Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No
#11
We have a manual primarily because our customers require it. Typically they will ask for it about a month prior to a facility audit and use it as a basis for the investigation. Depending upon how thorough it is (ours is very detailed), they will skip a supplier audit as 'not needed'. If is was not for our customers, I doubt we would need it at all.
Because of the end user (our customer) however, it must be patterned after the standard for easy reference.
Reply
#12
Our QM starts out like a sales brochure....

"Encompassing twenty-five acres, the ____ facility has been upgraded and expanded regularly since opening in 1967 to maintain the resources and equipment necessary for projects involving an extensive array of materials and welding procedures, with manufacturing space in excess of 63,000 square feet."

Still, at 15 pages, it regurgitates the standard, but the process map is probably the best part as far as what our QMS is about.  I think it could be cut down to about 5 pages and still get our basic QMS information across to someone.  Then "top manager" is its creator, so, at present, not seeing much chance of reduction to it.

I will argue for getting rid of it or making it a stand-alone short summary sheet.  Then again, since I will be trying to merge my QMS and EMS....
- drgnrider -
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
Reply
#13
As long as your customers require Quality Manuals, you will have to possess one. I agree (and have seen) the QM revision overview ,mentioned above in action, yes they do look at revision frequency - All that said, it should be very concise, and general enough that you are not giving company secrets away when distributing the uncontrolled hardcopy to customer who wants to see it before they give you any work. Analyzing the QM has become a shortcut to avoiding a supplier audit. Unfortunately the customers we have require a cut-and-paste chronology of the standard so it is easier to perform their checkoffs on the desk audit, as these are generally purchasers, not quality people reviewing the documents. It all depends on the industry you serve.
Reply
#14
I may be the only one, but I find the quality manual useful... Because ours:


- summarises company policies, the "this is what we do", which obey more than one standard and regulation (behaves like an employee/customer handbook). This is specially useful for small companies as all company policies may be written here instead of maintaining lots of individual policies;
- maps clauses of applicable standards to our "interpretation", when the standard/regulation says x, what it means for us is xyz (good to guide both internal and external auditors);
- contains a map linking relevant SOPs, the "how we do it" (specially good for new employees).
Reply
#15
(07-24-2015, 05:51 PM)normzone Wrote: I like the beer truck theory. If the president is hit by a beer truck, his successor should be able to spend 15 - 30 minutes with the manual and have a high level view of what he's walking into.

Wink

(08-05-2015, 08:24 AM)esalsan Wrote: I may be the only one, but I find the quality manual useful... Because ours:


- summarises company policies, the "this is what we do", which obey more than one standard and regulation (behaves like an employee/customer handbook). This is specially useful for small companies as all company policies may be written here instead of maintaining lots of individual policies;
- maps clauses of applicable standards to our "interpretation", when the standard/regulation says x, what it means for us is xyz (good to guide both internal and external auditors);
- contains a map linking relevant SOPs, the "how we do it" (specially good for new employees).

I agree with the above.

I also think that manuals should establish the "Context of the Organization" and the manuals I have written all do just that, prior to it being recognized as a requirement in ISO 9001:2015. 

I would challenge those who think it is redundant to show me their process identification and interaction.  I would bet the process identification and interactions described are not effective, are not linked with the organization's objectives or internal audit plans. In other words, in my experience, those who do not think the manual is important do a poor job of planning their QMS.

This is in my experience as an ISO 9001 auditor.
Reply
#16
Walking into medical device company as a new QM, I noticed that the manual was 37 pages long, mostly copy and paste from the standard and defining each procedure.

I scrapped it and rewrote it. Final result, 5 pages with graphics! Who can beat me on that one? It's a quick overiview and guide on how to start navigating our system.
Reply
#17
Other than myself and the poor guy who has to approve the changes, no one at my company ever looks at the QM.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)