I am just starting to write our quality manual Is it permissible to use the wording from the standard when explaining how I am addressing that standard in our quality manual?

Do I have to footnote it or may I just state in the introduction that 'This manual is written in parallel with ISO/TS 16949:2002. It is our goal to establish a quality management system at ISG that embraces the standards set forth in this automotive technical specification.'?

Does anybody have any ideas? :confused:


Denise

I normally rewrite the standard close to word for word, changing "the organziation shall ..." to "ABC Company does ..." I try to make it read a little easier also.

I follow the same paragraph numbering as the standard, but only go out one decimal place - it makes it a little easier for the average person to read, but you can still find all of the requirements pretty easily.

After each major section I include a reference to the related level two procedure. For example "For details of how training requirements are implemented, see the Training Procedure P-MGT-006"

Sections 1-3 are introduction, scope and organizaiton overview. Under scope I do state that the manual is intended to meet/exceed the requirements of ISO/TS 16949: 2002, and then never mention the standard again.

My appendix has a cross reference chart of every paragraph of the standard to the procedure. Example: 6.2.2 Competence, Awareness, Training = Training Procedure P-MGT-006.

Tom

Thanks. It appears that scanning in the text of the standard is not worth the effort. I guess that I will type it in.

:) Denise

I don't think I would try to modify the exact text of the standard to make my manual, but if you need the standard electronic you can purchase a PDF from the ISO website - www.iso.ch. You can copy and paste the text into a word processor.

Tom

Tom,

Thanks again. I am through clause 5. This is definitely the way to do this. I was making it more difficult than it was by trying to put my responses into my own words. There is no reason to do that. Now, all I have to do is add the supporting docs and I will be ready to go!

:bonk: :bonk: :bonk:
Denise

Just to play Devils Advocate...

I know that it's easier to create your procedures/manual based on the same verbiage as the standard, but do you think that's best? Do you think that you would get a better understanding of your own processes and systems if you did review them thoroughly and create your own wording for how you meet requirements?

I'm not saying that one method or another is better, I'm just posing the question...

I know there are a lot of auditors out there that hate to see standards regurgitated as a company's own procedures.

Then again, if it works and it's effective, that's what counts right?
:)

From what I see, with QS there was more of a "how run our business to comply with the standard" mentality, where we strived to conform our business to the standard. However, TS seems to flip this 180 degrees. With TS it seems to me to be more along the lines of "how does this standard fit the way I do business". To me, this is a much better "mentality" and provides an opportunity to create procedures and other documents that are specific to how YOU do things instead of just trying to fit it to the standard.

Does that make any sense (I still need more coffee, and it is a Monday...) :bonk:

Xman,
I guess this is my thinking on it: Our company's main objective is to make money. When we earn TS certification it will help us make more money by easily accessing new customers.

I am a strong believer in Quality Management Standards and using the well-thought out criteria as guidelines for quality. I am relieved at the "mentality" of TS. It is much more about the way a company does business. It is not so restrictive. Hopefully, it will pay off.

Every company must have a system. So, I will link our system with the standards. We do most of the things that are required. And the other things need work.

But translating the standards without leaving something out is sometimes difficult. Given a 1 (low benefit to the company) to 10 (high benefit), I'm not sure how important it would be to put the manual in my own words. Probably somewhere around a 4. I don't think a whole lot of anybody actually sits down and reads or refers to the quality manual on a regular basis.

Yes, it would be a good exercise to put the manual in my own words. And I could use the practice. But as long as we are doing what we are supposed to and I can clearly discuss it with the auditor, then that is enough for now. I can write the manual and insert the supporting docs as required. The time it takes is alot less and IMO, our company will still have the same results.

Perhaps, after our pre-assessment I may find out that I need to make the manual more personalized to our company (for the sake of passing the audit).

But right now, I want to get the manual written and go on to higher priority items like taking part in implementing and monitoring the quality of my company.

IMHO, why re-invent the wheel. In my case, the shortcut is more efficient.

:bigwave:Sincerely,

Denise

Xman,

I totally agree that PROCEDURES should be written in your own words to fit the operation of your organization. The manual on the other hand I write to match the standard. I use the manual to provide a road map from the standard to my procedures. Truthfully the manual will probably never be used on a daily basis. The major use I find for the manual is 1.) provide a map to the registration auditor. 2.) provide evidence to customers that we have developed a system.

The procedures are where I put the important information, customized to make it easy for the workers to follow. I have always put this into the format that works best - I used to always fight people that said I should have 20 procedures to match ISO 1994.

Tom

I must be missing something. The QS and TS are as different as night and day.
Para 4.2.1 list the documentation requirements for the quality management system.
Para. 4.2.2 lists the requirements for a quality manual. There is no requirement to duplicate the TS spec and call it your quality manual. If you do, then it's no diferent then QS.
The primary emphasis in TS is to develop a manual that supports the process approach.

Sam,

I am more of the mind to think that the primary interest of TS is to develop a quality system that supports the process approach.

Do you not agree?

Denise

Denise
I agree. I think I tried to convey that in my previous response. The process approach to auditing will be used to determine if your system complies with the TS.
Refer to ISO/TC 176/Sc 544R for information relating to guidance on the process approach to auditing. The major diffeence in this and the TS approach is that you will be required to identify customer oriented processes (COP's). Although not required by the specification, the auditor training guru's are teaching the COP and COP support process method as a way to develop processes.

Hi Sam,

I guess I'm not comprehending what you are trying to tell me. Yes, COPs are at the forefront of TS. Our company has already had a system that looks at inputs and outputs throughout the process. And our supporting docs are written by the employees that perform the tasks. So, I understand that part.

I thought we were talking about the benefits of duplicating the standard in the Quality Manual vs. writing the manual in your own words.

Sorry - I lost the line of thought! Please explain.

Thanks,

Denise

"I thought we were talking about the benefits of duplicating the standard in the Quality Manual vs. writing the manual in your own words."

There is no requirement to duplicate the TS spec., therefore, IMO, there is no benefit.

Within the QS requirements the statement "The supplier shall prepare a quality manual covering the requirements of this international standard." was traken, by most people, to mean that your manual should be a duplicate of the standard with the shalls removed and replaced with the presdent tense.
This phrase does not appear in the TS. The requirements for a TS quality manual are:
1- The scope,
2- A list of documented procedures,
3- description of the interaction of the processes.

Sam,

But what about the sections in TS that must be addressed with a statement and then only need evidence of conformity? Many sections do not need supporting docs. What should I do with those sections? Do I need to address them in the Quality Manual?

Scope, list of docs, and process interaction description ---
I never even thought about taking 4.2.2 that literally!

:bonk: :bonk:

Denise

The manual needs to cover every "shall" in 16949. The order, format, wording, etc. do not matter as long as you can prove to an auditor you have covered everything. I have seen companies put this into their own format, but it does become a nightmare to try to audit to the standard.

I just went through this on an ISO 9001: 2000 audit. My clients manual (which I wrote) is set up to follow the standard, pretty much word for word. Procedures are mostly flowcharted and fall into the categories of management, administration, inspection, inventory, design and manufacturing. There is a link in the manual to the documents for that section of ISO, and a link in the procedure back to the section of the manual. The procedures have very little wording from the standard.

On the desk audit the registrar wrote a finding for "requirement for implemented is not addressed" under 5.5.2.a (ensuring that processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained). I left out the word implemented to simplify a bit, thinking that if a system is established and maintained, implemented can be assumed. Techinically this did not meet a requirements of the standard, so it had to be written as a finding.

Overall he found about 15 discrepancies between the standard and our documentation - all but a few were fine - he just did not look in the right place, or did not have all of the support documents to find them. If I did not have a map from ISO to my documents, there would have been 150 things to explain. I made a couple minor updates to the policy manual and we were done. I was happy to see an auditor actually do a desk audit - many times it is obvious at the registration assessment that the auditor never read the documents, but still charged $1200.


Tom

"But what about the sections in TS that must be addressed with a statement and then only need evidence of conformity? Many sections do not need supporting docs. What should I do with those sections? Do I need to address them in the Quality Manual? "

Denis.
as an example para "4.1.1 General Requirements - Supplemental
Ensuring control over outsourced processes shall not absolve the the organization of the responsibility of conformity to all customer requirements"

You do not need to re-state this requirement, change the verbiage and place it in a quality manual.
Evidence that you are in compliance is determined by reviewing the quality manual. What the auditor will look for is a documented procedure; if you decide to use a procedure or a description of the interaction with other processes; if you decide to treat the requirement as a process.

I probablyjust muddied(?) the waters that much more.

Well, I ain't been audited yet, but I either tell how the requirement is met in the quality manual or reference the procedure.

Example: The purchasing procedure (ref SOP-10) ensures requirements are communicated to suppliers.......

Or.

The CEO conducts management review meetings quarterly. The following topics are included on a standardized agenda......

Every shall gets a statement of who and how it is done, or a reference to another document.

Laura, I agree with your take. It is important to show how your QMS works for you. No where in TS does it say that you have to have level 1 documentation. No where does it say you have to say, on a shall by shall basis, you are meeting the requirements. The quality manual must include the scope of the QMS. This is hard to do by just rewording the standard. The quality manual must include the procedures (or reference them), and also describe the process interactions. These things are typically done in addition to rewording the standard.

Rewording the standard is unnecessary and in most cases a waste of resources. Although, it does articulate you know and understand the requirements, but I think it is still a waste.

Hi folks, this is my first posting on this system. Kind of a slow night for me, so I did a Google seach on TS2 and ended up here.

I'm one of the Registrar Auditor Master Trainers for TS2, as well as QS-9000. In other words, I'm one of the folks that certify the CB auditors. I do most of my work out of AIAG in Detroit, and literally work across the hall from the IAOB office.

Seeking a "template" QM for TS2 is an exceptionally bad idea, and not really necessary. An elemental-style manual, restating the requirements of TS2 and describing how the organization intends to comply with the requirements is not necessary (it wasn't necessary for QS-9000 either, but I'm not going down THAT road again), and may in fact be a warning to the CB auditors that an organization has not taken the proper approach to TS2 implementation. We teach them to look for that.

Per clause 4.2.2, the QM needs to contain the scope of the QMS, including details and justification for any exclusions, the documented procedures established for the QMS (or reference to them), and a description of the INTERACTION between the processes of the QMS - THAT'S IT. I know of a registered organization that has a 1 page quality manual - it can literally be that simple.

By far the most important component of the quality manual is the piece on interaction of processes. That will form the basis and structure for both the QMS and the certification assessment. This can take any form - process maps, flowcharts, Venn diagrams, text descriptions, and so on. The key point is, has the organization defined itself as a system of processes, and determined the sequence and interaction of those processes, in order to effectively fulfill all customer requirements.

CB auditors will use this information as a key input to their audit planning. Folks, the audits you are about to face for TS2 will be radically different from QS audits. No more walking in with the QSA and running down checklist items. The CB auditors will focus more than ever on conformance to CUSTOMER requirements - and if they detect non conformance to ANY customer requirements, you can expect major nonconformances. That is the dictate we Registrar Auditor Master Trainers were told by the IAOB to pass on to the CB auditors.

I've got lots more information on TS2, and I'm in a pretty good position to do rumor control. I'll post some more later. Nice meeting you!

Don Wood
Deosil Management
Licensed Plexus Service Provider

Mr. Wood,

It was nice of you to search us out! Hope you are able to provide answers to the many questions on 16949. You have only just begun!

Well, IMHO...there's no right or wrong approach as mentioned by all.

Perhaps, we should ask ourselves a simple question:

If we are duplicating words from the Std to our quaility manual, Whats the benefit? We may as well make direct copy out of the Std from the copier!

Afterall, in line with the new Std, the emphasis is on 'process' not documentation.

However, it may be wise to run a quick verification with the Certification Body on what they expect us to have in the QM. then proceed to do the writing. This ensures we meet desk audit requirements yet do not 'over-write' unnecessarily.

Thanks!

regards
Rich L

As per TS 16949:2002, there are three minimum requirements 1. Scope of Standard 2. Min 7 Procedures or its references 3. Interaction of process. That is all Quality Manual basic mininmum requirements

Even this thread is old, I like the issues that it raises. I don't think anyone is wrong here. Its a struggle of cost / benefit ideology. In the big picture as long as the goals are met it doesn't really matter either way does it? Then we get into that nebulous issue of quality karma... which some quality professionals are soooo sensititve about especially the ones that have graduate degrees...hehe