(The Grouch is back!)

Your boss, the Audit Leader, hands you a new assignment. You are to conduct an audit of the quality system's effectiveness. Your report is due in 15 minutes. Only one of two findings will be acceptable. 1. The quality management system is effective and here is the objective evidence. OR
2. The quality management system is not effective and here is the objective evidence.
How will you conduct the audit? What will be your criteria?

(The Grouch is back!)

Your boss, the Audit Leader, hands you a new assignment. You are to conduct an audit of the quality system's effectiveness. Your report is due in 15 minutes. Only one of two findings will be acceptable. 1. The quality management system is effective and here is the objective evidence. OR
2. The quality management system is not effective and here is the objective evidence.
How will you conduct the audit? What will be your criteria?I'm not being "flip," but if he/she was an effective leader, you would (even if you were brand new that day) merely look to retrieve the results of the most recent internal audit, saying, "Here is the snapshot you prepared on [date], let's see if any NC points are unresolved."

If you (and he) are unable to retrieve such report within the 15 minute time limit, the answer is, "Sorry, the system is not effective, the objective evidence is the inability to retrieve a key part of any QMS, the periodic internal audit."

Obviously, my colleagues here in the Cove will be quick to point out there are many organizations with "pristine" internal audit reports that are totally fraudulent. Dealing with fraud is a whole different kettle of fish. Even those of us who are very experienced have been taken in by fraudulent paperwork, but the proof is always in the personal eyewitness and interview of personnel to determine the deed meets the plan.

(The Grouch is back!)

Your boss, the Audit Leader, hands you a new assignment. You are to conduct an audit of the quality system's effectiveness. Your report is due in 15 minutes. Only one of two findings will be acceptable. 1. The quality management system is effective and here is the objective evidence. OR
2. The quality management system is not effective and here is the objective evidence.
How will you conduct the audit? What will be your criteria?

If I read it correctly, it's an impossible task to audit the system in 15 minutes. As Wes appears to point out, a review/compilation of the audit findings could be done. However, it's often a stretch to have sufficiently robust audits that you could gain that level of knowledge about the system - it is so dependent on so many factors.

If there were a practical timeframe, a system wide audit of the processes of the organization, conducted against the system description including the stated objectives etc. would be the way to go.

From merely looking at audit findings? In 15 minutes? - your boss is a cruel tryrant:lol:

"Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile"

Thanks Wes and Andy for your inputs. I'd like others to chime in here, too.

One interpretation of Andy's tag line is :"It takes a long time to acquire and perfect one's expertise (in, say, auditing) and one has but a short time in which to do it"

Very appropriate to the question, yes?

I am not suggesting there is any one right solution to the challenge nor am I ready to give you my 2 cents worth. But I posted it in an effort to focus attention away from the trees and back onto the forest, where it belongs. While MGM (or whomever) can claim they live by "Ars gratia Artis" (art for the sake of art) we should not allow ourselves to succumb to auditing for the sake of auditing.

Who wishes to argue that one must conduct a regimen of internal audits in order to have or demonstrate that they have an effective quality management system? (To do so, IMHO, would be to hold that the tool is more important than the product.)

Challenge Clue: What is/should be the function of any quality management system and what has greater status and importance than that?

Let's hear from others please.

Easy. Show them the minutes of the last management review.

Easy. Show them the minutes of the last management review.

Great!

1. What exactly would you be looking for in those minutes to demonstrate system effectiveness?

2. What if they did not conduct a management review? Can their QMS still be effective and how could you tell?

Challenge Clue #2. Whose QMS is it anyway?

Great!

1. What exactly would you be looking for in those minutes to demonstrate system effectiveness?

2. What if they did not conduct a management review? Can their QMS still be effective and how could you tell?

Challenge Clue #2. Whose QMS is it anyway?

Ooh. What fun !!!

1. You would be looking for current performance in all areas against target/objective eg. audit performance data, training data, customer satisfaction (order completion, complaints, returns/reworks/recalls), CAPA performance, process performance, recommendations for improvement etc).

2. Yeah, similar to above and in response to your second clue, who are the stakeholders in the QMS? Management, staff, customers, board, shareholders, investors, regulators, local community, environment? So measurements that these are satisfied. Is it increase in sales, profits, share price, market share?

Easy. Show them the minutes of the last management review.

My CurryCompanion!

Most Management go to a Managent Review with no clue why they're there or what to get from the time spent.........:mg: Well, apart from the fact that 'ISO-says-So'.......:lol:

:topic:
(How's the water level in Oxford..........?)

My CurryCompanion!

Most Management go to a Managent Review with no clue why they're there or what to get from the time spent.........:mg: Well, apart from the fact that 'ISO-says-So'.......:lol:

:topic:
(How's the water level in Oxford..........?)

I know this is the case in some orgs.

Now in the drying out/pleading with insurers phase.....

My CurryCompanion!

Most Management go to a Managent Review with no clue why they're there or what to get from the time spent.........:mg: Well, apart from the fact that 'ISO-says-So'.......:lol:

:topic:
(How's the water level in Oxford..........?)

Must run. You guys carry on. I'll ctach up later.

Mangement Review can sometimes given Barnum and Bailey a run for the top 3-ring circus (minus the bearded lady). Personally, I'd take a run out on the floor and talk to the people - how they impact quality, what their role is, and how *they* if they're keeping the customer happy.

curryassassin is nearly spot on the bulls eye. (I know that's probably redundant, but English is my second language. American is my first.)
Sir Robin would be impressed with your accuracy.

Would you not expect "them" to already have all the answers to your questions without the need to audit?

And just who might the "them" be to whom you would direct your questions?

Challenge Clue #3: The buck starts and stops at the same place. (Hint. What part of the fish dies first?)

Mangement Review can sometimes given Barnum and Bailey a run for the top 3-ring circus (minus the bearded lady). Personally, I'd take a run out on the floor and talk to the people - how they impact quality, what their role is, and how *they* if they're keeping the customer happy.

Good. Might take longer than 15 minutes but it might be worth a shot.

BTW, after all my years on this planet I have concluded that either P.T. Barnum was an optimist or his pocket watch had no second hand.

curryassassin is nearly spot on the bulls eye. (I know that's probably redundant, but English is my second language. American is my first.)
Sir Robin would be impressed with your accuracy.

Would you not expect "them" to already have all the answers to your questions without the need to audit?

And just who might the "them" be to whom you would direct your questions?

Challenge Clue #3: The buck starts and stops at the same place. (Hint. What part of the fish dies first?)

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a gameshow, kinda thing. Can I phone a friend or do a shout out or something??:rolleyes:

You go to the front office, find the most 'top' member of the management team and you ask......:cool::cfingers:

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a gameshow, kinda thing. Can I phone a friend or do a shout out or something??:rolleyes:

You go to the front office, find the most 'top' member of the management team and you ask......:cool::cfingers:

If that makes you happy;)

How do you say BINGO in English?

And just what would (the collective) you ask him/her?

Challenge Clue #4 What does the Quality Policy have to do with this exercise?

Interesting challenge. Gathering info from previous reviews and current trending would be my angle. If sales are up and NCs are down one could surmise that you have an effective QMS. Yes, there may be smaller, individual hiccups within the QMS that could use some help but from the 80,000 ft view, that's the main parameter.

Sales up, NCs down = effective OVERALL system
Sales up, NCs up = stagnant, but maintaining
Sales down, NCs down = as above
Sales down, NCs up = ineffective OVERALL system

Interesting challenge. Gathering info from previous reviews and current trending would be my angle. If sales are up and NCs are down one could surmise that you have an effective QMS. Yes, there may be smaller, individual hiccups within the QMS that could use some help but from the 80,000 ft view, that's the main parameter.

Sales up, NCs down = effective OVERALL system
Sales up, NCs up = stagnant, but maintaining
Sales down, NCs down = as above
Sales down, NCs up = ineffective OVERALL system

Just dealing with numbers like this is a receipe for misleading conclusions, IMHO. Sales up could be because there was a discount offered! NC's down could be because the auditors were lazy or didn't know what they were looking at!:bonk:

As an ex-third party auditor, in the 'old days' of ISO registration one question I was frequently asked was "How do we compare on the number of NC's to other companies?":frust: What kind of question is that?

Any statistics like these numbers are meaningless without knowing the data behind them. See also the recent thread about what gets reported at Management Review from the Internal Audits.............

The original question is asking about the effectiveness of the Quality Management System.

1- The Quality System is composed of all the ISO clauses plus any other necessary items define by the particular business needs.
2- Internal Audits are typically a sample of one small area within the quality management system.
a. Time needed to complete the internal audit is just one of the parameters that needs to be evaluate as part of the Internal Audit Planning. If the 15 minutes is just an arbitrary number, then it may not be enough to complete an audit in a responsible/ethical fashion.

In General:

The external auditors go thru the same process, they just sample the quality management system under a time constrain scenario.

The objective evidence has to be available and retrievable otherwise a non-conformance may be applicable.

Comment:

If this request really happened, I’ll be extremely concern as Wes Bucey already pointed out.

(The Grouch is back!)

Your boss, the Audit Leader, hands you a new assignment. You are to conduct an audit of the quality system's effectiveness. Your report is due in 15 minutes. Only one of two findings will be acceptable. 1. The quality management system is effective and here is the objective evidence. OR
2. The quality management system is not effective and here is the objective evidence.
How will you conduct the audit? What will be your criteria?

I'd decline to participate. The whole premise is flawed.

The best suggestion in such circumstances has already been made. Use the time to locate & review the managment review minutes.

Just because someone comes up with a ridiculous proposition doesn't mean one has to tear round in circles trying to actually do it.

Mind you, if the so called audit 'leader' actually were handing out such 'assignments', then there's no need to actually attempt to go 'audit' & find out.

That the system is in trouble is already very obvious.

Just dealing with numbers like this is a receipe for misleading conclusions, IMHO. Sales up could be because there was a discount offered! NC's down could be because the auditors were lazy or didn't know what they were looking at!:bonk:

As an ex-third party auditor, in the 'old days' of ISO registration one question I was frequently asked was "How do we compare on the number of NC's to other companies?":frust: What kind of question is that?

Any statistics like these numbers are meaningless without knowing the data behind them. See also the recent thread about what gets reported at Management Review from the Internal Audits.............

Completely agree that it could be a recipe for disaster, but so is asking for objective evidence in 15 minutes. As I mentioned one could assume it's effective. Afterall, if you're asked to present "objective" evidence with only 15 minutes to gather then management in my opinion better not be waiting for 100% flawless and proven data.

Just because someone comes up with a ridiculous proposition doesn't mean one has to tear round in circles trying to actually do it.

To begin with, I want the thank those who contributed to this thread and to the many more who bothered to read it.

Now, let's see just how ridiculous (or not) this proposition was.

First, my challenge (forget the 15 minutes for a moment) was simply to assess the effectiveness of the QMS. It did not ask for a compliance assessment, as some responses seem to have presumed, nor does it ask for improvement opportunities, a valid goal of internal audits.

Now, why do I add the 15 minute restriction to my challenge? To demonstrate that, more often than not, we - internal auditors - have a very bad habit of losing sight of the prize. We get so "juiced up " over the trees that we can't see the forest. Are we so besotted by our own auditing skills that, like the pathologist who upon examining a heart he has just excised from a cadaver pronouces it "healthy"?

What is the prize?

It is the function of the QMS which, if you chose to use ISO 9001:2000, can be found at paragraph 1.1. (No I am not going to recite it here: look it up for yourselves. I'll bet it's the first time some of us have ever really read it.)

And whose QMS is it?

Para 5.1 and 5.3 pretty much spell it out for us. It's top management's system and, among other things, they need a quality policy and (measurable) objectives which, if we follow the logic, is the quality system's Mission Statement, i.e., what the QMS is expected to accomplish.

If the system is consistently realizing the quality policy as measured by the objectives, does that not constitute effectiveness?

So, how long will it take you to march into the boss' office, ask and get satisfactory answers to these questions?:
a) What is your quality policy?
b) Show me (i.e., objective evidence) that you are realizing it consistently?

The boss either can or can't provide the answers and evidence. The buck starts and stops with him/her. And you have at least 5 minutes left over for a coffee break.

If there is sufficient evidence that the system has been performing effectively over time, exactly what do you think your more detailed audits might uncover of any significance? Nonconformances to the standard or to their own documented procedures? Perhaps. But if the system is working, how troublesome might they be? (Please do not tell me that failure to comply with the letter(s) of the standard might jeopardize the "certificate" because - and here I go pouring gasoline onto the fire - certification has absolutely nothing to do with quality.)

Correspondingly, a qms that is foursquare "in accordance with all requirements of the ISO 9001:2000 standard" is absolutely no guarantee that a single customer is being satisfied. My answer to such a finding - if the system is not effective is - "Your system is broken" (actually my words tend to be more colorful than that since, in such cases, it's time to take out the 2x4 just to get the jackass' attention.)

Am I suggesting we should not do more detailed audits or not do compliance checks? Absolutley not. We have a job to do and we should do it: intelligently and efficiently. But I am more than suggesting that establishing the effectiveness (or not) of the system to consistently achieve its expressed purpose(s) is not just the first thing we should do but we must use the results of that assessment as a basis for our more detailed audit plan. Performance to measureable objectives is "objective evidence" and "Status and importance" really do have meaning here.

Yes, we must venture forth into the forest but we must not check our brains at the edge.

After all, internal auditing is a management activity and the language of management is money/results. Let's keep that ever at the front of our minds and K.I.S.S.

Someone asked if my challenge represented a real life situation. Yes. I pose it at the beginning of every on-site auditor training workshop I conduct and, again, at the end. Few get it right at the outset. All do at the end.

BTW, every one of my own internal audit cyles begins with the boss on the hot seat. The old saw about the head of the fish being the first part to die, is apropos.

Nice idea, but like so many 'nice ideas' it's fundamentally flawed:mg::rolleyes:.........IMHO

I knew it was a just a game.....

Nice idea, but like so many 'nice ideas' it's fundamentally flawed.


It's no secret around here that I have no patience with people (consultants in particular) who take the bloody obvious and repackage it somehow, then claim to have had some sort of epiphany resulting in a Great New Idea. Here we go again. Not only is the OP's premise fundamentally flawed; it's DOA, because it makes the unfounded assumption that what's effective now will always be effective in the future. I think the OP might be surprised at the number of people here who not only have read the standard in its entirety, but are intimately familiar with it, else he would not have adopted the condescending tone.

It is no great secret that "top management" is ultimately responsible for the effectiveness of the system, but it's also no secret that (A) it's not unusual at all for top management to prevaricate about such things, and (B) many such managers are woefully ignorant. Suppose we do burst into the CEO's office and demand evidence, and wonder of wonders, she actually has some. Do you suppose it just dropped out of the sky? Do you think that the CEO gathered it all by himself? Do you think it can be trusted at face value? Do you think that faced with a prevaricating CEO, the hapless auditor will just pound his fist on the desk and demand corrective action???

If the CEO does have access immediate access to evidence, it came about as part of the management review process, which is based in part on audit results. I personally believe that internal auditing, as commonly practiced, could be immensely improved, and it's a subject we've discussed quite a bit here. But pointing out the fact that the CEO's office is where the buck is supposed to stop, and taking 1000 words to say it, isn't very helpful.

Thanks, Jim, very much!
:applause::applause::agree1:

It's no secret around here that I have no patience with people (consultants in particular) who take the bloody obvious and repackage it somehow, then claim to have had some sort of epiphany resulting in a Great New Idea. Here we go again.

Well said, Jim. I fully share your lack of patience in this instance.

I also very much wish people/consultants wouldn't march in here and demonstrate this kind of approach. But then, this kind of approach is a very strong demonstration of their particular approach to consulting. And gives consultancy a bad name.

I wouldn't have anything to do with a consultant like this. But that doesn't mean all of us consultants do or are the same.

Jim and Jane, I appreciate your candor and obvious passion but you proved my point by missing the point.
I am not surprised.

My first duty as a consultant - and I have been doing it quite successfully for over 17 years - is to give my customer (i.e the boss) straight talk about the effectiveness of their business operating systems, of which the QMS is always the single most important part. I am well aware that the boss cannot do it all, that the boss has to depend upon many people to make the system work, that the boss is not the resident expert on all matters that make the system work, etc.

Jim cites instances where the boss is essentially clueless and I have seen more than my fair share of those situations. I have made it my practice to run away from them because if the boss really doesn't care, I am not going to waste my time trying to push a rope. You see, the sad truth is that when a system doesn't work, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, the bleep, bleep consultant usually gets blamed. I am not into self fulfilling prophesies.

I have made my living helping the bosses in all types of industries develop business operating systems that are designed to give them the results they want - using all the great folks that work for them. I have left behind me a trail of smiling faces - many of whom keep coming back for more straight talk- and none of them have ever so much as hinted that they never got less than they paid for. BTW, I know my system is effective by the repeat business I keep booking and by what my customers tell me. Is that wrong?

As I said at the outset, The Grouch is back. You can expect I will continue to state the obvious as long as folks keep losing sight of it. So if you think I used too many words to state the obvious or pose ridiculous questions or gored somebody's bloody ox... you're all big people, you'll get over it.

Jane, if I ever get to Australia I'll be sure to fly over to Melbourne on my broom to say hello.

Jim and Jane, I appreciate your candor and obvious passion but you proved my point by missing the point.

No. I don't think so. At all.

I'll refrain from a 'been consulting longer than you', because none of that is actually relevant.

I don't know anything about 'the grouch' being back - this post was a first for me.

But I stand by all my comments. And agree with Jim in all of his (with an exception on the consultant-bashing front).


I am not surprised.

I'm attempting to find a very polite way of saying that the tone of some of what you say sounds as though you are coming from a position of superiority and greater knowledge than everyone else (who have 'missed the point' according to you). That quote above is an example.

I too respect your obvious interest and passion. But not the flawed premise.

Hello everyone! I hope you don't mind if I join a bit late.

I would say that the Cove is always up to a challenge, laughter, good jokes, recipes, and the like. So I do say I appreciate the OP presenting a challenge. However, my thoughts seem to be in line with many of the previous posts.

There is a classic scene from M.A.S.H., where it was time to take inventory of lunch trays (I think). A massive amount of them were missing. So several people worked together on this scheme. They would show the "auditor" a stack of trays, then they would take them away. They would pass them around the other side to be inventoried again. Just a masterful job of trickery. Give me fifteen minutes, and I will do the same.

My point is that I don't believe you will be able to find out if any system is effective in fifteen minutes, other than the vending machines. The good auditors I have seen work their tails off, do lots of planning, and study. They look at things once, sometimes twice. I am not suggesting you are not good or effective; just stating what I have observed.

I would even suggest as an auditor, the evidence phase would take longer than fifteen minutes. Too, the more deficiencies you observe and the deeper the issues, the more services you can offer.

Auditing is likened to random sampling. So is the premise that 15 minutes will be as effective regardless the size/ scope/ complexity of the organization?

And please... you don't have to consider yourself a grouch, or feel you have to be a grouch for anyone here to engage your thoughts. We do enjoy the pursuit of quality, and appreciate your passion also:). Just be straight with us, throw it out there, and let's run together!

The Grouch seems to have gotten lots of juices flowing here and provided lots of opportunities for exercise what with all the jumping to conclusions we witnessed. (Yes, I told you I am The Grouch.)

(BTW If I am the OP and our moderator is Andy, do we also have an Aunt Bee, a Gomer and a Barny?)

Was it the idea of the 15 minutes that many took issue with? How long should it take to determine the effectiveness of a QMS? Fifteen hours, fifteen days? Why does it have to take longer than 15 minutes?
Is it time that makes a good audit?

How many internal auditors are not given sufficient time to conduct their assignments? How many of this list's readers come from organizations where their auditors are "volunteered" and instructed not to let auditing interfere with their "real job" yet are expected to come up with a meaningful report? Should we not be using our voices and experience to help them do what they need to do in the time given to them?

Why shouldn't one possible measure of the effectiveness of internal audits be the development of a system whereby QMS effectiveness can be objectively assessed in 15 minutes? Why should it take longer than a thorough physical examination or an annual auto inspection?

The answer (IMNSHO) is all there in 8.4. The tools for it are readily available.

Shouldn't the ultimate measure of our own contributions to our organizations be based on how well we, as auditors, can structure ourselves out of a job? If inspection does not add value to a product, does auditing add value to a QMS? Whether one believes it does or doesn't, should we not all be working toward development of a qms that does not need to be audited?

Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Now we come to the real challenge. If you were to design a QMS that did not need to be audited, that freely yielded up all its secrets and told you what you wanted to know without having to ask, what might it look like?

(The Grouch is back!)

Your boss, the Audit Leader, hands you a new assignment. You are to conduct an audit of the quality system's effectiveness. Your report is due in 15 minutes. ... How will you conduct the audit?

I'd go check out the restrooms.:tg:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14681&highlight=restrooms

*dons her Moderator hat for a moment*

Part of the reason for digging my hat out is that, in my opinion, some of the responses have been littered with sarcastic comments and self-perceived witty barbs. Not everyone appreciates and/or understands these attempts at humour. Some of these posts have used these tactics sparingly...and others rather liberally. Unfortunately, this approach - despite the posters' intent - tends to dilute the message and takes away from the whole point of what is trying to be said. We do not need to have references to Gomer or Barney or broom-stick flying or consultant-bashing. How about we simply discuss the question at hand from the Original Poster?

*removes her Moderator hat and tosses it back into her closet *

While I am all for data analysis and looking at the results, I do not believe that simply seeing the numbers will allow one to accurately determine the effectiveness of the system.

Numbers can, after all, be forged.

However, it is a nice area to start and is typically one where I begin on an audit when sitting down with Management. But not looking at the numbers for numbers' sake. We discuss routine results management and concepts such as:

How control limits are established.
How results outside of the control limits are responded to.
How a trend of results is responded to (i.e., re-setting of the control limits, improvement projects, etc.).
How results are communicate to personnel at the appropriate levels.
And so on.


The issue is not so much with the 15 minute time limit but more with the fact that we are evaluating at a Business Management System...not a process within that system. We are looking at inputs, outputs, interractions, etc. and to limit ourselves to saying that one set of requirements is adequate to give us an idea as to the state of the system is, from my experience, flawed.

Consider this. I have my drivers license. There are speed limits. How will you determine if my driving is effective? I rarely obey the speed limit and yet have had no accidents or speeding tickets. It is, I'll grant, a rather simplistic example, but the point is the same. To curtail our investigation to one clause does not provide us with the full knowledge of the system's effectiveness.

Now, of course, I'm assuming that there was a reason for asking the question posed in the Original Post and maybe I've missed it in all of the responses. Personally, I'd appreciate hearing what the reason is as it might help the group in providing more productive responses.

*grabs hold of her moderator hat again *

Let's try to keep the sarcasm and self-perceived wittiness out of the posts, people. Comments such as those are subject to misunderstanding and often escalate the tone of the thread to the point where there is little value to anything being said.

I'd go check out the restrooms.:tg:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=14681&highlight=restrooms

:topic: My problem with restrooms, of late, is that I come from a mill with single toilet per restroom. As such, the policy of turning off the lights when done was easy and carefree. Now that I've gone Corporate, when I'm down at the head office which as 12 stalls per restroom, it's hard to break that habit. Everyone knows when I'm at the Head Office by the screams coming from the restroom - I keep turning the lights off when I leave, forgetting about the other people. :o

*grabs hold of her moderator hat again *

Let's try to keep the sarcasm and self-perceived wittiness out of the posts, people. Comments such as those are subject to misunderstanding and often escalate the tone of the thread to the point where there is little value to anything being said.

Hello RCBeyette,

Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with your post.

The OP started the thread with this:

An Internal Audit Challenge - Audit of the Quality System Effectiveness

(The Grouch is back!)

In my opinion, not an elegant way to start a dialogue....
And I do have a sense of humor.

Stijloor.

Now we come to the real challenge. If you were to design a QMS that did not need to be audited, that freely yielded up all its secrets and told you what you wanted to know without having to ask, what might it look like?

It would look exactly like my current QMS, it would still have audits and it would continue to change and improve in line with busines.

In my opinion, not an elegant way to start a dialogue....
And I do have a sense of humor.

Stijloor.

As do most of us in the Cove, but one thing that all Posters should be aware of is that insults - even if we direct them at ourselves - can set a thread off on the wrong tone. Continuing the sarcasm does little to help improve the overall mood. Emoticons can only help so much, unfortunately.

We are an international forum and we do need to be aware of the language issues. For the most part, I believe that Cove members handle the translations quite well, but even the best of us can misinterpret words and tone.

Jim and Jane, I appreciate your candor and obvious passion but you proved my point by missing the point.
I am not surprised.

Again with the condescension. I have many personal issues that I would like to correct, but trust me, reading comprehension isn't one of them. If a point was missed, it's because it was miscast.

My first duty as a consultant - and I have been doing it quite successfully for over 17 years - is to give my customer (i.e the boss) straight talk about the effectiveness of their business operating systems, of which the QMS is always the single most important part. I am well aware that the boss cannot do it all, that the boss has to depend upon many people to make the system work, that the boss is not the resident expert on all matters that make the system work, etc.

Then you would know that your 15 minutes in the boss's office might (A) yield useful information, subject to independent verification (which is what auditors are for), and (B) not answer the question(s) you seem to think it would.

Jim cites instances where the boss is essentially clueless and I have seen more than my fair share of those situations. I have made it my practice to run away from them because if the boss really doesn't care, I am not going to waste my time trying to push a rope. You see, the sad truth is that when a system doesn't work, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, the bleep, bleep consultant usually gets blamed. I am not into self fulfilling prophesies.

For the sake of you, Jane, and all of the other consultants who might read this, I have had the good fortune to work with many good consultants, and I believe strongly that a consultant can be of great assistance in the right circumstances. It's true, I'm sure, that consultants get blamed for failures they had nothing to do with, and were powerless to correct, and experienced ones like you and Jane will recognize the rope-pushing pitfall early on and get the he11 out. My issue, as I stated earlier, is with those consultants who, either through their own ignorance or their own design, think that making much ado about the obvious is somehow profound and helpful. I will stipulate here that I can't make personal judgments base on a few forum posts, but the 15-minute thing just about pinned the needle on my detection meter.

I have made my living helping the bosses in all types of industries develop business operating systems that are designed to give them the results they want - using all the great folks that work for them. I have left behind me a trail of smiling faces - many of whom keep coming back for more straight talk- and none of them have ever so much as hinted that they never got less than they paid for. BTW, I know my system is effective by the repeat business I keep booking and by what my customers tell me. Is that wrong?

Again, nothing personal, but I know consultants who have made a handsome living over a long period of time by telling people what they already know, or what they want to hear. I assume that this is not the case with the present company, so congratulations. :agree1:

As I said at the outset, The Grouch is back. You can expect I will continue to state the obvious as long as folks keep losing sight of it. So if you think I used too many words to state the obvious or pose ridiculous questions or gored somebody's bloody ox... you're all big people, you'll get over it.

There's always room here for another experienced voice, and I personally welcome your presence. There is also room for more than one Grouch, though. :mad::tg:

Jane, if I ever get to Australia I'll be sure to fly over to Melbourne on my broom to say hello.

I understand that brooms fly backwards in the Southern Hemisphere, so be careful. :D

I understand that brooms fly backwards in the Southern Hemisphere, so be careful. :D

:topic:You are asking for so much trouble:lmao:

:topic:

You're right, Roxane, I did stray off-topic re. consultants, for which apologies. I'll have to keep an eye out for that little hot button in future. (The other will be scanning for low-flying UFOs).

:D

And I had been thinking all along that an audit for the effectiveness of the system meant that we to verify that the system was functioning as it had been planned to.

Have I been way off;)

The whole premise is flawed.That pretty much sums this challenge up. Totally nonsensical.

That pretty much sums this challenge up. Totally nonsensical.I agree.

And while I agree one should have a sense of humor, trying to tell me it should only require 15 minutes to assess a quality system's effectiveness (thanks for bringing up the system word, Roxane :D) is not a laughing matter.

Ask me how many times people have asked for audit extensions and I'll tell you. I can also tell you how many times it took how many CARs how long for a response, a fix, how many repeats in any given department and what the problem solving process looked like in a given department. All in 15 minutes.

I can show you spiffy graphs tracking the system's performance, as recorded through audits, by element group over time. I can correlate them with management review notes too, but only if I'm handed a stack of them in chronological order and even then it might take more than 15 minutes.

That is all fine, but it's just data. It is a list if symptoms and NOT a measure of effectiveness. I find very few organizations have an accurate, insightful, robust and well rounded set of performance metrics that can enable true organizational performance assessment in a short time. I've found a lot of metrics that do not connect with each other, reflect actionable performance, show interdepartmental function or directly correlate with value. I've found a lot of managers who honestly believe their metrics do all of these things and see no room for changing how they measure performance.

That's the trick isn't it? It's assessment according to whom?

I can jump to a conclusion in 15 minutes. However, a thoughtful, insightful and accurate analysis of a system's effectiveness will take longer.

If a consultant walked in the door and claimed he/she could assess my QMS effectiveness in 15 minutes, I'd show him/her outside again.

That pretty much sums this challenge up. Totally nonsensical.
Well . . . this was fun! [I think]
Sidney, old dog that he is, knows how to crack the bone to get to the marrow.

Reading through the detritus which comprises the bulk of this thread, I see the consensus of opinion of many folks whose opinions I respect is that few are comfortable with the teaching method propounded by the original poster.

In a public forum, sarcasm and ridicule of the IDEA (not the person propounding the idea) are pretty much common practice.

Personal anecdotes about the success of a teaching method are no more acceptable here than personal anecdotes about the success and sufficiency of a Quality Management System are acceptable to a competent third party auditor from a reputable registrar.

In both cases, clear and unbiased DOCUMENTATION is necessary to make a case, especially when most are skeptical about the true efficacy of an unsupported claim.

I would really have liked to hear from the original poster's past clients and students whether they were completely happy and content with the teaching method and would vouch for the "success factor" claimed by the original poster. One clue, of course, might be the number of referrals and repeat business the past clients and students generate.

One aspect of a consulting business (or any business) which carries a lot of weight is something the Corporate Curmudgeon (Dale Dauten) calls W.O.M.P. (word of mouth potential) [read it at http://www.dauten.com/innovatorslab/sessions.html] (http://www.dauten.com/innovatorslab/sessions.html%5D)

Summary:
All in all, this was a fun activity for the dog days of summer, but not very educational or enlightening. Certainly, no WOMP, in my opinion!

I would really have liked to hear from the original poster's past clients and students whether they were completely happy and content with the teaching method and would vouch for the "success factor" claimed by the original poster. Me too. :agree1: