ISO / TS16949 Quality Manual needed - Changing from QS9000 to ISO / TS16949

[cpearison]

Re: Sweeet!

(No Offense) But why reinvent the wheel?? I personally don't have time to right out an entire manual, nor do I have the ability. What I can do is take the template and some of the old and then write the perfect manual. ~nothing personal but many of us are under the gun

 

[howste]

Re: Sweeet!

(No Offense) But why reinvent the wheel?? I personally don't have time to right out an entire manual, nor do I have the ability. What I can do is take the template and some of the old and then write the perfect manual. ~nothing personal but many of us are under the gun

*** Time travel alert ****

This thread was started 11 years ago when the transition from QS9000 to TS 16949 was under way. The discussion is still valid for the transition from TS 16949 to IATF 16949 though.

 

[Golfman25]

Yes, and it is pretty relevant as ISO has trashed the whole idea of a quality manual but IATF keeps it. Most quality manuals are just dust collectors aren't they?

 

[Marc]

They are dust collectors for the most part and have been for years. I remember the early QS 9000 days when I got my first QS 9000 consulting jobs. The companies all had quality manuals because they were required by their automotive customer(s), but none of my clients manuals were even close to up to date. They never paid attention because all their customers were interested in was that they had one. Who knows - It may be that these days customers actually care about their content.

Then again, I look back to QS-9000 which was supposedly to reduce customer audits and such (which never happened). It was good money for implementation consultants, but outside that was wasted money. Some things don't change.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

They are dust collectors for the most part and have been for years. I remember the early QS 9000 days when I got my first QS 9000 consulting jobs. The companies all had quality manuals because they were required by their automotive customer(s), but none of my clients manuals were even close to up to date. They never paid attention because all their customers were interested in was that they had one. Who knows - It may be that these days customers actually care about their content.

Then again, I look back to QS-9000 which was supposedly to reduce customer audits and such (which never happened). It was good money for implementation consultants, but outside that was wasted money. Some things don't change.

Actually, in my opinion, with the way the new IATF is constructed, a quality manual is useful again. The new IATF standard is written to require reading in two separate books. Many automotive companies are certified to ISO 14001 as well, so that makes THREE books.... They need to be read simultaneously to be able to get the gist of the requirements. The only practical way is to combine the three into one quality manual for your managers to read. Plus, the language is rather obtuse in the standards, so this gives companies then option to improve the language by paraphrasing the standards, and eliminates the risk of violating copyrights. I have written a paraphrased version of the the three standards, available in a three-panel version, as a template to make your own quality manual...

Let me know if you are interested.

 

[Marc]

I agree. There is value to having a high level company systems manual which ties together all the sub-systems. I will say that the new IATF standard is written to require reading in many more than 3 separate "books".

My comment was about what I saw in the 1990's (they mainly collected dust back then), but I'm not sure how much has changed over the years realistically.

Personally I like having what I have for many years called a "Systems Manual". I guess another good name would be "Processes Manual". Keep the word "quality" out of it... Second, while 20 years or so ago I did recommend to some companies which had none and were implementing ISO 9001, it wasn't a bad idea of making the manual align with the standard (mainly small companies doing the ISO 9001 dance). I regret that and can say by around 1998 I had pretty much rejected advising any company to align to the standard be it ISO 9001 or QS-9000 or TS 16949. Or the "new" IATF 16949.

As has been discussed here many times over the years, I think the general consensus is to write a manual for your company, and if you want it linked to one or more standards (and/or regulations or such), make a spreadsheet.

One of the things I have liked over the years is flow charts (these days essentially called "process maps").

I do see the value of your I agree. There is value to having a high level company systems manual which ties together all the sub-systems. I will say that the new IATF standard is written to require reading in many more than 3 separate "books".

As has been discussed here many times over the years, I think the general consensus is to write a manual for your company, and if you want it linked to one or more standards (and/or regulations or such), make a spreadsheet.

One of the things I have liked over the years is flow charts (these days essentially called "process maps").

FWIW, there are so many examples of "quality" manuals here from over the years that it's - Well, there are a lot of them...

Just my

 

[cpearison]

I agree. There is value to having a high level company systems manual which ties together all the sub-systems. I will say that the new IATF standard is written to require reading in many more than 3 separate "books".

My comment was about what I saw in the 1990's (they mainly collected dust back then), but I'm not sure how much has changed over the years realistically.

Personally I like having what I have for many years called a "Systems Manual". I guess another good name would be "Processes Manual". Keep the word "quality" out of it... Second, while 20 years or so ago I did recommend to some companies which had none and were implementing ISO 9001, it wasn't a bad idea of making the manual align with the standard (mainly small companies doing the ISO 9001 dance). I regret that and can say by around 1998 I had pretty much rejected advising any company to align to the standard be it ISO 9001 or QS-9000 or TS 16949. Or the "new" IATF 16949.

As has been discussed here many times over the years, I think the general consensus is to write a manual for your company, and if you want it linked to one or more standards (and/or regulations or such), make a spreadsheet.

One of the things I have liked over the years is flow charts (these days essentially called "process maps").

I do see the value of your I agree. There is value to having a high level company systems manual which ties together all the sub-systems. I will say that the new IATF standard is written to require reading in many more than 3 separate "books".

As has been discussed here many times over the years, I think the general consensus is to write a manual for your company, and if you want it linked to one or more standards (and/or regulations or such), make a spreadsheet.

One of the things I have liked over the years is flow charts (these days essentially called "process maps").

FWIW, there are so many examples of "quality" manuals here from over the years that it's - Well, there are a lot of them...

Just my

Marc,

I couldn't agree with you more!! My company was just audited on the ISO 14001:2015 and the auditors weighed heavy on the manual. I have a feeling that they will do the same for our IATF 16949 audit. I so want to integrate them!! I have many documents that already are integrated. And process maps are a godsend! In our world KISS keep it simple silly really does apply.

 

[cpearison]

I am very interested.
~thank you