I'm curious about what other Covers' experience is with this...

I've talked recently with some Quality people in industries both the same and entirely different than the industry I'm in right now (steel), and have heard several make the comment, "Well, you really put a Quality System in place, get it certified and then it runs itself."

Am I just incompetent or am I missing something, because that statement makes me CRAZY! :mad: I've worked with Quality in both large and small settings and I've yet to run across a system that "runs itself." Interestingly, the last person I talked to about this then went on to admit they are "barely squeaking by" in audits and their system is really quite weak.

The other thing here is I've seen a lot of postings lately for "consultants" and even "short-term Quality Managers" where companies seem to be buying into the thought that you can hire someone for 6 months to put a system in place and then send them on their way - the thing will run itself, right?

Is this a new trend or ??? What are your thoughts?

We all know that the registration of a new quality system means that the system has only met the minimum standards. The real growth of the system occurs after the system has been in place. If everything stops after registration then the system breaks down. (That takes care of the manager for 6 month theory)

The success of a quality system is based on continuous improvement. A successful manager never stops learning and growing. None of these activities “run themselves”.

Sort of defeats the continual improvement caveat huh?

My top management has that exact sentiment, "put the system in place, pass the audit, then it is out of sight and out of mind and it runs itself."

However, they did not count on me. Anyway, I agree with that statement a little bit (a very little bit) in this way. If the system is robust, the procedures are sound and the processes bulletproof, then they system can run itself, HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER that only means that you have the foundation for the future. Once our people know the polices, processes and procedures they should be able to do things from memory (i.e. verifying control plan prior to new production run, not starting work until SOPs are at the cell, not accepting material with no lot number etc) The system is running itself, but there is always room for improvement and there are always changes to be made and QA mgrs are a necessary evil :biglaugh:

No longer does the QA Mgr or myself have to walk the system to make sure that our team members are following the system, thy know the system.

Just some thoughts.....

Registration to a quality system is just the beginning. Any improvement depends upon the top management committment. If top management is committed, then there are several areas that would need continual improvement. These are objectives and attainment of objectives, preventive actions, corrective actions, improving the processes. reducing the quality costs.

These can be achieved without having a quality system in place but a quality system gives a structure in place.

Actually I TOTALLY agree that in a strong system certain aspects of that system DO run themselves - you should not have to keep reminding people to follow their procedures, fill out non-conformance reports, etc after the system is in place and people are trained on it.

Where I have an issue with this concept is the lack of understanding about all the "other stuff" that doesn't run itself - Supplier Development activities, Calibration of instruments, Capability Studies, procedure changes, continuous improvement activities, mrts, etc, etc, etc. There are - obviously - big sections of even a strong system that simply do not "run themselves."

I've talked recently with some Quality people in industries both the same and entirely different than the industry I'm in right now (steel), and have heard several make the comment, "Well, you really put a Quality System in place, get it certified and then it runs itself."Yeah, that'll be the day... It sounds like wishful thinking to me. As far as I know, it takes continual effort to keep anything, including a QMS running.

The question is what people mean when they say a system that runs itself? Small parts of a system can gain momentum largely by themselves: I used to have to chase people around in order to make them update their written procedures... these days they are chasing me :mg: with updates they want issued (I love it)! But then again, it took a lot of effort to convey the insight that written procedures can be a good thing.

/Claes

I spend an inordinate amount of time chasing people around to make them do what they have to do for the Quality system - update CI plans, mark up procedure changes, provide required training, etc. Geeze, if there's a way to make this "run itself" I'll WELCOME IT with open arms, but more and more I'm confused over whether I'm a "Quality Systems" person or an over-titled babysitter.

Quality systems running themselves - I think part of it's corporate culture. My current employer and my previous employer both qualify as part of the steel industry. At the prior employer, I wasn't involved directly in managing the plantwide quality system - just ran the mechanical testing lab, its independently certifed A2LA subsytem and was an internal auditor. But we were committed (via emphasis by top management) to using the system. I planned on improving lab capability/capacity annually while working to reduce testing costs, calibration was a given - selecting vendors, scheduling them, etc. if I had a finding in an internal audit against me, I had to have a response to my manager for review within a week and we'd be meeting with quality systems in 2 weeks to reach agreement on c/a and a timeline. During 5 & 1/2 years, I had no customer complaints issued against the lab I managed.

At my current international employer, there is a stated committment to quality and we've been registered to both ISO 9001 & ISO/TS. I'm involved in running and administering the quality system. It is a constant battle to get most of senior management to respond to internal corrective action requests, nonconformances identified during audits, customer complaints, etc. in a timely manner. Even agreed upon decisions are not enacted in a timely manner. We do a number of things well, but I feel there are holes in our system I could drive a tank through. It's constant fire fighting, and I feel at times as though I'm a babysitter. About the 3rd or 4th time someone does something wrong (as defined by the system) I become the read & follow the procedure ogre.

So Steelwoman, I guess I'm in agreement with you - at least with my current employer. The firefighting just does not allow enough time for me to get involved in the really important parts of quality.

About the 3rd or 4th time someone does something wrong (as defined by the system) I become the read & follow the procedure ogre.

"Read and Follow the Procedure Ogre" - I would accept "Ogre" over what I usually get called in such situations! :o

I think the word that is missing in the discussion is "leadership". No system runs itself. There has to be some sort of aim, and a leader or set of leaders (if self-organized or "learning organization") that maintains the system.

I'm curious about what other Covers' experience is with this...

The other thing here is I've seen a lot of postings lately for "consultants" and even "short-term Quality Managers" where companies seem to be buying into the thought that you can hire someone for 6 months to put a system in place and then send them on their way - the thing will run itself, right?

Is this a new trend or ??? What are your thoughts?
Just my opinion, of course, but there are two categories of "consultants."

The first category I liken to a "temp" or "contract employee" who comes in and does a limited task for you. This kind of consultant whips through your operation by himself with a gap analysis check sheet in hand. When he's done, he cranks up his trusty laptop, pulls up templates on everything from Quality Manuals to Work Instructions, inserts your company name and grinds out electronic copies. Either you print them or he does (at extra price) and he's gone until a week or so before the registrar's auditor comes. He takes another quick whiz through, suggests some "tinkering" and finally comes back to walk through with you and auditor. If the auditor finds some blips, he hangs around to help fix and then he's gone.

The second category is more like "trusted advisor" and "guru" who helps EVERYONE in the organization understand the underlying theory and basics of Quality, not just how to fill in blanks on somebody else's forms. He helps them create their own documents or blesses ones they already have. He takes special care in training a cadre of folks who will carry on once he's gone. If he's done his job right, he may not need to be anywhere near when the Registrar's auditor comes calling. He builds a friendship and relationship that may last for years. His clients call him FIRST in confidence he will have an answer when they come across a problem.

So, if the "six month wonder" is in the second category, the organization may have found their miracle.

I spend an inordinate amount of time chasing people around to make them do what they have to do for the Quality system - update CI plans, mark up procedure changes, provide required training, etc. Geeze, if there's a way to make this "run itself" I'll WELCOME IT with open arms, but more and more I'm confused over whether I'm a "Quality Systems" person or an over-titled babysitter.

CAUTION - Rant Begins:mad:

I think the basic problem is that we have a document called a "Quality" management system.

Why would anyone not in the department called Quality care about such a thing. I wouldn't!

ISO2K gave us the best chance to fix this in a long while. We (I) moved away from the elements and we now have Business processes.

We have a Business Manual (TS16949 compliant)

I just did a top team session where we went through our list of processes and I asked them to decide which ones belong to "Quality". It was about 20% meaning we have a Business System pushed by Quality.

They also rated what processes they would not do if they owned the company and there were no requirements of any kind. Less than 5%.

It's about Business - not Quality.

Quality is the result of doing things that make Business sense.

Corollary - The level of Quality is determined by the sense of the Business owners.

The business process owners are audited, Quality acts as a guide. They are responsible for the performance of their system and people - not Quality.

Quality stands ready to help in any way they want - if they ask!

Push it back if you can - It is amazing what happens when people realize they are going to be accountable.

<Rant ends>

[QUOTE=Caster]CAUTION - Rant Begins:mad:

Well Said! :applause:

CAUTION - Rant Begins:mad:

I think the basic problem is that we have a document called a "Quality" management system.

Why would anyone not in the department called Quality care about such a thing. I wouldn't!

ISO2K gave us the best chance to fix this in a long while. We (I) moved away from the elements and we now have Business processes.

We have a Business Manual (TS16949 compliant)

Quality stands ready to help in any way they want - if they ask!

Push it back if you can - It is amazing what happens when people realize they are going to be accountable.

<Rant ends>
Perhaps some organizations DO need the "six-month wonder" I described in Category two above. Especially if they can't find a full time worker with the same understanding and ability to influence an entire organization.

When you write
Quality stands ready to help in any way they want - if they ask!
many folks don't even know WHAT to ask, let alone WHO, without the proper grounding and background education in the "best practices" interaction between Quality and Business Processes.

An excellent Quality Manager is not just someone who knows the Standards backwards and forwards and how to do all the Statistical calculations to track processes. The excellent Quality Manager is able to educate and inspire his organization from the top down about the value of using Quality tools to maintain and improve the Business processes.

An excellent Quality Manager is not just someone who knows the Standards backwards and forwards and how to do all the Statistical calculations to track processes. The excellent Quality Manager is able to educate and inspire his organization from the top down about the value of using Quality tools to maintain and improve the Business processes.


Wes, very well put !!!!

This might be more appropro over in the jobs sections of the forums, but I'll post here first. I believe that an efficient/effective quality (business) system must be based upon top management committment to and leadership in using it.

When educating employees to effectively use the quality system, one needs to have a plan and management committment on a consistent companywide approach. Based on those thoughts, one of the questions I intend to ask the next time I change jobs will address that issue. Something along the lines of how are your employees trained in changes to the quality sytem, or what sort of training are you planning for your employees to implement your new system?

A freight train without an engineer, running downhill at full throttle is running itself. So it can be done.

I'm going to say yes to this one. When properly implemented, a QMS sets the parameters for self-control. If you define "running itself" as not needing someone there constantly handholding and the system adjusting itself for corrective actions and continual improvement, then without a doubt it should! Running itself does not mean (to me) that it takes no people. However, the system is in place that allows a variety of people to input to the system. Running itself means that if any one person leaves, a replacement can be found without the system collapsing in the mean time.

I think the word that is missing in the discussion is "leadership". No system runs itself. There has to be some sort of aim, and a leader or set of leaders (if self-organized or "learning organization") that maintains the system.

I have to agree Steve! I believe there is a lack of understanding from some leadership teams as to what is required or what THEIR responsibilities are with regard to a Quality System that is customer focused and process driven. Molding, paint, assembly and shipping are examples of processes that require ownership (Leadership) This means the process owner owns the customer requirements, documentation and its control, the equipment and its calibration & preventive maintenance activities, the people and any training they have or need as well as their records of training, any customer complaints and the resulting corrective actions, continual improvements and the goals and targets of their process (How well is the process performing) etc. When each process owner takes care of their own house, the system can RUN itself, and QMR's responsibility then becomes measuring the health of the system by how well everyone else are meeting their own responsibilities. When an audit goes poorly there can be no fingers to point when the leadership knows what is required from them. This should be part of every day life and part of management review. No more late nights before the audit "Manufacturing" evidence by the ONE person responsible for protecting the "Companies" certificate from the evil registrar. I think we agree, the auditors know whats going on.
Any thoughts?

I think I have to take a slightly different view...

Just as my truck runs by itself, once the ignition has been turned on, yes a system can run itself...in neutral, and making no progress. It still needs someone who is appropriate (driver's licence) and competent (lots of practice, driver's ed?) to steer it.

my pet peeve is my boss always asking.."why can't you do this that or the other, you've already implemented ISO and we are certified, what more is there?"

An excellent Quality Manager is not just someone who knows the Standards backwards and forwards and how to do all the Statistical calculations to track processes. The excellent Quality Manager is able to educate and inspire his organization from the top down about the value of using Quality tools to maintain and improve the Business processes.

Wes

You struck a nerve with this one - ouch!

Can it really be my failure? I'm willing to consider this and recognize I may well be blind to my own problems.

So if that is the definition of an Excellent Quality Manager, could you define an Excellent Production Manager? Excellent CEO?

Like I said - ouch, a real raw spot with me.

This is what makes the Cove so valuable - I always learn way more than I can ever contribute.

For about the last twenty-five of my forty years in business, I have been zealous in ensuring EVERYONE in the organization from the CEO down to the part-time janitor has a clear image of the BIG PICTURE for the organization and how he or she fits in that picture.

I evolved this theory and concept long before I was ever aware of ISO quality management standards. Ultimately, ISO and I have begun to merge focus:
ISO 9001:2000 Section 6.2.2d reads
[The organization shall] d) ensure that its personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives,

My ASQ Profile, which was formulated long before ISO9k2k, reads
(in part)
My entire career has been centered on the concept "Quality should be involved in every aspect of a company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service."

This concept holds true whether the company is a manufacturer or service company (banking, insurance, communications, transportation, construction, janitorial, etc.) The major emphasis is on pleasing or delighting the customer while maintaining or increasing organizational profitability. (In the case of non-profits, does the organization's performance delight both recipients and the contributors? If so, the organization will continue to thrive.)

I put more emphasis on "big picture" and "company culture" than on metrics. If all the members of the organization are indeed working together, metrics are a natural function of identifying areas to improve. If the organization is NOT working together, the imposition of metrics can be draconian and serve to divide the culture even more.

You can go through all of my nearly 2,000 posts here in the Cove and see I've been pretty consistent in this theme throughout. Does that help any?

A freight train without an engineer, running downhill at full throttle is running itself. Certainly... but towards what? :lol: We all know what happens to an organization that lacks leadership.

/Claes