Exclusions and Conflicting Quality Manuals between Plants and Divisons

[Dvora]

I hope my title helps describe my question - its a bit complex.

We are a Division with sevearl plants under us. Each plant has its own quality manual with the exception of Plant X, which shares certification with the Division.

Certain responsibilities are only for Plant X, some only for Division. These are exclusions in the Quality Manuals of the other plants.

I have been asked to review ALL of the Quality Manuals. We are setting divisional policies in place as guidance for consistency, and want to see what is currently being done.

Situation:

Plant X and Division: THis quality manual does not mention that Division provides services to Plant X and other plants. Is this acceptable?

Plants A, B, C: All cite exclusions to Division, but in different ways. Some take partial responsibility, others bump it all on Division. Some say "DIVISION WILL do this, rather than Division IS doing this" (kind of like the kid telling Dad what to do).....

One plant states it can visit suppliers for auditing, all others state that this is sole responsibility of Division - but the Plant X/Division Quality Manual only states what they do, no in relation to others. (It IS the sole responsibility of Division)

My QUESTION: Is this acceptable? Am I right in thinking that all of the Quality Manuals should be aligned somehow? Should Plant X/Division QM mention that is provides the excluded services for the other plants?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts/advice you have to offer. I only wish I had something to offer myself... but am such a newbie at this!

Deborah

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Re: Exclusions and Conflicting Quality Manuals

I have an idea on this, but I won't be able to respond until later this evening (after 5:15 PM PST).

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Exclusions and Conflicting Quality Manuals

I hope my title helps describe my question - its a bit complex.

We are a Division with sevearl plants under us. Each plant has its own quality manual with the exception of Plant X, which shares certification with the Division.

Certain responsibilities are only for Plant X, some only for Division. These are exclusions in the Quality Manuals of the other plants.

I have been asked to review ALL of the Quality Manuals. We are setting divisional policies in place as guidance for consistency, and want to see what is currently being done.

Situation:

Plant X and Division: THis quality manual does not mention that Division provides services to Plant X and other plants. Is this acceptable?

Plants A, B, C: All cite exclusions to Division, but in different ways. Some take partial responsibility, others bump it all on Division. Some say "DIVISION WILL do this, rather than Division IS doing this" (kind of like the kid telling Dad what to do).....

One plant states it can visit suppliers for auditing, all others state that this is sole responsibility of Division - but the Plant X/Division Quality Manual only states what they do, no in relation to others. (It IS the sole responsibility of Division)

My QUESTION: Is this acceptable? Am I right in thinking that all of the Quality Manuals should be aligned somehow? Should Plant X/Division QM mention that is provides the excluded services for the other plants?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts/advice you have to offer. I only wish I had something to offer myself... but am such a newbie at this!

Deborah

Dvora,

Here is an easy answer which may not fly...but I am serious!

Consider a corporate registration scheme. Much better and simpler.
Same significant benefits as we have discussed in your previous posts.

Stijloor.

 

[JaneB]

My QUESTION:Am I right in thinking that all of the Quality Manuals should be aligned somehow?

Yes. You are right. They certainly should be aligned and consistent with each other.

I'm not surprised you are confused. Sounds like a very confusing situation currently. And thus it's highly likely (almost inevitable) that so will be lots of other people. (Confused, I mean).

I'd be looking for: how can you simplify and make things clearer overall?

 

[Dvora]

Again, I want to thank you all for your comments and thoughts.

Yes, I am looking for how to simplify everything. I am very intrigued at the suggestion of a Corporate Certification. Could you suggest how I can get more information on this, research it, what would be involved so that I can pass this info on to my supervisor?

Somehow, when I read that suggestion I thought, AHA! If we can justify it on a cost basis - I think there could be serious consideration. On my side, to think of how much easier it could make on our QA people in the plants - they could focus on parts QA and working to the plant level instructions, rather than documentation that they already don't have time for ... thanks in advance for your continued input and thoughts..

It may take a while, but I can keep the thread updated on progress, so that perhaps others can learn from our experience.

Deborah

 

[Stijloor]

Again, I want to thank you all for your comments and thoughts.

Yes, I am looking for how to simplify everything. I am very intrigued at the suggestion of a Corporate Certification. Could you suggest how I can get more information on this, research it, what would be involved so that I can pass this info on to my supervisor?

Deborah,

The best thing to do is talk to your Registrar's account manager. Be prepared to provide all relevant information relative to each of the sites to be included in the Corporate registration scheme.

This person would be happy to develop a cost proposal that you can then discuss with your Top Management. More sites give you some "bargaining" power.

Hope this helps and please keep us posted.

Stijloor

 

[Doug]

Certainly an alignment of the QMS would be of great benefit to all. I am participating in a similar work myself. You may want to utilize a small group or comittee to help you along the way. Are you now a subscriber to any quality system certification process? Have a sunny day!

 

[Valeri]

Dvora,

We have the same situation; however, we have only one quality manual which is controlled/mandated by corporate. All plants hold the same quality manual, processes and procedures; their work instructions are somewhat different.

All plants show corporate on their certificate as a support site for sales & purchasing and one additionally shows Corporate as the support site for design. (Other plants will add this as more design work is done at the corporate level.)

IMHO - Shared certification should have no affect on the quality manual.

 

[Dvora]

That is also a very good idea... I think I'm going to have to make a list of possible approaches... but this is good - it gives management choices...

Thanks loads for this idea. Are there others out there who also have a single manual for multiple facilities?

 

[Boscoeee]

That is also a very good idea... I think I'm going to have to make a list of possible approaches... but this is good - it gives management choices...

Thanks loads for this idea. Are there others out there who also have a single manual for multiple facilities?

I operated four different sites under the same QMS, though I must admit, there were additional work instructions to handle site specific issues from one site to another. But all of the core business practices were align and under the same registration. Other than the naysayers, you will find that it will work well. The different sites included welding sheet metal fabrication, clean room assembly, machining, and engineering support.

Your registrar should be able to guide you through the process. Wish you luck.