Ts is requiring people understand their contribution to quality objectives and how their work effects customers. This may get a littl elengthy so please bear with me.
We manufacture power steering gears for Tractor trailers and heavy equipment.
Do the employees need to reflect to an auditor things such as"If I make this pitman arm incorrectly it could break and a scholl bus full of kids could die." Doe sit need to be that detailed or is the following sufficient. What I was considering to achieve the requirement:
We currently have quality objectives established for our production lines. The employees need to be aware of these numbers to know that they are acheiving quality objectibves. They would be able to reflect these numbers back to an auditor to verify that they are aware of where they need to be. Employees are also reinstructed on these objectives on their reviews as they are "graded" based on their performance against the objectives set forth by top management.
Would this be sufficient. What have you doen to appease this?
:thanx:

IMHO it would be great if we had both of those worlds. In most cases, we don't have the luxury of knowing what the end use is as our customers can't/won't tell us. The intent of the requirement is to establish ownership of the quality objectives throughout the workforce, not just with management. I don't think numbers is what they are looking for here although they might be part of it. I think the overall concept of what they actually do and how it fits into the company and customer objectives is more to the point.

Dave

ISO Pete,

Stop thinking of how to respond to an auditor and start thinking of how to communicate to your people why their jobs are important. Establishing objectives is for your company's benefit, not a third party auditor. When you provide your people with adequate instructions and training to do their jobs, and couple that with regular and clear communications regarding the impact their good work has on the company, customer, and community, then their train of thought will be aligned with the company's. The spontaneity of their response to an auditor will be (and often is) much better than any words we put in their mouths.

I have often accompanied an auditor who chooses to question "certain" employees that cause me to cringe in expectation of an "off the wall" answer, only to find, to my intense relief, a remarkably thoughtful response that clearly connects what they do every day with quality, costs, delivery, or whatever other objectives are established. So don't sweat it too much. :)

One of my objectives (I’m sure it is one of everyone’s) is the reduction of external failure (escapes) My customers forward me quarterly assessment reports. I put these reports directly into the manufacturing cell.

The employee then understands his/her contribution to the objective and how that ties directly into the customer.

Excellent policy Cncmarine. We have a similar system that posts the actual customer concern but the assessment report would show a bigger picture of how we tie into that customer. I will give this a try, thanks.

Dave

I struggled somewhat with this. Like a previous post I have been pleasantly surprised by some of the responses from the shop floor to auditors.

We have been working on making the FMEA's more accessible to operators which may help them in understanding the importance of their jobs.

We have been working on making the FMEA's more accessible to operators which may help them in understanding the importance of their jobs.

Mike,

Based on your comment above. . . There IS a God! Kudo's to you and your company. :applause: :applause: :applause: