Interesting Discussion Using a Wiki to implement a Quality Management System (QMS)

[Pancho]

Hey folks, have a moronic question.
Been asked to update our Quality Manual from stone to paper.
And follow the guidlines of ISO 9001-2008.
The moronic question, "do i need to puchase these?"

I think you should. Check out this current thread: Do you need to buy a standard to claim compliance to that standard?

 

[sharney]

Pancho,
Thought I might need to purchase. Thanks for the confirmation though.
Creating a Quality Manual was monumental but the more research i look at, examples of others that have poasted Quality Manuals on the www, they sorta say the same thing. am also trying your ProjectForum idea.
Thanks for the help.

 

[xepera]

Re: Using a wiki to implement a QMS

Hello Pancho!

With great interest i am reading your idea and implementation of a wiki to your QMS, in the past i already thought about doing this via a forum installed in the intranet. But the wiki seems way more practicable for handling with documents.

But my question is: How to follow up required signs and approvals. I'll try to explain more detailed what i mean. Our company builds parts for aircrafts, so we mainly use ISO 9100. But our internal Quality Instructions says, that certain persons who are responsible have to sign and release certain documents. Internally we have 3 major types of documents.
In a wiki i don't see where the release can happen, because everyone can edit documents.

Our process right now: Existing document gets changed by the "process owner", the changed revision goes through several stations of approval, last one is either the responsible quality manager or even a person of the board of managers. The document does not get released until all signs and approvals are given.

What would be your idea to implement this procedure on a wiki?

 

[Pancho]

Re: Using a wiki to implement a QMS

Hello Pancho!

With great interest i am reading your idea and implementation of a wiki to your QMS, in the past i already thought about doing this via a forum installed in the intranet. But the wiki seems way more practicable for handling with documents.

But my question is: How to follow up required signs and approvals. I'll try to explain more detailed what i mean. Our company builds parts for aircrafts, so we mainly use ISO 9100. But our internal Quality Instructions says, that certain persons who are responsible have to sign and release certain documents. Internally we have 3 major types of documents.
In a wiki i don't see where the release can happen, because everyone can edit documents.

Our process right now: Existing document gets changed by the "process owner", the changed revision goes through several stations of approval, last one is either the responsible quality manager or even a person of the board of managers. The document does not get released until all signs and approvals are given.

What would be your idea to implement this procedure on a wiki?

hi, xepera,

Take a look at Ad hoc workflows, and add-on for Confluence.

Use carefully, though. There is an expensive tradeoff between the spontaneous and fast improvement that you get with a wiki, and the feeling of security that you get with workflow restrictions. The wiki's version control, with only procedural restrictions, works well for us.

Good luck!
Pancho

 

[GeorgeHall]

What advantages do you feel you have achieved through the use of a Wiki when compared to an "off the shelf" program purchaseable from many companies?

Apart from the obvious cost savings!

 

[Le Chiffre]

What advantages do you feel you have achieved through the use of a Wiki when compared to an "off the shelf" program purchaseable from many companies?

Apart from the obvious cost savings!

In my experience, having used both approaches, the difference comes down to ownership of the QMS and the general acceptance and support of the system. The wiki breaks down the barriers and the egos that are often perceived in a system created by a few and thrust onto the rest. The system creation becomes an open process, inviting input, adjustment and additions as people see fit. Obviously this becomes controlled eventually but the contributors have a sense of shared ownership. This was a huge positive influence on my company-wide acceptance of the QMS.

The second advantage I'd list is accessibility. The wiki is fast and should be well linked internally to provide all information quickly and without necessarily knowing the relationships of the processes or document structure. This should also be true of a "commercial system" if implemented correctly but imagine Wikipedia implemented as a huge set of Microsoft Office documents linked by Master Word documents, Excel indexes and Access queires... << shudder! >>

 

[Pancho]

In my experience, having used both approaches, the difference comes down to ownership of the QMS and the general acceptance and support of the system. The wiki breaks down the barriers and the egos that are often perceived in a system created by a few and thrust onto the rest. The system creation becomes an open process, inviting input, adjustment and additions as people see fit. Obviously this becomes controlled eventually but the contributors have a sense of shared ownership. This was a huge positive influence on my company-wide acceptance of the QMS.

The second advantage I'd list is accessibility. The wiki is fast and should be well linked internally to provide all information quickly and without necessarily knowing the relationships of the processes or document structure. This should also be true of a "commercial system" if implemented correctly but imagine Wikipedia implemented as a huge set of Microsoft Office documents linked by Master Word documents, Excel indexes and Access queires... << shudder! >>

Agree 100%, Le Chiffre. Your example made me shudder too, but, sadly, several "document management systems" do just that. The linking is restricted to the navigation layer itself; the documents do not link to each other. Ease of linking is one of the most valuable features you can have in any software. In many wikis linking amounts to placing the name of the document to link in [brackets]. Hard to beat in simplicity.

The ownership that you mention is possible in part thanks to the superb version control in wikis. Substituting layers of permissions with the knowledge that you can easily rollback changes does wonders for quick improvement.

 

[Le Chiffre]

Good points Pancho, especially "quick improvement". Developing and revising a QMS is much faster in a wiki which is a significant consideration - time to "market" or ROI.

 

[GeorgeHall]

Thanks for the reply, appreciate the responses!

The reason i am asking is that i work for a company who provide an eQMS application. If Wiki is as good as you say it is, i need to better understand it

Thanks again!

 

[Pancho]

I'm happy to announce that Geometrica's QMS on a wiki has been selected as a finalist for the Carl E. Nelson Best Practices Award....The winner will be announced on April 20.

Well, we didn't win the award. The winner was the implementation by Oracle and EDACS for the Charles Town Police Department's Investigative Case Management and Automated Evidence Tracking and Inventory System. (Tough to compete with them CSI guys! )

Still enjoyed a nice Philly dinner, met very interesting folks in knowledge management (and you know who you are...), and learned a lot (mostly about MS SharePoint and Alfresco software).