> What happened to the philosophy that a Quality Manual is a
> 'roadmap' for the organization?
Well, there are a lot of interpretations of just what a quality manual is. That is a valid interpretation. But so many different companies and so many different industries make it a moot issue. The question becomes a matter of over all content - not how you deliver it. Quality manuals were, years ago, rare and there was a quality manual 'philosophy' at the time but I don't think there is any more.
The same effect, so to speak, can be seen in procedures. I remember back in 1995-6 when I set up a company with all level 2's in flow charts. The auditors came in and freaked out. I can still remember the guy saying "...These aren't procedures!..." The auditor's paradigm was the old rigid, text format. In fact, there was recently an interesting thread in the ISO ListServe I may copy here about documentation. Question: What must a procedure contain? A header? A footer? Revision level (what if we do revision by date instead of by 'level')? Authored by? Revised by? Revision date? Distribution list? Do you have to have a hard copy with an ink signature?
All these questions I could appreciate as I broke my 'quality' teeth in military manufacturing before personal computers were on every desk. There was a very structured, expected format for procedures. Most companies had, for all intents and purposes, similar procedures (at lease those involved in military manufacturing). Back in those days every company of any size had a specific department where all they did was type, distribute, retrieve obsolete and control procedures. Personal computers have changed all that.
Documentation has evolved significantly in the last 20 years. I'm sure some will stick with a 'quality manual philosophy'. When I work with a client I'm concerned about total, overall content. What is where. Is everything present and accounted for? This is the main reason I push every client to have a cross-reference (matrix) where they track the requirements (in this case ISO) line item by line item to the document in their system which fulfills the requirement. For me it's a simple issue as, when you look closely, if you're just starting this is called a Gap Analysis. A detailed Gap Analysis I must admit - not just a 'Does the system Exist?' Gap Analysis. But this is the way I start and track an implementation. Call it a Gap Analysis. Call it a Check List. Call it what ever you want. I can say auditors love them and they make audits a snap. They reduce confusion. They ask how you comply with section X, paragraph Y, letter A you just look at the matrix and go right to where that line item is addressed within the company's doumentation system.
That said, the two ISO 9001:2000 audits I have gone through have differed from the 'old days'. There were the same issues of "...show me where you address this..." but in addition continuous improvement and such were discussed more and in length. In large part, in my opinion, it almost approached consulting - which I discussed in another thread. In my opinion most of it is more verbal gymnastics. In my opinion it does not diminish the value of a cross-reference matrix.
Back to the Quality manual issue... Look at how your over all documentation system(s) are structured and decide what is right for your company. I have had smaller companies where their level 2's were all part of their quality manual - and all were flow charts. It was right for them, their size, their company. It would not work for many companies but for this one it did.
I think the structured quality manual idea, including having an ISO 'guideline' on quality manuals, is a fine and dandy idea. I'm also happy it's a guideline and not a requirement. Do what's right for your company and your internal systems.
Philosophy..... I remember taking a course or two with a name like that whilst in college back in the early 1970's....
