AS9100a and ISO 9001:2000 Quality Manual and Document Examples

[Jimmy Olson]

Mike and Randy,

Thanks for the feedback. Both of the areas mentioned are things that I have looked at as well (they are both carry over from the prior system). The annual review is something that I think will be helpful here because we tend to change a fair amount, but most people don't think to update the procedures. Most of the people here know what they're doing and don't have to refer to the procedures and so they tend to be forgotten about (not all, but some). So this gives us a chance to compare the procedure to the actual process and current practice. The main reason it's in there is because of 4.2.3 b) where it says to review and update as necessary. The section should be reworded though, because it really applies to internal procedures and not customer documentation.

I have a pretty informal way of handling the reviews. I keep a list of all the procedures and have a section for each one that indicates when it was last reviewed, by who, if a DCN was generated, and when it is next due. This is working so far and some of the procedures have been update as a result of this. So for know, it is worth it to do. Down the road it might be a different story though.

As to the obsolete documents, for the most part this is meant for customer documentation. Our procedures are primarily used in electronic form. There are notebooks on the production floor with printed copies that are controlled (because of lack of enough computers on the floor) and all other copies that are printed by personnel are uncontrolled. When we do change a procedure we replace all the controlled copies and file one copy for reference. As for the uncontrolled copies, people have been trained that if they are using a procedure to make sure it is current. Looking at the text it should be reworded to reflect that the controlled copies are destroyed.

I'll be the first to admit that the way things are done isn't perfect, but the company is going through a lot of growth and change right now, so hopefully I can change some of this around to make it better

 

[Jimmy Olson]

Okay, here it is in one shot. The attached zip files contains the following:

- Quality Manual
- Document and Record Control Procedure
- Internal Audit Procedure
- Non Conforming Material Procedure
- Preventive and Corrective Action Procedure

Enjoy

 

[David Hartman]

Richard stated,

Most of the people here know what they're doing and don't have to refer to the procedures and so they tend to be forgotten about (not all, but some).

Richard, Just an observation: With the new standard and the process management approach, are procedures that are not being refered to necessary?

Having many procedures that fell into this category, we took the opportunity to re-evaluate the need for these procedures. In many cases we made the determination that training (most of which is documented OJT), and the availability of flowcharts or bullet lists, depicting key points of the process were all that we required. This eliminated a lot of documentation that for the most part was nothing but "audit fodder" (we were constantly being cited for "uncontrolled" documentation - documents that were out-dated due to a lack of use, or cited for noncompliance with our own documented requirements - because the trivial details in the process changed).

With the new approach we have controlled the process (where it matters), and have eliminated a lot of frustration (and documentation).

 

[Jimmy Olson]

ddhartma said:

Richard, Just an observation: With the new standard and the process management approach, are procedures that are not being refered to necessary?

Are they necessary? Yes and no. As it stands now they are basically part of our training program. There is a little bit of a debate here regarding this issue. Some of the people are still of the mindset that you need a procedure for everything (slowly getting better). The person in charge of the training program basically looks at it as he doesn't have to create any kind of training program since the procedures are available. I look at it as wanting to get rid of all of them (okay, well most of them).

It's an ongoing process right now to basically redesign our document structure. I've been able to eliminate quite a few procedures since being here, but there's still more to get rid of

 

[Raptorwild]

AS9100A Quality Manual

Good Morning Richard: I would appreciate seeing what your procedures look like. I am writing my manual and procedures to AS9100 (Aerospace), which is somewhat more complex. If anyone has a AS9100 Part 1 manual that has been accepted by a registrar, it would help to see what others are doing.

Hello Hal and all!

I am attaching two revisions of our Quality Manual. The first one Rev. L, I was trying to streamline and reduce in size. After submitting it to our auditor for review he was very unhappy and felt we were not ready for the upcoming audit. So I made other changes to it went back to the old manual, we reviewed and released it as Rev. M. I sent it to our auditor he was happy with it and ended up with our AS9100A Registration. I am not convinced that Rev. L is not compliant, so please provide input. It is always greatly appreciated.

Paula

Quality Manuals:
https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1643
https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1642<!-- / message -->

 

[Greg B]

Okay, thanks to Jim you should be able to access my QM from this URL:
*EDITED OUT. THAT LINK IS TO JIM WADE'S SITE. JIM LONG AGO WAS BARRED FROM THIS FORUM AND I DO NOT WANT LINKS HERE TO HIS SITE.

JIM KNOWS WHY HE WAS BANNED BUT REFUSED TO COME BACK AND APOLOGISE TO US.

Will,

I have just done a search on 'Document Control' and this thread popped up. I downloaded your Quality Manual and on first inspection it looks GREAT. I love the idea of the flowcharts as I have just started using them. I have enclosed one that we are reviewing for inclusion. We are relying more on training than documenting every step. Well done

Greg B

 

[Wes Bucey]

Okay, thanks to Jim you should be able to access my QM from this URL:
*EDITED OUT. THAT LINK IS TO JIM WADE'S SITE. JIM LONG AGO WAS BARRED FROM THIS FORUM AND I DO NOT WANT LINKS HERE TO HIS SITE.

JIM KNOWS WHY HE WAS BANNED BUT REFUSED TO COME BACK AND APOLOGISE TO US.

I like the great graphics, but strangely, the one item which most caught my fancy was this note clause:
(NOTE: Any ‘revision’ or ‘change’ of documentation refers to a material and substantial change, not to changes in grammar, spelling, punctuation, numeration or pagination.)

I am incorporating that phrase into many of my documents from now on. It should be a fantastic time and effort savor. Why didn't I know about this before?

Thanks for the wonderful tip!

 

[Mike S.]

I like the great graphics, but strangely, the one item which most caught my fancy was this note clause:
(NOTE: Any ‘revision’ or ‘change’ of documentation refers to a material and substantial change, not to changes in grammar, spelling, punctuation, numeration or pagination.)

I am incorporating that phrase into many of my documents from now on. It should be a fantastic time and effort savor. Why didn't I know about this before?

Thanks for the wonderful tip!

I agree that the referenced phrase makes a great deal of common sense, and I like it, but I'm wondering if most registrar auditors will agree. I can see possibilities of problems by including the numeration and pagination part if other documents might reference the re-numbered/re-paginated document in question via page or section number.

 

[Jimmy Olson]

I agree that the referenced phrase makes a great deal of common sense, and I like it, but I'm wondering if most registrar auditors will agree.

I have a similar phrase in my document control procedure and haven't had any problem with it so far.

 

[mweb]

I have a similar phrase in my document control procedure and haven't had any problem with it so far.

I've used this phrase for the past five years in our QM, and though we've been through seven different registrar auditors in that time, not one has even raised an eyebrow. As far as the 'numeration and pagination' bit goes, well I never reference ANYTHING by number or page, just the title...so that's another I've gotten away with! (By the way, sorry you can't link to the QM any more. I'd forgotten that it was hosted by the banned JW.)

Will