Hi All

Would like to gauge the Covers opinions on this one.

Is a company objective to achieve a sales growth of a product a 'quality objective' as defined by ISO9000 ?

I would say yes that it is a basic objective of the organisation which can then be translated into constituent parts for various functions of the organisation.

The quality in quality objectives refers IMHO to the fact that there are requirements for the improvement of the company performance and as such the PCDA cycle is used to achieve this.

The overall objective includes aspects of customer satisfaction, increased efficiency, reduction of costs etc. All these are positive aspects of the objective.

IMO absolutley. Without sales a company does not survive. Sales is a process as much as making the product being sold is, everyone would agree that to increase yield on a process could be a quality objective. I see increasing sales as being analgous to increasing yield.

I'd have to agree that it is OK, as one of our quality objectives is simply to increase customer satisfaction. It was named as an objective for the transition audit to the latest ISO9000:2000 and we had no problems with auditors then or since (we've had three different BSI auditors look at the system).

Thanks for the response so far guys.

The reason I ask is because I have exprienced ISO9001 auditors questioning a 'sales' objective as being a 'quality' objective.

These tend to be the auditors stuck in the mind warp of quality being soley about product compliance to drawing specifications, hence their expectation of a 'quality objective' is something relating to product compliance, such as defect rates.

I respectfully disagree with previous posters. While sales objectives are very critical to any commercial organization, I don't think they constitute a quality objective. There are many aspects of an organization that can benefit from objectives, such as safety, environmental management, finances, etc...., but according to my understanding of the definition of "quality objectives" it would not qualify. From ISO 9000:2000 par. 2.11 :"...The quality objectives complement other objectives of the organization such as those related to growth, funding, profitability, the environment and occupational health and safety...." Actually, in my view point, sales growth can have a direct and negative impact on quality and customer satisfaction, by making sales people overly eager to sell what they don't have, lie about delivery dates, over promise on product features, etc. That is why top management has to balance all applicable objectives of an organization, in order to achieve a sustainable balance.

Thanks Sidney

Your point is a good one.

Should we then, in terms of our ISO9001 system, only set objectives relating to product conformity and customer satisfaction ?

I fully take your point about balancing objectives.

Should we then, in terms of our ISO9001 system, only set objectives relating to product conformity and customer satisfactionQ Objectives, in one way or another should be connected with customer satisfaction issues, imho. But depending on the type of organization, and their current and desired level of performance, some objectives could go beyond simple conformity issues. I offer the following objectives, as examples:

decrease lead times
improve inventory accuracy
reduce time to market while maintaining design soundness
improve billing accuracy (for a law firm)
improve on time delivery performance (almost an universal one)
reduce installation times
etc
There are wide variations on this topic, so I am sure different views could be offered.

One of the aims of my current company is to be the world leader in our chosen sector, this is also included in our quality policy.

Having "sales growth" as an objective would seem to "complement other objectives of the organization" and be consistent with our quality policy, as required by 5.4.1 of ISO 9001:2000.

Could you explain why you would not consider this to be the case Sidney

Could you explain why you would not consider this to be the case SidneyNo, I can't. If it works for you, go for it. 99.99999% of the commercial institutions in the world want to increase sales. If having a documented sales growth objective helps you moving towards world leadership, by all means, use it.

Quality makes sales grow, not vice versa. Just ask the Japanese car industry that's proof enough.

Sales driving quality was the US auto industry way of thinking...which US car maker's are not considered junk stock at this time?

Sidney is more correct

I completely agree Randy.

I do believe that "sales growth" is a valid quality objective, especially if you have a good quality product but sales are poor. The sales process can be in need of improvement as much as any other process and if this is the case "sales growth" would seem a valid way of determining if improvement is happening.

I wouldn't personally choose sales growth as a quality objective for my current company, some of Sidneys suggestions would be a much better choice rather than sales growth, I just believed it was a valid one which was the original question. I was just curious why Sidney didn't consider it to be a valid objective and was wondering if I was missing something.

It may just be semantics, but I respectfully disagree. Sales growth, to me, is the result of successfully attaining quality objectives, among other things (design, pricing, terms and conditions, etc.). To say that sales growth is a quality objective is, in a way, backwards. Just MHO

Hi All


Is a company objective to achieve a sales growth of a product a 'quality objective' as defined by ISO9000 ?

Just one more "opinion"...

The use of the word "Quality" as an adjective for the Management System (as seen in the ISO 9000 Standard 4.0 QUALITY Management, 4.2.2 QUALITY Manual, 5.3 QUALITY Policy, etc.) is very misleading. So much so, that, most companies have relegated the responsibility for this "Management System" to the "Quality Manager", which is no more a propos than having the Human Resources Manager responsible for Environmental Systems.

No matter how you cut it, what you are creating is an integrated Business or Management Operating System which encompasses all Key Processes of the organization, not quality alone.

Nonetheless, the Standard requires that:
1) You identify "4.1.a...the processes needed for the QUALITY (ignore this word) management system and its application throughout the organization"...
2) You ensure that you have stated objectives (which must be measurable/quantifiable) for all key processes (the metrics are how you ensure that your "Process" is effective and efficient).

It stands to reason, that if Sales is defined as a key process, you'll want to ensure that it meets stated objectives.

Some people might refer to all their objectives as "Quality Objectives", when they're really talking about overall "System" performance objectives. Company goals, aspirations and beliefs are identified in the Policy Statement. The Policy Statement is deployed through the Business Plan. The Business Plan defines the objectives or performance expectations. The objectives are assigned to respective "Key Process" owners, who identify the measurements or metrics which will be created to monitor the performance of each process. That is how the company ensures that the Policy Statement is deployed.
So...I suggest you just drop the word Quality, except for when it applies specifically to Product Quality or the Quality Department.

Your sales growth objective then, is an Management System / Business Plan objective. I think it’s very important that the language is clarified and standardized for the benefit of everyone in the organization.

...Just another perspective to consider...a rose by any other name...
Patricia

Just one more "opinion"...

The use of the word "Quality" as an adjective for the Management System (as seen in the ISO 9000 Standard 4.0 QUALITY Management, 4.2.2 QUALITY Manual, 5.3 QUALITY Policy, etc.) is very misleading. So much so, that, most companies have relegated the responsibility for this "Management System" to the "Quality Manager", which is no more a propos than having the Human Resources Manager responsible for Environmental Systems.

No matter how you cut it, what you are creating is an integrated Business or Management Operating System which encompasses all Key Processes of the organization, not quality alone.

Nonetheless, the Standard requires that:
1) You identify "4.1.a...the processes needed for the QUALITY (ignore this word) management system and its application throughout the organization"...
2) You ensure that you have stated objectives (which must be measurable/quantifiable) for all key processes (the metrics are how you ensure that your "Process" is effective and efficient).

It stands to reason, that if Sales is defined as a key process, you'll want to ensure that it meets stated objectives.

Some people might refer to all their objectives as "Quality Objectives", when they're really talking about overall "System" performance objectives. Company goals, aspirations and beliefs are identified in the Policy Statement. The Policy Statement is deployed through the Business Plan. The Business Plan defines the objectives or performance expectations. The objectives are assigned to respective "Key Process" owners, who identify the measurements or metrics which will be created to monitor the performance of each process. That is how the company ensures that the Policy Statement is deployed.
So...I suggest you just drop the word Quality, except for when it applies specifically to Product Quality or the Quality Department.

Your sales growth objective then, is an Management System / Business Plan objective. I think it’s very important that the language is clarified and standardized for the benefit of everyone in the organization.

...Just another perspective to consider...a rose by any other name...
Patricia

I was going to reply to this thread, but frankly, Patricia, your explanation was so perfect, I simply say I concur completely with Patricia's reply. Sales is a process, and the company must define criteria (cl 4.1.c) as to how they will know if that process is effective. And while a company may define meeting customer needs promptly as a worthy criteria, I am sure every company regards good sales as a fundamental criteria for Sales.

Quality makes sales grow, not vice versa. Just ask the Japanese car industry that's proof enough.

Sales driving quality was the US auto industry way of thinking...which US car maker's are not considered junk stock at this time?

Sidney is more correct

However, the Sales process has little impact on the uality of a product. And 4.1.c requires they define the criteria whereby the will know the Sales process is effective. It should be something within the boundaries of the Sales process activities, should it not?

Sales doesn't drive quality, sales are derived from quality.

If it ain't no good, not too many folks will buy it.

Sales doesn't drive quality, sales are derived from quality.

If it ain't no good, not too many folks will buy it.


Of course. I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that quality is critical to the company.

I certainly would expect to see quality product defined as a key criteria for the manufacturing process. But If I am auditing Sales, I have to determine if that Sales process is effective. So, I'll ask what they defined as "effectiveness" (4.1.c) for that Sales process. If they say Quality product, won't I have to ask what do the sales guys do to make the product have quality?

However, the Sales process has little impact on the uality of a product. And 4.1.c requires they define the criteria whereby the will know the Sales process is effective. It should be something within the boundaries of the Sales process activities, should it not?

No - in many situations the Sales process can be a major influence on how the product is produced and on its quality. If you take on more than you can cope with, corners may be cut, less reliable suppliers and raw materials may be used, delivery times may be affected etc. So increasing sales needs to be supported by increased efficiency and capacity. I think that it is called systems thinking!

Randy

You say that sales growth would be determental to quality, or at least does not support quality improvement, however in many cases significant quality improvement initiatives require some financial investment from the company - hence an increase in sales could result in the release of funds for improvement projects or capital investment in new machine tools (for example) could it not ?

Again I accept that this could not be the only objective, and balance is needed for this objective and in fact any single objective such that they are not achieved at the expense of all other important activities.

No - in many situations the Sales process can be a major influence on how the product is produced and on its quality. If you take on more than you can cope with, corners may be cut, less reliable suppliers and raw materials may be used, delivery times may be affected etc. So increasing sales needs to be supported by increased efficiency and capacity. I think that it is called systems thinking!

Of course, poor planning in sales can ERODE quality. And poor execution in other processes can as well. And these factors should be evaluated when one audits the Sales process. But does not every company judge its Sales activities (process) based on whether they meet Sales goals? I find that to be a near universal metric at the companies I audit.

I feel this thread is drifting away from the original question - was Sales Growth a permissable objective. These other replies all make valid additions, but they don't make an argument that it is noncompliant to include Sales Growth as a valid, compliant objective for a Sales process. A wise company will include some of these other good factors as well, as they determine it is applicable.

Auditors are not permitted to force their own opinion on a company. The company is free to define their processes and criteria and objectives. It becomes noncomplaint only when it fails to be compliant to the standard.

Think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

If we consider our field sales activity as a process, then one if its primary objectives must be to secure more sales.

I wouldn't limit it to sales either. Marketing certainly has a role to play in increasing sales growth.

Sales growth may not improve quality of the product but a good quality product doesn't sell itself either, Betamax videos were certainly superior in terms of play back quality but ineffective sales and marketing failed to get it used in the market place.

Sales growth to me seems to a be a sensible objective for improving sales and marketing processes.

I think that it has finally dawned on me why I don't like this idea. OK, we have this nice chart that shows sales growth (or, for that matter negative growth). So, what exactly does that mean? How do we use the data to improve? There are so mazny factors at work here that assuming causation is dangerous.

In short, in the real world, how does one use sales growth to EFFECTIVELY make decisions? I won't assume that it is the only metric used, but even along with other factors (hopefully market share would be the very next graph looked at) it seems to me to be a little broad without being broken down into more manageable pieces, such as by demographic sector when evaluating the impact of a design change.

So, the overall objective of maximizing profitability would possibly have a sub-objective of attaining sales growth. I think what we are looking at here with the original question is just where the boundary is between Business Management and Quality Management. Or, are they really the same thing?

That said

I think that it has finally dawned on me why I don't like this idea. OK, we have this nice chart that shows sales growth (or, for that matter negative growth). So, what exactly does that mean? How do we use the data to improve? There are so mazny factors at work here that assuming causation is dangerous.

In short, in the real world, how does one use sales growth to EFFECTIVELY make decisions? I won't assume that it is the only metric used, but even along with other factors (hopefully market share would be the very next graph looked at) it seems to me to be a little broad without being broken down into more manageable pieces, such as by demographic sector when evaluating the impact of a design change.

So, the overall objective of maximizing profitability would possibly have a sub-objective of attaining sales growth. I think what we are looking at here with the original question is just where the boundary is between Business Management and Quality Management. Or, are they really the same thing?

That said


1) In response to first paragraph: Of course you can't assume causation. If you don't meet your objectives, you initiate corrective action...

2)How do you use the data to improve? It's called root cause analysis or 5-Why, or whatever methodology you choose to pinpoint the cause or causes of failure in sales.

3) Re: Boundary between Business and Quality Management... there is no difference...that's my point (see earlier post)...its a matter of semantics...potatoe/potauto.....quality/schmality - its a Business or Management Operating System designed to meet the stated requirements of customers, shareholder and interested parties.

Quality is such a misinterpreted and misused word. When we hear Quality, we assume "high" quality. That's not necessarily the case. Quality really implies "meeting defined requirements". We all know, those requirements can have a wide range of attributes...even as described by our customer (Highline product vs. lowline product....the difference is ususally in the "quality" of the materials, or perceived value). Quality is more about consistently meeting the stated requirements than about "superior" attributes.

Enough said....I don't want to take this thread further off course...the question was "Do sales objectives fall into the realm of Quality objectives as defined by ISO 9000?"
IMHO Sales Objectives are one of your Business Plan Objectives. Each metric is not a stand alone item...ususally they form part of a hierarchy of metrics which can impact on several processes. If your Policy Statement identifies "Profitability" as a goal of the company, "Increased Sales" might make up part of that hierarchy, as would "Decreased Labor Costs/per unit sold", "Decreased Expedited Freight", etc.

Patricia

...the question was "Do sales objectives fall into the realm of Quality objectives as defined by ISO 9000?"


Fair enough. No.

Ah now I like the way this discussion has highlighted the hierachy of objectives.

In this hierachy would our very top level objective be to increase profit, assuming that we are in a commercial enterprise ?

I think it is, and we can achieve this in 3 simple ways - increase price, reduce costs, and increase turnover.

Now to increase turnover we could increase sales, and to increase sales we could hire more sales people and send them on the road to capture more business, and/or perhaps we could improve the quality of our product or give it more features and hope that increases sales.

Would the ISO9001 defenition of 'quality' objectives only consider the objective above to improve product quality with new features, and not the objective to hire 5 more field sales staff and visit 10 new leads a month (for example) ??

Would the ISO9001 defenition of 'quality' objectives only consider the objective above to improve product quality with new features, and not the objective to hire 5 more field sales staff and visit 10 new leads a month (for example) ??

Yep.

Well, kind of. One way to increase sales would be by the sales folks providing feedback that is captured and used. Say that the customers are having trouble getting the darn thing out of the packaging. If you have bought many things from "big box" retailers you know what I mean. "Easy Open Packaging" on the front of a package that is easy to open might get more sales, and this would be accomplished through the design process.

So, 5 more sales folks should result in more feedback, and I guess this should be considered as well. Can the system handle it?

We have taken the following route:

Defining quality objectives:
five types of quality objectives:
Objectives for business performance, addressing markets, the environment and the society
Objectives for product or service performance, addressing customer needs and competition
Objectives for process performance, addressing the capability, efficiency and effectiveness of the process, its use of resources and its controllability
Objectives for organisational performance, addressing the capability, efficiency and effectiveness of the organisation, its responsiveness to change, the environment in which the people work etc.
Objectives for employee performance, addressing the skills, knowledge, ability, motivation and development of workers

Here's a quote from the introduction to 9000-2000:ISO 9001 specifies requirements for a quality management system where an organization needs to demonstrate its ability to provide products that fulfil [sic] customer and applicable regulatory requirements and aims to enhance customer satisfaction. (Emphasis added)
The clear (to me at least) direction is towards product quality. Of course, all of the processes (and their interactions) that contribute to product quality must be identified and controlled. This does not mean that processes that have no direct relationship to product quality must be identified and controlled, however prudent it might be to do so. We're talking about requirements for meeting the standard here, not some grand vision of the ideal state of the universe.

As to the topic question regarding sales objectives, those objectives with a direct bearing on product quality are relevant. If the sales department has an objective to increase sales by x%, there could be a relationship to product quality, as quality might suffer if production capacities are strained in order to meet the demands of increased sales. It would be important, in this instance, to control the interactions between sales and production to the extent that product quality might be affected. On the other hand, if there were an objective to identify new markets for existing products, there would not necessarily be a need for 9k2k controls to be applied, as there is no inherent component of the objective that relates to product quality or customer satisfaction.

The key is to identify and control processes and process interaction that have the potential to affect product quality.

Excellent comments, Jim.

Most people realize that any successful organization has to balance the interests and expectations of multiple stakeholders. The Quality Management System is a sub-set of the Business Management Model. The QMS’s primary (not the only one) stakeholder are obviously the organization’s customers, who are interested in product quality and customer satisfaction. They, the customers, are the primary interested parties in the supplier’s QMS performance, and that is why most ISO 9001 certifications around the world happen, due to customer pressure.

One of the mistakes done my many quality professionals involved with ISO 9001 is to “sell” it for something it is not. ISO 9001 is NOT a business management model. There are MANY aspects of an organization that ISO 9001 doesn’t even come close to addressing.

While quality is much more than product conformity and conformance to requirements, we have to realize and accept that ISO 9001 FOCUSES on quality, not business excellence, not profitability, not product ingenuity, etc.

Most companies fail to truly benefit from ISO 9001 implementation because their approach is still one of management OF quality, instead of managing FOR Quality (a profound difference), i.e., a holistic approach.

Undoubtedly the sales process is part of the QMS, and if you want to develop quality objectives for the sales process, what about the following examples?

¨Improve accuracy of the order entry process
¨Reduce time to review bids and orders
¨Cross train sales and applications engineers
¨Institute EDI with top 10 customers
¨Etc…

In other words, what do I need to focus on the sales process to improve that aspect of my QMS, as it impacts customer satisfaction. To recap, there is nothing wrong to have an objective to increase sales, but imo, it does NOT fall under the definition of quality objectives.

If you're a manufacturer and you only have objectives for sales and rates of production, then you're missing the point of having a quality system, but what if your business is sales? Real estate agencies, brokers, or auctioneers might want to establish sales objectives to try and improve the quality of service to their clients:

- improve sell prices as percentage of assessed value
- reduce time on market
- improve number of sales/number of prospects

Would a simple objective to "increase sales" qualify as a quality objective for these kinds of businesses? Increased sales probably would improve customer satisfaction.

A good part of this conversation....which is pretty good....can be understood by applying some of the essential principles of supply and demand economics with Quality being an additional variable along with quantity and price.

I'm no math or economics genious but I can see it with my rudimentary understanding.

One of the mistakes done my many quality professionals involved with ISO 9001 is to “sell” it for something it is not. ISO 9001 is NOT a business management model. There are MANY aspects of an organization that ISO 9001 doesn’t even come close to addressing.


I suppose if we all agreed with each other, this would be a boring forum, so I have to voice my disagreement with the preceeding statement.

ISO 9001 is very much a Business Management Model. You're right in saying that it doesn't come close to addressing many aspects of an organization's functions - it doesn't deal with marketing, advertising, market research, research and development or financial functions, just to name a few.

However, the standard requires that you identify your KEY PROCESSES - customer-, support-, and management-oriented (not your Product Realization processes alone) and determine the sequence and interaction of all of them. The fact that ISO doesn't specify any requirements for those functions (and hence, no specific requirements to audit), doesn't mean you can ignore them...and I can't imagine why you would. Would you set up a separate methodology to manage these "unmentioned" functions?

ISO 9000 is most definitely a Business Management Model, and for the overwhelming number of companies that have implemented it, it's the only model to which they subscribe. A prudent company would monitor and measure the performance of ALL processes, implement corrective & preventive action and continual improvement per the same methodology mandated through the ISO standard.

Additionally, when you are faced with adding on the requirements of other standards and requirements (customer-specifics, Sarbanes Oxley, ISO 14001, etc.), they should all be built into the same Business Operating System, thereby creating a totally integrated system, with a minimal number of documents.

When I get a chance, I'll add references for some of the many web-sites which support this view.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond,
Patricia

However, the standard requires that you identify your KEY PROCESSES - customer-, support-, and management-oriented (not your Product Realization processes alone) and determine the sequence and interaction of all of them. The fact that ISO doesn't specify any requirements for those functions (and hence, no specific requirements to audit), doesn't mean you can ignore them...and I can't imagine why you would. Would you set up a separate methodology to manage these "unmentioned" functions?




Well, Patricia, I think we may have found the heart of our disagreement. 4.1 a asks for identification of the processes needed for the QMS. While c goes on to require monitoring and control, there is no mention of objectives, per se, and I argue that objectives do not equal monitoring and control as the terms are used elsewhere. While I agree that the quality toolkit does have some tricks that can be applied to those areas outside the QMS, that does not make those areas de facto members of the QMS subset.

I suspect that this is an area where few minds will be changed, but an interesting thread nonetheless!

Looking thru the posts, I only see one that relates to improvement and that is "M.Greenway RE: increase profits". Increase in sales does not mean a hill of beans without a profit margin or at least absorbtion of the fixed and variable burden. Previously between QM jobs I was a Sales manager for a Fortune 500 company. We had a hard time improving our margins of profit due to increased competition from offshore companies. These companies sold product for less it cost us to make it. I could have easily increased sales to big key accounts, but we would have a negative margin. So I think an objective could be to increase profits by improving quality, productivity, and service thus causing customer pull thru because of customer excitement for your product.

Looking thru the posts, I only see one that relates to improvement and that is "M.Greenway RE: increase profits". Increase in sales does not mean a hill of beans without a profit margin or at least absorbtion of the fixed and variable burden. Previously between QM jobs I was a Sales manager for a Fortune 500 company. We had a hard time improving our margins of profit due to increased competition from offshore companies. These companies sold product for less it cost us to make it. I could have easily increased sales to big key accounts, but we would have a negative margin. So I think an objective could be to increase profits by improving quality, productivity, and service thus causing customer pull thru because of customer excitement for your product.


Yes. The main #1 goal of a for profit enterprise is just that - make a profit. That begs the question: How? The answers to that question should translate into objectives, qualitywise and otherwise.

I suppose if we all agreed with each other, this would be a boring forum, so I have to voice my disagreement with the preceeding statement. ....ISO 9001 is very much a Business Management Model. ... ISO 9000 is most definitely a Business Management Model, and for the overwhelming number of companies that have implemented it, it's the only model to which they subscribe. .... I get a chance, I'll add references for some of the many web-sites which support this view.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond,
PatriciaThis is what makes the Cove the greatest quality related forum in the UNIVERSE...Don't ever feel concerned about disagreeing and defending your points of view. From the healthy clash and exchange of ideas, I think we all learn. From your posts, I am sure that you are a very passionate Quality professional and, obviously, feel very strong about your positions and how ISO 9001 could "save" the (corporate) World. I have been close to that place. Most of us, quality professionals, tend to think that the World revolves around quality, or at least, it should. We complain that management does not see the light, is short sighted, allow the organization to neglect the customers, etc....true in many cases. But quality has a place. And like anything else, when overstated, people will question you.

I still say it. Don't overpromise what ISO 9001 is or does. I am interested to see the sites you referred to. When I look at the ISO website, I find the following:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/inbrief.html


The ISO 9000 family is primarily concerned with "quality management". This means what the organization does to fulfil:- the customer's quality requirements, and

- applicable regulatory requirements, while aiming to
- enhance customer satisfaction, and
- achieve continual improvement of its performance in pursuit of these objectives.

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/basics/general/basics_4.html
ISO 9000 is primarily concerned with "quality management". In the everyday context, like "beauty", everyone may have his or her idea of what "quality" is. But, in the ISO 9000 context, the standardized definition of quality refers to all those features of a product (or service) which are required by the customer.
"Quality management" means what the organization does to ensure that its products or services satisfy the customer's quality requirements and comply with any regulations applicable to those products or services.

Well, Patricia, I think we may have found the heart of our disagreement. 4.1 a asks for identification of the processes needed for the QMS. While c goes on to require monitoring and control, there is no mention of objectives, per se, and I argue that objectives do not equal monitoring and control as the terms are used elsewhere. .....\

The mention of objectives is found in 5.4 Planning...
5.4.1 ...quality objectives, including those to meet the requirements of the product are established at relevant functions and levels....

At any rate...I'm content to agree that we don't see eye to eye on this one.

Patricia

The mention of objectives is found in 5.4 Planning...
5.4.1 ...quality objectives, including those to meet the requirements of the product are established at relevant functions and levels....

At any rate...I'm content to agree that we don't see eye to eye on this one.

Patricia


Hey, Patricia, this has been fun! A very interesting thread to end the week. Have a GREAT weekend, one and all!!

This is what makes the Cove the greatest quality related forum in the UNIVERSE...Don't ever feel concerned about disagreeing and defending your points of view. From the healthy clash and exchange of ideas, I think we all learn. From your posts, I am sure that you are a very passionate Quality professional and, obviously, feel very strong about your positions and how ISO 9001 could "save" the (corporate) World. I have been close to that place. Most of us, quality professionals, tend to think that the World revolves around quality, or at least, it should. We complain that management does not see the light, is short sighted, allow the organization to neglect the customers, etc....true in many cases. But quality has a place. And like anything else, when overstated, people will question you.

I still say it. Don't overpromise what ISO 9001 is or does. I am interested to see the sites you referred to. When I look at the ISO website, I find the following:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/iso9000-14000/understand/inbrief.html


The ISO 9000 family is primarily concerned with "quality management". This means what the organization does to fulfil:- the customer's quality requirements, and

- applicable regulatory requirements, while aiming to
- enhance customer satisfaction, and
- achieve continual improvement of its performance in pursuit of these objectives.




That was exactly the same web-site I was going to refer you to...if you read further down the page, they say:

"The vast majority of ISO standards are highly specific to a particular product, material, or process. However, the standards that have earned the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 families a worldwide reputation are known as "generic management system standards”.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]

They go on to define a "Management System"...

"Management system" refers to the organization's structure for managing its processes - or activities - that transform inputs of resources into a product or service which meet the organization's objectives, such as satisfying the customer's quality requirements, complying to regulations, or meeting environmental objectives."

This has been a great repartee (It's not my intention to cut off this discussion) ...thanks for taking the time to write...I have to sign off for the day...Have a great week-end.

Patricia

[QUOTE=Sidney Vianna]

One of the mistakes done my many quality professionals involved with ISO 9001 is to “sell” it for something it is not. ISO 9001 is NOT a business management model. There are MANY aspects of an organization that ISO 9001 doesn’t even come close to addressing.


I suppose if we all agreed with each other, this would be a boring forum, so I have to voice my disagreement with the preceeding statement.

ISO 9001 is very much a Business Management Model. You're right in saying that it doesn't come close to addressing many aspects of an organization's functions - it doesn't deal with marketing, advertising, market research, research and development or financial functions, just to name a few.

However, the standard requires that you identify your KEY PROCESSES - customer-, support-, and management-oriented (not your Product Realization processes alone) and determine the sequence and interaction of all of them. The fact that ISO doesn't specify any requirements for those functions (and hence, no specific requirements to audit), doesn't mean you can ignore them...and I can't imagine why you would. Would you set up a separate methodology to manage these "unmentioned" functions?

ISO 9000 is most definitely a Business Management Model, and for the overwhelming number of companies that have implemented it, it's the only model to which they subscribe. A prudent company would monitor and measure the performance of ALL processes, implement corrective & preventive action and continual improvement per the same methodology mandated through the ISO standard.

Additionally, when you are faced with adding on the requirements of other standards and requirements (customer-specifics, Sarbanes Oxley, ISO 14001, etc.), they should all be built into the same Business Operating System, thereby creating a totally integrated system, with a minimal number of documents.

When I get a chance, I'll add references for some of the many web-sites which support this view.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond,
Patricia

Two days in a row that I agree with Patricia - you nailed it dead on again! I agree entirely. It can encompass as many processes as the company wants to include and make it a full business management system. Many of my clients even include IT support as a defined support process... with criteria, metrics, and objectives.

If you're a manufacturer and you only have objectives for sales and rates of production, then you're missing the point of having a quality system, but what if your business is sales? Real estate agencies, brokers, or auctioneers might want to establish sales objectives to try and improve the quality of service to their clients:

- improve sell prices as percentage of assessed value
- reduce time on market
- improve number of sales/number of prospects

Would a simple objective to "increase sales" qualify as a quality objective for these kinds of businesses? Increased sales probably would improve customer satisfaction.

Since we're discussing defining all the processes of a whole company, increas sales could be an objective for the Sales process, while improve quality to 10 ppm would be a real good manufacturing objective, and improve training and reduce overhead could be an objective for the HR/Training process, and so on. These objectives should be by process, not company wide, if we are following a process approach. I would think this reflects a common approach I've seen many times. On a side note, it might solve some of these complaints that top management doesn't buy in. They will buy in better if you package it in a way they can relate to, and I have seen many reluctant CEOs buy into this approach.

Further on this subject, it is interesting to recall the provisions ISO 9000-1:1994, Guidelines for selection and use, Sec 4.2. This section calls for the Quality system to satisfy five stakeholders and the investor 's expectation and satisfaction is guaranteed through a sustained growth of the business.
Hence, the various objectives are not separable but have to be considered together.

What if I choose to go beyond the requirements of ISO9001, and adopt a management system based on ISO9004, the scope of which is not just satisfying customers, but all stakeholders and interested parties ?

Also with the objective of increasing sales, it is also important that we stay in business in order to keep our customers satisfied, surely pursuing more sales supports this ?

What if I choose to go beyond the requirements of ISO9001, and adopt a management system based on ISO9004, the scope of which is not just satisfying customers, but all stakeholders and interested parties ?

Also with the objective of increasing sales, it is also important that we stay in business in order to keep our customers satisfied, surely pursuing more sales supports this ?

Highly Recommended! I recommend ISO 9004 to all my clients. A far superior standard!

I haven't dealt with any companies that haven't included "profitability" or "shareholder satisfaction" in their Policy Statements (although I also discourage them from calling it the "Quality Policy Statement", since I typically integrate the requirements of ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 17025, MMOG, and other requirements into one system, and hence only ONE "Company" Policy Statement which captures Quality, Environmental, Health and Safety, Materials Management, Corporate and Business Objectives, etc., precluding the need for multiple "Policy Statements).

Typically, I see statements like,
"Our core vision is to achieve a balance between being recognized as a world-class supplier by our customer and supplyng a satisfactory return on investment for our shareholders, while providing a safe and healthful workplace for our employees..."
or...
We will meet this mandate by...
Respecting the interests of all stakeholders in the realization of a facility which is at once, a safe and healthful workplace, an enhancement to our community and a source of satisfaction for investors..."

These types of Policy Statements dictate that these stated policy elements are deployed through the Business Plan, that objectives are defined and performance subsequently monitored per the same methodology as customer and product objectives.

If you respect the ISO 9001 Standard in letter and in spirit, it's hard to exclude these aspects.

Patricia

OK

Next related question regarding communication of objectives - who should the sales growth objective be communicated to ?

Sales staff or all staff ??

...and why ?

RE: Next related question regarding communication of objectives - who should the sales growth objective be communicated to ?

Sales staff or all staff ??

...and why ?

In the world of the Metrics Hierarchy, Senior Management, through the Business Plan, defines the Sales Objectives (or changes to Sales Objectives), and all stated objectives should be communicated or drilled down through the organization to:

1) The person(s) who own or are champions of the metric.
2) Anyone who has the ability to impact on the metric (marketing dept., sales department, sales persons, individuals in production whose activities can impact on sales...from production managers to operators/assemblers).
3) Typically Sales objectives are also communicated to shareholders through shareholder meetings or publications.

To answer WHY?
Per 6.2.2.d The organization must... ensure that its personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of quality objectives..

Thereafter, the results of the monitoring and measurement of sales performance against objectives must be communicated to the same group of interested/involved individuals (as well as any plans for corrective/preventive action or continual improvement).

Patricia

OK

Next related question regarding communication of objectives - who should the sales growth objective be communicated to ?

Sales staff or all staff ??

...and why ?

Sales objectives should be communicated to all personnel at all levels. As an example: I worked for a company that designed, manufactured and sold catalog items (with options - tens of thousands of varieties). It was company policy to take every employee through a 2 week training program on what our products were, what they did, and hands on what they looked like. The biggest portion of this training was on how to use the catalog. This was done in order that anyone answering the phone, could help a potential customer and make a sale.

The result: Everyone had a sense of pride in our product, and even the janitorial personnel were capable of selling the product (many sales were actually accomplished after hours while visiting with friends and family).

If you are in a business to sell a product or service, it is always benefitial that everyone within your business knows that sales are the reason they have a job - without making a sale there will be no business (quality or otherwise).

So do we need to communicate an objective of sales growth to personnel who have no direct influence over this objective ?

As a minimum I would communicate the objective not only departments with direct influence but also departments affected.

Increasing sales could conceivably have an affect on almost all departments within a company. Development teams may need to apply more resources to deliver new products/upgrades to assist in increasing sales, production need to be ready to respond to increased demand, customer services may need to handle more calls, shipping will need to be ready to ship more units, purchasing may need to check availability of componenets and so on.

Communicating objectives to all, and what the likely effects of these objectives are, should result in less suprises for departments, better prepardness and reduce the risk of product and service quality deteriorating.

:applause: Have you ever wondered how a simple question can lead us into a chaos? If we, professionals (in a very loose term), cannot answer a simple question....what hope do we have for companies we serve....anyhow, this has been very interesting reading...and more than ever, i am convinced there is NO RIGHT ANSWERS to most of questions discussed in the forum......

and here is my answer to the original question......NO, a sales growth objective should not be a quality objective....(and if i was your boss, you know I AM RIGHT!!!! :lol:)

Have you ever noticed that sometimes on the Cove we get "Paralysis of analysis" :D

:applause: Have you ever wondered how a simple question can lead us into a chaos? If we, professionals (in a very loose term), cannot answer a simple question....what hope do we have for companies we serve....anyhow, this has been very interesting reading...and more than ever, i am convinced there is NO RIGHT ANSWERS to most of questions discussed in the forum......

and here is my answer to the original question......NO, a sales growth objective should not be a quality objective....(and if i was your boss, you know I AM RIGHT!!!! :lol:)

To me the benefit of the Cove is NOT in the conclusions we reach (or don't reach) as a group, but IS in the facts and opinions we receive as each of us shares their individual perspective on the subject matter. The knowledge gained from differing perspectives allows me the reader to better formulate and justify my own response.

To me the benefit of the Cove is NOT in the conclusions we reach (or don't reach) as a group, but IS in the facts and opinions we receive as each of us shares their individual perspective on the subject matter. The knowledge gained from differing perspectives allows me the reader to better formulate and justify my own response.

The problem/benefit of Cove is that we all share our opinions and that our opinions differ.....especially when we don't answer the question

Most shares their opinions but few tries to "make a point".....and there is no reason to justify one's response...clarification, yes....justification, no....like you said...we are here to share.

also, if we as quality professionals cannot reach a concensus on a simple question like greenaway's.....how does greenaway justify his answer within his company...(btw, i am very sure greenaway will do what he has to do)

ok..i will get off the :soap: now

also, if we as quality professionals cannot reach a concensus on a simple question like greenaway's.....how does greenaway justify his answer within his company...(btw, i am very sure greenaway will do what he has to do)

How would he justify it if there were consensus here? By referencing a bunch of functionally anonymous "experts"? There's almost nothing that we do that doesn't have some controversy attached to it; being a quality manager/engineer calls for being able to evaluate the available data and make decisions, sometimes under ambiguous conditions. The Cove provides lots of fodder for decision making.

Hello, all!

What an interesting thread. I'm jumping in near the end of it, but that gives me a certain amount of emotionless objectivity.

The primary purpose of an objective is to let organizational members know what is important. The objective tells everyone, 'Focus your efforts on this and we will be more successful.' In some companies, sales growth might be a meaningful objective. I was at a company recently, and they said, "Sales growth? No, we want to keep sales the same and make more money off each one!" So for that firm, profitability and net margin were far more important than sales growth. Every organization has to examine their unique circumstances and decide what matters most.

The gradual movement of quality philosophy over the past thirty years is that quality is something that everybody does. It isn't just the work of the Quality Department. Quality is everyone's business. A rather tired catch-phrase, yes, but it sets up my feelings that a quality objective is whatever you need it to be. The ultimate goal of quality is to keep the organization viable and help it retain its customers. Whatever objectives will do that are terrific ‘quality objectives.’ It doesn’t matter that the objective doesn’t relate to traditional quality topics.

As far as I’m concerned, there are only a handful of requirements related to objectives in ISO 9001. They must be:

1) Documented (4.2.1a)
2) Measurable (5.4.1)
3) Consistent with the quality policy (5.4.1)
4) Established at relevant functions and levels (5.4.1)
5) Inclusive of objectives related to product; in other words, at least one objective must be related to the organization’s goods or services (5.4.1)
6) Reviewed periodically during management review (5.6.1)
7) Understood by employees in terms of how their achievement can be contributed to (6.2.2d)

There may be one or two other requirements I forgot, but that’s about it from ISO 9001. Anything else is an opinion. As you know, opinions make very bad audit criteria.

People from outside the quality field often react with anger and disillusionment when they are told things like, “Your quality objectives are not sufficiently quality related.” Can you blame them?

Craig

[QUOTE=JSW05]How would he justify it if there were consensus here? By referencing a bunch of functionally anonymous "experts"? QUOTE]


Who's anonymous? Like a couple of others my picture is posted (albeit about 30 years ago) eveyone knows who I work for, my comings and goings are fairly well documented and I've had the privilage of spending personal time with a half dozen or more of the denizens of the site...to include my friend Howard from Isreal and ugly old Wes (just kidding Wes..just not about the old anyway)

I'm an open book! I'm the same in person as I am here...ask Carri Spears and db. When I post something it's not opinion its absolute (at least it's my aboslute)

I seem to have lost track....What were we talking about? :confused:

I'm an open book! I'm the same in person as I am here...ask Carri Spears and db.:mg:Scary isn't it.;):lol:

[QUOTE=JSW05]How would he justify it if there were consensus here? By referencing a bunch of functionally anonymous "experts"? QUOTE]


Who's anonymous? Like a couple of others my picture is posted (albeit about 30 years ago) eveyone knows who I work for, my comings and goings are fairly well documented and I've had the privilage of spending personal time with a half dozen or more of the denizens of the site...to include my friend Howard from Isreal and ugly old Wes (just kidding Wes..just not about the old anyway)

I'm an open book! I'm the same in person as I am here...ask Carri Spears and db. When I post something it's not opinion its absolute (at least it's my aboslute)

I seem to have lost track....What were we talking about? :confused:I said functionally anonymous, meaning that no one is likely to go to his boss and say, "Here's what I think we should do, and Randy thinks it's OK too." Of course, an enlightened boss might look into it, but most won't.

The discussion and differing opinions perhaps again highlight the fact that it is nigh on impossibe to audit (in terms of compliance auditing) to the requirements of ISO9001 any further than a very high level skim.

i.e. auditor - 'do you have any quality objectives', auditee 'yes' - move on.

The point was well made in this thread that the very fact that we, as quality professionals most of many years standing, still cannot answer these fundemental questions - indeed what hope is there ?

The discussion and differing opinions perhaps again highlight the fact that it is nigh on impossibe to audit (in terms of compliance auditing) to the requirements of ISO9001 any further than a very high level skim.

i.e. auditor - 'do you have any quality objectives', auditee 'yes' - move on.

The point was well made in this thread that the very fact that we, as quality professionals most of many years standing, still cannot answer these fundemental questions - indeed what hope is there ?


It is interesting that this thread has become so complex and complicated. In the field, in hundreds of audits, it has never heard any clients (auditees) or fellow auditors raise it as an issue. Everyday, all over this country, this gets audited. I haven't seen any questions asked for Sanctioned Interpretations, FAQs, etc. Haven't heard it mentioned in any of my training sessions. Are we simply making this too difficult?

probably

although I have had it suggested by two external auditors from two different certification bodies that a finanical objective is not a 'quality objective' per se.

i.e. auditor - 'do you have any quality objectives', auditee 'yes' - move on.

I would suggest that this would not be adequate auditing in the least. ISO 9001, section 6.2.2d, requires that the organization 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. This means you must be able to describe how you contribute to the objectives that relate to your job. If an objective has no relevance to your function, then it would be ridiculous for someone to try to describe how he contributes to it. In no cases, however, will anybody say there are no objectives applicable to them or their function. This is well-established audit protocol and it's reinforced by a literal reading of the standard.

Yes, I think we're making this subject a bit more complicated than necessary. There's an art and science to developing and deploying objectives, but at its essence it's really a very simple process. The more we complicate the topic of objectives, the less effective they are as a tool to focus the organization.

Craig

I appreciate that there would be further audit questions on objectives, but in response to the requirement to set objectives, all the auditor could do was see that some existed and were documented, could he pass any further comment on their type, content or quantity ??

Mr. Greenaway,

Thanks for pulling me back in. No, I don't think an auditor could pass any kind of judgment on the objectives, except to determine if they are consistent with the quality policy. So, if the quality policy (or whatever the org uses as its quality policy) states "we will strive to continually develop our personnel," I would expect to see an objective related to this philosophy. If they didn't have one, I could deduce that the quality objectives were not consistent with the quality policy. This would be an audit nonconformity, with a clear requirement and evidence that contradicts the requirement. Other than this example, the auditor should have no say in the organziation's objectives whatsoever. Auditing an organization's objectives and management responsibility requires a great deal of business experience and wisdom, things that the auditors I meet rarely possess.

Craig

I think we have missed a very important point here. From ISO 9001:2000, section 5.4.1:

"...shall ensure that quality objectives, including those needed to meet requirements for product (see 7.1 a) are established..." (my emphasis added).

So, fire away with an objective (quality, managerial, optical, whatever) concerning sales gain. You still have to address product quality. If, to gain sales growth, you address product quality, that will work. If, to maintain market share, you address product quality, that will work too. If you address product quality because it gives the CEO warm fuzzies, well then we would need to develop a metric.

No, I don't think an auditor could pass any kind of judgment on the objectives, except to determine if they are consistent with the quality policy.
Craig it sounds like you are saying it is ok to make "a Sales Growth Objective a 'Quality' Objective ?". As long as the other obljectives are in line with the policy.

So, if the quality policy (or whatever the org uses as its quality policy) states "we will strive to continually develop our personnel," I would expect to see an objective related to this philosophy. If they didn't have one, I could deduce that the quality objectives were not consistent with the quality policy. This would be an audit nonconformity, with a clear requirement and evidence that contradicts the requirement.

I'm not sure that it's so clear. Let's look at the excellent list of criteria you posted earlier:
As far as I’m concerned, there are only a handful of requirements related to objectives in ISO 9001. They must be:

1) Documented (4.2.1a)
2) Measurable (5.4.1)
3) Consistent with the quality policy (5.4.1)
4) Established at relevant functions and levels (5.4.1)
5) Inclusive of objectives related to product; in other words, at least one objective must be related to the organization’s goods or services (5.4.1)
6) Reviewed periodically during management review (5.6.1)
7) Understood by employees in terms of how their achievement can be contributed to (6.2.2d)
The criteria apply for stated objectives and don't necessarily constitute a mandate for objectives for every claim stated in the quality policy. If I have a statement in my quality policy to the effect that I will continually develop employees (assuming that "develop" is defined somewhere) and then I can show evidence that I do in fact continually develop employees, I can't see a requirement (or good reason) for an objective. If there were an objective it would have to be measureable, which would force me to provide a means of measurement where none is prudent or necessary. This, imo, is a prime problem with objectives--not that objectives are by definition a bad thing, but that setting objectives just to satisfy a questionable interpretation of the standard is.

boy, we like do that, huh :bonk:.......i think no one in here will argue that sales growth objective is a good thing for a business....the question gets tricky, if you add sales growth(not as an objective but as a strategy) as a quality objective...as i mentioned before, my opinion is no and many other has dicusseed pros and cons of such move.

to answer "[QUOTE=JSW05]How would he justify it if there were consensus here? By referencing a bunch of functionally anonymous "experts"? QUOTE]"...
I think justification is done by quoting the reasons mentioned here, not quoting the "experts".

Whether greenaway decide to agree / disagree with his question...he has plenty of ammos from the discussion in here to make his case. And I am pretty sure (don't ask me why) greeaway will do a fine job.

Ultimately, it comes down to...who makes the final decision....hopefully the boss will side with Greenaway

Hopefully, we can end this thread by AGREEING TO DISAGREE...and hope our discussions helped Greewaway in some way.

Eyes Gloss Over :tg:

OK apologies for boring some of the participants of the Cove - it does amaze me however that someone will read 8 pages of posts to post their own comment at the end dismissing the whole conversation as boring !

Thanks to all who have contributed, it has cleared my thinking and I have enjoyed the discussion.

I will continue in my own interpretation that a sales growth objective is a justifiable 'quality objective' as defined by ISO9000.

Greenways, I am in full agreement with your opinion. No second thoughts.

Boring!??!!?? Boring??!!!

And I was just getting started!!!

OK apologies for boring some of the participants of the Cove - it does amaze me however that someone will read 8 pages of posts to post their own comment at the end dismissing the whole conversation as boring !

Thanks to all who have contributed, it has cleared my thinking and I have enjoyed the discussion.

I will continue in my own interpretation that a sales growth objective is a justifiable 'quality objective' as defined by ISO9000.

M. Greenaway, I apologize if you thought I was expressing boredom, I was not. It is interesting, but thought maybe the expounding was fairly exhausted.
I did respond previously also to add to the discussion.
Sorry

Greenways, I am in full agreement with your opinion. No second thoughts.

Ditto - As an auditor I expect that all of the compant's key performacne indicators will be listed as objectives - whatever their source - as well as key projects that are occuring.