TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I can't help picking on one little part of Ralph Robinson's post:
Perhaps at least part of the reason people have trouble with the ISO
9000 definition of what constitutes procedure is that it contradicts the
standard English definition of the word: "mode of conducting business or
legal action; mode of performing task" [OED]. That is to say, the "how"
of a thing is intrinsic to the very notion of procedure. I think the ISO
standard chose its terminology a bit unfortunately in this case.
That said, I have always supposed (and implemented from time to time)
that the policy was the large-scale what and why, and the procedure was
the who, where, when, and how, especially the how, or what you might
also call the "detailed what". However, I see the wisdom in breaking out
the how as a separate issue. In many large organisations, establishing
the who, where, and when, is a serious enough task in itself, and one
that has little connection with what exactly is done once you figure out
who ought to be doing it. Unfortunately, if I had my druthers, that last
bit would be what you called the procedure, and the other stuff would be
policy, and roles/responsibilities or something like that. But generally
I don't have my druthers, so carry on...