Howdy everyone. I just finished a rough draft of our quality manual for the 2000 standard. Thanks for the information and assistance. But now I have a different problem.

A couple managers have looked at tha manual and have complained about it being to dry and reading like a sicence manual. They want a lot of reworded so that it is personable so that our customers will enjoy reading it. :rolleyes:

Some of the changes that have been mentioned will invalidate the manual (I think). Does anyone have any ideas on how to add personality to a quality manual so that is pleasant to read, yet still compliant? :confused: :frust:

What makes those managers think that the customers are actually going to read the manual?????? Much less, ever find pleasure in doing so?

Don't they just get tossed over to the Purchasing Dept. for their files?

I tried explaining that the only people that would actually read it would be quality people, and their used to reading dry stuff. :D

When I quickly scanned this thread, for some reason, (old age probably), I had a sudden thought about writing the QA Manual in the style of...........Clive Barker, Steven King, Hans Christian Anderson etc; etc;

Might make a more enjoyable read.

But if I have something constructive to say...I'll be back.

Regards,

Chris

You could throw in a few jokes, a crossword maybe - or even a Page 3 girl.

Sorry - just returned from my hols and I am still in a good mood, normal service will resume by about lunchtime.

Richard,

You might get some ideas from Amita's Quality Manual. They took an interesting approach and used famous quotes as well as plain English.

http://www.amita.com/iso/QualityManual_00.htm

Best Regards,
Hank Fowler

Tell those managers that if they think your manual is dry reading, try reading the standard itself!

I assume you already told them that a QM isn't generally filled with purple prose. Perhaps you could show them a few other companys' quality manuals -- I think you can find at least one 2000 version to download here on the Cove in Marc's files. You can find lots of 1994 version manuals to read on the internet by searching for "quality manual" on Google. None I have seen are really "personable" or "fun reading". Some people put introductions and company profiles, company history, etc. in the beginning of their manual -- not an ISO requirement but something they do, so I think that would be the best place to put in some flowery or "non-dry" stuff if you wanted.

Finally, see if you can find one of those complaining Managers' official reports, proposals, etc. that are destined for their bosses or customers and see just how "non-dry" their stuff is. If it is dry as well you have a bit more leverage. Good luck.

I heard of someone writing their manual in a free-flowing prose style. Not divided up into sections, just pages and pages of words. Not an easy read, but yes it was different.

If you really want to personalize it, try to use small and simple words and write it as if you were speaking to a seventh grade class. Mention "why" you identify and segregate non-conforming product, or "how" using a document control system adds value to a process. Adding these qualifiers makes a document more personable and understandable to people who are learning something.

But making the QM more friendly isn't going to make your clients enjoy reading it! If it's read by your clients at all, the person at their facility will be scanning it for all the same buzz words that are recognized by those of us who write these things. They'll be looking for the compatibility (in words at least) of your system with their own. Using the same language makes it easier to do this.

Making a user-friendly QM for employee use is a good thing. If you want to provide this document to employees as an overview of your QMS, then use those qualifiers mentioned above.

So first determine the primary use of your QM and make it fit accordingly. Or try to make it do both if you can.

I'll start rewriting our manual soon, and I'll try to do what I do with the procedures: Keep it short... Using lots of words is fine if you're writing a novel, but in a manual it just hides the facts you really want to find. Our current manual is too thick by far. :o

/Claes

I think you should try hiding "Where's Waldo" figures throughout the manual and give a prize to the first 10 people who come up with the correct number of Waldo's. (Or, you could do a word search and instead of Waldo's use "shall's") It would help ensure people read the document :)

Seriously though, if THAT'S what those managers are worried about, they need some projects. Haven't they ever MET (most) registrar auditors????? They don't have a sense of humor...

Okay, so it's a play on whatever baseball film that Costner was in (he's been in so many, it's hard to keep track :) ). The ISO 14001 forum has a discussion on merging the manuals for multiple standards, so I'll mention a bit about what I said there.

Our Chilean sister facility has developed an Operations System that combines ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001. Not all of the Elements are the same and yet somehow they managed to develop a 28 page Operations Manual that covers all three Standards and addresses all of the applicable "shall's" :cool:

Their manual is not written in the form of an ISO Standard. It's written for them...for their Customers....for all of their Stakeholders. The language is simple and appropriate for the industry and location. And, truth be told, it's actually rather interesting to read. They've managed to successfully blend three systems into one truly functional and dynamic system, while keeping it true to who they are.

It's not easy to write a manual that isn't just a revamp of the Standard, where you read "organization" to mean "insert your company's name here" ;) . Obviously, though, it can be done.

Richard, my concern is that your Managers seem to want you to revise something that is, technically speaking, done. Why spend the time revising it now? It meets the shall's...sure, it's nothing spectacular....save that for the continual improvement. Tell your External's later that you revised the manual's format so that it would appeal to your Stakeholders (including Customers). For now, imho, it's done...go focus on other parts of the sytem that need work (if necessary).

Albiet my cynical opinion, the only people that will read the Quality Manual after desk audited to ensure that all the shalls have been addressed are:

nobody!

The guts of a quality system are in the procedures, instruction, and forms/records.

-An auditor doesn't want to read a policy manual when on the job!

-The customer usually has an M.R. or such that will file it with the other policy manuals that read the same, especially if there is too much prose. Quality/engineering types are not usually the type that want their reading to be cute and sweet. As Joe Friday said, just the facts mam!

-The supplier will do the same thing, except that they will review it before filing.
--------------------------------------------

Is it really cost effective to make a technical quality manual read like a Tom Clancy novel or a romance paperback?

Richard,

Please don't take this as scarcasm towards you personally, just the thought processes of some people that direct such endeavors.
:)

I figured everyone would get a kick out the comments I received from management. Believe me, I'm laughing just as much as any of you, if not more.

I've actually managed to reach a compromise (I didn't think that was possible with managers:) ). Instead of trying to liven up the whole thing, the introduction will be rewritten to be more reader friendly. I think I might put in a warning after the intro though so that people will know the rest of the manual may be extremely boring. :vfunny:

Richard,

Keep up your sense of humor and thought process, you will go far!:)