:confused: Do you think that it is corrected to give the responsibility of research and development to the responsible person of the quality service (:argue: )

:confused: Do you think that it is corrected to give the responsibility of research and development to the responsible person of the quality service (:argue: )

I take this is a debate being held at your organization? :) In this day and age of lean manufacturing, many of us wear many different hats. Without knowing much about your organization, Cavanna, I don't see a problem with the head of R&D also being the head of Quality.

The only time I see a potential conflict is when the head of Quality reports to the head of Production. Those two often have conflicting priorities....one is to get product out the door and the other is to make good product.

Perhaps you could share with us a summary of the responsibilties that R&D and Quality have? Do you see a possible problem?

It is frequently the case that R&D and quality are under the responsibility of the same person in the following situation: 1. The organization is not large enough to require two people for both roles, and 2. The core science/technology of the product is a major factor in quality (e.g., such as with metallurgy or ceramics), and the person holding both roles is an expert in that technology.

I take this is a debate being held at your organization? :) In this day and age of lean manufacturing, many of us wear many different hats. Without knowing much about your organization, Cavanna, I don't see a problem with the head of R&D also being the head of Quality.

The only time I see a potential conflict is when the head of Quality reports to the head of Production. Those two often have conflicting priorities....one is to get product out the door and the other is to make good product.

Perhaps you could share with us a summary of the responsibilties that R&D and Quality have? Do you see a possible problem?It is just a point of view. May be wrong, but everywhere i have been when there was a similar situation the Q.a.m spent only few day before the Audit of third part for quality system activity and the rest of the day for r. & d.. By Cavanna (Excuse me for my English)

Juran's quality handbook mentions three significant phases of Quality. First Quality planning which includes new product develpment.
Second phase is Quality control which signifies maintaining status quo and avoiding special causes for defects and
Third phase of Quality improvement which differentiates market leader from others due to higher rate of improvement resulting in bigger market share.
Arvind

Last year one of the companies I helped with ISO 9001 registration had a similar situation. In that company the quality manager reported directly to the R&D manager.

There was really no conflict of interest. If you look at what they were both trying to accomplish, their basic goal was to determine what customers wanted and make sure that's what they got.

Having been deeply involved with both sides of the issue I believe that the two positions are best served seperately. Although it is true that new product development is intimately involved with Quality from the initial quality planning stage through design verification and validation there is an almost overwhealming amount of issues such as design, regulatory, safety and environmental that I don't believe one person can do it justice and still perform adequately as QA manager.

Four years ago my employer did have both functions under the same person. Both functions suffered to the point that a year later a New Product Development manager was declared and the two functions were seperated. As a result the company has forged ahead with 4 new products (one already successfully marketed and recognized as an industry leader), another on the verged of being marketed with the other two still in the verififcation phase. meanwhile a comprehensive Quality Management System has been developed and implemented by another person. I call that success! so I will vote no in the poll!

I'm happy for the decision of your employer. :agree1:

:confused: Do you think that it is corrected to give the responsibility of research and development to the responsible person of the quality service (:argue: )

Cavana,
Reminds me one of my previous job back home. We had collaboration for a product with an Italian company. At the time, I was recruited for a position called “Senior Engineer-Quality & R &D”. I thought it was new idea at that time. Now it makes sense.
Is this common in Italy to combine these two functions?

Here are my thoughts as to R &D Manager taking Quality Responsibility. I would prefer a Supporting process function joining the core process rather vice versa.
In my opinion, there is no conflict of interest. However, it will be difficult find a person of this combination- R & D experience coupled with strength in Quality Engineering & Management. Traditionally these two are two different breeds of people who happen to think differently.
R & D breed want to rapidly accelerate the project in a short period and get a functioning product out of door so that they can concentrate on the next advancement. Quality breed wants to systematically design the product for Quality, higher reliability and low lifecycle costs.
If a person can be found with the this combination of Solid R & D experience coupled with strength in Quality Engineering & Management, why not, assign both functions? This will help the organization to implements concepts like QFD, DFx, DFMEA right at the product development.
The Quality function typically has to hard sell these concepts to R & D folks. This joint responsibility will make it easier for implementation and obtain better product at low lifecycle cost.
Regards,
Govind.

Please can somebody else vote for it? thank a lot. :bigwave:

I think the best answer is to ask what is best for your organization? There is no prohibition against the two being one. I am also separating a "quality manager" from the "QMS management rep". There is no prohibition against that as well, but I don't believe that is what we are talking about in this case.

If the organization has the resources, I think the Quality Manager should report to the President, no one lower. In many small companies, the Quality Manager might also be the Engineering Manager, or Production Manager. I know of one case where the QM is also the calibration tech, the inspector, and the shipping and receiving clerk, and she is not even really a manager!

You have to deal with the resources you have and find some way to make it all work.

There is no prohibition against the two being one. Yes, I agree with you in teory but, in the reality wherever I have been when a person with background on "R&D" have had this two on one, he usually spent more time on activity connected on R&D. On the other when a person with background on Quality assurance have had this two on one, he usually spent more time on activity connected on Q & A. Moreover I have not never met a person with a background of R&D that had felt to speak about Juran or Deming or P.Crosby. And who had a background of Q&A did not know the product well

Yes, I agree with you in teory but, in the reality wherever I have been when a person with background on "R&D" have had this two on one, he usually spent more time on activity connected on R&D. On the other when a person with background on Quality assurance have had this two on one, he usually spent more time on activity connected on Q & A. Moreover I have not never met a person with a background of R&D that had felt to speak about Juran or Deming or P.Crosby. And who had a background of Q&A did not know the product well

All good points, Cavanna! :agree1: But there are many factors that apply here and make each company's response to your question unique. A small company does not have the resources to hire two people...so one person may fulfill the job. Or a company that has a small R&D department but large Quality department, may assign one individual to oversee both departments. Each situation is unique and a company must determine what will meet their needs to ensure that they remain competitive.

I'm trying to figure out the problem other that percieved conflict of interest. The Q Manager can be the Human resources manager, Finance manager and chief bottle washer...who cares?

In a small organization (like 1 or 2 people) everyone is everything, why does that "HAVE" to be different in a larger one?

Who does what and how many get involved is an organizational issue...

I perfectly agree in particular when the size of the company is relatively small and multi roles are the order of the day ( I for one am in such a situation that is production / quality.......so far no conflict of "interest"). I see the merging of the QM role with that of R & D is an ideal situation due to 2 main points.
1) Quality requirements are incorporated at product "conception"
2) Verification of the "quality requirements" are carried out at product realization.

In a more simple manner..........desired input = process = desired output

Randy...I was interrupted by the powers that be during the time we were in the chat room......and so I could not continue the conversation....I hope to see you some other time.....Good luck on your new venture........nothing ventured nothing gained...

Hi All,

Recently, I have been placed in charge of Logistics (3 months) and I am still in charge of Quality. Is there a conflict of interest? IMO YES!!!

I have no solution at the moment and I tread a very thin line between conforming to procedures and doing things on the run. I had forgotten how hard it is when you are actually at the coal face, with deadlines and customers screaming, to always adhere to the procedures, as laid down. I need to make them more flexible (I did not write them) whilst still protecting the integrity of the product.

I also find it hard that I am pressuring managers for Corrective Actions and sometimes they are asking me, as the Logistics guy, to find the root cause or a fix. I cannot then independently do the close out.

I have an audit in less then a month and think that I have a real problem. I have asked the powers that be to either make me the Logistics Manager or the QA Manager NOT both.

The QA Manager can be anyone within the organisation, depending on their needs and the skill set of the person.

The role of QA Mgr is sometimes given to a new rising star in order for them to learn a lot about an organisation in a short time.

In opposition, QA Managers are generally smart and good looking, whilst R&D folk are generally only required to be smart.

Given all things being of equal weighting in an 'organisation', I find it interesting within the responses that the question of what does the role of a Quality and/or R&D Manager mean has not been raised?

As most within this forum are involved in 'Quality' in some way are we trying too hard to justify Quality roles when, perhaps, if the underlying philosophy in the organisation is to identify, design, develop, test, manufacture, supply and service products or services that Customers want. The negative being that if something is not contributing to achieving this it does not represent value to the Customer and must be removed, this understanding must be with everyone involved with the life cycle of the product/service.

Assuming this is so and the organisation is managed and led at all levels to achieve this, why do we need a Quality department?

Given all things being of equal weighting in an 'organisation', I find it interesting within the responses that the question of what does the role of a Quality and/or R&D Manager mean has not been raised?

As most within this forum are involved in 'Quality' in some way are we trying too hard to justify Quality roles when, perhaps, if the underlying philosophy in the organisation is to identify, design, develop, test, manufacture, supply and service products or services that Customers want. The negative being that if something is not contributing to achieving this it does not represent value to the Customer and must be removed, this understanding must be with everyone involved with the life cycle of the product/service.

Assuming this is so and the organisation is managed and led at all levels to achieve this, why do we need a Quality department?

Well, gee, that's right up with asking "Why is the sky blue?" and "Why dogs always chase cats?" :D And, I believe we had a similar dicussion in a thread you started not too long ago.

Do we need a Quality department? I don't know. I had a President once refer to me as "necessary overhead". In other words, he didn't want me but he needed me. Didn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy, but it paid the bills.

Some organizations have a Quality department for legal reasons...this department has people who are both qualified and competent to sign off on the product that the floor labour can not.

Despite the fact that the organization wishes to give the Customer exactly what they want, Murphy's Law runs rampant in industry and a Quality Department helps to take over the nonconforming stuff so that the Production areas can return to making the good stuff.

Quality is not so much part of the core business process as it is part of the support team. Consider the Quality Department as the pit crew to the driver (Production).

I suppose one of my (many, I do apologise) issues with the Quality industry are those involved for the greater good of themselves as opposed to what, I believe, should be the true essence of what Quality is, i.e. Design it right in the first place, simple.

Once the Design of the product, service, process etc meets what the Customer wants it wont go wrong because all the disturbing influences through the Life Cycle will have been considered and appropriate actions (change of materials/dimensions/geometry, process, system etc, see Pugh, Taguchi, common sense etc) taken/put in place to ensure that the disturbing influences wont have an affect, or if they do and we can’t do anything about them in the Design etc, something is in place to catch it.

It is the uneducated President that thinks a Quality department is required because the Organisation he/she leads has not been Designed correctly in the first place to fully meet its Product/Service Life Cycle. An easy route to ‘fix’ this is to employ someone who may appear to be knowledgeable about Quality to ‘Manage’ (six sigma, tqm, iso, bs, en, etc, etc…) the issues generated by an Organisation that is not managed or led from the top.

Quality is and must be part of the core business process, it must be considered by everyone in the Organisation, from the chaps who clean the toilets to the Company Principle. The point being that everything we do in the Organisation will have a direct affect on the output of what we do, which in turn, will be the input (and must be correct) into another part of the Organisation.

The Pit Crew do not support the Driver. The Driver, Pit Crew, Manufacturing, Design, Operations, Marketing, Company Principles, Cleaners etc must be as one to achieve the only aim, to win.

Despite the fact that the organization wishes to give the Customer exactly what they want, Murphy's Law runs rampant in industry and a Quality Department helps to take over the nonconforming stuff so that the Production areas can return to making the good stuff.
Not to argue, but to enhance. Rather than blame Murph, a more practical explanation would be the true evil of processes...variation. Until we can remove all variation (common included), we will need to inspect product. Yes, we can errorproof the inspection process, but that will also be subject to variation. Our jobs are secure until the curse of variation is eliminated.

"Not to argue, but to enhance. Rather than blame Murph, a more practical explanation would be the true evil of processes...variation. Until we can remove all variation (common included), we will need to inspect product. Yes, we can errorproof the inspection process, but that will also be subject to variation. Our jobs are secure until the curse of variation is eliminated."

What do you mean by variation? natural variation? inherent? variation of materials, methods, people, Customer, process, system, etc, etc??? If we know why we are making/producing a something, surely it is the Designers responsibility to understand ALL the disturbing influences, factors, 'variation's' that will affect the Design through it's Life Cycle and put in place Design Actions that will nullify the affects in the Customers eyes?

What do you mean by variation? natural variation? inherent? variation of materials, methods, people, Customer, process, system, etc, etc??? If we know why we are making/producing a something, surely it is the Designers responsibility to understand ALL the disturbing influences, factors, 'variation's' that will affect the Design through it's Life Cycle and put in place Design Actions that will nullify the affects in the Customers eyes?

Variation can come from any source, within or without the process. Understanding all the "disturbing influences" is fine, but variation is never constant (hence the name variation). Because of this, there will always be variation in the process output. Design can limit, or control, some of the variation, but not all. Although variation is most noticeable in manufacturing, it occurs in all aspects of life. So far, variation cannot be eliminated (even through design), and until it does, I’ll continue to have a paycheck.

Oh.........

This is the direction I'm moving now. I am concentrating on moving all "quality" functions to the floor. Our "Business Operating System" will be completly integrated by years end (QMS, ISO's, Lab, etc.). We may maintain verification & testing duties but no longer do any inspections. We will be process focused with no per se Quality Department.

The negative being that if something is not contributing to achieving this it does not represent value to the Customer and must be removed, this understanding must be with everyone involved with the life cycle of the product/service.


Only in a vacuum.
In the real world there are many emplyees who aren't representing value to the customer.

As to the necessity of a QA dept.
Nope. Provided that certain functions are accomplished in keeping with your contractual arrangements - e.g. Auto industry, Defence, Aero, etc.

This is the direction I'm moving now. I am concentrating on moving all "quality" functions to the floor. Our "Business Operating System" will be completly integrated by years end (QMS, ISO's, Lab, etc.). We may maintain verification & testing duties but no longer do any inspections. We will be process focused with no per se Quality Department.

Can I please come work with you guys?

Two jobs ago we did just what you are doing. Customer return PPMs went from 20,000 to under 200 when we eliminated QC (Quality Cops) much to the surprise of some of the old school foremen.

Have fun - I envy you!

If the Quality Manager is firstly a responsable of research and development and have acquaintance and passion about research and development and secondly or not for quality management, in the annual plan of courses he firstly plan course of spc, Fmea, correct use of the procedures and control plans etc. etc or instead for example Dual Phase steel and application, continuous casting overview. I think second one, and You? Which is more important for quality system?
:rolleyes: :bigwave:

:confused: Do you think that it is corrected to give the responsibility of research and development to the responsible person of the quality service (:argue: )


I don't see any problems with this. Most company's that I have worked for each manager wears a different or multiple hats.

Coury Ferguson

:confused: Do you think that it is corrected to give the responsibility of research and development to the responsible person of the quality service (:argue: )

I have a better one: Can a CFO also be the R&D Manager (no experience either)? It happened here. :confused:

similar work similar problem, I'm not alone in my sector
Hello Riley

Hey Cavana...are you and you're family OK?

The QA Manager can be anyone within the organisation, depending on their needs and the skill set of the person.

The role of QA Mgr is sometimes given to a new rising star in order for them to learn a lot about an organisation in a short time.

In opposition, QA Managers are generally smart and good looking, whilst R&D folk are generally only required to be smart.

question is, is there any conflict of interest?

I'm Ok
Fine Thank you
by

In one of my previous employments, I was the Research and Development Director. I was already familiar with the product functional requirements as a part of that position. When the Quality Manager was promoted to VP of Operation, I thought is was a conflict of interest (as evidenced by a lot of "use as is" dispositions). Since my daily progress was not a function of "production numbers", I was far enough from the production function enough to have a "separation of church and state", as I refer to it. It worked out very well, and it was the transition point in my career to quality.

I was faced with this proposition at two separate moments in my career, for 2 separate companies (being QAM, the proposition was to accept the R&D management responsability). I refused both times.
I was quite able to do both but, in my opinion, it creates professional and ethical conflicts. In R&D position you must work with contraints from customer, sales, manufacturing, etc. I did not wanted to be put in position to accept things that I considered un-ethical (from a QA point of view).

If I was QCM then it will be no problem, could do both. With no worries.

In our structure, the Quality Department is separate from the Regulatory Department. I manage the latter.

I'm also a senior R&D person...not a manager, since R&D for us has no responsibilities and no hierarchy defined on other than a project basis. I'm essentially an internal consultant.

And, I participate in some high-level customer-contact Sales contexts, when a deep engineering background &/or regulatory knowledge is helpful. For us, that's fairly often.

Others here wear multiple hats according to their individual skillsets and backgrounds. The company President is also the Sales Manager at present. The Controller also manages Purchasing. The company owner and CEO has a hands-on supervisory role in production equipment management and engineering. One of the Vice Presidents supervises Human Relations and plays a frequent role in Quality procedural development.

We don't perceive any problems in how it all works out.

In R&D position you must work with constraints from customer, sales, manufacturing, etc. I did not wanted to be put in position to accept things that I considered un-ethical (from a QA point of view).


I guess it depends on the scope of the position at a particular firm. I never ran into the above issues. Many of the issues that I was resolving as an R&D function were very closely related to inspection, corrective action or preventive action - typical quality functions. If anything, R&D was more of a constraint than customer, sales, manufacturing, etc., since we determined what was feasible (again, at least in the company I worked at.)

But, if one is presented with a situation where not comfortable with any blend of responsibilities, I would recommend against accepting it. Unhappy employees tend to further distract from the continual improvement of the company.

in my opinion, it creates professional and ethical conflicts.

I would just say that I'm agree
By