How do you structure your QA (QMS) Manual? A Historical Discussion

Quality manual

It is not fair that the quality manual will have verbatim all clauses from 1 to 8.5. This means that it is done for the sake of compliance to ISO 9000:2000 and not in true spirit of ISO.

The clauses give a guidelines as to what it means. One can rephrase it to include the necessary details to comply with the clause. This will make ir more meaningful.

The reader foer example the auditor will be interested to go through the clause and put his head into it.

This will serve much better and not verbatim copying the text given in the standard

However I dont criticise those who do so. This is purely my personal views

I challange anyone to attach a copy of a quality manual which does not follow ISO 9001.

Now - you speak about 're-wording' the manual and saying that's OK. I see no difference. If you want to take the manual and 're-word' it what are you doing? You're taking the ISO text and putting in some 'personalization' - which is typical to some degree anyway.

Take a look at the 'Quality' Manual posted here:

https://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/ look for ISO9k2k_Low_Vol_Manual.pdf

It is nothing more than a regurgitation of the text and accomplishes what is necessary.

> This means that it is done for the sake of compliance to
> ISO 9000:2000 and not in true spirit of ISO.

Please define what the "...true spirit of ISO..." is and explain how this manual violates that 'spirit'.

What I want to convey is that the organisation going in for certification should do with sincerity and for the sake of complying to it. This is what I meant 'true spirit of ISO". Today even if a single page of a book is reproduced the publisher sues the author of the book for volation.

It is with this intention that I mentioned.

The motive is "not to get into unnecessary hazzles"

ISO 9001/4:2000

Forgive the uneducated question, but my background is in QS and TS......
What is the difference between ISO 9001 and 9004? I'm looking to purchase the manual through ASQ, but want to make sure I'm going to end up with the right thing. Are they actually the same standard now?

9004

9004:2000 is the Guidelines used to comply with 9001:2000. It is actually called Guidelines for Perfomance Improvements. Go for it.
You may want to purchase 9000:2000-Fundamentals & Vocabulary. Then you have the three main ones.

I will recommend the 'combo-pack' purchase option of the following for Quality Management Systems:
Q9000-2000 Fundamentals and vocabulary
Q9001-2000 Requirements
and
Q9004-2000 Guidelines for performance improvements

The 9004 is also helpful because (IMHO) it provides a 'heads-up' to what 'possible' improvments that may be added to the 9001 Requirements on the next review/revision. At least identifies current trends for long term focus. Did I say that clearly? Hope all know what I mean.

PS: Okay, I see 'energy' went in and updated his post to include the vocabulary sections too. Hmmmm...didn't see a 'Last edited' note...must be those advanced features moderators have huh? lol

No Moderator Here

E. Wall,

I noticed you were on line at the same time. I just answered quicker.

Then that is really strange....or maybe I'm coming down with something? maybe selective vision? heheehe, I would swear that your message ended with the 'Go for it' and it was only after I finished my post that I saw the second referal about the vocab book. Sorry for any confusion, was only trying to tease.

> didn't see a 'Last edited' note...

This is part of the new software 'features'. I can set a time limit during which you can edit your post before it starts adding the 'edited by x at y' tag line. I think I have it set for 10 or 15 minutes. I know a lot of times I submit a post and see spelling errors (not being smart enough to use the 'Preview Post' feature). Or I want to add something or change something. I then go in and edit it right away. But - if I wait more than 15 minutes (or whatever I set it at - I forget off hand) it will start adding the 'edited by x at y' tag line.

you are correct

E.Wall,

You are correct. I had an after thought and went right back in to edit and add the last . You aren't imagining things. As Marc has said, I was under 5 minutes to do the editing. You must be one heck of an auditor. Eyes like chicken hawk. I also will do it when I notice a misspelling or obvious grammar error. Don't want to look too ridiculous. This message was edited twice and you won't see an edit note. Later.