist.

But then, I'm a little too humble to think this is a proper interpretation and I'm the only person to discover it. On the other hand, I don't want to just go with the flow (adopt policy quoted above) if there is no measurable benefit.

Ultimately, the requirements of the standard will be addressed more verbosely in greater detail throughout our system (our policy). A 'statement' is wholly redundant, by the time all the requirements are reduced to a single statement it is meaningless jargon. I want to skip that, its anti-lean. Can I get away with it?

I know this might seem like a dead horse to many, but I'm not satisfied that it is.

Is this a workable quality policy?



[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Requirements per Iso9001:2008 section 5.3

Requirement A: Be appropriate to organization's purpose
Covered: Yes ("meet customer requirements in design and manufacturing")

Requirement B1: comply with requirements [of ISO standard]
Covered: Yes ("through compliance with ISO 9001")

Requirement B2: Use the words "continual improvement" (or for purists, demonstrate commitment to continually improve effectiveness)
Covered: Yes ("encourage continual improvement in all aspects of business")

Requirement C: Provide a framework for establishing & reviewing quality objectives
Covered: Yes ("establish methods to measure the performance of our company")

Requirement D: communicated & understood within the organization
Covered: Covered elsewhere, not as part of quality policy (see mgmt. review)

Requirement E: review for continuing suitability.
Covered: Covered elsewhere, not as part of quality policy (see mgmt. review)

Our quality policy was established simply as "Continually Meeting Expectations" some ten years ago. Without further explanation or argument, that seems to fail the requirements above (evidenced by reaction of auditors), so it is being expanded to serve an auditor (which is why it exists in the first place), not for any benefit to the company.

We all seem to ASSUME the typical interpretation that a "quality policy" is a laminated pocket sized lofty quote that everyone should memorize. Why? What is "policy"? Lets rephrase, you are asked "what is your countries foreign policy, and what does it mean to you?" How would you answer? Would you pull out a laminated pocket-copy and quote it in its entirety? I cannot determine how this quarter-page version of "policy" is supposed to help anyone or any organization.

You can see I am leaning toward a different interpretation entirely, what if:


The quality manual ("this document") is three pages, mostly diagrams rather than text. The procedures raise the total to 21 pages. Altogether, that's our policy. We could drop the "Continually Meeting Expectations" catch-phrase and the forget the expanded version. I cannot find a requirement in the standard that the quality policy be a statement, or that a quality statement exist.

But then, I'm a little too humble to think this is a proper interpretation and I'm the only person to discover it. On the other hand, I don't want to just go with the flow (adopt policy quoted above) if there is no measurable benefit.

Ultimately, the requirements of the standard will be addressed more verbosely in greater detail throughout our system (our policy). A 'statement' is wholly redundant, by the time all the requirements are reduced to a single statement it is meaningless jargon. I want to skip that, its anti-lean. Can I get away with it?

While I agree with your general views on the subject and share your disdain for cookie-cutter quality policies, if your objective is to be more lean you'll probably run headlong into auditors who expect to see a motherhood statement, and thus waste time in arguing your case.

If you want to do it anyway as a matter of principle, good for you.

It's easy to overthink the quality policy.

I was okay with the first part, but this communicates intentions or an objective, not a policy: establish methods to measure the performance of our company

BusinessDictionary.com defines the quality policy as follows: Top management's expression of its intentions, direction, and aims regarding quality of its products and processes.

I found a Quality Policy Gallery (http://www.simplyquality.org/qpgalery.htm), which I thought was kind of interesting.

Bottom line is, it should sum up how your organization uses quality to achieve its goals, presumably including customer satisfaction.

I have attached my revised quality manual, I think it makes more sense in that context.

EDIT: In the attachment, "executes" should read "This manual defines our..."

<snip>

The quality manual ("this document") is three pages, mostly diagrams rather than text. The procedures raise the total to 21 pages. Altogether, that's our policy. We could drop the "Continually Meeting Expectations" catch-phrase and the forget the expanded version. I cannot find a requirement in the standard that the quality policy be a statement, or that a quality statement exist.


You need to revisit clause 4.2.1 b) to find the requirement for a documented statement for a quality policy.

I was expecting to find the definition for "policy" in Guide to the Terminology used in ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3553791/Terminology.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3553791) but it looks like they dropped it from the current version (ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N 526R2).

The version issued for the 2000 edition of the standard (ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N 526R) gave the following definition (not sure if it's verbatim):

-course of action or principle adopted or proposed by a government, party, individual, etc.
-any course of action adopted as advantageous or expedient


Even with all the evidence to support your position, I agree with Jim - the auditor will make his decision on what you present on whatever basis he decides.

Like when the auditor for a certification audit kept asking "where is the documented procedure for Purchasing" and I kept asking "where is the requirement in the ISO 9001:2000 standard that we have one?".... He stopped when I showed him the approved version we had.

I agree with Jim (as so often).

EDIT: In the attachment, "executes" should read "This manual defines our..."

That made me happier (I had problems in how a manual could 'execute' something.

But would you consider simplifying the first few words only to make it clearer (and shorter) and leave no one in any doubt at all about what your policy actually is? eg, something like

Our quality policy is to meet customer requirements, in design and manufacturing, measure the performance of our company, comply with the requirements of ISO 9001, and encourage continual improvement throughout.

Which then leads on very well to the summary quality statement.

Final point: a manual (be it short, long, or something in between) is not a quality management system. In the case of a QMS that meets ISO 9001 it can be a part of one, but it is not, ever, the whole system.

No matter if we define a policy "statement" or a policy "manual", people need to be ready with the proper response to an auditor. So, I have been considering this instead. My earlier draft was too wordy, this is brief and very close to what we already have. It still covers all the same bases, but loses the cookie cutter wording.


This system meets the requirements of ISO9001:2008, applies to all critical aspects of design and manufacturing plastic injection and compression molds, and is based upon the following policy:

Continually Meeting Expectations

of our customers, of our quality management system, and of an advancing industry


It is my intent that "continually meeting expectations of an advancing industry" is a suitable explaination of what "continual improvement" means to us.