How long can my ISO 9001:2008 Quality Manual be?

[Big Jim]

Just don't forget to reference the procedures in whatever you use as a quality manual. I know that concevably you could still do that in one page.

 

[JaneB]

Re: Quality Manual 9000:2008

Peter,

I think actually we agree (broadly /in principle if a bit of minor debate about details) on this.

I think it's fair to say that the whole topic of documentation requirements is one of the big areas that isn't always understood clearly, can be a cause of much confusion and where there are some quite strongly held and very divergent views, don't you?

That that there are so many pronouncements from so many different posters (and so many questions) on what a 'quality manual' is (or is not) or must be (or mustn't) or should always contain etc shows this up. It could perhaps be made clearer (eg, by drawing together the various references to doco in various places).

But then we'd have nothing to argue about here - or we'd find something else to debate which could be a good thing

 

[dickgent]

Re: Quality Manual 9000:2008

Thanks for your input... I was in your class in 2002. It has served me well.

 

[dickgent]

Well..... I am glad to see so many responses in such detail. Thank You All. I think I have my answer. The VP of operations says he wants it to be a "sales tool" with enough detail to show we have a robust QS, but not too much detail trying to describe the entire system. I do not see the need or the efficiency to descibe all of the processes and procedures in the top level document. The current manual is over 48 pages, even after the "consultants" got done with it. They basically left in the 6 procedures required and turned the other 14 into flow charts and procedures that are not referenced in the QM!!. I'll use the flow charts (after heavy modifications) once I add the references to the input and output documents. So the short answer is I will write the QM to meet the standard and drop all the parroting of the standard and write the darn thing as it should be written. A document that describes our system and almost coincidently meets the stand (ISO; AS TS or any revision).
Thank you for all of your comments and responses.

 

[JaneB]

I think I have my answer...So the short answer is I will write the QM to meet the standard and drop all the parroting of the standard and write the darn thing as it should be written. A document that describes our system and almost coincidently meets the stand (ISO; AS TS or any revision).
Thank you for all of your comments and responses.

That's great and sounds like a darned good plan!

I'm so glad you did got your answer, in among the quite spirited debate your question generated.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Re: Quality Manual 9000:2008

Peter,

I think actually we agree (broadly /in principle if a bit of minor debate about details) on this.

I think it's fair to say that the whole topic of documentation requirements is one of the big areas that isn't always understood clearly, can be a cause of much confusion and where there are some quite strongly held and very divergent views, don't you?

That that there are so many pronouncements from so many different posters (and so many questions) on what a 'quality manual' is (or is not) or must be (or mustn't) or should always contain etc shows this up. It could perhaps be made clearer (eg, by drawing together the various references to doco in various places).

But then we'd have nothing to argue about here - or we'd find something else to debate which could be a good thing

Jane

Of course we agree - we are both right...(!) My aim was to point out that the wording of the standard is not always ideal (it was produced by a committee, after all). Previous versions of the standard have resulted in folk interpreting a requirement in a particular way without questioning the underlying reason for it, or working out how best to apply it to their own situation. For example, 20 sections in a manual whether they tell you anything useful or not.

And surely we engage in "constructive discussion" rather than argument...?

All the best.

 

[JaneB]

Re: Quality Manual 9000:2008

Of course we agree - we are both right...(!)

Indeed we are. At least, I always am, not sure about you (I'm joking!)

My aim was to point out that the wording of the standard is not always ideal (it was produced by a committee, after all).

My sentiments exactly.

Previous versions of the standard have resulted in folk interpreting a requirement in a particular way without questioning the underlying reason for it, or working out how best to apply it to their own situation. For example, 20 sections in a manual whether they tell you anything useful or not.

Again, we are in complete agreement.
I think that considering why something is in there is the best place to start. Just maybe members of that committee may have known a thing or three about quality.

And surely we engage in "constructive discussion" rather than argument...?

I stand corrected.
And use 3 icons because there ain't no 'tongue in cheek' one.

 

[ARTEMIS]

This question is so debateable. I think your QM needs to be as long as necessary to include the elements required by the standard. Don't go overboard, like repeating standard references and requirements. Most auditors, and customers who read your QM will know what they are looking for. If you can say something in a paragraph vs 3 paragraphs then do it.

 

[Project Man]

Our QM is two pages long and complies with ISO. No cover sheet, no regurgitated paraghraphs from the ISO standard. All I have to say is, "A flowchart is worth 20 pages."

 

[Stijloor]

Our QM is two pages long and complies with ISO. No cover sheet, no regurgitated paraghraphs from the ISO standard. All I have to say is, "A flowchart is worth 20 pages."

Would your prospective customers be impressed with it?
Does it represent your organization and its quality message well?

Stijloor.