Quality Manual Organization and Structure including Numbering

[Marc]

As I have made no bones about, I see a Quality Manual (which I prefer to call a Systems Manual) as a regurgitation of the standard with some 'company specific comments' and references to the fulfilling company procedures.

I have seen many write about 'making the quality manual yours' and such. I'm not sure I've seen such a manual in many years. Thus - the reason for the Poll.

Comments in replies are welcomed, but please take a minute and 'Vote' in the poll, too. Thanks!

EDIT ADD: Just to clarify things, when I started this thread it was 2001 - It was at the end of the days when auditors said "Show me where you address this in your quality manual and procedures." In the 'good old days' you would earn yourself a writeup if something was not addressed within the manual even if you did not do that (by exclusion or whatever).

It is now 2004 so many things have changed, one of which is quality manual content expectations. Thus, my initial comment above is no longer is 'true'.

[Jim Biz]

Marc - for our 9002;1994 version "Q manual" - 1st draft we began by using our own numbering system... Our outside consultant - advized against this - because it would "tend to confuse external auditors" and they don't like to L K around" for what they want to see ...

It really made no difference to us what the numbers were - and after 3 years - probably the ISO rep and lead auditor are the only ones that can list them or toss out a number in a conversation and understand what they were talking about anyway - without looking at an index.

It was the section and procedure titles that we felt important..
Every section that we intended to "make our own" in the 'Q Policy tier 1 manual.. was challenged by our external regestrar folks anyway...

Each change was made as they requested with the 'Improvement comment" - Manual can be clarified by aligning section to - (word for word) standards language.

We found that the effort/opportunity to "taylor" documentation to our actions was left for tier 2 "procedures manual"

[Laura M]

Aack - Marc, I hate ones that are a regurgitation of the standard. The first one I wrote was in company language, although I did give it 20 sections. I used paragraph forms, addressing all the requirements inserting procedure references as necessary. I do not know if it still exists that way. I think much of the regurigitated statements should be covered in procedures. I also dislike 'canned' ones - maybe because that's how they look.


They definately make auditing easier for the auditor, but whose manual is it - the auditor or the company? I also think the new standard helps the company write "their manual" - defining their processes, and again references to procedures as appropriate.

Regurgitations are easier, but I just don't like 'em.

[gpainter]

I agree with Marc most tier 1 QMs are a spit back of the standard subing your company name and adding the reference to the tier 2 System procedures. 4.1 and 4.2 is where you add a little detail. I think the new standard reconized this and most companies will reduce the Number of pages in the QM. Save a tree and disk space

[Russ]

I have such a regurgitated manual for ISO 9K2K and I did run into my registrar wanting some detail for 4.2.2 c which I am working on satisfying with a flow chart. However he flatly refused to entertain the thought of incorporating our QS requirements in with the new QM. I have to cover both ISO 9K2K & QS9000 but I see no way to do it without a double QM. ANy suggestions while I wait on clarification from my registrar?

[Marc]

A double set of manuals is silly, IMHO. I cannot guess why the registrar would 'flatly refuse' a single manual.

[SteelMaiden]

I agree, double manuals just don't make sense. While I am a firm believer that we should listen to our registrars and use their knowledge to drive improvement within our systems, I just cannot find a way to justify what they are telling you? Where is the added value in maintaining two sets of books? ...in some circles that would be considered illegal oops, my sarcasm is running high today

There comes a time (or several) in every quality manager's career when he must stand up to the registrar and say "that's just not right!" This may be one of those times for you. What is the worst thing that can happen? If they won't work with you, find someone who will. Not a perfect solution, but you are the customer in this case, and it is their job to satisfy your needs.

Have a good one!

[James Gutherson]

Our QM is not an actual document, but an Intranet Site.

There is no actual numbering, but it is structured around the work that we do, our products. The intranet site provides the L1 documentation, with a cross reference section showing the mapping to IsO9K:2K, as well as background information on our functions. It is designed so that the user can drill down, getting more and more information as required, until they reach the flowchart of the specific procedure (there are also quick links to get you straight to the flow chart).

The intranet site also provides a one stop shop for quick access to the Documents database, the CAR database, and the IA system, as well as all the operational databases and systems.

Yes it is more work for the auditors, and for me convincing them that everything is covered, but it makes much more sence to the people who actually have to use it day to day.