The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  ISO 9001/4:2000
  INTERRELATION MATRIX/CORRESPONDANCE

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   INTERRELATION MATRIX/CORRESPONDANCE
ak
unregistered
posted 01 December 2000 10:14 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am currently trying to rewrit the INTERRELATION MATRIX/CORRESPONDANCE for our company's Quality manual in line with FDIS 9001. Is it necessary to include all the clauses/sub-clauses/sub-sub clauses of the standard(Exa:5.5.1,5.6.1,6.2.1 & so on). Unlike the existing version our practice was to maintion 20 main clauses only, can we drop some generic sub-clauses as stated above.

Will appreciate any new idea.

Thanks,

Ak

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 04 December 2000 08:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I see no reason to 'drop' them but I see no specific reason for them as long as you can show where they are each addressed. I haven't done a matrix yet, however when I do I'll include all the sub-elements because it's 'easier' for me.

IP: Logged

ak
unregistered
posted 05 December 2000 09:16 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thank you very much Mark for your remarks.If you stay on this, I will ask a related question. A company intending to establish a Management system manual, which will necessarily comply to ISO-9001(00)(after 12/15/00)+ ISO-17025(99)+ ISO-14001(96)+ say a couple more requirements from NVLAP/AASHTO/ASTM E1212(95) will have to integrate the similar requirement into one clause/sub-clause in their apex manual. In such case,would you advise to maintain the structure exactly in line with ISO-9001 or a minor departure is not an objection during document review process.
Shall be much thankful for a path forward.

IP: Logged

Rick Goodson
Forum Wizard

Posts: 102
From:Wuakesha, Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 05 December 2000 12:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Goodson   Click Here to Email Rick Goodson     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ak

Your situation is a good example of why the Quality Manual should be based on how you run your business, not the ISO 9001 standard. If you document your systems, and use a matrix for each of the standards you have to meet, it does not matter how the manual is laid out.

IP: Logged

Ak
unregistered
posted 05 December 2000 01:47 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Rick,
Thanks for your voice. I do expect the same interpretaion from the auditor who will be reviewing the documents for compliance. In true sense, compliance does not necessarily mean clause by clause coverage, and here comes the reason to skip the generic sub-clauses(exa- general at 5.5.1 & so on)

Ak

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 06 December 2000 08:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Do remember this:

If you use a matrix and the auditor goes to a specific line item from the ISO document (let's say you take the example that you 'exclude' servicing) you still have to address it somewhere if only to say it is not applicable and why. I write quality manuals based upon ISO 9001 because over the years I have found many auditors come down to line items - asking "...where do you address...?"

Recent example: Auditor cited (as minor, but none the less) client for not addressing quality record legibility (it was not explicitly stated that quality records shall be legible) which, I must admit, is to me a Duh - I guess so!

This was just a nit-pick but the point is they can do this with every sentence of ISO 9001 -- "Where do you say that ....?"

IP: Logged

Ak
unregistered
posted 08 December 2000 06:08 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Marc
Thanks for the tips. This amounts to following conclusion> we need to show compliance to clause by clause(sub-clause by sub-clause & so on) correspondance for every standard (Quality mgmt, env mgmt,ISMS, health & safety & so on), we claim implementation & compliance.

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 09 December 2000 12:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
> we need to show compliance to clause by clause
> (sub-clause by sub-clause & so on)

Every sentence, every bulleted item -- you name it.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!