R
rgunn1
In putting together my NQA-1 Quality Manual / Quality Program Description, I am finding that my manual almost directly mirrors the NQA-1 document.
To me, this is the logical approach. Look at the requirement, and then attest to our adherence to the requirement. If there is a question about the regulation, our policy is under the same exact section in our manual. There are several areas where I have to elaborate, especially when defining responsibilities, but there are several areas, such as Lead Auditor Qualifications, where my manual is almost word for word the with the NQA-1 standard. I don't really see much of a way around it, or much of a point in trying to find a way to re-arrange the words.
Is this acceptable or commonplace? To what degree should my quality manual differ from the standard that we are adhering to? At the end of the day, we still have individual procedures to direct our processes.
I almost want to put one of my company stickers on the front of this NQA-1 standard, sign the front page, and call it an early evening.
To me, this is the logical approach. Look at the requirement, and then attest to our adherence to the requirement. If there is a question about the regulation, our policy is under the same exact section in our manual. There are several areas where I have to elaborate, especially when defining responsibilities, but there are several areas, such as Lead Auditor Qualifications, where my manual is almost word for word the with the NQA-1 standard. I don't really see much of a way around it, or much of a point in trying to find a way to re-arrange the words.
Is this acceptable or commonplace? To what degree should my quality manual differ from the standard that we are adhering to? At the end of the day, we still have individual procedures to direct our processes.
I almost want to put one of my company stickers on the front of this NQA-1 standard, sign the front page, and call it an early evening.