Packaged ISO Systems - Are canned policies and procedures worth it?

[CarolX]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems

Everyone was new at this one day..... don´t worry....

Ted is so right - we were all new to this.

Initially - I would agree with the advice so far - don't purchase. But, on the other hand - it might be a great source of reference material. I remember waaayyy back in my early days, I bought a packaged Quality Control Manual (in the days when the only option was hard copy). I never actually "used" any of it - but I did use at as reference material. Helped to point me in the right direction.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems-Canned policies and procedures, is it worth it?

Great recommendations! I'll throw my pennies worth in too, the reason why you shouldn't use this stuff!

It's written for strict compliance only, so it'll be like putting someone else's shoes on - chances are you won't like what they look like and they won't fit very well.

The documents are often very bureaucratic - full of jargon, acronyms etc. which aren't required, aren't yours and don't make much sense. Stiff, formal format - nasty!

The documents aren't about your processes - although they may be someone's. That's no use to you.

Like all 'snake oil' they don't work! Sure something like this might get you registered (less likely these days) but you'll be making a bed you won't want to lie in. Also, you want to be remembered for doing the 'right thing' don't you?

 

[JaneB]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems

Ted is so right - we were all new to this.

Initially - I would agree with the advice so far - don't purchase. But, on the other hand - it might be a great source of reference material. I remember waaayyy back in my early days, I bought a packaged Quality Control Manual (in the days when the only option was hard copy). I never actually "used" any of it - but I did use at as reference material. Helped to point me in the right direction.

I think Carol has a good point - that it may (I stress only 'may') be worthwhile to buy something but only to use as an idea to draw on, and only if you don't spend heaps on it, because frequently they're quite crappy.

The advantage would be (hopefully) that you get an integrated system and can see how things tie together. The cons are that usually they focus on manuals & procedures written 'clause by clause' for the Standard, and this is the wrong way to go in my opinion. ('Everything you do' tends to get shoved into some weird category of "process control" and largely ignored - big mistake)

The difficulty of using the various things on the Cove is that they come from multiple authors and multiple different systems, and you only see bits and pieces at a time, and it will require some considerable time and effort to understand, integrate and adapt.

But I would advise against buying and using a 'canned' system that promises you everything for very little effort.

What kind of business are you in?

 

[AndyN]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems-Canned policies and procedures, is it worth it?

I have a client who had paid over $1,000 for a canned qms. If that money had been put towards a 2 day documentation course or an experienced consultant (even phone/fax support would be better than on site) would be better than trying to work through a poor 'model', IMHO.........

 

[JaneB]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems-Canned policies and procedures, is it worth it?

I have a client who had paid over $1,000 for a canned qms. If that money had been put towards a 2 day documentation course or an experienced consultant (even phone/fax support would be better than on site) would be better than trying to work through a poor 'model', IMHO.........

If it's a poor model, I totally agree with you. But if it's a good model, then not.

I will declare a vested interest/professional bias here. I sell a DIY Pack for over $1000 (but in AUD -- small bananas these days compared to the USD . And I believe that its value includes replacing the need for a '2-day documentation course' etc.

But I (naturally) think mine is a good model for organisations in certain sectors, as it's a DIY pack, not simply a set of canned doco. It includes a 'working model' of how a company might implement it, and I include a full 'here's how you do it step by step' instructional guide plus follow-up support because I see that as being essential to the process and believe a canned model without it is close to useless.

Look, I do agree it would be possible for someone to do things themselves by working through the Cove. And I happily give some of my limited time to assisting people seeking help in the Cove. But to do the whole implementation that way would, I believe, take quite a lot of time, effort and energy. And I also believe (and know, eg, from customer feedback) that it is possible to shortcut that process by using a good model (emphasis good!!).

 

[Marc]

Re: Packaged ISO Systems

I remember waaayyy back in my early days, I bought a packaged Quality Control Manual (in the days when the only option was hard copy). I never actually "used" any of it - but I did use at as reference material. Helped to point me in the right direction.

Yes, canned procedures are often good 'examples' to consider when designing a system, not to mention as an idea for format aspects. I used them extensively years ago as well. And there are lots of them here in the forum as post attachments and in the Free Files directory.

 

[ISJOE9000]

I tend to disagree with the others - somewhat. If you think of documentation like a pyramid, with the QM at the top, then procedures, then w/i's, then forms, tables & records, the farther down the pyramid you go the more customized the QMS is to your facility. But the overall view in the QM and Procedures are really fairly straightforward and similar from one ISO org to the next because of the requirements..

I recommend using them (as we did) but have a solid knowledge of your orgainization so you can map out the path. Having templates to start with is just a matter of saving time - not a magic bullet - but only the fool refuses to learn from the past.

Why waste time reinventing the wheel? If you do your gap analysis properly you'll know what procedures you need to adapt and where to train your people. Do you really want to begin writing 200 pages of stuff from scratch, creating a numbering system, organizing them, etc? You're just asking for either a lot of work or minor non-cons when time comes for a doc review.

Having said that, make sure you pick a reputable one that's been around and offers support and guarantees - some of them are fly-by-night and have no quality experience.

 

[AndyN]

I think there's a big difference between using templates and using a complete set of documentation written by someone from outside the company!

A template is, by definition, an outline or guide. We all used them at school, to learn to draw shapes etc. We were concerned with the 'basics'. The problem is, they were only one size, one version of a shape and couldn't be adjusted to suit once to got to use them.

Using a complete, predefined procedure might be O.K to get an idea - if you didn't have a clue, but a disaster to be used wholesale - in the majority of cases. They will need re-engineering in most cases, so by the time you've stripped away the fluff and nonsense (all those headings, like scope, applicability, definitions, references, numbering system etc. etc. ad nauseum) there's not much to work with, IMHO!

To say that a qms is similar from one 'ISO' business to another is just so wrong. How can the processes of my organization be anything like yours? We're both 'ISO', but the product is totally different, operated by differently qualified people etc.

There's a saying (I'll paraphrase) that says "people tend to support what they create". By buying a 'solution' like a packaged system you undermine a key milestone in making the qms sustainable - the buy-in of the users!

My advice would be to find a good documentation class, have someone become the 'process owner' for documentation and control and have them lead the development. The benefits are far greater than any 'jump start' you might get on the document creation job.

 

[ISJOE9000]

I didn't say that one QMS is just like another. but by DEFINITION, the QM (which is very high altitude) would be very similar from one to the next because a good QM is restating the requirements. Just like the same ISO 9001 requirements are the same from one company to the next.

I've done both - written from scratch and used templates - and if you use GOOD templates, they will save you much time over starting from scratch and nobody here disagrees with that. However, you can't just buy them and plunk them down and call it a QMS. You need to integrate them in the areas that make sense.

Example: ISO 9001 only requires 6 procedures, but the reality is that a complete QMS will have more as you'll need to cover other procedures (purchasing) which aren't a REQUIRED procedure.

IMO, templates serve a purpose - they save time and give good guidance as to how it should fit together - but they are not a slam dunk. I'd look for one that has a history os success, testimonials, guarantee, etc. so you can feel better about your purchase. But as someone with experience, it's worth a few hundred bucks to provide a benchmark.

 

[AndyN]

I didn't say that one QMS is just like another. but by DEFINITION, the QM (which is very high altitude) would be very similar from one to the next because a good QM is restating the requirements. Just like the same ISO 9001 requirements are the same from one company to the next.

Example: ISO 9001 only requires 6 procedures, but the reality is that a complete QMS will have more as you'll need to cover other procedures (purchasing) which aren't a REQUIRED procedure.

There are a couple of good threads around here you may wish to research - especially the one about the manual!

One of the many problems ISO has become saddled with is the fact that you can take 10 -15 quality manuals and they all read the same! How can that be? What good is it? If no-one can tell any differnce, what's the reason for having one? I don't believe the folks at TC 176 wanted that to happen! I can't fathom how you can say it's a good manual if it restates requirements - especially since most users have ever heard of or when its written in language that no-one uses.....