Management Commitment signature issue in same Quality Manual

muktiroy · Jun 20, 2014

Hi All,

Can anybody guide me what should I do in this case?
we have established the QMS system nearly about the year.
Now we have setup New Quality objective for next year.
here for this, Management is change.
but our Policy statement is same. so should I show
two different person of Management (Signature) in same Quality Manual?

One for Policy Statement and one for objective?

let me know if anyone want more details on this.
Please guide me.

lk2012 · Jun 20, 2014

hi,
I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
Could you please give us details of the 'new objective'?

You should have a Quality Policy (and that's signed by the MD / GM or the equivalent on top level) and this is reviewed minimum once a year.

Then you have your Quality Objectives and these are the targets and commitments the company would use to measure performance of individual areas. These don't have to be signed by they have to be identified / agreed by the area managers.

hope this helps

Mark Meer · Jun 20, 2014

The new management should endorse both, to clearly indicate approval and commitment to both the current (unchanged) policy, and the new (updated) objectives.

Typically the quality policy and quality objectives are stated in the same document. If this is the case, just have them sign-off on the new revision, and archive the old one that was endorsed by old management.

Helmut Jilling · Jun 20, 2014

muktiroy said:
Hi All,

Can anybody guide me what should I do in this case?
we have established the QMS system nearly about the year.
Now we have setup New Quality objective for next year.
here for this, Management is change.
but our Policy statement is same. so should I show
two different person of Management (Signature) in same Quality Manual?

One for Policy Statement and one for objective?

let me know if anyone want more details on this.
Please guide me.

You need to have a quality policy, and show objective evidence that your management has approved it. Signatures are not mentioned nor required.

You need to have defined quality objectives, and show objective evidence that your management has approved them. Signatures are not mentioned nor required.

Some companies will make them an addendum to the Quality Manual, so they don't have to revision the manual when they change something in the Objectives.

normzone · Jun 20, 2014

I would agree that the Quality Policy should have it's own document number so it could be revised independently of the Quality Manual.

I would further venture that the Quality Objectives supporting the Quality Policy may shift over time as processes improve, while the Quality Policy may remain stable. I would not reference the Quality Objectives in the Quality Policy document.

kgott · Jun 22, 2014

Signatures don't make professed commitment happen. They add nothing.

Management actions speak louder than words but many clients will not accept a policy statement as valid unless it signed by somebody important. Happens a lot in safety.

Randy · Jun 22, 2014

Give me the paper I'll sign the required name....That's all the value a signature adds....Nothing!

Evidence of commitment is through performance and involvement, not by a signature....Unless of course it's the US Declaration of Independence....which by the way would have been meaningless if it had not been backed by resistance, rebellion and gunfire.

Mark Meer · Jun 23, 2014

Randy, kgott & Helmut,

While I'm in total agreement that signatures are neither expressly required nor provide any "real" value, I'm assuming this is still the most common practice in terms of "objective evidence" of management approval/commitment?

What other options are there? A written memo or email? Both would still presumably have a signature (written or digital). Perhaps a recorded phone call?

Bottom line when it comes to signatures:
Are they explicitly required? Rarely. (in this case no)
Do they provide value? Questionable. Hardly.
Are they a simple, unquestionable way to document approvals? Yes.

kgott · Jun 23, 2014

Mark Meer said:
Randy, kgott & Helmut,

While I'm in total agreement that signatures are neither expressly required nor provide any "real" value, I'm assuming this is still the most common practice in terms of "objective evidence" of management approval/commitment?

What other options are there? A written memo or email? Both would still presumably have a signature (written or digital). Perhaps a recorded phone call?

Bottom line when it comes to signatures:
Are they explicitly required? Rarely. (in this case no)
Do they provide value? Questionable. Hardly.
Are they a simple, unquestionable way to document approvals? Yes.

Your not wrong but in one workplace I would email a proposed document to the people that counted and request they review and comment or approve.

I'd file the reply emails, make the changes and then issue the document. CBs and major customers were always ok with that as evidence of approval or approval subject to verifying that the changes were made.

I have observed over the years that getting people to sign a document is not always the easiest thing to do where as emails are quick and easy.

Management Commitment signature issue in same Quality Manual

muktiroy

lk2012

Mark Meer

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant

normzone

kgott

Randy

Mark Meer

kgott

Similar threads