H
Circa 2005: I once had an auditor ask me for a copy of my quality manual stating if it wasn’t in the same format as the current version of AS9100, I should also supply him with a matrix; showing line by line, the relationship of my manual and sub-tier documents to the standard. No, I didn’t do it. But then he spent an extra day in my office questioning me how I was meeting the requirements. He then issued multiple corrective actions because my system didn’t contain the exact wording (here and there) of the standard and therefore did not show compliance. Mind you, I thought we were doing a fine job.
I thought long and hard about how to argue that I was in compliance. In the end, I rewrote the entire quality manual and all required procedures to pass the audit. All said and done, the Company didn’t actually do anything different after the rewrite than it did before, but we sure had better wording.
Quality manuals are for your company. Your company has to show them to auditors too, auditors your company pays big $$ to sit in your office (possibly even for an extra day). So you might as well think about what they might want to see when you are writing your manual.
He also explained the "Pyramid" scheme (pun intended) to me saying-Policies: you must comply with-Procedures: you must do word for word-Work instructions: are for reference. If you don't follow them word for word every time, it doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong. (Huh?)
I would like to get away from this word-for-word way of documenting my processes and I've read here on the cove that some people have quality manuals that are very short. I would like to figure out how long you have to sit across from an auditor if you have a small manual.
Hang on now. This isn't a rhetorical question. It seems to me a process based approach means you just have to have the processes in place. If my documents are missing what an auditor believes to be the "exact wording" it needs, that shouldn't matter as long as my measurables are showing good results. His belief of the intention of the words doesn't matter as much as the intention of my boss when he tells me what to do. I'll still work here tomorrow if I do what my boss intended regarless of what an auditor thinks.
Is that how it ought to be...or...just how I want it to be?
I thought long and hard about how to argue that I was in compliance. In the end, I rewrote the entire quality manual and all required procedures to pass the audit. All said and done, the Company didn’t actually do anything different after the rewrite than it did before, but we sure had better wording.
Quality manuals are for your company. Your company has to show them to auditors too, auditors your company pays big $$ to sit in your office (possibly even for an extra day). So you might as well think about what they might want to see when you are writing your manual.
He also explained the "Pyramid" scheme (pun intended) to me saying-Policies: you must comply with-Procedures: you must do word for word-Work instructions: are for reference. If you don't follow them word for word every time, it doesn't mean you are doing anything wrong. (Huh?)
I would like to get away from this word-for-word way of documenting my processes and I've read here on the cove that some people have quality manuals that are very short. I would like to figure out how long you have to sit across from an auditor if you have a small manual.
Hang on now. This isn't a rhetorical question. It seems to me a process based approach means you just have to have the processes in place. If my documents are missing what an auditor believes to be the "exact wording" it needs, that shouldn't matter as long as my measurables are showing good results. His belief of the intention of the words doesn't matter as much as the intention of my boss when he tells me what to do. I'll still work here tomorrow if I do what my boss intended regarless of what an auditor thinks.
Is that how it ought to be...or...just how I want it to be?