I agree Bruce. I like her point that a manual describes the system instead of the standard (or conformity to the standard in a clause-by-clause fashion). Defining every unique system according to the same standard-based structure is like giving each organization the same bad bowl haircut. "Yes, the hairline conforms perfectly to the bowl--isn't that attractive?" "Oh, yes," would reply many auditors, "it conforms nicely to the bowl--almost perfect conformity--good manual." Miriam has encountered auditors, apparently, as have I, who seem to want QMS documentation to parrot the standard in order for them to find conformity. They WANT the documentation to nicely align with checklists based on ISO 9001 requirements (instead of management's own processing requirements). Many manuals are standard-based, it's almost an expectation. A manual should be written not for auditors--as they seem to often expect--but for management purposes first. While QMS procedures are more clearly for organizational personnel, the manual itself is written not only from a management perspective--to help view and manage the system of processes--but with the expectation that customers will be the customers of the manual, too. If a customer requesting a quality manual wanted to know how you control your operations, an actual description of the responsible processes and some general description of the policies or controlling provisions to ensure adequate control over operations seems more appropriate than a manual simply regurgitating the standard. A manual demonstrating that you have your act together (by stating how you run the show) should be more valuable and confidence-instilling to a customer than a manual effectively failing to say how you keep your act together, but only succeeding in promising to meet ISO 9001 requirements.