Quality Manual - Summary of Differences Between QS-9000 and TS 16949 Requirements

[SteelWoman]

This is probably a really stupid question, but bear with me here.....

We're just starting gap analysis work for transitioning from QS to TS. With QS we have always maintained the "Quality manual" as a corporate level document that applied to all divisions... it's basically one of those "spit the elements of the standard back" documents, just vague enough to let all the divisions comply in their own unique ways.

Anyway, in looking at the requirement for a Quality Manual in TS, I'm trying very hard to get OUT of my QS mindset and look at this with fresh eyes. In doing that, it occurred to me that with QS I was taught (might be wrong) that the Quality Manual was a Level One document APART from your Level Two procedures, which were the "meat" of your program. Unless I'm just missing it, I haven't seen a similar breakdown (like QS's page 6 of the standard) for TS. So... the question I've taken forever to get around to is this...

CAN my procedure manual (my collection of all the various procedures and related documents) BE my "quality manual"? In QS I think that's definitely NOT do-able, but in TS I don't see anything to indicate it couldn't be. Why create a "higher level", Level 1 document if I don't have to? Not trying to be lazy here, but I'm not fond of creating "pretty", essentially non-functioning documents if I don't have to.

[db]

CAN my procedure manual (my collection of all the various procedures and related documents) BE my "quality manual"? In QS I think that's definitely NOT do-able, but in TS I don't see anything to indicate it couldn't be. Why create a "higher level", Level 1 document if I don't have to? Not trying to be lazy here, but I'm not fond of creating "pretty", essentially non-functioning documents if I don't have to.

Most of the QS "Quality Manuals" I've seen have been pretty lame. If you look at the TS requirements, you must ask, does what I have meet the requirements. I do not believe that your procedure manual will answer the questions of description of the interaction of the processes, nor will it have any justifications for permissible exclusions. However, these could be easily added in. The main thing is to look at you have agains the TS requirements and build from there.

Many organizations I am working with still want to use the old "Level One" docs. My concern is that this approach might be inconsitent with "process thinking". Arranging the manual by clause seems to be contrary to what the technical specification is attempting to do. IMO

[SteelWoman]

Yup, I'm already thinking in terms of adding those kinds of necessary documents into our existing procedure manual, which does already have, for instance, "process flow diagrams" in there, that will be beefed up for the process interaction thing. I think I can make this work. Thanks!

[David Mullins]

Is the scope of your procedures manual a sub-set of the corporate Q Manual (i.e. you are one of many sites operating under a corporate Q Manual), or do you control the corporate Q Manual?

[Randy Stewart]

A couple items for thought:

it occurred to me that with QS I was taught (might be wrong) that the Quality Manual was a Level One document APART from your Level Two procedures

Very good point here. Not only apart from "normal ops" or SOP but it becomes viewed that it is not for every day consumption. Additonally it is titled a "Quality" manual which lends itself to being viewed as a quality department document only. We have had this discussion in another thread about a year ago so I won't belabor the point. However, here is the first separation.
Secondly, if it is a printed copy, it has been given to someone "as reference". Right now many of us are doing our "spring cleaning" and looking at stuff we haven't used or touched for the last year. Personnally I have books, clothes, etc. that are either in the trash or going to be donated. The company quality manual tends to be viewed the same way and I can't say I don't agree. If it has not been referenced for some time what is it's value to the company? If it doesn't have enough worth to be "referenced" then why bother? Get rid of it and rewrite it to be a useful tool!

I don't know if I'd use my procedures manual, but that may not be a bad idea depending on the company. I just want to emphasize that if you've found it to be non-value added and you're going to take the time and put forth the effort to restructure the manual, by all means make it useful!

[SteelWoman]

David, the individual division's procedure manuals are a subset, I guess, of the corporate policy manual. But as I said at first, it's always been (IMHO) a totally useless/pointless document - it just parrots the QS standard and still leaves it up to the individual divisions how to practice everything in their own ways. It's something we pull out for an audit when asked, and everyone's all pleased that we HAVE one, but you have to knock the dust off it to read it. On the other hand, the procedure manual is much more a "living" document.

[M Greenaway]

Didnt ISO9001:1994, and therefore QS9000, and the current ISO9001 say that your quality manual had to CONTAIN your procedures OR REFERENCE to them ?

Yes I think it did/does, hence in answer to your original question, yes you manual can contain your procedures.

But as others have already stated TS16949 requires you to adopt the process approach, a la ISO9001:2000 - hence I would try to get right out of the 'documentation levels' mindset and try to think in terms of 'process levels'.

[gpainter]

We use the tier system
T1 is the QMs
T2 is the SPs
T3 is the WIs
T4 is objective evidence (FMs)

The 00 standard allows one to use the QM as a (sales) information tool. We have reduced ours to just that, as it should be and not a regurgitation. One can combine the QM and SP, but do you want to send all that info to potential Customers?