when you store on the intranet you simple can set up access rights, that's all, anyway.
The reason i think this subject deserve attention is more universal in my mind.
I think there is a very broadly accepted perception about the QMS is the QMS is ALL the processes and procedure, including EVERY bit of instruction has ever put into a document format.
I would caveat the kind readers and anticipators the fact what is written as regard to QMS in the standard:
I would like to point to the fact that the ONLY regulatory need is for QMS is to prove how the company work effectively in accordance with the Standard itself.
For example when we are talking about document control, all we have to do from the QMS prospective to address the requirements set in the Standard, nothing else.
Which folder you put in the intranet, how do you granulate the reviewer and approver roles, whether or not you find useful to have a named author, how do you manage the approval, reviewer workflows are NOT RELEVANT from this prospective.
So I am crazy to say it is not relevant to document how to handle the documents in an organization?
Actually I haven't said that
It does matter, but not from the QMS prospective. There can be practices, guidelines, specialized trainings in order to widespread this knowledge, but those are not mandated to be part of the QMS.
One more angle I would add to this subject.
Having more detail in the QMS than it is mandated in the Standard radically increasing the probability of running to non conformity in the course of an audit. And nevertheless anything is more than required by regulatory is an unnecessary burden on the organization, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain that QMS. Unnecessary burden is from the regulatory prospective, yes, there could be engineering or other reasons influencing the extent of the original scope of a process or procedure.
Cheers
The reason i think this subject deserve attention is more universal in my mind.
I think there is a very broadly accepted perception about the QMS is the QMS is ALL the processes and procedure, including EVERY bit of instruction has ever put into a document format.
I would caveat the kind readers and anticipators the fact what is written as regard to QMS in the standard:
I would like to point to the fact that the ONLY regulatory need is for QMS is to prove how the company work effectively in accordance with the Standard itself.
For example when we are talking about document control, all we have to do from the QMS prospective to address the requirements set in the Standard, nothing else.
Which folder you put in the intranet, how do you granulate the reviewer and approver roles, whether or not you find useful to have a named author, how do you manage the approval, reviewer workflows are NOT RELEVANT from this prospective.
So I am crazy to say it is not relevant to document how to handle the documents in an organization?
Actually I haven't said that
It does matter, but not from the QMS prospective. There can be practices, guidelines, specialized trainings in order to widespread this knowledge, but those are not mandated to be part of the QMS.
One more angle I would add to this subject.
Having more detail in the QMS than it is mandated in the Standard radically increasing the probability of running to non conformity in the course of an audit. And nevertheless anything is more than required by regulatory is an unnecessary burden on the organization, not to mention the fact that you have to maintain that QMS. Unnecessary burden is from the regulatory prospective, yes, there could be engineering or other reasons influencing the extent of the original scope of a process or procedure.
Cheers
Last edited:
