Quality Policy

[Jimmy]

Hello cove members. I am still relatively new to the cove, but I think I am addicted. Marc this is a great service you are providing.

Anyway to the point of the post & I apologize in advance for this one. I think I have been taking this too seriously. But I know you will all get me back on track.

Under 5.3 Quality Policy - b) includes a commitment to comply with requirements - Is this referring to:

1.) customer requirements
2.) ISO 9001 requirements
3.) company requirements
4.) statutory and regulatory
5.) all of the above

thanks, in advance.

Jimmy

 

[JodiB]

5

 

[Jimmy]

Lucinda, you just go on and on and on....

May be a better question is:

Will a registrar typically accept a policy that is short and sweet, but somewhat implies all of this? (don't want make it any longer than necessary)

i.e. for lack of a better example: Error free / on-time service though company values and continuous improvement.

 

[JodiB]

My HO is that the "commitment" must be stated.

I've seen policies without the word "commitment" in it, rejected by registrar assessors.

BTW, the word is "continual" not "continuous". There is a difference and you would be hard-pressed to actually demonstrate that your improvement is "continuous".

And I'm not really grumpy today, just using the quickie reply option and there's no emoticons :0)

 

[Jimmy]

Didn't think you were grumpy - but you have been helpful.

The word commitment is there - but is related to on-time/ error free. (sorry didn't type the whole thing) It just doesn't say "commited" to anything else.

I'll have to get my dictionary out for the "C" words. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[noboxwine]

Another round for my friends......

The requirements you are committed to comply with will be as defined in

7.2.1 ----Determination of requirements related to the product.

buh bye now.

:thedeal:

 

[JodiB]

You have to commit to the two things that the standard asks you to commit to. Safest to just go with the tide and say exactly what 5.3b asks you to say. MHO. You can try to dress it up, but make sure that "commit" , "requirements" and "continually improve the effectiveness of the QMS" appear in the same breath. :0)

And make sure that your policy is appropriate to the purpose of your company. An assessor friend (who admittedly is the strictest one I've ever met) says that generic statements that make no reference to the type of work that is done or the product, do not meet this requirement.

 

[Gary L. Phillips - 2007]

Jimmy, Good question...

Gone are the good O days (? 1994 series) where an organization could publish a "Quality Policy" that is so generic that it could be applied to thousands of companies in almost any given industry sector. The standard wants us to really give a lot of thought about our organization, what it does, how it works, etc. when we begin to formulate the 'broad stroke ' of what we are all about.

A lot of folks do not like the new requirements of the standard probably because it is going to require that we make our QMS so personal, after all, isn't that what it should be like don't you think so???

Just possibly the toughest nut to crack at first will be 5.3a. Your registrar will want to see that the Quality Ploicy is indeed "appropriate to the purpose of your organization." This, of course depending on the over all knowledge and skills in your company, could be easy

Remember...the QP is a "framework for est. & reviewing Q objectives" 5.3c.

5.4.1 references that objectives must be measurable and consistent with the quality policy. They work hand and glove, and will be assessed as such.

 

[energy]

Have to jump in

Gary L. Phillips said:

Gone are the good O days (? 1994 series) where an organization could publish a "Quality Policy" that is so generic that it could be applied to thousands of companies in almost any given industry sector. The standard wants us to really give a lot of thought about our organization, what it does, how it works, etc. when we begin to formulate the 'broad stroke ' of what we are all about.

A lot of folks do not like the new requirements of the standard probably because it is going to require that we make our QMS so personal, after all, isn't that what it should be like don't you think so???

Gary, I think they are very similar. The new standard tells you what to put in your policy. So does the older version. The new version has a) thru e). The older version has it all in one paragraph. It was more subceptible to interpretation issues. If you make your policy just like the new standard wants, there is no problem. There are differences in the content. Continually improve, blah blah vs. objectives and commitment to "Quality", etc.. Of course it is auditable, but if one can't meet their policy with the required content, they shouldn't be considering registering to ISO9001:2000.

I posted this before and here it is once more:

XXX is committed to maintaining a customer focused Quality Management System that:

— Produces products and services that meet customer/regulatory requirements
— Is communicated from Top Management to all levels of the organization
— Continually monitors to improve all aspects of our Quality Management System”

This policy is implemented by a set of procedures and work instructions that describe how activities at XXX are performed.

Straight from the standard and I would bet most companies will have something similar (not very personalized as you have said) because it's clear cut. I will, however, say that if you can't meet the requirements, make up something else and good luck. JMHO

 

[Craig H.]

Something that we came up with, and included in our policy, has to do with the overall health of the company, which does have an impact on quality.

The main goal of all of this is to MAKE MONEY!

I don't mean this in a short term sense, but the overall long term health of the company has an impact on how the company does business, and this health is directly related to the ability to make a profit.

How many policies have you seen with the word "profit" within? It is in our first sentance. So, our quality policy is really more like an overall policy.

Am I crazy, or does this make sense to anyone else?