Quality Manual - Duplicate wording from the standard?

[Denise]

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?


Denise

[tomvehoski]

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

[Denise]

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

[tomvehoski]

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

[Denise]

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!


Denise

[Xman]

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...)

[Denise]

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.

Sincerely,

Denise

[tomvehoski]

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