Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:2008

[WCHorn]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

Here's a recent article from Quality Digest, relevant to this thread. I'll post the second part of the article when it is published, probably next week.

 

[maaquilino]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

Too bad your contractor wasted so much of their time and yours writing meaningless "promises" rather than policies.

This was done by a competing contractor to the contract house I work for The company is now seeing the benefit of having us on board, especially as this competitor acknowledges they don't know regulations around software and the system uses and is driven by software. I cringe at what the company has paid for the services of this competitor for the, essentially, garbage they got in return, but also have the job satisfaction that with my contract house they're now in line - and compliance - with the regulations they're governed by.

 

[mwmather]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

Just reviewing the manual, I would say that your Registrar will be happy when they come to review your documents. As a QA Manager for 2 small companies, I am having a similar problem, the manuals don't mean much, just like a "Mission Statement" is stupid fluff that everyone feels obligated to throw in. As an auditor, I want the QA Manual to stick it to management to make them take ownership and responsibility for meeting their client's expectations. I want to see checklists and forms showing that the annual internal audits were performed, were reviewed by management in a timely manner, CAPA was implemented, there was training received by all parties, including management, and if interviewed, the management would not look at me like a deer in the headlights when I ask them when they last reviewed the internal audits and what they felt about the findings. I can't tell you how many times there was a mad dash to the printer and the manager sat and read the audit from 2 years prior (last years was still under review) and either flubbed around saying that now he/she remembered or how they concurred with the comments and that corrective action was being implemented.

I have read all the complaints about this QA Manual, but I would REALLY like to see what is considered a "GOOD" one, if someone is willing to share.

 

[WCHorn]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

Here's a recent article from Quality Digest, relevant to this thread. I'll post the second part of the article when it is published, probably next week.

Here's the second installment of the article.

 

[Del Foster]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

What possible advantage would it be to a company to split their quality policy into small pieces and scatter it across various documents and procedures?

It appears you do not understand the concept of "policy deployment" or any real reason or value for developing a quality manual.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

I probably understand those things far better than you might imagine....but you did not answer the question.... Communicating and deploying the policy far and wide is recommended and required...slicing and dicing it to pieces was my question to the poster...

 

[Marc]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

Please?.

Professional discussions?.

I will have none of this...

Thank you.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Quality Manual Content - Extended debate - Updated Quality Manual for ISO 9001:20

[The OP has] included a generic quality policy in your template yet clause 4.2.2 does not require the quality manual to include the quality policy. One could identify the stated policy as the overall policy related to conformance to product requirements (quality) and indicate that specific policy statements regarding the clauses of ISO 9001 are included throughout the document.

What possible advantage would it be to a company to split their quality policy into small pieces and scatter it across various documents and procedures?

It appears you do not understand the concept of "policy deployment" or any real reason or value for developing a quality manual.

I probably understand those things far better than you might imagine....but you did not answer the question.... Communicating and deploying the policy far and wide is recommended and required...slicing and dicing it to pieces was my question to the poster...

I think there might be a misunderstanding. I could be wrong, but what I think Del is saying is that what he describes as "the overall quality policy" is THE quality policy as we normally think of it, but there can be individual policies for specific purposes in addition to it. Thus the point is (I think) that the Quality Policy isn't being split up per se, but rather it's augmented by lower-level policies that support it.