Elsmar Forum Sponsor
R
what if the date the quality policy was established is still the date indicated after, say, two years, does it mean that no review (or maintenance?) done on the quality policy?
i'm trying to squeeze something out here. i've been to several organizations here in the philippines (either benchmarking or audit) but some (or should i say "none") of them seem to review the adequacy of their QP on their present business. if in case, i want to raise it as nonconformity against 4.1.1, will you accept it?
i'm trying to squeeze something out here. i've been to several organizations here in the philippines (either benchmarking or audit) but some (or should i say "none") of them seem to review the adequacy of their QP on their present business. if in case, i want to raise it as nonconformity against 4.1.1, will you accept it?
D
I am wondering if it is possible that these companies are reviewing their current business practices to determine how suitable they are in meeting the stated quality policy. It would seem reasonable to me that a dynamic policy could be written which requires no actual change. The system supporting the policy would then be reviewed and adjusted for allignment. I see nothing in the requirements stating my policy has to be revised within any time limit. I would think an auditor would like evidence of movement in the business practice toward meeting the set goals rather than looking for how many times the target is moved to make it easier to hit. Just my opinion.
Dave
Dave
A
I believe that Internal Audit results of the management review element would pick up any inconsistencies. Section 4.1.3 states the requirements clearly in that the quality system needs to be reviewed at defined intervals to ensure stability and effectiveness, This includes the policy manual.
A painless way to comply would be to have some type of agenda for management review meetings that documents that the policy has been reviewed. Just because the policy manual is reviewed does not mean it changes and I would not be concerned that the revision level did not change in two years.
Most level I Policy Manuals are nothing more than a rehash of the shall statements, while the meat of the system lies within level II and III documents. I believe that most auditors would rather see evidence of effective internal audits, meeting business plan objectives, and management reviews that lead to system improvements.
Hypothetically, I would more than likely go after 4.1.3 that 4.1.1.
IMO,
ASD...
A painless way to comply would be to have some type of agenda for management review meetings that documents that the policy has been reviewed. Just because the policy manual is reviewed does not mean it changes and I would not be concerned that the revision level did not change in two years.
Most level I Policy Manuals are nothing more than a rehash of the shall statements, while the meat of the system lies within level II and III documents. I believe that most auditors would rather see evidence of effective internal audits, meeting business plan objectives, and management reviews that lead to system improvements.
Hypothetically, I would more than likely go after 4.1.3 that 4.1.1.
IMO,
ASD...
