The 2 Page AS9100 Quality Manual

[Phiobi]

I'm calling all you guys for some help here!

For years I have been troubled by my 29 page quality manual. I have read many articles and threads in envy on the 2 page quality manual. I have always distanced myself from it thinking I could never implement it in an aerospace environment.

In November I attended an AS9100 Rev C course and vowed that by June 2010 my QMS would be the perfect example of using the process approach.
Since then I have reviewed my procedures, mapped my top level process and documented the way I will change all of my procedures, reduce them from the inherited 64 procedures to 20 and I have now completed the procedure to cover clause 4.

Getting to my point, today I finally convinced myself that applying my new found devotion to the process approach meant that I could achieve the 2 page quality manual.... I finalised it, checked it, audited it AND presented it to my MD!
His face was a picture, just before he fell off his seat at the 27 page reduction he looked at me and said " I love it, just the kind of thing we need to progress the company, the old manual wasn't read and added zero value"

After I sat down and thought about the implications he calmly said "if you can demonstrate that this will be acceptable to the customers and certification body I'll present it to the CEO next Tuesday"

This might not sound much but currently we have one quality manual for 4 sites with independent procedures and his plan is to role this 2 page manual out company / group wide :mg:

We agreed that Elsmar Cove and some carefully selected customers were the way to seek approval....

So, my question is.... Does anybody out there:

a) Use a 2 page quality manual in an aerospace environment?
b) Have any experience (positive or negative) with 2 page quality manuals?
c) Know of any primes with a particular aversion to a 2 page manual?

All help and suggestions will be greatly appreciated

 

[Colin]

Hi Phill, I hope you are well and well done on 'grasping the nettle' and reducing your quality manual. As you will have seen from other threads (albeit ISO 9001 not AS 9100), opinion is divided as to the merits of the traditional manual versus the 'mini manual'.

I have had reactions regarding the 2 page version ranging from "what a great idea, I wish I had known this years ago" to "well if that is what you think of quality ..."

It obviously depends upon the business sector and perhaps even individual customers. Why not ask your major customers directly what they think? Send them a copy, explaining why you have done it and ask for their opinions. We at the Cove can offer opinions and quote requirements from standards but ultimately it is what your customers think that will matter most.

 

[Phiobi]

Hi Phill, I hope you are well and well done on 'grasping the nettle' and reducing your quality manual. As you will have seen from other threads (albeit ISO 9001 not AS 9100), opinion is divided as to the merits of the traditional manual versus the 'mini manual'.

I have had reactions regarding the 2 page version ranging from "what a great idea, I wish I had known this years ago" to "well if that is what you think of quality ..."

It obviously depends upon the business sector and perhaps even individual customers. Why not ask your major customers directly what they think? Send them a copy, explaining why you have done it and ask for their opinions. We at the Cove can offer opinions and quote requirements from standards but ultimately it is what your customers think that will matter most.

I will be sending it out to some of my customers including our biggest % of business customer, Boeing.

I'm pretty sure I can explain the gains and how it meets requirements, guess I'm looking for a warm feeling from others on here that it can work in an aerospace environment.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Bear in mind that (certainly for 9K) you do not need a separate document at all. If you have an electronic description of your management system, it is perfectly acceptable to have the required constituent parts of the (so-called) manual accessible in different places in your published system.

 

[Stijloor]

Bear in mind that (certainly for 9K) you do not need a separate document at all. If you have an electronic description of your management system, it is perfectly acceptable to have the required constituent parts of the (so-called) manual accessible in different places in your published system.

Peter,

So all the organization now has to do is provide a table of contents?

Stijloor.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Peter,

So all the organization now has to do is provide a table of contents?

Stijloor.

I would hope that it has a more sophisticated navigation system than just a list!

But if you mean "provide to a third party" then that is a different ball-game. That comes down to who wants what for what reason - and what benefit will they get from getting it... (9K certainly doesn't explain any of that)

 

[DrM2u]

So, my question is.... Does anybody out there:

a) Use a 2 page quality manual in an aerospace environment?
b) Have any experience (positive or negative) with 2 page quality manuals?
c) Know of any primes with a particular aversion to a 2 page manual?

All help and suggestions will be greatly appreciated

I have used a one-sheet of paper quality manual for a while now. The sheet is printed on both sides, folded in three like a flyer, and often used by sales when visiting customers or at trade shows. Most of the executives were skeptical that one sheet of paper satisfied the requirements. Also some of the CB auditors were reluctant to accept it but had no choice after it was demonstrated that the manual addressed all the requirements. Now, I have used this approach for both ISO 9001 and ISO 13485, but not for AS9001 (had no opportunity).

I have previously attached a sample of this type of quality manual for reference, in case you want to take a look at it. It can be found by searching the Post Attachements List (see green link at the top) for a document called Sample Quality Manual. The manual was created in MS Publisher with a merged flow chart from Visio. Let us know how your new quality manual works.

 

[RCW]

So, my question is.... Does anybody out there:

a) Use a 2 page quality manual in an aerospace environment?
b) Have any experience (positive or negative) with 2 page quality manuals?
c) Know of any primes with a particular aversion to a 2 page manual?

There was an article by Mike Micklewright in Quality Digest a few years back regarding a 2-page quality manual. Just out of curiousity, I forwarded that article to my qualty registrar at the time to ask him his opinion. (This was for an ISO9001:2000 registration, not AS9100.) He said he agreed with it in theory but the shortest manual he felt comfortable with was 13 pages. That was his commentary.

My quality manual addresses three quality systems, is over 50 pages, is hardily read, and has little value. I would love to go to a 2 page manual. It becomes a matter of who the quality manual is written for, an auditor or for the company. I would think it would be and should be the latter. That's my commentary.

 

[alspread]

I'm very interested in finding out what your feedback has been (particularly your customers). I'm am currently working for a client that is converting from ISO9000 to AS9100C. There documentation is pretty messy after several years of poor maintenance and additions, etc.

We are hoping to schedule an audit to AS9100C late this summer and I am pushing for a 2 page quality manual. I think it will work out just fine. AS9100 has the same requirements for the Quality manual as ISO9000. Technically, there should be no difference.

The manual I have built is 2 pages (without the cover, diagrams, and rev history). I have listed all of the procedures and will set up hyper-links for users to jump to the document of choice. There is an inter-relationship diagram with the procedures noted and it graphically shows how the system works. All of the procedures are numbered to correspond to the clauses of the standard.

I'm going for it. Let me know how you make out.

Good luck

 

[JaneB]

My quality manual addresses three quality systems, is over 50 pages, is hardily read, and has little value.

Yuk. If it's hardly read and has little value... I'd change it.

It becomes a matter of who the quality manual is written for, an auditor or for the company. I would think it would be and should be the latter.

Mine too.

There was an article by Mike Micklewright in Quality Digest a few years back regarding a 2-page quality manual. Just out of curiousity, I forwarded that article to my qualty registrar at the time to ask him his opinion. (This was for an ISO9001:2000 registration, not AS9100.) He said he agreed with it in theory but the shortest manual he felt comfortable with was 13 pages. That was his commentary.

Really? 13 huh? Not 12, and not 14, but 13. Ridiculous.
Look, ultimately the page count is immaterial. WHat matters is having something that works for your company, is useful and meets the requirements of the Standard(s) in question. (Notice the order I've put those things in).

What he 'feels comfortable' with is completely immaterial provided you meet the requirements. I'm not really interested in an auditor's comfort level - it's your company, not his. And if that's how the CB operates... have you thought about finding one that's more customer focussed and open-minded?