"ISO 9000 Quality Systems Handbook" by David Hoyle

[MBraun76]

Can anyone tell me if this is a solid book to use as a reference or should I take it with a grain of salt? I ask because I have had questions concerning some of our past audits and what the auditor states as fact (and I believe is actually his opinion) conflicts with what I have found in the book. This tells me that it is actually his opinion he was voicing and therefore I should not have to take it too seriously.

 

[harry]

If you are referring to the issue on document retention period posted in the other thread, I think its time that you should ask your CB for a change of auditor or look for another CB rather than doubting the book. This is one of the most popular book around.

 

[Stijloor]

Can anyone tell me if this is a solid book to use as a reference or should I take it with a grain of salt? I ask because I have had questions concerning some of our past audits and what the auditor states as fact (and I believe is actually his opinion) conflicts with what I have found in the book. This tells me that it is actually his opinion he was voicing and therefore I should not have to take it too seriously.

I regard the books written by David Hoyle as some of the better ones compared to others. Mr. Hoyle provides excellent guidelines. But keep in mind that your organization must decide how ultimately the quality management system will look like.

Remember that the auditor can not audit beyond ISO 9001 and what your company has stated in its documents. You should always ask: "Where in the Standard does it say that....?" The auditor will back off.... The auditor can not impose requirements nor offer consultation.

Stijloor.

 

[MBraun76]

Thanks guys,

I have been using this book a lot and I really like it but I had no idea how it was regarded in the community. I didn't want to start leaning on it too heavily if people felt it was a little weak as a reference.

 

[Marc]

There are probably hundreds of ISO 9001 books out there. Hoyle has one of the oldest, I think, and has a decent reputation. Here is another one: ISO 9001 in Plain English by Craig Cochran.

My only comment is that like canned procedures (because they have to be somewhat generic in some ways), they can only give you so much. Your best approach is reading the book(s) and then asking your questions pertaining to your specific scenario(s) here.

And always remember that there will always be subjective interpretations.

 

[Marcelo]

In my opinion, David Hoyle´s books are the best ones you can find about "quality" management systems. His full commitment to the quality management priciples and process approach is something every user (and auditor ) of a QMS should follow.

 

[Marcelo]

Oh, and if you want to understand the best way to perform a "real" value-based, process approach-based audit, please read "ISO 9000: 2000 Auditing Using the Process Approach"...a shame you won´t see many auditors using a similar methodology....

 

[Wes Bucey]

Can anyone tell me if this is a solid book to use as a reference or should I take it with a grain of salt? I ask because I have had questions concerning some of our past audits and what the auditor states as fact (and I believe is actually his opinion) conflicts with what I have found in the book. This tells me that it is actually his opinion he was voicing and therefore I should not have to take it too seriously.

If you are referring to the issue on document retention period posted in the other thread, I think its time that you should ask your CB for a change of auditor or look for another CB rather than doubting the book. This is one of the most popular book around.

I regard the books written by David Hoyle as some of the better ones compared to others. Mr. Hoyle provides excellent guidelines. But keep in mind that your organization must decide how ultimately the quality management system will look like.

Remember that the auditor can not audit beyond ISO 9001 and what your company has stated in its documents. You should always ask: "Where in the Standard does it say that....?" The auditor will back off.... The auditor can not impose requirements nor offer consultation.

Stijloor.

Like Harry, I wonder what specific conflict you note with your auditor versus the book's suggestions.

Jan (Stijloor) echoes the mantra of most quality professionals when confronted by an auditor who dictates something opposite of what your current practice is (usually phrased in the vernacular as):
"Show me the shall!"
meaning ANY auditor who cites an organization for a nonconformance has a duty to cite the chapter and verse from either the Standard OR the organization's own documentation and delineate how he sees your practice deviating from that guideline. (This holds true for government regulations as well.)

Often, auditors are guilty of "mission creep" in trying to hold an organization to a peculiar interpretation (the auditor's) of the Standard which is not agreed or accepted by the mainstream quality community. In such a case (weird interpretation), the organization may have to plead its case to the auditor's managers.

It is actually quite rare for an auditor to make up a "rule" out of whole cloth (meaning he cannot point to an existing clause) and try to impose it on an organization - it is much more likely to be a difference of opinion on how to interpret the rule in practice.

Guess what! Sometimes the auditor is right! After several years of a down economy, many of the truly bad auditors have been flushed from the system.

When in doubt about your own interpretation, it is smart to come to the Cove with as many details as possible and lay out your case for us to pick and prod and come up with some help.

When folks do come, though, they need at the very least to quote the exact words used by the auditor because sometimes folks err in their interpretation of the auditor's view when they paraphrase it.

Good luck in resolving your audit issues!

 

[MBraun76]

Thanks to everyone for your help.

The exact issue arose when my auditor gave me an NCR for having the word "minimum" at the top of a column in my spreadsheet which lists document maintenance. To be exact the column was titled "Minimum Retention Time". He said the word minimum was not allowed for some obscure reason I could not exactly quote. The book, however, states that document retention time is a minimum time itself and documents can be kept longer if necessary. Therefore I simply wanted to question the validity of my book before I proceeded. After all, anyone can write a book. Whether or not it is accurate is another issue.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Thanks to everyone for your help.

The exact issue arose when my auditor gave me an NCR for having the word "minimum" at the top of a column in my spreadsheet which lists document maintenance. To be exact the column was titled "Minimum Retention Time". He said the word minimum was not allowed for some obscure reason I could not exactly quote. The book, however, states that document retention time is a minimum time itself and documents can be kept longer if necessary. Therefore I simply wanted to question the validity of my book before I proceeded. After all, anyone can write a book. Whether or not it is accurate is another issue.

Based on hearsay evidence, it appears the auditor is more of a "mission creep" guy than an "I make the rules" guy. In point of fact, no International Standard either prescribes words to use nor proscribes words NOT to use. This is an instance where "Show me the shall!" would probably have reversed the Nonconformance citation. If not, an appeal to the auditor's manager would most certainly have reversed it.

On another note, document management is one of my special interests and the concept of retention is really one of "grays," not "blacks and whites." When experts in the field of document retention talk about "minimum" OR "maximum" time, they are really referring to that point in time where the document is re-evaluated by a competent person with the authority to determine the NEXT stage of its "disposition" ["disposition" and "disposal" are NOT synonyms for "destruction."] Essentially, this is the point where

1. some documents are kept in an active file,
2. some are relegated to long-term archival storage, and
3. some are actually destroyed.

When documents go into either of the first two categories, a new "minimum" OR "maximum" time for re-evaluation is set for EACH document (because the urgency may be different for any given document.) It is wise to set "ranges" rather than hard dates for these evaluations so the organization has some leeway without being in technical nonconformance if it misses a scheduled evaluation by a day or a week.