Implementing ISO 9000:2000 using the ISO 9000:1994 Numbering Structure

[Jim Green]

Implement 92k using 1994 numbering structure

Here's my story,
Our company of 80 or so employees are currently certified to the ISO 9002 1994 version. We structured the manual with that numbering system. Same with procedures, and level 3 work instructions. It flows nicely and it is easy for the External auditor to follow.
Enter Stage left ISO 92K. Now what????????

I want to have a nice flowing manual (Know one looks at except auditor) that matches the numbering structure of our procedures (sometimes looked at) & Work Instructions (Always looked at).

All the threads that I have read previously are numbering their manual to 92k version. Is there anyone out their that is trying to implement it the way I have proposed?

Is it possible for example to keep Manual # 4.1 Management Responsibility and toss in the relevent clauses of 92k i.e. 5.5.1 Management representative and maybe make ref. to the new standard ?

Signed, Quality Rookie

 

[Jim Biz]

Welcome SHY browser

No reason you can't do what you have proposed.
We've had many discussions here on that subject...
In general a Matrix added to the quality manual detailing where your 94 version speaks to the 2000 version sections should suffice.


Sugest you do a search of the archives here and use the keyword numbering.

 

[Al Dyer]

Hi,

I'm a firm believer in the matrix. Remember that document wise you need only show the auditor the link. Some write it into the body of the policy and some use a matrix, neather (sp) way is right or wrong, just a method that works best for you.

As always these things should be discussed during a desk audit, not a compliance audit.

Stick around!!!!!!1

Al...

 

[db]

Agreed

Jim and Al are right on (as usual). I would only point out that there is no requirement to structure your documentation after ANY standard. The important thing is that your documentation works for you. Although the auditor may not like it much, you can abandon structuring to the standard. One alternative is, if 9K2K is based on a process approach, you could structure your QMS to reflect your processes.

I would highly recommend that you develop a matrix listing where each "shall" from the standard is addressed in your documentation, regardless of what structure method you use.

 

[Unregistered]

Note that the 1994 standard required a quality manual to address the requirements of the standard, as such it became commonplace for manuals to be structured around the twenty clauses.

ISO9001:2000 no longer mandates this, as such you coul ditch all your previous twenty sections and simply outline your processes and their interaction.

If however you want to keep this document that only auditors look at a matrix is an excellant idea. Bear in mind that because this is no longer a requirement of ISO9001:2000 you may find the auditor doesnt bother with quality manual text anymore.

Another idea is to keep the twenty clause structure, and offer no cross reference matrix, that will make the auditor work for his money !!

 

[E Wall]

Welcome Jim

Our situation is similar, but with a few twists:

We're talking 1 Corp office and 5 mfg plants.
All origionally set up with 1994 # scheme (have separate certs).
The Corp office will transition first, then each plant next year.

I (silly twit that I am) volunteered to help so was asked to go through the QC Procedures and match up the y2k clauses to where the information is found (due this fri). This tool will be used by all because not all the documents will be revised prior to Corporate transition.

Anyway...We're (me) using an audit checklist for y2k standard, and identifying on it where the information is found. So actually, I'm not doing any extra work..just a shorter deadline. By doing this, for certification and all future audits, we'll have a firm record and will update it as needed.

Corporate is renumbering QA Manual and QC Procedures to match ISO 2000 scheme. I am arguing (unsuccessfully so far) for corporate documents not to go this route. What I have received approval to do at our plant is to Identify processes and link all documented procedures to their parent process. It is much simpler to use as an end user (who they should be geared for anyway). Also, that way no matter what future changes are made or what standard we are certified to, no changes will be needed. (Our 140001 pre-assessment went well and expect no problems at next months certification audit.)

The key no matter how you have your documents identified is that your people know where the answer is! After all the auditors favorite questions are "How do you...?" and "Can you show me...?"

Best Regards, Eileen

 

[barb butrym]

when i first saw the draft i was glad that for most clients I had stayed with a simple alpha prefix by department. the manual was ISO referenced, but the procedures were S= sales DE for design engineering QA or QC for stuff controlled by quality group PE for process engineering M for materials, A for assembly T for test and so forth...then i did do a number series assignment for the element...but this was for MR/my use and was not clear to the non ISO guys that the # meant anything purposely. The internal auditors knew, but we didn't do a general knowledge thing....I did a few with the standard reference but i found noone but the ISo guys knew what the #s were for anyway so i went back.