I have researched the threads (to my best ability) and have found no recent posts on HOW LONG CAN MY MANUAL BE? I am reading the 9000:2008 standard and can see that I can meet the 4.2.2 clause with a minimum amount of writing. The current manual is about 48 pages long and since I am upgrading why do I need more than what is required? I understand it used as a communication tool for customers and the like, but really... Iknow I can pare this thing down to 12-19 pages and still meet the standard. Then I won't be restating ot all in my procedures where I know it is needed.... Your thoughts and Opinions Please. Thanks in advance.

DICKGENT:yes:

I am in much the same boat; creating a Quality Manual (at the last minute of course) to meet a new need.

I am keeping the manual itself to a bare minimum, and currently have 13 pages (including the cover page) for the actual manual.

Supporting documentation (Process maps, turtles, etc) will compose another 30 or so pages, and the sub-supporting documentation (work instructions, forms, etc etc ad naseum) will (like always) kill entire forests.

But the basis of it all will be as bare-bones as I can pare it down to. That is what I recommend to anyone that is starting out; don't add in gibberish just to pad it out, and don't make the mistake so many of us did years ago, and copy the standard (ISO or QS or whatever) word for word into your manual.

My personal preference is a manual under 20 pages. The key is to decide who needs the manual and write the content for them.

Excellent advice from both Howste and Dickgent.

My personal preference is a manual under 20 pages. The key is to decide who needs the manual and write the content for them.

Could not agree more, Howste. And the person who needs the manual isn't the external auditor.


Short - as few pages as possible (no one wants to read through many pages)!
Don't repeat the Standard in words & structure
Write for your main audience

Excellent advice from both Howste and Dickgent.


Could not agree more, Howste. And the person who needs the manual isn't the external auditor.


Short - as few pages as possible (no one wants to read through many pages)!
Don't repeat the Standard in words & structure
Write for your main audience


Or go even further if you can and don't produce a separate "manual" at all. So long as you have defined (perhaps electronically) those things that it needs to cover as part of your system description, and that you don't need a "document" that you can give to someone, it is only the wording of the standard that implies that you must create a separate document. You don't.

Most manuals are a waste of time except for spoon feeding the auditors.

See this long and full thread QMS (Quality Management System) Manual - The Boss Wants a 4 Page Manual - What to Do? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4866)

Good link, Howard.

Also: Tell me How to Write a Quality Manual (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=27578)

How long can your manual be?

It can be so long that nobody will give it a second look.

There is no right or wrong other than having a manual that does not meet the requirements of 4.2.2

Or go even further if you can and don't produce a separate "manual" at all. So long as you have defined (perhaps electronically) those things that it needs to cover as part of your system description, and that you don't need a "document" that you can give to someone, it is only the wording of the standard that implies that you must create a separate document. You don't.

Say what? You don't need a quality manual? Perhaps you should read element 4.2.2 again.

Say what? You don't need a quality manual? Perhaps you should read element 4.2.2 again.

Huh? Not sure where you got this from. No one (to my mind) is arguing you 'don't need a quality manual'. Peter said one didn't need a separate manual - and is debating the form or medium that might take (and I'm sure is familiar with 4.2.2). :D

Or go even further if you can and don't produce a separate "manual" at all. So long as you have defined (perhaps electronically) those things that it needs to cover as part of your system description, and that you don't need a "document" that you can give to someone, it is only the wording of the standard that implies that you must create a separate document. You don't.

Peter, No, of course you don't need a 'separate' document, nor do you need something that is specifically titled a 'quality manual', etc etc. And yes of course one can use electronic solutions, such as the product sold by your company, other companies' products or house-built solutions.

I know this, you know this and it is explained by ISO in places such as 9001: (0.1 and Note 3 to 4.2.1), and the definition of a document and a quality manual in ISO 9000 (3.7.2 and 3.7.4), with their attendant Notes. And I've recommended, provided or created many an electronic solution.

But somehow it's still easier to write 'manual' and 'page' and speak 'hardcopy' language than have to employ clumsy and verbose expressions such as "hardcopy manual and/or alternative solution such as collection of documents published on an internet site/intranet/other application" etc. (I sometimes think it's no wonder the language in Standards is as it is and it takes so long to update them);)

Huh? Not sure where you got this from. No one (to my mind) is arguing you 'don't need a quality manual'. Peter said one didn't need a separate manual - and is debating the form or medium that might take (and I'm sure is familiar with 4.2.2). :D



Peter, No, of course you don't need a 'separate' document, nor do you need something that is specifically titled a 'quality manual', etc etc. And yes of course one can use electronic solutions, such as the product sold by your company, other companies' products or house-built solutions.

I know this, you know this and it is explained by ISO in places such as 9001: (0.1 and Note 3 to 4.2.1), and the definition of a document and a quality manual in ISO 9000 (3.7.2 and 3.7.4), with their attendant Notes. And I've recommended, provided or created many an electronic solution.

But somehow it's still easier to write 'manual' and 'page' and speak 'hardcopy' language than have to employ clumsy and verbose expressions such as "hardcopy manual and/or alternative solution such as collection of documents published on an internet site/intranet/other application" etc. (I sometimes think it's no wonder the language in Standards is as it is and it takes so long to update them);)

I'm well aware that documentation can be in any form or type of media as stated in note 3 of 4.1.

That doesn't get around the wording of 4.2.2 "The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual . . . "

This sure looks like he is saying a quality manual isn't needed:

Originally Posted by Peter Fraser

"Or go even further if you can and don't produce a separate "manual" at all. So long as you have defined (perhaps electronically) those things that it needs to cover as part of your system description, and that you don't need a "document" that you can give to someone, it is only the wording of the standard that implies that you must create a separate document. You don't."

If he is trying to say the quality manual can be electronic I don't have a problem with that. Saying one isn't needed is absolutely wrong.

I'm well aware that documentation can be in any form or type of media as stated in note 3 of 4.1.

That doesn't get around the wording of 4.2.2 "The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual . . . "

This sure looks like he is saying a quality manual isn't needed:

If he is trying to say the quality manual can be electronic I don't have a problem with that. Saying one isn't needed is absolutely wrong.

Jim

To my mind there is no reason for the standard to pick the few things which it says should be included in a "manual" (a term not defined in ISO9000, by the way) and exclude (for example) your quality policy. I have no problem working with a list of things which an organisation needs to define, but it is up to the organisation to decide how to do it, where to record it and what to do with it. As Jane says, you can build all the elements separately into a corporate intranet. In most cases I see no need for a separate "manual" - not even the standard explains why it would be needed, although it (unfortunately) implies that it is.

Jim

To my mind there is no reason for the standard to pick the few things which it says should be included in a "manual" (a term not defined in ISO9000, by the way) and exclude (for example) your quality policy. I have no problem working with a list of things which an organisation needs to define, but it is up to the organisation to decide how to do it, where to record it and what to do with it. As Jane says, you can build all the elements separately into a corporate intranet. In most cases I see no need for a separate "manual" - not even the standard explains why it would be needed, although it (unfortunately) implies that it is.

It doesn't matter what you "feel". It is much more than an implication. There is a shall attached. It is a requirement.

Not every word in ISO 9001:2000/2008 is referenced in ISO 9000. That doesn't mean we can give such words any meaning we want. Common sense and common dictionaries dictate differently.

To my mind there is no reason for the standard to pick the few things which it says should be included in a "manual" (a term not defined in ISO9000, by the way) and exclude (for example) your quality policy.

No reason? I disagree. I think there are very good reasons for each of the components it insists upon are included - I certainly don't see them as included on some arbitrary or 'what the hell?' basis (which a response of there being 'no reason' seems to say).

And re. quality manual, yes it is. See 3.7.4 in ISO 9000 for the definition of a quality manual as a "document specifying the quality management system of an organisation" (each term in italics references other definitions in it)

There is a shall attached. It is a requirement.

Yes, it is.

But nothing in ISO 9001 can or should be interpreted to read that there must be a separate document or that it be called a quality manual (or even that it meet the 'traditional structures and formats' that certain auditors may have become familiar with and accustomed to. It's just 'information and its supporting medium', and may be done in a whole variety of media and structures - to suit the needs and purpose of the organisation.

Any adequately intelligent and competent auditor I've every come across can cope with (say) an intranet or an online application or other alternative medium provided (of course) that it meets the requirements stated in ISO 9001 for documentation, including a 'quality manual'. Even when it isn't called that, and even when it isn't a document or something 'separate'.

Indeed, most of the best implementations of 9001 I've seen are when companies really embrace the principles of 9001 and embed them into their management system, including documents.

No reason? I disagree. I think there are very good reasons for each of the components it insists upon are included - I certainly don't see them as included on some arbitrary or 'what the hell?' basis (which a response of there being 'no reason' seems to say).

And re. quality manual, yes it is. See 3.7.4 in ISO 9000 for the definition of a quality manual as a "document specifying the quality management system of an organisation" (each term in italics references other definitions in it)



Yes, it is.

But nothing in ISO 9001 can or should be interpreted to read that there must be a separate document or that it be called a quality manual (or even that it meet the 'traditional structures and formats' that certain auditors may have become familiar with and accustomed to. It's just 'information and its supporting medium', and may be done in a whole variety of media and structures - to suit the needs and purpose of the organisation.

Any adequately intelligent and competent auditor I've every come across can cope with (say) an intranet or an online application or other alternative medium provided (of course) that it meets the requirements stated in ISO 9001 for documentation, including a 'quality manual'. Even when it isn't called that, and even when it isn't a document or something 'separate'.

Indeed, most of the best implementations of 9001 I've seen are when companies really embrace the principles of 9001 and embed them into their management system, including documents.

Amen. Quality people need to understand that contents and containers are different categories. We need to spend more time concerned about the former, and much less on the latter.

No reason? I disagree. I think there are very good reasons for each of the components it insists upon are included - I certainly don't see them as included on some arbitrary or 'what the hell?' basis (which a response of there being 'no reason' seems to say).

And re. quality manual, yes it is. See 3.7.4 in ISO 9000 for the definition of a quality manual as a "document specifying the quality management system of an organisation" (each term in italics references other definitions in it)



Yes, it is.

But nothing in ISO 9001 can or should be interpreted to read that there must be a separate document or that it be called a quality manual (or even that it meet the 'traditional structures and formats' that certain auditors may have become familiar with and accustomed to. It's just 'information and its supporting medium', and may be done in a whole variety of media and structures - to suit the needs and purpose of the organisation.

Any adequately intelligent and competent auditor I've every come across can cope with (say) an intranet or an online application or other alternative medium provided (of course) that it meets the requirements stated in ISO 9001 for documentation, including a 'quality manual'. Even when it isn't called that, and even when it isn't a document or something 'separate'.

Indeed, most of the best implementations of 9001 I've seen are when companies really embrace the principles of 9001 and embed them into their management system, including documents.


Nicely balanced response. However your assumptions about what he ment don't match what he has stated.

I have no trouble with unconventional quality manuals, at least to a point. I have seen them called a variety of things other than a "quality manual". Operations Manual, Company Guidance, Business Manual, and Management Directives are among some of the titles that come to mind. I do expect to see some reasonable structure, and I certainly expect to see the three specific things specified in a, b, and c of 4.2.2. A collection of documents scattered on the company hard drive with no organization certainly would not quality, nor would a file folder with a bunch of things thrown into it without any semblance of order.

I do expect to see some reasonable structure, and I certainly expect to see the three specific things specified in a, b, and c of 4.2.2.

There's not an argument from me when something is a mandatory requirement of the Standard. So if you're just saying these 3 things must exist, then yes, I agree with you. (If however, you are also saying - or implying/assuming - they ought to exist in specific formats or structures, I don't.)

A collection of documents scattered on the company hard drive with no organization certainly would not quality, nor would a file folder with a bunch of things thrown into it without any semblance of order.
I think we're in agreement here Jim! :tg: It's pretty hard for someone to argue 'we've got a system' when there's no organisation or order to it which can be explained or demonstrated. :nope:

We are in agreement.

No reason? I disagree. I think there are very good reasons for each of the components it insists upon are included - I certainly don't see them as included on some arbitrary or 'what the hell?' basis (which a response of there being 'no reason' seems to say).

And re. quality manual, yes it is. See 3.7.4 in ISO 9000 for the definition of a quality manual as a "document specifying the quality management system of an organisation" (each term in italics references other definitions in it)



Yes, it is.

But nothing in ISO 9001 can or should be interpreted to read that there must be a separate document or that it be called a quality manual (or even that it meet the 'traditional structures and formats' that certain auditors may have become familiar with and accustomed to. It's just 'information and its supporting medium', and may be done in a whole variety of media and structures - to suit the needs and purpose of the organisation.

Any adequately intelligent and competent auditor I've every come across can cope with (say) an intranet or an online application or other alternative medium provided (of course) that it meets the requirements stated in ISO 9001 for documentation, including a 'quality manual'. Even when it isn't called that, and even when it isn't a document or something 'separate'.

Indeed, most of the best implementations of 9001 I've seen are when companies really embrace the principles of 9001 and embed them into their management system, including documents.

Jane Thanks - of course you are correct that "quality manual" is defined. But as you have explained very clearly, the "document" ("manual") does not have to be a single entity, which is the point I was trying to reinforce.

What I was also questioning (perhaps to encourage folk to interpret the requirement in the best way for their own situation) was the list of things to be included in "it", and why "it" is listed as a separate requirement - why not also include the policy, objectives, the name of the management rep...? (Or just say that all these things need to be defined - it was the "reason" for the specific list I was questioning)

The quality manual can be a SINGLE PAGE. There are quite a few examples of this, some companies use a tri-fold pamphlet as the quality manual. Mine is three pages, around 100 words. You will need to refer to you procedures of course.

On the other hand, there are many examples of 100+ page manuals. It really comes down to the needs and size of your organization. The QM is the top level document that introduces someone new to your system, and provides a map/overview/reference for the people who use your system daily. It can state your 'policy' on how things are done, where a 'procedure' for people to follow is not required. It can even include procudres if you choose.

Just don't forget to reference the procedures in whatever you use as a quality manual. I know that concevably you could still do that in one page.

Peter,

I think actually we agree (broadly /in principle if a bit of minor debate about details) on this.

I think it's fair to say that the whole topic of documentation requirements is one of the big areas that isn't always understood clearly, can be a cause of much confusion and where there are some quite strongly held and very divergent views, don't you?

That that there are so many pronouncements from so many different posters (and so many questions) on what a 'quality manual' is (or is not) or must be (or mustn't) or should always contain etc shows this up. It could perhaps be made clearer (eg, by drawing together the various references to doco in various places).

But then we'd have nothing to argue about here - or we'd find something else to debate which could be a good thing :lol:

Thanks for your input... I was in your class in 2002. It has served me well.

Well..... I am glad to see so many responses in such detail. Thank You All. I think I have my answer. The VP of operations says he wants it to be a "sales tool" with enough detail to show we have a robust QS, but not too much detail trying to describe the entire system. I do not see the need or the efficiency to descibe all of the processes and procedures in the top level document. The current manual is over 48 pages, even after the "consultants" got done with it. They basically left in the 6 procedures required and turned the other 14 into flow charts and procedures that are not referenced in the QM!!. I'll use the flow charts (after heavy modifications) once I add the references to the input and output documents. So the short answer is I will write the QM to meet the standard and drop all the parroting of the standard and write the darn thing as it should be written. A document that describes our system and almost coincidently meets the stand (ISO; AS TS or any revision).
Thank you for all of your comments and responses. :applause:

I think I have my answer...So the short answer is I will write the QM to meet the standard and drop all the parroting of the standard and write the darn thing as it should be written. A document that describes our system and almost coincidently meets the stand (ISO; AS TS or any revision).
Thank you for all of your comments and responses. :applause:

That's great and sounds like a darned good plan!

I'm so glad you did got your answer, in among the quite spirited debate your question generated. :D

Peter,

I think actually we agree (broadly /in principle if a bit of minor debate about details) on this.

I think it's fair to say that the whole topic of documentation requirements is one of the big areas that isn't always understood clearly, can be a cause of much confusion and where there are some quite strongly held and very divergent views, don't you?

That that there are so many pronouncements from so many different posters (and so many questions) on what a 'quality manual' is (or is not) or must be (or mustn't) or should always contain etc shows this up. It could perhaps be made clearer (eg, by drawing together the various references to doco in various places).

But then we'd have nothing to argue about here - or we'd find something else to debate which could be a good thing :lol:

Jane

Of course we agree - we are both right...(!) My aim was to point out that the wording of the standard is not always ideal (it was produced by a committee, after all). Previous versions of the standard have resulted in folk interpreting a requirement in a particular way without questioning the underlying reason for it, or working out how best to apply it to their own situation. For example, 20 sections in a manual whether they tell you anything useful or not.

And surely we engage in "constructive discussion" rather than argument...?

All the best.

Of course we agree - we are both right...(!) :lol:Indeed we are. At least, I always am, not sure about you (I'm joking!)

My aim was to point out that the wording of the standard is not always ideal (it was produced by a committee, after all).
My sentiments exactly.

Previous versions of the standard have resulted in folk interpreting a requirement in a particular way without questioning the underlying reason for it, or working out how best to apply it to their own situation. For example, 20 sections in a manual whether they tell you anything useful or not.
Again, we are in complete agreement. :lol:
I think that considering why something is in there is the best place to start. Just maybe members of that committee may have known a thing or three about quality. :D

And surely we engage in "constructive discussion" rather than argument...?
I stand corrected. ;) :o :bonk:
And use 3 icons because there ain't no 'tongue in cheek' one.

This question is so debateable. I think your QM needs to be as long as necessary to include the elements required by the standard. Don't go overboard, like repeating standard references and requirements. Most auditors, and customers who read your QM will know what they are looking for. If you can say something in a paragraph vs 3 paragraphs then do it.

Our QM is two pages long and complies with ISO. No cover sheet, no regurgitated paraghraphs from the ISO standard. All I have to say is, "A flowchart is worth 20 pages."

Our QM is two pages long and complies with ISO. No cover sheet, no regurgitated paraghraphs from the ISO standard. All I have to say is, "A flowchart is worth 20 pages."

Would your prospective customers be impressed with it?
Does it represent your organization and its quality message well?

Stijloor.

We went from a 35 page QM that nobody could find anything in to a 2 page document that is effective.
When we had customer audits before, our standard response was, "Well, it's in there somewhere."
That doesn't happen anymore.

We went from a 35 page QM that nobody could find anything in to a 2 page document that is effective.
When we had customer audits before, our standard response was, "Well, it's in there somewhere."
That doesn't happen anymore.

Now you can say, "Don't bother--it's not in there.":tg:

Touché!

We obviously do have procedures and you may call it cheating but we have those living outside of the QM. If you included those (as some do) our QM would be 12 pages long.

Hi,

The shortest I have seen is about 2 pages! The new 9001 standard does not require much detail, scope (including exclusions), quality policy, list of procedures (or reference to them) and a flow diagram mapping how your organisation works!

Hi,

The shortest I have seen is about 2 pages! The new 9001 standard does not require much detail, scope (including exclusions), quality policy, list of procedures (or reference to them) and a flow diagram mapping how your organisation works!

Is the objective to produce a document based on "the least you can get away with" or a document that represents the company well and adds value? :frust::frust: If someone shows me a 2-pager, I am more than likely not going to be impressed with the rest of this minimalist approach in their quality management system.

Stijloor.

The devil is in the detail - if you have a good document management system with supporting procedures, etc then there is no need to make the QAM verbose. It also is a good demonstration you understand the standard as you have given exactly what they have asked for.

Also as many of the procedures will contain confidential information, you would not really want to be including them in your QAM would you! Add to that all the staff are supposed to read it, if you make it too long they will switch off so why not only provide them with information that is relevant to them.

Many organisations are stuck with the pre 2000 approach to quality and have not moved on. The standard was changed to be more relevant and inclusive.

Thanks JCVP1969 for "getting my back" on this one. I don't understand how some people can think that a document is a bad thing when it is user friendly, clear and concise. Any one in our facility can go to the manual and find the information they need less that a minute. Tell me how many people can take a QM that was written to "impress customers" and do the same thing.
We've been there and won't go back!

Thanks JCVP1969 for "getting my back" on this one. I don't understand how some people can think that a document is a bad thing when it is user friendly, clear and concise. Any one in our facility can go to the manual and find the information they need less that a minute. Tell me how many people can take a QM that was written to "impress customers" and do the same thing.
We've been there and won't go back!

While I agree that parsimony is a good thing when it comes to quality manuals and QMS documentation in general, "clear and concise" and "impress customers" aren't mutually exclusive attributes. The best quality manuals are clear and concise and impress customers.

My pleasure! I do a great deal of certification assessments and also have been working as a consultant in this business for quite a while.

Just make sure you follow what the standard asks for and not what everyone else does and you will be fine!

There seems to be this culture (sorry to say but it is worse in the USA in my humble opinion probably due to the FDA) where they almost weigh the document instead of reading it to see if it is any good!

By the way how many procedures do you have out of interest?

<snip> Just make sure you follow what the standard asks for and not what everyone else does and you will be fine!

I respectfully disagree. I do not necessarily do what "the standard asks for."
First of all, I do what makes business sense for the organization and its customers. Next, then I look what the standards say. Customer Focus is my primary concern when I assist my Clients. I have learned in the 22 years working as a consultant/auditor that when an organization follows that scenario, they're 98% compliant. We can add the rest.

Stijloor.

We both probably agree the same thing! To do as the standard asks is always a matter of interpretation (thank God) that is why we have a job.

I was just confirming he did not need a long QAM. If one wants to add some introductory information and also a summary of what is covered then there is nothing wrong with that.

I am sure you agree in the real world the only people who really care about the QAM are the quality manager and the auditor.

Most auditors will (or should!) be more concerned about how well the system is run rather than how nice the documents look.

Anyway makes for an interesting conversation!

Is the objective to produce a document based on "the least you can get away with" or a document that represents the company well and adds value? :frust::frust: If someone shows me a 2-pager, I am more than likely not going to be impressed with the rest of this minimalist approach in their quality management system.

Stijloor.


We have a 2-pager in the Attachments Jan......

As for how long can or could a manual be? Normally 8.5 inches or 11 inches depending on the paper used:lol:

Thats a tough one as the paper in the USA is a different size to the UK! I am sure if you use double spacing and big font you could go for a record!

Yes, I know...A4, right?

Yes, I know...A4, right?

Here (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html) is the scientific explanation. :D

Stijloor.

Here (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html) is the scientific explanation. :D

Stijloor.

I hate you, I hope you get fleas :lol: