A guideline for Developing Quality Manuals, ISO 10013 Standard, suggests a documentation structure for ISO 9001 QMS. This model in the standard proposes use of a three-level arrangement. Most companies I worked with utilize four-level structures instead to include records, A typical four-level documentation structure consists of:
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
Document titles for your ISO 9001 QMS
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."
It is a very typical convention in the medical device manufacturing and other regulated industries to call the second-level documentation Standard Operating Procedures, known as SOPs. Unless one has a level called "Non-standard Operating Procedures," I really do not see a practical or economical reason for long titles like these. As long as the short name conveys the idea and leads us to the right place, let's use it. I will promote this optimization and reduction of waste approach throughout this publication. Let's not make things more complicated than they practically need to 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.
If you are designing and building a Trident-class submarine, a MIG-27 jet fighter or an international space station, you, most likely, will need millions of parts, so a long part number format would be needed and will make sense. Otherwise, save yourself the trouble of reading all those zeros and make your numbering system practical. One of my customers, who won my "The Best Part Number" Grand Prize, numbered their documents as 101, 102, 103, and so on. Short and sweet!
Another debatable issue with the part-numbering format is part number designation. Some systems associate a part number with a particular part type. For example, 10xxx indicates a procedure, 20xxx indicates a drawing, PLxxx indicates a policy-level document, and so on. My experience with a number of medical device manufacturers has convinced me in the benefits of a "no designation" system. Three systems that used designation I have worked with have failed. Just recently, one of my customers reported that they ran out of range in their part-numbering format. The system allowed for assigning materials through a two-digit designator within the part number. When the system was designed a few years ago, needing more than 99 materials was not considered possible. Unfortunately, things changed, and just a few years later, the company needed more than 99 materials causing the existing part number format to fail.
An alternative approach to part numbering is a "no designation" system, where parts are given sequential unique numbers within a specified format, regardless of their type, material, application or other attributes. After all, isn't the part title the best designator? Seriously, through my entire professional career, I worked only with one company that did not use even document numbers. Their documents were simply identified by titles and a two-digit revision level, like The Prefect Manual 01.
About the Author:
Learn more about ISO 9001 documentation and order your Quality Management System tempales today!
0 comments:
Post a Comment