Our organization is into Electro mechanical, EPCM, Oil and Gas Sector with more than hundred projects with unique customer or contract requirements. Our company is employing the people from India (speaking 4 regional languages), Philippines (phillipino), Egypt (Arabic) ,US and UK (English) for all levels.

- We have communicated the quality policy only in English through employee manual and posters in all relevant places not
- Also, whoever joins in our company immediately undergoes quality awareness programme too.
- Some of the technicians does not answer the quality policy key words to the auditor.
- Even project manager just read it by seeing the poster.

Non Conformance:

Auditor raised a non-conformance to the management as per 5.3(d) & 6.22(b) since the quality policy is not well communicated and understood at all levels and no effectiveness is there for the quality awareness programme conducted.

My Corrective Action:

I write quality policies in all languages and paste it all relevant places. I can ask my guys to memorize some key words to tell whenever there is an audit... it has done by means of paper work..

Auditor closed the non-conformance by doing the same exercise...

My Question is:

I agree with the non-conformance raised by the auditor. I don't think so, there is a value added to us due to this finding or corrective action taken. Comment on this please

I guess I need some clarification here: Was this an Internal Audit or 3rd Party?

I guess I need some clarification here: Was this an Internal Audit or 3rd Party?

Doesn't matter............

I think our OP is missing the point.............It's not writing and posting that is the problem, communication requires "understanding" to be effective. The policy has to be understood by employees to the point that they as individuals can say how it effects them in their job performance and how they, the individual, help the company turn the promise's made in the policy into reality.

Just posting stuff is not communicating:nope:

Doesn't matter............

I think our OP is missing the point.............It's not writing and posting that is the problem, communication requires "understanding" to be effective. The policy has to be understood by employees to the point that they as individuals can say how it effects them in their job performance and how they, the individual, help the company turn the promise's made in the policy into reality.

Just posting stuff is not communicating:nope:

I understand; but I was curious if it was either Internal or External, because it would be easier to determine Cost Value added. If this was an External Audit, I would be a little concerned on the finding.

If you refer Guidance Document - Auditing Quality Policy, Quality Objectives and Management Review (http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/3553587/APG-QualityPolicyandObjectives.doc?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=3553587), it says -

The quality policy and its effective deployment can only be truly assessed based on the overall results of the audit.

Audit methods should include:

• Interviewing Top Management to understand their approach and commitment to quality; (click here to link to the guidance paper on the auditing of Top Management processes)

• Evaluating, through the records of management review, the commitment and involvement of Top Management in the establishment, implementation, monitoring and updating of the quality policy;

• Assessing whether Management has effectively “translated” the quality policy into understandable words and guidelines at all levels of the organization, with corresponding objectives at each applicable function / level;

• Conducting interviews with personnel to verify if they have the required awareness, understanding and knowledge of the way the organization’s quality policy relates to their own activity, regardless of the terms used by such people to express their understanding;

• Seeking evidence of effective dissemination of the quality policy by appropriate communication.

As I see it, the primary failure here is that the AUDITOR "left the building" without being certain his own communication vis a vis the NC was understood by the auditee.

It should not be up to the auditee to search around on the internet for an interpretation of the NC.

Re: Randy's comment
I agree there is NO DIFFERENCE whether the NC was from internal, second party, or third party audit. There is still a lack of true communication and understanding by concerned parties regarding the NC.

Doesn't matter............

I think our OP is missing the point.............It's not writing and posting that is the problem, communication requires "understanding" to be effective. The policy has to be understood by employees to the point that they as individuals can say how it effects them in their job performance and how they, the individual, help the company turn the promise's made in the policy into reality.

Just posting stuff is not communicating:nope:

Randy is correct. :agree1:

The communication process in organizations leaves a lot to desire.

I have seen:

Banners
Bulletin boards
Organizations' websites
Newsletters
Handouts
And heard:

Speeches (from the boss)
Meetings (run by the boss)

Rarely is the effectiveness assessed to verify if the true message really came across. Randy uses the word "Understanding." How true this is.

Most (management) "communication" is one-way traffic. Hardly any opportunity for feedback. :frust:

Oh yes, and don't ask" "Do you understand?" People will never admit they don't. :nope:

I do have seen excellent examples of internal communication; often informal, by the boss walking the floor, and engaging in open two-way conversations with employees. So simple, so low-tech, so effective.....

Stijloor.

2 questions have to be asked and answered....

"What does it mean to you?"

"How are you helping to make it happen?"

If they can't be answered then there is most likely a lack of "communication" taking place.

2 questions have to be asked and answered....

"What does it mean to you?"

"How are you helping to make it happen?"

If they can't be answered then there is most likely a lack of "communication" taking place.

Excellent questions! :applause:

In my training classes, I encourage the participants to think about their Quality Policy and possible responses using their own words.
I always discourage preparing speeches or using canned (pre-cooked)responses.

Stijloor.

Directly to the original question. Does this nonconformance add value to the Audit?

Absolutely yes. He showed you where you fell short of a requirement and you need to find a way to fix it. The requirements are also known as "shalls", as in you shall do this or you shall do that. They are not "recommendations". They are not "we want you to's". The are not "shoulds". They are requirements.

Do you have some challenges to overcome to make sure that the quality policy is understood throughout the organization? Yes, you do, especially with such a diverse group. Diverse in culture and in language. Can you accomplish it? Absolutely. Will it be easy? Probably easier than trying to find a way around it.

Quality Policy communication and understanding is the poor relation to other policies, IMHO!

I've noticed that where lack of an effective communication of certain policies can lead to fines - or worse -management do a lot of enforcement. I remember (from when I sold cars) being warned (threatened with being fired!) about taking cash or checks over a certain amount, without filling in the relevant forms (to notify the Feds). Management could be heavily fined if we didn't comply!!

The same kind of thing applies to safety, employment related policies and such like. So, why do management have problems with Quality Policy - the result is often the same (in financial terms) as paying a fine......

This point is an observation during the internal audit and but in external audit this is a Minon Non conformance for "not understood well by the organisation"

Doesn't matter............

I think our OP is missing the point.............It's not writing and posting that is the problem, communication requires "understanding" to be effective. The policy has to be understood by employees to the point that they as individuals can say how it effects them in their job performance and how they, the individual, help the company turn the promise's made in the policy into reality.

Just posting stuff is not communicating:nope:

Yes, I'd agree fully.

Just posting stuff is very definitely not communication!

Communication involves two parties and an act of understanding has to take place. Just talking at someone, or writing at someone or putting up signs isn't effective communication. And neither is your proposed CA of getting people to 'memorise some key words' to quote back to an auditor!

This does miss the point - your auditor did find something lacking. And yes, it is an NC.

Randy's questions are good ones. IMO, it doesn't matter two hoots if people can't recite the quality policy word for word.

What does matter is that they can explain it (more or less) in their own words, and can explain how what they do helps make that policy real - ie, how what they do puts it into action. If that's missing... the system isn't working properly.

All very responses so far. :applause:

Being multi racial like Filipino, Indian, Arabs etc is no issue but as long as they understand the essence of Quality Policy, its fine.

I have encountered many a times when operators are asked about the Quality Policy, they say good quality, customer satisfaction and delivery on time. As long as the policy is centred over these terms, I would consider it as acceptable. Additionally, the same set of operators when asked how they can comply with the Quality Policy, they should be able to explain the duties they discharge in meeting the policy.

All this is communication and understanding.

In our case, the external auditor asked the following questions related to audit of quality policy ;
1. What is your quality policy?
2. What do you understand from that? What does it mean to you?
3. Have you heard about the term quality policy?
4. Why do we need quality policy?
5. How you are incorporating quality policy in your project?

Here is some key words about quality policy revolving around: Meeting Contractual Requirements,Avoiding Re-work,continual improvement etc.,

Answers from the top management audit :
"They have told all the above keywords.."

Answers from few Project Managers :

"They have taken the copy of the quality policy and read the policy statement infront of the auditors and could not able to give the convincing answer for the policy deployment in the projects.. say for example.. when auditor asked about the "Avoiding Re-work" and all project managers say that there is no rework in the project and they didnot explain what preventive actions or mechanism is available in their project to control the rework."

Answers from Supervisor and Technicians :
"Somebody says,i heard about it..but i didnt know"
"Somebody says,it is in the notice board, i read when i join, i dont know the meaning"
Somebody says,i know my previous company policy but i dont know here..

Answer from External Auditor :

" It is a minor NC based on the above case"

My question :

" External Auditor came and saw the corrective actions by seeing the posters in different languages and called somebody at random and enquired about the policy,most of them at all levels have told him the keywords" Then he is happy and closed the NC.

So,where is the value? Here in our case,Employees at all levels have only memorized not imbibed in their process areas"

All very responses so far. :applause:

Being multi racial like Filipino, Indian, Arabs etc is no issue but as long as they understand the essence of Quality Policy, its fine.

I have encountered many a times when operators are asked about the Quality Policy, they say good quality, customer satisfaction and delivery on time. As long as the policy is centred over these terms, I would consider it as acceptable. Additionally, the same set of operators when asked how they can comply with the Quality Policy, they should be able to explain the duties they discharge in meeting the policy.

All this is communication and understanding.

This point is an observation during the internal audit and but in external audit this is a Minon Non conformance for "not understood well by the organisation"

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration:

Anything that is identified as a Observation, should be reviewed and implemented as needed. Because a lot of observations can be Nonconformities down the road, as your example has shown.

Evaluate all Observations as possible nonconformities down the road, and implement as needed, in my opinion.

See these posts that talk about Opportunities for Improvements: http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=24212

In our case, the external auditor asked the following questions related to audit of quality policy ;
1. What is your quality policy?
2. What do you understand from that? What does it mean to you?
3. Have you heard about the term quality policy?
4. Why do we need quality policy?
5. How you are incorporating quality policy in your project?

Here is some key words about quality policy revolving around: Meeting Contractual Requirements,Avoiding Re-work,continual improvement etc.,

Answers from the top management audit :
"They have told all the above keywords.."

Answers from few Project Managers :

"They have taken the copy of the quality policy and read the policy statement infront of the auditors and could not able to give the convincing answer for the policy deployment in the projects.. say for example.. when auditor asked about the "Avoiding Re-work" and all project managers say that there is no rework in the project and they didnot explain what preventive actions or mechanism is available in their project to control the rework."

Answers from Supervisor and Technicians :
"Somebody says,i heard about it..but i didnt know"
"Somebody says,it is in the notice board, i read when i join, i dont know the meaning"
Somebody says,i know my previous company policy but i dont know here..

Answer from External Auditor :

" It is a minor NC based on the above case"

My question :

" External Auditor came and saw the corrective actions by seeing the posters in different languages and called somebody at random and enquired about the policy,most of them at all levels have told him the keywords" Then he is happy and closed the NC.

So,where is the value? Here in our case,Employees at all levels have only memorized not imbibed in their process areas"

So although you got past the auditor you feel that you are still not conforming?

This should be a start in the right direction. Now you need to figure out how to get the employees at the floor level to apply the quality policy so that it does have value to your company.

However, the requirement from the standard is that the quality policy is understood throughout the organization, and it is, isn't it?

There is always room to grow, and here is an opportunity for you to get the knowledge of the quality policy to drive them toward being better guardians of quality.

Teaching has not taken place until there has been a change in bahavior. You have met the requirement for having the quality policy known and understood, now it is up to you to take it to a higher level, and that is where you will see the value.

Based on what you say, I'd call it an NC too.

You say some of your PMs


read the policy statement in front of the auditors and could not able to give the convincing answer for the policy deployment in the projects.. say for example.. when auditor asked about the "Avoiding Re-work" and all project managers say that there is no rework in the project and they did not explain what preventive actions or mechanism is available in their project to control the rework"

Answers from Supervisor and Technicians :
"Somebody says,i heard about it..but i didnt know"
"Somebody says,it is in the notice board, i read when i join, i dont know the meaning"
Somebody says,i know my previous company policy but i dont know here..

Do you think that this sounds as though your people understand and are applying it? It doesn't to me, but then I"m not there & didn't observe the audit.

Your question about value is a very good one. You've at least started because now people have at least 'memorized' it. (I"m not convinced that memorisation is ideal, but it's presumably better than before).

And OK, your auditor closed the NC... but getting the real value depends on you (your organisation, particularly top management)! It's up to you to get the value - if you rely on an external party (auditor) to deliver it, you'll often wait in vain.

Do people understand the policy? I'm less interested in whether they've memorised 'key words', and more interested in whether they can describe it in action, and say how they're meeting requirements, ie, 'doing it'. I actually think rote memorisation of key words is a waste of time - but you do want people to be doing it. And how can they do 'It' if they don't know which particular 'It' is important?

It is a process - doesn't happen overnight, and can take a while. Sometimes constant reinforcement. And sometimes even, particularly for PMs, they may not know the exact words, but it's just 'what they do'. But they need to know how what they do, when & where ensures that quality is achieved consistently and delivered consistently - and what 'quality' is.

Randy,

I just got around to reading this thread. Thank you for your wisdom.

The whole "what is the quality policy gotcha audit question" needs to die away (IMHO).

Quality is a result of the business decisions being made, it is a system output.

So the real question is "what does this business stand for"?

The answer to that question determines quality.

Trying to drive business improvement from the quality department with a "quality policy" is the source of our endless frustration, and simply can't work.

Rant ends.

It's one of those auditor questions, right up there with "How do you know this is a controlled document?', or "Do you know it that gauge is calibrated?", or a myriad other questions that 'per se' are requirements of the standard, but don't need to be turned into audit questions - rather they become audit conclusions.........

Suresh,

Thank you for bringing up this interesting topic. As a professional auditor and consultant I see at least two issues here.

1 - Added value. If you were to climb Everest, would you see "value" in all your team members knowing where you are going? This is a rethorical question... I would! I hope you too...

2 - Translating your quality policy into all these languages is a good start, but I will have a question for you: "How do you know that the most recent revision is used?" In other words, hoe are you going to control all these policies?

I was thinking for a long time of writing an article on multi-site multi-lingual QMS. Let me know if your compnay would be interested in publishing a case study.

Cheers,

Mark:agree:

2 questions have to be asked and answered....

"What does it mean to you?"

"How are you helping to make it happen?"

If they can't be answered then there is most likely a lack of "communication" taking place.

These are very precise and accurate questions to ask during the audit.
I have noted these questions and will ask in my next external audit.

These are very precise and accurate questions to ask during the audit.
I have noted these questions and will ask in my next external audit.

Look at this post + attachment (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=274849&postcount=5) for more questions that can be used during an internal audit.

Stijloor.

It's one of those auditor questions, right up there with "How do you know this is a controlled document?', or "Do you know it that gauge is calibrated?", or a myriad other questions that 'per se' are requirements of the standard, but don't need to be turned into audit questions - rather they become audit conclusions.........

Oh, I DO agree with you, Andy, and with Caster. Should never be used as 'gotcha' questions (hallmark of a poor and lazy auditor in my opinion).

I think we lose track of the real issue when the 'because it's in the Standard' becomes the be-all and end-all. I infinitely prefer to focus on the underlying WHY - why is the need for a defined policy (or control of documents or calibration, or whatever) in the Standard? Because it's important, because it's good quality management practice and because things tend to fail or go wrong when such an element is lacking or not done.

Interesting attachment, if only it was a controlled document...

Mark

Interesting attachment, if only it was a controlled document...

Mark

?
Mark, this comment doesn't seem to make sense.

a. I haven't seen any uncontrolled attachments in this thread.

b. Even if there were, what would it matter? Sometimes people prefer to remove identifying information before posting their attachments, which can mean removing the control information.

I say, thanks to them for posting.

To me, there's no benefit or value add in getting picky about any lack of doc. control - in fact, rather the reverse. We're not auditing, just sharing ideas and information and points of view, surely?

Interesting attachment, if only it was a controlled document...

Mark

Are you referrring to this post + attachment (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=274849&postcount=5)?

Assuming that you did, my intent was simply to provide some suggestions for development of similar tools. And by the way, there is no requirement that these types of tools must be "controlled." Questionaires like this could possibly be used on a one-time basis until the next one is produced.

Hope this clarifies.

Stijloor.

Interesting attachment, if only it was a controlled document...

Mark

I agree with the above but I would say it is controlled - it has a date on it.

Fogetting document control, for one minute:rolleyes::notme:

I wonder how many auditors ask about the quality policy from top managements' point of view?

Let's face it, there are many managers who (should) sleep with one foot out of bed, worrying about policy implementation - be it safety, financial, environmental, employment or a myriad other policies which keep businesses toeing the 'good coporate citizen' line.......

So, who should be concerned and know if 'quality' is being implemented?