Level of Detail in a Quality Manual vs. a Procedure

[RK-REX]

Hello all, not new here, but haven't posted really.

Preface:
I'm in the beginning my second implementation. The first was with a consultant, and this one is on my own. Please bear with me as my first implementation/quality manager position, I was also the general manager and had overall responsibility for the entire business, so I didn't get as involved in the details as I am now as I had to divide my resources and time.

My question is, when writing a procedure, should the level of detail in the manual be significantly less than what is in the procedure itself? Let me explain what led me to this question.

In my manual, under docs and records, I have a detailed description of the identification system of documents, procedures, supporting processes, work instructions, etc. Should this be left as more of an overview with the detailed descriptions and examples being in the procedure itself?

I hope this isn't too confusing, I'm just trying to keep my manual and entire system for that matter, as clutter free as possible.



Cheers,

-Rikk

 

[Randy Lefferts]

Re: Level of detail in quality manual vs. procedure.

Hi Rikk,

Your quality manual can be as detailed as you want it. It is typically a high level overview document though with the detail being addressed in work instructions, procedures, etc.

Aside from meeting the requirements of ISO 9001 (you are posting in the ISO 9000 forum so I believe you are working to that?) you can put whatever you want, with as much or little detail, as you want.

4.2.2 Quality manual
The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual that includes
a) the scope of the quality management system, including details of and justification for any exclusions (see 1.2),
b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them, and
c) a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system.

Procedures usually contain more details than a quality manual. In the end-at the end of the day-ultimately, it's whatever works for you.

 

[RK-REX]

Re: Level of detail in quality manual vs. procedure.

Thanks Randy!!

You are correct, ISO 9001.

That's what I assumed, but I really wasn't sure if there was a general rule. I like the somewhat detailed overview idea for the manual then get into the nuts and bolts of the section in the actual procedure.

As I mentioned, I wasn't allowed, sadly, the chance to get very involved in the details of my last system. I'm doing this one from scratch on my own, so I want to do the best I can. Fortunately, I had a great auditor with my last system who understood my situation and helped me a lot. I tracked him down and he will be auditing this system as well. I trust him and he always has been very helpful.

Thanks again!!

 

[sagai]

The first was with a consultant, and this one is on my own.

We have a proverb, your first house you build is for you enemy, the second is for your friend and the third one will be okay for yourself

 

[RK-REX]

We have a proverb, your first house you build is for you enemy...

You nailed that one my friend...

 

[JaneB]

I'm just trying to keep my manual and entire system for that matter, as clutter free as possible.

If you're aiming to keep it as simple as possible, you're on the right track.

One thing to remember is: it's a quality management system. Any documents you write (including procedures) are part of that system, which necessarily needs to include ways of ensuring people are competent for their roles and a heap of other stuff. Too many people forget that, and start to put way, way too much into way, way too many documents and then wonder why they aren't used.

 

[somashekar]

In my manual, under docs and records, I have a detailed description of the identification system of documents, procedures, supporting processes, work instructions, etc. Should this be left as more of an overview with the detailed descriptions and examples being in the procedure itself?

If I were in your place I would have knocked off even that in the manual and any such. I would simply have a table that mentions the procedure references for them. (The mandatory procedures as well as the procedures required by your QMS)

 

[Peter Fraser]

Bear in mind that you do not need to have a separate document called a "Quality Manual. If you publish your system description electronically and it covers all the items required by ISO9001 for your "manual", that is acceptable (and the most concise and useful way to do it, unless someone, somewhere, needs a separate document. And if someone says they do, check why...)

 

[JaneB]

Bear in mind that you do not need to have a separate document called a "Quality Manual. If you publish your system description electronically and it covers all the items required by ISO9001 for your "manual", that is acceptable (and the most concise and useful way to do it

Yes, indeed so. And oh, would it not be a fine thing if this were more widely understood. And done.

 

[RK-REX]

Bear in mind that you do not need to have a separate document called a "Quality Manual. If you publish your system description electronically and it covers all the items required by ISO9001 for your "manual", that is acceptable (and the most concise and useful way to do it, unless someone, somewhere, needs a separate document. And if someone says they do, check why...)

Yes, indeed so. And oh, would it not be a fine thing if this were more widely understood. And done.

Forgive my tardy reply, I was out of the office yesterday with a 7 year old suffering from bronchitis. Not fun.

I am storing my documentation on a separate drive on our server that has limited access by only a couple people. So what you'e saying is that if I just have a more detailed table of contents of sorts I'd be covered??