QMS General Formula - Satisfying the Requirements

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by QualityKey

Therefore, the equation would change to be :

Cross reference List of the standard (6 Required Procedures + Processes needed for org. to function properly)
+ 3 documents :
(Quality policy,
Quality objectives, and
Quality manual )
+Required records = ​

QMS that conforms to the ISO 9001 (Certified/Not Certified)​

You seem to be adamant on your stand for the equation. What you added now does not seem to add any benefit to the equation IMO. Because, when you are even beginning to write this equation, you are doing it in line with the standards. What you have mentioned on the right side of your equation are all part of the standards already, and are there because you took them from the standards. My only problem is the left side of the equation.

Maybe, you don't intend to use the PDCA cycle here, no problem. However, you need to come up with a more logical version of your equation, like I mentioned in one of my previous posts (page 1). Maybe, you don't think its the best to pick up but its more logical. You can come up with something I'm sure.

Ciao.

 

[QualityKey]

Friends,

Bottom line: Error-free products delivered to the customer on time!

Stijloor.

Dear Stijloor

If we have good processes we would have error-free products. So I would assume that this is included under part of the equation.

Thanks

 

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by QualityKey

I made some modification to the excuation, please remember that the idea of the equation is to simplify and I am trying to avoid going clause by clause, so I am building the system and putting in mind that the system should and would conform to the ISO and if these processes are well deveopled it should automaticlly take care of most of the requirements.

Cross reference List of the standard (6 Required Procedures + Processes needed for org. to function properly)
+ 3 documents :
(Quality policy,
Quality objectives, and
Quality manual )
+Required records = ​

QMS that conforms to the ISO 9001 (Certified/Not Certified)​

thanks.

I guess we both were posting here at the same time, and to each other!
How about removing 'cross reference list of the standard' and adding this to the existing 2nd part:

"Processes required by the standard for the organization to function effectively"

I think, this covers your standards and makes the equation fine.

Ciao.

 

[QualityKey]

You seem to be adamant on your stand for the equation. What you added now does not seem to add any benefit to the equation IMO. Because, when you are even beginning to write this equation, you are doing it in line with the standards. What you have mentioned on the right side of your equation are all part of the standards already, and are there because you took them from the standards. My only problem is the left side of the equation.

Maybe, you don't intend to use the PDCA cycle here, no problem. However, you need to come up with a more logical version of your equation, like I mentioned in one of my previous posts (page 1). Maybe, you don't think its the best to pick up but its more logical. You can come up with something I'm sure.

Ciao.

I liked what you did to the exaution, in fact, that does tell me that somebody agree with me. To me, it does not matter if you say Documented QMS or QMS that conforms to the standard. We have more to agree about than to disagree.

By adding changes to the equation, I am jsut trying to tell everybody that the requirements of the standards are being observed while building the system. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I should go back and use your modified exuation, at the end of the day I am Not trying to be an adamant, I am just trying to understand!

 

[QualityKey]

I guess we both were posting here at the same time, and to each other!
How about removing 'cross reference list of the standard' and adding this to the existing 2nd part:

"Processes required by the standard for the organization to function effectively"

I think, this covers your standards and makes the equation fine.

Ciao.

LoL .... Good afternoon then,

ya why not! This can be one way to do it. Thanks.

 

[Randy]

Go for it because in the end nobody but you really cares and it's only you that is has to work for anyway....If it works, it works...There really isn't a right or wrong, just effective and in-effective

 

[JaneB]

QualityKey,

At this point, can you just recap for me what the actual question or concern is? Because I'm not fully sure.

I do wonder if you have fallen prey to the Analysis Paralysis trap by trying to get your entire plan/approach PERFECT before you do anything.

I'd start doing something myself - eg, work on identifying your processes. I am not sure that fiddling looking for the 'perfect formula' is so valuable at this point.

I strongly agree with Randy's advice (as so often!). I urge you to get moving toward your goal.

NB: If you think I was advising you to take a clause by clause approach, you've misunderstood. Nothing could be further from the truth!
(But at some point you will need to check that you are meeting all the requirements -& thus go through all the clauses - if you want certification. Whether you do that upfront with a Gap Analysis or as you go or whatever is your choice. Leaving it until last is unwise.)

 

[QualityKey]

QualityKey,



I'd start doing something myself - eg, work on identifying your processes. I am not sure that fiddling looking for the 'perfect formula' is so valuable at this point.

I strongly agree with Randy's advice (as so often!). I urge you to get moving toward your goal.

I agree with you and Randy that the important part is to get going and do something better than the formula.

However, some time alot of thoughts come to me and I am just trying to measure how big is the task or maybe how small it is.

Anyways, I would like to tell you and all of the others that only a couple of threads here at the Cove have added alot to me, many of the misconceptions that I had in the past have gone.

I am not sure if I should recap and give further details as of now or leave it for later so to avoid making it more complex. Maybe I leave this idea for some time and give more thoughts then come back with a better one or at least better explaination.

Thanks Jane and thanks to all for taking the time and particpating in this thread, I appreciate and consider all comments!

Qualitykey!

 

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by QualityKey

I liked what you did to the exaution, in fact, that does tell me that somebody agree with me. To me, it does not matter if you say Documented QMS or QMS that conforms to the standard. We have more to agree about than to disagree.

By adding changes to the equation, I am jsut trying to tell everybody that the requirements of the standards are being observed while building the system. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I should go back and use your modified exuation, at the end of the day I am Not trying to be an adamant, I am just trying to understand!

Well, sometimes you have to look from the protagonists point of view, standing in his shoes. If you think now the equation is good enough fundamentally, and are able to explain to your management sufficiently, why not.

As Randy and Jane suggest, simply go for it and move on to your next planned assignment in line. As far as this equation is concerned, there will always be scope for improvement. Keep your revision numbers handy!

It also gives me immense pleasure in knowing that many of your misconceptions have been done away with, thanks to this cove and the valuable contribution of the covers.

Best of luck and do keep updating us on your progress.

Ciao.

 

[Peter West]

As per the last few posts, I believe it's sod's law, that as soon as you try and set your plans too firmly, something will come up. For example you may be there happy with your equation, when all of a sudden you think, it would be really helpful if that was a documented procedure, but wait! That means there are now 7 procedures, or is that 4 documents....

The only way I have survived is by taking in all of the advice and knowledge on offer here and on courses, highlighting the principles, putting the rest to the back of my mind and then trying to implement the key parts into the way my company works. That way you take away what is valuable, and if you are lucky, you get to use examples of how to implement the key principals as suggested by people here.

The QMS will need to be flexible. I am now trying to transfer our UK model to an International scale and as I sit here the manual and procedures are changing to suit/assist the new environment (and mentalities).