well - it looks like a regurgitation of the standard.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO.
It depends on how much value the orginazation will get out of the manual.
Personally - I think the QM is the most useless document in many systems - particlulary those that use a documentation pyramid scheme with the QM on the top and records on the bottom (like I do). I suppose in a perfect world the QM is an artistic piece of literature that will make your system sparkling clear to even the most dense auditor... but let's face it... who actually USES the quality manual?
Auditors and document control, right? Maybe it gets sent to customers who want evidence of a QMS and they file it after glancing at it.
I'd rather put my time and effort into making sure the actual procedures and work instructions that people need to work from are complete, accrurate and linked together.
And this is a fundamental argument I had with my registrar who kept forgetting that the system, first and foremost, has to meet the needs of the organization.
That being said - you probably should put some small amount of effort into personalizing it for your organization beyond just putting in the org's name.
I eneded doing a nice chart for process interactions similar to yours and did a nice big flow chart for product realization as well.
And I agree the quality policy needs some work. It really needs to mention continuous improvement. That's what the process model is all about.
Either way, I guess, but technically there is the ISO 10013 - Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals forum where I usually put quality manual related threads.
