Re: QMS (Quality Management System) Manual - The Boss Wants a 4 Page Manual - What to
I don't understand why you feel it does a "disservice" to tell people what the things are that they are required to do.
For the reasons I have posted over the last day or so (or months / years, take your pick). People don't need to know what a 'standard' requires them to do in their daily jobs. They need to know what their prganisation expects them to do - full stop, period, point!
If we choose to put ISO speak into a documentation then we disengage anyone who isn't a died in the wool ISO head. Now there are some who would say this is a good way of protecting quality managers jobs but I don't think so. Unless we make quality relevant to those that pay the wages and show that all this stuff is about making things better then we're done for!
Most companies already define the requirements somewhere in their procedures and wi's, and that is acceptable in audits everyday. It does not have to be in the manual. Sure, we could give everyone a mandate to read the ISO standard, but that won't work well. Why not describe the requirements in the various documents in the QMS as appropriate. Few people seem to be debating that, they are just discussing where to document them.
I never said get people to read the standard
- if you page down a bit you will find exactly the opposite in resomse to your point on 9004.
The skill of the quality professional (as I have said 431 times before) is to take ISO standards, read through ISO speak and assess: 'What does this mean for my organisation?' and then go about explaining to the folks in his / her organisation what changes need to be made - if any.
If we go about documenting an 'ISO' system rather than the organisation's real management system then we are doomed to be 'the document guys and gals' and all we are there to do is defend the documented system against the invading (barbarian
) hordes of auditors - not a job I want.
Btw, I agree with your comment that some thngs don't have to be documented, if they are well known. I am a fan of cl 4.2.1.d. But, a lot of the requirements and methods do need to be documented and usually are. Are you really opposed to that, or am I misunderstanding?
Misunderstanding I'm afraid!
There are plenty of things that need documenting but, for example (at random): 'It is Joe Bloggs Ltd.'s policy to ensure that we maintain the infrastructure necessary to ensure product is manufactured in accordance with ... blah, blah, blah ... is not one of them and therefore has no place in a manual.
The organisation will, however, have a budgetting process that covers maintenance and capital programmes if you want to put anything in the manual you say that and - even if it isn't written in a manual - if some auditor comes round and says 'How do you maintain the Infrastructure and Work Environment?' you take him / her to the CFO / Finance Director and then on to the maintenance manager (for example) to explain how it actually happens.
