QMS (Quality Management System) Manual - The Boss Wants a 4 Page Manual - What to Do?

[Randy Stewart]

Brilliant minds do think alike!!! Or is that birdbrains of a feather or something?

 

[Yogurt]

Refer back to 4.2.2 it list the three requirements that the quality manual must include to meet the standard. You may consider flow charts. Although with that being said our manual is 22 pages. Your quality manual is probably the first document that a new customer would requst to review. In reality it shows good business ethics and committment up front. Good Luck

 

[Don Palmer]

Refer back to 4.2.2 it list the three requirements that the quality manual must include to meet the standard. You may consider flow charts. Although with that being said our manual is 22 pages. Your quality manual is probably the first document that a new customer would requst to review. In reality it shows good business ethics and committment up front. Good Luck

As a potential customer of Avery Weigh-Tronix I reviewed their quality manual as part of my supplier approval process today. They have an ISO 9001:2000 QMS, and their manual is one of the very best I've seen.

Click on this link to view their *** DEAD LINK REMOVED *** 'On Line Master Version'.

"shows good business ethics and commitment up front." 11 Page Quality Manual

 

[Wes Bucey]

I was particularly impressed with how sparingly the matrix on page 11 was presented. Yes. The manual in this instance does not need to repeat all the language of the Standard and certainly makes itself well-understood without bogging down in details about procedures. Most especially, it does not contain a lot of self-serving language about a "mission to solve all the problems in the known universe."

Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

 

[Wes Bucey]

When I met with Quality Goddess on Wednesday, she stunned me by citing the EXACT number of "shalls" in ISO9001:2000. Do you know the number? I certainly didn't.

 

[Don Palmer]

Exact number of "shalls" in ISO9001:2000

When I met with Quality Goddess on Wednesday, she stunned me by citing the EXACT number of "shalls" in ISO9001:2000. Do you know the number? I certainly didn't.

Having been pulled from among the rank and file of my organizations QA pool three years ago to write our documented ISO9001:2000 QMS, I counted all the ' shalls ' knowing that would be a good place to begin manual construction. IMO the ' shalls ' are the skeletal structure to any manual that must demonstrate compliance/conformance.

Admittedly, until your recent challenge the actual count of ' shalls ' was a trivia question for which I had misplaced the answer.

However after review on the Standard, I believe there are exactly 136 ' shall ' statements within the ISO9001:2000 Standard, not counting the 1 in the standards ' forward ' and the 1 in the pdf disclaimer if you have the electronic version.

 

[Caster]

Lighter fluid on the BBQ

As a potential customer of Avery Weigh-Tronix I reviewed their quality manual as part of my supplier approval process today. They have an ISO 9001:2000 QMS, and their manual is one of the very best I've seen.

I guess I'll throw some Lighter fluid on the already lit BBQ (it is Spring and I do so love that Whoomp sound!)

I don't like systems that follow the numbering and section structure of ISO. They cause me intense pain, similar to the burns caused from spraying lighter fluid on the BBQ.

For sure they have something that meets the requirements of ISO, but I wonder if it is integrated into day to day use.

I suspect that people call it the "ISO system". And I have a bad feeling that they'll get around to that "quality stuff" after they get their "real job" done.

Well, perhaps it works well for them...and at the end of the day that's all that matters.

My goal in life has been to bury ISO so deep in the real business system that no one knows it exists. Stealth quality, BMS not QMS.

Our manual has a process map and calls out our procedures...3 pages...the ISO requirements are hidden in an x-ref that no one but me and the registrar ever sees.

I just got tired of people doing things because "ISO" or "Quality" said so...and I stopped it.

We got people to define their business process as they actually did it. Then I did an ISO gap analysis. In most cases we had to add very few things.

Out to the deck with my lighter can I go!

 

[Don Palmer]

Whoomp (sound)

I guess I'll throw some Lighter fluid on the already lit BBQ (it is Spring and I do so love that Whoomp sound!)

I don't like systems that follow the numbering and section structure of ISO. They cause me intense pain, similar to the burns caused from spraying lighter fluid on the BBQ.

For sure they have something that meets the requirements of ISO, but I wonder if it is integrated into day to day use.

I suspect that people call it the "ISO system". And I have a bad feeling that they'll get around to that "quality stuff" after they get their "real job" done.

Well, perhaps it works well for them...and at the end of the day that's all that matters.

My goal in life has been to bury ISO so deep in the real business system that no one knows it exists. Stealth quality, BMS not QMS.

Our manual has a process map and calls out our procedures...3 pages...the ISO requirements are hidden in an x-ref that no one but me and the registrar ever sees.

I just got tired of people doing things because "ISO" or "Quality" said so...and I stopped it.

We got people to define their business process as they actually did it. Then I did an ISO gap analysis. In most cases we had to add very few things.

Out to the deck with my lighter can I go!

Caster, is the BBQ ready yet? Your post is greatly appreciated.

I'm in the Aircraft Maintenance (service) industry...deeply entrenched in regulatory compliance...our ISO9001:2000 QMS (did I just here a whoomp sound) is just over one year old. Top Executive Management decided to get certification because a BIG customer required it.

I know...I know, the prophets of doom have already whispered in my ear, the failure rate statistics of organizations who's primary reason for seeking registration is because the customer said so.

If you were a fly on the wall observing from within our organization, it wouldn't take you long to conclude that implementation of a QMS (Whoomp sound) is a giant leap. I am as sincere about 'total' quality' as the rest of my company has always been well focused on total 'airworthiness' matters.

Gap analysis showed need for much improvement (how do you eat an elephant?), when ISO9001:2000 went on line. I do what I can, and vow to do more once I get my resume polished up a bit. Until then, on a daily basis I put much enthusiasm and energy into our quality management system (Whoomp...whoomp...whoomp). Somebody please call the fire department.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

I just got tired of people doing things because "ISO" or "Quality" said so...and I stopped it.

We got people to define their business process as they actually did it. Then I did an ISO gap analysis. In most cases we had to add very few things.

Brilliant... I really like that. Now go easy on that lighter fluid... I think i can see the fireballs from over here...:mg:

/Claes

 

[wilsonmm]

I don't like systems that follow the numbering and section structure of ISO. They cause me intense pain, similar to the burns caused from spraying lighter fluid on the BBQ.

For sure they have something that meets the requirements of ISO, but I wonder if it is integrated into day to day use.

I feel the same way. My manual is written to our service requiments and not in ISO format. It's organized better, flows better, and is more user friendly.

HOWEVER, in order to make it through our annual audits, I had to develop what turned out to be a three-column, 19-page, cross reference grid to reference where to go in my 22-page Quality Manual to find our ISO elements. And, quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of maintaining those two documents, so I am probably going to bite the bullet and re-do the QM into ISO order later this year. Should be LOTS of fun!