QMS (Quality Management System) Manual - The Boss Wants a 4 Page Manual - What to Do?

bobdoering said:

This is an interesting point.

Ponder this:

If you had an instruction manual for something you personally cared about - let's say your car - would you read it? Would you read it cover to cover? Would you read it more than once - cover to cover? More importantly - do you believe than everyone that gets such a manual reads it cover to cover? If not, why not?

The next point is, then, when would you read it, and what information would you expect to get out of it if you did? What is 'meat' to a user - not an auditor. This is not to demean what the auditors are looking for, but rather systemically are we missing the point of the quality manual by essentially writing them for the wrong audience.

I think systemically we are getting trapped into writing a QMS instruction book with the Standard - and its interpreters (auditors) - as the audience, not the end user. The OP's boss may be conceptually correct - but unless the external system embraces that concept, he will be out of luck.

Click to expand...

Neserae said:

We are in the process of revamping our system and it has become quite a stressful process. We are either want to go whole hog one way or the other and there is no middle gournd. One of the biggest issues we are having now is "How do you define what is a controlled document and what isn't?" Our third party auditor has emphatically stated that all documents should be controlled but we seem to be spending all of our time looking for excuses not to control documents. Wouldn't it be easier to define all documents as controlled and those documents which people feel shouldn't be controlled should not even exist....HELP!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Neserae said:

We are in the process of revamping our system and it has become quite a stressful process. We are either want to go whole hog one way or the other and there is no middle gournd. One of the biggest issues we are having now is "How do you define what is a controlled document and what isn't?" Our third party auditor has emphatically stated that all documents should be controlled but we seem to be spending all of our time looking for excuses not to control documents. Wouldn't it be easier to define all documents as controlled and those documents which people feel shouldn't be controlled should not even exist....HELP!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Obstacle3 said:

I am setting up a QMS on an intranet site.

I dont see the point in rehashing the entire standard, so I am intending to address the 4.2.2 requirements.

I am looking at less than 20 pages.

Am I wrong in thinking it is pointless regurgitating the entire standard in the Manual?

...it defeats the purpose IMHO.

I want the document to be readable, streamlined and most importantly used. I can't see anybody reading a 100 page rehash of the standard with statements saying "We meet this, we do that etc".

Click to expand...

Obstacle3 said:

I am setting up a QMS on an intranet site.

I dont see the point in rehashing the entire standard, so I am intending to address the 4.2.2 requirements.

I am looking at less than 20 pages.

Am I wrong in thinking it is pointless regurgitating the entire standard in the Manual?

...it defeats the purpose IMHO.

I want the document to be readable, streamlined and most importantly used. I can't see anybody reading a 100 page rehash of the standard with statements saying "We meet this, we do that etc".

Click to expand...

Sam said:

IMO a quality manual is just a re-print of the standard (QS), including customer requirements with the "shalls" and "shoulds" removed and replaced with the present tense. Include a procedure reference with each requirement and you're done.
Number of pages, double sideed, 25-50.

Click to expand...

lucasso said:

Exactly my thoughts.

Click to expand...