Any suggestions on how this can be achieved in a quality program with a historically quick cycle time for managers, engineers, upper level quality personnel, (not inspectors).
How can people be convinced that quality initiatives are not just "flavour of the week" or a passing fad? Does training everyone on these programs help appreciably? I was with a company, not in a quality role, and when we had training on "lean manufacturing" I don't recall overwhelming support arising from the classes.
Results of quality programs can be hard to justify to the manufacturing floor, which operates on a case-to-case basis, not a systems viewpoint. Are there programs for systems training for manufacturing personnel? (I checked the Cayman Systems offerings and found ISO for hourly employees, but not systems viewpoint for them. Did I miss something?)
Thanks,

Training ...done properly, is the key to getting people on board.

You have to hit home, as in.....each naysayer has a hot point, if you can take the loudest protestor and convert him by showing him what "it" will do to make his life better....he will convert the rest. And you can merrily go along getting the "border line" believers on board, spreading your message.

Training needs to be developed with the client, what you call systems viewpoint, is probably his hourly stuff. I am sure he has something to fill the bill, its basic actually...not nearly as "special" as you indicate...you would be surprised at the commonality in the manufacturing world, no matter what the industry....its mainly semantics

Are there programs for systems training for manufacturing personnel?

This is a good point, which we have discussed at various other forums.

Systems training is not something you will find easily, I believe. The reason being is that systems thinking is not taught at the levels it needs to be. You may want to try:

http://sysval.org

http://www.thedecalogue.com

http://www.lean-service.com

http://www.rizzoandassociates.com

Just a few to start.

Regards,

Don

Training ...done properly, is the key to getting people on board.
What do YOU think? Is Training the answer to getting 'RESPECT'?

If not, what is?

Well, I think that training is the way... actually IT IS the way but I wont poll with first answer becasue not all people will yeild with training...I swear I can fill the forum with my daily stories about people and thier behaviors ... and guys guess what? I am dealing with the TWO COMPANIES... one that had system already (9001:94) and one that HAD NOTHING AND NEVER HAD EVEN A QA engineer or whatever ... Training is working with SOME people and some are ................
its the issue of my life now!

Dear Tanahy:

Nice to see you responding to this thread. I notice that you are only 24 years old and a new Cover. I am also new to the Cove, much older though.

Anyway, as far as R-E-S-P-E-C-T is concerned, I don't think it has anything to do with training, advanced degrees, certification, or anything of that sort that you can hang on your wall. It has much more to do with what you have inside you that no one can see but which comes out every time you walk, every time you talk, and every time you deal with people.

Treat everyone with respect and consideration, and you will get R-E-S-P-E-C-T. We understand this in our personal life, but seem to fail to understand this in our work lives. I come across a lot of people driving like crazy and literally trying to drive me off the road some days. I don't understand where they are going - in such a hurry. At work, I often see many people, not acting, or doing anything. They seem to refuse to make decisions and actually being roadblocks! On the road, however, it is all a big big hurry and a great madness.

Then I tell myself, I am sure, this person will not do, or behave in this rude and aggressive manner, if we were to meet in person. So, I just let it go.

I will admit though that, when I was younger, I have done a thing or two that were very stupid! Anyway, R-E-S-P-E-C-T is earned in a very different sort of way, not by training. That was my point. With my warm regards and great success to you in life.

Charmed :) :thanx:

I was reading the thread topic to be more in line with obtaining "respect" for the quality management system, not individual respect and so my response is in regards to that.

Getting past the 'flavour of the week' tag that may be applied to the management system is difficult...especially if your organization has a lengthy history of implementing (but not maintain) fads and business concepts.

Some ideas for considersation are...


You're not implementing ISO 9001...you're simply formalizing your processes (that way, should Customers start asking for ISO registration, you're in good shape to get it...but you don't need to use the buzz word "ISO" in your discussions).
Communication...be it training, signs, newsletters, banners flown from a passing airplane. Communication is, however, only effective if you are speaking a language people understand. If the education level is low, use common words. If it's sales, talk $ and Customers. If it's management, talk $, time, ROI, Customers, efficiency, and improvement.
Commitment from Managment and you! They have to want this...you have to want this. You have just become the QMS Cheerleaders. Get excited! Believe! It's Game 7 of the series championship...tied at 3 games apiece...you don't get this done, you lose! If you don't believe, how do you expect to get others to?
Know the benefits and share them! Tell people how this will help make their jobs easier. Show them proof!
Get involvement from others. If you are responsible for getting registration, get other people from other departments involved. Once they get excited, they'll pass it on to their coworkers, too.


Training is all well and good, but it is not the only way to obtaining buy-in for a managment system.

There is no direct correlation between training and respect. If that were so, then all PHDs should be given more respect than any high school graduate. Yet, many with doctorates garner little respect, and some people with little education are highly respected.

The definition of respect is the giving of particular attention or deference to one judged worthy of esteem; a recognition and due regard for another person, his qualities, achievements, office, position, or authority.

Respect is something others give you. You cannot get it yourself; through training or by any other means. Some people try to demand respect, but they do not get it if others do not believe it is deserving.

Now, if you get training because you intend to use it to benefit your company or other people, and the application of that training yields the respect of others, then there is a connection. However, trying to make an all encompassing correlation between the two is impossible.

There is no direct correlation between training and respect. If that were so, then all PHDs should be given more respect than any high school graduate. Yet, many with doctorates garner little respect, and some people with little education are highly respected.

The definition of respect is the giving of particular attention or deference to one judged worthy of esteem; a recognition and due regard for another person, his qualities, achievements, office, position, or authority.

Respect is something others give you. You cannot get it yourself; through training or by any other means. Some people try to demand respect, but they do not get it if others do not believe it is deserving.

Now, if you get training because you intend to use it to benefit your company or other people, and the application of that training yields the respect of others, then there is a connection. However, trying to make an all encompassing correlation between the two is impossible.In short, you have to EARN respect. That means, in most cases, you have to give respect before you can receive respect. I'm sure you can recall "hating" someone who always thought he was better than you because he looked better, had more money, etc., but that you probably have friends and colleagues who also look better, have more money, etc. than you, but you respect them because they respect you.

Training is only a piece of the RESPECT puzzle. Granted, without training it is unlikely to happen, but training alone is not sufficient to get RESPECT. It all depends on how the new applications provided by the training are USED.

The person that earns R.E.S.P.E.C.T. is:

Responsible
Empathetic
Skilled (a "piece of the RESPECT puzzle")
Productive ("application" of training?)
Ethical
Courageous & Consistent
Teaches others

Conversely, I have noted that people do not respect someone who is irresponsible, does not care about the feelings or others, has no useful skills, is lazy, unethical, cowardly, vacillates, and doesn’t help or instruct others.

Perhaps that mnemonic device will help.

In regards to respect of the quality system....

Buy in from top management. If the managers sit around and crack jokes about the quality management system, so will the supervisors, and then so will the hourly employee. Now, this is all assuming that you as a management rep, or whatever, knows what you are doing and has a decent system.

Training is part of it, but too many times I've seen or heard of quality systems personnel just being a necessary evil to get that ISO certificate. If that is all your management is interested in, you may get all kinds of personal respect, but you will not be respected for your job abilities.

One thing that I've experienced is that I will make a suggestion as "the ISO person" only to have it pooh-poohed or dismissed until someone in higher authority can claim it for themselves. Once the same suggestion is brought to the table by a manager, it is all important. So, I just feed those ideas to managers and let them bring them up. The system gets what it needs, sometimes I get frustrated because I don't get credit for my ideas, but as long as the system prevails, I just need to learn to give it up.

In regards to respect of the quality system....

Phew! I thought I was the only one who believed this thread was in regard to the system and not individual respect. :)

Buy in from top management. If the managers sit around and crack jokes about the quality management system, so will the supervisors, and then so will the hourly employee. Now, this is all assuming that you as a management rep, or whatever, knows what you are doing and has a decent system.

You're right about the buy-in from top management. They have to want it...badly. It is difficult to get true buy-in if they're busying laughing at it or believing that it's all just for a silly piece of paper.

Training is part of it, but too many times I've seen or heard of quality systems personnel just being a necessary evil to get that ISO certificate. If that is all your management is interested in, you may get all kinds of personal respect, but you will not be respected for your job abilities.

I had a boss once who referred to me and my ISO ilk as "necessary overhead." Nothing like feeling loved! People would sit through training very politely. Do the exercises quite well. And toss it all in the recycle box on the way out the door. Training is simply part of communication of management's comittment. And you need all of it to start having the possibility of buy-in.

One thing that I've experienced is that I will make a suggestion as "the ISO person" only to have it pooh-poohed or dismissed until someone in higher authority can claim it for themselves. Once the same suggestion is brought to the table by a manager, it is all important. So, I just feed those ideas to managers and let them bring them up. The system gets what it needs, sometimes I get frustrated because I don't get credit for my ideas, but as long as the system prevails, I just need to learn to give it up.

I've had to learn the manager feeding concept, as well. On the plus side, while I may not get the initial recognition, I usually get it come review time. :)

Phew! I thought I was the only one who believed this thread was in regard to the system and not individual respect. :)


It cuts both ways. IMO, the "system" won't earn respect unless the individuals and components supporting the system earn respect.

Before I get strung up, ladies, I'll try to steer myself back on track. :bonk:

You are absolutely right! Actually, two things have to happen to get the masses to RESPECT the Quality System. The first you've adequately covered: Top Management Commitment! Without it, the system and we ourselves will be grudgingly tolerated - but not respected.

The second is what we personally have to do: Educate management and everyone else! There is a lot of nonsense in standards like ISO. We have to get past that; dispel wrong assumptions and TEACH everyone the valuable aspects of a well defined and implemented quality management system.

Training should not focus on the nuts and bolts of how procedures are controlled, or that a work instruction is a level 3 document, or that everyone must memorize the quality policy. We should focus on how important consistency is, how much money can be saved doing proper root cause analysis or statistical process control, how important a strategic business plan is to long term success, or well orgainzed work areas make everyone's jobs easier.

If we make sense to management, and they see our hard work, they begin to respect US and slowly start respecting the system we're trying to implement. I'm probably starting to ramble at this point, so I'll stop.

Any suggestions on how this can be achieved in a quality program with a historically quick cycle time for managers, engineers, upper level quality personnel, (not inspectors).
How can people be convinced that quality initiatives are not just "flavour of the week" or a passing fad? Does training everyone on these programs help appreciably? I was with a company, not in a quality role, and when we had training on "lean manufacturing" I don't recall overwhelming support arising from the classes.
Results of quality programs can be hard to justify to the manufacturing floor, which operates on a case-to-case basis, not a systems viewpoint. Are there programs for systems training for manufacturing personnel? (I checked the Cayman Systems offerings and found ISO for hourly employees, but not systems viewpoint for them. Did I miss something?)
Thanks,

The original posting by Mac did not specify any particular aspect of "RESPECT". whthere that be personal respect, respect for the system, for the Q Prog or wahetevr. I will take it first as meaning respect for the quality person striving to improve quality by various means, including the Q Prog which happens to embrace the QMS and so forth.

Those I have respected have been people who have not only known what they talk about but have been able to practice/ demonstrate what they preach, give sound advice (as a mentor) and help me (or others) in some meaningful way or other.

Quality programs can hardly now be regarded as "flavor of the month" as American (and other nations') business in particular has been grappling with them for decades. A meaningful Q Prog is not a quick fix - though too many hope or regard it as such. Even Toyota admits it still works on that stuff after decades. And Mr Juran is now 100 years old having advocated and argued the merits of Q progs for years.

Training without applying the subject matter so as to acquire competence and measured beneficial results is a waste of money. That certainly deserves no respect. And if training is delivered by an unconvincing teacher (perhaps appearing less than experienced or able in the subject himself/ herself) will not build respect for that particular training, either.

Results of quality programs are certainly hard to justify if at the outset the quality program itself does not require goals accompanied with relevant targets (time frame for results and "quantity" required) and also incorporate data capture mechanisms for measuring progress that the doer and management can comprehend. Given that shortfall in content, the quality program itself deserves no respect, as it has no meaningful purpose for those entrusted with applying it. At the heart of PDCA is the first step - "plan". But, plan for what? If the "what" is some defined end goal specified by (inter alia) such targets, the rest (DCA) can acquire greater impact. Then the PDCA itself will also be respected.

Yes, there is systems training for employees available from a wide variety of sources but, as is the case with all forms of training, exercise due diligence and remember caveat emptor.

Well, this thread was originally resurrected today by someone who added a vote to the poll - that brings the thread to the top of the queue.

The thread topic, however, is as pertinent today (maybe even more pertinent, given recent mass recalls for "quality lapses" on toys) as it was "back in the day."

What would you do to restore respect to your quality program after it takes a big hit like the Mattel recall? Where would you start? Can you do it with a Deming approach (System of Profound Knowledge) or would you do something else?

One thing I'm pretty sure of: pointing fingers of blame at anyone other than the end consumer (whose maddening cry of "CHEAPER!" without adding at the same time, and at the same volume of voice, "BUT IMPROVE QUALITY!") is fruitless without a program to remedy the situation through education and example.

The big question in my mind is whether the consumers will heed and act on the lessons learned or go back to yelling "CHEAPER!" "CHEAPER!" and omitting to add "BUT IMPROVE QUALITY!" "BUT IMPROVE QUALITY!"

I'm sure you can predict my answer. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge is the vehicle for respect.

Notice I called it a vehicle. That's because respect is a culture, not a method. It starts with the makers of goods.

Manufacturers needs to acknowledge that their buyers are not stupid. Sure, people are fixated on low prices. I'm not surprised, since prices of everything are on the rise but most salaries remain nearly flat. So it's easy to forget that people are questioning why Mattel et. al. have not been testing their supplied goods. The manufacturers need to communicate that they are bringing in such practices to make sure their products are safe to use within the law.

There's a lot of mud singing at China, but I see this as an elementary supplier control failure. The manufacturers need to address the issue honestly and in plain terms, so people will first have a reason to not feel they are just supplying revenue.

The remaining fact is, people will still be buying toys because Johnny and Sally have no clear idea of this problem. They just know the commercials have shown this great toy, and they want it. Parents will remain pressured to buy...Christmas is coming, and these aren't teddy bears we're talking about. These toys are licensed to one maker. It will take more than this to keep people from buying them.

Having been directly impacted by 2 of the recent recalls (Dora characeters and Car safety seat), I can tell you that I will GREATLY change how I will purchase toys for my daughter. Fortunately, she is not of an age (2.5) that I will get the "Daddy, I want it" routine yet. However, I will definitely be looking at how an item is manufactured to try to avoid such problems.

Don't get me wrong - I am not insane enough (I am in quality so I have some level of insanity :) ) to think I can avoid Chinese manufactured goods. It is just too prevelant. I have and will continue to take steps to purchase items that are manufacturered or at least assembled from a trusted sources (i.e. not the Far East). At least in that case, someone was forced to look at the items from the Far East before it reached the store shelves. Is this a perfect way of dealing with this? NO - but it does reduce my risk (and the risk to my daughter)

Just my:2cents:

John