Help a newbie to develop a QMS (Quality Management System)

[kev4791]

Jane,

My mistake - I have heard the stage 1 of the external audit called a 'pre-registration' so this is what I think I meant. But by this stage I would have alerady committed to a CB?.

 

[JaneB]

Jane,

My mistake - I have heard the stage 1 of the external audit called a 'pre-registration' so this is what I think I meant. But by this stage I would have alerady committed to a CB?.

Ah. OK, yes my stage 1 and your 'pre-reg' appear to be the same thing. And yes, you would have committed by then. That shouldn't be a problem provided you do your due diligence in selecting a good CB.

And, if you decide it would be useful to have a doc review, yes, there are plenty of good people in your part of the world who appear on the Cove. Some from CBs too

 

[npryde]

JaneB,

I get your point, it's common to use wrong designations/titles to address people performing particular roles.

Like my manager hates "quality engineer". He will always question what makes that person an engineer.

Back to my your vital point ''does the system & documentation work?''. I suppose they do and it was not a remote review. Initially they existed some sort of documentation which had nothing to do with iso. Seeking his expertise was to help us know if we are not running fast on the wrong track. Active voice, tenses and other issues which are key to understanding a documented procedure.
With every post I read, my knowledge about ISO increases.
Thank you all

 

[kev4791]

provided you do your due diligence in selecting a good CB.

What is the general concensus on selecting a good CB?. I have approached 3 companies so far, 2 found using Google and 1 recommended by a fellow Cover. They all appear, by their websites, to be reasonable sound companies but how do check?.

 

[ChrissieO]

What is the general concensus on selecting a good CB?. I have approached 3 companies so far, 2 found using Google and 1 recommended by a fellow Cover. They all appear, by their websites, to be reasonable sound companies but how do check?.

Check your in box.

Cx

 

[JaneB]

Think about how you go about selecting other critical suppliers. Do you just 'pick anyone'? Hope not.

Work out some criteria for what you want, and check out 3 or so. For example, you might consider questions like:

• How responsive are they?
• How easy (or hard! to understand) is the info they send you? Do they send you hideous long-winded forms, or is their info clear and logical?
• Do they seem customer-focussed? What tells you that?
• Are they considerably cheaper than others? (Warning light flashes if so!)
• Do they have auditors with reasonable experience in your field? If not, how do they aim to overcome that?
• Who would they send as your auditor(s)? Get some CVs from them and look them over with a critical eye - is this someone you'd be comfortable having audit you?
• What do some of their customers say about them?

 

[JaneB]

my manager hates "quality engineer". He will always question what makes that person an engineer.

Very good question, I think. My opinion is only someone with suitable tertiary qualifications has the right to call themselves an engineer, and that often people take on the title witihout a right to it.

 

[John Martinez]

Thanks Jane, for pointing that out. I'm on it!

I point out to my clients that if it helps, take the ISO 9001:2008 Standard, and whenever it states "product", line out and write in "service".

This simple act of defacing the ISO Standard does seem to help service organizations.

 

[JaneB]

I point out to my clients that if it helps, take the ISO 9001:2008 Standard, and whenever it states "product", line out and write in "service".

Me too.

I don't think it's 'defacing' but adjusting the balance. Reading product over and over and over and over in the Standard can cause a bit of blindness in service-company people after a while, unsurprisingly, and a bit of a tendecy to think 'oh that doesn't really apply to us. I wish the Standard actually printed product/service throughout, rather than just product.

 

[John Martinez]

Me too.

I don't think it's 'defacing' but adjusting the balance. Reading product over and over and over and over in the Standard can cause a bit of blindness in service-company people after a while, unsurprisingly, and a bit of a tendecy to think 'oh that doesn't really apply to us. I wish the Standard actually printed product/service throughout, rather than just product.

My "defacing" remark was tongue planted firmly in cheek. I agree The Standard should state product/service...but that's another thread.