Your Quality Manual that is!
Anyway I just took a look at the manual I have inherited (2000 standard)
and it is a whopping 91 PAGES!!!!!
DAAAAAAAA!!!!!
It's killing me to read it, I keep waiting for Gandalf to appear in it somewhere or some Hobbits or someting!
Is it just me or is this thing a little looong??
We are not that large of a company either, around 35 employes.
I'm having a nervous breakdown, I have taken over this QM position from a disgruntled old guy who left so much undone and neglected.
Oh and also I ws left with 3 Majors and 4 minors to respond to by next week and to fix by Mid November.
The noncons should not be a huge problem but this long winded redunant mess will be.

Also none of the (QP's) quality procedures are numbered to the new standard, or the WI's, and they are all done in some 1980 software that no one uses anymore.
Oh yeah and there are like 14 copys of the procedure and WI books floating around, and 7 copys of the Quality Manual (Bible).

Okay now here is the part where you all can help me :)
Anyone have any examples of compliant manuals that have NOT been written by Tolken??
Bacially he had his set up like evey ELEMENT (like 5.4.2, 5.5.1, 5.5.2) has it's own page, own title block and sign off area (with matching matrix in front of each Clause)

I would like to re-vamp this thing but it might be a little more than I can do right now having to fix these noncons up.

I need a prozac!


G.

We have a manual that is likely bigger than that if you count QM and procedures. We also have over 900 people and are a fullly integrated steel mill. As far as needing an example, we just took the standard and put it into our own terms. If you read the standard it would read very closely to our QM. Our procedures break down more of who wil do what by when. Then there are the supporting work instructions that say how we will do it. Hope this helps.

Welcome to the cove :bigwave:

91 pages is defiantely way too long. There are several examples posted here that you can look over to get ideas.

Here is one thread that has discussions about the structure of the manual:
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3734

If you do a search you can find examples posted in various threads (they're scattered around, otherwise I would post a link)

Our Quality Manual is now about 21 pages long, it used to be 7 pages until my boss got his hands on it! :bonk: 91 pages is a killer, is that just your QM or does it include your procedures as well?

Your Quality Manual that is!
Anyway I just took a look at the manual I have inherited (2000 standard)
and it is a whopping 91 PAGES!!!!!
Is it just me or is this thing a little looong??
We are not that large of a company either, around 35 employes.
I'm having a nervous breakdown, I have taken over this QM position from a disgruntled old guy who left so much undone and neglected.First: Take a breath or crackle your knuckles. :) I can semi-relate to being left with a F*#'ed system by the last QM.

The lenght does SOUND excessive. Does the manual include ALL of your procedures? If it does, you'll have to discuss with the appropriate people, if this is were you WANT the procedures published.Also none of the (QP's) quality procedures are numbered to the new standard, or the WI's, and they are all done in some 1980 software that no one uses anymore.
Oh yeah and there are like 14 copys of the procedure and WI books floating around, and 7 copys of the Quality Manual (Bible).STOP! The procedures and Work Instructions DO NOT need to be renumbered unless you want/need them to be for internal reasons. Don't give your self more work! The old software may be a problem as you need to update.
Are the copies of the books and manuals a problem? If not work on that later. If yes, figure out who really needs what, and create a simple distribution LOG so you that future retrevial of the books will be easier (not ISO required but a good/simple idea).Okay now here is the part where you all can help me :)
Anyone have any examples of compliant manuals that have NOT been written by Tolken??
Bacially he had his set up like evey ELEMENT (like 5.4.2, 5.5.1, 5.5.2) has it's own page, own title block and sign off area (with matching matrix in front of each Clause)
A page for each clause is rediculous, UNLESS you have a narative for each section and how it applys to your company. Our 1994 based manual had a new page for each of the 20 element, but NOT one for each clause. Our new manual just keeps flowing (no page breaks).I would like to re-vamp this thing but it might be a little more than I can do right now having to fix these noncons up.
What are the NonCons? Are any of the them related to the manual and/or its distribution? Fix the NonCons then the manual if not.
I need a prozac!
That's how I felt for about a year, and probably will again at some point!

----------
Our "new" manual has:
Cover Page, Table of Contents, brief company introduction, a section where management signed the manual, then I basically rewrote the entire ISO standard and inserted a few "company" specific details and reference to seperate procedures/documents, revision history, organization chart (1page), process map (1page), and a Procedure listing with an ISO 1994 and 2000 cross reference. TOTAL Pages = 19
(We have a seperated Printed binder for procedures that is only used by the auditor. Additional documented are distributed as needed one at time).

I did not have time to make a "user-friendly" or very customized manual, so I kept it simple. I do need to do some tweaking per our Pre-Asssessment audit, but overall it covers the ISO requirements for a manual. NOTE: Our manual structure is NOT what ISO requires, it was just the simplest/quickest way to update it for ME.

Try to keep it simple and fix one problem at a time. Then keep visiting this site for help and ideas!

Currently ours is 18 pages, it was 97 for the QS model (rehash of the standard). The current "Operations Manual" is an integrated manual for ops (of course), 14001, 5S, TS, 9K2K, etc. It took awhile to map out the cross connects but once that was complete the rest seemed to fall into place.

My suggestion would be to leave the manual alone for now (you're probably the only one whose looked at it since Gandolph) so focus on your system. Work the bugs out of process, procedures, etc. then concern yourself with that manual. IMO, if US Steel can get away with a 15 pager no one should have more than 30 pages!

Your Quality Manual that is!
Anyway I just took a look at the manual I have inherited (2000 standard)
and it is a whopping 91 PAGES!!!!!
---

I need a prozac!

G.

Hullo G,

Stay off the Prozac and have a look in the thread HELP - Tips on updating Manual (1994 - 2000) (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6419)

There are ways to stay off the ulcer candidates list. Our manual is nine pages with room to spare.

/Claes

What is Marc's famous quote

"One size does not fit all"

So I can defintely say that if a small QM works for you that is great and more manageable. However some combine QM and PM into one and for many that do it this way I don't think you can say how many pages it should or should not be. General rule of thumb is that the QM says why yuo are going to do something and closely mimics the standard. The PM is where more details tend to go. If you separate these then it is easier to keep small but easier to forget to update the other manual. Pluses and minuses to each but you must do what will work for you. Never use one of those PJ template QM. That is just a great sales tool for PJ to sucker in those who are uninformed.

Richard gave you a good link on QMs. Here is another:
TS 16949 Quality Manual (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5745)
I have a 20 page manual that is a complete restatement of the standard, with co. specific quality policy and objectives and reference to all of my Quality Assurance Procedures. I suspect that your 90 page manual includes your Level II QAPs ("how-to's") instead of just the "we shall's". My previous company (2 sites, 250 people) registered to 9k94 with a 56 page manual (that includes cover sheets, signoff page, table of contents, revision levels page, cross reference to other standards page, and a signed off title block 2" high on EVERY page.) I like Bob's answer:
Cover Page, Table of Contents, brief company introduction, a section where management signed the manual, then I basically rewrote the entire ISO standard and inserted a few "company" specific details and reference to seperate procedures/documents, revision history, organization chart (1page), process map (1page), and a Procedure listing with an ISO 1994 and 2000 cross reference. TOTAL Pages = 19

I have several clients which I worked with back in the mid- to late- 1990's which registered to the 1994 standard. When they upgraded, they did a few changes to their manuals but kept everything in the 'old' 20 elements format and provide a cross-reference to the paragraphs in the new standard.

The upgrades were quick and thus I didn't make much $, but they liked it.

Often I think folks tend to go way too far in what they do when they 'upgrade' to the 2000 release. I'm talking 9001, not 16949, however, which is a whole different animal.

Our QSM is in the Short and Sweet category, as most people here have been advocating. Basically it parrots back the standard with a few company specific changes and adds a document matrix.

But below that we have tons of Tier 2 and 3 documentation - Standard Practices, Inter and Intra-Departmental Manuals, Process Sheets, Work Instructions, ad nauseum. Then on top of that we have Corporate documentation - we are a small unit of a large multi-national, and they have their own set of procedures that we are supposed to be following.

I would dearly love to blow it all away and have one book - QSM or not, that covered the stuff people need to know on a daily basis, and it wouldn't bother me a bit if it was 200 pages long. With our current maze of policies and procedures we find outdated procedures, procedures that conflict with other procedures, and things that were not done entirely correctly because the person doing it was only aware of 11 of the 15 documents that had something to say about how it should be done.

I agree completely with those advising that you fix your NCs first, then fix the system so it runs right, and only then worry about pruning your QSM. I would also reccommend discussing any proposed changes to the QSM with your registrar's audit team. They may like the QSM the way it is, and the unfortunate truth is that QSMs exist for the most part to please auditors (puts on flameproof suit). Unless you have work instructions in your QSM, you and the audit team are probably the only ones who ever read it.

Ed Gibbs

Our QM is only 15 pages. It would only be about 5 but we could not get the org. chart to look good on 1 page, so we gave a page to each staff member. The QM is a sales tool and regurgitation and excess is not what potential Customer want to see.

Ours is 49 pages. However, we have 19 facilities and our registrar wanted to see individual org charts for each. Plus it contains 8 pages of job descriptions. Without those it would be 27 pages.

Nope, our manual does not contain any actual procedures, just references to them.
I also found out that the auditors recomended that we might want to shorten the maunal. So that's what I will do after i fix the noncons.

The noncons are as follows:

Major 8.5.2 Lack of formal corrective actions in a process (shipping) that we deemed to be out biggest problem area. Should be an easy fix due to the fact that they are implementing a whole new shipping system on computer to address the problem.
We just have to document it I guess.

Major 8.4 We have not set up any methodology for quality performance measurments and analyses. Like shipped PPM no goals or no documentation on current performance. This will probably be my toughest one, any ideas would be great!

Major 8.2.2 Audit schedule is based on the 1994 standard and does not yet reflect the ISO 9001-2000 process based approach.
I am going to have to do a little research on this one, I thought internal audits tayed pretty much the same. Although we were not UP ot standard on training our auditors to the new system. I THINK that s what they are saying, if so it's an easy fix.

Minor 5.6 Basicall our last Management Review was in December of 2002.
No goals were established and we need discussion of continuing applicability of the quality policy (not sure exactly what that means but...)
Basically we need ot HAVE some **** MR's on a regular basis from now on. Easy fix as long as we acoplish something durring these meetings and establish goals and review past goals.

8.2.1 Minor We need to send out CSR's to al our major customers because we rely on these to satisfy clause 8.2.1
As of now we are only loggin them when the customers provide them to us, we need to send them out and have them sent back for the rest of the customers.

4.1.c No training on anyone to the new standard. No training matrix (no traINING)
Easy fix.


And one other form problem no big deal, already fixed.

So any ideas on the noncons are more then appreciated!!
And thaks a lot for all the ideas already on the QM!

G.

I am one of those who do not like a regurgitation of the standard, though I did it for years because I just didn't know another way to do it and still pass an audit. This time I created a useful marketing tool. Our manual is 14 pages long.

Our auditor liked it - we already had our desk audit, registration audit scheduled for Sept 8th - but more importantly, I have already had numerous customers compliment it.

Major 8.5.2 Lack of formal corrective actions in a process (shipping) that we deemed to be out biggest problem area. Should be an easy fix due to the fact that they are implementing a whole new shipping system on computer to address the problem.
We just have to document it I guess.

Documenting it is part of it. Record retentions are another part. And acutally fixing the problems so that they do not recur is a major part to this. Bandaid solutions do not corrective action make!

Major 8.4 We have not set up any methodology for quality performance measurments and analyses. Like shipped PPM no goals or no documentation on current performance. This will probably be my toughest one, any ideas would be great!

How easy would it be for you to obtain on past performance in this area? However, my company has established Key Indicators and we use the stop-light colouring method. If we are on goal, we are green. If we are outside of the goal, we are yellow and preventive action is taken where feasible. If we are outside of the goal 2 or more months in a row, we are red and corrective action is implemented.

Major 8.2.2 Audit schedule is based on the 1994 standard and does not yet reflect the ISO 9001-2000 process based approach.
I am going to have to do a little research on this one, I thought internal audits tayed pretty much the same. Although we were not UP ot standard on training our auditors to the new system. I THINK that s what they are saying, if so it's an easy fix.

IMHO, my Internal Auditors have always audited via the process approach, but within the department. I know of some organizations that have done the element audit, but I find those to have little value (when compared to a process audit). Do a search in the Cove and you will find a few threads on process audits and conducting them.

Minor 5.6 Basicall our last Management Review was in December of 2002.
No goals were established and we need discussion of continuing applicability of the quality policy (not sure exactly what that means but...)
Basically we need ot HAVE some **** MR's on a regular basis from now on. Easy fix as long as we acoplish something durring these meetings and establish goals and review past goals.

You make Management Review sound somewhat useless. If that is how you feel, that is the result you will get, my friend. Management Review is an awesome tool if used properly! It's not just about goals...you look at trends, you look for areas for improvement, you look at resource management. It's not just a mechanism to start the hand-slapping process.

As with Internal Audits, do a search on Management Review...lots of information in the Cove on this topic!

8.2.1 Minor We need to send out CSR's to al our major customers because we rely on these to satisfy clause 8.2.1
As of now we are only loggin them when the customers provide them to us, we need to send them out and have them sent back for the rest of the customers.

Surveys are not the only way to obtain a measurement of Customer Satisfation and, IMHO, they can be somewhat biased. People only return them if they feel strongly enough about the topic. What about Customer Seminars (can develop an emotional bias, but it's also an option)? Or logging phone conversations? Or when Sales Reps visit, they fill in a report afterwards detailing the specifics of the visit (e.g., what the Customer would like to see improved, items that the Customer likes, etc.). Again...do a search...plenty of information on this topic, too!

4.1.c No training on anyone to the new standard. No training matrix (no traINING)
Easy fix.

Yes, training is easy. Determining competency is not so simple a feat. I do like using a training matrix, but you also have to record training, demonstrate comptency, etc.

Just my two cents CDN worth. :)

However, my company has established Key Indicators and we use the stop-light colouring method. If we are on goal, we are green. If we are outside of the goal, we are yellow and preventive action is taken where feasible. If we are outside of the goal 2 or more months in a row, we are red and corrective action is implemented.

I like this alot! Do you post the Key Indicators out in the shop with the green, yellow or red denoted?

I like this alot! Do you post the Key Indicators out in the shop with the green, yellow or red denoted?

In a way. Key Indicators are at various levels throughout the organization. Company KI's are reviewed monthly by Top Management and are what they feel are the "most important" of all KI's. Department KI's are reviewed on a monthly basis and contain those items that the Department feels best show control of the processes (and product). Within our Production Departments, there are four crews. The Department KI's are repeated for them, but the results are crew-specific. So they can see how they contributed to the overall monthly effectiveness of the Department.

Using the tool of Visual Management, we broadcast monthly (and in some areas daily) results of our Strong Goals. Strong Goals are extremely important Key Indicators and are the same Strong Goals at all of our North American plants. Key Indicators may vary, but all 11 locations will measure (using the same formulas) the same five items. While it would not be fair to compare the facilities against each other (product mixes range, weather patterns are different, and a whole other multitude of items can affect a locations numbers), if we spot a "shining star" in the group, we all know where to look so that we, ourselves, can continually improve.

If you would like, Cari, PM me your email addy and I'll send you a copy of what our Key Indicators look like.

Using the tool of Visual Management, we broadcast monthly (and in some areas daily) results of our Strong Goals.

RCB,
This is one of the best tools, IMO, to use in getting the whole "process approach" pushed out on the floor. The visual management, especially in the process flows and maps started getting people to think about how their jobs affected the system overall. It showed us where we had the fox guarding the hen house (inputs and outputs).
Plus the RYG status is easily recognized and can be carried throughout the organization.

RCB,
This is one of the best tools, IMO, to use in getting the whole "process approach" pushed out on the floor. The visual management, especially in the process flows and maps started getting people to think about how their jobs affected the system overall. It showed us where we had the fox guarding the hen house (inputs and outputs).
Plus the RYG status is easily recognized and can be carried throughout the organization.

Visual Management has been a big hit with our people. They like seeing how the company is doing, how *they* are doing. Added into these two tools is the team-based approached. Using facilitators (no supervisors or management in the room), volunteers form a team to help resolve a problem. They are the ones who do the job, surely they are the ones who can help resolve a negative situation!

Communication and involvement help morale at our facility. We have one of the best work attititudes within our North American family, the best safety record, and among the lowest Customer Complaints for quality-related issues. We must be doing something right!

With our current maze of policies and procedures we find outdated procedures, procedures that conflict with other procedures, and things that were not done entirely correctly because the person doing it was only aware of 11 of the 15 documents that had something to say about how it should be done.
When I went through implementations, one of the early tasks was to 'Map' documentation, systems and processes.

Whilst this is an 'old' document (I first put it together back around 1996), starting about http://elsmar.com/Imp/sld191.htm I address this. By doing this, we reduced redundancy, ensured consistency of systems and processes across department / plant / corporate documents, systems and processes.

The big question is: After a company goes through such a dramatic 'update', the key failure mode is not, in my opinion, typically addressed. ISO registration may help, but the tendancy towards entrophy and disorganization won't go away.

Marc,

We did some of that when we first became ISO-9001:1994 registered 6 years ago. We pruned our documentation tree dramatically, eliminated many redundant procedures, and did a thorough review of everything. But as you say, entropy happens.

It seems whenever a problem comes up, the natural inclination is to write a new procedure to address it. These are always well-intentioned changes, but we all know which road is paved with those. Furthermore, as functional organizations within the company perform the required periodic review and updating of their procedures, they often make changes that affect other functions that use or reference the changed procedure, and the other folks don't always get the word.

I recently wrote an observation (could have been a NC?) on an internal audit of 4.0, that I hope will help. 4.2 requires that the Quality System documentation shall include the documents needed to ensure "effective planning, operation, and control" of processes. I focused on the word "effective" with the MR, and I asked him, point blank, if anyone had ever looked at the overall structure of the documentation system to determine if it was effective, and specifically, was it the most effective system we could be using. Note that I am not talking about the contents of the system, which are frequently reviewed and checked, but the structural framework that the contents fit into. I am also not talking about Tier 1 - we know we need to have a QSM. I'm talking about all the different types of policy and procedurual documents in Level 2 and 3.

He admitted that to his knowledge, the answer was "no." The structure has evolved over the years, with new branches being added as needed. But no one ever sat down with a diagram of our system structure and several possible other structures, compared plusses and minuses, and decided that the most effective way to document our processes is...

I'm convinced that there has to be a better way than what we are doing, and process mapping may be one way. We've kicked around ideas like doing away with Departmental Manuals and having only Process Manuals instead (we do have some Process Manuals already - Configuration Management, Design Process, etc.), but they exist alongside and sometimes conflict with a myriad of departmental procedures, Standard Practices, industry and MIL-Specs, contractual requirements, etc.

I'd love to hear ideas for simplified Quality System organizational structures (QS - not QSM) from the community. The ultimate decision needs to be made by our senior management, but I'd like to be able to show them several alternate structures that might work so they can make an informed choice.

Ed Gibbs

Furthermore, as functional organizations within the company perform the required periodic review and updating of their procedures, they often make changes that affect other functions that use or reference the changed procedure, and the other folks don't always get the word.
At Motorola we addressed this by requiring signoff by both ends of inputs and outputs so no one could say they didn't know their responsibility. The biggest problems we encountered, as you might guess, were interactions between corporate - sector - individual facilities.

You have a big job ahead, and yeah - entrophy is part of nature. That's why God invented Spring Cleaning - which is mostly what I see ISO 9K implementations as. Theoretically, ISO 9001 registration - the ongoing audits - are supposed to ensure a company keeps things 'clean', but I think we all know the reality is somewhat different.

At Motorola we addressed this by requiring signoff by both ends of inputs and outputs so no one could say they didn't know their responsibility. The biggest problems we encountered, as you might guess, were interactions between corporate - sector - individual facilities.

While we are now a multi-facility organization, the ISO programme has remained relatively untouched at our two registered Canadian locations (for the time being).

However we, too, had the problem of documents changing and owners of related-processes not being notified. This was resolved with our document control software that allows the document author to indicate which other documents in the system are tied/related to his document. Once a modified document is approved, an email is automatically sent out from the system notifying the other document authors that one of their documents may be affected by the change.

It's not fool-proof as we do rely on our document authors to use this feature, but for the most part, they're a reliable group.

Is that a proprietary authoring tool, or something on the market? We've been looking for a way to do something like that.

Ed Gibbs

Is that a proprietary authoring tool, or something on the market? We've been looking for a way to do something like that.

Ed Gibbs

It's a standard feature of the document control software that we use. There is a Software forum in the Cove that might be able to help you. My Organization uses QSI - it may not be my favourite system in the world, but it's a lot better than how other organizations I worked for controlled their documents!

Some great ideas on here!!!

RC, will logging phone conversations really work?
What exactly is the approach? Could we use the CSR's while on
the phone with the customer rep kind of like a survey?
If so would the auditors just take our word for it since the customer is not able to sign off on anything?
Or would just a written log of the call be enough?

G.

RcB -

That is a nice example. I was thinking that posting all of our metrics was going to take up a lot of space with all those charts, etc. This is such a nice, organized compilation - with the color code! I was worried that all of our graphs and charts were just going to look like gobbledy-gook to our guys on the floor.

I'm going to try something like yours. Our specific charts and graphs will still be used to "warroom" during management review - but something like your example will be so nice for posting in the shop and for our big Annual Management Review. I also really like the tab that correlates and describes the sources, etc.

Thank you for taking the time to send it!! :agree:

Some great ideas on here!!!

RC, will logging phone conversations really work?
What exactly is the approach? Could we use the CSR's while on
the phone with the customer rep kind of like a survey?
If so would the auditors just take our word for it since the customer is not able to sign off on anything?
Or would just a written log of the call be enough?

G.

1. Will it work?
As with any other tool/methodology, its usefullness depends on how you utilize it. To simply go through the motions for the sake of the 'shall' will not result in improvement.

2. What is the approach? Phone survey?
I've never actually used this approach. I've suggested it, but the companies I've worked for prefer the old standard method of mail-out surveys. However, what I've been told about the phone method is that at the end of the phone conversation, ask the Customer if they could take the time to answer one or two pointed questions like "How can we serve you better?" or "What impresses you most about our product/service/Organization?" The first question can result in beneficial feedback for your Management. The second question can result in great information to pass on to all of the employees - great morale booster!

3. Would the auditors buy it?
I would hope so. This is *your* process and I would hope that your organization is made up of professionals who know better than to fudge the results! :) This isn't a university chem lab where you made up the results to get an A...oh...wait....no one does that either, right? ;)

4. Written log sufficient?
If the log will only indicate that on a given day, the following Customers were contacted...no. As an auditor, I would want to see the results/responses of those conversations. Using the responses, you have great data to bring to Management Review, where action items may arise for those areas where Customers have concerns.

The problem with mail-out surveys is that the response isn't always the greatest. My organization has a 100% response return, however, because our Sales forces continually calls up the Customer until the survey is returned...not a good way to maintain excellent Customer relations, in my mind.

Phone surveys have pros and cons, too. You do get a great response (unless the Customer does not have the time to answer your question(s))...but if s/he is have a bad day, or your last shipment was horrible, expect there to be some negative bias in the response.

RcB -

That is a nice example. I was thinking that posting all of our metrics was going to take up a lot of space with all those charts, etc. This is such a nice, organized compilation - with the color code! I was worried that all of our graphs and charts were just going to look like gobbledy-gook to our guys on the floor.

I'm going to try something like yours. Our specific charts and graphs will still be used to "warroom" during management review - but something like your example will be so nice for posting in the shop and for our big Annual Management Review. I also really like the tab that correlates and describes the sources, etc.

Thank you for taking the time to send it!!

Glad you like them, Cari! It doesn't need to be too complicated and those colours mean a lot to our employees...no one wants to be a "sea of red."

We are still, however, improving the process. As the KI's are in excel, I would like comments made to all yellows and reds where no action is taken. Circumstances may be outside of the department's control, but I would like to have that documented for historical reasons.

One other thing I forgot to mention about our KIs. Goals are set during the Annual Planning process. We have just started Annual Planning for 2004. Goals are established looking at previous years data, trends, upcoming projects, etc. HOWEVER, once a goal has been determined, it is set in stone for the year. It can not change. This was implemented, I was told, to avoid departments changing goals on a whim.

So, for example, the KI I sent you had a goal for hydraulic fluid consumption. Let's say in June, the formula for calculating this changes and now, all of a sudden, your set goal is unattainable as the new formula has you including source data from places that were previously excluded. Odds are you will be red for the rest of the year, but there is nothing you can do to change that.

I should also point out that Sales has taken a slightly different approach to their KI's colouring scheme.


GREEN = on target
YELLOW = < 5% off of target
RED = > 5% off of target


A new approach to KIs for our organization. I can't wait to see how it works for them!

The problem with mail-out surveys is that the response isn't always the greatest.
Phone surveys have pros and cons, too.

We've gone to a web based and email based survey. We're tracking about a 75% return rate which is acceptable to us. They are quick and easy to do so most people respond. We also keep close tabs on who we have sent them too along with who responds.

We've gone to a web based and email based survey. We're tracking about a 75% return rate which is acceptable to us. They are quick and easy to do so most people respond. We also keep close tabs on who we have sent them too along with who responds.

That method is great! I've received a few surveys to complete that method. Although, one Supplier emailed me the survey (sounded great at the time) in a .pdf format. :frust: I told myself I'd get around to it when I had the time...still have found it yet...

Also see: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4866

I'm also not a fan of "regurgitation" quality manuals - never liked 'em under QS and was happy to see that TS really didn't require that type of document. The way I read TS (and our registrar agrees) is that the SUM of all your procedures and other QMS documents can be declared :magic: the "quality manual," which is how we chose to do it. So ours is actually quite lengthy, including procedures, controlled documents, an "exclusion" statement, scope, and a document outlining the relationship to our "support sites."