I am just dealing with internal communication (requirement 5.5.3), and I am thinking of approaching it basically by means of the continuos management review meetings done each three months where obviously we deal with the effectiveness of each process included in our qms.

Any opinion to my approach?? Thanks in advance.

In our case, we stablished a internal comunication model that starts from Management review to the organization, comunicating Objectives, customers requirements and the organization reports to the Management Review with process performance and objectives followings.

My approach is very similar to Hlozano's. Communication is a two-way process. Information regarding the effectiveness of the QMS is communicated to top management through the management review process. Management needs to communicate the results to the employees. One of the most effective ways to do this is by communicating the results of the measurable quality objectives that they contribute to. By evaluating employee awareness of the quality objectives that apply to them (as required in 6.2.2), I can tell how effective the communication was.

My auditor suggested this approach of writing the major processes than with the sub processes underneath. He said this would help him when he audits. However, I dont see how this shows the resposnibilities and the real interaction is in the subprocesses. I invite feedback on the interaction and sequence
and my auditors comments.
Another thing , I had downloaded form AIAG a tool for identifing the processes, on that do I put down the major or sub. I am so confused. I am reading and researchien and everybodies opinion, throwing me in a state of mess.
:confused:

hlozano & howste

I apreciate your comments. Thanks a lot.




;)

Internal communication.......at my facility we hold monthly "ALL EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION MEETINGS". During this one hour meeting, we discuss safety issues, customer concerns, internal measurables...anything applicable to the quality system. A sign-in sheet is obtained as a record. We employee about 900 people, so mass communcation is a must. We alss post the measurables in chart format on the plant floor, but this doesn't mean that everyone will look at it, or for that matter understand it. It is also a good time for question and answer session!:cool:

IDAY38,
First, I like your key process diagram for CI. I assume the term "Key" also means "Major" and/or "Customer Oriented Process" (COP).

"My auditor suggested this approach of writing the major processes than with the sub processes underneath. He said this would help him when he audits."

Sounds like consulting to me, which we all know is a "no-no". Request that your auditor make his suggestions in writing; either with an NCR or an opportunity. That way when you go back to management with changes you don't have to play "He said - She said".

"However, I dont see how this shows the resposnibilities and the real interaction is in the subprocesses. I invite feedback on the interaction and sequence and my auditors comments."

Your company is not doing this to make it easy for the auditor. The requirement is that you define your processes, either tabular, or graphical. Whatever works for your company. Manoj has posted some very good documentation prepared in the tabular format. Other people have posted flow charts. What ever work for YOU not your auditor.


"Another thing , I had downloaded form AIAG a tool for identifing the processes, on that do I put down the major or sub."

This is a good tool, if your just starting. If you already have your COP's identified and the activities and support processes that cause them to function; DO NOT USE THIS TOOL. If your program is in the "infant" stages, then I would suggest that you USE THIS TOOL.
Start with your Key/Major/COP. As you proceed you will list activities/support processes and in the end you should also see your interactions.

"I am so confused. I am reading and researchien and everybodies opinion, throwing me in a state of mess."

We all are confused. And do you know who is even more confused? The OEM's and the registrars.