Quality Manuals on the web - TS 16949

[peteroldfield1971]

Hi,

I have been tasked with bringing our company Quality Manual up to TS 16949 Spec (from iso 9000: 2000).

We are a UK automotive supplier. I have read much advice in the cove but having researched the web I have found many Quality Manuals which simply just repeat the text from TS 16949. Is this acceptable? Or should these companies be referencing supporting documents?

Any pointers on implementing TS 16949 would also be advantageous.

Many thanks.

 

[jmp4429]

If all you needed was the text of TS 16949, you wouldn't be required to have a quality manual. The quality manual should basically be your own version of the TS 16949 standards, as it applies to you, and including customer-specific requirements.

 

[peteroldfield1971]

If all you needed was the text of TS 16949, you wouldn't be required to have a quality manual. The quality manual should basically be your own version of the TS 16949 standards, as it applies to you, and including customer-specific requirements.

Thats what I assumed but having read many US company manuals on the web, I have found many manuals that simply replace the words "The organisation shall..." with "Company XXXXXXX Inc have....." and find that there is no reference to supporting documents or procedures. I my self will not follow suit as the company have procedures in place with reference to the majority of TS 16949. I was just curious as to why some companies simply did it and if they passed audits.

 

[jmp4429]

I was just curious as to why some companies simply did it

We Americans are inherently lazy

and if they passed audits.

Probably.

From an auditing standpoint, I guess technically there's nothing wrong with copying the standard word-for-word, as long as it covers everything it needs to. Kind of like in school when you'd ask a teacher how they wanted a research paper to be and they said "As long as it needs to be"

 

[Marc]

The reason many companies parrot the standard is simple - It *used* to be that the auditors would go through the standard and ask where and how a clause was addressed. In the early days of implentation in the 1990's it was easiest to 'parrot' the standard so that the auditor couldn't say that a company failed to address part of the standard, or even that they simply didn't address a certain sentence, phrase or paragraph. I myself used to HIGHLY recommend it. I found too many auditors would ask about something and the company would say something like "We don't do that so we didn't write anything about it" to which the auditor would respond with a nonconformance for "...not addressing it in some way even if you don't do it...". So - It wasn't all laziness. It forced you to look at every sentence of the standard and address the requirement by reference or otherwise (such as making a statement like "We don't do this").

Times have changed and so have how auditors audit (not to mention changes in the standard). None the less (get ready to throw rocks) I have no problem with a company parroting the standard in their 'quality' systems manual (I prefer to call it a business systems manual) and addressing each applicable section, paragraph (what ever breakdown you like) by reference to the appropriate company document, or to address the requirement in the manual its self. It makes it very easy to ensure everything is addressed and ties everything together.

 

[surendro - 2009]

Hi,

I don't think quoting the standard would be the right thing. You need the standard as a guide to develop your quality manual. Therefore, all that you have to do is carry out a gap analysis between what the standard requires through its various clauses and your present documents. Wherever, you find any gap create additional documentation to meet the requirements of the standard. I hope, I am clear.

thanks,

Surendro

 

[Mike S.]

The reason many companies parrot the standard is simple - It *used* to be that the auditors would go through the standard and ask where and how a clause was addressed. So - It wasn't all laziness.

Times have changed and so have how auditors audit (not to mention changes in the standard). None the less (get ready to throw rocks) I have no problem with a company parroting the standard in their 'quality' systems manual (I prefer to call it a business systems manual) and addressing each applicable section, paragraph (what ever breakdown you like) by reference to the appropriate company document, or to address the requirement in the manual its self. It makes it very easy to ensure everything is addressed and ties everything together.

I agree it wasn't all laziness. Often it was people trying to get by the best way they knew how -- overworked QM's trying to keep their jobs, make picky auditors happy, and get their bosses off their backs. Walk in those shoes and you will understand.

 

[Totumfrog]

I recommend using the same numbering scheme for your quality manual as the ISO/TS numbering scheme so you know that you have addressed all of the necessary requirements but the way that each requirement is met should be unique to your company and shouldn't simply "parrot" the ISO standard overall. There may be some instances when you simply restate that you will do something, (I.E. stating that your management review input will include results of audits, customer feedback, process performance etc per 5.6.2) but ultimately your manual should be an overview of your unique processes. I've seen manuals on the net that are roughly 12-15 pages long. Ours is 43. Some may say that is too long but we have written our manual to represent our company and not some cookie cutter outline.

 

[ralphsulser]

I agree it wasn't all laziness. Often it was people trying to get by the best way they knew how -- overworked QM's trying to keep their jobs, make picky auditors happy, and get their bosses off their backs. Walk in those shoes and you will understand.

Well said Mike, ...been there done that

 

[Howard Atkins]

Marc is right, give the auditor something he knows and he feels happy. Its pathetic but that is the way the game is played.
When it comes down to it after all the certificate is important and the philosophical arguments aren't

Try here for some other ideas

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