Welcome to the Cove, CHRSCLLNGS :bigwave: NOW I have 3 copies, 1 for the shopfloor, 1 for me and 1 for the MDI hear you. We now have one original (I have it), and that's it... all seven pages of it. It is available to all staff via our intranet, and to others on request.

/Claes

I would love that Claes, but we don't have an intranet, or a real IT department to set one up. I have a 30 page Manual AND a 60 page Procedures Manual! These were,
cheekily, given to my predecessor by an un-named party who comes in annually!

These were, cheekily, given to my predecessor by an un-named party who comes in annually!Ah... I see.

/Claes

I would love that Claes, but we don't have an intranet, or a real IT department to set one up. I have a 30 page Manual AND a 60 page Procedures Manual! These were,
cheekily, given to my predecessor by an un-named party who comes in annually!

Your previous post said you had 26 copies of these. Can you at least have those who have computer access use it from the server and reduce the number of books to 10 or less?

I don't think the focus should be on numbe rof pages, I think it should be content. Somewhere, your QMS must have content, else the number of pages you ahve doesn't matter. But, at elast you could reduce the number of copies.

I don't think the focus should be on number of pages, I think it should be content. Somewhere, your QMS must have content, else the number of pages you have doesn't matter.

Couldn't agree more. The number of pages is utterly irrelevant and completely immaterial - what's right for one organisation won't be for another.

What matters is that the documentation has appropriate content and suits the needs of the particular organisation.

Any decision on documentation (including that quality manual) always has to take into account key issues of purpose and audience, as well as context - what technology exists (if any)? Online or hardcopy? Small or big? Intranet delivery is, for example, useless to any site where people work outdoors or in physical conditions (eg, mine site); similarly, in a small organisation, a single skinny little manual may be perfectly fine. It always depends.

But content - ah, that's always critical.

Couldn't agree more. The number of pages is utterly irrelevant and completely immaterial

I think we are probably in agreement but I still have a major problem with this statement. Content is all, different organisations will have different needs and different sizes of documentation and size is certainly not a valid comparator between systems.

HOWEVER! ;-)

The number of pages is not irrelevant because at some point people in your organisation are going to have to actually read at least parts of your handbook. The more concise and to the point it is, the more they will be prepared to actually read it and the easier they will understand it. "As much as necessary, as little as possible". A 20-volume documentation will be regarded as the plaything of the Quality Manager. A 20-Page Manual will almost always get more buy-in from the shop-floor or its equivalent (That all? Hey, thats easy. I can do that...)

For me this is exactly the advantage of ISO 900x:2000 and the new TS 16949 over the old 20 paragraphs struff - You dont haveto describe things you dont intend to need.

I have a supplement document to the QM which is available to print hard copy ( 9 pages)the bulk of our QMS (or Business Management System ) as we are now calling it is a web based one on our intranet. The acual standard does not actually say the QM needs to be a document in its own right.
It's not one of the required 6 documented procedures after all.
We all know a QMS is a documented management system not a system of documents

The more concise and to the point it is, the more they will be prepared to actually read it and the easier they will understand it. "As much as necessary, as little as possible".



Absolutely agree. Something I've written about exhaustively in many posts.

Look, I think we're in strong agreement. But I stand by my statement of number of pages being irrelevant. Perhaps I confused by leaving out the all-important proviso 'provided it's as clear and usuable and short as possible' , then the number of pages is irrelevant.

I continue to argue against using number of pages alone as a fully valid or useful measure.

I've seen 'short' documents of pages which were virtually unreadable. Not necessarily because of content, but achieved by squeezing stuff onto pages: they had tiny margins, used ALL CAPITALS WHICH ARE JUST ABOUT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE HUMAN EYE TO READ EASILY, close-spaced type, tiny fonts, no spaces between paragraphs, etc, few headings.

Whereas the same document spread over perhaps twice as many pages - but using good graphic/ desktop principles like wide margins, plenty of white space, upper & lower case, suitable headings, tables instead of text perhaps, and so on - transformed the same document into something that people could actually pick up without their heart sinking into their boots.

Same thing for PowerPoint demos - short alone isn't an adequate metric.

I aim always but always for as short as possible - but taking the needs of the particular organisation, its people, its culture and principles of usability and good document design always into account also.

I want people to read & use the documents, yes.

Otherwise there's simply no point whatsover.

WAFTAM. (The polite version of which is: Waste of Flipping Time and Money) ;)

Hi Buddy !!!!

Possible...........

The 3-4 page quality manual will have only one or two lines each about all the clauses covered as per the QMS activity and all the clause should point to separate documents mentioning about the respective activities either described in flow charts or procedures as per ISO 9001:2000 requirements.

In this process the quality manual will become slim and trim and the other doceumentaions will become hefty.

Rather non-conventional...huh??????;)

Cheers:cool:

Arindam

Hi Buddy !!!!

Possible...........

The 3-4 page quality manual will have only one or two lines each about all the clauses covered as per the QMS activity and all the clause should point to separate documents mentioning about the respective activities either described in flow charts or procedures as per ISO 9001:2000 requirements.

In this process the quality manual will become slim and trim and the other doceumentaions will become hefty.

Rather non-conventional...huh??????;)

Cheers:cool:

Arindam


In my opinion, that makes the Quality Manual essentially a 4 page Table of Contents. However, you have many procedures. An alternative would be that at least half of those other procedures could probably be contained within the Quality Manual, and you could reduce the excess documents.

Either approach ends up in a similar place though. The focus should be on content, not number of pages.

Hi buddy Hjilling!!!!

Thank you very much for the feedback. Just for knowledge sake, i want to know is there any mention of "Table of Contents" in the ISO 9001:2000 QMS????


Cheers:cool:

Arindam

Hi

Currently my company has a large QM and we have just pasted our audit, however during the audit I informed the assessment team leader we will be presenting a QM of 1 page long next visit, that will meet the requirements of 4.2.2., he reviewed the "proof" and agreed it will be acceptable.

I have attached a copy - any comments!

The company name has been removed as its not a working document yet.

The same document format for ISO14001 (EM) was also presented to our enviromental auditor, with core procedures combined, again this received positive comments.

Try to make a 4 page Quality Manual if your boss says so.:applause:

...a QM of 1 page long...
I have attached a copy - any comments!


I agree that the 1 page QM perfectly meets requirements of ISO 9001:2000 (just in the "Scope" I would have "ISO 9001:2000(E), no exclusions").

Furthermore I would refer you to ISO 10013:1995 (Guidelines for Developing an ISO 9000 Quality Manual): http://www.praxiom.com/iso-10013.htm

According to the ISO 10013: 1995 the purpose of a QM may be to:

Describe your quality system.
Describe quality policy and procedures.
Define the quality standards that will be used.
Explain how quality requirements will be met.
Prove that your quality system is documented.
Control quality work practices and activities.
Teach people about your quality requirements.
Guide the implementation of your quality system.
Serve as a stable definition of your quality system.
Show that your quality system meets requirements.

It looks like that the 1 page document does not explain how the quality requirements are met.

Personally I feel very comfortable having all the standard copied/pasted in my QM along with references to the QP's for each requirement.
That is mostly to
- "guide the implementation of quality system",
- "show that quality system meets requirements" of its Scope.
In simple words: in my QM I have written answeres to any questions pertaining to the documentation of our QMS (it saves some brain work answering some questions of auditors); the QM was also to a great aid in writing of our QP's; it also demonstrates mgmt commitment to the requirements of the Scope (that formally empoweres me of asking ppl to do what the standard wants to the benefit of our Company).
Also I believe that it may be handy to keep the master copy of the quality policy in a QM.

So, what is the and who is to benefit from changing of a "big QM" to a 1 page document?

Hi

Currently my company has a large QM and we have just pasted our audit, however during the audit I informed the assessment team leader we will be presenting a QM of 1 page long next visit, that will meet the requirements of 4.2.2., he reviewed the "proof" and agreed it will be acceptable.

I have attached a copy - any comments!

The company name has been removed as its not a working document yet.

The same document format for ISO14001 (EM) was also presented to our enviromental auditor, with core procedures combined, again this received positive comments.


OK, so it fits in one page. But, then we have a level one (which used to be considered the quality manual). So you have it in two documents. Others put it in one...

Why is the number of pages a goal? Is someone giving prizes? I once saw the whole Bible on a 2x2 inch microfiche.

Wow, imagine what we could do with that.

I say, let's focus on making a manual that is useful to the users, and it will be however many pages it ends up being.

I say, let's focus on making a manual that is useful to the users, and it will be however many pages it ends up being.

Could not agree more.

I have created a quality manual for our company which is 40 pages. It simply covers every element with a paragragh or so, except for Management Responsibility is covered in the manual instead of a procedure.
My superiors feel the manual should only be 3 or 4 pages long. Most of this reasoning is from different companies who have claimed to be certified.
Am I wrong in assuming a 3 or 4 page manual would not be adequate, and what exactly would be accurate?
Thanks, Dawn

That depends on your definition of a quality manual and a procedures manual. You quality manual can be of any size...ours is 1 page. All it is, is an 80,000 ft overview of what the company is and does. According to ISO (at least the 9000 series) the manual must have the scope of the QMS, documented procedures or reference to them, and a description of the interaction of the processes.

What I believe you are refering to is a Procedures manual stating what you do to produce/service what you actually produce/service. This can be of any size depending on the complexity...40 pages is quite normal...ours is 36. IMO 4-5 pages will not cut it without leaving valuable information out.

I agree with PAZUZU our manual is written for a practical use within a small company of 25 – 30 personnel, being based on its size, activities and competence of the employees’ - Clause 4.2.1 Note 2.

The number of pages are irrelevant my “prize”, is allowing time to focus on the processes to meet our customer requirements, albeit product or services.

The Quality Manual is not the primary method of achieving requirements it’s a combination with the system processes

ISO has clearly identified the 3 main clauses in 4.2.2, Scope, documented procedures or reference to them and the interaction of elements within the QMS.

ISO clause 4.2.1 (b) has listed the Quality Manual as a stand-alone part of the QMS documentation.

The manual addresses the main “overview” visually showing the process-based QMS model and Scope. I have few customers who require to see our manual, they ask for our certification.

For training personnel who are not “quality people” It will be a very efficient method to show links between segments of ISO 9001:2000, enabling them to identify the procedures / work instruction need for their functions.

Issue release will control the “Quality Manual”, objective being no further changes once issued (defined in procedure – Document control), this will be useful as I’m the only “Qualified Quality” employee.

Level 2 documentation will define the details to achieve “customer expectations” – through responsibilities, controls & activities.

I have attached a procedure – QEP 01 – Management Responsibility to demonstrate the next level of commitment to “customer requirements”; this section refers to the Quality Policy & Objectives.

My core time and money is focusing on the system part of the QMS, keeping the “QM” simple, clear and concise.

I would like to see some of the other 1 to 5 page manuals raised by members who voted last look about 6%

I agree with PAZUZU our manual is written for a practical use within a small company of 25 – 30 personnel, being based on its size, activities and competence of the employees’ - Clause 4.2.1 Note 2.


Britman, thank you and thank you for that attachment!! That's exactly the sort of things I'm in the hunt for!! You just made my life a litle bit easier!! :D
:thanx:

I view the Quality Manual as a "glorified business card" stating what you want the world (existing and future Customers) to know about your quality system. It provides a first impression of your organization and should represent your company well. The number of pages is irrelevant. Whatever is necessary to get the message across.

Stijloor.

A Quality Manual that is a 4 page ? I wouldn't know where to start.
Being in the Printing Trade I have seen some real small type. I don't know how an auditor would accept it.

A Quality Manual that is a 4 page ? I wouldn't know where to start.
Being in the Printing Trade I have seen some real small type. I don't know how an auditor would accept it.

It depends on your frame of reference. Many organizations have a reprint of ISO 9001 as their Quality Manual (which is debated endlessly here, if you want to research threads) and most stay put on the shelf. Until audit time.

Why wouldn't an auditor accept it? Actually it has nothing to do with their 'acceptance' of it, simply a matter of compliance and effectiveness. No-one ever made it a requirement to 'address all the shalls' etc. Auditors have and continue to accept manuals with a few pages.

Indeed one of our Cove-ers - "Mustang" - had a brilliant bi-fold manual which was successful in their ISO/TS 16949 audit. It's that kind of 'out of the box' thinking which will help to speed people's acceptance of these requirements as a way of life, rather than the qms being just a bureaucracy..............

Patriot, as you can see from the length of this thread, the topic it is a long and contentious issue. And, as you will find out here and in other threads, coming 'in at the end' is a precarious position to be in, without digesting all that has gone before.

We all hope you continue your enthusiastic search for knowledge, in these postings! Enjoy!

Dawn,

I believe you are on the correct path. In agreement with Marc, placing policy (level 1) into the procedural level documents (level 2) makes it difficult for a Registrar (anyone for that matter) to do a good desk study. This may lead to problems during registration. This unstructured Quality Program method is the road less traveled, and probably for good reason. I would not recommend this method, although I have seen it work (to my amazement). Lengths for Quality Manuals will vary greatly. 3-4 pages? I'd have to see that to believe it. My original Quality Manual was 24 pages and was inclusive of some of the Managament Responsibility and the Quality System element points. If you add the organiizational charts, then 30 pages.

I may have been a bit more wordy in the Quality Manual than in our procedures, but I thought it more important to make this document an easier read as well as more visually appealing to our Customers. Generally speaking, a Customer will request the Quality Manual for your company and not the Level 2 documentation. How would you, or the General Manager in your company, feel handing out a 3-4 page Quality Manual? Is this how Senior Management wants to sell the company's commitment to Quality? Probably not. It sounds to me that you may be on the right road.




You are righ sir,if in quality manual organizational chart and department interaction chart is inserted then atleast 30 pages will be.
I m interesting to see how 3 to 4 pages manual can be made....

thank you.
Ahsan saleem

Look through this thread and you will find a lot of examples of various size Manuals

And you will find this is a very old thread (started on 10th November 1998), so the requirements for quality manuals, and auditor expectations, have changed significantly simce the first post in this thread.

And you will find this is a very old thread (started on 10th November 1998), so the requirements for quality manuals, and auditor expectations, have changed significantly simce the first post in this thread.

Well,the only constant in the wor(l)d is 'change'.

Wheather for the better,or for the worse,change is eminent.If we are able to control and guide the process on the positive side,we may lead towards 'Kaizen'.Even if you err,err on the positive side.

As for restricting the Quality Manuel within 3-4 pages,why not?With the advanced technology it can be restricted to a 'stop'.Photograph all the documents and condense them in a 'stop',some thing regularly being done in espionage.

I know it does'nt help,but I also know it accelerates the THIMKING (misspelling is intentional) process,which is most important.

Umang :notme:

I remember when QS9000 first came out, we had a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level documents with the first being the so call "Quality Manual". I remember writing this 4 page thing with just general quality thoughts but, of course, having the Quality Policy as one of the exhibits. The 4 pages were just a bit of a show and I did not do it for TS compliance.

The 2nd level document was the real deal with systems (now called processes) detailed enough that every could figure out the system. The 2nd level document had about 25 sections such as:Organizational Chart, Quality Policy, Management Overview -------- down to Corrective Action and Quality Costs. It is the real deal.

Today I would have a Quality/Process Manual with systems outlined above.

Do NOT ever send out or give to your Customer, a full Quality/Process Manual. I have seen in one case a Customer give out your documented systems to other potential suppliers for them to clone. Your systems are absolutely proprietary!!!

If a Customer wants your Quality/Process Manual, send out the Index page only.

Just some thoughts on this subject.

...

Do NOT ever send out or give to your Customer, a full Quality/Process Manual. I have seen in one case a Customer give out your documented systems to other potential suppliers for them to clone. Your systems are absolutely proprietary!!!

If a Customer wants your Quality/Process Manual, send out the Index page only.

.....


Great comment!

I remember when QS9000 first came out, we had a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level documents with the first being the so call "Quality Manual". I remember writing this 4 page thing with just general quality thoughts but, of course, having the Quality Policy as one of the exhibits. The 4 pages were just a bit of a show and I did not do it for TS compliance.

The 2nd level document was the real deal with systems (now called processes) detailed enough that every could figure out the system. The 2nd level document had about 25 sections such as:Organizational Chart, Quality Policy, Management Overview -------- down to Corrective Action and Quality Costs. It is the real deal.

Today I would have a Quality/Process Manual with systems outlined above.

Do NOT ever send out or give to your Customer, a full Quality/Process Manual. I have seen in one case a Customer give out your documented systems to other potential suppliers for them to clone. Your systems are absolutely proprietary!!!

If a Customer wants your Quality/Process Manual, send out the Index page only.

Just some thoughts on this subject.

But that's the beauty of a "4 page QM". If you keep the Level 1 QM to high level statements of Policy and commitment, plus general information about the nature of the CO and its products/services then you have something that can be given out to customers and which is a useful summary of the nature of what you do and commit to, without giving away any secrets.

Think of it as a corporate CV/resume.

Arthur

Do NOT ever send out or give to your Customer, a full Quality/Process Manual. I have seen in one case a Customer give out your documented systems to other potential suppliers for them to clone. Your systems are absolutely proprietary!!!

If a Customer wants your Quality/Process Manual, send out the Index page only.

Just some thoughts on this subject.

David,

It depends on how the organization views the purpose of the quality manual. See post #270 in this thread. It's my view of the purpose of a Quality Manual. An organization can be fairly specific without giving strategic/confidential information away.

Stijloor.

I've just spent quite a time reading all the exchanges between the different postings going back quite a few years...

Let me add my thoughts :

I personally believe it is possible to have a 4 page Quality Manual. My reasoning behind it originates from the following reflection :

"if a company can sell a product worth 50k$ using a simple 4 page commercial brochure which gives a "nice" description of the product and "key performance specifications" etc etc, then why cannot the same company present its quality management system in the same way..."

I appreciate that a product sold for 50k$ has other supporting documents, as well as product demonstrations etc etc, but as far as I am concerned this applies to the requirements of ISO9001:2000 - if the customer wants to find out more about the company then let him visit...and dare I say audit ?

ISO 9000:2000 is only 23 pages long.

Interesting that a lot of books covering the topic of ISO 9000 are over 300 pages long...

1. Our manual is 11 pages, including a title page and several pretty charts. Without those, it would be 5-6 pages.

2. Our manual does not include our procedures, work instructions, etc. It only includes an scope, introduction, quality policy/objectives, quality system diagram, org chart/responsibilities, approvals and revision history, though we are considering removing the last one because that information is maintained in our quality software.

3. Our AS9100 auditor is all about keeping it simple. He has written and approved 3-page manuals before. (I believe procedures, as applicable, are separate documents.)

1. Our manual is 11 pages, including a title page and several pretty charts. Without those, it would be 5-6 pages.

2. Our manual does not include our procedures, work instructions, etc. It only includes an scope, introduction, quality policy/objectives, quality system diagram, org chart/responsibilities, approvals and revision history, though we are considering removing the last one because that information is maintained in our quality software.

3. Our AS9100 auditor is all about keeping it simple. He has written and approved 3-page manuals before. (I believe procedures, as applicable, are separate documents.)

Everyone forgets that the company's 'quality management system' belongs to the company, not the auditors.

When an auditor tells a company to "Keep it simple"; he/she has crossed the line and must be considered as a "Consultant".

Hi all,

Our quality manual has only three pages, and the auditor that came to review it was amaze for the simplicity. Yes, it is possible to have a simple manual.

What I have is.
Page 1. Quality policy + statement about objectives + scope of QMS
Page 2. Processes interactions including processes document numbers.
Page 3. Org chart.

When an auditor tells a company to "Keep it simple"; he/she has crossed the line and must be considered as a "Consultant".

He wasn't telling us how to do our manual; he was telling us (as a side note) what he's seen and done. We know him outside of our audit because we attend the registrar's user group meetings, so he wasn't consulting so much as making conversation. He happened to like our 11-page manual.

When an auditor tells a company to "Keep it simple"; he/she has crossed the line and must be considered as a "Consultant".If auditors could not make a comment such as this, I am not sure what kind of role auditors should have. Maybe the best approach to auditing would be to:
http://elsmar.com/jpg/see_hear_speak_monkeys.jpg
BTW, they do resemble some auditors that I know...:biglaugh:

BTW, they do resemble some auditors that I know...:biglaugh:

So true!

If auditors could not make a comment such as this, I am not sure what kind of role auditors should have. Maybe the best approach to auditing would be to:
http://elsmar.com/jpg/see_hear_speak_monkeys.jpg
BTW, they do resemble some auditors that I know...:biglaugh:

Hey...who posted my picture on the internet...?:D

I view the Quality Manual as a "glorified business card" stating what you want the world (existing and future Customers) to know about your quality system. It provides a first impression of your organization and should represent your company well. The number of pages is irrelevant. Whatever is necessary to get the message across.

Stijloor.

Absolutely correct. It's even better if it gets the attention of the intramural folks.

you have to really work hard for this but i would advice your boss that atlest 10 page be allowed otherwise every thing need to be linked and may create complexity in future . for doing this i would advice you few key points
page 1: Introduction about quality manual and sope of quality manual
page 2 :quality policy
page 3: interaction of process
page 4 :flow of activities and linking of procedure at every activity
page 5 :master list of procedure
page 6 :QA organisation chart with roles and responsibility defined for MR and QA resposible team (cross functional)
reamianing 3-4 pages can be used for describing the QS structure ,approach and strategy to meet the QS requirement, customer requirement and legal requirement.

:frust:

There is no recipe for a quality manual, except for the very minimal requirements in ISO 9001 (which can be covered in a paragraph; two at most.)

First you have to figure out what you want the manual to do, then write the document to suit.

I favor Stijloor's "business card" approach. If you asked me to help with a manual, that would be my first suggestion and I would reason with you until you understood its value.

Other useful possibility: what would a new management rep need to know if the incumbent got hit by a falling anvil?

what would a new management rep need to know if the incumbent got hit by a falling anvil?

While true, I find this visual incredibly entertaining.

There is no recipe for a quality manual

Quite true.

Different folks ascribe different meanings to this term, and then argue strongly, albeit about somewhat different things. Some people include all the policies and procedures together in one manual. Some separate out the policy into what they call the 'quality manual' & have separate procedures, and sometimes work instructions as well. Some have paper, some have websites (external or intranet), some have inhouse electronic systems. And all of these approaches would or could meet the requirements stipulated by 'quality manual'.

First you have to figure out what you want the manual to do, then write the document to suit.

Yes, indeedy. Could also be one or more documents.

what would a new management rep need to know if the incumbent got hit by a falling anvil?

Youch! You obviously have an interesting time at some client sites! I'm more in favour of less painful alternatives, perhaps 'locked in a Big Brother household for 8 weeks or more' or better still 'won the lottery and took off overseas'.

... Youch! You obviously have an interesting time at some client sites! I'm more in favour of less painful alternatives, perhaps 'locked in a Big Brother household for 8 weeks or more' or better still 'won the lottery and took off overseas'.

Yes, I stopped using the "what if he got hit by a bus..." analogy a long time ago. The auditees are more comfortable with the "won the Lottery..." scenario.:cool:

Yes, I stopped using the "what if he got hit by a bus..." analogy a long time ago. The auditees are more comfortable with the "won the Lottery..." scenario.:cool:

:topic: Winning the lottery.

See attached.

Stijloor.

:topic:

OOh, thank you.

:biglaugh: The first one made me shout with laughter!

:applause:

:topic:

OOh, thank you.

:biglaugh: The first one made me shout with laughter!

:applause:

Glad you liked it. We need that stuff once in a while......:D
I've been told that Aussies have a tremendous sense of humor. :cool:

Stijloor.

Youch! You obviously have an interesting time at some client sites! I'm more in favour of less painful alternatives, perhaps 'locked in a Big Brother household for 8 weeks or more' or better still 'won the lottery and took off overseas'.
There is one management rep... But I believe he will be gone soon. I think he enjoys making the rest of the organization jump through hoops, though it creates enormous amounts of work for him.

If they were all like that, I'd find another line of work.

I have created a quality manual for our company which is 40 pages. It simply covers every element with a paragragh or so, except for Management Responsibility is covered in the manual instead of a procedure.
My superiors feel the manual should only be 3 or 4 pages long. Most of this reasoning is from different companies who have claimed to be certified.
Am I wrong in assuming a 3 or 4 page manual would not be adequate, and what exactly would be accurate?
Thanks, Dawn

hiiiiiiiii

level of 1st step doc. ( pages) in manual can be reduced by concentrating on reqtms. of ISO

1. just keep scope / exclusions

2. ref. to ur procedures

3. proces interaction matrix

this will lead to a 2nd step documentation i.e procedures reqd. by ISO but those can be covered in DOP's as well. No need to make additional.

But frankly speaking a simple manual ( 1st step) + DOP's ( deptt. operating procedures) is the best system i have ever noticed.This system of deocumentation split leads to better concentrating on processes by process owners& reduced handling ina single step.

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this particular thread is? And it just keeps on going!

One person says a 3 page manual is the right number. Another thinks it should be 7 pages. Oh, maybe 6 would better!

20 pages, 17, 42, ...what the heck does the number of pages have to do with anything? We have 300 posts over the number of pages??!! :mg:

Then we wonder why our bosses don't respect our ISO systems. We have to stop this silliness!

Write your manual so that it addresses whatever information you want to address. All the important information has to be addressed somewhere, and whether you put it in the manual or a procedure or a database is up to you. And, let's move on to meaningful things about how to improve our companies and our customer satisfaction.

I have never been at a company with an outstanding system where there was any discussion over number of pages. It just does not matter. :bonk:

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this particular thread is? And it just keeps on going! :bonk:When I have bad mornings like this, Helmut, I usually just blame it on bad ice cubes in my drinks last night, then have another cup of coffee and two aspirin.:lmao:

When I have bad mornings like this, Helmut, I usually just blame it on bad ice cubes in my drinks last night, then have another cup of coffee and two aspirin.:lmao:

I have been very nice up to now, but this goofy discussion just won't die! Then we whine about why we quality "professionals" don't get enough respect by our management peers. This would be like Maintenance debating the comparitive quality of their screwdrivers....

...now about those drinks

I have been very nice up to now, but this goofy discussion just won't die! It is easy to simply not read/follow the thread any longer if it irritates you. If the thread doesn't interest you any more, move on to other threads.

It is easy to simply not read/follow the thread any longer if it irritates you. If the thread doesn't interest you any more, move on to other threads.

Certainly. I stopped reading it long ago. However, the purpose for my post was not to express "irritation," because that is not important.

Rather, what is important, is to suggest to my colleagues that if they want to get the respect they so crave from their fellow managers, they have to stop focusing on this level of quality silliness, and focus on the important improvement issues.

We post thousands of comments that quality is not taken seriously, then we give them a reason to not take it seriously when we make issues of silly things so prominent.

Sorry if my intent was not clear.

Helmut:
I feel your pain! Wes has the antidote - with ice!

I, along with you, feel a sense of amazement that some threads go on over what seem relatively banal topics - the most recent one I remember is the 'document vs form' one. It seems as if one good answer would have been sufficient and the whole thing became very strange.

Helmut and AndyN, I understand your point and I don't disagree. But allow me to suggest that part of the reason for the lack of respect that you note is that many of our quality colleagues have been creating non-value-added documents such as 40 page quality manuals. This thread may be helpful to these folks which, in turn, may contribute to increasing management's respect for the position.

Ashwani did a good job of detailing the minimum one needs to have in a Quality Manual to pass third party audits. I use a 2-page "QMS Map" (sorry Helmut:)) that serves as a graphical representation and interface to the organization's management system, its process, and its documentation. Page one is basically a key to the various colors and symbols that I use and the location for any exclusion. Page 2 is where all of the action happens. In my experience, senior managers have been delighted by this approach and have been generally more receptive to listen to my other business improvement ideas. Auditors from the leading registrars have had only positive comments too.

Helmut and AndyN, I understand your point and I don't disagree. But allow me to suggest that part of the reason for the lack of respect that you note is that many of our quality colleagues have been creating non-value-added documents such as 40 page quality manuals. This thread may be helpful to these folks which, in turn, may contribute to increasing management's respect for the position.

Ashwani did a good job of detailing the minimum one needs to have in a Quality Manual to pass third party audits. I use a 2-page "QMS Map" (sorry Helmut:)) that serves as a graphical representation and interface to the organization's management system, its process, and its documentation. Page one is basically a key to the various colors and symbols that I use and the location for any exclusion. Page 2 is where all of the action happens. In my experience, senior managers have been delighted by this approach and have been generally more receptive to listen to my other business improvement ideas. Auditors from the leading registrars have had only positive comments too.


Actually, I think your post makes my point. You like your 2 page approach, because it meets your needs. The rest of your stuff is elsewhere in your quality documentation. The cool part is that you feel it meets your needs! But, in the same post, you automatically bemoan those who have a 40 page manual. And, you discuss what it takes to pass a 3rd party audit.

That was the point of my rant - this stuff is not supposed to be about passing audits. Each organization needs to define their system for their optimal benefit and control, and the number of pages does not matter. What other department in our companies weighs the quality of their work by the number of pages?

The manual's purpose is not to pass an audit. It is the framework and wrapper for your quality system. There is a certain amount of information each company needs to properly run their company and control it's processes. ISO generously allows organizations to slice and dice it to suit their needs, instead of everyone wearing the same size suit. There is no more "document pyramid levels 1-2-3-4."

But instead of understanding and utilizing this, we go on and on about what is the right number of pages, as if there was a single answer to that question. We need to focus on the important issues, as BevD rants about in her well written post today. What are we quality professionals doing, focusing on this little silly stuff? No wonder when our peers don't respect some of our work. Have we given them something worthy of respect?

Helmut,

I agree the essential thing is that an organisation has the manual/documents/whatever that are suitable for them and their needs. And that it therefore follows that the actual number of pages is completely unimportant.

But that the thread won't die, and seems to have a strong life wish I just see as one of the features of a forum. Perhaps the thread title is particularly attractive (it is a good one - clear as well as provocative). Perhaps it just 'pings' something in many different people.

But surely you also see that the discussion has ranged over some related areas, and has not just focussed doggedly on the 'exact number of pages' a manual must have? As is the way of things, it's thrown up a few interesting detours here and there, and various posters have mused on what works for them, what they've seen is good, etc (as with a recent poster).

I've seen some fascinating (to me!) topics die an early death, while others on things I think relatively unimportant or not worth a lot of discussion seem to go and on. That's life, I think. C'est la vie. It's how things happen in cyberspace and forums - or at least this one.

All part of life's rich tapestry, really. And speaks to the broad range of humanity and the great divergence of views they bring with them to the forum. :lol:

In a nutshell: if people wanna talk on a topic, in a forum for which this is the 'raison d'etre', and find a particular thread of interested - I say, hooray. :applause:

Where's there a problem??? :D

Need More Detail

i CAN SECOND YOUR WORDS.
Helmut and AndyN, I understand your point and I don't disagree. But allow me to suggest that part of the reason for the lack of respect that you note is that many of our quality colleagues have been creating non-value-added documents such as 40 page quality manuals. This thread may be helpful to these folks which, in turn, may contribute to increasing management's respect for the position.

Ashwani did a good job of detailing the minimum one needs to have in a Quality Manual to pass third party audits. I use a 2-page "QMS Map" (sorry Helmut:)) that serves as a graphical representation and interface to the organization's management system, its process, and its documentation. Page one is basically a key to the various colors and symbols that I use and the location for any exclusion. Page 2 is where all of the action happens. In my experience, senior managers have been delighted by this approach and have been generally more receptive to listen to my other business improvement ideas. Auditors from the leading registrars have had only positive comments too.

There will always be some disagreement about manual length, style and format, but there should never be any question about its content....

"The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual that includes

a) the scope of the quality management system, including detail of and justification of any exclusions,
b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them, and
c) a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system." ........

It is hard to see how you can effectively deal with the subject matter in four pages.

Good luck,

Ralph

Take a look at this..........http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4295&d=1132887869

Current Quality Manual that is used in our organization is 18 pages long and meets the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 according to our registrar DNV. In addition, we have the required six procedures, forty four work instructions (identified as needed), and fifty seven forms that rounds out the Quality Management System documentation.

There will always be some disagreement about manual length, style and format, but there should never be any question about its content....

"The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual that includes

a) the scope of the quality management system, including detail of and justification of any exclusions,
b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them, and
c) a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system." ........


No disagreement there.

It is hard to see how you can effectively deal with the subject matter in four pages.
Guess it depends on one's definition of "effectively."

Use of:
imagination,
economy of language,
plain English vs. quality jargon and
active voicewould trim a lot of quality manuals.

Ralph,

If you are really interested in seeing how the requirements you quote can be and are dealt with in 2 pages, feel free to contact me.

I have worked with DNV and countless other registrars that have been very happy with the QMS Map approach that I use. I would give you a link, but I don't think this is allowed here.

Boscoeee

No argument about the content - we've read the relevant clause too.

But here, I do argue with you:

It is hard to see how you can effectively deal with the subject matter in four pages.

One answer to it being 'hard' is to adopt a broader perspective, gain more experience in the Standard and learn that it can - and must be- applicable to many, many different kinds of organisations in many, many different fields, and of all kindsof sizes, from 1-2 people businesses right up to global corporations. There isn't any such thing as 'one size fits all'.

4 pages? Yes, it can be done. It has been done. THere are examples in the forum.

But as this and other threads point out, size (number of pages) is quite immaterial. (Although I too strongly favour the less the better approach - anything over what is absolutely necessary for an individual company is too much).

But '4 pages' is a good provocative title - if nothing else, it sure stimulates debate and gets people seriously thinking! :)

(See, Helmut, it just won't die... you'll have to unsub from this thread)

Ralph,

I would give you a link, but I don't think this is allowed here.

Really? I've seen plenty of links to external sites... what's the problem?

Really? I've seen plenty of links to external sites... what's the problem?
Just a clarification here.

Material for which the Cove member has right and authority to release may be uploaded to the Cove, but doing so essentially puts it in the public domain. We therefore caution folks who are trying to sell such material to avoid future rancor by NOT posting.
Links to free material provided by any organization "may" be allowed. (Moderators sometimes pull such links, but will give an explanation in such cases.)
Links to free material provided by a Cove member "may" be allowed. (Moderators sometimes pull such links, but will give an explanation in such cases.)
Links to material sold by Cove members are allowed on a case-by-case basis - ALWAYS ask Marc for a ruling first.
Links to material sold by public organizations (ASQ, ISO, BSI, etc.) are allowed, but the person posting such link MUST disclose any connection [or lack of connection] to the organization.In general, we do not allow overt or "stealth" advertising within a post. Posters may have contact information in their Profile and refer to such within a post. Posters who continually refer to their services being available via a link in their Profile, but who do not provide meaningful help or comment within their posts may be cautioned by moderators and extreme cases may have posts deleted by the moderators.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please start a thread in the Elsmar Cove Forum TOS, Policies and Procedures (http://elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=152) Forum.

Jane & Wes,

Thanks for the comments and clarifications.

When I first joined the Cove I made the mistake of providing links to my site and was admonished of it. As you can immagine I use my site both to inform and to drive business so I did not want to come off as overtly or covertly using my post to advertize. I also don't have enough post to allow me to include a link.

For these that may be interested try PinnacleEG.com and go the QMS link, then to the Lean QMS Curriculum link.

Thanks

While you upload any document of your company, please remove your company name/personnel names in your document.

Your company may be taken action on you for shearing company info to others.


Regards

Actually, I assumed that all the relevant rules & requirements would be complied with - but good clarification in any case, Wes.

In general, we do not allow overt or "stealth" advertising within a post.

Good heavens, no.

bwfore a tutor told me a qulity munal of 4 pages can work well.i do not think so.too short manual need to more tier 2 .
and have not known any orginization has a manual of 4 or 5 pages.
we have a TS QSM of 50 pages,it can be cut to about 35 pages.

bwfore a tutor told me a qulity munal of 4 pages can work well.i do not think so.too short manual need to more tier 2 .
and have not known any orginization has a manual of 4 or 5 pages.
we have a TS QSM of 50 pages,it can be cut to about 35 pages.

Although this is a long thread and would take a lot to re-read, it is clear that there are many companies who have effectively used manuals with only a few pages. I know companies who have been successfully registered to ISO 9000 and ISO/TS 16949 with a 4 - 9 page manual.

The facts speak for themselves. Often, the facts show that a large manual only works for external auditors, and isn't valuable for the actual people in the business! I know I'd rather read something with only 4 pages than 50 (or 35) unless it was a novel.......

Having followed this thread for years (I think I originally posted to it more han 5 years ago!), I am beginning to see a bit of a pattern:

It seems the fundamental difference in most manual size differences is whether or not the company/authors include the procedures themselves, or make a reference to them only.

ISO/TS 4.2.2(b) allows either way, which once again gives everyone the freedom to do what works for them, and still be in compliance with requirements. I guess the question becomes Is the manual the entire system, or just a part of it? It doesn't really matter, if it works effectively as intended.

I find it a good sign that the authors of the Standards were well aware that no "cookie cutter" system would work for everyone, and therefore some freedom was built in.

I am also fascinated that this thread is still active after all this time!

I have had two articles published on this topic that might be of interest. They are entitled:

The Two Page Quality Manual

Lean Quality Documentation Systems

I was unsuccessful in attaching them however, if you googled the title above along with my name: Mike Micklewright, you will find them.

I have had two articles published on this topic that might be of interest. They are entitled:

The Two Page Quality Manual

Lean Quality Documentation Systems

I was unsuccessful in attaching them however, if you googled the title above along with my name: Mike Micklewright, you will find them.As protection against commercial spammers, the Forum software prevents attachments or web links until the Cove registrant passes five posts in the "business" forums ("coffee Break" forums don't count toward that number.).

If you'd like, you can email the attachments to me and I will add them to your post as attachments for you. I'm pretty sure you have my personal email address. If not, my phone number is in my Profile.

Welcome to the Cove!:bigwave:

I help companies develop very effective quality management systems to ISO 9001 and TS 16949. Most of my clients like the 5 page or less version Quality Manual. Yes, in this version the procedures are outside of the quality manual. The few companies that want the longer version of the manual usually end up with about 25~30 pages. Each company needs to decide for themselves what size fits them best. Some company cultures just aren't ready for the shorter version.

I always wonder of the possibility of reducing a standard quality manual to a 4 or 5 pages manual (as I’ve heard)…

I did this once, and the result is like a “table of contents” with a more formal format… :frust:

...and I have nothing on it, except paragraphs referring to appropriate procedures… I probably did it wrong huh? :(

I always wonder of the possibility of reducing a standard quality manual to a 4 or 5 pages manual (as I’ve heard)…

I did this once, and the result is like a “table of contents” with a more formal format… :frust:

...and I have nothing on it, except paragraphs referring to appropriate procedures… I probably did it wrong huh? :(

There are many ways to do most things. But if what you did wasn't useful or valuable, then I think you've answered your own question.

My opinion about Quality Manuals with 4 pages is clear. If I wanted this kind of document I would ask the marketing people to do it!
What is the best place to describe the company’s processes?
What is the best place to describe the way this processes are managed?
Is it possible to describe the whole system, in a consistent way, in 4 pages?

Of course I’ve seen in audits Quality Manuals with 4 or 5 pages, but I always wonder what’s the use of that...

AV :)

…I have experienced in auditing 2 of our suppliers with less than 10 pages of quality manual… they did pass our requirements… although, we required them to submit other procedures & documentations to support their manual…

…in totality, it can be done… but it cannot stand alone to comply with the entire requirements…

…I have experienced in auditing 2 of our suppliers with less than 10 pages of quality manual… they did pass our requirements… although, we required them to submit other procedures & documentations to support their manual…

…in totality, it can be done… but it cannot stand alone to comply with the entire requirements…

Perhaps one of the reasons that many of us are still divided on the concept of a small QM is that we have not truly considered and understood the actual requirements. ISO 9001 requirements for a QM are:

It must describe/define the scope of the QMS,
It must explain any excluded elements,
It must define or reference the "documented procedures" make up the QMS, and
It must describe/show the interaction of the QMS processes

At no point does ISO stipulate how long the QM should be. It does not even say that it should be a singe document. Nor does it suggest that it should even be in text format.

Another possible sources of confusion and diverging opinions is the use of the terms "procedure" and "processes". We can all agree that the intent of ISO 9001 is to serve as a process management platform. However, it only applies the word "documented" to procedures. This begs the question: should we not document our processes? For those of us that practice more that just ISO the answer is: of course we should. If you agree, then replace the word "procedure" with "process" and think about the requirements again. Now the QMS must:

Define or reference the "documented processes" make up the QMS, and
Describe/show the interaction of the QMS processes.

Why not draw a picture of this on one or two pieces of paper? Why use paper?

In my practice I do this all the time. Hundreds of clients have embraced this approach and never has this been an issue with any registrar. Granted, customers may want to see the details of the actual "documented process" which is fine. Show then the process and show them how that process fits into the overall process based QMS with your new short QM.

kirilll, a very nice approach... :agree1:

kirilll, a very nice approach... :agree1:

Thanks, Joshua.

:rolleyes: I was re-reading this thread when my 9-year old niece saw it and read the title “The boss wants a 4-page manual. What to do?”…

…without hint, he said “then let his boss do it!”…

…hmm, he got a point huh? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: I was re-reading this thread when my 9-year old niece saw it and read the title “The boss wants a 4-page manual. What to do?”…

…without hint, he said “then let his boss do it!”…

…hmm, he got a point huh? :rolleyes:

Not if the niece (you say 'he'? huh??) expects to keep her job and/or get paid. :)

At no point does ISO stipulate how long the QM should be. It does not even say that it should be a singe document. Nor does it suggest that it should even be in text format.

Quite so. Moreover, ISO 9001 includes various clear statements about documentation , including:

* It is not the intent of this International Standard to imply uniformity in the structure of quality management systems or uniformity of documentation (italics mine) clause 0.1

* Notes 2 and 3 to clause 4.2.1 (General Documentation Requirements).

The key IMO is always to understand the Standard and what it says really well (including the guidance ISO and the various Tech Committees provide), rather than just blindly and rigidly insisting that 'it must be this way'.

I've used the simple and flexible approach for many years now, rarely an issue with any auditor. Only on 2 occasions it has been (either a lazy or not very aware auditor, trying to insist on something that they were used to), and on each occasion this was successfully overcome.

Let's keep it as simple as possible folks. (And 'as possible' recognises that what is simple and suitable for a small business of course will be different for a large multinational). There is no 'one size fits all' answer, nor should there be.

Not if the niece (you say 'he'? huh??) expects to keep her job and/or get paid. :)
:o ...sorry for typographical error... or encoder error, as it may seem applicable :notme:

Let's keep it as simple as possible folks. (And 'as possible' recognises that what is simple and suitable for a small business of course will be different for a large multinational). There is no 'one size fits all' answer, nor should there be.

I cannot agree more, JaneB. This is why I am sometime frustrated by the popularity of the "canned" QMS packages.

dinselong,

Can you attach the Core Procedure documents for ABC-Q-ML-0100?

Thanks,

dinselong,

Can you attach the Core Procedure documents for ABC-Q-ML-0100?

Thanks,

hi jimwaa,

I think this is what you are asking for.

tony s

tony s,

Close, but I'm looking for the Appendex 10: Core Procedures that should be attahed to this manual. I'd like to look at the procedures that support this manual.

Thanks,

jimwaa

Hi everyone! Good day to all.. Can anyone post a QMS for an environmental consultancy.. I will just need of a format so that I can give it to my boss..thanks..:)

hi everyone! Good day to all..can anyone post a QMS for an environmental consultancy..i will just need of a format so that i can give it to my boss..thanks..:)

Look at this post + links (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=276875&postcount=3)from our host Marc.

Forum courtesy says not the post the same question twice....:yes:

Stijloor.

ooops sorry for that...:)
just one question..is the QMS manual and quality system procedures are the same?

Good question. People have different opinions on what works so it is really down to your preference. We have a Quality manual that is effectively the intro (policy, scope, company structure) and then just operating procedures one after the other. I am writing the new Enviro Manual and feel that this is not the best way to go so I have separated it out into a Manual, which is in turn supported by procedures as necessary. I use the Manual as more of an overview, with the procedures delving into more detail.

This is just me. For every one person who does it like this there will be a number of others who preferred some other way.

My advice to you would be look at your existing operational system, and then see what parts of it fit into the 9001 Standard (examples of document control for instance). That way what you produce will be aimed completely at your operations and be a hell of a lot more useful. Then it also saves on you "recreating the wheel" to satisfy the Standard, and any holes in your system will be identified too.

:2cents:

I have recently rewritten our Quality Manual. It has gone from 52 pages to 8. I figured since it started with QS and now for the last 6 years has been TS we might as well reduce it down. Afterall most of the things in the 52 page version were repeated to more detail in the procedure manual. Haven't released it yet but am about too.

We just explain a few of the management responsibilties for our top management then reference to the procedures we have for all of the other requirements.

I have found this QMS manual in internet andI think it should be a good strating point for a lean manual... with some additional points of course.

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

i have created a quality manual for our company which is 40 pages. It simply covers every element with a paragragh or so, except for management responsibility is covered in the manual instead of a procedure.
My superiors feel the manual should only be 3 or 4 pages long. Most of this reasoning is from different companies who have claimed to be certified.
Am i wrong in assuming a 3 or 4 page manual would not be adequate, and what exactly would be accurate?
Thanks, dawn



dear frind,,
you can make quality manual in single page also.

I will be sending you one same.


With regrads

ashwani raina

I don't know what people think a quality manual is or why its size is the primary measure of its effectiveness.

The quality manual is a label given to a document that describes an organization's quality management system
It's called a manual because it is intended to be used to help people understand the way an organization defines and achieves its quality policies and objectives and thereby enable them to work in a way that is consistent with those policies and objectives.

Whether this takes 1 page or 5000 pages is irrelevant. The measure of its effectiveness is whether it aids understanding. If it does not reflect the way current processes function and interact and convey this clearly , consistently, completely, unambiguously and concisely, it is not effective. We could identify other factors but these will do to illustrte the point.

Whether or not an organization has a quality manual, it has a system of processes that do or don't enable it to achieve its objectives. Systems and processes do not have to be documented to function. The reason for documenting them is so that we can better understand them, communicate them, evaluate them and improve them. But documentation is only necessary where its absence will adversely affect the ability of people to achieve the objectives in a way that satisfies the constraints.

Now if the question serves to find the best way of documenting systems and processes, this might be a more fruitful endeavour.

If you are worried about what the boss wants, ask him what he thinks a quality manual is and what it is used for. Maybe he only thinks it exists for the external auditors. Maybe he does not see it as conveying understand on how his organization functions. Although not improbable, it would be unsual if your boss did not want his staff to have a common understanding of how the organization functions. When faced with such problems I apply a lesson I learnt from Dr Juran years ago. Discover the reality under the labels, the actions and deeds the other person is talking about. Once these are understood, communication can proceed whether or not there is agreement on the meaning of words like quality manual.

Hi Dawn,

As most of other that have replied you I agree, if you want to cover all the points of the standard in your manual you will need at least 20 or 30 pages but there is something more to say.

Think about that, who is your first customer for the manual? Yes, your boss.
Are you able to convence your boss that it is needed a 20 pages manual? If the answer is no and you want to keep your main customer happy and your post, you will have to work harder.

I think it is a challenge, but possible to get. Your manual, for ISO 9001 and ISO/TS 16949 only needs to state:

1.- Scope of your system and exclusions
2.- Reference to your procedures
3.- Description of the interaction of your processes.

I'm sure you can write your scope and exclusions in just one or two paragraphs.
Reference to procedures in no more than one page.
Map of processes, of course at first level, one page more.

And you will have one free page for the cover. Total 4 pages.

Of course you will have to do a more robust documented system at 2nd level, but still possible.

Good luck,

Josep

To reiterate many things stated here before, I believe the quality manual needs to be useful and cover the requirements. The format or length is irrelevant if both of the previous are satisfied, subject to your organization's approach.

On a slightly different topic then, can someone please explain what appears to me to be the inclination to create processes/procedures/requirements that turn around and state that another process/procedure must be written to incorporate all of the requirements? It seems to me that this is just more documentation for redundancy's sake. I've seen this in many areas, and I think it may be at the heart of some of the QMS Manual length debate.

For example, if the standard or corporate procedures say I have to do provide training on Topic A, then why have another document stating that I will do training on Topic A? Just write the process that says when, where, how, who, etc. because it is required by standard/procedure X, and be done with it.

I suggest one page, that includes only the requirements:

1. Scope and Permitted Exclusions and Justification (if applicable)
2. Procedure Reference
3. Process Map

I have never seen a Quality Manual used as a working document, so make it easy on yourself for 4.2.2 and spend your time improving the process.

On a slightly different topic then, can someone please explain what appears to me to be the inclination to create processes/procedures/requirements that turn around and state that another process/procedure must be written to incorporate all of the requirements? It seems to me that this is just more documentation for redundancy's sake. I've seen this in many areas, and I think it may be at the heart of some of the QMS Manual length debate.

? Sounds to me more of a policy or a plan than a procedure.

The only time I have seen this is when someone really didn't quite understand what they were doing.

Excellent post, Pennington. You made a number of very good points, succinctly and clearly. Well said.

Whether this takes 1 page or 5000 pages is irrelevant. The measure of its effectiveness is whether it aids understanding.

Yup!

I have created a quality manual for our company which is 40 pages. It simply covers every element with a paragragh or so, except for Management Responsibility is covered in the manual instead of a procedure.
My superiors feel the manual should only be 3 or 4 pages long. Most of this reasoning is from different companies who have claimed to be certified.
Am I wrong in assuming a 3 or 4 page manual would not be adequate, and what exactly would be accurate?
Thanks, Dawn

Dawn,

For some reason the quality manual commonly is a re-write of the standard in terms applicable to your system.

This is not required by the system standard but some registrar's auditors seem to expect this type of quality manual.

Clause 4.2.2 of ISO 9001 specifies the minimum contents of the quality manual.

You may only need three pages to describe/specify your system and refer to its procedures.

You may also need to replace your auditor! :whip:

John

Dawn,

For some reason the quality manual commonly is a re-write of the standard in terms applicable to your system.

This is not required by the system standard but some registrar's auditors seem to expect this type of quality manual.

Clause 4.2.2 of ISO 9001 specifies the minimum contents of the quality manual.

You may only need three pages to describe/specify your system and refer to its procedures.

You may also need to replace your auditor! :whip:

John


You know, it's a funny thing. I am with a consulting client right now, working on a quality manual. The client and I decided it would be more useful to write a full 30 page manual. The reasoning is we will take the standard as a base, and revise/rewrite it in plain English and explain the requirements and their purposes. Many of the procedures will be incorporated into the manual. This way, employees will have a single document to go to to answer any questions they have related to ISO.

Further, we are going to combine ISO 14001 into it as well. Simple, clear and user friendly.

Now, whether someone writes a 3 page manual with 30 additional pages of procedures, or if they write a 33 page manual incorporating the procedures, is there really any difference? The only diff I see is my method will be one computer file, titled ISO manual, and everyone will be able to use and understand it. The other way there are 10-15 procedures, files, links and most of the time, way more complicated.

The important thing is they be written clearly, and easy to find. The rest of the discussion is silly. When Executives complainabout the number of pages, they are really complaining about the absence of any apparent value. The manuals need to be written to benefit the users.

You know, it's a funny thing. I am with a consulting client right now, working on a quality manual. The client and I decided it would be more useful to write a full 30 page manual. The reasoning is we will take the standard as a base, and revise/rewrite it in plain English and explain the requirements and their purposes. Many of the procedures will be incorporated into the manual. This way, employees will have a single document to go to to answer any questions they have related to ISO.

Further, we are going to combine ISO 14001 into it as well. Simple, clear and user friendly.

Now, whether someone writes a 3 page manual with 30 additional pages of procedures, or if they write a 33 page manual incorporating the procedures, is there really any difference? The only diff I see is my method will be one computer file, titled ISO manual, and everyone will be able to use and understand it. The other way there are 10-15 procedures, files, links and most of the time, way more complicated.

The important thing is they be written clearly, and easy to find. The rest of the discussion is silly. When Executives complainabout the number of pages, they are really complaining about the absence of any apparent value. The manuals need to be written to benefit the users.

Helmut,

Excellent point, the manual could be an attractive brochure/webpage for the system so everyone understands how it works in preventing pollution, adding value and preventing loss.

I am not sure everyone needs to know what the system standards require.

John

I agree that not everyone needs to know what the standards requires but everyone should know what the purpose of the quality manual is.

I am intrigued as to why anyone would call the manual the ISO manual - doesn't this send out the signal that it exists only to satisfy the standard and is disconnected from the business?

If top management don't use your quality manual to communicate their intentions with respect to quality to all stakeholders, the document you presently call the quality manual adds no value and should be scrapped.

I agree that not everyone needs to know what the standards requires but everyone should know what the purpose of the quality manual is.

I am intrigued as to why anyone would call the manual the ISO manual - doesn't this send out the signal that it exists only to satisfy the standard and is disconnected from the business?

If top management don't use your quality manual to communicate their intentions with respect to quality to all stakeholders, the document you presently call the quality manual adds no value and should be scrapped.

Pennington,

Agreed, worse than ISO manual is "ISO system" on the "I drive" maintained by an "ISO coordinator". :frust:

One day it will be XYZ Management System on the shared drive maintained by the System Manager.

Is getting "ISO certified" the worst reason for writing/copying and bolting-on another system of documents to the system that actually runs the business?

John

You know, it's a funny thing. I am with a consulting client right now, working on a quality manual. The client and I decided it would be more useful to write a full 30 page manual. The reasoning is we will take the standard as a base, and revise/rewrite it in plain English and explain the requirements and their purposes. Many of the procedures will be incorporated into the manual. This way, employees will have a single document to go to to answer any questions they have related to ISO.

Further, we are going to combine ISO 14001 into it as well. Simple, clear and user friendly.

Now, whether someone writes a 3 page manual with 30 additional pages of procedures, or if they write a 33 page manual incorporating the procedures, is there really any difference? The only diff I see is my method will be one computer file, titled ISO manual, and everyone will be able to use and understand it. The other way there are 10-15 procedures, files, links and most of the time, way more complicated.

The important thing is they be written clearly, and easy to find. The rest of the discussion is silly. When Executives complainabout the number of pages, they are really complaining about the absence of any apparent value. The manuals need to be written to benefit the users.I, for one, would be completely happy with a Quality Manual that didn't MENTION "ISO" anywhere at all, most especially in the title.

A Quality Manual is supposed to indicate how an organization is actually running its business, not how it complies to a Standard. Frankly, when you write about benefiting the users, what is more important - knowing the applicable ISO Standard clause, or how to produce products or services for the organization (which might just happen to have some documentation practices that fit in the ISO Standard?)

I've always been a little leery of folks whose PRIMARY intent in creating a Quality Manual is to make life easier for a third party auditor.

Can you give me a "shall" from any ISO Standard which says ISO has to be referenced within the Quality Manual?

The problem does lie in the family of standards for if they had made it abundantly clear that the right way to use them is to
(1) Design a system of managed processes that enables the organization to satisfy its stakeholders
(2) Document this system to the extent necessary to operate and manage these processes effectively
(3) Demonstrate, when required by customers, that this system meets the requirements of ISO 9001.

The 2008 version should have removed all requirements for documentation except those in clause 4.1.

...I am not sure everyone needs to know what the system standards require.

John

Thanks for your comment. In my opinion, it is worthwhile to document the ISO requirements somewhere. In my example, the procedures are embedded into the manual. It is difficult to get people to follow all the requirements if they are not defined and explained somewhere.

Thanks for your comment. In my opinion, it is worthwhile to document the ISO requirements somewhere. In my example, the procedures are embedded into the manual. It is difficult to get people to follow all the requirements if they are not defined and explained somewhere.

Helmut,

Employees will use and improve their procedures if their leaders live by the requirements and the system that converts the needs of customers into cash in the bank.

Leaders monitoring processes will have employees taking procedures seriously.

Beyond new employee orientation, I am not sure of the efficacy of the manual in this regard.

John

Helmut,

Employees will use and improve their procedures if their leaders live by the requirements and the system that converts the needs of customers into cash in the bank.

Leaders monitoring processes will have employees taking procedures seriously.

Beyond new employee orientation, I am not sure of the efficacy of the manual in this regard.

John

Fully agree. However, employees cannot follow requirements if they don't know them. Unless they are communicated and/or documented, they won't know what they are.

In your model, it would appear they are defined in the procedures, in my model, they are defined in the manual/SOP's/handbook. I think it is all the same.

All - if I had to summarise the main points from this lengthy thread, I'd say these:


Length of manual is immaterial - content and use is what's important
The 'right' length is the one that works in your organisation
A longer manual is not necessarily a good one; a shorter one can also be good
There are different types/styles/models of manual
The term 'quality manual' may mean different things to different people
There is no single right or wrong answer.

Opinions continue to vary on whether:

it is possible (let alone advisable) to have a '4-page manual' - see points above.
it is a Good or Useful Thing to interpret, rewrite or even simply regurgitate the contents of the relevant Standard(s) in a manual.

20 pages of our QSM.

Your points just about sum it up.
There is a place fora 4 page document describing your intentions with respect to quality, but calling it a manual might be inappropriate. Manuals tend to help people perform tasks like user manuals, maintenance manuals etc so a quality manual would suggest it helps people define, manage, congrol, assure and improve quality characteristics.

Personaly I don't think there is a need for any document that regurgetates the standard but there is a role for a document that responds to the requirements by describing how the requirements are satisfied or where in the system would one find alignment with the requirements - I would call this an Exposition not a Manual

- I would call this an Exposition not a Manual

A rose by any other name.....................

You know, it's a funny thing. I am with a consulting client right now, working on a quality manual. The client and I decided it would be more useful to write a full 30 page manual. The reasoning is we will take the standard as a base, and revise/rewrite it in plain English and explain the requirements and their purposes.Why?

I have said it before and no doubt will say it again. :notme: IMHO the requirements of ISO 9001 (or any other management system) have no place in a document intended for people working in the system. The manual has two purposes.
To fulfil the requirements of the requirements standards (i.e. 4.2.2)
Give an overview of the management system


A cross reference may be useful somewhere to show that all requirements have been covered - the organisation's call.

How do you decide how long the manual is going to be before you have designed the system? (Although see later for the comment on 'length' of manual). The general point is in designing a system the format shouldn't come before the content.

Many of the procedures will be incorporated into the manual. This way, employees will have a single document to go to to answer any questions they have related to ISO.Does this not mean they will also have a lot of stuff in the 30 pages that has no meaning for them and they have to wade through the chaff to get to 'their' wheat?

Further, we are going to combine ISO 14001 into it as well. Simple, clear and user friendly.As has been covered ad infinitum the requirements standards are irrelevant so long as the management system addresses the documentation requirements. The purpose of a documented system is to describe what the organisation does and this should automatically meet the requirements of the relevant standard(s).

Now, whether someone writes a 3 page manual with 30 additional pages of procedures, or if they write a 33 page manual incorporating the procedures, is there really any difference? The only diff I see is my method will be one computer file, titled ISO manual, and everyone will be able to use and understand it. The other way there are 10-15 procedures, files, links and most of the time, way more complicated.I agree with the principle that size doesn't matter but it is what you do with it that counts!:lol:

Again, Helmut, you seem to imply that multiple files and links are easier - can you imagine the Cove as a single thread? :mg:

The important thing is they be written clearly, and easy to find. The rest of the discussion is silly. When Executives complainabout the number of pages, they are really complaining about the absence of any apparent value. The manuals need to be written to benefit the users.Agreed.

I have a quality manual that is ONE page long. It was longer when i was QS. When we certified to ISO i made it one page. I Simply hyperlined our "Master quality " process in it which has links to all main procedures......which has links to all processes and work instructions...etc all the way to the form level. I have never had a problem during any certification or survellience audits with it.

I have a quality manual that is ONE page long. It was longer when i was QS. When we certified to ISO i made it one page. I Simply hyperlined our "Master quality " process in it which has links to all main procedures......which has links to all processes and work instructions...etc all the way to the form level. I have never had a problem during any certification or survellience audits with it.

Sounds good.

But I disagree that your 'one page' is the manual itself. The whole thing is 'the manual'.

Saying that one page with its hyperlinks = the whole manual is about as sensible as saying that a Table of Contents (or Index, which some people call it) equals the manual. It doesn't - but it does outline the structure and where to find the content (and in a hyperlinked online structure, enable rapid access to relevant content).

I agree JaneB
The whole thing is 'the manual'. thats why its called a manual. If the writers of ISO 9001 had specified a summary, an overview, a synopsis etc these would have been the words used. But they didn't. They specified a manual ie a set of instrutions, handbook, ISO 9000:2005
specifying the quality management system of an organization
Therefore if its not in the manual its not part of the system.

I agree thats why its called a manual. If the writers of ISO 9001 had specified a summary, an overview, a synopsis etc these would have been the words used. But they didn't. They specified a manual ie a set of instrutions, handbook,
Therefore if its not in the manual its not part of the system.

Goodness, what a generous interpretation! ISO9001 (4.2.1) lists many things to be included in the documented system - and a "manual" is only one of the elements. And 4.2.2 lists the few items which a manual must contain. So it can indeed be a very brief summary. (Mind you, if it is produced in such a format, I for one don't see the point of it...)

Why?
I have said it before and no doubt will say it again. :notme: IMHO the requirements of ISO 9001 (or any other management system) have no place in a document intended for people working in the system. The manual has two purposes.
To fulfil the requirements of the requirements standards (i.e. 4.2.2)
Give an overview of the management system



IMHO the purpose is to communicate the requirements, expectations and policies. Please, don't write a manual because the standard says so.

If you state a commitment to meet the requirements of the standard in your policy, then you need to communicate what those requirements are. My point is you can do it in procedures or a manual or wherever.

In my example, I am not "regurgitating the standard. But, my template begins with it (actually I use ISO 9004), and I rewrite it into an easy to understand handbook which expalins what is required.



A cross reference may be useful somewhere to show that all requirements have been covered - the organisation's call.

How do you decide how long the manual is going to be before you have designed the system? (Although see later for the comment on 'length' of manual). The general point is in designing a system the format shouldn't come before the content.

Does this not mean they will also have a lot of stuff in the 30 pages that has no meaning for them and they have to wade through the chaff to get to 'their' wheat?


One has to define the format before one begins to write. The number of pages won't be determined until I finish, and is irrelevant. As far as wadinig through the wheat and chaff...we make that a hyperlinked table of contents and an index. Very easy to go directly to the section you need.

A cross reference would also work. But, haven't you seen people fumbling to find something, opening this docuemnt and that, before finding the info they seek. It's a lot of work.

As has been covered ad infinitum the requirements standards are irrelevant so long as the management system addresses the documentation requirements. The purpose of a documented system is to describe what the organisation does and this should automatically meet the requirements of the relevant standard(s).

Wow...the requirements are irrelevant...is that why auditors write so many nonconformities when the "irrelevant requirements" are not met? How can employees know the requirements if they are not spelled out at some level.

In actuality, the standard requires that all requirements are met - those of the standard, the organization, and legal and other requirements - all must be met.


I agree with the principle that size doesn't matter but it is what you do with it that counts!:lol:


Well, at we agree on that one point...

I guess i should rephrase my answer. "My document that reflects all ISO requirements for a Quality Policy Manual and is called a "Quality Policy Manual" and is one page long. In addition, I doubt except for the sign offs, that i have been the only one besides the auditor to even look at it. So what is the point of putting all of the time and effort in it. Keep it simple. The value is in the guts of the system.

I guess i should rephrase my answer. "My document that reflects all ISO requirements for a Quality Policy Manual and is called a "Quality Policy Manual" and is one page long. In addition, I doubt except for the sign offs, that i have been the only one besides the auditor to even look at it. So what is the point of putting all of the time and effort in it. Keep it simple. The value is in the guts of the system.

The reason no one looks at it is because it does not say anything. If you put meat into it, then people will read it.

If your manual only "reflects all ISO requirements," do you at least define the requirements in other documents?

Oh yes. I dont see value in repeating the standard in the manual.

It is clear that ISO 9001 is unclear don't you think? And here is the proof:
9001 Clause 4.2.1 requires the QMS documentation to include a quality manual, policy, objectives, procedures records and process documentation. (but excludes process interactions and org charts )
9001 Clause 4.2.2 defines what is to be included in the 9001 quality manual - scope, procedures, description of process interactions (but excludes policy, objectives and records, org charts and process documentation)
9000 Clause 3.7.4 defines what a quality manual is - simply a document specifying the QMS which could be all of the above (in engineering terms; all the specs, drawings, schedules, instructions to implement and operate the QMS)
9000 Clause 3.7.2 says "that documents that provide consistent information, both internally and externally, about the organization's quality management system; such documents are referred to as quality manuals;" So this might be anything
9000 Clause 3.3.2 says "A formal expression of the organizational structure is often provided in a quality manual" (Hence why clause 4.2.2 is not limiting
9000 clause 3.7.5 says "A quality plan often makes reference to parts of the quality manual" Implies the manual is a reference document.
Neither ISO 9000 nor 9001 imply or require the quality manual to include or even refer to the requirements of ISO 9001. These standards also do not require a quality policy that expressses a specific commitment to meet the requirements of ISO 9001. A commitment to meet requirements yes, but these are customer and regulatory requirements.

When you approach the development of a QMS from the direction of ISO 9001 you will run into the type of problem we are debating. If you approach the development of a QMS from what the business needs in order to consistently produce product that meets customer requirements, you only get around to looking at ISO 9001 after you have a capable system and want independent certification. By that time you will have a system description that fulfils a business need and this you can present as your quality manual be it one page, or 5000 pages. The business drives the QMS not ISO 9001, this is simply an assessment standard as is clearly stated in clause 0.1. It does not say that ISO 9001 can be used to develop a QMS.

:applause:

Wow...the requirements are irrelevant...is that why auditors write so many nonconformities when the "irrelevant requirements" are not met? How can employees know the requirements if they are not spelled out at some level.

In actuality, the standard requires that all requirements are met - those of the standard, the organization, and legal and other requirements - all must be met.

Come on, Helmut. I know that Paul knows what you've spelled out as '101' in your second paragraph.
And I would have thought that you know he knows too - you've been around the forum long enough to see that Paul knows this stuff inside out and backwards (and probably while whistling Dixie to boot).

I'm sure it's just a minor error of expression/wording - probably his meaning was something along the lines of 'it's not relevant to include all the wording of the specific requirements (ie, regurgitation) in a manual' - a topic that has been debated exhaustively in the Cove. And I'll bet a lot of $$ that he did not intend to say nor even imply that requirements of the relevant Standard don't need to be met.

If you approach the development of a QMS from what the business needs in order to consistently produce product that meets customer requirements, you only get around to looking at ISO 9001 after you have a capable system and want independent certification. ..... It does not say that ISO 9001 can be used to develop a QMS.

? I don't follow this logic (which actually simply sounds focussed on QA to me rather than quality management).

The Standard actually says more:

This International Standard specifies requirements for a quality management system where an organization
a) needs to demonstrate its ability to consistently provide product that meets customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and
b) aims to enhance customer satisfaction through the effective application of the system, including processes for continual improvement of the system and the assurance of conformity to customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.


I do agree that many if not most organisations go for certification after they've reached a certain point.

But as for ISO 9001 'not saying' that it can be used to develop a QMS... sheesh. Suggest you re-read the title of the Standard - it specifies minimum requirements for a QMS. Why on earth you think one could not or would not use it to develop a new system? The clients I have who did do this (ie, use ISO 9001 to develop their QMS from scratch) didn't have this 'problem' you apparently see. :tg:

Do you need to have everything written in it? I don't.:nope:

Hi Jane
I don't follow this logic (which actually simply sounds focussed on QA to me rather than quality management).
My premise is that the management system is the means by which the organization achieves its goals and satisfies its stakeholders. One of these goals is to consistently produce product that satisfies customers. So what I am saying is that when this system has been developed and shown to be capable of producing product that satisfies customers, you can have it assessed against ISO 9001.

If you look at clause 0.1 of ISO 9001:2008 it says "This International Standard can be used by internal and external parties, including certification bodies, to assess the organization's ability to meet customer, statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the
product, and the organization's own requirements."
This does not say the standard can be used to develop a QMS. It only says is can be used to assess an organizations ability.

ISO 9001 specifies requirements for a QMS where an organization needs to demonstrate it has the ability to consistently provide product etc... Therefore it does not include everything and organization needs to do to operate effectively in its environment.

In the 1987 version of ISO 9000 it recommended you firstly develop a system to meet ISO 9004 then select the appropriate assessment standard ( 9001, 9002 or 9003) Even though this is no longer recommended in ISO 9000:2005, ISO 9001 was never intended to be a design standard. It has always been an assessment standard - hence the statement in the Introduction.

I'm sure there are other interpretations but it emphasis my point that it is clear that ISO 9001 is unclear don't you think?

If you look at clause 0.1 of ISO 9001:2008 it says "This International Standard can be used by internal and external parties, including certification bodies, to assess the organization's ability to meet customer, statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the
product, and the organization's own requirements."
This does not say the standard can be used to develop a QMS. It only says is can be used to assess an organizations ability.

I'm sure there are other interpretations but it emphasis my point that it is clear that ISO 9001 is unclear don't you think?

I agree. Whatever the standard says or doesn't say, many people have used it as the basis for their system structure, which is why there were so many "20 sections" systems with the previous version - now seen as missing the point.

The reason no one looks at it is because it does not say anything. If you put meat into it, then people will read it.


This is an interesting point.

Ponder this:

If you had an instruction manual for something you personally cared about - let's say your car - would you read it? Would you read it cover to cover? Would you read it more than once - cover to cover? More importantly - do you believe than everyone that gets such a manual reads it cover to cover? If not, why not?

The next point is, then, when would you read it, and what information would you expect to get out of it if you did? What is 'meat' to a user - not an auditor. This is not to demean what the auditors are looking for, but rather systemically are we missing the point of the quality manual by essentially writing them for the wrong audience.

I think systemically we are getting trapped into writing a QMS instruction book with the Standard - and its interpreters (auditors) - as the audience, not the end user. The OP's boss may be conceptually correct - but unless the external system embraces that concept, he will be out of luck.

:topic:
Pennington,

I think the point you're wanting to debate belongs in a new/separate thread. To continue to debate it here risks further derailing this thread.

Thanks to JaneB for leaping to my defence! :-)

IMHO the purpose is to communicate the requirements, expectations and policies. Please, don't write a manual because the standard says so. Now there are many threads on the Cove and posts that say the only reason for a manual is because the standard says so ... not a view I subscribe to as the second bullet in my list says:
Why?

I have said it before and no doubt will say it again. :notme: IMHO the requirements of ISO 9001 (or any other management system) have no place in a document intended for people working in the system. The manual has two purposes.
To fulfil the requirements of the requirements standards (i.e. 4.2.2)
Give an overview of the management system


If you state a commitment to meet the requirements of the standard in your policy, then you need to communicate what those requirements are. My point is you can do it in procedures or a manual or wherever.I would never recommend a commitment to complying with the requirements of any particular standard in a policy. Apart from anything else, as has been seen in other threads it means you have to reissue the policy when a standard is reissued. :bonk:

In my example, I am not "regurgitating the standard. But, my template begins with it (actually I use ISO 9004), and I rewrite it into an easy to understand handbook which expalins what is required.Again .... why? :confused:

One has to define the format before one begins to write. The number of pages won't be determined until I finish, and is irrelevant. As far as wadinig through the wheat and chaff...we make that a hyperlinked table of contents and an index. Very easy to go directly to the section you need.That was the reason for my original question. You said it was going to be 33 pages ... how did you know this before you started?

A cross reference would also work. But, haven't you seen people fumbling to find something, opening this docuemnt and that, before finding the info they seek. It's a lot of work.I have seen the behaviour you mention - only when an individual doesn't know their system very well. Having it all in one document has the same potential problems.


Wow...the requirements are irrelevant...is that why auditors write so many nonconformities when the "irrelevant requirements" are not met? How can employees know the requirements if they are not spelled out at some level.Now, Helmut, you forgot to use the :sarcasm :emoticon. Again if you take my quote out of context ....

.... as Jane explained the irrelevant bit is putting the requirements in your document. That is not a requirement (:)) of the standard.

Employees can understand very well the controls required for any process they are involved in when you explain why the organisation is doing things a certain way.

Telling them it is also required by the standard doesn't actually help their understanding any (IMHO).

In actuality, the standard requires that all requirements are met - those of the standard, the organization, and legal and other requirements - all must be met.Agreed

Now there are many threads on the Cove and posts that say the only reason for a manual is because the standard says so ... not a view I subscribe to

Me neither. It's such a myopic and limited view, which fails the most essential importance of understanding.

I do wish people would go further, and ask themselves: why would or does the Standard require a manual (/documentation)? Why is the requirement in there? Because that's the really important point.

And then writing a manual that just repeats or regurgitates the requirements of the Standard itself compounds the original error.

I do wish people would go further, and ask themselves: why would or does the Standard require a manual (/documentation)? Why is the requirement in there? Because that's the really important point.

And then writing a manual that just repeats or regurgitates the requirements of the Standard itself compounds the original error.





I think some hints about the reasons of requirements imposed on Quality Manual can be found in ISO/TR 10013. In particular, this document discusses:

the possible purposes of a Quality Manual,
its possible content (besides the elements mandated by ISO 9001), and
its possible structure
Of course, these are all just guidelines and can be interpreted and followed very differently by different people, but when I read them, I definitely do not feel guided in the direction of "QM should be for auditors only".

Here is some fragment from ISO 10013:2001 that may be pertinent to this long thread:



4.4 Quality manual

...

4.4.8 Quality management system description

The quality manual should provide a description of the quality management system and its implementation in the organization. Descriptions of the processes and their interactions should be included in the quality manual. Documented procedures or references to them should be included in the quality manual.

The organization should document its specific quality management system following the sequence of the process flow or the structure of the selected standard or any sequencing appropriate to the organization. Cross-referencing between the selected standard and the quality manual may be useful.

The quality manual should reflect the methods used by the organization to satisfy its policy and objectives.



The colored highlights are mine: the colors reflect my personal attitude towards the highlighted fragments. :cool:

I suppose that with big enough paper and small enough font it would be possible to get most things onto 4 pages of paper.

I don't want to go back over the origins of the thread (and might not live long enough to read through every post), but I wonder what the motives of the "Boss" might have been. If I was a QMS novice that had done a bit of googling and found a selection of Quality Manual ranging in length from 4 sides upwards, I'd be asking my Quality Manager for something in the low page range.

The length of the Quality Manual falls into the "horses for courses" category in my opinion and will, and should, vary from organisation to organisation. Perhaps, even with time and the maturity of the QMS.

There's little point in having a 50-page manual if nobody will read it because there are plenty of other more relevant and useful documents already established in the organisation. Equally, there's little point in having a 4-page version that sits in complete isolation.

Our current Quality Manual is 5-pages long, including a snazzy front cover and a page of amendments history. That leaves three pages of detail: the first two meeting the technical requirements of ISO 9001 and also recording my delegated authority to "own" the system documentation; the final page is a Plan-Do-Check-Act diagram (based on the one in Clause 0.2 of 9001) superimposed with our main processes, thus showing the "interaction between the processes of the QMS".

I took this approach following a hint from our external certifying auditor and my own research into whether anybody ever referred to the previous 35 page Quality Manual (they didn't - we have processes and procedures up the ying-yang many of which are cascaded to us from higher or external organisations and outside our unilateral control). But the A3 diagram that depicts the interaction of the processes has proved very popular (often in PowerPoint presentations to owners/stakeholders/customers) and is to my biased mind a good picture of how we deliver business.

As I say, horses for courses, but nearly always tempered by the comfort-feeling of someone high up that might have a personal view on what they want their organisation to have in place.

Which reminds me – the very new top-boss hasn’t seen it yet. Must remember how to remove “archive copy” watermarks …..

We are in the process of revamping our system and it has become quite a stressful process. We are either want to go whole hog one way or the other and there is no middle gournd. One of the biggest issues we are having now is "How do you define what is a controlled document and what isn't?" Our third party auditor has emphatically stated that all documents should be controlled but we seem to be spending all of our time looking for excuses not to control documents. Wouldn't it be easier to define all documents as controlled and those documents which people feel shouldn't be controlled should not even exist....HELP!!!!!!

This is an interesting point.

Ponder this:

If you had an instruction manual for something you personally cared about - let's say your car - would you read it? Would you read it cover to cover? Would you read it more than once - cover to cover? More importantly - do you believe than everyone that gets such a manual reads it cover to cover? If not, why not?

The next point is, then, when would you read it, and what information would you expect to get out of it if you did? What is 'meat' to a user - not an auditor. This is not to demean what the auditors are looking for, but rather systemically are we missing the point of the quality manual by essentially writing them for the wrong audience.

I think systemically we are getting trapped into writing a QMS instruction book with the Standard - and its interpreters (auditors) - as the audience, not the end user. The OP's boss may be conceptually correct - but unless the external system embraces that concept, he will be out of luck.


I agree. I did not mean that people would sit and read it as a book. I meant more on a section by section, as needed basis, or a basis for training on certain topics. My concern is most manuals don't say anything worth reading, and never have, this, most people do not read them.

We are in the process of revamping our system and it has become quite a stressful process. We are either want to go whole hog one way or the other and there is no middle gournd. One of the biggest issues we are having now is "How do you define what is a controlled document and what isn't?" Our third party auditor has emphatically stated that all documents should be controlled but we seem to be spending all of our time looking for excuses not to control documents. Wouldn't it be easier to define all documents as controlled and those documents which people feel shouldn't be controlled should not even exist....HELP!!!!!!

I agree. It is simpler to control all information. However, define a few simple, easy, clear and quick ways to control documents. Then, there is no incentive to avoid doc control.

We are in the process of revamping our system and it has become quite a stressful process. We are either want to go whole hog one way or the other and there is no middle gournd. One of the biggest issues we are having now is "How do you define what is a controlled document and what isn't?" Our third party auditor has emphatically stated that all documents should be controlled but we seem to be spending all of our time looking for excuses not to control documents. Wouldn't it be easier to define all documents as controlled and those documents which people feel shouldn't be controlled should not even exist....HELP!!!!!!

Hi, Neserae,

This thread might be useful to you: Controlled Document - What constitutes a controlled document? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=33622)

Also, you might think about using a wiki to implement your QMS (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=32513).

Pancho

I am setting up a QMS on an intranet site.

I dont see the point in rehashing the entire standard, so I am intending to address the 4.2.2 requirements.

I am looking at less than 20 pages.

Am I wrong in thinking it is pointless regurgitating the entire standard in the Manual?

...it defeats the purpose IMHO.

I want the document to be readable, streamlined and most importantly used. I can't see anybody reading a 100 page rehash of the standard with statements saying "We meet this, we do that etc".

I am setting up a QMS on an intranet site.

I dont see the point in rehashing the entire standard, so I am intending to address the 4.2.2 requirements.

I am looking at less than 20 pages.

Am I wrong in thinking it is pointless regurgitating the entire standard in the Manual?

...it defeats the purpose IMHO.

I want the document to be readable, streamlined and most importantly used. I can't see anybody reading a 100 page rehash of the standard with statements saying "We meet this, we do that etc".

1. An intranet can be an excellent approach because it eliminates a lot of doc control issues.

2. The standard is only 20+ pages, so it wouldn't be "a 100 page rehash."

3. If all you do is "rehash the standard" then it might not serve much benefit to put it in anyway. However, I am currently writing a manual for a client, and we are actually adapting the whole 9004 version of the standard. That's 50 pages. But, it contains good content, and we are editing and rewriting the requirements we wish to adapt, and adding explanation, and additional content personalized for the client. In my view, that approach DOES add a lot of value.

4. Our manual will also meet the need for procedures, because many of them will be incorporated into the same manual.

This approach is not necessarily the only way to do it, but I think it is an excellent approach.

I am setting up a QMS on an intranet site.

I dont see the point in rehashing the entire standard, so I am intending to address the 4.2.2 requirements.

I am looking at less than 20 pages.

Am I wrong in thinking it is pointless regurgitating the entire standard in the Manual?

...it defeats the purpose IMHO.

I want the document to be readable, streamlined and most importantly used. I can't see anybody reading a 100 page rehash of the standard with statements saying "We meet this, we do that etc".

Bear in mind that you do not need a separate "manual" - if your system description is on-line, and it includes all the information required for the "manual", then you have met the requirements.

I have implemented a web based document control. Documents are converted to PDF files. User can view the files but cannot print it so I have a better control of the documents. I am now researching on how to add a intranet search engine that will show the links when a user input keywords that are present on a pdf document.

I agree with obstacle3 when he said "I want the document to be readable, streamlined and most importantly used.". Documents must be easily accessible to users in the same way like Googling for information on the internet.

IMO a quality manual is just a re-print of the standard (QS), including customer requirements with the "shalls" and "shoulds" removed and replaced with the present tense. Include a procedure reference with each requirement and you're done.
Number of pages, double sideed, 25-50.

Exactly my thoughts.

Exactly my thoughts.

Variations of this topic have been extensively debated on the Cove.

Opinions remain strongly divided between the parties who subscribe to this view point, and the other parties who hold this to be an absolute waste of time and to deliver zilch value at all. I hold strongly firmly to the latter view.

For some of the lengthy discussions, see this thread: (the title doesn't really reflect the turn the discussion took, alas, and a good illustration of why the Cove tries to keep a discussion consistent with its thread title) Updated Quality Manual for 2008

and this one: Who Actually Uses the Quality Manual (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=31149)

Exactly my thoughts.

Can you explain to me the value to the business of having the standard re-written?

I have created a quality manual for our company which is 40 pages. It simply covers every element with a paragragh or so, except for Management Responsibility is covered in the manual instead of a procedure.
My superiors feel the manual should only be 3 or 4 pages long. Most of this reasoning is from different companies who have claimed to be certified.
Am I wrong in assuming a 3 or 4 page manual would not be adequate, and what exactly would be accurate?
Thanks, Dawn
Even if you choose No.3 font size and print in a microscript You cannot cover all requirements in 4 pages.If you avoid all formalities and answer only the 200 shall requirements of QMS you need 400 sentences. How many pages do 400 sentences need?
May be your boss wants to save the trees.
V.J.Brahmaiah

Even if you choose No.3 font size and print in a microscript You cannot cover all requirements in 4 pages.If you avoid all formalities and answer only the 200 shall requirements of QMS you need 400 sentences. How many pages do 400 sentences need?
May be your boss wants to save the trees.
V.J.Brahmaiah


Quality Manual is easily covered in 4 pages. the required procedures take a few more.

Quality Manual is easily covered in 4 pages. the required procedures take a few more.
Well! you want to enter the Guinees book of world records for the smallest Quality (non) Manual.
V.J.Brahmaiah:agree:

Not really looking for a world record Quality Manual, just a practical one. Two pages max. Make sure you are looking at the requirements for a QM, not the system. :)

Not really looking for a world record Quality Manual, just a practical one. Two pages max. Make sure you are looking at the requirements for a QM, not the system. :)
What is the Manual about, if not the system?
V.J.Brahmaiah

Here's the definition:3.7.4
quality manual
document specifying the quality management system of an organization

Here's the definition:
For example one sentence Manual below:
"This is to document that our company follows a system comprising of all requiremets of ISO 9001-2008 standard."
Authorized by:
Chairman and MD cum MR

.... If you avoid all formalities and answer only the 200 shall requirements of QMS you need 400 sentences. H ....

Who says your manual has to cover all the shall statements in 9001? Clause 4.2.2 tells you exactly what the manual 'shall' contain. Everything else is by choice.

Who says your manual has to cover all the shall statements in 9001? Clause 4.2.2 tells you exactly what the manual 'shall' contain. Everything else is by choice.
Could you please show me a real example of the manual you are advocating.?
In the meantime enjoy the business cartoons below:
V.J.Brahmaiah

Can you explain to me the value to the business of having the standard re-written?

Well, first of all, we must agree on what we call a Quality Manual. When I started working with 17025, I liked thinking that a Quality Manual is a combination of ALL the documents describing how a job at a laboratory is done. That is, from documents which had quality policies signed by head managers, to work instructions and calibration protocol forms.
But as time went by, i realised that only the first level documents are called Quality Manual, that is, policies. Even when our registrar asks for our Quality Manual, that means they want just the first level document, without procedures, or work instructions.

So, if we agree that a Quality Manual is only the first level document, what we get is, for example:

Requirement in 17025:
4.3.3.4 Procedures shall be established to describe how changes in documents maintained in computerized systems are made and controlled.



In quality manual:
"The XXXX laboratory has established procedures describing how changes in documents maintained in computerized systems are made and controled. Please, see the procedure XXX-YYY."

And procdure XXX-YYY is a seperate document, possibly, in a different location (be it physical or electronical).


Or even a more silly way:
Requirement in 17025:
4.2.7. "Top management shall ensure that the integrity of the management system is maintained when changes to the management system are planned and implemented"

In quality manual:
"Top management ensures that the integrity of the management system is maintained when changes to the management system are planned and implemented."

Could you please show me a real example of the manual you are advocating.?

Thanks for the offer. There are plenty of these manuals posted here on the Cove if you search. I don't personally have a copy that I would put forward. In my mind a manual will have more information than the bare minimum required by 9001 but it would NOT (please excuse the added emphasis) include a statement against each requirements of the standard.

Thanks for the offer. There are plenty of these manuals posted here on the Cove if you search. I don't personally have a copy that I would put forward. In my mind a manual will have more information than the bare minimum required by 9001 but it would NOT (please excuse the added emphasis) include a statement against each requirements of the standard.

Hi Paul,

I will offer the other point of view. If a company commits to meet all the requirements of the ISO standard, then somewhere in their system, they have to tell their people what requirements they have to meet. Not necessarily the manual, but why not? Or, it can be put it into procedures and work instructions. Just reading the standard is compliant, but it begins to make the whole concept silly if you slice and dice the information across many documents.

For example, I am helping a smaller company implement ISO. We are writing a manual using ISO 9004 as the foundation, some would say that's really heavy duty. But, it is rewritten in clear simple English, I am adding additional explanation and insight tailored to the organization's needs. The manual becomes a handbook, useful to help someone understand what the company expects. And, by putting it in the manual, we will only need a few procedures and some work instructions.

Clean, simple, clear, meaningful and worth reading. Useful to the employees, and easy to audit. And the whole QMS, manual and instructions will still be smaller than many of the systems that people with a 4 page manual have put into place. But, mine will be easy to find stuff because it will be on the server and have a single Table of Contents.

What is wrong with that approach? I think most top management would welcome a clean elegant solution like that.

Hi Paul,

I will offer the other point of view. We have been round this discussion a few times but I'm pleased to give it another go. :)
If a company commits to meet all the requirements of the ISO standard, then somewhere in their system, they have to tell their people what requirements they have to meet. Do they? The whole point of the new approach to management system standards - starting with 14001 and continuing with 9001 etc. is that you don't have to write everything down. Hence the quality manual only has to cover what is in 4.2.2. and the EMS manual doesn't have to have anything.

Not necessarily the manual, but why not? Or, it can be put it into procedures and work instructions. Just reading the standard is compliant, but it begins to make the whole concept silly if you slice and dice the information across many documents.Using this argument you would have everything in one book - no matter who needs to use it. As I have said before my preference is that anyone has access to everything they want but aren't given more than they need (so that they have to sift through).

Clean, simple, clear, meaningful and worth reading. Useful to the employees, and easy to audit. And the whole QMS, manual and instructions will still be smaller than many of the systems that people with a 4 page manual have put into place. But, mine will be easy to find stuff because it will be on the server and have a single Table of Contents.We will have to take your word for it. My opinion is that any system that starts with any management systems standard is bound to result in employee disengagement.

For just a couple of examples - how many employees use the term 'product realization' or 'environmental aspects' in their daily lives - apart from the 'experts.'


What is wrong with that approach? I think most top management would welcome a clean elegant solution like that.We disagree on both 'clean' and 'elegant.'

We have been round this discussion a few times but I'm pleased to give it another go. :)
Do they? The whole point of the new approach to management system standards - starting with 14001 and continuing with 9001 etc. is that you don't have to write everything down. Hence the quality manual only has to cover what is in 4.2.2. and the EMS manual doesn't have to have anything.

Using this argument you would have everything in one book - no matter who needs to use it. As I have said before my preference is that anyone has access to everything they want but aren't given more than they need (so that they have to sift through).

We will have to take your word for it. My opinion is that any system that starts with any management systems standard is bound to result in employee disengagement.

For just a couple of examples - how many employees use the term 'product realization' or 'environmental aspects' in their daily lives - apart from the 'experts.'


We disagree on both 'clean' and 'elegant.'


Everything but specific instructions are in one electronic book. About half will be in the manual. One electronic document, with a clear table of contents, and searchable by keywords. That is "clean and elegant."

The specific detail things are already in work instructions so people don't have to slog thru unnecessary content.

A manual is not a book to read, it is a look-up document, like a dictionary. When you buy a dictionary, do you prefer it comes in one document, or 10? Wouldn't one well organized one be easier to use?

The manual will be used electronically, with simple hyperlinks, which makes it easy to find info in a few seconds of searching. Even if printed, the ToC and index will still make it easy to use. Compare that to layers of related documents and redundant, incomplete info.

My manual actually explains content and requirements, and why we want to do them, not just regurgitates the standard in obtuse language. I am not writing an ISO book, I am writing a handbook for employees using ISO 9004 as the base.

ISO 9004 is much better than ISO 9001. Anyone who has not read it really should. They will kick themselves for not reading it sooner. After all, it states it is written for companies who want to improve performance and efficiency...gee, who should not want that?) People should give their top mgt. a copy of ISO 9004, not ISO 9001. They would get better support.

For anyone that wants to just repeat the standard...why dont you just write "quality manual" on the top of the standard. Seriously. Otherwise, my one page overview is working just fine and passed several ISO audits.

For anyone that wants to just repeat the standard...why dont you just write "quality manual" on the top of the standard. Seriously. Otherwise, my one page overview is working just fine and passed several ISO audits.

If your goal is to pass an audit...cool...I am looking for my QMS to do a lot more than that. Passing an audit is a given sidebar. A manual that explains why, what and so on may actually be useful.

Everything but specific instructions are in one electronic book. About half will be in the manual. One electronic document, with a clear table of contents, and searchable by keywords. That is "clean and elegant." Without seeing it we only have your word for it.


The specific detail things are already in work instructions so people don't have to slog thru unnecessary content.So it's not all in one book, then? Does this mean you have 'sliced and diced' the information across many documents?


A manual is not a book to read, it is a look-up document, like a dictionary. When you buy a dictionary, do you prefer it comes in one document, or 10? Wouldn't one well organized one be easier to use?Interesting analogy. I certainly don't think of the manual as like a dictionary. As I've said before my 'best' quality manuals are the ones that read a bit like a company brochure. I'm not sure how they would compare with your view, probably not very well going by our discussions.


The manual will be used electronically, with simple hyperlinks, which makes it easy to find info in a few seconds of searching. Even if printed, the ToC and index will still make it easy to use. Compare that to layers of related documents and redundant, incomplete info.I'm not against hyperlinks or anything that helps folks to get around the system to find information they need. My issue all the way through this and other threads is - and let we say this very s - l - o - w - l - y. Any regurgitation of standard wording in a manual is:
Of no real value
Is a turn off for the people that count - the employees



My manual actually explains content and requirements, and why we want to do them, not just regurgitates the standard in obtuse language. I am not writing an ISO book, I am writing a handbook for employees using ISO 9004 as the base.Again we will have to take your word for this. Unless you would like to post a sample of your text for us to judge? :notme:


ISO 9004 is much better than ISO 9001. Anyone who has not read it really should. They will kick themselves for not reading it sooner. After all, it states it is written for companies who want to improve performance and efficiency...gee, who should not want that?) People should give their top mgt. a copy of ISO 9004, not ISO 9001. They would get better support.I agree 9004 is a better document but, much as I wish the organisation's leaders would read a quality standard I am still amazed that we quality professionals think they will. IMHO the job is ours to explain quality in real terms and get them to buy into the principles underpinning the 9000 series and good business practice - the QMS and / or certification will follow.

If your goal is to pass an audit...cool...I am looking for my QMS to do a lot more than that. Passing an audit is a given sidebar. A manual that explains why, what and so on may actually be useful.

What other reason would there be for addressing all the requirements of the standard in the manual. You're not telling me 'Joe Soap Inc. believes in planning product realization' means anything to anyone other than the person writing the system and the auditor ... are you?

Without seeing it we only have your word for it.

So it's not all in one book, then? Does this mean you have 'sliced and diced' the information across many documents?

Interesting analogy. I certainly don't think of the manual as like a dictionary. As I've said before my 'best' quality manuals are the ones that read a bit like a company brochure. I'm not sure how they would compare with your view, probably not very well going by our discussions.



I'm not against hyperlinks or anything that helps folks to get around the system to find information they need. My issue all the way through this and other threads is - and let we say this very s - l - o - w - l - y. Any regurgitation of standard wording in a manual is:

Of no real value
Is a turn off for the people that count - the employees

Again we will have to take your word for this. Unless you would like to post a sample of your text for us to judge? :notme:

I agree 9004 is a better document but, much as I wish the organisation's leaders would read a quality standard I am still amazed that we quality professionals think they will. IMHO the job is ours to explain quality in real terms and get them to buy into the principles underpinning the 9000 series and good business practice - the QMS and / or certification will follow.

What other reason would there be for addressing all the requirements of the standard in the manual. You're not telling me 'Joe Soap Inc. believes in planning product realization' means anything to anyone other than the person writing the system and the auditor ... are you?

I stated very clearly in my first post that all the general interest things are in one simple manual, and the very specific detail oriented thngs are in very specific detail oriented work instructions - 50/50. I agree that putting every specifc detail in a manual would be counter-productive. Perhaps you did not understand that at first, which could explain why you did not like it.

I also think that if the policy states that an organization is committed to meet all the requirements of the standard, then somewhere or somehow you have to tell people what those requirements are. What, are they supposed to guess? Many of the supporters of the 4 page approach put the requirements in a myriad of procedures. I chose to put them into one simple manual, and not write a bunch of procedures.

But, I did not "regurgitate the standard," I stated clearly that I explained the requirements, as well as the purpose, benefit, how, what, etc. of those requirements. If you don't feel that adds value, cool. My client seems to feel that it does, and even top management has expressed some interest in some of it.

If you don't like this approach, that's fine. But, as I said in my first post, I see great benefit to the client in this approach, and wanted to state the case for it.

PS: I don't think I will be using the term "product realization" in it. At least we agree on that part. When I am done, maybe there will be some parts we can post.

I said we'd end up going over the same ground - ah, well! :frust:
I stated very clearly in my first post that all the general interest things are in one simple manual, and the very specific detail oriented thngs are in very specific detail oriented work instructions - 50/50. I agree that putting every specifc detail in a manual would be counter-productive. Perhaps you did not understand that at first, which could explain why you did not like it.I thought I understood what you said when you said:Hi Paul,

I will offer the other point of view. If a company commits to meet all the requirements of the ISO standard, then somewhere in their system, they have to tell their people what requirements they have to meet. Not necessarily the manual, but why not?
and now you say:

I also think that if the policy states that an organization is committed to meet all the requirements of the standard, then somewhere or somehow you have to tell people what those requirements are. What, are they supposed to guess? Many of the supporters of the 4 page approach put the requirements in a myriad of procedures. I chose to put them into one simple manual, and not write a bunch of procedures.
Then I think - where is the benefit? Just because there is a requirement doesn't mean you have to write down that requirement in your system - that is what the standard does! If you have to describe what the requirement means for your organisationthen fair enough but not to just restate the requirement for its own sake.

The whole point of going away from the 9001.94 approach of 'there shall be documented procedures for ...' is to allow people to take an intelligent view of what they need. I don't need to write a lot of stuff down - because it is well known already.


But, I did not "regurgitate the standard," I stated clearly that I explained the requirements, as well as the purpose, benefit, how, what, etc. of those requirements. If you don't feel that adds value, cool. My client seems to feel that it does, and even top management has expressed some interest in some of it.

If you don't like this approach, that's fine. But, as I said in my first post, I see great benefit to the client in this approach, and wanted to state the case for it.Look. You keep going on about how wonderful your approach is. You may be right. As somoeone who has seen a range of different approaches I have gained a bit of a jaundiced view to unsubstantiated claims. :notme:



PS: I don't think I will be using the term "product realization" in it. At least we agree on that part. When I am done, maybe there will be some parts we can post.Agreed

If you are running a very small business and you are the only one full time employee, you can simplify your manual. Allot one page for your quality policy and quality objectives. There are 6 mandatory procedures. Combine corrective action and preventive action, use 1 form for both procedures (just indicate whether it is a corrective or preventive perhaps by checking the check box). You can simplify other forms in the same way. But I think it’s more than 4 pages.

I've been watching this entertained, because it's simply 2 approaches. ISO requires the QM to include the documented procedures or reference to them. A 4 (or 1) page manual will only have a reference to them. If included it will be longer.

I've worked with many different companies, and it depends on the culture of the company to determine what works best. If electronic, they can essentially be 'different documents' with the hyperlinks, the whole 'package' called the 'quality manual.'

Personally I prefer the procedure level to be separate documents, mostly for the purpose of revision control.

I did a review for a company recently. The manual was close about 80 pages. It was a small, simple company. It had every procedure, instruction and form in their 'quality manual'. That's all they need and it works for them.

I've been watching this entertained, because it's simply 2 approaches. ISO requires the QM to include the documented procedures or reference to them. A 4 (or 1) page manual will only have a reference to them. If included it will be longer.Thanks, Laura. Some parts of the thread entertain me as well. Others less so! :notme:

Unfortunately the issues goes a bit deeper than just two approaches. The point frrom Helmut's post that I picked up on (as I have done many times in the past) is whether the manual (or procedures, work instructions etc. should include statements of the requirements of the standard. I say they don't and (I believe) Helmut thinks they should. For the reasons before I think repeating requirements does a disservice to the users - because they don't use this language.


I've worked with many different companies, and it depends on the culture of the company to determine what works best. If electronic, they can essentially be 'different documents' with the hyperlinks, the whole 'package' called the 'quality manual.' No problem with hyperlinks. I'm not sure about the whole package being the 'manual' though.


Personally I prefer the procedure level to be separate documents, mostly for the purpose of revision control. Agreed. Although this I don't mind.

I did a review for a company recently. The manual was close about 80 pages. It was a small, simple company. It had every procedure, instruction and form in their 'quality manual'. That's all they need and it works for them.Again fine to me - if it works for them and it doesn't repeat 'ISO speak.'

I did a review for a company recently. The manual was close about 80 pages. It was a small, simple company. It had every procedure, instruction and form in their 'quality manual'. That's all they need and it works for them. Again fine to me - if it works for them and it doesn't repeat 'ISO speak.' Actually it does. Essentially the relevant parts of the standard are woven into it.

...

Unfortunately the issues goes a bit deeper than just two approaches. The point frrom Helmut's post that I picked up on (as I have done many times in the past) is whether the manual (or procedures, work instructions etc. should include statements of the requirements of the standard. I say they don't and (I believe) Helmut thinks they should. For the reasons before I think repeating requirements does a disservice to the users - because they don't use this language.



I don't understand why you feel it does a "disservice" to tell people what the things are that they are required to do. Most companies already define the requirements somewhere in their procedures and wi's, and that is acceptable in audits everyday. It does not have to be in the manual. Sure, we could give everyone a mandate to read the ISO standard, but that won't work well. Why not describe the requirements in the various documents in the QMS as appropriate. Few people seem to be debating that, they are just discussing where to document them.

Btw, I agree with your comment that some thngs don't have to be documented, if they are well known. I am a fan of cl 4.2.1.d. But, a lot of the requirements and methods do need to be documented and usually are. Are you really opposed to that, or am I misunderstanding?

your boss should conform to the standard. not the standard to conform to your boss

I don't understand why you feel it does a "disservice" to tell people what the things are that they are required to do. For the reasons I have posted over the last day or so (or months / years, take your pick). People don't need to know what a 'standard' requires them to do in their daily jobs. They need to know what their prganisation expects them to do - full stop, period, point!

If we choose to put ISO speak into a documentation then we disengage anyone who isn't a died in the wool ISO head. Now there are some who would say this is a good way of protecting quality managers jobs but I don't think so. Unless we make quality relevant to those that pay the wages and show that all this stuff is about making things better then we're done for!
Most companies already define the requirements somewhere in their procedures and wi's, and that is acceptable in audits everyday. It does not have to be in the manual. Sure, we could give everyone a mandate to read the ISO standard, but that won't work well. Why not describe the requirements in the various documents in the QMS as appropriate. Few people seem to be debating that, they are just discussing where to document them.I never said get people to read the standard :confused: - if you page down a bit you will find exactly the opposite in resomse to your point on 9004.

The skill of the quality professional (as I have said 431 times before) is to take ISO standards, read through ISO speak and assess: 'What does this mean for my organisation?' and then go about explaining to the folks in his / her organisation what changes need to be made - if any.

If we go about documenting an 'ISO' system rather than the organisation's real management system then we are doomed to be 'the document guys and gals' and all we are there to do is defend the documented system against the invading (barbarian :D) hordes of auditors - not a job I want.


Btw, I agree with your comment that some thngs don't have to be documented, if they are well known. I am a fan of cl 4.2.1.d. But, a lot of the requirements and methods do need to be documented and usually are. Are you really opposed to that, or am I misunderstanding? Misunderstanding I'm afraid! :bigwave: There are plenty of things that need documenting but, for example (at random): 'It is Joe Bloggs Ltd.'s policy to ensure that we maintain the infrastructure necessary to ensure product is manufactured in accordance with ... blah, blah, blah ... is not one of them and therefore has no place in a manual.

The organisation will, however, have a budgetting process that covers maintenance and capital programmes if you want to put anything in the manual you say that and - even if it isn't written in a manual - if some auditor comes round and says 'How do you maintain the Infrastructure and Work Environment?' you take him / her to the CFO / Finance Director and then on to the maintenance manager (for example) to explain how it actually happens.

Thanks, Laura. Some parts of the thread entertain me as well. Others less so! :notme:

Unfortunately the issues goes a bit deeper than just two approaches. The point frrom Helmut's post that I picked up on (as I have done many times in the past) is whether the manual (or procedures, work instructions etc. should include statements of the requirements of the standard. I say they don't and (I believe) Helmut thinks they should. For the reasons before I think repeating requirements does a disservice to the users - because they don't use this language.


No problem with hyperlinks. I'm not sure about the whole package being the 'manual' though.


Agreed. Although this I don't mind.

Again fine to me - if it works for them and it doesn't repeat 'ISO speak.'

Agree, I don't put 'ISO language' in the procedures or manual. I interpret the standard into 'company language.' Product realization = 'mold build process' for one company, or 3 processes for another 'Quoting Process' 'Design Process' and 'Fabrication Process.'

The only time I use the 'standard' language is in writing a N/C for an internal audit. Concluding 'this is in violation of company procedure ## and ISO 9001:2008 #.#.#. This way, they may go back to the standard for their C/A.

The 'manual' piece is the semantics I was referring too. I don't care what the entire 'Quality System' is called. Manual, Book, System, etc. If their complete system is just called that, it's fine with me.

Agree, I don't put 'ISO language' in the procedures or manual. I interpret the standard into 'company language.' Product realization = 'mold build process' for one company, or 3 processes for another 'Quoting Process' 'Design Process' and 'Fabrication Process.' This is exactly what I have been trying to say. Any standard specifies a set of requirements. An organisation's documented management system is there to describe how it meets the requirements. The only reasons for documenting anything are if:
The standard requires it to be documented
The organisation believes it needs to be documented


The only time I use the 'standard' language is in writing a N/C for an internal audit. Concluding 'this is in violation of company procedure ## and ISO 9001:2008 #.#.#. This way, they may go back to the standard for their C/A. Exactly how we require audit training to teach it! :agree1:

If you have an N / C in theory you shouldn't have to document the requirement (because the auditee should be aware of the standard requirements) but most times it helps the auditee to go directly to what is expected of them - you pick out the shall statement and they know what they have to do.

The 'manual' piece is the semantics I was referring too. I don't care what the entire 'Quality System' is called. Manual, Book, System, etc. If their complete system is just called that, it's fine with me.Again in earlier posts I have suggested you might call the manual 'Ethel' but maybe that's too big a step!

People don't need to know what a 'standard' requires them to do in their daily jobs. They need to know what their prganisation expects them to do - full stop, period, point!

... The skill of the quality professional (as I have said 431 times before) is to take ISO standards, read through ISO speak and assess: 'What does this mean for my organisation?' and then go about explaining to the folks in his / her organisation what changes need to be made - if any.

If we go about documenting an 'ISO' system rather than the organisation's real management system then we are doomed to be 'the document guys and gals' and all we are there to do is defend the documented system against the invading (barbarian :D) hordes of auditors - not a job I want.
Me neither!

There are plenty of things that need documenting but, for example (at random): 'It is Joe Bloggs Ltd.'s policy to ensure that we maintain the infrastructure necessary to ensure product is manufactured in accordance with ... blah, blah, blah ... is not one of them and therefore has no place in a manual.
No, it doesn't. After all, if the organisation has formally committed to a QMS that meets ISO 9001, that covers it. What on earth then is the point of then repeating all the detail of the standard with 'Joe Bloggs Ltd's policy is' in front of it?

It's a quality management system we're after. And the system consists of more than just documentaitn. It's not a 'document everything' or a system of documentation. Yes, doco is required. Yes, there's a need to write stuff down. But what, how and how much is an individual decision.
I prefer an approach that recognises it's a management system to the one that wants to write down (re-interpreted or otherwise) every single requirement.

Ultimately it needs to work for the individual organisation in their context, with their customers, their unique needs and their products/services and resources. There isn't (and shouldn't) be any 'one size fits all'.

...Yes, doco is required...
That must be in the Australian version of the standard. The only place I've ever seen the term "doco" used is in your posts. ;)

That must be in the Australian version of the standard. The only place I've ever seen the term "doco" used is in your posts. ;)
Yup. :D Showing the Aussie tendency to contract long words (and oddly enough, to lengthen very short ones. So 'David' becames 'Dave' but as 'Rob' is already shortened, it often becomes 'Robbo' or 'Robbie'. Really.)

(Actually, in my case, just laziness: saves extra typing).