Why is a Good Quality Manual Good

K

kgott

I have researched quite a few threads on the cove on quality manuals and I have learned that simply regurgitating the ISO 9001 standard is of no real value at all. Unfortunately; The manual I have wrriten for my employer is eactly that type of manual.

I did make make some notes from the advice given by contributors to the other treads on what a good quality manual should contain but I need to learn a lot more in order to add value to our quality manual.

Good those out there with more expereince than I in writing quality manuals please either, point to some good manuals in the tread attachmnets list or offer some insight into why good quality manuals are good.

thank you
 

Howard Atkins

Forum Administrator
Leader
Admin
IMO the problem is that most manuals are written because the standard says you must have one and writers do not think of its use other than a registration audit
Instead of good use the term value, this is what we want in all our activities

For a document to have value it must have a purpose and this will then give a focus for the document and allow it to have value.
The main driving force should be for the organisation and not the auditor and just as some companies make little handbooks for Health and Safety or environment the Quality Manual should be a useful document for your staff.

The standard is very clear about what should be in the manual
a) the scope of the quality management system, including details of and justification for any exclusions

What does my system cover

b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them, and

How we do it- We perform the various actions we do according to the following documents. The standard says documented procedures, there are 6 issues that must be covered by "documented procedures". the other documents that you use might not be procedures!
Please see this document
Guidance on the Documentation Requirements of ISO 9001
and others that are on ISO TC/176/SC2 Home Page

c) a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system.

An explanation of the way my actions connect to one another.

As with everything Keep It Simple and Smart
 
K

kgott

Thanks for that Howard; One of the things I want to achieve with our manual is that I want a new starter to be able to read the manual and say "ahhh now I know how this company manages it business processes." "what I've just read will help me understand and interact with the company management system."

While I dont want a regurgitation of the 9001 that is no good to anyone, nor do I want a minimalst document that merely tells the reader to go and read xyz process description either.

Only yesterday the business directors went through the manual with a fine tooth comb editorialwise. (we are a scientific consultancy and correct techncial writing is of god like importance.)

One of the things I learned is that I should have put all the customer stuff in one place in the manual even though the standard talks about customers in two seperate places. No doubt this also applies to other things as well.
 

somashekar

Leader
Admin
A good quality manual is good because ...
1. It states the purpose of the organization and its quality policy, and the scope (though not within the 4.2.2 of ISO 9001)
2. It becomes the top level document in the documentation structure and leads to the next level documents that are established. This makes the manual a useable and working document for any top level management delibarations.
3. It states clearly what are excluded and what are non-applicability with respect to the standard to which the manual is aligned.
4. It captures the various processes and interactions which gives a bird's eye view to the user about the organization's operation.
5. A section telling about the outsourced processes and controls says about the overall company and QMS capabilities to the customer with whom we share the manual during the vendor registration process and customer audits.
6. It is good if it is short and to the point
7. It is good if it is signed and released by the top management with a statement of commitment to the quality policy and to the QMS operation.
8. It is good if it shows up a neat organization structure that is current to see the reporting visibility.

That is about it I guess ...
 
Last edited:
K

kgott

Far Out. I'm getting the impression that we're looking at a 3-4 page quality manual but in the other threads I read on this issue, the consensus seemed to be that 3 or 4 pages would not enable anyone to gain much insight into the organisations quality management systems or provide staff with much guidence. - wonderfull!

Anymore views out there?
 

somashekar

Leader
Admin
Far Out. I'm getting the impression that we're looking at a 3-4 page quality manual but in the other threads I read on this issue, the consensus seemed to be that 3 or 4 pages would not enable anyone to gain much insight into the organisations quality management systems or provide staff with much guidence. - wonderfull!

Anymore views out there?
Take your time to read THIS search result and the other threads within that.
 
T

Tom W

...to add value...

thank you

I think you answered your own question of what makes a good quality manual. Does it add value or is it there because you have to have one. Some could argue that the only real purpose they serve is for a registrar to look at and because a standard requires you to have it. But if you can make it mean something to the company by tying in the mission and values of the organization then it becomes a tool rather than a coster for your coffee cup. :sarcasm:

Several years ago I took our 58 page manual (that I had written no less) and got it down to 8 pages and still met the requirements Howard and the others listed and the TS requirements. Our registrar made the comment that they felt it was a better manual like that because it was brief, to the point, and easy to follow. I had gone the route of TMI originally.

What I found was I included too much explination in the manual on the things we do rather than link to the procedures which already cover that and more.
 
S

somerqc

One other point that I didn't see in any of the responses - consider your audience (I don't mean the auditors!).

You need to write the manual so that the audience will use it. At my last place of employment, the manual was 6 pages. Here - it is over 100! Why? Because, the audience didn't want a manual which referred to procedures which referred to work instructions with referred to forms. In our case, it is all one document that includes the step-by-step procedure on how to enter information into the various modules of the business software.

FWIW, I am totally against this approach; however, I was overruled. So it is what it is.
 
J

JaneB

I want a new starter to be able to read the manual and say "ahhh now I know how this company manages it business processes." "what I've just read will help me understand and interact with the company management system."
That's one good reason to have "a quality manual".

I put that in brackets because 'it' can be one or several documents. It can be a single entity(as somerquc illustrates) or many (as others describe) or a virtual entity such as a collection of documents available via intranet/extranet/Sharepoint Portal/wiki or similar.

While I dont want a regurgitation of the 9001 that is no good to anyone, nor do I want a minimalst document that merely tells the reader to go and read xyz process description either.
Which is why you (anyone) needs to decide what is useful to you in your organisation to meet your unique needs and in your unique context.

One of the things I learned is that I should have put all the customer stuff in one place in the manual even though the standard talks about customers in two seperate places. No doubt this also applies to other things as well.
Yes, it does. In spades. Just one little illustration of why regurgitations are a waste of time and $. A Standard has one purpose, a manual has another.

You need to write the manual so that the audience will use it.
Exactly. And the primary audience should never be the auditor.

Any good document is one that has clear purpose and a designated audience, and is then written and designed to meet both. A 'quality manual' is no exception.

PDSA applies here as it does anywhere else. Plan it (what purpose/s must it fulfil? Who will read it, when?). Do it, Study/Check it (does it work? do they use it? is it valuable? etc), then Act on the results. (Keep using or change it!)

As for page count, it's utterly irrelevant.
 
K

kgott

Thanks for that Jane B; I've noticed that you chime in with perceptive and salient comments.

I like the idea that the manual can be in different documents and "drawn' from different documents when needed. I will go that way in the future. I cant go back here now after I got the busienss directors to invest an afternoon going through a regurgitation of the standard, they'll hang me. I guess we live and learn.

I also agree with other comments that quality manuals are like safety manuals in that they are rarely read by anyone and if they are, they provide very little insight or guidence into "this is how we manage ......" (I also know this is telling me I know part of the answer to my own questions, ... but it's just out of grasp.)

Your comments are similar to what has been said in other threads about quality manuals but I've not really been able to crystalise in my imind what things like "what the orgs needs are, whose the audience, what are their needs etc."

.......... I have been thinking of cutting the regurgitation back to a summary of our process (procedure) for meeting the requirements of the standard and our other processes and then refer the reader back to our documented process............ hhmm?

I'll just have to keep at it. - thanks
 
Top Bottom