Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
Re: QMS (Quality Management System) Manual - The Boss Wants a 4 Page Manual - What to
A Quality Manual is supposed to indicate how an organization is actually running its business, not how it complies to a Standard. Frankly, when you write about benefiting the users, what is more important - knowing the applicable ISO Standard clause, or how to produce products or services for the organization (which might just happen to have some documentation practices that fit in the ISO Standard?)
I've always been a little leery of folks whose PRIMARY intent in creating a Quality Manual is to make life easier for a third party auditor.
Can you give me a "shall" from any ISO Standard which says ISO has to be referenced within the Quality Manual?
I, for one, would be completely happy with a Quality Manual that didn't MENTION "ISO" anywhere at all, most especially in the title.You know, it's a funny thing. I am with a consulting client right now, working on a quality manual. The client and I decided it would be more useful to write a full 30 page manual. The reasoning is we will take the standard as a base, and revise/rewrite it in plain English and explain the requirements and their purposes. Many of the procedures will be incorporated into the manual. This way, employees will have a single document to go to to answer any questions they have related to ISO.
Further, we are going to combine ISO 14001 into it as well. Simple, clear and user friendly.
Now, whether someone writes a 3 page manual with 30 additional pages of procedures, or if they write a 33 page manual incorporating the procedures, is there really any difference? The only diff I see is my method will be one computer file, titled ISO manual, and everyone will be able to use and understand it. The other way there are 10-15 procedures, files, links and most of the time, way more complicated.
The important thing is they be written clearly, and easy to find. The rest of the discussion is silly. When Executives complainabout the number of pages, they are really complaining about the absence of any apparent value. The manuals need to be written to benefit the users.
A Quality Manual is supposed to indicate how an organization is actually running its business, not how it complies to a Standard. Frankly, when you write about benefiting the users, what is more important - knowing the applicable ISO Standard clause, or how to produce products or services for the organization (which might just happen to have some documentation practices that fit in the ISO Standard?)
I've always been a little leery of folks whose PRIMARY intent in creating a Quality Manual is to make life easier for a third party auditor.
Can you give me a "shall" from any ISO Standard which says ISO has to be referenced within the Quality Manual?