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.