I have a question about this clause of standard:

(( The organization shall continually improve the effectiveness of the quality management system through the use of the quality policy, quality objectives, audit results, analysis of data, corrective and preventive actions and management review. ))

improving the effectiveness of the quality management system through the use of the quality objectives, audit results, analysis of data, corrective and preventive actions and management review is clear .
how we can improve the effectiveness of the quality management system through the use of the quality policy?

This is an excellant question.

You will find ISO9001:2000 littered with these nebulous statements.

It would be impossible to find a direct link between use of the documented quality policy statement and continuous improvement.

My advice - dont worry about it.

If the policy is a "living document" to use QS terms then it can be used as a fulcrum for change.
If it is just hung on the wall and not used as a real policy to live by then there is no chance.
The real question is " What is the quality policy and what does it really mean to the organisation?"

I agree Howard,

The objectives are supposed to reflect the intent of the policy and the management review shall asses both policy and objectives...

That's how it's connected to improvement.

/Claes

Howard and Claes are correct in their description of the purpose of the quality policy, however the ISO9001:2000 statement quoted is pretty un-auditable.

I am sure an auditor will not ask the direct question 'how does the use of your quality policy ensure continual improvement'.

He will undoubtedly look at how you address continual improvement, and if you cannot demonstrate it he may look at why you have not improved. But to be able to directly identify that the documented quality policy was not used would be difficult, unless the company had not systems for continual improvment. In this instance the NC would be against the large clause of the standard related to continual (or is it continuous) improvement, not the little bit on 'use of the quality policy'.

Wasnt the 1994 standard much better !!

5.3 Quality policy
Top management shall ensure that the quality policy
a) is appropriate to the purpose of the organization,
b) includes a commitment to comply with requirements and continually improve the effectiveness of the quality
management system,
c) provides a framework for establishing and reviewing quality objectives,
d) is communicated and understood within the organization, and
e) is reviewed for continuing suitability.

The Quality Policy directly bears on the subject of improvement, if you can be asked to show that you are applying b and e.

This is getting a little esoteric:bonk:

Wasnt the 1994 standard much better !! Well, I don't know... It was certainly easier to audit against the 1994 version, but I don't really think that being easy to audit against is the main objective of the standard (Even though it is desirable ;) ). In the end I think the new version will prove to be better when it comes to using it to build a QMS.

/Claes

Howard, I had to look up esoteric. Don’t that to us. That’s worse than trailing eggs.:vfunny:

I may be way off base here, but here’s my take on the original question. We developed a “Quality Policy” based on Section 5.3 of the standard. Shall ensure that the Quality Policy…..then goes on to say “includes a commitment to comply with requirements and continually improve the effectiveness of the Quality Management System……..is communicated…..We took that literally to mean that we had to have a company specificic Quality Policy (a tangible thing-not an ideal), like a mission statement, that addressed a), b), c), d), e) of 5.3. We did that. The policy mentions, in some way, the requirements of this section. There is nothing in the policy that you don’t have to do anyway, therefore you can say with comfort, "The organization shall continually improve the effectiveness of the quality management system through the use of the Quality Policy." What do you think? To me, it's kind of silly, but maybe the intent is to have everybody looking at the policy and seeing more than "We make good stuff":ko: :smokin:

Good point again Claes.

Like you say I guess the inclusion of this type of statement in the standard is to show that all this stuff is not just words on paper, but has to actually be used for a purpose.

But how you can demonstrate that use of your quality policy actually produces continual improvement, other than the mandatory statement in it that supposedly shows a companies commitment to continual improvement, is beyond me.

Would you cite in your N/C, if you found that continual improvement wasnt addressed, that the quality policy was not being used ? Personally I wouldnt.

Thanks M Greenaway, Howard ,Claes , energy .

I get my answer .
So bafore anything we commit to continually improve the effectiveness of the quality
management system in Quality policy document. and this commitment is the first thing to continually improvement.
Am I right ?

N/C's? My intent in this post was to point out that as long as your policy meets 5.3, there's nothing for an Auditor to get concerned about. An Auditor, here we go again, that would ask you to demonstrate the policy's effectiveness in Continuous Improvement, needs to be able to provide better answers on this subject than I see here. As an auditor, you have bigger fish to fry.

Now, prying into the mind of a potential pinhead auditor, I can see if an N/C was issued in regards to, say, Goals and Objectives where he/she may decide to include the Policy, too, as not doing it's job. We say " continually monitors to improve all aspects of our Quality Management System." But, in the very unlikely event of that ever happening, I would have to resort to Martin's method of document insertion reserved for those types of individuals. At the very least, we'd be talking to his boss.:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

The QP is how we are going to achieve our mission, vision and objectives, should be short and simple. Although, this is an area that ISO needs to improve in(read some Dr. D). Slogans are a waste, get everyone in the ship and do it.

Exactly energy - that what I was saying in that the statement is unauditable, but the intent is part of a much bigger picture.

I find we are agreeing a lot these days me old mucka. :bigwave:

Should not these come out of the business plan and management and not the posted quality "policy".

Maybe the policy will say that we use integrated plans and measurements, or something along that line. I have a hard time relating (in some cases) a 25 word policy statement with company measurements and performance that are directed to continuous improvement.

Let the level one stand by itself and use the lower level documents define the process for meeting requirements, whether internal or external.

Should not these come out of the business plan and management and not the posted quality "policy".

Maybe the policy will say that we use integrated plans and measurements, or something along that line,. But I have a hard time relating (in some cases) a 25 word policy statement with company measurements and performance that are directed to continuous improvement.

Let the level one stand by itself and use the lower level documents define the process for meeting requirements, wether internal or external.

Would you cite in your N/C, if you found that continual improvement wasnt addressed, that the quality policy was not being used ? Personally I wouldnt. Nor would I... I suppose I'd have a close look at management review, objectives and chapter 8 instead. Should not these come out of the business plan and management and not the posted quality "policy". The buissnes plan should certainly be part of the input for the policy: Clause 5.3a -> Ensure that the quality policy "is appropriate to the purpose of the organisation"

/Claes

I agree with Howards point on the fact that the QP is related to improvements.

For instance, 5.3a mentions the "purpose" of the organisation. To survive in this climate, an organisation needs to evolve or "continuously improve" and this may necessitate it changing it's "purpose". (?!)

In 5.3c, we have "quality objectives" and these may also change.

The QP is a living thing (or should be) and should be reviewed and improved as required.

As mentioned by someone else, if it is a lip-service statement that looks nice hung in reception, it might as well say something like........"We have always done it this way, we are not open to change and if you don't like it...tough"......or something like that.

Anyway, it's nearly easter

Originally posted by M Greenaway
Exactly energy - that what I was saying in that the statement is unauditable, but the intent is part of a much bigger picture.
I find we are agreeing a lot these days me old mucka. :bigwave:

M,

That bodes well for me as you haven't changed a thing in your thinking. Who says you can't teach on old dog new tricks? Wait, that's another thread. What's the English definition of a "Mucka"? We have one here in the states that sounds like it, but it's two words.:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

I know; off topic, so, what's new?