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

[Helmut Jilling]

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

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this particular thread is? And it just keeps on going!

One person says a 3 page manual is the right number. Another thinks it should be 7 pages. Oh, maybe 6 would better!

20 pages, 17, 42, ...what the heck does the number of pages have to do with anything? We have 300 posts over the number of pages??!! :mg:

Then we wonder why our bosses don't respect our ISO systems. We have to stop this silliness!

Write your manual so that it addresses whatever information you want to address. All the important information has to be addressed somewhere, and whether you put it in the manual or a procedure or a database is up to you. And, let's move on to meaningful things about how to improve our companies and our customer satisfaction.

I have never been at a company with an outstanding system where there was any discussion over number of pages. It just does not matter.

 

[Wes Bucey]

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

Does anyone else see how ridiculous this particular thread is? And it just keeps on going!

When I have bad mornings like this, Helmut, I usually just blame it on bad ice cubes in my drinks last night, then have another cup of coffee and two aspirin.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

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

When I have bad mornings like this, Helmut, I usually just blame it on bad ice cubes in my drinks last night, then have another cup of coffee and two aspirin.

I have been very nice up to now, but this goofy discussion just won't die! Then we whine about why we quality "professionals" don't get enough respect by our management peers. This would be like Maintenance debating the comparitive quality of their screwdrivers....

...now about those drinks

 

[Marc]

Not liking the discussion

I have been very nice up to now, but this goofy discussion just won't die!

It is easy to simply not read/follow the thread any longer if it irritates you. If the thread doesn't interest you any more, move on to other threads.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: Not liking the discussion

It is easy to simply not read/follow the thread any longer if it irritates you. If the thread doesn't interest you any more, move on to other threads.

Certainly. I stopped reading it long ago. However, the purpose for my post was not to express "irritation," because that is not important.

Rather, what is important, is to suggest to my colleagues that if they want to get the respect they so crave from their fellow managers, they have to stop focusing on this level of quality silliness, and focus on the important improvement issues.

We post thousands of comments that quality is not taken seriously, then we give them a reason to not take it seriously when we make issues of silly things so prominent.

Sorry if my intent was not clear.

 

[AndyN]

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

Helmut:
I feel your pain! Wes has the antidote - with ice!

I, along with you, feel a sense of amazement that some threads go on over what seem relatively banal topics - the most recent one I remember is the 'document vs form' one. It seems as if one good answer would have been sufficient and the whole thing became very strange.

 

[kirilll]

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

Helmut and AndyN, I understand your point and I don't disagree. But allow me to suggest that part of the reason for the lack of respect that you note is that many of our quality colleagues have been creating non-value-added documents such as 40 page quality manuals. This thread may be helpful to these folks which, in turn, may contribute to increasing management's respect for the position.

Ashwani did a good job of detailing the minimum one needs to have in a Quality Manual to pass third party audits. I use a 2-page "QMS Map" (sorry Helmut) that serves as a graphical representation and interface to the organization's management system, its process, and its documentation. Page one is basically a key to the various colors and symbols that I use and the location for any exclusion. Page 2 is where all of the action happens. In my experience, senior managers have been delighted by this approach and have been generally more receptive to listen to my other business improvement ideas. Auditors from the leading registrars have had only positive comments too.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

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

Helmut and AndyN, I understand your point and I don't disagree. But allow me to suggest that part of the reason for the lack of respect that you note is that many of our quality colleagues have been creating non-value-added documents such as 40 page quality manuals. This thread may be helpful to these folks which, in turn, may contribute to increasing management's respect for the position.

Ashwani did a good job of detailing the minimum one needs to have in a Quality Manual to pass third party audits. I use a 2-page "QMS Map" (sorry Helmut) that serves as a graphical representation and interface to the organization's management system, its process, and its documentation. Page one is basically a key to the various colors and symbols that I use and the location for any exclusion. Page 2 is where all of the action happens. In my experience, senior managers have been delighted by this approach and have been generally more receptive to listen to my other business improvement ideas. Auditors from the leading registrars have had only positive comments too.

Actually, I think your post makes my point. You like your 2 page approach, because it meets your needs. The rest of your stuff is elsewhere in your quality documentation. The cool part is that you feel it meets your needs! But, in the same post, you automatically bemoan those who have a 40 page manual. And, you discuss what it takes to pass a 3rd party audit.

That was the point of my rant - this stuff is not supposed to be about passing audits. Each organization needs to define their system for their optimal benefit and control, and the number of pages does not matter. What other department in our companies weighs the quality of their work by the number of pages?

The manual's purpose is not to pass an audit. It is the framework and wrapper for your quality system. There is a certain amount of information each company needs to properly run their company and control it's processes. ISO generously allows organizations to slice and dice it to suit their needs, instead of everyone wearing the same size suit. There is no more "document pyramid levels 1-2-3-4."

But instead of understanding and utilizing this, we go on and on about what is the right number of pages, as if there was a single answer to that question. We need to focus on the important issues, as BevD rants about in her well written post today. What are we quality professionals doing, focusing on this little silly stuff? No wonder when our peers don't respect some of our work. Have we given them something worthy of respect?

 

[JaneB]

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

Helmut,

I agree the essential thing is that an organisation has the manual/documents/whatever that are suitable for them and their needs. And that it therefore follows that the actual number of pages is completely unimportant.

But that the thread won't die, and seems to have a strong life wish I just see as one of the features of a forum. Perhaps the thread title is particularly attractive (it is a good one - clear as well as provocative). Perhaps it just 'pings' something in many different people.

But surely you also see that the discussion has ranged over some related areas, and has not just focussed doggedly on the 'exact number of pages' a manual must have? As is the way of things, it's thrown up a few interesting detours here and there, and various posters have mused on what works for them, what they've seen is good, etc (as with a recent poster).

I've seen some fascinating (to me!) topics die an early death, while others on things I think relatively unimportant or not worth a lot of discussion seem to go and on. That's life, I think. C'est la vie. It's how things happen in cyberspace and forums - or at least this one.

All part of life's rich tapestry, really. And speaks to the broad range of humanity and the great divergence of views they bring with them to the forum.

In a nutshell: if people wanna talk on a topic, in a forum for which this is the 'raison d'etre', and find a particular thread of interested - I say, hooray.

Where's there a problem???

 

[SAGHIR AHMED]

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

Need More Detail