Can everyone in the company be responsible for quality? We are tossing around having this phrase added to our quality manual. It doesn't mean a darn thing to me. Opinions?

Can everyone in the company be responsible for quality? We are tossing around having this phrase added to our quality manual. It doesn't mean a darn thing to me. Opinions?


Personally, I think everyone in the company IS responsible for quality in one way or another.
The question is,, do they know HOW they are responsible?

So they are responsible for their own quality and not everything to do with quality for the entire company? Their own quality being, doing their jobs with a minimum of errors. It just seems so vague and without value.

We are tossing around having this phrase added to our quality manual. It doesn't mean a darn thing to me. Opinions? It just seems so vague and without value.I think your posts say it all. Just another meaningless phrase in the manual. Don't bother, IMO.

Yes. Everyone is responsible for quality. Without a doubt. Everyone. From the CEO to the part timer.

It's key to the spirit of ISO9001, that's why the quality policy and quality objectives have to be communicated and understood - so everyone can contribute.
Is it in our quality policy? Not directly. It's strongly implied.
The QP should make the committment to quality, etc. on behalf of the entire company.

Yes. Everyone is responsible for quality. Without a doubt. Everyone. From the CEO to the part timer.

It's key to the spirit of ISO9001, that's why the quality policy and quality objectives have to be communicated and understood - so everyone can contribute.
Is it in our quality policy? Not directly. It's strongly implied.
The QP should make the committment to quality, etc. on behalf of the entire company.

100% agree!
We don't directly state it anywhere either. However, my external auditor has asked "non-production" employees there roles & responsibilites in achieving are quality goals. (even the receptionist!!)

Can everyone in the company be responsible for quality? We are tossing around having this phrase added to our quality manual. It doesn't mean a darn thing to me. Opinions?

WOW interesting post! Your Quality Manual, is it directed to only a few people or departments in your company, or does it effect all departments/people in your company?
A saying I heard years ago is that the Janitor is the most important person in a company. Why, because janitor is the person that fills the stalls with toilet paper. (imagine if it was not there when required)
So yes, even the person that fills the toilet paper is in some way responsible for Quality

LOL...yes I suppose even the Janitor is included, after all you don't want an NCR from your client SQE "delivered product was permeated with a foul odor".

:notme:

LOL...yes I suppose even the Janitor is included, after all you don't want an NCR from your client SQE "delivered product was permeated with a foul odor".

:notme:

:lol: It's funny but true, everyone is resposible in one way or another for quality and if you can get an organization to achieve this, then you're one of the lucky few who have. I wish you the best of luck.

P.S. Remember whatever route you take ensure it's fully supported and driven down by your Executive Management Group.

Best Wishes,
Al40

It's all a matter of culture. If your company culture gives ownership, responsibility and authority to ALL, then all will be responsible for quality. If your company culture gives one or two of the three, then people probably will not accept responsibility.

Can everyone in the company be responsible for quality? We are tossing around having this phrase added to our quality manual. It doesn't mean a darn thing to me. Opinions?

Yes, everyone is responsible for quality.
We do not see the need to have the phrase in our quality manual, however. I agree that having that statement in there would likely be meaningless.

Much more important, (IMO), is the development of the processes and metrics that make it such that it is implied that it is not only the 'Quality Department' that is responsible for quality.

The only problem with saying that everyone is responsible for quality is that it has come to mean that the worker must produce quality product and service regardless of the system or process in place. Any worker is responsible for learning how to do the job as defined by the process and then actually implementing what they learned. In a quality progressive company, they would also be responsible for identifying failures in quality. Ultimately, the systems define quality and we all know who is responsible for systems.

Bill Pflanz

The only problem with saying that everyone is responsible for quality is that it has come to mean that the worker must produce quality product and service regardless of the system or process in place. Any worker is responsible for learning how to do the job as defined by the process and then actually implementing what they learned. In a quality progressive company, they would also be responsible for identifying failures in quality. Ultimately, the systems define quality and we all know who is responsible for systems.

Bill Pflanz

I tend to agree with Bill's post. Realizing everyone is responsible for what they can control, but beyond that one cannot be responsible for all of quality. I think I can make a successful argument to have it not put in the quality manual.

I tend to agree with Bill's post. Realizing everyone is responsible for what they can control, but beyond that one cannot be responsible for all of quality. I think I can make a successful argument to have it not put in the quality manual.


Uh-oh,, figured this would open a can of worms. BUT, I disagree. I don't think you are defining EACH person as responsible for ALL of quality, just their part in it.
Even if the process isn't perfect (and what is), you still expect the person doing the job to do the job. Period. That makes them responsible.

P.S. I wouldn't put it in the manual either, it's pointless, how many employees actually read the manual?

All can be responsible, but all deserve--indeed, require--specifics, and the power to influence them. Hence the Responsibility and Authority clauses.

To say in the manual that "All are responsible for quality" is a slogan. You can say this same thing without the slogan by describing the methods and means by which all are responsible.
:2cents:

"All are responsible for quality" may be placed in a better place than your quality manual, like in an employee's paycheck every week.

"All are responsible for quality" may be placed in a better place than your quality manual, like in an employee's paycheck every week.That would get better traction than only the top executives getting the bonuses for favorable results!

hello to all!

Good discussion.I believe everyone is responsible for quality, I always input this correlation " ... remember we have two types of customers - the internal customers and the external customers" . In this view , everyone should satisfy his next customers. That tends up to build and satisfy our external customers.

Thnks,

Jerzki:bigwave:

I feel everyone is responsible for quality in a company. There are three stages of quality in a company, the base level is the quality control where every operator, developer, coder, programmer ect .. are responsible, the next is the Quality assurance where every manager and QA group are responsible in assuring the customers about their quality concerns and their strategy in maintaining the quality and the final is the Quality models or the business models like the BSC, BEM which creates a break through and a niche for the company in the market and the people who would take these initiatives are the top level management including the CEO.
So don’t everybody think that everyone in the company are involved in Quality?

Cheers
Anand.M

So don’t everybody think that everyone in the company are involved in Quality? I do. However, the key question is whether management does, and if so, how (and how well) they support the concept.

So don’t everybody think that everyone in the company are involved in Quality?

Cheers
Anand.M


Everyone is responsible for doing the job they were trained in and contributing ideas to improve the processes and systems. That only results in quality if the right systems and places are in place and management knows that workers understand their job and that they have suggestions for improvement that should be considered.

Bill Pflanz

I do. However, the key question is whether management does, and if so, how (and how well) they support the concept.

I completely agree with you Jennifer.Management cares a least about quality because it is not a money generating department, Being in a software company it is very evident...
But imagine a company without a quality assurance dept...will it sustain an existing customer? or can it generate a new customer...definitely not!...

You all knew that I would chime in sooner or later. I've been on spring break for a few days so here goes:
The only problem with saying that everyone is responsible for quality is that it has come to mean that the worker must produce quality product and service regardless of the system or process in place. Any worker is responsible for learning how to do the job as defined by the process and then actually implementing what they learned. In a quality progressive company, they would also be responsible for identifying failures in quality. Ultimately, the systems define quality and we all know who is responsible for systems.Yeah, Management! Ahhhh, the Deming Disciples have arrived. Perfect answer, Mr. Pflanz.
I think your posts say it all. Just another meaningless phrase in the manual. Don't bother, IMO.Knowing you, Sidney, I know what you mean. Allow me to translate: If you don't really let everyone be responsible for quality then the phrase is meaningless. Responsibility + authority = accountability. I cannot be accountable for the quality of process that I do not have the authority to change. Nor should I be changing a process for which I am not responsible.
... remember we have two types of customers - the internal customers and the external customers" . In this view , everyone should satisfy his next customers. That tends up to build and satisfy our external customers.ABSOLUTELY! With this kind of thinking you can put statements like the one below in your Quality Policy. If you look at our organizational chart over in this thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=20899), you will see what it looks like when you have a chain of customers that goes backwards and forwards.
I completely agree with you Jennifer.Management cares a least about quality because it is not a money generating department, Being in a software company it is very evident...But imagine a company without a quality assurance dept...will it sustain an existing customer? or can it generate a new customer...definitely not!...MY quality department is a PROFIT generating department. Since receiving our ISO cert. We have grown about 10% in revenues but at the same time we have reduced the amount spent on poor quality every quarter, both as a percentage of total sales and as an absolute $ figure. We can sell the exact same mix of products in the exact same quantity as two years ago and make money now, instead of just breaking even.

One of the 5 bullets in our Quality Policy reads:
Every member of the Team is accountable for both process quality and product quality.

There is no "Not my job" here. We have taken the time to train people in systems thinking, interpersonal relationship skills, and our quality management system. Once that's done you have the capability to make "everyone responsible" for quality. The Sales Team can't just go rushing into the Shipping area and start making process changes without getting the Warehouse Team involved. With everyone equipped to work together, you can raise an "accountability" issue with the Sales Team if they know about a Shipping problem and do nothing to work with the Warehouse Team to solve it. By the same reasoning, you could raise the accountability issue with the Warehouse Team should the Sales Team bring them a quality issue only to have it ignored.

Let's say that the Service Team knows about a consistent failure mode in a product based on warranty returns. They don't tell the Engineering Team. Now, who is accountable for the CONTINUED warranty returns on shipping product? The Engineering Team who failed to take into account a potential failure mode? Or the Service Team for doing what they are supposed to do: fix products and send them back AND [IN OUR SYSTEM] feedback the repair results? Guess what? IT'S BOTH!!! If everyone in this miniature system example does not believe that they are accountable for the failure mode and everyone does not work to solve it, then you will continue to have the same failure mode. Of course, this could also be the Quality Team for not analyzing the results from the Service Team and communicating the precious few to the Engineering Team. Let me tell you something: in a healthy system, Service would be sick of Engineers always dropping by to chat about what kind of failures they've been seeing lately, Engineering would be tired of Service hauling them in to show them the latest innovative way that the customer found to break our products ("Can you believe the customer microwaved this?", "You heard me, I used it to hold up a fork lift", and "I'm not sure, what's the difference between 12 volts DC and 120 volts AC, again?) and both teams would be sick of Quality constantly bugging them for the next Continual Improvement on their "screamlined" processes.

From management to the janitor, everything every person does has an element of quality to it - good bad or indifferent. Preferably good, of course. LOL

6.2.2
d) The organisation shall 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.

There is a separate debate going on regarding whether the system per say is limited to product quality ... and hence these personnel would also be limited to personnel perfoming work affecting affecting product quality as stated in 6.2.2a.

No. The clauses d & e refer to all personnel. If somebody's work does not contribute to the achievement of quality objectives, let him know and say as much.In such a case he should also question why he is still around.

5.4.1
Top management shall ensure that quality objectives, including those needed to meet requirements for product [see 7.1(a)], are established at relevant functions and levels within the organisation......

The quality objectives are not limited to product quality. They do include other functions and activities within the organisation as decided by the management to suit the quality policy.