Hello, all:

Hope everybody is having a fine fall. Here's an article entitled "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes." I would enjoy hearing what everybody thinks about it.

Warm regards,
Craig

Thank you,
You have a rare gift of writing in a style that is readily accessible to all.

Hope everybody is having a fine fall

We recieved our first dose of snow yesterday, and I expect that conditions will deteriorate further. Winter really is outside my set of acceptable parameters by a wide margin... And we're still on DST.

Here's an article entitled "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes." I would enjoy hearing what everybody thinks about it.

I think it's good food for thought. What the top ten are, can always be debated of course, but imo you have chosen well :agree1: I might suggest ending every point with a punchline, a "do" or something. You already have them, but they would make a bigger impact that way (all imo, of course).

/Claes :read:

We recieved our first dose of snow yesterday, and I expect that conditions will deteriorate further. Winiter really is outside my set of acceptable parameters by a wide margin... And we're still on DST.

:thanx:
were are now not on DST and it has not rained since April:truce:

were are now not on DST and it has not rained since April:truce:

Groan... yeah... rub it in.... :lol: Maybe I could try hibernating? :sleep:

/Claes

Craig - a very good list & article as always. I regret to say I can identify more than half of them with my current employer - I've tried pointing out the reasons not to do things that way, and have basically been told I don't know what I'm talking about. (Obviously, I'm exhibiting a bit of frustration/sour grapes syndrome :) )

Claes - don't feel too bad. We're also getting hit with our first snow of the year and I'm sure that we're much further south than you are. Our plant is near Johnstown, PA about 1 and 1/2 hours east of Pittsburgh, PA. My main references to Sweden are Hoganas and Halmstad, plus some of the larger cities near Hoganas - what relationship does Eskiltuna have to them in distance/direction?

Hello, all:

Hope everybody is having a fine fall. Here's an article entitled "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes." I would enjoy hearing what everybody thinks about it.

Warm regards,
Craig

:agree1: Nice piece, Craig. You make some significant points, and it's all good advice. I ran across a few typos, all in the first two pages (it's the inspector in me, I guess:D ). See the highlights in the attachment.

Excellent, thought provoking work, Craig. Thanks for yet another wonderful article!

My main references to Sweden are Hoganas and Halmstad, plus some of the larger cities near Hoganas - what relationship does Eskiltuna have to them in distance/direction?They are about as far south as you can get in Sweden, roughly 600km south of here.

/Claes

Specific, to the point and very helpful. I don't know that I agree that there should be a "Do" point at the end. You have included the information and the idea should be to get folks thinking and not prescribe solutions.

I especially like that it made me nervous about some of our systems. Such things keep us from getting smug.

James:applause:

Very well written, and easily understood. You put on paper what I have been trying to communicate to my top management for a year. I am printing copies for the whole management team. Hope that's ok...
Thank You!!!:applause:

Groan... yeah... rub it in.... :lol: Maybe I could try hibernating? :sleep:

/Claes

Winter has hit us here in north central Pennsylvania as well - the plows and cinder trucks were out today! Had to resort to winter coat and gloves.

Sue

Winter has hit us here in north central Pennsylvania as well - the plows and cinder trucks were out today! Had to resort to winter coat and gloves.

Sue

:topic: The last time I was in PA, was last March. I drove into Bloomsberg during a blizzard, at night. And I will tell you this in PA it is possible to go up hill both ways!

Hello, all:

Hope everybody is having a fine fall. Here's an article entitled "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes." I would enjoy hearing what everybody thinks about it.

Warm regards,
Craig

Craig

Excellent as always.

I'll throw 2 new ones into the pot.

1) ISO/TS/QS made the Massive mistake of calling a business system a quality system. This one word alone destroys the potential for improvment in most companies, because it immediately becomes "qualitys' baby" and gets delegated to a department without the authority to implement. It needs to get out of the quality ghetto to do any good.

The best thing that could be done is to search and replace quality with business.

Why would the top dog do or care anything about a document called "Quality Management System"? He has someone he pays big bucks to take care of that already.

2) Tight specifications loosely enforced are the death of quality. I think this is Deming or Juran. It applies not just to dimensions but to procedures.

We recently just got a major finding for failing to utilize the corrective action process. And we have just had the very discussion you outline! Nice!

Howard, Claes, Kevin, JSW05, Craig, JRKH, DJCRAI, Sue, DB, and Caster:

Thanks for taking a look at the article, and thanks a bunch the valuable feedback. JSW05--Thanks especially for letting me know about the typos. I'm an awful editor/proof reader. JRKH--I have to agree that I like to leave the specific solutions to the reader, since there are so many different remedies for these problems. A lot of people wouldn't even agree that some of them are problems, which makes them all the more fun to talk about. DJCRAI-- I'm gratified that you might be able to get some mileage out of the article with your team; distribute it as widely as you want to. Howard-- I'll start praying for rain, my friend. These weather patterns are getting goofy, to say the least. I've got some friends down in Florida who are about move back north; to heck with this beach nonsense.

Caster-- Excellent additions to the list if mistakes! Let's see if we can drum up some more...

Craig

Hello again,

Caster got my mind working with his additions to the list of Biggest Quality Mistakes. I know everybody else has seen plenty to goof-ups in their quality careers. What would you add to the list? This could easily become a pretty long list...

Fire away!

Craig

Well, this isn't limited to quality, but:

Assuming that people really know what we are talking about.

That goes from the guy sweeping the floor to the boardroom. If we can't communicate our message, its worthless.

Howard, Claes, Kevin, JSW05, Craig, JRKH, DJCRAI, Sue, DB, and Caster:

Thanks for taking a look at the article, and thanks a bunch the valuable feedback. JSW05--Thanks especially for letting me know about the typos. I'm an awful editor/proof reader. JRKH--I have to agree that I like to leave the specific solutions to the reader, since there are so many different remedies for these problems. A lot of people wouldn't even agree that some of them are problems, which makes them all the more fun to talk about. DJCRAI-- I'm gratified that you might be able to get some mileage out of the article with your team; distribute it as widely as you want to. Howard-- I'll start praying for rain, my friend. These weather patterns are getting goofy, to say the least. I've got some friends down in Florida who are about move back north; to heck with this beach nonsense.

Caster-- Excellent additions to the list if mistakes! Let's see if we can drum up some more...

Craig


Your articles are always a good read. I agree with JRKH on leaving the solution up to the reader.

If your Florida friends are serious, I would love to buy a home in Florida.

Dave

Good article, Craig, as always. I've hung it up in my department to stimulate some big picture thinking. (we spend all day splashing around in the local puddles, so it's good to see the bigger world now and then)

I can relate to the Doc Control part. I've been here a year and only recently discovered that HR has a whole slew of policies they never included in the controlled system because they didn't relate to ISO topics. What sense does that make?

I think one of the biggest quality mistakes is lack of persistance. If it's important, you HAVE to be persistant about following up on details, about making sure the process is implemented, about closing the loop, about being certain that something was done. I'm nice about it, but people generally respond to me on things like open action items and corrective action plans, because history has shown that I don't give up and go away. It's also important to get back up and try a different approach to the problem if the first approach fails, and you end up on your :ca: . That's what ladies rooms are for. You go lock yourself in a stall, bitch, moan and cry, and then come out with a new plan of action. :lmao:

in keeping with that line of thought, there's a Ken Blanchard quote that I love and keep close to me:

"There's a difference between interest and commitment. When you're interested in doing something, you do it only when it's convenient. When you're committed to something, you accept no excuses, only results."

Rosie, I can agree that HR is a tough nut to crack. For us, so is Accounting - they're "not part of the system", yet, they're responsible for some of the management meeting minutes, have managed to extend credit to 2 companies that went bankrupt that put us in the hole to the tune of 1.5 million. :mad:

MMMhum, they are a bit of a problem here too. They like to adjust the raw data on things like scrap and rejects, adjust this, amend that, so that I can't make my numbers match theirs, not matter what I do. Plus they run their numbers on the first day of the month, whereas scrap and rejects are often still being keyed into the first week of the month. Our number never match. :nope:

Accountant: I'm not filling in your training matrix, we have nothing to do with the quality system

Me: (after first pointing out that its not "my" training matrix) But you do, who checks the credit rating on a customer? Who releases invoices meaning that products can be shipped?

Accountant: Yes we do do those things but they are nothing to do with the quality system.

Me - Walks away looking for a wall to bang head against...

Had a very similar conversation with the HR department around the same time. Are Accounts & HR departments the same all over the world? I think it may be because both of them see themselves (in general not just at my company) as "trained professionals" that when we as mere quality drones suggest that there may be a different way of doing something or a more helpful way of doing something, they start to put the wagons into a circle and don't let you anywhere near.

Biggest quality mistake? Thinking that everybody else is on the same wavelength as you. (or getting into quality in the first place?)

Very helpful especially about management review once or twice a year and the customer surveys. We are in the initial stages of starting ourQMS and one of top managements objectives is to rate a 9 or higher on customer surveys, I will bring your article to their attention.
Barb

Craig, this is a very good read. :applause: Especially the part about:

Doing anything just because an external auditor told you to

External auditors wield great influence. Their statements and judgments can have a lasting impact on the way the organization conducts its business. This can be good or bad. Usually, it’s bad. Most external auditors working for a registrar are removed from the realities of running a business. They travel from organization to organization, gradually collecting paradigms about the way a management system should be implemented, maintained, and improved. These paradigms are sometimes reflected back to the organization in the form of recommendations or nonconformities.

In my travels to companies, I’ll often ask people why they’re carrying out a process the way they are. I always raise this question when the process seems unwieldy or illogical. In a surprising number of cases, the answer will be, “Because the external auditor said we should do it that way.” What a waste. Never do anything just because an auditor would like it done that way. A certificate on the wall isn’t worth it.

Case in point...

We just went through a pre-assessment for ISO 9001:2000 and the auditor kept saying that 9004:2000 is the "interpretation" of 9K2K. We don't even have the initial ISO 9000 certification to prove that our baseline QMS is up to snuff and we are being audited to a much higher interpretation.

Is this what registrars are going to start doing?

Not that I mind. It's like an essay question in school...add more "fluff" and you may get a better grade. Sidney Vianna (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13932) had an interesting post that triggered this question. I'd like to see what the more experienced folks have to say.

Anyway, we bought the 9004:2000 Standard and I'm revising the current procedures up to the new language.

I did protest but to no avail. Like I said in the first post, I don't mind. I've now had to put in an extra 20 hours a week to add more meat to the existing procedures. I'll be let go in February after the certification anyway. The 9004 Standard was going to be a bargaining chip for me to stay and show "continual improvement" during subsequent audits. The procedures look quite nice now.

Thanks everyone for your input. :agree1:

My boss, Chief Operations Officer of the whole company, has fought me on every point I've brought up and has finally started listening since the auditor came in (18 months later). I've learned to keep quiet and do what I think is best for the ISO program - at least enough to get us certified.

I HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE!!! :mad: Which is why I was hired in the first place.

What I was contracted for - a "Corporate ISO QMS" that can be used as an umbrella that each of the other projects/departments can be gathered under...having their own unique set of procedures to contend with...blah, blah, blah - is what I think I have succeeded in creating.

This company provides hardware and engineers to the customer to create perfectly replicated aircraft simulators (purchased then integrated hardware & proprietary software code) for the military. They also provide civil engineering and grounds maintenance, bachelor housing and other services for military base housing.

Because each project has specific requirements and we don't actually manufacture product or have an assembly line/commercial plant, the individual project level will produce it's own unique documentation.

My efforts are for the 40,000 ft. level of perception, pointing to local procedure, forms and requirements. I've done it before when I worked as a contractor at another government entity (National Aeronatics and Space something er other) back in '97.

Thanks again for everyone's professional input. "The boss" doesn't want to make any waves - he just wants the certificate in February/March. Because of the pre-assessment I have gone from 20 hrs/wk to 40 per week. After that I'll be pounding the pavement again. I have included a couple of things that I remember from the audit (14 CARs total).

Specific items paraphrased (from memory):

1) 9004 states...you need a management rep "appointed" and that means a letter from the president of the company. -- I still can't find a reference that states anything like an official letter/ceremony has to take place in order for the management rep to be officially recognized.

2) As stated in ISO 9004:2000 (the interpretation of ISO 9001:2000) the specific Inputs and Outputs of Management Review are not listed in QP 5.6 or fully listed in the Management Review Minutes form. -- I had combined some of the "listed" input/output items to keep the form on one page.

3) According to 9004, closure of preventive actions including follow-up is not defined when it occurs in this procedure. -- I can't find the need for follow-up to be defined in 8.5.2...there are only two items that include follow-up and they are 5.6.2 Review input (follow-up on previous mgmt. reviews) & 8.2.2 Internal Audits.

(See this thread link for entire message detail (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13954))

One day Top Executive Management of this organization will say, "Having a certificate on the wall just wasn't worth it.":mad:

Rosie,

Persistence is the key. You’re exactly right. That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes of all time:

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." ~ Calvin Coolidge

Muleskinner:

Man, those are some great horror tales you reprised from tazng00se. People too often agree with what these registrar auditors say, just because they fear what would happen if they don’t. They need to fear what will happen if they do agree!

Barbara:

It sounds like you may be doing management review infrequently. Good luck increasing the frequency! I strongly believe this is one of the most important processes in a management system. Also good luck in capturing some customer feedback you can act on. A nine sounds great…but I’m not sure what it really means or what we can do about it. Maybe a nine means we should close all our conversations with customers by shouting, “Ten!”

Nomisd:

I don’t know why organizations persist in including just parts of their organizations within the management system. Accounting usually needs it worse than anybody, especially since accounts receivable and billing have huge impacts on customer satisfaction. The response is usually, “We already have procedures here.” If you have procedures, why is everything a disaster? Why don’t you acknowledge that you have a customer? Yes, I think accounting and HR functions are like that everywhere. Has anybody seen these functions successfully incorporated into a management system? I’d love to hear about it.

Dave,

I’ll keep my eyes out for Florida properties!


Craig

Great quote, Craig. I've pinned it to my bulletin board. Thanks for sharing!

Craig, yes- a great quote indeed and proven true.
I remember 30 years ago being told to "plod on, plod on, plod on"

I develooped a top 10 list a couple years ago to use in orientation training for new hires.
10 CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING UNACCEPTABLE QUALITY PARTS
1) Sorting and rework of non-conforming parts in house or at customer plants
2) Returns of parts from customer, and unscheduled remanufacture and shipping
3) Scrap parts cost, disposal, and replacement
4) Customer complaints requiring answers and corrective actions
5) Reduced customer rating scores
6) Vehicle breakdowns due to malfunctions
7) Vehicle recalls due to malfunctions
8) No new business from customers
9) Customer takes business and gives to competitor
10) Loss of jobs, employee layoffs

Ralph,

Very good. A list like this can really help focus everybody. May I add another item? --

11. Learn to speak Chinese

Yes, it's drama, but drama is what grabs their attention...

Craig

Hello!

Tomorrow morning I'll host a Quality Network Meeting in Atlanta, with the topic of "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes." Imagine that. I've attached the presentation I'll use, which will seem very familiar if you've read the article. Feel free to use it as you see fit. Please excuse all the Georgia Tech marketing stuff at the start and end of the file. By the way, I've got 120 people registered for an auditorium that holds 90. Boy, I hope some people forget to show up...

Craig

Craig, I wish we had a simple presentation like this in a couple of our 9K training programs.

It's great!

Simple, understandable and to the point.

BTW....I'm going to be in Alpharetta 19-20 Dec.

Randy,

You're a gracious gentleman. Thanks for your kind words. I'll see if I can plan on being in town while you're in Alpharetta. Maybe we could grab a beer.

Craig

When I gave this presentation (The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes) in Atlanta last week, one of the attendees came up to me afterwards. He wanted to talk about mistake #10, Never do anything just to please a registrar. He said he agreed with it, but that there was a flip side to the issue. The guy said that he often used the registrar to get things done that he couldn't. The registrar's status as "outside experts" gave them credibility in the eyes of senior management. He said that he could recommend a wise and obvious course of action until he was blue in the face, and his managers would look at him like he was speaking Chinese. When the registrar recommended the exact same thing, everyone jumped to it. Unfortunate but true. Everybody has probably experienced this phenomena sometime in their career. So, maybe I should revise mistake #10 to read, "Never do anything just to please a registrar, but use their status as 'outside experts' to further your objectives and drive improvements."

Any thoughts or similar experiences?

Craig

So, maybe I should revise mistake #10 to read, "Never do anything just to please a registrar, but use their status as 'outside experts' to further your objectives and drive improvements."

Any thoughts or similar experiences?

Craig

I don't think you should necessarily revise it because the problem as originally framed is valid as is, and the proposed addition doesn't exactly address the problem.

The use of auditor-as-weapon is very real, however, and it swings both ways. I've had instances where I was struggling to get buy-in from managers before an audit, and then when the audit was over and the issue(s) in question didn't come up, the managers said, "See, I told you it wasn't important." This leads to "coaching" auditors into "finding" things they might not have found on their own.

Either way, it's a sorry situation. The fact that management isn't interested in improvement until the auditor points a gun in their direction is a strong indication that they just don't get it, and in my experience the ones who don't get it probably never will.

Good morning, everybody:

A nice guy named Franco Zamuner translated this article into Italian for an appearance in an Italian quality newsletter. If anybody is more comfortable with Italian than English, then here it is (see attached). Thanks to Franco for taking the time to do this.

JSW05:

Yes, you're exactly right. Maybe these managers will one day understand that the best ideas come from WITHIN their organizations, not from guys with a plane ticket and a briefcase. Now, if only I could find my plane ticket and briefcase...

Craig

thank you very much:tg:

Welcome to the Cove, iversonli. :bigwave:

/Claes

Well, I support the article,:agree: my practice as BVQI QMS auditor and EFQM Model assessor give a lot of examples of misunderstanding of ISO 9000 standards and not proper use of them. I can add that because rarely CEOs understand what do they want from QMS and in what measures they can understand its effectiveness, so continual improvement and preventive actions are also can hardly be found in many organizations. Root cause - poor leadership and use of repressive management, from one side, no involvment - from the other side (of people). EFQM Model can bring a breakthrough in understanding, as for Management, and people too. Focusing on short-term goals - one of the other root cause, as I understand, is international problem
:applause:

When I gave this presentation (The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes) in Atlanta last week, one of the attendees came up to me afterwards. He wanted to talk about mistake #10, Never do anything just to please a registrar. He said he agreed with it, but that there was a flip side to the issue. The guy said that he often used the registrar to get things done that he couldn't. The registrar's status as "outside experts" gave them credibility in the eyes of senior management. He said that he could recommend a wise and obvious course of action until he was blue in the face, and his managers would look at him like he was speaking Chinese. When the registrar recommended the exact same thing, everyone jumped to it. Unfortunate but true. Everybody has probably experienced this phenomena sometime in their career. So, maybe I should revise mistake #10 to read, "Never do anything just to please a registrar, but use their status as 'outside experts' to further your objectives and drive improvements."

Any thoughts or similar experiences?

Craig


Speaking from the auditor's point of view, ummm...yes, it happens fairly often. If it is done appropriately, and independently so there is no "collusion," it can be a useful tool to get involvement from someone who may not be giving proper support and buy-in.

On a related note, based on the many psots on this forum, I am beginning to conclude that too often, Quality Managers are "Members of Management" (cl 5.3) on the org chart, but not granted the level of authority and influence that the standard is inferring. I believe the purpose for adding this requirement wa sthat too often, QM's were regarded as junior managers with little clout.

The best systems I have seen are those companies where a phone call from the QM (or Environmental Mgr) does not get ignored.

I feel your pain, QM's!

too often, Quality Managers are "Members of Management" (cl 5.3) on the org chart, but not granted the level of authority and influence that the standard is inferring. I believe the purpose for adding this requirement wa sthat too often, QM's were regarded as junior managers with little cloutNow that is good point, and events seem to prove it. There may be a "M" after the "Q", but as you say, the true power to act is often found elsewhere.

/Claes

Now that is good point, and events seem to prove it. There may be a "M" after the "Q", but as you say, the true power to act is often found elsewhere.

/ClaesNow that you mention it, I have seen a number of organizations where the person with the title "Quality Manager" was often merely an inspector with an attribute gage (go/no go.) I have seen some organizations where the QM was a clerk with the job of stuffing pre-printed "Certificates of Conformance" into the packet of shipping documents and who had absolutely no knowledge or skill to determine whether the product was conforming or not, but one clerk did have encyclopedic knowledge of all the "quality documents" which the organization bought for $99 and pasted their mailing label at the top and bottom of each page to adopt them as the company's own.

In fairness, only one of these was a 3rd party registered organization and I bet most of you can guess who the registrar was.

.....I am beginning to conclude that too often, Quality Managers are "Members of Management" (cl 5.3) on the org chart, but not granted the level of authority and influence that the standard is inferring.

That was, years ago, my 'position' in two (private) companies.
'Your job is to make sure we can keep the paper on the wall, nothing more.'

It was also the 'trigger' to go 'on my own'.

And, at my age now, I'm happy I took the 'giant' step.

Maybe I do have to thank my two formal employers ¿¿??

The following is one of the hints for the fifith mistake:

"Provide problem solving tools but give people some discretion in their use. If your procedure requires a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to be completed for every corrective action, it will probably discourage people from opening corrective actions."

I don't understand why "If your procedure requires a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to be completed for every corrective action, it will probably discourage people from opening corrective actions."

IMO,no matter how the problem is we have to find ways to solve it.If you don't open corrective action is there any other better way to solve the problem?

IMO,no matter how the problem is we have to find ways to solve it.If you don't open corrective action is there any other better way to solve the problem?


The corrective action form is a tool to help you think through a problem: to determine the causes, and what actions should be taken to eliminate those causes. Also, the device requires to finally verify that all that good stuff was done.

The key item here is not the form itself. The magic element is that you are going to determine the true causes(s). If you do this, even without the form, it would still be effective problem solving. The form makes it clearer and more uniform.

We often fail to find the true causes, and already have a solution in mind without understanding the cause. Consequently, if we miss the cause, the actions won't be very good either.

Doind a FMEA, or fishbone or pareto on top of this should not be automatic. It should be required if and when it helps to determine the causes. Otherwise, it is only more paperwork.

The corrective action form is a tool to help you think through a problem: to determine the causes, and what actions should be taken to eliminate those causes. Also, the device requires to finally verify that all that good stuff was done.

The key item here is not the form itself. The magic element is that you are going to determine the true causes(s). If you do this, even without the form, it would still be effective problem solving. The form makes it clearer and more uniform.

We often fail to find the true causes, and already have a solution in mind without understanding the cause. Consequently, if we miss the cause, the actions won't be very good either.

Doind a FMEA, or fishbone or pareto on top of this should not be automatic. It should be required if and when it helps to determine the causes. Otherwise, it is only more paperwork.

Yes, and the idea of doing extra paperwork triggered when a formal C/A is opened will discourage the origination of a C/A in the first place.

Yes, and the idea of doing extra paperwork triggered when a formal C/A is opened will discourage the origination of a C/A in the first place.

Back in my previous life as a QM, we determined that a formal C/A was only required when a solution couldn't be acheived without a cross-functional team. In other cases we used a problem report to capture problem solving efforts when a team was not required. If the problem recurred, a C/A was started. It was an incentive to make sure the problem was permanently solved, or it would be revisited with more people, time and paperwork involved.

hjiling,Craig H.,and Automate me,thank you all for answering the question and i get it.

This Ten Biggest Quality Mistakes are frequently occur in most Company.:mad: :mad: :biglaugh: :o :mg:

I am engaged in a startup operation which is high volume automotive. The products are safety realted e.g. chassis systems for passenger vehicles.

In the early planning stages I put together a manning plan based mainly on my knowledge of the product as well as information from plants producing similar products.

As with all statups, costs were mounting and upper management required reduction in costs. Most of these reductions were forced into reducing future manpower.

Now with my problem question:

Those that were the drivers of forcing the manpower reductions are back peddling as they see we are under staffed now and will be in the future to assure success. They want justification from "us" on why we need to go back to the original manpower plan.

Is there anyone out there with a good model for justifying Process/Product Auditors.

Please respond to me via email, available in my user profile (click my name in the upper right of this post). Any and All ideas are welcome

Thanks in advance

Edited by Craig H. to remove email address to protect from spammers.

I am engaged in a startup operation which is high volume automotive. The products are safety realted e.g. chassis systems for passenger vehicles.

In the early planning stages I put together a manning plan based mainly on my knowledge of the product as well as information from plants producing similar products.

As with all statups, costs were mounting and upper management required reduction in costs. Most of these reductions were forced into reducing future manpower.

Now with my problem question:

Those that were the drivers of forcing the manpower reductions are back peddling as they see we are under staffed now and will be in the future to assure success. They want justification from "us" on why we need to go back to the original manpower plan.

Is there anyone out there with a good model for justifying Process/Product Auditors.

Please respond to dcarter844@aol.com. Any and All ideas are welcome

Thanks in advance


Well, for starters, TS requires that you audit your processes and products. And, um, TS is required to be a high volume supplier in the automotive supply chain in the first place...ummm....

Hello, friends:

I was messing around on an article, and the 11th Biggest Quality Mistake suddenly came to me. What do you think?--

Having somebody whose only job is overseeing the management system

Having a person who does nothing but oversee the ISO 9001 management system (or any other management system) is one of the worst ideas in the history of quality. Why? Because it guarantees two things:

1) The ISO 9001 coordinator will become isolated from the rest of the organization. Since the person does nothing but serve the ISO system, he loses touch with why the organization exists in the first place. The system becomes paramount over the core business concerns of the organization.

2) The ISO 9001 system will become bloated and bureaucratic, since it must expand to completely fill someone’s time. Procedures become more complicated, methods become cumbersome, and the benefits become more ambiguous.

A management system is nothing more than a guiding structure of methods, and it shouldn’t take a huge dedication of time and effort to maintain. Ideally, the system should be owned and operated by everyone within the organization. Yes, there should be someone who keeps the system on track, but they should have other responsibilities as well. Pair up this job with other responsibilities that drive a deep understanding of what the organization does, especially responsibilities related to the product, customers, and strategic improvement. If the system is so bureaucratic that it requires the time of an entire person (or, God forbid, an entire staff), then the system needs to be streamlined. An effective management system makes an organization more competitive, not weighs it down.

Craig

Hello, friends:

I was messing around on an article, and the 11th Biggest Quality Mistake suddenly came to me. What do you think?--

Having somebody whose only job is overseeing the management system

Having a person who does nothing but oversee the ISO 9001 management system (or any other management system) is one of the worst ideas in the history of quality. Why? Because it guarantees two things:

1) The ISO 9001 coordinator will become isolated from the rest of the organization. Since the person does nothing but serve the ISO system, he loses touch with why the organization exists in the first place. The system becomes paramount over the core business concerns of the organization.

2) The ISO 9001 system will become bloated and bureaucratic, since it must expand to completely fill someone’s time. Procedures become more complicated, methods become cumbersome, and the benefits become more ambiguous.

A management system is nothing more than a guiding structure of methods, and it shouldn’t take a huge dedication of time and effort to maintain. Ideally, the system should be owned and operated by everyone within the organization. Yes, there should be someone who keeps the system on track, but they should have other responsibilities as well. Pair up this job with other responsibilities that drive a deep understanding of what the organization does, especially responsibilities related to the product, customers, and strategic improvement. If the system is so bureaucratic that it requires the time of an entire person (or, God forbid, an entire staff), then the system needs to be streamlined. An effective management system makes an organization more competitive, not weighs it down.

CraigThis is what my wife refers to as a "basso profundo" statement, preferrably delivered in a deep, resonant, portentous voice. There is a sometime cartoon panel called "Non Sequitur" which has a character wearing tights and cape called "Obvious Man," who delivers such obvious statements. Sadly, like the boy shouting about the Emperor's Clothes, the real target never pays attention!

Wes,

"Basso Profundo"...that's excellent. Please give your wife my compliments!

Craig

Hello, friends:

I was messing around on an article, and the 11th Biggest Quality Mistake suddenly came to me. What do you think?--

Having somebody whose only job is overseeing the management system

Having a person who does nothing but oversee the ISO 9001 management system (or any other management system) is one of the worst ideas in the history of quality.
Craig


You might be on to something...but 11 is a bad number for a book. Got to find one or two more...

:applause: Excellent! :thanx: Craig

Phucduong: Thanks for your kind words. Is it wintertime in Vietnam?

Excellent Mr.ccochran for the eloberating 11th Mistake.

May I request you to reply of my question by extending your views on
Necessity of one (Or two Or Three) full time deployed person exclusively for coordination of Lean Activities (We call WCM - World Class Manufacturing). Once I have asked this question to Lean Forum also but could not get adequate reply.
In one book I have read that one or Two Full Time Lean Coordinators are necessary, Infect, In that book they were called as Change Agent.
But Why an Artifical Change Agent who is deployed full time to implement Changes in deploying VSM in a better manner?
Can't Head of senior level Management do it?
Please clarify.

Regards,

Manoj Mathur

Manoj,

First I should say that I'm not necessarily a lean expert. That aside, my lean colleagues tell me that it is helpful to have someone completely trained in all aspects of lean and dedicated to its implementation. This is the same with any other initiative. It's conceivable that a member of senior management could do this. In fact, I work with a small company in which the President is also the ISO 9001 Management Rep. This is quite rare, though. Usually, these senior managers are too distracted with regular duties to provide much hands-on leadership on things like lean and process improvement. Take that as a challenge!

Have a good weekend,
Craig

Thanks for your Prompt Reply Mr. Craig,

I feel logic (Or System per se) is same for QMS/EMS Implementation and Lean Implementation. Actually, we are having a debate on the size and strength and size of WCM Cell which is responsible for Coordination of WCM activities all across the plant. OfCourse it is the plant people only who has to think, identify NVAs and find the ways to eliminate / reduce it but the role of WCM personnel is to guide and train for Tools and techniques, Draw the VSM, Share the improvement for horizontal and vertical replication etc.

And I do not think that any WCM or ISO person can OWN the responsibility for Implementation of WCM or ISO for whole of the plant.

Regards,

Manoj Mathur

Thanx for such a good information

Excellent article Craig. I've got one for you that I've seen several places; Never let the beancounters dictate what you need to do the job. At a place I worked at awhile back, the Materials Manager was given a bonus based on discounts he negotiated, money he saved etc. Everything was the "bandaid" approach Needless to say, that eventually he moved on and everyone heaved a great sigh of relief.

Very good article. Unfortunately, at my plant, we are learning these the hard way. I have distributed it to my QA staff and managers. I now have to get them to read it!

just66horns,

Good to hear from you. I learned most of these the hard way, too. There's lots of advice floating around out there, and not all of it is good.

I've attached a nicely formatted version of the article, as it was published.

Craig

Very good articals ,but i do not think it is a mistake for Using to evaluate suppliersquoted , one of my friends ,one supplier quality manager, his way to evaluate a new supplier is that ask a finished questionnaires from supplier , then in the auditing on-site, he will choose the questions which the supplier's answer is yes to ask the supplier to provide evidences. If the answer of question is no,he need not to waste time on them. I think it is a good method to save time and effectiveness.

Oh, in your new version ,you have change the Using questionnaires to evaluate supplier to Employing someone who only oversees the QMS . i think it is great ,if a person who have not any knowledge of product and processes ,his decision only do harm to company.

Hey Craig,

This was a great piece of work thank you for sharing your experience :applause: .

Thanks for this article. It gives me a lot of information as to why we do not get results from the end users.

Stephen & Jemos,

Thanks for your kind feedback. You could probably assemble a list of 100 quality mistakes. Nearly all of them seem to fall into 2 categories: 1) making things more complex than they need to be, and 2) forgetting that 'quality' has many internal and external customers.

Can you think of any other common mistakes?

Best regards,
Craig

Craig, Thanks for a great list. Did you ever work in our shop? :lmao:

Craig,
Just a thought. I think one of the most common mistakes i have seen is that organizations continue doing internal audits using the same checklist that they used during the initial certification. This tends to focus on compliance than improvement and hence they do not get value at the end of the day.

I've attached a nicely formatted version of the article, as it was published. Brilliant. :agree1: This thread also shows how much effort and research you pour into your writing (which incidentaly is one of the reasons to why it is so enjoyable to provide input to it). When will we see your next piece?

/Claes

just66horns,

Good to hear from you. I learned most of these the hard way, too. There's lots of advice floating around out there, and not all of it is good.

I've attached a nicely formatted version of the article, as it was published.

Craig

Great article Craig. I liked the initial picture of a leg over the banana skin :mg:

Very apt :D

Jemos,

Yes, that's a good one. Using canned checklists are one of my least favorite auditing practices. Occasionally I have seen good, standardized checklists, but it's always when a company has taken a particularly confusing part of the standard and translated it into plain English, or when they provided some guidance about how to audit a confusing part of their operation. But those checklists that just repeat exactly what's in the standard (like the registars use), are basically worthless.

Silentrunning,

I worked in your shop for a short time, but I was fired! It was insorbination, as I recall...

Qualityalways,

Thanks for your kind words. I can't claim any credit for the cool illustration, though. The excellent staff at QD came up with that.

Best regards,
Craig

Claes,

If everyone was as positive and inspiring as you, then there would be no trouble in the world! Thanks for the nice boost. I'm working on trying to finish a book right now. It's one of those books that mixes fiction with nonfiction, and it features a cast of recurring characters. The tentative title is "The 7 Deadly Sins of Management." I finished writing it and the publisher sent it back for some more work. After I got done being mad, I decided he was right...it did need some more work. So I'm tweaking the characters and richening the situations. I'll post one of the chapters soon, and of course I would great value your input. Hope all is well in the land of beautiful blonde people!

Warm regards,
Craig

I'll post one of the chapters soonLooking forward to it. :agree1:

Hope all is well in the land of beautiful blonde people!It is, but the percentage of blondes is probably a good deal lower than you would expect. As for yours truly, I'm glad I still have hair... :notme:

/Claes

Hair is SOOOO over-rated... HA!

Hi Craig,

That is a fantastic article! I have a couple of quick comments:

1) The "Using questionnaires.." is theoretically great, but in terms of practicality, many organizations who are (for example) regulated by the FAA would find it impossible to comply with the more comprehensive methods which you've documented. I pointed out FAA regulated companies because so many of them are quite small (often twenty or less employees) and subsequently lack the resources to implement the same. The FAA is notorious for ensuring that documented supplier audits exist - but just that. There is not really any attention paid to the methodology utilized.

2) The "Training..." point, particularly: "Salaried and managerial personnel need more—not less—training, since their decisions and actions have more lasting impacts.", leaves me scratching my head a bit. A typical CFO in a medium sized business has at least a master's degree (likely an MBA) and is a CPA, which he/she obtained prior to obtaining the CFO position. The majority of training sessions performed at most companies that I've visited is on the work instruction level, which is not conducive with a company executive's role (typically).

Just thought that I'd add my two cents, since you've had no one critique the points yet...

- Sam

...

2) The "Training..." point, particularly: "Salaried and managerial personnel need more—not less—training, since their decisions and actions have more lasting impacts.", leaves me scratching my head a bit. A typical CFO in a medium sized business has at least a master's degree (likely an MBA) and is a CPA, which he/she obtained prior to obtaining the CFO position. The majority of training sessions performed at most companies that I've visited is on the work instruction level, which is not conducive with a company executive's role (typically).



Not to take anything away from Craig (he will probably respond as well), but this is one of my hot buttons. I agree with Craig wholeheartedly.

It is precisely because Top Management feels they are above the ISO training that causes so many systems to be average or worse. I very frequently help Top Mgt get a better pricture of what ISO is trying to accomplish. When they "get it" the whole program at their company can get turbo charged.

They may have academic learning and degrees, but this practical stuff doesn't generally get taugh there.

A corolary however, is that trainers often do not format their training with executives in mind. If you want them to participate, you have to give them value for their time.

I agree most "training programs" do not consider having high level executives in the class when the curricula are planned. Even worse are the so-called "executive overviews" which tell the executives just enough to be dangerous.

A good curriculum would take into account the fact many top executives have the power and authority to implement changes without going into a song and dance to spoon feed reasons to their bosses or even the Board of Directors.

When Jack Welch headed GE, I often excoriated his public pronouncements of "it's just this easy" (reminiscent of a businessman named Perot when he ran for President of the USA), yet he did get things done even if he took an extremely liberal view of the dollar value of savings [because he often only shifted costs to another level of the supply chain.] The fact remains he increased market share and total gross sales because he was able to avoid delays often accompanying being "the tail that wags the dog" - a role so many quality personnel must play.

I agree most "training programs" do not consider having high level executives in the class when the curricula are planned. Even worse are the so-called "executive overviews" which tell the executives just enough to be dangerous.

A good curriculum would take into account the fact many top executives have the power and authority to implement changes without going into a song and dance to spoon feed reasons to their bosses or even the Board of Directors.


The problem with this line of reasoning is that by definition--and you reinforce the point--executives have the power of defining the nature and substance of training curricula, and including themselves in it, but do so only rarely. If an executive is arrogant enough to believe that he's above it, and doesn't make sure he/she is in on the action, it won't help to include them.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that by definition--and you reinforce the point--executives have the power of defining the nature and substance of training curricula, and including themselves in it, but do so only rarely. If an executive is arrogant enough to believe that he's above it, and doesn't make sure he/she is in on the action, it won't help to include them.Being able to make meaningful suggestions about scope and style of a curriculum seems to require more than a passing acquaintance with the content - something our Cove members often tell us is lacking in top managers when considering quality topics.

My point was not that execs can direct the style and substance of training, but that many trainers do not have sufficient knowledge of the factors and stresses on executives to create meaningful and worthwhile curricula for them to take advantage of the exec's power to influence the implementation of quality initiatives.

Being able to make meaningful suggestions about scope and style of a curriculum seems to require more than a passing acquaintance with the content - something our Cove members often tell us is lacking in top managers when considering quality topics.

And this is whose fault? Are you saying that executives' igorance of important subject matter is someone else's fault?

My point was not that execs can direct the style and substance of training, but that many trainers do not have sufficient knowledge of the factors and stresses on executives to create meaningful and worthwhile curricula for them to take advantage of the exec's power to influence the implementation of quality initiatives.

Ah, I see--it's the trainers. They just don't understand all those esoteric "factors and stresses," and the executives themselves bear no responsibility for acknowledgment and remedying their own ignorance. Thanks for clearing that up.

hjilling,

Let me pose this to you, then: Who requires more ISO specific training, the CEO or Quality Manager? If you follow the thought orignially quoted in the article, the CEO would. Why?

cojito, hjilling, Wes, & Jim:

Excellent discussion! I must admit that I agree with hjilling and Wes on the training of management. Managers have lots of qualifications, but often don't get much training. Excellent in large companies where there's a strong culture of training (like The Coca-Cola Company, for instance), management is often neglected for meaningful development. I am simply drawing from my own experience in medium sized companies. Things were always too busy and chaotic for line managers to receive much training. And Top Management NEVER got any training.

cojito: The approach to customer feedback that I'm advocating is much easier than developing and implementing a survey. It's simple asking a few open-ended questions. What do you like? What don’t you like? What would you like to see different in the future? The responses you get from these simple questions can reveal a world of new ideas, and this kind of feedback is relatively easy to act on.

Talk to you soon,
Craig

Craig,

I don't disagree with the supplier quality questionnaire issue, but find it more of a "perfect world" scenario vice what I've experienced with small to medium sized companies.

The training discussion still doesn't jive with my recent experiences. More robust training programs have been mandated by so many regulatory authorities now that even top-level management must actively participate. The way that the section of your article is written, (and colored by hjilling alike), salaried employees need more training than hourly ones, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

- Sam

The problem with this line of reasoning is that by definition--and you reinforce the point--executives have the power of defining the nature and substance of training curricula, and including themselves in it, but do so only rarely. If an executive is arrogant enough to believe that he's above it, and doesn't make sure he/she is in on the action, it won't help to include them.


...and that arrogance is singlehandedly the thing that has gotten the Detroit based Big 3 into so much trouble...:frust:

Applies to many other companies, as well. No one person knows everything, and no one should stop learning.

...... Things were always too busy and chaotic for line managers to receive much training. And Top Management NEVER got any training....




And, thus, the paradox. They lack certain proficiencies... and things will remain too busy and chaotic, and so on...until a crisis occurs. Then we'll turn the whole organization upside down and do it again...

AT LAST, I have had a chance to read the article!!!

Excellent article, it is very though provoking for me as I look to my future as a QM! I can Identify with a few of the mistakes, but also identify where we are doing things well! these are:

1. Quality around here is interpreted by most as "Incoming Goods Inspections", Control of Assembly, Measurement of Supplier Capability and APQP. Beyond that, it's operations, accounts, Purchasing Etc.....

2. Management Reviews are not held frequently enough. Once a year without fail! Management dread them because of exactly the reasons you have pointed out. This article will prompt me to change this when I take over the QM position, there will be resistance, but as stated in previous posts, persistence is the key!

3. Dealing with and identifying non-conformance is something we do very well. With clearly marked bins, strict labelling of non-conformance and quarantine areas clearly marked, there is no assuming here!

4. The ill use of corrective action procedures. I must admit to being one who has, in the past, avoided using our corrective action procedure. Why? Because its a dull, uninviting form, that bores me to tears and does not make me feel like I am making a positive difference to the objectives of the organisation! It really does just feel like a paper exercise. We work mainly with external supply, so much of the information put onto the form is taken from correspondence with the supplier. So just seems like a written history. It's not very dynamic, just feels like a report, and it will get filed away and never looked at again. I want to make it more accessible and something that is automatically referred to in the future. I am implementing Databases etc....for other areas of our organisation to make data retrieval and recording a bit more live and dynamic, so this is one tool that could be used! If anyone has an excellent corrective action process that makes a real difference then I am open to suggestions! ;)

5. We apply relevant training across the board, as we are mainly salaried office types, being a small organisation! In fact I am doing some TS training in about 3 weeks! We cover this point very well!

6. GUILTY AS CHARGED on the external auditor point. Constantly hanging off the recommendations of the auditor who is a fantastic examples of someone who perhaps does not quite see the reality of our working situation.

I think perhaps the first point you made, about quality objectives, should mean that the title of this article should not be called "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes" but "The 10 Biggest Mistakes made in the Implementation of Operational Compliance towards meeting Customer Led Demands"! Too Long? :notme:

Again a great article that I will use to implement improvements constantly!:applause:

Hello, all:

Hope everybody is having a fine fall. Here's an article entitled "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes." I would enjoy hearing what everybody thinks about it.

Warm regards,
Craig

Thanks Craig for sharing your thoughts ... very useful to mirror the actual practice in our organization :agree1: .. btw, may I ask for your permission if I may share your article to our audit team?

:thanx: / Karis

just66horns,

I've attached a nicely formatted version of the article, as it was published.

Craig


Great and thought-provoking article indeed. I share most of the opinions but unfortunately no.9 "Doing anything just because an external auditor told you to" seems questionable when it comes to pharmaceutical, medical device and food industry and external auditor refers to a dear guest from, e.g. FDA. Not that these individuals are allways right, but yet it's reasonable to do virtually everything to please auditors having heavy regulations as forcible means. The last thing you want is losing a whole continent as market just because of a principle of allways refusing an awkward QMS. It's more than a "certificate on the wall" at stake.

//MH

Matthew,

In that context, the advice of the auditor takes on a whole new significance. That's a tough situation to be in. I guess you just hope that whoever comes to evaluate you has a firm grip on reality and a common-sense interpretation of the regulations. Hope, hope, hope...

Craig

Matthew,

In that context, the advice of the auditor takes on a whole new significance. That's a tough situation to be in. I guess you just hope that whoever comes to evaluate you has a firm grip on reality and a common-sense interpretation of the regulations. Hope, hope, hope...

Craig

I've experienced both kinds. It's not uncommon that external auditors make one of the other big mistakes themselves, i.e. focus on petty details, and it's not always wise to argue.

In this excessively regulated line of business, in my case medical devices for interventional cardiology, it's sometimes a constant struggle to keep focus on actual product quality and customer satisfaction rather than utter perfection of documentation and files. I've met quite disappointed and embittered quality responsibles within this field, never allowed to have the focus they prefer and use the quality tools the way they wanted.

//Matthew