Should a Quality Policy have Revision Control?

[Helmut Jilling]

My quality policy is within my quality manual, thereefore it has an issue status anyway.... Am I the only person that has an issue status on ALL pages of my quality manual?

No, it is quite common to put the revision date or status on all pages. For example, if it is in the footer or header, it automatically is on each page. (You don't have to sign or stamp each page however. Save the extra work if you are doing that.)

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I have a 34 page quality manual (plus 10,000 supporting procedures and work instructions) If I make a change to a single page I can up issue this instead of the whole document. In some of my more fluid procedures I also have individual page control.... makes life a lot easier for us. It also ensures that a multiple paged document always has issue control if page one is lost.

Wow, 10,000 supporting procedures and work instructions! Is that 10,000 pages or documents? It seems like an awful lot. Is your company that large that you really need that many? if so, then by all means, but it might be that you are working harder than what you really need. You should keep all documents that you think add value. If there are any that do not add value, you have the option to retire or inactivate them.

 

[Phiobi]

Wow, 10,000 supporting procedures and work instructions! Is that 10,000 pages or documents? It seems like an awful lot. Is your company that large that you really need that many? if so, then by all means, but it might be that you are working harder than what you really need. You should keep all documents that you think add value. If there are any that do not add value, you have the option to retire or inactivate them.

Each of the documents does add value. The company is not that large but we have a product range of 2000+ I have structured our QMS so that we start with the QM, then down to procedures, then down to work instructions and then down to control documents. Each product has between 1 and 8 different control documents!!! That takes some control. We do have a very good QMS software package that we are updating this week. Hopefully we wont lose anything.

For each document there is a page number, document reference and document/page issue, oh and I only have the front page stamped We actually use a Dymo lable printer for our controlled document status. A seperate issue but we moved to physical stickers to avoid an NCR due to the fact we have a colour photocopier that is so good the usual "Controlled Document If Printed In Red" would no longer do. This way controlled documents have the embose of the sticker... copies do not!!

 

[Helmut Jilling]

...Hence I said the policy does not directly affect product quality.

To say that "the policy does not directly affect product quality," suggests that you don't understand the intent of a Quality Policy. In ISO, top management is supposed to be fully committed to the quality program. If they are, then the Quality Policy is supposed to be a leadership statement that provides direction to the whole organization.

For example, my personal policy is "Relentlessly Pursue Excellence!" That truly is a statement of the driver or motivator for everything I try to do in my business. I pursue excellence. I chase after it all the time. Relentlessly, again and again. Not "pretty good," but "excellence."

It is the driving force in my business. If I have employees or partners in a project, it is the driving force behind the project or relationship. When I am in a grey area, I look at the "company flag," and evaluate which action will pursue excellence.

That is the intent of a quality policy. If you implement your quality policy that way, it will affect everything in your organization - products, customer relationships, ethics, even your success. The problem is not all ISO companies understand this.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Each of the documents does add value. The company is not that large but we have a product range of 2000+ I have structured our QMS so that we start with the QM, then down to procedures, then down to work instructions and then down to control documents. Each product has between 1 and 8 different control documents!!! That takes some control. We do have a very good QMS software package that we are updating this week. Hopefully we wont lose anything.

For each document there is a page number, document reference and document/page issue, oh and I only have the front page stamped We actually use a Dymo lable printer for our controlled document status. A seperate issue but we moved to physical stickers to avoid an NCR due to the fact we have a colour photocopier that is so good the usual "Controlled Document If Printed In Red" would no longer do. This way controlled documents have the embose of the sticker... copies do not!!

Well, it does sound organized. A couple things jumped out at me. Even though the work is completed, you still have the task of managing all this.

Perhaps you don't need a procedure, work instructions and multiple control documents for each product. Perhaps some of that can be folded together. Particularly, can there be ONE control document for each product, and everything about that product is contained in that one document. Then, it is clear which document to go to if someone has a question, and you only have to change one document when there is a change. A single 8 page document is easier to manage than eight 1 page documents.

Can some of the control documents address multiple similar products, rather than just individually?

Can more of them be used electronically off the server? Where this is possible, controlling them becomes much easier. No worries about the rev level, status and all those other things you discussed.

I am puzzled by the dymo label maker. I would think a way could be found to print directly onto the document, if you have to print it.

I admire your work ethic, but I think you can reduce some of the work involved. From far away, it sounds like it effectively gets the job done, but perhaps you are trying too hard. This often has the effect that other people fear doc control and try to work around it.

I work toward a model where doc control is fairly transparent and automatic. It is actually fairly easy to do. many companies are close.

 

[Makrab]

I just went through this exact scenario in a training course...revision "date" and signature. My challenge to students is to prove (only using the standard) that revision status means "date" and "approved" or "authorized" means signature.

The challenge always winds up being a fun exercise.

Dear Randy,

I don't want to challange you on this topic but please let me know if revision status doesn't mean "Rev. no and date" and "approved" doesn't means signature, then what it means??

You have shattered the first lesson I had learned in my ISO awareness training.

 

[regqual]

While a pretty policy in a nice document frame is good to look at, I would strongly recommend including it in your even more magnificient Quality Manual - which by the way should be reviewed every year for improvement at a managment meeting. The quality policy would then also be formally reviewed and approved, or revised and updated through document control offering revision control. As the Quality Manual has the document number, you don't need one on the policy itself. Post as you please, just be sure to ensure that it matches the policy in the manual. Any "good" auditor would look for that vs. if matting is covering the verbiage.

 

[Randy]

Dear Randy,

I don't want to challange you on this topic but please let me know if revision status doesn't mean "Rev. no and date" and "approved" doesn't means signature, then what it means??

You have shattered the first lesson I had learned in my ISO awareness training.

Sorry to bust whatever bubble someone put you in but Revision could be alphabetical A-B-C....Z and approval could be located in something like a management review record..."The new policy "B" is approved." I've seen different revisions of documents on different colors of paper.

Revision status doesnt require a date to be able to tell one from another and approval doesn't require a signature just evidence that it was.

 

[AndyN]

Sorry to bust whatever bubble someone put you in but Revision could be alphabetical A-B-C....Z and approval could be located in something like a management review record..."The new policy "B" is approved." I've seen different revisions of documents on different colors of paper.

Revision status doesnt require a date to be able to tell one from another and approval doesn't require a signature just evidence that it was.

I agree with the right honorable gentleman from Arkansas. Why not even take the evidence directly from the top manager and ask them - did you approve this policy?

 

[neelu]

I agree with the right honorable gentleman from Arkansas. Why not even take the evidence directly from the top manager and ask them - did you approve this policy?

Whatever may be the method of control of documents employed, what is answered by the top manager should be consistent with the method described in Procedure for Document Control. An auditor is not expected to go by oral evidence alone while gathering 'objective evidence'.
There was a post on controlling Quality policy by controlling the page of the Quality Manual in which it appears. This practice may invite problem if the page concerned includes requirements other than policy. Recently I came across a case where page containing policy had been revised but policy acually had not been revised; as a result date appearing in page containing policy was different from date appearing in the policy document displayed at various locations.
A more rational practice may be date-control the policy in the QM and distribution-control the QP displayed at various locations(location-control).