ISO 9001:2008 Addressing the "Notes" in my quality Manual

[silentrunning]

I did a search, but couldn't find anything on this - how is everyone going to address the new notes added in 2008? I am refering to the ones like 4.1, General requirements. Note 1 was in 2000 and I just included it in my Special Process statement. Now we have 2 more notes with number 3 being rather lengthly. Are you going to list these as notes or reword them into a paragraph. Note: my Quality Manual is pretty much a repeat of the standard at this time.

Doug

 

[Coury Ferguson]

As far as I understand, "Notes" are not enforceable to the Standard. So, with my understanding there is no references to notes in our Manual.

 

[Jeff Frost]

“Information marked “NOTE” is for guidance in understanding or clarifying the associated requirement” Re.ISO 9001:20008, 0.1.

Using this clarification in note 1, 2 and 3 does this effect how you address the requirements of Clause 4.1. If it does then a change is warranted but actual reference of notes is not.

 

[JaneB]

Notes are to give provide guidance on interpreting, understanding and applying the Standard.

I can't see any reason to include them in your manual. But I don't like manuals that more or less repeat the Standard, and this is just another good reason why not.

 

[silentrunning]

Notes are to give provide guidance on interpreting, understanding and applying the Standard.

I can't see any reason to include them in your manual. But I don't like manuals that more or less repeat the Standard, and this is just another good reason why not.

I too dislike a manual that repeats the standard, but two things keep me from rewriting the manual I inherited. First is the fact that I have no one in our small company that can proof read my work. There is safety in being conservative and sticking close to the standard. Second is time. Our company like so many others is stretching its labor force to the max. We have not had to any layoffs and won't in the forseeable future, but we are also not overstaffed. I am still putting in long, full days and a rewrite of the manual is low priority right now.

Doug

 

[Jim Wynne]

I too dislike a manual that repeats the standard, but two things keep me from rewriting the manual I inherited. First is the fact that I have no one in our small company that can proof read my work. There is safety in being conservative and sticking close to the standard. Second is time. Our company like so many others is stretching its labor force to the max. We have not had to any layoffs and won't in the forseeable future, but we are also not overstaffed. I am still putting in long, full days and a rewrite of the manual is low priority right now.

Doug

It's easy to understand why rewriting something that's currently serving its purpose is a low priority, but remember that you have a large group of experienced proofreaders at your disposal right here when/if you do get around to rewriting.

 

[silentrunning]

Thanks Jim. Hopefully I will be able to take you up on your offer some time this year. My goal for January is to make a personal call to each of our customers to find out how I can improve the quality of our products. (At the same time I will try to increase the quantity too!)

Doug

 

[JaneB]

I am still putting in long, full days and a rewrite of the manual is low priority right now.

Yes, I can quite see why you wouldn't. Higher priorities call indeed.

But if/when you are able to, as Jim says, plenty of advice available here.

 

[neelu]

Depends on whether your organization is outsourcing any process wholly or partly. You need not repeat the Notes but identify such outsourced processes if any and state how you are going to control them. You can do the explanatory part of this( details of control etc.) in this clause or under clause 7.4 or give reference to a document where all such details (if these are elaborate) can appear.

 

[Jen Kirley]

The Quality Manual is supposed to be about what the company does. If the Notes describe what the company does, include them. Otherwise, don't because as others have said they are really just for insight and guidance.