ISO 9001 documentation structure is outlined in the ISO 10013 Standard - Guidelines for Developing Quality Manuals. This standard recommends using a three-level structure. In practice, many companies use four-level documentation model that includes records. 4-level quality management system is shown below:
Quality Manual - level 1
Procedures - level 2
Instructions - level 3
Records - level 4
Interestingly, how are we going to start our quality manual without knowing what standard this manual is for? The quality policy supposes to define it. The policy defines what standard or standards, a company wants to comply with. If you like this idea, your QMS will contain five levels as in the following list:
Quality Policy - level 1
Quality Manual - level 2
Procedures - level 3
Instructions - level 4
Records - level 5
Naming your documents
As you may have noticed, the titles of the documents in the structure above are quite short. Various companies use different conventions for their document titles. For example, one of my customers titled their quality manual as "Quality Management System Quality Manual."
This tendency to use long titles and document identifiers like "Standard Operating Procedure" most likely comes from regulated industries. Even though I could not find a requirement for such title formats, many companies still use these apparently outdated and ineffective conventions. If a short name sufficiently describes a document, let's use it. I suggest streamlining all elements of management systems. Consider this and do not make your system more complicated than it can be.
Numbering your documents
In addition to tiles, document numbering systems very often can be optimized too. No standard requires assigning a document its number. This practice is an industry standard. Similar to part titles that we discussed above, document numbering practices often may be simplified too. Look at the example below:
A company had some 130 employees. They had two part number formats: one for procedures, another for drawings. Procedures used XX-XXX number format. Drawings were numbered as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000022-003. Assemblers simplified the system and called it "twenty two."
Is it acceptable to have long and difficult-to-read and remember numbers? Yes, of course! Is it practical? I do not believe so! In the example above, the procedure number, without the tab, contained seven digits. This meant that the system was prepared to handle almost 10 million document or part numbers (PN). The company had approximately 250 documents and probably would never go beyond 300. If nothing else, just reading these numbers with five sequential zeros may give one a headache. Surprisingly, this is not the worst case I have experienced! The company that won my "The Worst Part Number" Grand Prize assigned 12 (!) digits to their part numbers in the alphanumeric format.
I hope it is clear that only when extensive part numbers are justified, we do not have other options. If you build helicopters or satellites, you, no doubt, will need millions of parts and therefore will need long part numbers. If not, make your life easy and stay away from all those zeros. The most practical system I worked with used a three-digit format for their part numbers. 202, 203, 204, and so on. Worked just fine!
There is another opportunity for improvement of many QMS - part number designation. Many companies relate a document number to a document type. For example, 20-xxxx indicates a procedure, 30-xxxx indicates a drawing, SOP-xxxx indicates a standard operating procedure, etc. My practice with a few QMS that used designation approaches showed that "no designation" systems are more practical. Several QMS that used designation I have worked with have failed. Not long ago, one of my clients mentioned that they ran out of range in their document numbering format. The QMS initially permitted for identifying suppliers through a two-digit identifier within the part number. While the company grew, the number of supplier increased beyond expectations and eventually the company needed more than 99 suppliers. This resulted in the document number format to being able to support new needs.
There are good news and bad news. The bed news is that designation systems can fail. The good news is that there is another way of dealing with document numbers: no designation at all! Using such systems, you give documents or parts sequential numbers. Going further, isn't the part title the best identifier of the part? One company I know did not use part numbers at all - their procedures and instructions were simply identified by titles and a two-digit revision level.
Quality Manual - level 1
Procedures - level 2
Instructions - level 3
Records - level 4
Interestingly, how are we going to start our quality manual without knowing what standard this manual is for? The quality policy supposes to define it. The policy defines what standard or standards, a company wants to comply with. If you like this idea, your QMS will contain five levels as in the following list:
Quality Policy - level 1
Quality Manual - level 2
Procedures - level 3
Instructions - level 4
Records - level 5
Naming your documents
As you may have noticed, the titles of the documents in the structure above are quite short. Various companies use different conventions for their document titles. For example, one of my customers titled their quality manual as "Quality Management System Quality Manual."
This tendency to use long titles and document identifiers like "Standard Operating Procedure" most likely comes from regulated industries. Even though I could not find a requirement for such title formats, many companies still use these apparently outdated and ineffective conventions. If a short name sufficiently describes a document, let's use it. I suggest streamlining all elements of management systems. Consider this and do not make your system more complicated than it can be.
Numbering your documents
In addition to tiles, document numbering systems very often can be optimized too. No standard requires assigning a document its number. This practice is an industry standard. Similar to part titles that we discussed above, document numbering practices often may be simplified too. Look at the example below:
A company had some 130 employees. They had two part number formats: one for procedures, another for drawings. Procedures used XX-XXX number format. Drawings were numbered as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000022-003. Assemblers simplified the system and called it "twenty two."
Is it acceptable to have long and difficult-to-read and remember numbers? Yes, of course! Is it practical? I do not believe so! In the example above, the procedure number, without the tab, contained seven digits. This meant that the system was prepared to handle almost 10 million document or part numbers (PN). The company had approximately 250 documents and probably would never go beyond 300. If nothing else, just reading these numbers with five sequential zeros may give one a headache. Surprisingly, this is not the worst case I have experienced! The company that won my "The Worst Part Number" Grand Prize assigned 12 (!) digits to their part numbers in the alphanumeric format.
I hope it is clear that only when extensive part numbers are justified, we do not have other options. If you build helicopters or satellites, you, no doubt, will need millions of parts and therefore will need long part numbers. If not, make your life easy and stay away from all those zeros. The most practical system I worked with used a three-digit format for their part numbers. 202, 203, 204, and so on. Worked just fine!
There is another opportunity for improvement of many QMS - part number designation. Many companies relate a document number to a document type. For example, 20-xxxx indicates a procedure, 30-xxxx indicates a drawing, SOP-xxxx indicates a standard operating procedure, etc. My practice with a few QMS that used designation approaches showed that "no designation" systems are more practical. Several QMS that used designation I have worked with have failed. Not long ago, one of my clients mentioned that they ran out of range in their document numbering format. The QMS initially permitted for identifying suppliers through a two-digit identifier within the part number. While the company grew, the number of supplier increased beyond expectations and eventually the company needed more than 99 suppliers. This resulted in the document number format to being able to support new needs.
There are good news and bad news. The bed news is that designation systems can fail. The good news is that there is another way of dealing with document numbers: no designation at all! Using such systems, you give documents or parts sequential numbers. Going further, isn't the part title the best identifier of the part? One company I know did not use part numbers at all - their procedures and instructions were simply identified by titles and a two-digit revision level.
About the Author:
If you are optimizing your ISO 9001 QMS, our documentation set can help your company. Visit Quality Works Website and order your Quality Management System system today!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment