Cove members who aren't totally bored with my rantings might be interested in a new role. The Chartered Quality Institute has recently asked me to contribute a monthly "Agony Uncle" piece dealing with questions from members. The latest one is available here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000818681.cfm?x=b9yLcsP,b6Hgj45C,w) to view.

It is pretty similar to work on the cove except for two things:

I have to be polite :argue:
Nobody gets the chance to correct me :lmao:

Good article, Paul. Is there any chance this column could be posted monthly here in the Reading Room?

Good advice Paul

Many people build a system seperate to the business and wonder why nobody wants to get involved, like you say most good things are often already happening in most companies, such as objectives, so use what is there already.

Very nice.

Did you ever think as a kid you'd be an advice columnist? Even for a fairly limited audience.

Next step.... Dr. Phil.
Or whoever his UK counterpart is...
:D

Good article, Paul. Is there any chance this column could be posted monthly here in the Reading Room?

Thanks everyone for the positive comments. I am certainly happy to copy the response here. I believe the "Forward" e-newsletter is available to all subscribers for free not just CQI members.


Did you ever think as a kid you'd be an advice columnist? No, as a kid I wanted to race cars! It is only with advancing years that reality kicks in! :lol:

Even for a fairly limited audience.Excuse me if I paraphrase a story of a guy on his retirement..... "In my life I've learned a hell of a lot .... it's a shame it's only about quality management!" :lmao:

Next step.... Dr. Phil.
Or whoever his UK counterpart is...

Jim Wynne kindly sent me a link about Dr. Phil but there is only one Dr. Phil on the cove!

The only UK equivalent I can think of is "Dear Marge" an agony aunt in the papers quite a few years ago .... a little gentler than Dr. Phil by all accounts.

It's that time again. My latest meanderings are posted here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000843822.cfm?x=b9LVbg7,b6Hgj45C,w).

I have copied the text below.

The question

I am a quality engineer and have recently been nominated to take part in six sigma training with a view to starting on some projects internally. I have heard through reading Qualityworld that the training is very intensive and will require detailed understanding of statistics. But my company wants me to do the training in my own time and to finish my first project in the first year. Is this possible and will the training be of benefit to me in my career? Jon, Nottingham.

The solution

First, Jon, any opportunity to improve your quality knowledge must be beneficial – structured six sigma training covering quality tools and techniques, even more so. Potential new employers look for qualified black belts for the same reasons your current employer wants to train you – capability to deliver problem solving projects. You will contribute to reducing failure costs and improving business efficiency.

But here’s the rub. Training must be taxing for you to get benefit from it. Because six sigma is a latest buzz word, quality of training provided can be best described as ‘variable’. Make sure your training provider covers the statistics behind six sigma, if not it is just glorified corrective action training. Have a look at what training the CQI is offering here for examples.

It is unusual your company is insisting training takes place in your own time and that rings alarm bells over their commitment to investing the money and effort necessary to deliver a successful six sigma programme. Nevertheless your personal investment in training will pay off in job satisfaction and improved prospects.

Whether you can deliver your first project within a year depends on how complex your project is. Certainly many difficult problems that have troubled organizations for years have been solved in 3 to 9 months – talk about a return on investment!

Bear in mind the methodology cannot be rushed. Each stage of six sigma takes time:

* define (the problem),
* measure (product features, service measures, fault data),
* analyze (data collected above),
* improve (processes based on results of the analysis),
* control (implement measures to ensure process improvements don’t slip back and problems reappear)

The mnemonic DMAIC is relatively easy to say but very difficult to do properly – good luck with your training!

Paul Simpson is a member of the CQI, a certification manager with a UKAS accredited certification body, and a management consultant at XBS

Paul,

This type of article, explaining the implications of something like "installing" six sigma, is something that we do not see very often. I am sure that there will be many who will gain from your insight.

Thanks!!!

Thank you Craig. You are very kind.

Wow Paul I am really impressed :applause: :applause:. I found both articles very interesting.

Thank you for sharing and I hope you will share more of them. A little off topic here but in the first article last paragraph I notice a slight misspelling with the word “organizations”. I should probably not talk as I am probably one of the worst spellers :mg:.

Finally, if you find your particular irresistible force cannot move management’s lack of commitment – move on. There are plenty of good organisations looking for your skills!

At least you did not spell it orgasmication :cool:

Wow Paul I am really impressed :applause: :applause:. I found both articles very interesting. Thanks, Brad. Although I sometimes come across as a bit of an ogre I really do mean well ...:notme:

Thank you for sharing and I hope you will share more of them. A little off topic here but in the first article last paragraph I notice a slight misspelling with the word “organizations”. I should probably not talk as I am probably one of the worst spellers :mg:.


At least you did not spell it orgasmication :cool:

Another case of two nations divided by a common language, I'm afraid. I have problems with this one all the time. I even researched the Wiki for it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise_.2F_-ize).

Now believe it or not but some British folk get a bit pompous. ;) , preferring the "UK only" version "..isation"- so that is what I posted in the original article.

It is unusual your company is insisting training takes place in your own time and that rings alarm bells over their commitment to investing the money and effort necessary to deliver a successful six sigma programme.

That's the first thing that jumped out at me in the question.

:applause:

I'm off again! The latest question and response is here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000864418.cfm?x=b9VvkBw,b6Hgj45C).
Agony Uncle


The question

I recently moved into a quality role and have taken over responsibility for the documented management system from the quality manager who has retired. I have heard a lot about the process approach but the current system seems to be a collection of procedures with their titles changed to ‘process’. What’s the main difference between the two and how do I go about making the system more process focused. Claire, Dundee

The solution

It is a sad state of affairs you’ve inherited but fairly typical when systems haven’t made the big leap forward predicted for organisations changing from earlier editions to ISO 9001:2000.

During its development ISO asked users of the quality management standard what they wanted from the revision. The message was to adopt 8 quality management principles supporting the standard including ‘the process approach’ – thinking of value chains operating across organisations and managing them so customers are satisfied and organisation achieves their goals.

Traditional approaches to documenting quality systems (used by your predecessor) would have you describe and document what happens within departments using procedures – primarily relating to activities carried out within one department and ending with product or information being passed to another department. As someone with responsibility for documenting this management system I simply ask people within the department what they do, write it down and ask them to obey the system. This tends to reinforce a ‘silo’ approach whereby departments concentrate on what they do, potentially ignoring the effect on the end customer.

To move to the process approach you should consider your organisation’s workings from the point of view of the customer. Customers contact you with a set of requirements and expect an end product or service. How you do that, however many steps or departments are involved, is up to you. Your customers aren’t particularly interested. In documenting process based systems you have to understand information flow from beginning to end, by putting yourself in the customer’s position.

Having identified your processes the next step is to manage them by identifying objectives and process measures (again end to end) and include these in your documented system. You will still meet problems – particularly at the interface between departments – but your focus on customer satisfaction will provide a common framework for moving forward.

Simpson,
Good article. It takes us back to basic principles for helping us improve and understand our management systems

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000884860.cfm?x=bb9t3fQ,0) is the latest meanderings from the old fool.

Product recall - it was done a long time before Mattel hit the news - honest!

In addition the Forward e-newsletter has an additional follow up section now to review my recommendations - another viewpoint is always welcome. Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000884863.cfm?x=bb9t3fQ,0,w)

Hello Paul

Have you had much to do with the 8D method ?

Often this is seen as just a CA/PA form, but the methedology behind it goes much deeper, and I would suggest is a very good framework for such situations.

Or am I missing the point ....

Stop me when you're bored! :D

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000909804.cfm?x=bbjh6DL,b80h29HK)
is the latest mutterings. Document control - cutting edge topic don't you think?

The question

I've stumbled into a debate about whether or not it is acceptable to allow document authors to approve their own documents on behalf of their department.

In my experience of working within companies utilising ISO 9001 (and particularly ISO 13485) quality management systems, this approach seems fundamentally wrong to me, because it lacks a basic independence of the approver and has the potential for the approver to be too close to the document to spot errors.

The problem I have is that I can't find a standard or regulation that I can use to (hopefully!) illustrate the point that this is not good practice, in terms of document control. Can you help?
Susan, Inverness

The response

Thanks for writing in Susan – your debate will be familiar to people across the country. If you want to tell people with authority that independent ‘approval’ of documents is required I can’t help. There is nothing in any standard I am aware of that requires this.

ISO 9001, for example, requires that documents are approved for adequacy before they are issued. This could be anyone from originator/author, quality manager (however named), process owner through to a documentation committee.

Back to your question (and the principles). The potential benefits of independent approval:

* as you correctly identified a fresh pair of eyes may spot errors
* someone with a broader view of where a new document fits into the system (such as a process owner/quality manager) will check to see a new document doesn’t create conflicts
* often for processes that cross departmental boundaries a group of interested individuals representing their department/group can get buy-in through the approval process

Some of the downsides:

* additional bureaucracy - if you need an independent check you incur additional time costs with the potential to go round the houses
* a ‘final check’ takes the responsibility from the originator to get it right first time
* if your quality manager is the approver, it reinforces the view of others that quality people are the document people

With regards to the general point of document approval, in my experience people spend more time on the format, numbering systems, issue control and transmittal procedures for documents than they do on looking at what documents do within the system – the area of most benefit when designing your systems. Get the application right and the necessary controls should follow naturally.




Paul Simpson is a member of the CQI, a certification manager with a UKAS accredited certification body, and a management consultant at XBS (http://www.xbs.org.uk)

I just happened to read your answer on the web :thanks:

I agree with what you say Paul, the independant document approver is a lot like the old fashioned inspector.

I also often find, particularly with technical documentation in a small to medium sized company that there is no-one really on site that could critique the technical content of the document, so independant approval is impossible.

As for so called quality system documents, often thought of as documented procedures which define the management system, or element of it, why have anyone other than the process owner/manager approve these documents - it is their system that we want them to take ownership of. I kind of understood the old school thinking that QA had to review and approve these to ensure ISO9001 compliance, but since the 2000 version of the standard assuring procedural compliance to ISO9001 is difficult I feel and somewhat missing the point.

Fellow Covers, I'm afraid it is that time again the CQI Agony Uncle strikes again - this time on objectives. Click here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000934607.cfm?x=bbs12BH,b80h29HK,w) to view the article or else the text is below:


Mark, Milton Keynes

The response

Congratulations! If your MD is talking to you about the quality management system, you are in a good position to get buy-in to your efforts. Think of this invitation as the start of a dialogue.

Having been asked to contribute I suggest your first question should be: ‘What other objectives and targets have been set?’ This isn’t the cop-out it seems at first. Quality objectives should be developed from (and supportive of) main business objectives. So if, for example:

* marketing are targeting a new market overseas then your quality efforts might be best spent making sure products meets market needs and marketing’s plan is met
* if company strategy is new product development then you will support this activity
* even for standard operations your quality objectives should be aligned in the form of (for example) on-time-delivery, customer satisfaction,warranty cost reduction, reducing waste (perhaps scrap and rework levels)

Note that for all these objectives it is unlikely you will be able to meet any objectives on your own. You will need help from production staff, engineering, marketing. This may also help others to buy in to your objectives (in support of their efforts).

Regarding setting levels for objectives and targets, being invited by the MD to sit at the top table is a double edged sword. Setting objectives and targets makes you accountable and more visible. You have to walk a tightrope between setting unachievable targets (and risk being criticised for not meeting them) and underwhelming the boss by not stretching enough.

Bear in mind that any savings you put forward justify your own and your department’s continuing employment!

The acronym SMART can be a bit overused but is worth keeping in mind for your objectives and targets:
S – specific
M – measurable
A – achievable
R – relevant
T – time bound

What do you think of this advice? Or is there something you need help with? Contact the CQI.

The latest Agony Uncle is in response to a client who had a witnessed audit - the Accreditation was witnessing their Certification Body / Registrar. Any comments? BTW the "Duty of Care" regulations are UK law but do not require a waste producer to follow waste streams to where they are disposed of.

The original can be viewed here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000954218.cfm?x=bbDcsk8,b80h29HK).

The question

At our last ISO 14001 external audit the certification body audit was being observed by its accreditation body. We were later told by our auditor that the accreditation body’s auditor had said we have to follow our waste streams back to where they are disposed of to meet the duty of care regulations. I have read these regulations and can’t find the requirement. Do I have to complain to my certification body or to their accreditation body?
Phil, Southampton

Agony Uncle response

It looks like you are caught between a rock and a hard place, but the good news is there is always a way out. As I understand it your certification body (CB) hasn’t yet raised anything, so for now you have nothing to worry about. The following principles apply for any nonconformity, but confirm your understanding of the law as it applies to you.

Hopefully your CB and accreditation body (AB) will sort out their differences and there will be no action required by you. If, as in this case, you are not required to follow waste streams (as the regulations say nothing of the sort) your CB (and their AB) has no position requiring it of you. If your CB backs down in their battle and comes back to you with a nonconformity then you have the right to challenge it.

In any audit you can only be assessed against audit criteria that apply to you, for example:

* standard – in this case ISO 14001.2004
* legislation – in this case the Environment Protection Act 1990
* your own documented system – if you say waste must be tied in pink ribbons then your auditor will assess to make sure you do

Anything outside these audit criteria is not assessable. Don’t accept a nonconformity because it will be easier in the short-term – you have to live with this system after they’ve gone.

So if the auditor raises a nonconformity because she thinks your ribbons should be blue instead of the aforementioned pink, then you are entitled to take them on, immediately and thereafter with the CB management structure. If you get an inadequate response then raise a formal complaint – all accredited CBs are required to have a system to receive and deal with them.

Hopefully this should resolve any issues directly with the CB but if not you can complain about your CB to the AB responsible for accrediting them (OK so far?). In your case this might be a little complicated as the AB was involved originally but by complaining to the AB they must investigate further and you may even end up doing your CB a favour.

If you run out of complaint avenues then feel free to send me further information and I will take up the cause.

Ahh, Donohue versus Stevenson (use in Malaysia also). Some auditors must had gone through some case studies during an environmental law training and trying to show off or test out his/her new found knowledge.

Good stuff, Paul.

Thanks Paul

Ahh, Donohue versus Stevenson (use in Malaysia also). Some auditors must had gone through some case studies during an environmental law training and trying to show off or test out his/her new found knowledge.
Thanks, Harry. The "Duty of Care" in this case is enshrined in legislation (and is criminal law) and relates to the waste producers responsibility to ensure it is handled and disposed of in accordance with the regulations.

It is different from the general "Duty of Care" of a manufacturer to the end user that Donoghue v Stevenson dealt with (as Case Law of Tort).

Thanks, Harry. The "Duty of Care" in this case is enshrined in legislation (and is criminal law) and relates to the waste producers responsibility to ensure it is handled and disposed of in accordance with the regulations.

It is different from the general "Duty of Care" of a manufacturer to the end user that Donoghue v Stevenson dealt with (as Case Law of Tort).

Thanks for the explanation and update, Paul. We'll have to catch up in our legislation.

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000974888.cfm?x=bbMP96v,b80h29HK) is the latest ranting from a grumpy old man!

It is a hot topic at the moment in the field of accreditation of CBs / registrars. I have used lot of experience gained from discussions here on the cove. Thanks to all!:thanx:

Thanks to all who helped with the latest "Uncle" response - Al Rosen, Stijloor, Gert Sorensen, mmtunes and Wes Bucey.

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article000995103.cfm?x=bc11qlr,b80h29HK)is a link to the article on the CQI site.

Quote is below.

The question

With regard to ISO 13485, clauses 5.6 and 8.2.3, how should a development department report the effectiveness/measures of the design process to management review?

We propose showing that the outputs of the design process match the inputs. Is this acceptable? What do other companies do? I would be very interested in your input to this one. Ann, Gloucestershire

The response

All the comments below are relevant for ISO 13485 (quality management standard for medical device manufacturers). The general approach covers any organisation looking to implement effective design control measures.

First, be clear what the design process is and what it gives your organisation (all covered in clause 4.1 of the standard). By establishing what ‘criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operation and control of these processes are effective’ (4.1 c) you should be able to identify critical success factors for design – generally covering three areas of quality, cost, delivery (QCD). This is the same for any project management activity, but more of this later.

These requirements are used by your organisation to ‘monitor, measure and analyse these processes’ (4.1 e) and should help you to establish objectives (5.4.1) and design process measures (8.2.3).

You mentioned reporting how design outputs meet design input requirements – a good starting point but what you actually report at a management review might need careful consideration.

Generally design effectiveness is measured by how well:

* product meets requirements – covered in clause 7.3.2 of ISO 13485 – the ‘quality’ part of QCD:
o internal (design process) measures:
+ design review results
+ results of component and prototype testing (verification activities)
+ field (clinical) trials (validation output)
o internal (company) measures but after design:
+ manufacturing:
# right first time measures
# scrap and rework at introduction
o external to the company:
+ warranty
+ complaints
+ field data on product effectiveness (clinical use)
* on time delivery of new products to market (against original timing plan)

Design process efficiency could be reported:

* on achievement of budget (the cost of ‘QCD’)

These measures would demonstrate how well the design process is working.

As far as presenting this to the management review, you’ll find that even with the best will in the world, top management (as required by ISO 13485) has limited time to spend on reviewing subjects like quality. Somehow you need to produce an edited highlights version of design measures that will hold their attention. If you can assign pound notes to any of the measures that should help.

What do you think of this advice? Or is there something you need help with? Contact us now at
cqiforward@thecqi.org

Latest mental meanderings are here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001020383.cfm?x=bc9C0W1,b80h29HK,w).

Text copied here too:

The question

We are looking to bring in a consultant to help us review and develop our management system – what should we look for when selecting the company/individual? Samantha, Glasgow.

The response

First, be clear why you want use a consultant and what you want from them. A consultant is not an extra pair of hands but a specialist brought in to provide expertise beyond the organisation’s current capability.

In order to make best use of a scarce (and costly) resource you need to be able to envision where you want to be at the end of the project – a future state you want to achieve. The process for selecting your consultant will help define how you get there.

There are many sources of good consultants – the CQI runs a register here. Word of mouth is always good, but only if you and the ‘mouth’ have similar needs. Develop a shortlist and consider their experience and skills. Ask to see examples of their work. Make sure there are a variety of styles of documentation (indicating flexibility) and beware of ‘off the peg’ solutions.

Interview them and check their expertise in and around what you do. Direct related experience may be useful but is not essential. More important is they understand where you want to go and can help get you there efficiently and effectively. Listen carefully to questions they ask about your goals and ways of working – if they are not asking relevant questions at this stage it should ring alarm bells.

Get them to put together a proposal stating how they would go about achieving your goals, project management and control and, most importantly, their expectations of you. Look closely at what you will have to do. If you are not prepared to commit resources to ensure the project is completed satisfactorily then you will waste your and your consultant’s time and the project will not be delivered as planned.

At the end of any project carry out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise to see you achieved what you wanted and hopefully developed the organisation in the process.

The CQI has previously published articles on working with consultants, starting here. Have a look for further information.

What do you think of this advice? Or is there something you need help with? Contact us now at
cqiforward@thecqi.org

Paul Simpson is a member of the CQI, a certification manager with a UKAS accredited certification body, and a management consultant at XBS

On the trail of unaccredited certification! Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001046794.cfm?x=bckFPh4,b80h29HK,w) is the latest offering from the "Man from UNCLE" discussing the acceptance of unaccredited certificates. Obviously you can replace UKAS for your favourite :confused: local accreditation body.

Repeated below:
The question

I work in the purchasing department for a large London borough. We have a supplier selection policy that requires companies to hold ISO 9001 certification. I have seen a lot of certificates that do not have the UKAS ‘tick and crown’ mark. Are these certificates valid? Sanjeev, London.

Agony Uncle response

The short answer is – it depends!

Any certificate is valid in as much as it has been issued by one organisation and relates to another. Whether it is of any use to you as a customer depends on how good the assessment process behind certification has been. A detailed assessment of the organisation’s quality management system, particularly if it takes into account your contract requirements, will be of great help in making sure they satisfy your demands of a supplier.

Beware, there are certification companies out there who will write your supplier’s system for them and issue a certificate at the same time – against all the principles of impartial assessment and unlikely to add anything to your supplier approval efforts – apart from ticking a box on the questionnaire.

There are also some self-proclaimed accreditation bodies who will issue their version of the UKAS tick and crown logo but UKAS are the only accreditation body recognised by UK government.

Accreditation by UKAS tells you that your supplier’s certification body is periodically assessed itself against a standard – including head office and witness audits of their on-site assessment work.

UKAS-accredited certification is, in itself, not a guarantee of your supplier’s capability. There is still too much variability in the certification process. What you do definitely get, however, is a complaints process you can use with your certification body and access to a higher authority if your complaint is not satisfactorily dealt with.

Paul,


Only just caught up with your article posted in response to this question:The question

We are looking to bring in a consultant to help us review and develop our management system – what should we look for when selecting the company/individual? Samantha, Glasgow.

I liked your answer a lot - very good succinct summary of what to look for & how to go about it.

Speaking as a consultant now, IMO if more organisations used the approach you (and I) recommend, then they'd probably get better consultants and thus better results! And then maybe the crummy so-called 'consultants' who don't exactly cover our field in glory would find it harder to survive. And I'd be even happier!

Keep up the good work.

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001072275.cfm?x=bcv6n3c,b7hQrRQP)is a link to the latest edition of Forward - I'm interested if Cove members are subscribing to this e-newsletter and if so what they think of it.

This latest response is on a favourite topic of mine - people involvement. Anyone who doesn't want to follow the link the article is reproduced below.

The question

We have been operating our quality management system for many years but are still having problems with product quality. Whenever we investigate this we find it comes down to operator error. How can we deal with these errors to stop them from hurting us? Mike, Cardiff.

The response

It’s too easy to come up with human error as a ‘root cause’ for failure, so much so that many customer industries (such as automotive) will not accept it as being a final cause for a supplier failure. Think of it this way – people only make mistakes because they can.

In order to understand real root cause you need to understand the nature of errors, which is often impossible in the heat of a customer return or complaint. People do make mistakes – rarely will you find an example of someone deliberately delivering a poor product or service – but there is normally a good reason why a mistake was made.

Often an individual is distracted or under pressure to keep up with production schedules. To resolve these issues needs further investigation and to do this you will have to have the confidence of the people involved.

The area is huge (and is a minefield), so some areas you need to think about are:

* leadership – how do your organisation’s leaders show a way ahead for people so they understand what is expected of them?
* communications – how do you communicate requirements and how well do you listen to what employees are telling you?
* competence – how do individuals within the system demonstrate they have the skills and knowledge required to do the job?
* empowerment – how are people authorised to develop and manage areas of their work?
* recognition – how are people’s efforts appreciated and good practice rewarded?

If you are able to answer the above questions satisfactorily then you will be a long way towards establishing a quality culture that seeks out and eliminates root causes currently left undiscovered and assigned to human error.

W. Edwards Deming said that 85% of all quality problems are management problems – if you accept this then you are part way to accepting there is no such thing as human error.

Hi Paul,

This question is asked by many people at different levels of management and your answer is very apt and to the point.

I will memorize this answer. ;)

W. Edwards Deming said that 85% of all quality problems are management problems – if you accept this then you are part way to accepting there is no such thing as human error.

I enjoy reading these things, but this bit started my nervous facial tic. If you actually believe there's no such thing as human error, you're the only person I know of who does. You have to understand that Deming was talking about blaming system problems on operators, and not claiming that mistakes don't happen. Some management problems are due to the errors of management people.

Paul, I agree with you - it's all too easy too often for people to stop at 'human error' as a root cause, without going further and delving into it further.

Yes, I do accept that human error occurs (pace Jim) - but often times there are many contributing factors at work that are too rarely looked at.

Good article.

You are right Jane. Paul rightly says, "People do make mistakes – rarely will you find an example of someone deliberately delivering a poor product or service – but there is normally a good reason why a mistake was made."

I have seen some organizations attribute the deviations / variances mostly to human error to escape from the lengthy CAPA system. These type of organizations, though having good QMS will never get the true benefits of "system" and will lag behind.

You are right Jane. Paul rightly says, "People do make mistakes – rarely will you find an example of someone deliberately delivering a poor product or service – but there is normally a good reason why a mistake was made."

I have seen some organizations attribute the deviations / variances mostly to human error to escape from the lengthy CAPA system. These type of organizations, though having good QMS will never get the true benefits of "system" and will lag behind.

In an ideal system, problems would be isolated to only random mistakes by people, because management will have provided efficacious, carefully controlled processes. The problem is that in most cases when a person starts doing something like the "5 whys," by the time the third one is reached the solution is out of the control of the person responsible for solving the problem. To paraphrase Tip O'Neill, most CA is local.

You have to understand that Deming was talking about blaming system problems on operators, and not claiming that mistakes don't happen.Thank you - my point in mentioning Deming is to show that he wanted to push people's thoughts from the shop floor to the boardroom to improve quality.
Some management problems are due to the errors of management people. Exactly.

To paraphrase Tip O'Neill, most CA is local.

:topic: "All politics is local (and other rules of the game) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1558504702/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link)." A great book by a great man.

Stijloor.

I enjoy reading these things, but this bit started my nervous facial tic. If you actually believe there's no such thing as human error, you're the only person I know of who does. You have to understand that Deming was talking about blaming system problems on operators, and not claiming that mistakes don't happen. Some management problems are due to the errors of management people.

Agreed, last time I checked, and I know some may find it hard to believe at times, but management are humans too and who do we look to when they get things wrong?

I understand and agree with your answer though Paul, the root of many issues lies with the management system, but this is managed by humans who are also prone to errors, mainly in judgement and decision making that leads to mistakes and problems further down the line.

I get 'Foward' every month, it's a good read, thanks for taking the time to contribute!

Is there no end to this drivel? Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001096576.cfm?x=bcFGKF5,b6HgnD6Q,w) is the link to the Agony Uncle page on CQI's Forward e- newsletter. The text is also reproduced below.

Agony Uncle

The question

Our quality management system is certified to ISO 9001.2000. I understand the standard is going to be updated this year. What are the main areas I need to be aware of and how will I be reassessed against the new standard?
Tony, London


Agony Uncle response

You are correct. In accordance with ISO policy ISO 9001 is periodically reviewed and has been revised for reissue – expected in October this year – click here (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=46486) for the latest information.

But the final draft for the 2008 edition contains few changes and little of significance. These are:

* an increased emphasis on satisfying statutory and regulatory requirements (this has always been required and should have been covered)
* the last knockings of the link between management system and product quality – there are now no requirements referring to product quality in the standard only a couple of mentions in notes. Throughout the final draft the requirement is for ‘conformity to product requirements’
* general tidying up of wording throughout but sadly the term ‘product realization’ remains

If this is the limit of the changes it raises the question – why bother? Bear in mind the great and good of the standards world have travelled the globe to debate changes, spent hundreds of hours in dark (and light!) committee rooms producing drafts and circulating these to interested parties like the CQI for comment. One argument for small change is that many organisations haven’t yet got to grips with the 2000 edition – but that’s another story.

Latest news on making the transition from 2000 to 2008 edition is that it should be picked up by your certification body during routine visits at no extra cost to you. Accreditation bodies are calling for a 3 year transition and saying certificates cannot be reissued to the new edition until a visit has taken place. This is, they say, to prevent certification bodies claiming a commercial advantage, but what advantage I’m not sure.

My preference would be to reissue all certificates as soon as the new standard is issued and not require organisations like yours to fork out the 64 Swiss francs (or £70) for the new standard. The changes don’t warrant it.

Bear in mind the great and good of the standards world have travelled the globe to debate changes, spent hundreds of hours in dark (and light!) committee rooms producing drafts and circulating these to interested parties like the CQI for comment.I agree. While I commend all the volunteers who support the TAGs and the ISO TC176 and give freely of their time to help maintain the standards, if we were to estimate an ROI over the effort expended to revise ISO 9001, heads would roll....http://www.ugoplayer.com//forum/images/smilies/roll1.gif
the last knockings of the link between management system and product quality – there are now no requirements referring to product quality in the standard only a couple of mentions in notes. Throughout the final draft the requirement is for ‘conformity to product requirements’Dear Agony Uncle, could you please elaborate on this? I don't follow. What do you mean by no requirements over product quality? I am confused.

I agree. While I commend all the volunteers who support the TAGs and the ISO TC176 and give freely of their time to help maintain the standards, if we were to estimate an ROI over the effort expended to revise ISO 9001, heads would roll....http://www.ugoplayer.com//forum/images/smilies/roll1.gif
As a volunteer packing my bags for Serbia I can only agree. But you may not be surprised to learn that I don't just accept the slow pace and lack of action. :notme:
Dear Agony Uncle, could you please elaborate on this? I don't follow. What do you mean by no requirements over product quality? I am confused.
Dear Sidney, I hope you are well and that your rash is clearing up nicely! :lol:

When ISO 9001 was first issued the emphasis was on product quality - now the only references to product quality are a couple of notes (which are not assessable). The emphasis is now on quality in the management system - which should hopefully amount to the same thing as the standard also talks about product conforming to requirements.

I hope this helps - if you have any other questions please feel free to drop me a line! :D

This month your favourite Agony Uncle :notme: has been asked to comment on a supplier moving their manufacturing operation without telling the customer. The original is here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001124461.cfm?x=bcQCMCf,b80h29HK).

Unformatted text is below:

Agony Uncle

The question

We had an instance where a supplier moved his whole production process to another site and did not inform us. Where in ISO 9001 does it guide us to communicate these kinds of major changes with the customer? The only area – I guessed – was contract review, but this section is not comprehensive on this matter.
Darren Tindall

Agony Uncle response

Darren, I sympathise with your situation. Unfortunately ISO 9001 has nothing on offer to resolve your situation at this stage. You are correct that any such issues relate to clause 7.2 – Customer-related processes (a clunky title for ‘the way you deal with your customers’). Also, you have to ensure your organisation provides requirements to suppliers (under clause 7.4.2).



For some industries, such as automotive, manufacturing location is important; as are processes used to manufacture product. Many car manufacturers insist suppliers work to a ‘production part approval process’ (PPAP) whereby suppliers go through a rigorous process to design, verify and validate both production parts and the processes that deliver them. This is all before they are allowed to supply product in production volumes… and any planned changes to the part, production process or (as in your case) manufacturing location must be authorised.



For your own organisation, you need to assess risks posed by changes to supplied components and, if the risk warrants, implement a system requiring your approval before change. PPAP may be too onerous for your needs, but at the other end of the scale, you could insert a one-line clause in your purchase order/contract/terms and conditions, to the effect of:

‘Any changes to product, manufacturing process or location must be agreed with (purchasing authority) before changes are made.’


As soon your requirement is stated clause 7.2.2 c comes into play requiring a supplier to establish:


‘c) the organisation has the ability to meet the defined requirements.’


and their ISO system should capture and accommodate the change.

Is there no end to this drivel? Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001096576.cfm?x=bcFGKF5,b6HgnD6Q,w) is the link to the Agony Uncle page on CQI's Forward e- newsletter. The text is also reproduced below.

A follow up to last month's "Uncle" was posted here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001124461.cfm?x=bcQCMCf,b80h29HK).

Great, some good advice about the standard for a change. How will the certification bodies view the fact that companies may not purchase the revised standard and therefore be in non-compliance?
Mark Brown


Agony Uncle response

Thanks Mark. Here at ‘Uncle’ HQ we try to respond to questions as they arrive. Sometimes, as here, there is a topical question that pushes to the front of the queue. In answer to your new question, I’ll ask one of my own: Where does it say in ISO 9001 you need a copy of the standard?



It doesn’t.

When an organisation applies for certification to a standard it offers up its own quality management system for assessment by an independent body against a set of requirements (in this case ISO 9001). We keep saying the standard is just good practice and any organisation effectively managing its activities and satisfying its customers will be able to achieve certification. ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 are useful documents when designing and implementing your system but there is no requirement that you hold copies.

For now only some certification bodies require customers to hold copies of the standard (through terms and conditions or scheme documents). However, because of the limited nature of the clarifications in the 2008 edition, I can see many reviewing their policy to allow certified clients to operate using the obsolete edition – provided they have access to information on the changes.

a supplier moving their manufacturing operation without telling the customer

This sounds a bit hypothetical because in real life, there's always 2 way communication going on. One side will be sending in orders and following up for details of delivery and what nots' and the other side will be busy with delivery order, invoicing and most importantly, payments or collections. Imagine the hassle of having the cheque sent to an old address? Both sides have more to gain by keeping the other informed.

Of course it can happen in very rare cases - we termed them 'fly by night'.

Do we need ISO to deal with these kind of business issues? I think it's over obsession with ISO.

This sounds a bit hypothetical because in real life, there's always 2 way communication going on. One side will be sending in orders and following up for details of delivery and what nots' and the other side will be busy with delivery order, invoicing and most importantly, payments or collections. Imagine the hassle of having the cheque sent to an old address? Both sides have more to gain by keeping the other informed.

Of course it can happen in very rare cases - we termed them 'fly by night'.

Do we need ISO to deal with these kind of business issues? I think it's over obsession with ISO.
Thanks for your comments, Harry.

I must be honest, I've never come across this type of thing myself. As far as I know it is a genuine case for the poster. At the moment there is a lot of moving of manufacturing to low wage economies and, while there are industries that are in touch with their supply base and require formal notification of changes (as for my example of automotive and PPAP) there are others where the customer - supplier relationship is very much at arms length, even to the extent of catalogue purchasing.

There is also nothing to stop the supplier maintaining a head office function (dealing with sales, invoicing etc.) while manufacturing is moved.

I also accept that ISO (the standard) can't be "all things to all men" and hence my answer that ISO doesn't address this point specifically. My suggestion was for them to make sure their business system covers it and then, automagically it comes into their (and their supplier's) ISO system.

When ISO 9001 was first issued the emphasis was on product quality - now the only references to product quality are a couple of notes (which are not assessable). The emphasis is now on quality in the management system - which should hopefully amount to the same thing as the standard also talks about product conforming to requirements.

I hope this helps - if you have any other questions please feel free to drop me a line! :DThanks, but I still don't follow. How would you phrase "product quality" requirements in the context of ISO 9001, if not by conformity to requirements and fitness for the application?
When we observe the ISO 9000 definition of quality, in the context of ISO 9001 and the sentence under 0.1 which states The quality management system requirements specified in this International Standard are complementary to requirements for products.I think it is well covered. Maybe you can offer a suggestion on how ISO 9001 could address "product quality" differently.

And PS. When you say: "...when ISO 9001 was first issued the emphasis was on product quality..." Remember, one of the first major blows to ISO 9001 was that STUPID story that an ISO 9001 system could deliver life jackets, made out of concrete? As long as your procedures specified concrete as the material to be used?

I fought (and easily debunked) that STUPID myth in many venues. But, for ISO 9001 detractors, that was a great piece of marketing.....

Thanks, but I still don't follow. How would you phrase "product quality" requirements in the context of ISO 9001, if not by conformity to requirements and fitness for the application?
When we observe the ISO 9000 definition of quality, in the context of ISO 9001 and the sentence under 0.1 which states I think it is well covered. Maybe you can offer a suggestion on how ISO 9001 could address "product quality" differently. Well, if it was me it would say "product quality" throughout and "product realization" would not appear (but that's another thread).

And PS. When you say: "...when ISO 9001 was first issued the emphasis was on product quality..." Remember, one of the first major blows to ISO 9001 was that STUPID story that an ISO 9001 system could deliver life jackets, made out of concrete? As long as your procedures specified concrete as the material to be used?

I fought (and easily debunked) that STUPID myth in many venues. But, for ISO 9001 detractors, that was a great piece of marketing.....
Yes, that was always garbage and like you I had a standard response along the lines of well yes, provided your customer is prepared to demand a concrete life preserver, of course they can have it etc., etc. !

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001150294.cfm?x=bd39HC8,b6Hgj45C)we go again. I suppose it is better than working for a living! :lol:
Jan from Cardiff asked:

I’ve just been asked to implement ISO 14001 for our company and am confused over the difference between environmental ‘aspects’ and ‘impacts’. This relates in particular to our business – we provide facilities management for office buildings, including the repair and maintenance of electrical and mechanical equipment, small building repairs and cleaning.


Agony Uncle response:

Thanks for your question Jan. I’m sure you are voicing the same concern as many other Forward readers.

This terminology doesn’t help our understanding – the difference is subtle but necessary, as it distinguishes between the things we do, (aspects) and the effects these activities have on the environment (impacts). For our organisation, we may not want to change anything about aspects (the reasons we are in business), but might genuinely want to reduce those negative environmental impacts we have in doing business. Or, in cases such as yours, increase some positive impacts.

To give you a couple of examples:

* Servicing gas boilers may be part of your maintenance activities for customers – that is the aspect. Keeping boilers operating efficiently means less gas is consumed – a positive environmental impact (or to be totally accurate: reduction of the negative impact of consuming fossil fuels!). There are some negative impacts for this same aspect though. You consume natural resources (eg components) and you use fuel (I presume) to move your staff around to the boilers. In this case you might want to increase the aspect (service more boilers) and/or try to reduce the amount of fuel you consume in doing so.
* Similarly, your contracts may include painting (aspect). There are positive impacts including improvement of visual appearance and prevention of deterioration of the fabric of the building. It does, however, involve negative impacts such as use of natural resources (paint) and possible emissions to air and waste (paint tins to landfill, contaminated water from washing brushes). Again, as an example, you might want to do more painting for your customers but put in place procedures to control the waste streams.

Having identified your aspects and evaluated which positive and negative impacts they contribute to, you need to decide which are most significant (ie which ones you want to do something about). Some points to consider are:

* How much?
* How often or how likely?
* Is it covered by legislation (such as waste)?

Those aspects you determine significant are then addressed, with objectives and targets set to improve environmental performance. Managing activities may require documented procedures, but be aware ISO 14001 does not insist on any documented procedures – it leaves the responsibility for deciding whether you need procedures to you.

Latest mental meanderings are here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001172668.cfm?x=bdbVwbd,b80h29HK). Not sure about the billing on the article, though! :notme:

This is in response to a question here on the cove that I "adopted" with the OP's permission.

The text is reproduced here:
Agony Uncle

CQI Member and quality guru Paul Simpson is back to answer those burning questions and set your minds at rest. This month, Clare from Norfolk asked:

We have just been through an initial ISO 9001:2000 audit. The certification body auditor looked at our internal audit reports and wrote a nonconformity for something already found during our internal audits. The issue we raised was:

’The internal audit process identified that root cause was not being addressed on internal corrective actions requests.’

The auditor wrote exactly the same finding up as a minor nonconformity even though the timeframe to answer our internal corrective action has not been exceeded. Should this be allowed?

Agony Uncle response

Hi Clare - this is a difficult one to answer! A lot depends on circumstances – it is ultimately a judgement call for the auditor. One thing is certain – the auditor hasn’t explained the nonconformity to you, which he or she should have done.

As with many auditors, I leave assessment of internal audits to the end of my audit. This was an approach learned from my first quality manager, who refused to release results of internal audits as he didn't want to ‘bias’ the customer's sample! Clearly the days before third-party certification...

Here is my version of the evaluation process an external auditor should go through if they find similar issues while auditing processes that the company has also raised:

1. Investigate the corrective action process to see that both correction and corrective action are under way. If they are, there is no need to raise a nonconformity. (I personally might raise an observation to track progress at future audits).

2. If the audit was a while back (and/or the corrective action was closed out) and my examples are recent, then I should raise a nonconformity, as original containment or corrective action proves ineffective.

3. If (as in this case) the issue relates to the corrective action system itself, I have to make a call as to whether the organisation has made sufficient progress in dealing with the issue. If the corrective action system is ineffective, then it needs recording as a nonconformity as it is vital to their quality management system as a whole.

My starting position is always to give the benefit of the doubt and not raise a nonconformity. However, depending on the severity, I might record one if I have found evidence that the system is not working.

I would never raise a nonconformity if I had not independently found the same problem when looking at the same evidence.

Don't the months pass quickly?

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001200473.cfm?x=bdnl3mm,b80h29HK,w)is September's Agony Uncle. The text is below. It's on a reasonably hot topic - integrated management systems. Any comments as ever gratefully received.

Sandra from Egham asks:

I am the quality manager for our company’s ISO 9001 certified quality management system and I am leading the project to implement an environmental management system to meet ISO 14001. I am aware of OHSAS 18001 for health and safety and wonder if I should include these requirements to make it a fully integrated system?

Agony Uncle response:

Sandra – it looks like you have interesting times ahead! Firstly, a couple of points to consider about standards.

Those you mentioned are just a few models that organisations can use to manage quality, environmental impact or occupational health and safety. Organisations have to meet many other requirements such as financial reporting and employment regulations. The real management system is the way your organisation currently works and it should already meet all of these obligations. The system should also be integrated with some specialisation where particular expertise is required.

Here’s the rub – unless you are fantastically knowledgeable (or your organisation is both simple and small) you will need additional expertise to implement your management system. So, your skill will be in working with these experts to ensure the documentation produced satisfies all concerned: your users from a content perspective and the experts from the angle of compliance. My recommendation is to forget about individual standard requirements initially. Start from what the business actually needs using a simple model:

* identify or verify your business processes
* identify responsible people as owners of these processes
* owners describe processes they need documented in the way they want their activity carried out
* experts (in quality, safety, financial and IT) review those procedures and, with process owners, add any standards-specific elements missed out

All being well, this will result in an integrated management system in language users should understand without reference to industry jargon. No gravitas is added to these systems by including terms like ‘product realisation’!

Take a process covering business planning for example. You could improve this by considering financial controls such as justifying capital expenditure, potential environmental impacts, health and safety risks and even commercial risks of future plans.

That said, do beware! Where specialism is needed don’t try to force documentation down the ‘integrated’ route. Can you think how messy a single policy statement would be if it satisfied all of the requirements of all of the standards mentioned above? If they require separation, it will be worth the effort in the long run.

Paul, I wish I had read this when we started down the ISO 9001 road many years ago. Good job!!

This one is a little different! :mg: Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001232702.cfm?x=bdw37J6,b80h29HK) is a question from a CQI member re Statutory and Regulatory Requirements (such a mouthful I had to acronymize (?) it to SRR).

The response is based on UK (and EU) regulations for equipment used in explosive atmospheres and UK weights and measures regulations so if these do not apply to product in your market you can ignore the whole thing. My apologies in advance if it is a bit heavy. I only answer them! :notme:

But the same management systems approach applies no matter what your SRRs are.


Terry from Buckingham has asked:

I am the quality manager for a small manufacturing company making equipment measuring liquids which are dispensed to the public and used in explosive atmospheres. Our management system is certified to ISO 9001:2000 and I have been following the proposed changes for 2008. My question is – how much do I need to change our quality management system to meet the additional emphasis on statutory and regulatory requirements?

Agony Uncle response:

Thanks for your question Terry. To give a complete response I would have to know a few more details – but here are some broad principles.

ISO 9001 discusses statutory and regulatory requirements (SRR) specifically in relation to a product supplied. There are many other standards dealing with other SRR (in management systems alone we have ISO 14001 for environmental and OHSAS 18001 for health and safety). Where your product has to comply with SRR, your quality management system also has to encompass these requirements.

Examples you mentioned of explosive atmospheres and measuring liquids for dispense bring in two separate sets of regulations for equipment you supply. For each there are a range of duties on you as designer and manufacturer. Your systems need to capture SRR and control output from individual processes to ensure SRR are met. For example, in the main business processes:

* SRR should be used as input to the design process and output from the design process reviewed, verified and validated as meeting them
* in customer-facing processes you need to ensure that what the customer asks for complies with SRR in their market
* your manufacturing processes should have key controls in place to ensure the product is tested and demonstrated as meeting SRR

Do bear in mind that there are other obligations related to your product but not mentioned for example general product safety and electromagnetic compatibility – each bringing in another set of SRR. The good news is that most SRR are now covered by harmonised European standards. Where standards exist, you meet SRR by complying with them.

In support areas you need to ensure you keep up to date with SRR and that all your duties as manufacturer are communicated to suppliers and sub-contractors. You must also put in place controls to ensure they comply.

Having said all that, the new wording for SRR is essentially a clarification of existing requirements under ISO 9001:2000. Your system should already be covering these requirements and your third-party auditor should have been checking these throughout the time you have been registered.

Another (slightly) different question. This Forward reader asked a question specifically about Balanced Scorecard but the real question is the age old one of management commitment. As ever - any feedback gratefully received.

http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001266807.cfm?x=bdKmjDc,b80h29HK,w

Text below:


Angie from Cheshire has asked:

I report to the operations director of a large manufacturing company. Our MD recently announced that we are going to introduce a ‘balanced scorecard’ system this year. My boss has never been particularly supportive of quality and now has little time as he is involved in introducing the balanced scorecard. Is there any way I can persuade him to put some effort into the quality management system?

Agony Uncle response:

Angie, this is another side to a topic that is as old as the hills! In fact the first ever Agony Uncle question was about management commitment. Balanced scorecard, like all other models, requires commitment and effort to implement, good communication and effective monitoring and measurement. Your existing quality management system should already be trying to support the organisation in doing all of these things. If it isn’t, then you have some work to do already!

One problem encountered with initiatives such as balanced scorecard is they are sold to managing directors and CEOs as a panacea for all ills. They often get a lot of attention for a short period of time before the organisation discovers they require (like most worthwhile things in life) lots of hard work to generate the promised benefits. If your organisation is large then you will be hard pressed to achieve any meaningful improvements in your first year; never mind completing its introduction.

As with most strategic decisions, benefits result mainly from the process of investigation of your organisation’s ways of working by different tiers of management. This naturally starts at the top then has to be cascaded through various levels before full benefit is gained.

Instead of trying to bring your operations director back on board with your QMS, try and demonstrate where existing systems can support their objectives. You haven’t said if your system is based on ISO 9001, but if it is then balanced scorecard can easily be incorporated into the objective setting, communication and process measurement loop. If people are already working with these systems, it will help to use them in making changes for balanced scorecard.

Belatedly here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001322989.cfm?x=bf442Fn,bbF7PvCg)is the January edition of Agony Uncle.

Now I know I say we spend too much time on document control but at least this is a bit different! :lol:

Diana from Berkshire asks:
I work in a small service company and am responsible for document control in our quality system. The marketing department has recently updated our website and it made me think, should our web pages be controlled using our document control procedures?

Agony Uncle response:

Good question! As part of good practice you should think about how you are going to manage your website, both new content and ongoing. You haven’t said what business you are in and how strict your current document control procedures are. So I need to cover this in general terms, but I hope you can apply these to your situation.

Pages on your website are documents and should be controlled, but that doesn’t mean you have to apply exactly the same control procedures you use for your quality manual, for example.

Websites are generally used to communicate with customers so you need to ensure that information you provide is both accurate and current. Your internal processes should include checks on content to make sure it is correct. Your marketing department will be keen for the site to support the overall company brand. Errors and ‘404’ messages do the image no good at all.

Document issue in the case of web pages is simple – once the site manager puts a page onto the open web server it is issued. There are no further document control issues as there is only one copy of the page. Everyone accessing the site sees the same information. There can be no access to superseded pages – so much easier than hard copies where quality professionals spend an inordinate amount of time formally recalling old copies, only for a photocopy of an old version to turn up in someone’s drawer on the next external audit!

A periodic review to ensure your website has the latest information is advisable, particularly links to external sites and other pages within your site. References to specifications and standards should be the current version used – for example, if you search the web there are lots of references to the ‘old’ edition ISO 9001:2000, which was replaced by the 2008 edition in November, and you only have to look a little harder to find references to both ISO 9002 (obsolete eight years ago) and BS 5750 – long since gone!
Do also provide access for users to feedback on the site content – not necessarily with a pop-up survey, although these have their place, but at least to highlight any errors.

So in summary you do need to control website content, but the procedure used should reflect your organisation’s aim for the site as a means of communication.

Belatedly here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001322989.cfm?x=bf442Fn,bbF7PvCg)is the January edition of Agony Uncle.

Now I know I say we spend too much time on document control but at least this is a bit different! :lol:

Paul

Any advice on how to ensure that everything on a web site hangs together and doesn't contradict what is said elsewhere on the site?(!)

Any advice on how to ensure that everything on a web site hangs together and doesn't contradict what is said elsewhere on the site?(!)

The need for structure and consistency applies quite regardless of the medium used, whether information is hardcopy, intranet or internet (or even something else). It requires management.

I'd suggest (in a nutshell) plan it (identify requirements, assign responsibility for them, plan processes), do the plan (implement it), check that it's working. You guessed it, then Act according to the results. ;)

One resource for making good web pages is one run by a casual acquaintance of mine.
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
Looking at bad web site design is valuable because it give us the opportunity to learn from other people's mistakes without having to make them ourselves.
Winston Churchill once said, "All men make mistakes, but only wise men learn from their mistakes." If you go through this site and learn from all the mistakes, you will be a very, very wise web designer and be able to take a bad web site and change it into a good web site.

I strongly recommend this excellent resource for making online stuff usable: Useit (http://www.useit.com).

It's the site of the grand master of web design & usability, Jakob Neilson. His Alertbox columns are well worth while.

Wes / Jane

Many thanks. It is always good to see how not to do something, especially if someone else has made the mistakes (PA rather than CA?) Paul knows why I posted (ie tongue in cheekily!), but he may get some useful hints from your links.

(Always trying to help, Paul!)

Paul

Any advice on how to ensure that everything on a web site hangs together and doesn't contradict what is said elsewhere on the site?(!)

That's a very intersting question, Peter. Do you have any organisation in mind? ;)

IMHO there are always contradictions between various forms of communication - it all comes down to risk as to how much you want to do about controlling content.

That's a very intersting question, Peter. Do you have any organisation in mind? ;)

IMHO there are always contradictions between various forms of communication - it all comes down to risk as to how much you want to do about controlling content.

I agree, but I was thinking about what is said within a website, which can be more difficult to control especially if a number of people wrote different pages. My concern would be if the organisation has a well-developed "brand", or a strong message to put across, then it can be diluted, or even destroyed, if it is very obvious that there were different authors and different styles, and (worse) if different messages are put across by different parts of the website.

But then again, what chance is there for continual improvement if everyone is perfect on day 1?(!)

I agree, but I was thinking about what is said within a website, which can be more difficult to control especially if a number of people wrote different pages. My concern would be if the organisation has a well-developed "brand", or a strong message to put across, then it can be diluted, or even destroyed, if it is very obvious that there were different authors and different styles, and (worse) if different messages are put across by different parts of the website.

But then again, what chance is there for continual improvement if everyone is perfect on day 1?(!)Like it or not, you are suggesting what we quality professionals :sarcasm::lmao: call by the term "Configuration Management" - essentially making sure no obsolete documents are accessible to confuse a process. A major factor in Configuration Management is assuring a change in one document is checked against all its Associated Documents to make sure everything jibes.

Modestly :sarcasm::lmao:, I have written on Configuration Management before:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=224683&postcount=2

Wes / Jane

Many thanks. It is always good to see how not to do something, especially if someone else has made the mistakes (PA rather than CA?) Paul knows why I posted (ie tongue in cheekily!), but he may get some useful hints from your links.

(Always trying to help, Paul!)

Yes, I know ;)

In general I prefer how to do it stuff rather than 'don't do it this way' - although the 'prizewinner' for worst Navigation site from Wes' link made my eyes cross.

In almost every large organisation I've worked in (and all publicly listed companies) there were whole departments (usually called something like Communications or Marketing) absolutely dedicated to protecting the brand and the message. And woe betide anyone who stepped outside the branding!

Wes / Jane

Many thanks. It is always good to see how not to do something, especially if someone else has made the mistakes (PA rather than CA?) Paul knows why I posted (ie tongue in cheekily!), but he may get some useful hints from your links.

(Always trying to help, Paul!)I believe you, Peter. Millions wouldn't. :lol:

Thanks to all for the links / suggestions. The next time I am involved with a web site project I will use them!

Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001346286.cfm?x=bfcgjdP,0)is the latest Uncle Agony posting: This started as a question from a certificaton manager at one of the smaller CBs (you get no more information from me - names have been changed to protect the guilty :lol:).
Agony Uncle

Alan from London asks:
I am a certification manager for one of the smaller certification bodies (CBs). At the moment, according to UKAS, the traditional methods of CV, copies of training certificates, evidence of audits/consultancy, evidence of qualifications, witnessed audits and written articles, while important, are insufficient to establish competency.

The UKAS argument is that having a BSc, working in the industry for 10 years and carrying out 100 audits does not make one competent. I am sympathetic to this argument but those criteria sure go a long way to accepting a candidate.

I now have to do all that, test the assessor on his knowledge, both written and oral, and record the evidence. That is bad enough but someone has to put me through the same process to ensure I am competent to assess an assessor. Then someone has to check the checker and so on. Where does it stop?

Agony Uncle response:
Thanks for your question. This debate has featured in Qualityworld magazine over recent months and while I cannot give you a definitive answer (nobody can – not even UKAS) there are some principles and advice that might be useful.

It is a shame that the ‘C’ word is getting such a bad name in certification. As with any industry, competence is the key to quality (or doing a good job as we know it). Any auditor needs to have knowledge and skills to be able to audit an organisation. You mentioned qualifications, work and audit experience. They are not in themselves guarantees of competence but are, as you mentioned, valid indicators. So, taking a current example, I may have a business qualification, experience of working in a bank and have carried out a number of audits. This does not mean I am competent to evaluate the RBS risk management strategy for subprime mortgages. So, from this point of view, competence requirements are higher than the sum of the indicators.

Taking an alternative example, if, as an auditor, I have demonstrated my competence to my (certification) employer over a period of time through effective audits either on my own or as a member of a team, I should not have to justify in triplicate my competence to operate in an area I am familiar with through experience – and this is the rub. The accreditation requirement for CBs to set down competence criteria for each ‘technical area’ that the CB operates in (using the RBS example above there is an argument that says each assessment is unique) you as the certification manager will have to generate a whole host of extra documentation for no particular benefit to the ‘average’ assessment.

But there is hope. I presume as a smaller CB you don’t have access to in-house technical expertise to validate someone’s competence. As a certification manager you don’t have to know everything, otherwise you would have to know more than all your auditors put together. A certification manager’s competence is in being able to ask the right questions and evaluate the response. With the resources available, on the internet for example, you can find technical questions to ask your auditors. If they give you the right answers then they have demonstrated their competence to you. Also technical areas can be quite broad for low technology/risk areas and a lot of auditing skills are transferable. So you shouldn’t need to ask these questions again.

There is another general point for CBs though. If this competence mantra is to mean anything then you do have to stick to the rules and make sure only competent auditors are sent in to your clients. I know from experience of both sides of the fence that there is pressure to put someone on a job because they are either nearest or need the work, and also the consequent harm that can do to the credibility of third-party certification if you give in to the demands.

To add your voice to this discussion visit the CQI online forum at www.thecqi.org/Community/Forum/

Apologies for the UK - centric response to this one. The question came from a UK based member and the response points him to UK organisations - Here (http://newsweaver.co.uk/cqi/e_article001375928.cfm?x=bfhSTW8,bbF7Pv90,w).

Marc asks:
I would like to review and give feedback on the draft prEN 15838 standard for customer contact centres referred to in Qualityworld. However, I don't know how to join the committee of reviewers. This is not on the CQI standards development list and I am also bit confused as ISO does not even have a TC committee for this. Can you help?

Agony Uncle response:
Standards development issues could fill a whole book, never mind Forward! I’ll give you a brief overview but if you are interested further please have a look at the Standards Development Group (SDG) section of CQI’s website or the forum and join in. Another useful publication is available from the ISO website as a part of their new tutorial for consumers about standards.

Some people don’t believe it but standards bodies actually want the likes of you and me to take part in developing standards. Their reasoning is simple – it makes them more relevant to users. There is, however, a significant problem with getting the right people onto the right committees. Most product and service standards such as the one you mentioned are written by manufacturers or service providers, users and specifiers. To get onto the committee you need to be in the know and generally in an industry trade association or similar, perhaps in your case the Customer Contact Association. Industry interested parties generally want to make sure that their product or service meets standards that are developed (and preferably that their rivals do not!).

For management systems the position is slightly less clear. There are no ‘manufacturers’ and the distinction between users and specifier groups is blurred. Take, for example, ISO 9001. The ISO committee that develops this is made up of standards bodies, certification organisations, accreditation bodies and self-employed consultants but very few manufacturing or service users of the standard.

ISO have said they want more input from these user groups. The reasons for this are many but the principle one comes down to resource issues – time and money. If you want to actively participate in international standards development you need to bank on three to four full weeks away from your office a year, plus time to spend reviewing information provided by members of your working group or comments from member bodies. Similarly, although some ISO committee work is supported by the government, you shouldn’t bank on fully covering your direct costs. ISO as an international organisation holds meetings in potentially any of its 159 member countries. Flight, accommodation and subsistence costs can vary wildly.

Other ways of taking part are through a national standards body’s ‘mirror group’ that both sends delegates onto ISO committees as UK experts and meets to agree UK comments and positions on international standards. The CQI puts forward UK experts through our local standards body, BSI, for a range of quality-related standards.

SDG members (including those who sit on BSI and ISO committees) meet quarterly to develop the CQI’s position on ISO and other standards. These views may or may not be the same as those of the national standards body or that of the individual who works on a particular standard.

Having given you the warnings about time and money, standards development can be rewarding and does allow you to influence future direction – even if our views are sometimes constrained by those of others.



BTW The on line tutorial mentioned is available on the ISO web site - here (http://www.iso.org/sites/ConsumersStandards/index.htm).

This month's piece is on Induction to the quality systems - here (http://www.thecqi.org/QW-express/agony-uncle/quality-induction?dm_i=4VM,UO1,JY0RT,1T4O,1).

Text reproduced below - although please do have a look at the e-newsletter - a classic picture of me!
Natalie from Wolverhampton has written:

I’ve been asked to prepare an induction session for new starters at my company and my managing director wants me to include an overview of the quality system, but I don’t know what to include. Have you any ideas?
Agony Uncle response:

Like all blank sheets of paper, preparing a course or overview is a challenge but look at the positives: 1) you’ve been asked and 2) your managing director seems keen to spread the quality message. There are quality people out there who would give their eye teeth to be in your position! Nevertheless an induction session is an important introduction to the organisation, to quality and to you … no pressure then!

A couple of ideas in the form of dos and don’ts:

* Do remember your audience is on a steep learning curve and for your induction to have any value it should be memorable.
* Don’t feel you have to put on a performance – the relevance of the message is key.
* Do feature the quality policy statement at the beginning or end of the session to show you have top management support for the system (make sure in advance that your managing director is happy for you to do this).
* Don’t launch into the quality manual – it is a sure turn-off and an opportunity wasted.
* Do bring quality examples from outside the organisation. There is always something current in the news about poor quality practices and sometimes even some examples of good practices. Your new starters probably won’t know much about your organisation but hopefully they may have heard of your examples.
* Do bring these examples back to what you do in-house, so if you cover an outside example of information security lapses show how within your system you protect data or if you cover a product recall problem you can show what design/quality assurance/inspection controls you have in place to prevent the problem from happening in the first place. It helps if you know what areas the people are going to be working in and give examples of systems in their areas. Hopefully this makes quality and management systems real to them.
* Do be available for questions both at the induction session and afterwards.
* Do follow up with attendees and see if they got some benefit from the session.
* Do keep the induction up to date. Keep changing the examples to keep them current and change your presentation every so often to stay on your toes.

Visit the CQI online forum to add your voice to this discussion.

Nice photo, are you moonlighting as a used car salesman? :lmao:

I saw the article via the e-mailed newsletter Paul and thought then, having been in this situation quite a few times myself, that your response was spot on. There's nothing worse than boring the pants off people (whether new to the organisation or not) with a monotonous, never-ending monologue on Quality (especially if there's no effort to make it interesting / applicable to the organisation at hand).

A couple of tips that may help you when you do your training/presentation:


You have 30 seconds to get the audience's attention
Make your first point within the first two minutes (try to stay with three main points or less overall)
You will have about 12 minutes - max - of the audience's focus/attention. (If the presentation is an hour long, the last 48 minutes need to basically reiterate and reinforce the points you made in the first 12 minutes).

Here (http://www.thecqi.org/knowledge-hub/qw-express/AgonyUncleMay09/?dm_i=4VM,12YW,B18MO,2ME2,1)is the latest piece on the Uncle's quest to bring reality back into quality! :lol:

The article is reproduced below:
Stephen from Hitchin has written:
I’m the management representative at a division of a large council. We have held ISO 9001 certification for many years and I do most of the internal audits. When auditing I always ask if people are aware of the quality manual and they rarely are, which means I often raise non-compliances but my divisional management group don’t seem too bothered. How can I make them take non-compliances more seriously?

Agony Uncle response:
My first question is: Do you think you have established the root cause of the problem – have you asked people why they don’t know about the quality manual? It may be they haven’t been told and you need to look at the induction process (at council, division and department level) and ask the question of those responsible for delivering the process. Only when you have followed the trail can you identify a root cause.

I don’t want to prejudice the investigation but this could be a bit more painful for you personally than a simple case of not following procedures. It could lead to you looking at the relevance of the manual itself.

People may not see the manual as relevant to their day-to-day work which may be a problem in itself, particularly if they are aware of other relevant documents and are following the system. The manual may only be important to you (and your third-party assessor) as a route into the system, but not actually be needed by those working to established processes.

Next, check the content and style of the manual. For example, if it simply follows the clause numbering of ISO 9001 (in this case) and regurgitates the standard then it adds no value and actually turns people off the system. If, however, it has real content and introduces the context of processes and procedures that people work with then it has value.

At the same time have a look at the volume. Don’t forget that what you choose to put in a manual is up to you – something as long as War and Peace is unlikely to encourage people to read but a few pages might. Some of the best manuals act as marketing brochures for the organisation and sell the culture and attitude of the leaders and people within, in this case, your division.

Also consider the medium used. Most manuals are still hard copies and there is a danger that an A4 ring binder is left on the shelf. If, however, people at the council are happy using an intranet, consider turning your hard copy manual into a handful of web pages with links to relevant pages for processes and procedures. Use of any document, including a quality manual, is dependent on it being relevant. Awareness of its content and location should follow naturally.

If using an intranet, consider having the link to the manual prominently displayed on the home page rather than people having to search for it.

I thought these two paragraphs of your response were excellent, especially the sentences highlighted in bold.Next, check the content and style of the manual. For example, if it simply follows the clause numbering of ISO 9001 (in this case) and regurgitates the standard then it adds no value and actually turns people off the system. If, however, it has real content and introduces the context of processes and procedures that people work with then it has value.

At the same time have a look at the volume. Don’t forget that what you choose to put in a manual is up to you – something as long as War and Peace is unlikely to encourage people to read but a few pages might. Some of the best manuals act as marketing brochures for the organisation and sell the culture and attitude of the leaders and people within, in this case, your division.

If using an intranet, consider having the link to the manual prominently displayed on the home page rather than people having to search for it.
...or don't have a separate document at all. Your Intranet is likely to include all the required elements, and in a form and structure that your people will find more useful.

Here (http://www.thecqi.org/knowledge-hub/qw-express/AgonyUncleMay09/?dm_i=4VM,12YW,B18MO,2ME2,1)is the latest piece on the Uncle's quest to bring reality back into quality! :lol:

The article is reproduced below:
Stephen from Hitchin has written:
I’m the management representative at a division of a large council. We have held ISO 9001 certification for many years and I do most of the internal audits. When auditing I always ask if people are aware of the quality manual and they rarely are, which means I often raise non-compliances but my divisional management group don’t seem too bothered. How can I make them take non-compliances more seriously?<snip>
Where is the nonconformity? If people aren't aware of the quality manual, is there some requirement not being met? Show me the shall...

It seems a slightly bizarre question (to me) to be asked during an internal audit! To me the whole idea of answering about content format and style of documentation is also missing the point - Sorry 'Unc'......;)

There is a behavioral issue here. People will only take the manual 'seriously' if their management do! Certainly, the same criteria apply to documentation for management, in some respects, but I believe this symptom goes much deeper and non-conformity writing isn't the way to correct it. I believe the internal auditors also lost a great opportunity to probe, with management, as to what value they see from the documentation!

I often suspect the reasons for asking such questions. Does the writer from Hitchin know that no-one knows about the manual, or doesn't use it. Why waste an auditor to prove the obvious?

Let's help the auditors gather (poor) process performance/business data related to a poorly utilized qms (whatever the reason is, I don't care at this stage) and have them audit some aspect that, had management taken title to the thing, would have been prevented! Whether it's a mis-communicated policy/objective or something else, get the evidence and help them (mgmt) to understand why writing it in a user friendly format would have helped.....

And there's certainly no nc, as Howste says

Sorry, covers. Playing catch up here! I didn't get round to posting June's 'Uncle'. Here (http://www.thecqi.org/Knowledge-Hub/QW-express/archives/Agony-Uncle/June09/?dm_i=4VM,18PT,JY0RT,3LRU,1)it is.

As usual text reproduced below: Alan from the UAE has written:

I have been working as an expatriate quality manager for a number of construction companies in the Middle East for seven years now. My current company is very similar to others I have worked for. They expect me to implement a quality management system single handedly, get it ISO 9001 certified and be in a position to apply for a local excellence award. The chairman and chief executive are both locals and won’t have anything to do with the system and this is reflected in the attitude of senior managers. How can I change the culture?
Agony Uncle response:

What you are describing is not confined to the Middle East, but your case seems to be an extreme form of a lack of management commitment. As an expatriate you have the added complication of understanding the culture in your emirate (influenced by its rulers) and the company (influenced by its leaders). It sounds from your question that you are well aware of these issues.

The important point is not to try and work against the culture but work with it. You haven’t said who you report to, but I’m guessing it is not the CEO. You have to influence your manager and the best way to do this is to show them how they can look good in front of the CEO with cost savings or avoidance of risk. Similarly, if you can show compliance with worldwide best practice this will be well received.

You cannot take on other senior managers directly either. Instead look at adopting a coaching role. If you identify a risk tell them so quietly. If they choose to ignore you and bad things happen then, when the dust settles, gently remind them that you had a potential solution. And always keep records of where you have saved money and time as part of your internal marketing of the quality function.

With regards to the need to show top management involvement to meet ISO 9001 requirements (such as objective setting and management review) you have a problem. However, it is no different from that of a compatriot in western Europe. If I had a pound for every time I have seen management review minutes with the obvious ‘dead hand’ of the quality manager behind them I’d be a rich man! Your best advice is to be prepared and start getting work done early. You will have to do a lot of the legwork yourself and provide this information to the senior management, but with patience and persistence you should be able to show some top management involvement.

Again, all of this is no different in the UK. At one company I joined it took me eight months from first mentioning that the management review was overdue to getting it completed – but that’s another story!

Two for the price of one! :D

July's piece - here (http://www.thecqi.org/Knowledge-Hub/QW-express/archives/Agony-Uncle/July09/?dm_i=4VM,1FDD,JY0RT,4AHT,1).

Text below:
Harry Goodwin from Banbury has asked:

My organisation was certified to ISO 9001:2000, with an expiry date of September 2008. During a process of management changing the certification agency, there was a lag of one month. The newly selected body had conducted the stage one certification audit in November and stage two in December. They issued us a certificate in March 2009, with this as the issue date. My problems are:

1. Can the organisation be considered as ISO certified during the period of November 2008 to March 2009?
2. Are there any guidelines on the validity of periods of certification?
3. Can we claim a letter from our present certification body in this context?

The situation has become complex as during November through to March the organisation participated in some tenders where there was a mandatory clause of the organisation being ISO 9001 compliant. One of the tender committees has since asked for an explanation of this issue.
Agony Uncle response:

This looks like a bit of bad planning on your organisation's part. If you have an expiry date of September and want to move to a different certification body you need to start the quest for a new provider in the preceding April or May at the latest. If the new certification body has been responsible for some of the delays – for example by not providing an auditor in time – then you might get them to support your case.

There is also quite a long time between the assessment to and the issuing of the certificate. Were there any issues at the initial assessment? Again, certification bodies shouldn't issue the certificate until corrective actions have been verified and will then date the certificate for the time the decision was taken, in this case March 2009.

So in answer to your questions:

1. No you can’t claim certification! Actually you had no certification between the end of September 2008 and March 2009.
2. ISO/IEC 17021 mandates a maximum certification period of three years – subject to continuing assessment.
3. You can ask your current certification body to send you a letter to the effect that you were recommended for certification in December 2008 and that you were in the assessment process from November

As long as you believe systems were maintained in the period in question you can claim ISO 9001 compliance in that time, but should not make any claims that you were certified. The letter from your certification body should help your case.

It does make me question your initial response to the question in the tender process – you should not make any claims of certification once it has expired.

Stop me when you've had enough!

Here (http://www.thecqi.org/Knowledge-Hub/QW-express/archives/Agony-Uncle/Aug2009/?dm_t=0,0,0,0,0)is a link to the latest edition of QW Express includin my latest Uncle piece. There is also a salary survey to fill in if anyone is interested. I didn't have enough room for all the '0'. :lmao:

Henry Corwell from Frome has asked:

I’m confused about the difference between issue level and revision status on documents I have received from suppliers. Is there any reason to choose one or the other?

Agony Uncle response:

Document control gets too high a priority within quality management systems in my opinion. Nevertheless, there are some important aspects to consider and your question highlights that revision and issue are often confused (not to mention version, amendment and status). If you use any document within your management system, then periodically it will need to be changed and perhaps updated to reflect changes in practices or even simply to correct errors.

None of the management systems standards mandate any one form of control to be used so you have an open choice. You can start by thinking of document control in terms of authority – the rest follows. The only reason to have two or more document change systems working in parallel (for example, issue level and revision status) is to distinguish between levels of approval.

If you have a relatively small change, this can be covered by a revision where the document is tweaked to fix a problem or to bring it back in to line. The approval to do this can be at a relatively low level of seniority and involve little, if any, cross-functional approval. It is therefore a simple process handled by a document controller, for example.

On the other hand, if you have a new document you have created from scratch or your process has been completely changed then it may need to be circulated to a wide audience of those involved in the process for approval before being issued or reissued, with the final authority to publish resting with a process owner.

The two systems of issuing new documents when they are required or when the process has changed significantly and revising an issued document can work in parallel. Any revisions to the new issue will start from issue one, revision zero (1.0), moving to issue one revision one (1.1) and so on. Then, when it needs a rewrite, the document moves to issue two revision zero (2.0).

Software is a good example of this. My version of Firefox™ is 3.0.12. There are different levels and processes of approval to go from 3 to 4, 3.0 to 3.1 and 3.0.11 to 3.0.12.

More on doc control, Paul?

:lol:

My Editor gave me a hard time too, Jane! :) You canh only answer the questions that come your way.

My Editor gave me a hard time too, Jane! :) You canh only answer the questions that come your way.

Doc control problems sure do have an apparently perennial life of their own, no?

Another auditing issue - here (http://www.thecqi.org/Knowledge-Hub/QW-express/archives/Agony-Uncle/Sep09/?dm_i=4VM,1WQF,JY0RT,63QK,1).

What is it about audits that attracts all the questions? ;)
But seriously, I know the answer to that having spent some time around here! :lmao:

Another Agony Uncle piece -
here (http://www.thecqi.org/Knowledge-Hub/QW-express/archives/Agony-Uncle/Oct2009/?dm_i=4VM,26IZ,JY0RT,6YYV,1)

Paul,
I really enjoyed reading through these, unfortunately some of the links no longer work (the last two posts). Is there any way you can insert the linked content into the posts like you did with some of the other ones?
Brunetta