Quality Manual Organization and Structure including Numbering

[JodiB]

This is baloney. If the intent was simply to have this information available then it would have been stated that way. Like many other requirements. But it wasn't. The writers quite clearly said it would be in a manual. Period. While there will always be some folks who want a pat on the back for being "clever" in weaseling around this simple and clearcut requirement (as well as others), I think it is hogwash. I'm also not impressed by being able to bully or fast talk a registrar into what amounts to flagrant disregard of the standard, for this or any other requirement. Buying a cert is distasteful and receiving one for a system that is obviously not compliant by threatening to take business elsewhere is just that.

There is no allowance for a company to find business sense in the standard's requirements as a test of applicability. So whether or not a company thinks it adds value is quite beside the point if you are asking for certification of compliance to the standard.

Ok, so just my opinion. And an attitude forged by working for several years to guard the validity and integrity of the certification process.

 

[James Gutherson]

The standard says

4.2.1 General

The quality management system documentation shall include
a) ....
b) a quality manual,
c)...
.....

Note 3. The documentation can be in any form or type of medium.
(my bold)


Then it goes on to define what is required in the quality manual

4.2.2 Quality manual

The organization shall establish and maintain a quality manual that includes

a) the scope of the quality management system, including details of and justification for any inclusions

b) the documented procedures established for the quality management system, or reference to them, and

c) a description of the interaction between the processes of the quality management system.


It clearly says the documentation can be in ANY form or TYPE OF MEDIUM.

My Intranet site is my Quality Manual, as well as a lot more. (but it is not a dust collector!)

This is in NO WAY weaseling around the requirements of the standard.

 

[JodiB]

Originally posted by James Gutherson we don't have a quality manual, and we told our registrar, and any one who asks, that we don't.

I agree that it can be in any medium. You score that point. But despite having the information available in the format of your choice, you still proclaim that you do not fulfill this requirement of the standard. Your own words. You say that despite having this electronic version of everything that the QM is required to contain, you don't have a quality manual .

So either you do or you don't. If you don't , then you are not meeting the requirement.

 

[James Gutherson]

Ok I get what you are saying, I think. Perhaps I didn't explain fully.

That is what I told our registrar, "We don't have a Quality Manual per say.", then I said that "What we have is an Intranet site that fulfils the requirements of a Quality Manual" as defined in the Standard. BTW our registrar is the largest and most respected in Australia and they have no problems with it.

We don't use the word 'Quality Manual' anywhere, except in the cross reference matrix prepared for the registrar. I know that it (the intranet site) is 'in effect' a Quality Manual, but our staff just know it as "the web site".

This is something that provideds value for us and still meets the requirements of the standard. A binder with some pages copied from the Standard and the words "the organisation" replaced by a company name is IMO of no value to the organisation, the only value is to a lazy registrar. (I'm not saying this is about your QM, but about the majority of QM's I've seen.)

 

[Randy Stewart]

While there will always be some folks who want a pat on the back for being "clever" in weaseling around this simple and clearcut requirement

I guess I would rather be a weasel that brings value to the company I work for than a lemming that blindly runs the company down because he must conform to the letter.
Don't you see how rediculous this is??? Does it really matter what it is called or where the content is stored. Isn't it more about being able to show and prove that the intent of the standard has been upheld????? I have always attempted to go into implementation with the notion that the "ISO & QS standards do not prohibit the use of reason".
Here is a perfect example of why suppliers do the "ISO dance" as Marc put it. And why a certificate or registration means only that a system was found in compliance at a particular moment in time. The registration audit becomes nothing but a snap shot in time and losses it's intent and purpose.

So whether or not a company thinks it adds value is quite beside the point if you are asking for certification of compliance to the standard.

In other words - Resistance is Futile

 

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by James Gutherson
That is what I told our registrar, "We don't have a Quality Manual per say.", then I said that "What we have is an Intranet site that fulfils the requirements of a Quality Manual" as defined in the Standard. BTW our registrar is the largest and most respected in Australia and they have no problems with it.

We don't use the word 'Quality Manual' anywhere, except in the cross reference matrix prepared for the registrar. I know that it (the intranet site) is 'in effect' a Quality Manual, but our staff just know it as "the web site".

_____________________________________

Here's my perspective for what it's worth...

So you DO have a quality manual. You just choose to call it something else. If that makes you happy and suits your organization's needs, wonderful. Your registrar calls it a quality manual, so you meet the standard's requirements.

A rose by any other name...

Mike S.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Originally posted by Jim Wade


So, be contrite, and create a handy book (that's what a 'manual' is).

Sorry, I am not going to create a book. Our system is intranet, and that is what you get. Most of the auditors have liked the intranet format. I have used it for ISO 9002-94, QS and now 9001-2000. I have never had a nonconformance against not having a "Quality Manual" We have one, it is electronic. If auditors want an uncontrolled paper copy of certain areas for their use in the audit, fine. But I've never been asked to print out the entire portion of the web that would comprise the level 1 documents with the exception of the initial desk audit, and even then only 2 of the three implementations. The QS certification desk audit was done by e-mailing an electronic copy that the registrar viewed using his browser.

So, even though I think that to state we "don't have a quality manual" is perhaps a fallacy, there is no requirement to have paper copies floating around. Please try to remember that we all do business differently and just beacause you do something one way it doesn't mean it is the only way.

Obviously they have the electronic equivelent

"We don't have a Quality Manual per say.", then I said that "What we have is an Intranet site that fulfils the requirements of a Quality Manual" as defined in the Standard.

and their registrar was satisfied that it met the intent of the standard. How that becomes fraudulent, injurious to the integrity of the certification system, or anyone trying to weasel out of something is unclear to me. But, I'm just a good ol' country girl without a lot of book learnin' beyond my Associates Degree, so I guess I could be wrong.

Or maybe there's room to change your paradigm? :truce:

 

[Randy Stewart]

A rose by any other name...

You can complain that the flower has thorns or enjoy that the thorns have the flower!!!
As with the "Quality Manual" it's all in how it is perceived.

 

[JodiB]

A rose is a rose.....

as long as you recognize that it is still a rose even if you want to call it a petunia...

Whether your QM is on the network, is delivered by lazer light show, or is spelled out with Campbells alphabet soup, you've got to have one. And it's got to have the critical elements. You cannot proclaim that you don't have one, and it should (iMO) be in a consolidated location. Otherwise, all you have done is have the required information available "somewhere". Which is not (IMO) what is implied by the requirement to have a manual. I believe the intent of the manual is to have this upper level information content in one assembled place to provide an overview of the company's QMS in a easy-to-see-it-all-at-a-glance and easy-to-distribute-to-all-interested-parties format. I certainly don't think that it has to be a hardcopy.

Regardless, I think that if you look critically at what you have and you find that you have assembled what you describe as your top level documentation in a structured place, you have built yourself a QM whether you like it or not. And if those required elements are nowhere to be found within that upper level documentation, then you fail to meet the requirements of the standard.

Steel, James' post regarding the fact that he does indeed have a QM negates any of my previous comments that may have been construed as being aimed at him. Apparently what his registrar witnessed was indeed the QM.

I do find it somewhat amusing that "interpretation" applied by a registrar as to the intent of the standard is welcomed and is not a dirty word when the "interpretation" call goes the company's way..... Otherwise the shouts are " where is the shall?"

 

[James Gutherson]

OK - misunderstanding.

Truce Lucinda?:truce:

As a professional paid to ensure that our organisation meets the requirements of the Standard I know what we have in in effect a quality manual, and my registrar know that too, but it is far more valuable to us than a book regurgitating the layout and words of the standard.

I'm going to leave this now, I know you must be upset with the Stars going from Division champs to out of the playoffs, and the mighty San Jose Sharks taking their rightfull place as Pacific Division Champions.

PS. I lived in San Fran for a while and just can't help having a dig at a Texan