When you have to take what others have written, and rewrite/edit it, which has created a bureaucracy of documentation and isn't necessary, including content and numbering systems which require administrative burden to maintain, there's often an admin burden which is created by using "templates". Worse, the people adopting this approach have little/no clue if what's in the template is actually required or just someone's ideas based on little actual experience of running a QMS, and only what gets by an auditor. Two very different scenarios...
As long as people mistake documentation for systems, they will never see the light.
Especially, when they seek documentation that has nothing to do with the organization's business processes. Archaic approaches being perpetuated, valuelessly.
As long as people mistake documentation for systems, they will never see the light.
Especially, when they seek documentation that has nothing to do with the organization's business processes. Archaic approaches being perpetuated, valuelessly.
I ran into this again: An organization's design control procedure, written by an "expert", which replicates the requirements of an ISO QMS standard, and therefore places Design and Development Planning BEFORE Design Inputs. No organization has EVER done planning BEFORE they understood what the inputs represented and if the design was even something to start work on... Because organizations read the standard literally, they see no issue with this format and NEVER question it. Maybe, just maybe, someone has heartburn that it doesn't make sense, but who would question "ISO"?
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.
