No. But it may be less confusing if they use current terms instead of old terms.
I agree - But...
And I do understand this is somewhat
- But I'm on a roll tonight...
Few people in an organization have to understand anything about ISO 9001 or its contents, and yes - I do remember the days of auditors having to ask line level employees: "What does ISO 9000 mean to you?" or "What does ISO 9001 mean to you?" or "What is your company quality policy and what does it mean to you?" It was stupid then, and it still is but I'm relatively sure that isn't asked these days.
What you need is one person who understands the content and "requirements" of the standard(s).
In all the implementations I did, the single often missing requirements was internal audits. The rest was always essentially an exercise in tutoring the people, which is what most consultants actually do unless they're trying to draw out their time spent to increase their profit.
I would go into a company and a requirement prior to my acceptance of every contract was a dedicated person to train: "Who is dedicated to this for me to educate/train". So, I go in and it was mostly "translation", in that as we would read through the standard, it was: "Clause xyz says we have to do this..." to which I would say something like: "You call it zzz which is xyz in your company's jargon. In short, you are doing that but you call it something different". The next thing you know, it was statements to me like: "You mean that's all there is to it?" My response: "Ummm, yes but you're paying me to explain this to you."
I mention this especially because I see companies that want to change their company's terminology in order to align with language used in the standard(s). Now you're into allowing the standard(s) to cause confusion by changing what employees already know and understand to "align" wth a standard. Example: "Well, we call these our travelers and they tell us everything we have to do". The travelers have their work instructions embedded (in this example), but the standard talks about "procedures". Well, yes - a procedure is a way to do a task. A work instruction is a procedure, technically. Next thing you know there's rampant confusion over a frigging word/definition. The typical line level employee doesn't need the confusion of even knowing there isn't a difference. They know that they have to do what the traveler says and that's all they need to know.
That's not to say issues didn't exist in companies. Many companies were not "doing what they said they did" (following documented and undocumented procedures), for example. Many companies had lots of obsolete documents floating around, as another example.
Back around 1997 I did
this and gave the powerpoint away free (and it still is). It's primitive by todays standards, but not much has really changed. And my advice hasn't changed: "You must understand not only every sentence of the standard(s), but how to answer auditor questions with regard to every sentence, in the applicable standard(s)." One person should be able to interface with the auditor for translations, including, for the most part, middle and upper management. And, that person should have
already interfaced with all levels of the company to ensure everyone knows their responsibilities as well as how to respond to auditors.
I remember years ago - Like 20+ years ago, I even made up "audit cards" which I laminated and gave to every company employee. I didn't charge the company for them, I printed them out, laminated them and as I moved about in the company I spoke with employees at all levels and gave them a card. (see
https://elsmar.com/Forums/583478-post15.html (QA Policy Cards.doc attachment), and I'm sure the template(s) are in the Free files and/or the "Cove_Members" directory). I really enjoyed being out with employees at ALL levels of the company (call me a cheer leader). And several companies even shelled the money out to have t-shirts printed - In one company the front had the company logo, and across the back it said "I'm Ready - Audit me!" I think I still have mine in the drawer. I'll never forget the auditors faces when they arrived to find that even the CEO was wearing one of the t-shirts. That was circa 1993 and it was a "no nonconformance(s)" audit, as I happily remember. It made me feel very good. It was exciting and satisfying. I had earned my fee.
I miss doing implementations - I enjoyed getting everyone psyched up and ready. I took personal pleasure in the results. The biggest thing in implementations was not their understanding the standard(s). The company improved because they "stood down" and took a look at what they were doing. That takes time and costs money. Often it takes a major event (My bet is "Equifax" is taking a serious look at their present practices) to force a company to take a serious look at their practices. In part this is because it costs a company money (time) because people have jobs to do and it adds to their job "load".
Adds to their "job load"? OK - An example. I had a Fortune 500 company I was working for. I was there twice. I came back for visit 3 and nothing had changed. No one had done what they, in our meetings, had agreed to do. So, I quit. Which brought on a discussion with the top management. "Why?", I was asked. I explained that they had hired me to do a job. If they would not do what I told them, they would fail and I would be blamed for their failure.
I am sure I have posted about this before in discussion threads here, but it bears repeating. When doing an implementation people end up with many "extra things" they have to do. Companies already have employees stretched time wise. Now their 50 hours a week goes to 60 or more.
I had done "
war rooms" before and suggested they do one, but they exceeded my expectations. Upper management (in this case an idol of mine - Gerry Keller) set up a "war room" per my suggestion. It was open 24/7. It was stocked with food and beverages, all free. Anyone could go in at any time, get fed for free and review status reports tacked to the walls. There was also a meeting of everyone above line level employees in which upper management expressed their appreciation for, and understanding of, the sacrifices employees were making. (This was not in the US...)
People got involved. People felt their efforts were appreciated by management. They went the "extra mile". And that facility of over 5000 people came through a QS-9000 audit without even 1 minor (remember them?) nonconformance. (
Major vs. Minor Non Conformance Definitions and
ISO 9000 Major vs. Minor Nonconformances)
As always... This isn't rocket science...
Briefly, back to the "quality manual update" thing - Make it yours. Don't write it to satisfy a standard. Write it so that it is of value to your company.
Food for thought:
Basic Document Classifications
