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

[wilsonmm]

Add me to the list of those who would love to see it – especially since I’m about to have to re-write our QAPP.

Your statement, “I did this because my experience as a consultant taught me that the quality manual was the least used document in the system; this booklet-style manual, when designed well, is an attractive and easy-to-read handbook…” caught my eye because I’m using the same approach with the least used form in our inventory, the Continuous Improvement Report (CIR).

Since our CIR forms tend to be put in a file and forgotten about, I'm designing a new one as an eye-catching pamphlet that can be put in the workplace and hopefully actually used now and then for improvement suggestions.

 

[juliedrys]

To those who asked for an example of the 5-page manual: I promise to post it here later, I'm on the road now and will be home later this week.

I'm happy to share, the approach has worked for me.

 

[JaneB]

OK, I seem to be in the minority, but I'm with your superiors. I'd want no more than 8 - 10 pages max!! Can one? Yes. Not one of the organisations I've got certified have had ones been longer than this. Otherwise it's too wordy. But... what I'm meaning here is the 'high level policy stuff' - if one included procedures as well, it would be more pages (perhaps, oh, say another 20 for a small - med organisation).
The problem may also be that people are using the term 'Quality Manual' to mean different things. I believe the Standard uses it to mean your documented system overall - and these days, that can include intranet/hard copy, whatever. But yes, overall, I'd go with exec - less, not more.

 

[JaneB]

If it was my company, I absolutely would. Being the consultant, I can't really take this on without their consent.

Laura, I empathise totally with your predicament when faced with an obstinate Auditor insisting that stuff has to be in the manual because HE says so - and yes, being the consultant, one can't take it on without their consent. I'd ask for it.
I've been in an almost identical situation on 2 occasions: both times, the auditors were frightful, but for different reasons. One was a little Hitler type, who was steeped in 1994 and when questioned (politely) on any of his pronouncements, took it as a personal offence, and got more & more aggro... and this was only the doc review (precursor to the audit itself). He ended up quite literally yelling at me and the client (MD of the small firm) and insisting that all kinds of things HAD to be in the manual because HE said they had to, and utterly refused to give any specific clause references...

I thought about it long & hard, & then rang the registrar, & spoke 'off the record' to a contact there. Her response clearly indicated that this wasn't the first time there had been a problem. I requested the client's permisison to make a written complaint - and did. But I took care to be very, very objective with the complaint, and to stick carefully to facts only - even got someone else to review the letter before it was sent. That auditor is no longer auditing (and IMO a good thing too). Turns out he'd had a lot of back problems & was in a lot of pain that day, which is some explanation, but still no excuse for his quite appalling behaviour.

The other was dreadful for a different reason - spent more time telling my clients what they should be doing differently (in his opinion) after no more than the most cursory look at their system for the first time; they were already certified. I complained about him too, to the same registrar. And believe it or not, all this happened within the same week!

But the registrar responded quite magnificently - were very concerned, and said that not enough people ever did complain. a/ people don't know they can (whereas consultants do) and b/they worry it'll affect their results.
If auditors keep being allowed to get away with this kind of B if not C grade 'service' they'll go right on doing it.

Bottom line: registrars ain't God. They provide a service, and are paid to do so. But if they have fixed little ideas about Their Version of any Standard, and aren't able, let alone willing, to really look at how different companies have implemented that Standard, then I'd look for either a different Auditor and/or a different Registrar, like one who employs better trained Auditors, with a better outlook.
Cheers
Jane

 

[JaneB]

Kirill, and others,

Loved your examples of short, short manuals. Way to go.
It's actually much, much harder to make something short, than it is to make it long. (Worth reading de Bono's Simplicity on this. One has to understand something really well in order to 'simplify' it.)
Yes, we can all regurgitate the Standard & search & replace 'organization' with 'CompanyName'. But why on earth bother? It adds zippo value to anyone.

Those process maps have a lot of work & thinking behind them. 'Quality' can't be assessed in the number of pages - it's the content that's important, and most of all: does it add value to the organisation and do what it's supposed to do?

 

[J. Harrison]

I recently moved into the quality management group for the company as the manager for our ISO program. I inherited a 46 page quality manual that simply restated the ISO 9001;2000 standard. In my estimation, maybe 10% of the employees had read the manual because it was dry reading and stated the obvious. If the read rate is that low then what good is the manual. I studied the standard and decided to write a manual that would provide exactly what paragraph 4.2.2 required. When I completed the task I had reduced the manual to 4 pages. The manual has received wide acceptance from management, our customer, and the third party auditor. In speaking with the employees I have found that a large number have read the new manual which to me is a great improvement.

I totally agree with others when they say keep it simple.

 

[Antonio Vieira]

I completely disagree with this kind of “catalog” quality manuals.
The Quality Manual has to bring added value to the QMS. It must show all our policies in all the subjects related to our QMS and to the standard (if it’s for registration).
Four or five pages, what for?
It’s better to don’t have one!

The larger and complete Quality Manual, the shorter (or inexistent) written procedures we must do.
What should be simple are the procedures, not the Manual....

 

[J. Harrison]

There is no reason to get mad about a difference of opinion.

Would you rather have a 40 - 50 page manual that 95% of the employees have not read or one that is 4 - 5 pages that 95% have read. I see more value in having a manual that is short and understandable that most people will read than having one that restates the standard and adds no value to the employees or the quality management system. The level 2 and 3 documents within the quality management system are the documents that make the company run effectively - not the quality manual itself. Strictly my opinion.

 

[Antonio Vieira]

Dear J. Harrison,

I’m not getting mad.
It’s just my opinion as all here are as valid.
The ideal is a Quality Manual that shows what quality means for the organization in all the subjects.
I really don’t like that thing of levels in the quality documentation. In my opinion we must have very well defined, complete and consistent policies written in the Quality Manual.
That’s impossible in a 4 or 5 pages document!
And that’s no manual at all, that’s no more than promotional documents companies use to give their customers – they mean so little to the organization that I can give them to any person...

The issue of having everybody reading and specially understanding the policies written in the Quality Manual, it’s a different story...
Here we have to deal with training. And also in my opinion the QM must be the first item in training anybody into the quality field of any organization.
Lately when I go to any large transnational company for a training course about any quality subject, it’s normal that the quality manager gives me their Quality Manual so that I can be updated with their policies related to Quality. Sometimes they ask me to talk about a subject referred in their Quality Manual. In these cases we are talking of QM with more than 100 pages.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Gentlemen, if you stop a minute and look at the poll results, it might give you a clue. When it comes to a quality manual, one size does not fit all. Different organizations might have different approaches to their quality system.
The one thing I agree with both of you is that quality manuals should not be irrelevant documents. If they don't serve a purpose, something went awry. Unfortunately the brainless approach of regurgitating a standard as a quality manual still proliferates quite abundantly.