We went from a 35 page QM that nobody could find anything in to a 2 page document that is effective.
When we had customer audits before, our standard response was, "Well, it's in there somewhere."
That doesn't happen anymore.
We went from a 35 page QM that nobody could find anything in to a 2 page document that is effective.
When we had customer audits before, our standard response was, "Well, it's in there somewhere."
That doesn't happen anymore.
We obviously do have procedures and you may call it cheating but we have those living outside of the QM. If you included those (as some do) our QM would be 12 pages long.
The shortest I have seen is about 2 pages! The new 9001 standard does not require much detail, scope (including exclusions), quality policy, list of procedures (or reference to them) and a flow diagram mapping how your organisation works!
The shortest I have seen is about 2 pages! The new 9001 standard does not require much detail, scope (including exclusions), quality policy, list of procedures (or reference to them) and a flow diagram mapping how your organisation works!
Is the objective to produce a document based on "the least you can get away with" or a document that represents the company well and adds value? If someone shows me a 2-pager, I am more than likely not going to be impressed with the rest of this minimalist approach in their quality management system.
The devil is in the detail - if you have a good document management system with supporting procedures, etc then there is no need to make the QAM verbose. It also is a good demonstration you understand the standard as you have given exactly what they have asked for.
Also as many of the procedures will contain confidential information, you would not really want to be including them in your QAM would you! Add to that all the staff are supposed to read it, if you make it too long they will switch off so why not only provide them with information that is relevant to them.
Many organisations are stuck with the pre 2000 approach to quality and have not moved on. The standard was changed to be more relevant and inclusive.
Thanks JCVP1969 for "getting my back" on this one. I don't understand how some people can think that a document is a bad thing when it is user friendly, clear and concise. Any one in our facility can go to the manual and find the information they need less that a minute. Tell me how many people can take a QM that was written to "impress customers" and do the same thing.
We've been there and won't go back!
Thanks JCVP1969 for "getting my back" on this one. I don't understand how some people can think that a document is a bad thing when it is user friendly, clear and concise. Any one in our facility can go to the manual and find the information they need less that a minute. Tell me how many people can take a QM that was written to "impress customers" and do the same thing.
We've been there and won't go back!
While I agree that parsimony is a good thing when it comes to quality manuals and QMS documentation in general, "clear and concise" and "impress customers" aren't mutually exclusive attributes. The best quality manuals are clear and concise and impress customers.
My pleasure! I do a great deal of certification assessments and also have been working as a consultant in this business for quite a while.
Just make sure you follow what the standard asks for and not what everyone else does and you will be fine!
There seems to be this culture (sorry to say but it is worse in the USA in my humble opinion probably due to the FDA) where they almost weigh the document instead of reading it to see if it is any good!
By the way how many procedures do you have out of interest?
I respectfully disagree. I do not necessarily do what "the standard asks for."
First of all, I do what makes business sense for the organization and its customers. Next, then I look what the standards say. Customer Focus is my primary concern when I assist my Clients. I have learned in the 22 years working as a consultant/auditor that when an organization follows that scenario, they're 98% compliant. We can add the rest.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.
