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

[Tom W]

My question is has anyone used a purchased set of ISO 9000 Management System that has the Quality Manual, Procedures and Forms?

NO!


Don't do it - you will regret it....

Plus it would put all of us closet 'writers' out of a job.

 

[Desara01]

I just have to chime in here but I am sure what I am going to say is nothing new.

I hate the stupid pyramid because it drove a lot of very small companies to create levels of documentation they simply didn't need. Personally, I don't care whether you call something a procedure, a work instruction, WHATEVER - all I care about is, does it contain the important stuff, can people understand it, do they follow it, and are they trying to improve it?

Most of the canned stuff I've seen is very old-school, heavy on text vs. process flows and pictures (which we know are more effective in most cases). ANd the quality manuals are pretty much a regurgitation of the standard and hence say NOTHING (why bother - really??!!)

Well, I am out of here on vacation. Hapopy New Year to you all.

 

[JaneB]

a good QM is restating the requirements.

Can I ask where you get this particular idea from? Can you point to any data, guidance, definition or other document that supports this opinion?

Just like the same ISO 9001 requirements are the same from one company to the next.

?? I don't understand what you mean. All organisations have to meet the requirements - yes. But what they do and how they do it - even in companies in the same field, let alone those in different industries, and then we haven't even discussed variations such as nonprofits, educational and so forth - vary enormously.

 

[Raffy]

I agree that templates serve a purpose, however, you still need to customize the said template according to your needs, application in the organization.
In our end, we did not purchase canned documents, but instead I gather all inputs coming from the cove and integrate them according to our requirement. Benchmark other documents that are being posted here. Thanks to everyone who contribute here and to the other forum I used to visit (way back in 1998) which had help us in our Quality Management System.
raffy

 

[Vishwas Jadhav]

Keep it Simple you will be able to manage well

 

[Lewis]

Chiming in here myself!

For your own sanity, don't use a canned documentation package. You'll wind up having to basically re-write them to fit you organization. Although the requirements of the standard apply to each organization, how your organization chooses to approach those requirements is as varying as individual fingerprints.

If you do decide to purchase a canned package, then only do so to get the general idea of how to approach meeting a particular requirement. Of course, training will do the same thing and will be much more effective in the long run.

You can't really appreciate how cumbersome a canned package can be until you actually go through one. Trust everyone's hindsight here and stay away from canned documentation. Instead, invest in the training.

 

[ISJOE9000]

I'm pretty sure this horse is on its way to the glue factory...but here is what I was trying to convey: All QMS's follow the IDENTICAL standard so naturally (at a high level) the QM will have the same (or very similar) statements. But I'm just talking about the QM - not the procedures, not the wi's, etc. If you include these in the definition of QM then of course they cannot be the same.

This is where templates can help you. Why reinvent the wheel and spend all that time writing something from scratch? We saved much time and money. YES, you need to customize it for your organization. But having done it both ways the templates saved HUGE amounts of time and a format that we could inherit. How much time do you (or some admin) spend piddling around with MS Word formatting? That alone was worth the $400.

As for the pyramid, it's basically unavoidable. By by definition of the standard the quality management system documentation shall include
a) documented statements of a quality policy and quality objectives,
b) a quality manual,
c) documented procedures and records
d) documents, including records, determined by the organization to be necessary to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of its processes

I agree that many people are way too verbose and offer too much documentation and detail (mostly those who were indoctrinated in the 1994 standard). But even a concise, well written QMS is shaped like a pyramid.

IMO - well written templates unquestionably save time and money by providing you a structure to build on. But I would use a reputable source with a guarantee who offers samples because this IS your company's quality strategy you're talking about... Next topic?

 

[eaglegear]

We are a very small manufacturing company (less than 10 employees),who are working on the documentation requirements for ISO. ISO registration has become an industry standard for our particular type of manufacturing company. We are working with our local college as a "consultant" who has purchased for us a "canned" template system; with regard to the QMS how important are titles of responsibility through out the document? For instance, the template reads "The Quality Department is responsible for maintaining the quality manual", I would prefer it to read "The General Manager is responsible for maintaining the quality manual". As there are only 3 of us in the office, (3 Titles: General Manager, Office Manager and Sales Manager) we do not have a need to title departments, (Example: Human Resources department, we do not have an HR department, we have an Office Manager) but I do not know if when it comes time to be audited if the auditor will determine us not in compliance because we do not specifically have a "HR department”. I appreciate any input in advance.

 

[Jim Wynne]

We are a very small manufacturing company (less than 10 employees),who are working on the documentation requirements for ISO. ISO registration has become an industry standard for our particular type of manufacturing company. We are working with our local college as a "consultant" who has purchased for us a "canned" template system; with regard to the QMS how important are titles of responsibility through out the document? For instance, the template reads "The Quality Department is responsible for maintaining the quality manual", I would prefer it to read "The General Manager is responsible for maintaining the quality manual". As there are only 3 of us in the office, (3 Titles: General Manager, Office Manager and Sales Manager) we do not have a need to title departments, (Example: Human Resources department, we do not have an HR department, we have an Office Manager) but I do not know if when it comes time to be audited if the auditor will determine us not in compliance because we do not specifically have a "HR department”. I appreciate any input in advance.

Welcome to the Cove

It doesn't matter what people are called; it's what they do (and how responsibility and authority are documented) that counts.

 

[Colin]

I am afraid that you are starting to see some of the problems of using a 'canned' system. They are so generic that you will get these issues of a 'non-fit' with your organisation. I am really surprised that a consultant is using this method.