Implementation of QMS

[Seini1]

Hi,

Yes I posted earlier this year and I honestly thought we would be somewhere in implementing of the QMS but...its a bit different.

So we put up a manual for QMS that wasn't reviewed as yet. Since we are fixing and improving as we go with procedures and forms, I thought I'd read your views on the possibility or how effective QMS would be if it was implemented in such a way.

- Through creating documents as we go through operations and find a break down or gap somewhere. Then these contribute to completing the QMS Manual.

I am really worried about the time taken or that has been taken to try and create the QMS.

 

[Thee Bouyyy]

Refer to below

Implementing A "Quality" Management System

 

[malasuerte]

Apologies - not sure what you are asking here?

Time taking to "create a QMS"....what timeline did you have?

Also, it is "implement" a QMS - your not creating it per se.

Not sure what the manual has to do with anything, other than capturing how your QMS operates?

Can you please expand a bit more on your ask...cheers.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I am really worried about the time taken or that has been taken to try and create the QMS.

You seem to have the typical misunderstanding that a QMS is a collection of "documents" (manuals, procedures, work instructions, etc...). In Dr. Croft's words: " A QMS is a documented system; NOT a system of documents."

 

[John Broomfield]

Why create something that already exists?

Your organization already works as a system to fulfill customer requirements most of the time otherwise you’d be out of business!

Seek first to understand how your organization works as system then you’ll make a lot more sense of the standard.

You may even realize that you are developing the existing management system, of which you are part, so it is used and improved to satisfy more and more customers.

You may even find this system is already documented to the extent necessary for effective planning, operation and control.

 

[mattador78]

Why create something that already exists?

Your organization already works as a system to fulfill customer requirements most of the time otherwise you’d be out of business!

Seek first to understand how your organization works as system then you’ll make a lot more sense of the standard.

You may even realize that you are developing the existing management system, of which you are part, so it is used and improved to satisfy more and more customers.

You may even find this system is already documented to the extent necessary for effective planning, operation and control.

This was the hardest thing to get my head around when i first read standards and moved into quality. I agree that basically if your business is running you are pretty much going to be doing most of what you need already. However one thing i discovered and i think runs true is that the hardest thing you can ever do is get somebody to explain exactly what their job is without missing bits out. Usually they will miss out big chunks and when you question them about it the answer is "well i just do that anyway" without thinking about it. We found that moving from 9001 to 9100 was in the end nothing different from what we were already doing, however, it didn't stop us from not realising we were already doing it because we did it with out thinking about doing it.

 

[John Broomfield]

the hardest thing you can ever do is get somebody to explain exactly what their job is without missing bits out.

Best to focus not on jobs but on processes, that is the work of cross-functional teams.

And why document (in unnecessary detail) the jobs of competent job holders?

Having flowcharted the process with the process owner (who also verifies accuracy with the process team members) you can link to additional detail only where necessary.

 

[Big Jim]

One of the early pitfalls of ISO 9001 that is less so today but still sometimes there is the tendency to over document. You seem to be heading in that direction.

If people know how to do a job from training and / or experience you probably don't need a detailed work instruction.

 

[mattador78]

Best to focus not on jobs but on processes, that is the work of cross-functional teams.

And why document (in unnecessary detail) the jobs of competent job holders?

Having flowcharted the process with the process owner (who also verifies accuracy with the process team members) you can link to additional detail only where necessary.

I get that what i was poorly trying to explain is that a lot of the time people work on instinct when they have done the process or job or whatever the analogy is and they will always miss an important part of what that is when explaining it, quite simply because they do it without thinking they just react.

 

[John Broomfield]

Ah, yes.

We have to watch out for those Post it Notes™ too. Process owners (and auditors!) look out for these and evidence of other lapses or procedural weaknesses.

...but we can rest easy.

As we develop the organization's management system (for ongoing use and improvement) we do not have to make it perfect straight out of the box. I doubt we ever could.