Quality Manual Organization and Structure including Numbering

My current thinking is that there is no difference between the relationship Process>Procedure>Work Instruction and Process>Sub-Process>Sub-Sub-Process.

We all appreciate that everything we do is a process, and that all processes fall naturally into a hierachy where there may be parent processes, and where there may be child processes (or sub-processes).

The definition of procedure given by ISO9001, and the guidance document on processes given by TC176, to my mind show that a procedure is effectively the collection of sub-processes that make up a particular process.

M Greenaway said:

My current thinking is that there is no difference between the relationship Process>Procedure>Work Instruction and Process>Sub-Process>Sub-Sub-Process.

We all appreciate that everything we do is a process, and that all processes fall naturally into a hierachy where there may be parent processes, and where there may be child processes (or sub-processes).

Click to expand...

Martin:

I agree. Where the real trick, or art, lies is in deciding how to break up and compose the documentation so that there is enough information to effectively do the task, while there is not so much information that the document is difficult to use.

This is a real art, and reqiures that the audience and the use environment be thought of early and often in the process.

We call the division of tasks by different names because of differences in culture, education, and training. I agree that it really is just a matter of semantics.

Oops, Jim, I'm afraid that maybe I have been less than clear. My "semantics" reference was to Martin's statement "...there is no difference between the relationship Process>Procedure>Work Instruction and Process>Sub-Process>Sub-Sub-Process."

To me, the procedure describes the process - they are related, but are not the same.

I am very flexible, though, when dealing with this type of discussion. Fact is, the Quality profession has so many people who started outside of quality that it's surprising that we don't have more confusion over the exact meaning of the words we use. Between engineers, management people, accountants, etc., not to mention the different nationalities involved, there are lots of chances for subtle differences of the meanings of words to exist among us. When there is confusion, we must try to figure out what each other is really trying to say.

Even here on the Cove, there have been some heated discussions that I have suspected were really based on confusion and misunderstanding of the words used by the parties involved. Agree?

Not alwasy misunderstanding.

Even here on the Cove, there have been some heated discussions that I have suspected were really based on confusion and misunderstanding of the words used by the parties involved. Agree?

Click to expand...

Craig, the way I approach this is that I must remember that most people here at the Cove is not as smart as me is.

Jim Wade said:



As I think you and I agreed a few posts back, a procedure is part of the description of a process. It is, of course, an optional part.

Other, non-optional, parts of a process description include its interactions, the criteria to ensure its control, the methods of its measurement and monitoring, information on its characteristics and trends, and so on.

Click to expand...

Yes, Jim. You have reminded me that when I came to work here ~11 years ago, there were almost no written procedures, but there sure were processes.

Face to face interaction would help us greatly, although there have been some discussions that might have required the constables! Even between those of us in the USA and our friends the British, we can have misunderstandings about the language. How do you (mis)spell organization again??

Jim

I assume you mean 'documented' procedures in your previous post ?

Procedures exist for everything, whether we document them or not is another matter.

Hi Marc and everyone,

Been a while since I was here last!

Anyway, I use to try and re-write the Standard as our 'Quality Manual' but there is something that stands in the way of that - Copyright!

As it is now, my 'Quality Manual' is 4 pages long. It forms a part of my Procedures Manual and has
1) Table of Contents (Lists all procedures)
2) Control Information
3) System Flow Diagram
4) Business System information Scope/Exclusions/General

That's it - short and sweet.

I will take some time to look at all the other comments here over the next few days.

Cheers!

Sure Jim,

I'd be happy to share my thoughts and actions. Can you help me out by pointing me to one of these threads?

Greg Mack said:

Hi Marc and everyone,

Been a while since I was here last!

Anyway, I use to try and re-write the Standard as our 'Quality Manual' but there is something that stands in the way of that - Copyright!

As it is now, my 'Quality Manual' is 4 pages long. It forms a part of my Procedures Manual and has
1) Table of Contents (Lists all procedures)
2) Control Information
3) System Flow Diagram
4) Business System information Scope/Exclusions/General

That's it - short and sweet.

I will take some time to look at all the other comments here over the next few days.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

I haven't read this whole tread and probably won't but...

I'm about 90% done with our manual now and its mostly a cut and past of the iso standard. Is this really a problem?

At least if our auditor has a problem with it (during pre-assessment) I'll have 3 months to write a few paragraphs and leave in our:
Process Outline Map
Organization Chart
Procedure List and Cross-Reference
Scope, Policy, Objectives and the other bare essentials.

Actually based on auditors feedback this may be a future improvement project for the manual. *shrug* We'll have to wait and see for now...

Marc said:

This great emphasis on a quality manual is down right silly. Who are these consultants and auditors who want to tell you where and how to define your systems?

Click to expand...

For what it is worth Id like to see a company specific QM as an opportunity to define borders, to clarify and enhance whatever specifics that rule “your” business setting. This is your opportunity to define the Scwerpunkt of the QMS and the following “tiers” to the registrars. Yes sure this is only a theory, for now. But in a not to distant future Ill be the one who has to explain this to the registrar, AND I did not even write the one that I will have to defend!

Cheers!