Social Sharing block
Have you ever seen a quality manual that didn't look exactly like the ISO 9001 standard? Not lately, probably. Nowadays, most quality manuals I see look like mirror images of an ISO standard or the American Petroleum Institute (API) Specification Q1 or Q2. I often wonder what value there is in a document that paraphrases these standards without telling me anything I don't already know.
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
Some auditors will tell clients that unless their quality manual is an exact replica of standard, they risk having a nonconformity for missing the word "input" in front of "design and development"—even if they refer to inputs as "feedback" within their company. Can you relate to this?
Do I hear an echo… echo?
I feel queasy every time I see a quality manual that simply repeats the relevant standard. What was meant to be a valuable document that could tell me a lot about a company's culture has been transformed into a zero-value-added document that only does a great job of replicating the standard. If you write your quality manual the way we will suggest in part two of this series, you will at least get some value from it.
…
Comments
Auditors
Miriam, I appreciate the nuances you've described here, and you don't come across as combative. I am, however, and I have a low tolerance for fools. There's certainly much value in having a roadmap of a QMS, and a company should do all it can to make its QMS user-friendly; but in the end it's meant to serve the company, not the auditor. I understand why no-one wants to rile up an auditor, but companies pay good money for certification audits and deserve to expect some competence and professionalism from auditors, which is the opposite of what you're describing here. I await the sequel to your article.
Auditors
to Dan
No; only the QMSs meant to comply.
Auditors
Outstanding
Add new comment