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

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

Obstacle3 said:

Can you explain to me the value to the business of having the standard re-written?

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, we must agree on what we call a Quality Manual. When I started working with 17025, I liked thinking that a Quality Manual is a combination of ALL the documents describing how a job at a laboratory is done. That is, from documents which had quality policies signed by head managers, to work instructions and calibration protocol forms.
But as time went by, i realised that only the first level documents are called Quality Manual, that is, policies. Even when our registrar asks for our Quality Manual, that means they want just the first level document, without procedures, or work instructions.

So, if we agree that a Quality Manual is only the first level document, what we get is, for example:

Requirement in 17025:
4.3.3.4 Procedures shall be established to describe how changes in documents maintained in computerized systems are made and controlled.



In quality manual:
"The XXXX laboratory has established procedures describing how changes in documents maintained in computerized systems are made and controled. Please, see the procedure XXX-YYY."

And procdure XXX-YYY is a seperate document, possibly, in a different location (be it physical or electronical).


Or even a more silly way:
Requirement in 17025:
4.2.7. "Top management shall ensure that the integrity of the management system is maintained when changes to the management system are planned and implemented"

In quality manual:
"Top management ensures that the integrity of the management system is maintained when changes to the management system are planned and implemented."

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

brahmaiah said:

Could you please show me a real example of the manual you are advocating.?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the offer. There are plenty of these manuals posted here on the Cove if you search. I don't personally have a copy that I would put forward. In my mind a manual will have more information than the bare minimum required by 9001 but it would NOT (please excuse the added emphasis) include a statement against each requirements of the standard.

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

Paul Simpson said:

Thanks for the offer. There are plenty of these manuals posted here on the Cove if you search. I don't personally have a copy that I would put forward. In my mind a manual will have more information than the bare minimum required by 9001 but it would NOT (please excuse the added emphasis) include a statement against each requirements of the standard.

Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

I will offer the other point of view. If a company commits to meet all the requirements of the ISO standard, then somewhere in their system, they have to tell their people what requirements they have to meet. Not necessarily the manual, but why not? Or, it can be put it into procedures and work instructions. Just reading the standard is compliant, but it begins to make the whole concept silly if you slice and dice the information across many documents.

For example, I am helping a smaller company implement ISO. We are writing a manual using ISO 9004 as the foundation, some would say that's really heavy duty. But, it is rewritten in clear simple English, I am adding additional explanation and insight tailored to the organization's needs. The manual becomes a handbook, useful to help someone understand what the company expects. And, by putting it in the manual, we will only need a few procedures and some work instructions.

Clean, simple, clear, meaningful and worth reading. Useful to the employees, and easy to audit. And the whole QMS, manual and instructions will still be smaller than many of the systems that people with a 4 page manual have put into place. But, mine will be easy to find stuff because it will be on the server and have a single Table of Contents.

What is wrong with that approach? I think most top management would welcome a clean elegant solution like that.

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

Helmut Jilling said:

Hi Paul,

I will offer the other point of view.

Click to expand...

We have been round this discussion a few times but I'm pleased to give it another go.

Helmut Jilling said:

If a company commits to meet all the requirements of the ISO standard, then somewhere in their system, they have to tell their people what requirements they have to meet.

Click to expand...

Do they? The whole point of the new approach to management system standards - starting with 14001 and continuing with 9001 etc. is that you don't have to write everything down. Hence the quality manual only has to cover what is in 4.2.2. and the EMS manual doesn't have to have anything.

Helmut Jilling said:

Not necessarily the manual, but why not? Or, it can be put it into procedures and work instructions. Just reading the standard is compliant, but it begins to make the whole concept silly if you slice and dice the information across many documents.

Click to expand...

Using this argument you would have everything in one book - no matter who needs to use it. As I have said before my preference is that anyone has access to everything they want but aren't given more than they need (so that they have to sift through).

Helmut Jilling said:

Clean, simple, clear, meaningful and worth reading. Useful to the employees, and easy to audit. And the whole QMS, manual and instructions will still be smaller than many of the systems that people with a 4 page manual have put into place. But, mine will be easy to find stuff because it will be on the server and have a single Table of Contents.

Click to expand...

We will have to take your word for it. My opinion is that any system that starts with any management systems standard is bound to result in employee disengagement.

For just a couple of examples - how many employees use the term 'product realization' or 'environmental aspects' in their daily lives - apart from the 'experts.'

Helmut Jilling said:

What is wrong with that approach? I think most top management would welcome a clean elegant solution like that.

Click to expand...

We disagree on both 'clean' and 'elegant.'

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

Paul Simpson said:

We have been round this discussion a few times but I'm pleased to give it another go.
Do they? The whole point of the new approach to management system standards - starting with 14001 and continuing with 9001 etc. is that you don't have to write everything down. Hence the quality manual only has to cover what is in 4.2.2. and the EMS manual doesn't have to have anything.

Using this argument you would have everything in one book - no matter who needs to use it. As I have said before my preference is that anyone has access to everything they want but aren't given more than they need (so that they have to sift through).

We will have to take your word for it. My opinion is that any system that starts with any management systems standard is bound to result in employee disengagement.

For just a couple of examples - how many employees use the term 'product realization' or 'environmental aspects' in their daily lives - apart from the 'experts.'


We disagree on both 'clean' and 'elegant.'

Click to expand...

Everything but specific instructions are in one electronic book. About half will be in the manual. One electronic document, with a clear table of contents, and searchable by keywords. That is "clean and elegant."

The specific detail things are already in work instructions so people don't have to slog thru unnecessary content.

A manual is not a book to read, it is a look-up document, like a dictionary. When you buy a dictionary, do you prefer it comes in one document, or 10? Wouldn't one well organized one be easier to use?

The manual will be used electronically, with simple hyperlinks, which makes it easy to find info in a few seconds of searching. Even if printed, the ToC and index will still make it easy to use. Compare that to layers of related documents and redundant, incomplete info.

My manual actually explains content and requirements, and why we want to do them, not just regurgitates the standard in obtuse language. I am not writing an ISO book, I am writing a handbook for employees using ISO 9004 as the base.

ISO 9004 is much better than ISO 9001. Anyone who has not read it really should. They will kick themselves for not reading it sooner. After all, it states it is written for companies who want to improve performance and efficiency...gee, who should not want that?) People should give their top mgt. a copy of ISO 9004, not ISO 9001. They would get better support.

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

For anyone that wants to just repeat the standard...why dont you just write "quality manual" on the top of the standard. Seriously. Otherwise, my one page overview is working just fine and passed several ISO audits.

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

dianel said:

For anyone that wants to just repeat the standard...why dont you just write "quality manual" on the top of the standard. Seriously. Otherwise, my one page overview is working just fine and passed several ISO audits.

Click to expand...

If your goal is to pass an audit...cool...I am looking for my QMS to do a lot more than that. Passing an audit is a given sidebar. A manual that explains why, what and so on may actually be useful.

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

Helmut Jilling said:

Everything but specific instructions are in one electronic book. About half will be in the manual. One electronic document, with a clear table of contents, and searchable by keywords. That is "clean and elegant."

Click to expand...

Without seeing it we only have your word for it.

Helmut Jilling said:

The specific detail things are already in work instructions so people don't have to slog thru unnecessary content.

Click to expand...

So it's not all in one book, then? Does this mean you have 'sliced and diced' the information across many documents?

Helmut Jilling said:

A manual is not a book to read, it is a look-up document, like a dictionary. When you buy a dictionary, do you prefer it comes in one document, or 10? Wouldn't one well organized one be easier to use?

Click to expand...

Interesting analogy. I certainly don't think of the manual as like a dictionary. As I've said before my 'best' quality manuals are the ones that read a bit like a company brochure. I'm not sure how they would compare with your view, probably not very well going by our discussions.

Helmut Jilling said:

The manual will be used electronically, with simple hyperlinks, which makes it easy to find info in a few seconds of searching. Even if printed, the ToC and index will still make it easy to use. Compare that to layers of related documents and redundant, incomplete info.

Click to expand...

I'm not against hyperlinks or anything that helps folks to get around the system to find information they need. My issue all the way through this and other threads is - and let we say this very s - l - o - w - l - y. Any regurgitation of standard wording in a manual is:

• Of no real value
• Is a turn off for the people that count - the employees

Helmut Jilling said:

My manual actually explains content and requirements, and why we want to do them, not just regurgitates the standard in obtuse language. I am not writing an ISO book, I am writing a handbook for employees using ISO 9004 as the base.

Click to expand...

Again we will have to take your word for this. Unless you would like to post a sample of your text for us to judge?

Helmut Jilling said:

ISO 9004 is much better than ISO 9001. Anyone who has not read it really should. They will kick themselves for not reading it sooner. After all, it states it is written for companies who want to improve performance and efficiency...gee, who should not want that?) People should give their top mgt. a copy of ISO 9004, not ISO 9001. They would get better support.

Click to expand...

I agree 9004 is a better document but, much as I wish the organisation's leaders would read a quality standard I am still amazed that we quality professionals think they will. IMHO the job is ours to explain quality in real terms and get them to buy into the principles underpinning the 9000 series and good business practice - the QMS and / or certification will follow.

Helmut Jilling said:

If your goal is to pass an audit...cool...I am looking for my QMS to do a lot more than that. Passing an audit is a given sidebar. A manual that explains why, what and so on may actually be useful.

Click to expand...

What other reason would there be for addressing all the requirements of the standard in the manual. You're not telling me 'Joe Soap Inc. believes in planning product realization' means anything to anyone other than the person writing the system and the auditor ... are you?

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

Paul Simpson said:

Without seeing it we only have your word for it.

So it's not all in one book, then? Does this mean you have 'sliced and diced' the information across many documents?

Interesting analogy. I certainly don't think of the manual as like a dictionary. As I've said before my 'best' quality manuals are the ones that read a bit like a company brochure. I'm not sure how they would compare with your view, probably not very well going by our discussions.



I'm not against hyperlinks or anything that helps folks to get around the system to find information they need. My issue all the way through this and other threads is - and let we say this very s - l - o - w - l - y. Any regurgitation of standard wording in a manual is:

• Of no real value
• Is a turn off for the people that count - the employees

Again we will have to take your word for this. Unless you would like to post a sample of your text for us to judge?

I agree 9004 is a better document but, much as I wish the organisation's leaders would read a quality standard I am still amazed that we quality professionals think they will. IMHO the job is ours to explain quality in real terms and get them to buy into the principles underpinning the 9000 series and good business practice - the QMS and / or certification will follow.

What other reason would there be for addressing all the requirements of the standard in the manual. You're not telling me 'Joe Soap Inc. believes in planning product realization' means anything to anyone other than the person writing the system and the auditor ... are you?

Click to expand...

I stated very clearly in my first post that all the general interest things are in one simple manual, and the very specific detail oriented thngs are in very specific detail oriented work instructions - 50/50. I agree that putting every specifc detail in a manual would be counter-productive. Perhaps you did not understand that at first, which could explain why you did not like it.

I also think that if the policy states that an organization is committed to meet all the requirements of the standard, then somewhere or somehow you have to tell people what those requirements are. What, are they supposed to guess? Many of the supporters of the 4 page approach put the requirements in a myriad of procedures. I chose to put them into one simple manual, and not write a bunch of procedures.

But, I did not "regurgitate the standard," I stated clearly that I explained the requirements, as well as the purpose, benefit, how, what, etc. of those requirements. If you don't feel that adds value, cool. My client seems to feel that it does, and even top management has expressed some interest in some of it.

If you don't like this approach, that's fine. But, as I said in my first post, I see great benefit to the client in this approach, and wanted to state the case for it.

PS: I don't think I will be using the term "product realization" in it. At least we agree on that part. When I am done, maybe there will be some parts we can post.

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

I said we'd end up going over the same ground - ah, well!

Helmut Jilling said:

I stated very clearly in my first post that all the general interest things are in one simple manual, and the very specific detail oriented thngs are in very specific detail oriented work instructions - 50/50. I agree that putting every specifc detail in a manual would be counter-productive. Perhaps you did not understand that at first, which could explain why you did not like it.

Click to expand...

I thought I understood what you said when you said:

Helmut Jilling said:

Hi Paul,

I will offer the other point of view. If a company commits to meet all the requirements of the ISO standard, then somewhere in their system, they have to tell their people what requirements they have to meet. Not necessarily the manual, but why not?

Click to expand...

and now you say:

Helmut Jilling said:

I also think that if the policy states that an organization is committed to meet all the requirements of the standard, then somewhere or somehow you have to tell people what those requirements are. What, are they supposed to guess? Many of the supporters of the 4 page approach put the requirements in a myriad of procedures. I chose to put them into one simple manual, and not write a bunch of procedures.

Click to expand...

Then I think - where is the benefit? Just because there is a requirement doesn't mean you have to write down that requirement in your system - that is what the standard does! If you have to describe what the requirement means for your organisationthen fair enough but not to just restate the requirement for its own sake.

The whole point of going away from the 9001.94 approach of 'there shall be documented procedures for ...' is to allow people to take an intelligent view of what they need. I don't need to write a lot of stuff down - because it is well known already.

Helmut Jilling said:

But, I did not "regurgitate the standard," I stated clearly that I explained the requirements, as well as the purpose, benefit, how, what, etc. of those requirements. If you don't feel that adds value, cool. My client seems to feel that it does, and even top management has expressed some interest in some of it.

If you don't like this approach, that's fine. But, as I said in my first post, I see great benefit to the client in this approach, and wanted to state the case for it.

Click to expand...

Look. You keep going on about how wonderful your approach is. You may be right. As somoeone who has seen a range of different approaches I have gained a bit of a jaundiced view to unsubstantiated claims.

Helmut Jilling said:

PS: I don't think I will be using the term "product realization" in it. At least we agree on that part. When I am done, maybe there will be some parts we can post.

Click to expand...

Agreed