Is it acceptable or advisable to have a "Quality Systems Glossary"?

[Jason PCSwitches]

Re: Terms and Definitions

In general I agree. However... Sometimes it really helps to have a "single source" glossary document. Example: FORD Acronyms (aka 'Initialisms' - Not Always True Acronymns) List

Also see:

Quality / acronyms brainteaser - Awkward transitions from written to spoken
Quality Assurance Terms Glossary

I agree with it in that aspect, large organizations or standards, however most are small organizations and can usually do without it. I know when I review FAA or mil-specs it's always fun to scroll back up 100 pages to find out what MIC means

 

[Marc]

Re: Terms and Definitions

Yes, but the worst case is no glossary, or when it's hidden at the first time it is used in a document.

I think I saw in one post in this thread where a poster said s/he liked an acronym defined at the first use in a document. I do see that a lot and it drives me nuts, especially if the document is not searchable. In those cases it's not just a matter of scrolling up 100 pages - It's scrolling up 100 pages and then reading through the document until you find it (hoping that, since typically you're scanning the text as opposed to actually reading the document, you don't miss the "first use" where it is defined).

 

[qusys]

Re: Terms and Definitions

Agree with both posts. Two follow on questions:
1) There is no need to repeat terms in your QM as they are in the standard in a terms and definitions section (frankly the term section in the current QM adds no additional value so I am questioning why it is there)
2) What is the best place to put any terms that are specific to the organization?

I think that you could put in QM the most relevant terms of your peculiar organization , for example in a section called Acronyms or Terms as the other Cover already suggested.

In the other mandatory procedure or other procedure/document that you used in your QMS you can define the related terms that are recalled in the procedure / document.

For example: corrective action, preventive action , you can use the definition reported in ISO 9000:2005 and recalled them in your corrective and preventive action procedure.
Record definition in your record management procedure etc.
If you used a particular system for your business and you call it with an abreviation, you can put the extended name in the reference of the related procedure.
Hope this clarify

 

[harry]

Typically, who are the users of your QMS documents (we had a survey in one of the threads)?

People who are new, people who are not new but were called in once in a while to carry duties like audit (not that familiar) and people who had doubts and are searching for an answer. Not the person who drafted it and who knew it at the back of his hands or the experts.

To make it user friendly to these people, I include the glossary section too and in it, details of abbreviations/acronyms (short-forms) used also.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Terms and Definitions

Yes, but the worst case is no glossary, or when it's hidden at the first time it is used in a document.

I think I saw in one post in this thread where a poster said s/he liked an acronym defined at the first use in a document. I do see that a lot and it drives me nuts, especially if the document is not searchable. In those cases it's not just a matter of scrolling up 100 pages - It's scrolling up 100 pages and then reading through the document until you find it (hoping that, since typically you're scanning the text as opposed to actually reading the document, you don't miss the "first use").

First-use is fine for very short documents, but I agree that if the document is very long and people are likely to dive into the middle, it's no good. In electronic systems, though, it's possible to have hyperlinks to definitions--even when they're in external documents--wherever the abbreviation appears.

 

[Marc]

Re: Terms and Definitions

<snip> In electronic systems, though, it's possible to have hyperlinks to definitions--even when they're in external documents--wherever the abbreviation appears.

That is the future for most companies. I 100% agree that is the best way. I have seen companies set up precisely that way starting with the top "flow chart of all business processes" all the way down to work instructions, and I first saw that back in the late 1990's so it's not a new concept by any means. The only drawback to that is it is time consuming and it is difficult to control in some scenarios (especially where document additions/changes/obsolesence are frequent).

The companies I have seen this in were really neat, but I know a few ran into problems when the person who originated the system, or the person who became responsible for the system, quit and no one fully understood all the nuances in updating all the appropriate links and documents. But - To some degree that is part of every document control system.

 

[kgott]

I don’t see why you can’t provide the definitions in the documents the terms are used in. One of the ways of reducing the number of definitions is to not use abbreviations.
I have noticed that in Australia the American habit of using abbreviations for everything is polluting the way documents are written here as well. I see absolutely no point in using abbreviations in business documents. I know the concept has come from the American millet-tree but for the life of me I cannot see the point of it in business communications accept in very limited circumstances.
All it does is contributes to confusion, it can jeopardise the safety of people. plant and equipment because people don’t want to feel like an idiot because they don’t know what the abbreviation stands for. If everyone is supposed to know what abbreviations stand for then why the need to define them?
I know this has been a bit of a rant but I just done see that it has a plce in busienss communciations. It's hard enough as it is.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I don’t see why you can’t provide the definitions in the documents the terms are used in. One of the ways of reducing the number of definitions is to not use abbreviations.
I have noticed that in Australia the American habit of using abbreviations for everything is polluting the way documents are written here as well. I see absolutely no point in using abbreviations in business documents. I know the concept has come from the American millet-tree but for the life of me I cannot see the point of it in business communications accept in very limited circumstances.
All it does is contributes to confusion, it can jeopardise the safety of people. plant and equipment because people don’t want to feel like an idiot because they don’t know what the abbreviation stands for. If everyone is supposed to know what abbreviations stand for then why the need to define them?
I know this has been a bit of a rant but I just done see that it has a plce in busienss communciations. It's hard enough as it is.

I agree to an extent, but just because a thing is spelled out doesn't mean that everyone is going to understand what it means. This is especially true in cases where the definition of a term or word might be different in different companies. The classic examples are "waiver" and "deviation." Those terms aren't normally abbreviated, but they're easily misunderstood.

 

[Mariep26]

Thanks everyone! This is great discussion and food for thought. I would eventually like to move this organization to an e-manual format and would envision a slick hyperlink type format so people could toggle back and forth between the document and a definitions page.

In regards to having definitions in each of the documents where it is referenced. That would make the most sense but what I found at my last employer was that the definitions would not be consistent from document to document as time and updates rolled on. That was my motivation to think about a one-stop shop for definitions.



ETA: I meant to say that the consistency lacks from document to document when a definition is used in multiple documents.

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Thanks everyone! This is great discussion and food for thought. I would eventually like to move this organization to an e-manual format and would envision a slick hyperlink type format so people could toggle back and forth between the document and a definitions page.

In regards to having definitions in each of the documents where it is referenced. That would make the most sense but what I found at my last employer was that the definitions would not be consistent from document to document as time and updates rolled on. That was my motivation to think about a one-stop shop for definitions.



ETA: I meant to say that the consistency lacks from document to document when a definition is used in multiple documents.

It is a valid point regarding the possibility of differentiation of terms from document to document. It truly depends on how large and complex your system/organization is. However, if document control protocol is followed any discrepancy should be identified during the review/approval process. KISS....As quality professionals one of the most important aspects we need to keep in mind is that the majority of personnel within our respective organizations are only focused on their root task. While awareness is preached and to some extend accomplished, a machine shop operator is not going to be fluent with an assembly procedure, per-say. That's is why it is imperative that a solid document review process be in-place, to insure fluidity.