Terms and Definitions in a Quality Manual

[Stijloor]

Let me start by saying that our 1st manual was done by a registar and it is very much like the ISO standard, almost word for word.

Did your Registrar actually provide documentation/consulting/training services? :mg:

Stijloor.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Re: terms and definitions

Additionally, the manual establishes the policy that your company will follow and has nothing to do other people understanding your QMS.

If the quality manual has nothing to do with other people understanding our QMS, what is it for? Just askin', cuz I thought that was the reason to have a quality manual.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: terms and definitions

Oh boy.

I argued with our registrar for an hour on this subject because he was adamant that I absolutely require a "terms and definitions" section of my quality manual because there is a "terms and definitions" section of the ISO9001 standard (clause 3 - which is not part of the quality management system requirements. It's terms and definitions for the standard itself).

He maintianed that the quality manual was for OTHER PEOPLE to understand our QMS and I argued it was for MY COMPANY to understand the QMS.

I eventually threw my hands up in frustration and added a half page worth of terms that are kind-of-sort-of unique to my company.

This is documented somewhere here on the cove. I'd search for it but it's just that I'm about to leave.

The requirements for a quality manual are clearly stated in the standard in 4.2.2.

"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 exclusions,
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."

Do you see "terms and definitions" in there?

If the auditor felt so strongly it should have been no more than an observation.

 

[SteelMaiden]

I don't think that the auditor has any right to say terms and definitions need to be in the manual, but if a company wants to put them there, there is no problem with that either. The quality manual is there to present the big picture, help people understand what the company policies on quality management or business management systems are, and hopefully offer some value to the organization. So, simple answer is no, they are not required, real life answer is that it might add value in some industries, or depending on the overall knowledge of the intended audience.

 

[Randy]

Re: terms and definitions

thanx for the insite. i do wonder how many registors find fault in this. i reviewed several vendor QM's and some had a section for it and others did not. i am going to try and simplify our manual in a way that i wont use big words so to speak.

I find fault in a manual that is a useless document and regurjitated dribble.

You put that thing together so it can work for you and not you for it. Aditionally your auditor can't tell you how and it doesn't matter what he likes or what he thinks..........you don't even have to refer to ISO 9001 if you don't want to. The stinkin thigs is yours and it has to be able to meet you needs while at the same time satisfying the requirements of the standard without necessarily mirroring its design.

 

[Lmyers]

Re: terms and definitions

Let me clarify. The quality policy manual is for the organization to work to and as such needs to be written for the users within the the organization and not "others" outside the organization. In other words, if I am the thid party auditor do not write the manual just to make me happy. The manual has to fit the organization, be used by the organization, and be understood by the organization.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Your quality manual should address your company's policies regarding your QMS and should be written for your own employees as well as other interested parties such as customers and registrars/auditors. The quality manual is the "high level" road map to show what your company believes in. It does not necessarily give step by step instructions on "how to" nor does it/should it contain any priveleged information as it is commonly requested by your customers as a part of their supplier control system.

It should not be written to "make the auditor happy" but it should be written to provide enough information, or references to where the information is that an auditor can follow what you are doing and see that you have taken the requirements of the standard to heart when implementing your QMS.

 

[Lmyers]

Well put. That is what I was trying to get to.

 

[JaneB]

Re: terms and definitions

I agree with most of what the other responders have said - and definitely agree that having a 'T&D' section isn't mandatory. Scott's solution is a practical one with a stubborn auditor

I eventually threw my hands up in frustration and added a half page worth of terms that are kind-of-sort-of unique to my company.

And if there are terms that are "kind-of-sort-of unique" to your organisation, there's an argument for putting such things in the doco somewhere, because otherwise how do any new people/outsiders understand? (And newbies are, I think, a valid audience for quality doco.)

But I strongly agree with AndyNthat it's a bias of the auditor, and if anything like this occurs with a client of mine, I do exactly what he advises - bring it to the attention of the auditor's boss and request them to review.

I'd encourage anyone who had that type of dialog to push back to the CB auditor's boss.......and if it was my specific CB, bring it to my attention too!

Good certifying bodies have structures and personnel to deal with this kind of auditor bias - don't be afraid to use them. Over here, it's called the 'Technical Audit Manager' or something similar - while the role title may vary in other countries, the need & existence of such a role shouldn't. CBs are service providers - as with any other such service provider, a client has every right to provide feedback when they don't believe the service provided is reasonable.