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
While auditing systems like the one above, I always asked clients about the position of their quality policy in this structure. If you start from a quality manual, how go you know what standard this manual should cover? The quality policy defines it and therefore it should be included into the structure:
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 Even though I could not find a requirement for such title formats, many companies still use these apparently outdated and ineffective conventions.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:
One of my clients runs a small company of some 120 employees. Their documentation control procedure prescribed two numeration systems that dependent on the type of a document. QMS documents had numbers like XX-XXX, and production parts required part number format as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000048-002. Folks on the floor called it "four-eight."
One can certainly use these long-long numbers, but is it practical? So far I did not meet a single company that could justify such an approach. When I audited this client, the organization had less than 250 documents. There were no indications that the company will significantly grow. Therefore, to use document number format allowing hundreds of thousands of numbers could hardly be justified. The most unreadable part numbers I had to deal with was at a mid size company with 13-digit alphanumeric part number format! Try to write those in your audit report!
If you are developing or optimizing your ISO 9001 quality management system, consider a simple rule: "The shorter - the better". If you are constructing a hydro electric plant or building an aircraft carrier, you will need millions of parts. To number this kind of inventory, one will definitely need long numbers. If not, think optimization. Once I audited a company that numbered their documents 303. 304, 305, etc. They deserve applauds!
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. - 15359
Quality Manual - level 1
Procedures - level 2
Instructions - level 3
Records - level 4
While auditing systems like the one above, I always asked clients about the position of their quality policy in this structure. If you start from a quality manual, how go you know what standard this manual should cover? The quality policy defines it and therefore it should be included into the structure:
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:
One of my clients runs a small company of some 120 employees. Their documentation control procedure prescribed two numeration systems that dependent on the type of a document. QMS documents had numbers like XX-XXX, and production parts required part number format as XXXXXXX-XXX. One of the drawings had a number 000048-002. Folks on the floor called it "four-eight."
One can certainly use these long-long numbers, but is it practical? So far I did not meet a single company that could justify such an approach. When I audited this client, the organization had less than 250 documents. There were no indications that the company will significantly grow. Therefore, to use document number format allowing hundreds of thousands of numbers could hardly be justified. The most unreadable part numbers I had to deal with was at a mid size company with 13-digit alphanumeric part number format! Try to write those in your audit report!
If you are developing or optimizing your ISO 9001 quality management system, consider a simple rule: "The shorter - the better". If you are constructing a hydro electric plant or building an aircraft carrier, you will need millions of parts. To number this kind of inventory, one will definitely need long numbers. If not, think optimization. Once I audited a company that numbered their documents 303. 304, 305, etc. They deserve applauds!
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. - 15359
About the Author:
Learn more about ISO 9001 documentation and order your Quality Management System tempales today!
