1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Separate Document Listing the whole of QMS Documents

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by Michak, May 12, 2018.

  1. Michak

    Michak Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hello to all!

    This is just my first post in this forum. I find it really nice to be in a place where one can share thoughts on ISO standard.

    So, just a query to start with. It is more o less known that version 2015 of ISO 9001 is much more flexible in it's requirements on documentation in comparison with it's predecessors, right? However, specifically with regard to retaining a document in which the whole of all QMS documents and records will be listed, in a form of a simple table:

    1. PMS 1.1
    2. PMS 1.2
    ...
    3. RMS 1.1
    4. RMS 1.2
    ...
    Where PMS "Procedure of Management System", and RMS "Record of Management System", and practically, all other possible documentation of the QMS which could be included, would you think it would be mandatory?
    I really can't find a clause affirming that, but neither I am 100% sure about it.

    Thank you in advance.
     
  2. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    367
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    No. It's not mandatory. It can add value though. The list can be used as a quick reference if you need to know if you are using the current versions of documents. Typically, the list will include the document revision levels.
     
  3. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    USA
    Welcome Michak!

    The revision to ISO 9001:2015 was meant to provide less prescriptive requirements so organizations like yours could take the approach that best suits you, without concern about "the right way." Therefore, number your documents in whatever way you and your personnel decide is best.

    The term "documented information" replaced "procedure" because there are many forms we should recognize, including databases, videos and slide shows, charts, spreadsheets, machine recipes, etc. This makes it impractical for ISO to make a numbering system mandatory.

    I hope this helps!
     
    Christos Hombopoulos likes this.
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,913
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I wouldn't number documents! People waste hours of their lives coming up with elegant numbering which mean, frankly nothing - even less now that ISO 9001 doesn't prescribe any type of document. As a user, I inherited a QMS which I have to navigate by a unique number - and it's a huge frustration. Documents usually have titles. Use the titles. People will thank you for it later.
     
  5. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    USA
    I agree with Andy that numbering documents can result in a frustrating exercise if they are not searchable by title or type.

    How many controlled documents do you have? This includes controlled forms...
     
  6. Michak

    Michak Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Jennifer,

    I, like Andy, also inherited a QMS, which was documented before 2008 by a 3rd party entity and had resulted in a totally bureaucratic system; you could even call it repelling. Theses days, I am striving to start it from zero, optimally adjust it on the needs of the company, make it functional and have it offer added value, being currently on the way to making a decent QMS manual. The said document of all controlled documents (please open https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3rzrmpxpatdk7f/Capture.JPG?dl=0
    for a more precise glimpse on it), numbers 32 procedures, 64 Records, 53 Work Instructions, a great part of which have proven to be meaningful or useless. All documents in the QMS file system keep the same naming format, i.e. "PQM11 Management Planning Procedure".
    That being said, I am glad that standard's 2015 version give that freedom to document the QMS as best suits our needs.

    All in all, I think you all agree that there is no meaning retaining it.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2018
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  7. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    467
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    USA
    I have found it to be worthless to maintain a document that lists documents. In the previous version of 17025 such a list was required (haven't looked it up in the revised one) but for the rest it was just another thing to maintain. Your list exists in your filing system.
     
    Michak likes this.
  8. Quality Manager Liz

    Quality Manager Liz Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2017
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi

    We have an electronic QMS, each page is titled but the system controls the versions. Our project quality plans all state that the project will follow the latest version of any process or procedure on the QMS unless otherwise stated. What we do have is a table with the sections of the standard on the left side of a table with the relevant QMS processes or procedures that when followed show we are compliant with that particular section of the standard. Auditors seem to like this and if they raise something against a particular section it is easy to find what we say we do to comply.
     
  9. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,913
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    What do your people think?
     
  10. Serious Man

    Serious Man Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    7
    I think people are not interested whether this document (number) is instruction and other one form.
    On the other hand, even process approach is a very old story, people still are not familiar with that.
    Therefore I will change document numbering to stick it directly to process.
    Documents are prepared and used by various departments, but sometimes these are parts of a same single process.
     
  11. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Good day Andy/all;
    From my many years (22) at numerous levels within 1st tier automotive manufacturing (quality tech --> VP of operations) I have seen numerous methods of management system structure and have an opinion.

    In a dynamic organization we must remember my "CAP" reference...
    * Customers
    * Associates
    * Products

    The organization can (likely will) periodically change "CAPs", and, therefore it will help if the management system is structured to endure these changes.

    The most frequent/obvious change that takes place is "A" (Associates). It is for this reason that I do indeed recommend a numbering structure.
    Without it, local vernaculars, various dialect, tribal knowledge, colloquialisms, "company-ees", etc.. can and do quickly arise, which, over time, can cause confusion, particularly for new associates (e.g. how many times do each of us continue to hear a management system referred to as "QS9000" or an ERP system referred to
    "the AS 400" when it long since changed to SAP, or a part referred to as "a banana clip" simply because of its shape, and contrary to the name on the drawing, customer orders, etc., etc..etc..).


    My experience is that...
    a) any "upper" level procedure (who-what-when) documentation be limited but be numbered according to the activity, clause, or "group" that they apply to.

    b) any instruction point of work level (how) documentation simply be numbered generically and sequentially (e.g. wi-0001; wi-0002; etc..etc...)

    c) any record keeping forms (evidence) documentation simply be numbered generically and sequentially (e.g. F-0001; F-0002, etc..etc...).

    This ensures that what one individual refers to as the "how to label" instruction which someone else calls "lot control instruction" and others call "bar code instruction" is all able to be identified by a discrete assigned identifier. Another example would be "how to measure height", when indeed there may be numerous documents/curriculum [applicable to some organizations] where "how to measure height" may have various meanings and applications depending on WHAT is being measured. As you can see, confusion can easily occur.

    Providing a discrete identifier also makes it easy to consistently reference these items on controls plans (or other documents) when they are indeed part of applied controls such as "evaluation method" or "control method" or "reaction plan" . The same applies for the training process, wherein, it is helpful for certain curriculums to be associated with company roles to ensure that as new individuals move into these roles A discrete identifier ensures it is clear what documentation applies.

    Large organizations are a great model (SAE, ASTM ,Toyota, GM, etc..etc..), where obviously lack of discrete identification of controlled would be difficult at best.

    The important thing to remember is that the author(s) of the management system will not always be with the organization. It is necessary, therefore, to use terms of identification that will outlive them when the organization changes its "CAP".

    Be well.
     
    Augustine and Anna Wagstaffe like this.

Share This Page