Are all quality manuals essentially the same?

[blane]

Are all quality manuals essentially the same?

I've been reviewing several quality manuals from several companies and realized that a lot of the word choice, lay out and overall appearance are identical.

Is it the procedures that really individualize companies, or the work instructions?

 

[Stijloor]

Procedures? Work Instructions? No, not in particular. One would hope that the documentation represents what he organization wants to accomplish.

Quality Manuals?

One type emulates the ISO Standard, basically a repeat of the clauses, kind of translated what the company does to fulfill its obligations. Some like it, some do not.

The other type does not follow the ISO Standard, but addresses the minimum requirements in 4.2.2.

The last type is of the "one-page" kind, a super mininimalistic approach, exhaustively discussed here at The Cove forums.

Make your choice!

Stijloor.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Are all quality manuals essentially the same?

I've been reviewing several quality manuals from several companies and realized that a lot of the word choice, lay out and overall appearance are identical.

Is it the procedures that really individualize companies, or the work instructions?

The possible reason why you would see something like that, is because people are lazy (in my opinion) and cut and paste from the Standards. That is not the proper way to write the Manual.

Spend the time to write it according to what YOUR company does.

 

[Marc]

Are all quality manuals essentially the same?

You might want to read through this: QMS (Quality Management System) Manual - The Boss Wants a 4 Page Manual.

 

[brahmaiah]

Are all quality manuals essentially the same?

I've been reviewing several quality manuals from several companies and realized that a lot of the word choice, lay out and overall appearance are identical.

Is it the procedures that really individualize companies, or the work instructions?

Basic structure of all QMS Manuals are same.Because they answer the same requirements documented in the standard.The differance is in procedures,work instructions and formats.They vary from industry to industry ,company to company and from consultant to consultant.May be from MR TO MR.
V.J.Brahmaiah

 

[Big Jim]

The possible reason why you would see something like that, is because people are lazy (in my opinion) and cut and paste from the Standards. That is not the proper way to write the Manual.

Spend the time to write it according to what YOUR company does.

The lazy aspect also sometimes reflects the writer of the manual. He may have simply taken someone else's manual and changed the company name. Not very useful.

 

[AndyN]

Basic structure of all QMS Manuals are same.Because they answer the same requirements documented in the standard.
V.J.Brahmaiah

That's not true, IMHO. It's simply a case of most authors doing what can get them registered not creating a manual which is a good and useful description of the way the company goes about managing quality! A standards based quality manual has never been any real use to management, other than to obtain certification.....

The standard says you must have a manual (whatever that is) it doesn't say it must reflect all the ISO 9001 requirements and hence, it shouldn't look the same as everyone else's! That's like saying everyone's business has the same management structure, processes and so on. Crazy!

 

[brahmaiah]

That's not true, IMHO. It's simply a case of most authors doing what can get them registered not creating a manual which is a good and useful description of the way the company goes about managing quality! A standards based quality manual has never been any real use to management, other than to obtain certification.....

The standard says you must have a manual (whatever that is) it doesn't say it must reflect all the ISO 9001 requirements and hence, it shouldn't look the same as everyone else's! That's like saying everyone's business has the same management structure, processes and so on. Crazy!

Your comments suggest that certifications are useless.
The manual you are suggesting is out of the certification system.Then it becomes a publicity pamplet.
V.J.Brahmaiah

 

[AndyN]

Your comments suggest that certifications are useless.
The manual you are suggesting is out of the certification system.Then it becomes a publicity pamplet.
V.J.Brahmaiah

Not at all! I was simply disagreeing with your assertion that the manual must reflect the standard's requirements and, since many such manuals are common in certified companies, that they must have passed an audit(or).

Having been a CB auditor myself (before the advent of 9K2K) I have seen many manuals which emulated the standard! I can also advise that while they are not very useful, it was also very difficult - in and of itself - to 'prove' that it wasn't much use.........and what do you report it against?

Why shouldn't a small, slim, pamphlet manual be not only useful, usable and meet the requirements of ISO 9001? If it also serves as 'publicity', I'd suggest that was even better...I have had a number of (former) clients who used such an approach very well.

To progress the name of effective Quality Management we simply mustn't hang on to past practices and paradigms, when they are clearly not helping the cause.........and bulky, wordy manuals are one of them!

 

[Polly Pure Bread]

All quality manuals describe the clauses that define the quality system. I guess all manuals have a title. However, it differs on org chart, quality policy, quality objectives, description of org’s structure, unique processes (documented in a form of procedures, WIs, etc), definition of unique terms that are used in special way, physical presentation, etc.