Posts: 54
From:Manila, Philippines
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 09 July 2001 11:42 PM            

---

Hi,
I'm currently updating our documents especially on the six procedures. For example, Internal Quality Audit, We have a previous document for this. Since we are upgrading into the 2000 version. Are we going to have a new set of documents, that is the documents for the 2000 would be revision 0? Or the previous document bearing with revision 4 would be revised and it would likewise bear a revison 5? Please comment.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Raffy
[email protected]

IP: Logged

Posts: 4367
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 10 July 2001 07:50 AM               

---

It really depends upon how you want to look at it. If the subject is the same, a revision is probably easier than obsoleting the document and starting a new one.

The 2 clients I had which have undergone the 2000 'upgrade' only had minor revisions to a few procedures and a rewrite of the quality manual. All was done in under a week.

Are you sure you're not going too far?

IP: Logged

Posts: 13
From:Irvine, Ca., USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 16 July 2001 03:08 PM               

---

Have to agree with Marc. I'm "re-doing" our system docs now and I believe the easiest and cost effective way is, that if you have a good working document, just make your minor changes and do a rev-roll. Also shows continuous improvement!
As to the QM(we call it the Business System Manual),with a few "tweeks" and several additions, I just did an index/matrix, with all "shalls" in sequence, referencing what section of the Manual they are found in, and VOILA, no big deal.

IP: Logged

Posts: 4367
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 16 July 2001 05:25 PM               

---

-> we call it the Business System Manual

Rah! I absolutely HATE having the 'Q' word thrown in everywhere. I also prefer to call them Business Systems Manual(s) or even just 'Systems Manual'.

IP: Logged

Posts: 10
From:Aptos, CA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 20 July 2001 01:27 AM               

---

Indeed. We encourage folks to refer to the system as the Business Management System rather than the Quality Managment System. This sometimes (not always) gets the attention of folks who cannot fathom the thought of anything titled "Quality".

I just finished teaching Day 1 of our new 9000:2000 Transition Training. I have been studying this standard for quite some time, reading and writing and analyzing and discussing, and what most frustrates me about ISO is also what I love most about it: my understanding of the Standard is always incomplete.

Julie

IP: Logged

Posts: 54
From:Manila, Philippines
Registered: Mar 2001

posted 27 July 2001 01:50 AM            

---

Hi everyone,
Thank you for the replies. I've started re-do some of our documents. There are some documents that needs to be merge as one. As for the Quality Manual, I'm still tweaking it and we still need to review some of the revisions that I made. We talk about it at least twice a week. Continous Improvement was discussed here, Do I still need to create a procedure for continuous improvement? What could be the difference between Continual Improvement and Continuous Improvement?
best regards,
Raffy

IP: Logged

Posts: 4367
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 30 July 2001 12:51 AM               

---

-> Do I still need to create a procedure for continuous
-> improvement? What could be the difference between
-> Continual Improvement and Continuous Improvement?

Read through https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum32/HTML/000002.html and https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000303.html

You're in for some fun!

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)