Hi all

Im working for a business consulting company and we deliver business solutions to our customers.
I attached the quality objectives we developed and I need your comments on them.

Thanks.

Hi Iman:

For a business consulting firm, they seem pretty fine to me. You are aware that objectives need to be tangible, measurable and achievable.

Also, I generally recommend my clients to break down their objectives into action plans for better and systematic implementation of the objectives. Fidn attached a sample in word format.

I do not believe your quality assurance objectives to be objectives. They form basically part of your QA team job description and mandatory part of the standards (conducting MRMs and complying to requirements)
Well, an example of an objective would be to reduce NC's by 5% overall acroess the QMS.

If you can align some of your objectives in terms of customer satisfaction, they would be more superlative.

Hope this helps.

Ciao. :cool:

_________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

The objectives are fine. It is important to start generating the data and reporting it at your monthly review.

If need be, you can make adjustments at the review

Danny

Hi all

Im working for a business consulting company and we deliver business solutions to our customers.
I attached the quality objectives we developed and I need your comments on them.

Thanks.

I'm not sure that your sales/marketing and finance are appropriate "quality" objectives, although building the customer base and taking care of the money are important to the business, obviously. I don't think there's enough there about taking care of customers and improving the product. As Sam has pointed out, the quality objectives you do include aren't appropriate objectives; they're just stuff you need to do to maintain things.

I also question the requirement for consultants to "[undergo] at least one relevant certification per year." Sooner or later they'll run out of "relevant" certifications, I'd think, so you might want to broaden the objective to some sort of continuing education requirement that doesn't necessarily involve certification.

I think you need to think more about improving your products/services and market position, and make sure that your objectives are reasonable and achievable.

These look like good business objectives but I have 2 questions:

How will your customers benefit from these? (are they inward or outward facing?)

and

There are quite a lot of them, will you be able to regularly monitor them all?

They look OK to me, mostly clear & capable of being measured with a few exceptions. If you're only just starting out on doing them, then you've done a reasonable job. You will want to improve at this.

Comments:

First and importantly, the only 2 relating to customers were:


Complete the project scope agreed on the signed customer contract within time and budget planned on all of projects.
Achieve a positive customer rating on all of post-project customer reviews.


(All the rest are internal management/monitoring). Do you really want a minuted meeting weekly for every PM?

Agree with Jim's & ColPart's comments.

I've rarely found a 'reduce # of NCs' a very useful objective in any service business (vs product).

Most seem focussed on maintaining what you do - where are you aiming to improve (beyond just marketing, which one could argue anyone is what they are supposed to do)?

I would NOT make Quality responsible for maintaining certification - it's the responsibility of all managers, not just Quality! And I'd like to see that translated into measurable objectives for each functional area :yes:

Thank you all for your comments.
so What is understood is
1) to focus on more customer oriented objectives rather than business objectives. but I was wondering how Sales and Marketing or Finance Department could be customer focused?

2) Maintaining the QMS is the responsibility of all manager. Shall I leave this objective or remove it?

3) Any comments on the Administration Department? many have advised that the admin objectives are part of the admin's daily tasks, so they can't be quality objectives. but our company is part of a group holdings and they almost provide us with everything as well as policies, Some Forms even office equipments. so our admin only collects documents from staff and route it to the group HR. she is more the CEO's assistant!

Originally Posted by JaneB http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304240#post304240)

I've rarely found a 'reduce # of NCs' a very useful objective in any service business (vs product).


While I gave that objective as an example for Iman to understand the idea of a proper objective for the quality assurance dept, she does have to look deeper in order to come up with other measurable and useful objectives.

Jane, I would be interested in knowing why such an objective is not found to be a useful one, especially that it concerns a very important aspect of the QMS. :evidence:


Originally Posted by JaneB http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304240#post304240)

I would NOT make Quality responsible for maintaining certification - it's the responsibility of all managers, not just Quality! And I'd like to see that translated into measurable objectives for each functional area :yes:

I completely agree with Jane on this that 'quality is everyone's responsibility':yes:. All managers are equally responsible for ensuring that quality is maintained. Its just equally important that someone needs to be given the mantle of quality to ensure that all others are maintaining it; that's what MR's are for and in many cases, the quality assurance dept.


Ciao.:cool:

_______________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304240#post304240)

Thank you all for your comments.
so What is understood is
1) to focus on more customer oriented objectives rather than business objectives. but I was wondering how Sales and Marketing or Finance Department could be customer focused?

2) Maintaining the QMS is the responsibility of all manager. Shall I leave this objective or remove it?

3) Any comments on the Administration Department? many have advised that the admin objectives are part of the admin's daily tasks, so they can't be quality objectives. but our company is part of a group holdings and they almost provide us with everything as well as policies, Some Forms even office equipments. so our admin only collects documents from staff and route it to the group HR. she is more the CEO's assistant!

All your objectives are customer-oriented, for sure. Either Internal customer or external customer. More often than not, external customer oriented objectives are fuelled by the core business of the company, in this case consulting. All other processes of the company are internal support processes and one process output forms the input to the next process.

Sales/Marketing and Finance objectives, if you look closely, would almost always (with some exceptions) focus on the internal customers, and the achievement of these objectives would benefit the subsequent process in line.

In my opinion, maintaining the QMS, should at best be left out of your objectives. If you can have some measurable criteria for 'improving audits', 'improving auditor performance', these probably can be included in your objectives for QA Dept.

The first objective in the Administration can be considered an acceptable one. You can add 'on time' at the end of your objective for better control. If the Admin personnel does not conduct the second one as part of his/her job description, he/she might as well get fired by the CEO.:D

I hope this helps.

Ciao. :cool:

________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

she

hehe
Sam, it's HE :lmao:

Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304240#post304240)

hehe
Sam, it's HE :lmao:

Then, he stands a better chance at getting fired than the fairer sex! ;)

Ciao. :cool:


___________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

I would be interested in knowing why such an objective is not found to be a useful one

Can you provide say 3 good, relevant examples in business consulting firms of this objective you recommend?

Originally Posted by JaneB http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304240#post304240)

Can you provide say 3 good, relevant examples in business consulting firms of this objective you recommend?

No Jane, I actually wanted to know the reason of not using it in service industry. Because, I have recommended such an objective to 2 of my past clients (none of them are in business consulting), especially when their QMS was not being maintained adequately and NC's were frequent across the companies.

Also, my mention of the example was just an idea for a proper objective (not neccesarily the same) for QA Dept, unlike Iman's objectives which were actually part of QA regular work. She probably may not even use my example if her company's QMS is well maintained and NC's are kept to a minimum.

Just for my clarification then, if you could help me out with understanding why such an example is not very useful, will be appreciated.

Ciao. :cool:

____________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

ok,

I did some modification to the objectives.
more important, I reduced the number of objectives so they could be
controllable.

I appreciate to have your feedback again on the attached objectives.

Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304240#post304240)
ok,
I did some modification to the objectives.
more important, I reduced the number of objectives so they could be controllable.

I appreciate to have your feedback again on the attached objectives.

Yes, the objectives seem more taut and measurable than before. However, I am still not convinced with the QA objective of 'maintaining the system'. How will you measure that? Objectives need be measurable.

Also, most of these are objectives (some already targets). If you give targets for each objective (probably using the summary sheet I attached in my first post) along with action plans, you will be able to better control them and even achieve them systematically.

Ciao. :cool:


____________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

Yes, the objectives seem more taut and measurable than before. However, I am still not convinced with the QA objective of 'maintaining the system'. How will you measure that? Objectives need be measurable.

Also, most of these are objectives (some already targets). If you give targets for each objective (probably using the summary sheet I attached in my first post) along with action plans, you will be able to better control them and even achieve them systematically.

Ciao. :cool:


____________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

Objectives are targets and they are goals.

Iman

Good stuff. I think these are pretty fine for now (I'm assuming you are going for cert at this point? at a rather later point you may consider adding in some more improvement ones - eg, some time down the track).

You've got pretty clear targets & measurables in there, suitable for a project-based service business.

I've made a couple of minor suggestions (in bold).

1 remaining issue: you've got dual accountability for delivering projects on time & budget (I marked as yellow in the attached file) which is not a good idea.

I think you need to clarify & refine that - eg, if Sales is responsible for the costing & budget, say, then hold them responsible just for that (presuming people with appropriate project experience/knowledge had an input of course!), and then hold each PM responsible for delivery. You cannot reasonably make Sales responsible for delivery if they have no role in it (nor, conversely, hold PMs as responsible for delivery to an impossible scope/budget/timeline etc.)

Oops, forgot the modified attachment.

Dear Jane

Thank you for your inputs.
You are correct with assigning dual responsibilities for an objective since confusion may occur of objective accomplishment.

but what i understood from my company is all responsible account managers have a biweekly progress meeting with the PM to check on project status and controlling the milestones. In every progress meeting we state some constraints which may prevent us from moving forward in a project and account manager will assist to solve these problems since he is more senior in the company and he is the one having good relationship with the client. so this is the reason I mentioned it's a dual responsibility.

And what Sam mentioned regarding the targets, is true unless otherwise I dont state any quantifiable term. If i say I want "ALL" the projects to be completed within agreed budget, means we are not looking for overhead cost at all!
If I say I want to reduce the over budget from X amount to Y amount, then our team dont struggle that much to bring this down to zero! so i guess I already mentioned my target. any suggestions?

:thanks:

I think you have a blend of Quality Objectives and Process Performance Measurement (Section 8.2.3 Monitoring and Measurement of Processes).....those departments listed being processes which from your table look to have performance measurements established.

Always room for interpretation....Quality Objectives vs. Process Measurement

In every progress meeting we state some constraints which may prevent us from moving forward in a project and account manager will assist to solve these problems since he is more senior in the company and he is the one having good relationship with the client. so this is the reason I mentioned it's a dual responsibility.
Ah, now I see. In that case, I might agree although it's hard to say without knowing the company and the people involved. Ideally you'd get clearer about who is actually accountable for what, rather than just jointly assigning! With any 'joint' responsibility, it's seriously hard to hold people accountable: it's so easy for either party to say, well I did MY bit, it was the other guy who didn't. But perhaps you address those issues in, say, post-project debriefs or reviews.

If i say I want "ALL" the projects to be completed within agreed budget, means we are not looking for overhead cost at all!
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here. :nope: Are you meaning, the company isn't making its margin? If so, add that in.

If I say I want to reduce the over budget from X amount to Y amount, then our team dont struggle that much to bring this down to zero! so i guess I already mentioned my target.

Yes, I agree. I'd go for zero! Who wants over-budget projects????

I would like to make some suggestions on the QOs under discussion:
1. Some of the objectives require 100% compliance; for example, 'ensure zero poor feedback'. I think when you set the targets for the first time you have to be fair to every process owner. I would prefer to expressing the target statistically: in the above case, you may say, "ensure poor feedback is not more than 10%"; this allows the process owner some gap which he can try and close systematically by taking definitive actions after analysing the reasons for the gap that currently exists. Further, if during the first year the achievement were 9% poor feedback, while reviewing the performance at the end of the target period (one year or whatever it is), the bar can be raised, say to 8% for the next year. This helps process owners to be more motivated and be positive towards 'QOs'!
2. In the Table of QOs under discussion, I could not find the period within which the objectives should be achieved. I guess this period is mentioned elsewhere; otherwise QOs will not be effectively measurable.
3. In regard to QO for QA Dept., method of measurement is indicated as 'audits'. I think this is a bit ambiguous; do you assume compliance based on final outcome as reported in the audit reports or in terms of 'nonconformities' reported? I have seen some Orgns. stating the objective as ' Reduce NCs from X to Y'.

Valid points there Neelu.

Originally Posted by neelu http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304984#post304984)
I would like to make some suggestions on the QOs under discussion:
1. Some of the objectives require 100% compliance; for example, 'ensure zero poor feedback'. I think when you set the targets for the first time you have to be fair to every process owner. I would prefer to expressing the target statistcally: in the above case, you may say, "ensure poor feedback is not more than 10%"; this allows the process owner some gap which he can try and close systematically by taking definitive actions after analysing the reasons for the gap that currently exists. Further, if during the first year the achievement were 9% poor feedback, while reviewing the performance at the end of the target period (one year or whatever it is), the bar can be raised, say to 8% for the next year. This helps process owners to be more motivated and be positive towards 'QOs'!
2. In the Table of QOs under discussion, I could not find the period within which the objectives should be achieved. I guess this period is mentioned elsewhere; otherwise QOs will not be effectively measurable.
3. In regard to QO for QA Dept., method of measurement is indicated as 'audits'. I think this is a bit ambiguous; do you assume compliance based on final outcome as reported in the audit reports or in terms of 'nonconformities' reported? I have seen some Orgns. stating the ojective as ' Reduce NCs from X to Y'.

1. Regarding 100% compliance, your comments do hold ground. However it also depends on the history of the company's performance is that area. In order for Iman to say " to ensure zero poor feedback" probably means the feedback recieved is already good enough with some rare exceptions. Hence for him to 'achieve zero poor feedback' may not be that a difficult objective after all.
2. Exactly! That's why I have recommended using the QO Summary I have attached in my first thread at the beginning of this thread.
3. I agree.


Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304984#post304984)

If i say I want "ALL" the projects to be completed within agreed budget, means we are not looking for overhead cost at all!
If I say I want to reduce the over budget from X amount to Y amount, then our team dont struggle that much to bring this down to zero! so i guess I already mentioned my target. any suggestions?


Didn't quite get what you are trying to say here. Can you explain please.


Ciao. :cool:

___________________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

1. I assumed (as Sam has picked up) that the organisation itself is in the best place to know that.
2. I would always leave it up to someone asking for help to choose their own format. I would never keep insisting someone ought to use mine.
3. I don't agree, particularly given a consulting services firm.

Keep focus on risk, content and importance, not simply numbers. (They may not even be up to knowing how many 'NCs' they have at this point, nor may they have a lot - it's not as straightforward a matter identifying an NC in that kind of environment). Even if they did, just focussing on reducing from X to Y is relatively pointless and may even produce unwanted side effects.

An example: someone forced that kind of objective through in a services environment. They got the numbers down all right - but it happened because the workers started getting OFF the line as quickly as they could (at the expense of fixing the real problem & the reason why people called). Which meant call rates went UP and customer satisfaction went DOWN.

thanks for all the comments.

1) Agree with Sam and Jane since we already get good feedbacks from our clients.
2) Agree with all
3) I agree with Jane

one more thing Jane

In the modified excel sheet for the admin part you have mentioned (both external - you're using customers to tell you about problems! Any internal monitoring?) could please explain more?

honestly I cant come up with proper admin objectives since they are not much involved in the company in terms of responsibilities. they either answering calls, prepare employees applications such as leaves, visas... or a point of communication with our Group HR. so i would like to ask for suggestions on some general Admin objectives.

Thanks again.

Originally Posted by JaneB http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304984#post304984)

<snip>
1. I assumed (as Sam has picked up) that the organisation itself is in the best place to know that.
2. I would always leave it up to someone asking for help to choose their own format. I would never keep insisting someone ought to use mine.
3. I don't agree, particularly given a consulting services firm.

Keep focus on risk, content and importance, not simply numbers. (They may not even be up to knowing how many 'NCs' they have at this point, nor may they have a lot - it's not as straightforward a matter identifying an NC in that kind of environment). Even if they did, just focussing on reducing from X to Y is relatively pointless and may even produce unwanted side effects.

An example: someone forced that kind of objective through in a services environment. They got the numbers down all right - but it happened because the workers started getting OFF the line as quickly as they could (at the expense of fixing the real problem & the reason why people called). Which meant call rates went UP and customer satisfaction went DOWN.

2. Me too. It would do no good to any sensible person to have a document shove down his throat, whether the document makes sense or not. That's why we can only recommend, not impose.
3. Hmm, disagreements are fine. I have my explanation.

The QO in question (Reducing # of NCs) is a measurable, achievable and sensible objective, part of the Quality Assurance Dept. And even though, on the surface the idea looks to reduce the number of NC's (just the numbers), deep within such an objective gives room for clearer action plans for the entire company's processes. I would ask a question like, how will you go about reducing the number of NC's?
- Adequately close NC's and implement effective CA's for those NC's - Reduces the recurrence of NC's in these areas. (Practically speaking, many companies often get the same NC's even after so-called effective/adequate CA's)
- Closely monitor departmental processes for loopholes leading to potential NC's and take effective preventive actions - can reduce the number of NC's.

The example you gave is true and possible, then again the opposite is also possible. We can get the numbers down by having an appropriate action plan for it (focusing on the real problem) and effectively implementing it (CAPA) without compromising any other related processes.

Actually, its just a matter of 'in which scenario this kind of objective fits in best', and obviously we are not the best people to decide/force who needs it and who doesn't. In this case, Iman has decided not to use it, probably because he doesn't need it for his well-doing organization (very few NC's or no NC's).

Ciao. :cool:

______________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304984#post304984)

<snip>
honestly I cant come up with proper admin objectives since they are not much involved in the company in terms of responsibilities. they either answering calls, prepare employees applications such as leaves, visas... or a point of communication with our Group HR. so i would like to ask for suggestions on some general Admin objectives.

Thanks again.

Iman, I don't think it is neccesary to have objectives for Admin just because you don't have any. If there is nothing in the Dept. that is worth improving or directly effecting your customers (external/internal), then you might as well just leave it out.

Ciao. :cool:

______________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

About the three points, Sam, Jane and I have discussed; I would like to add some additional information as below:
1. Mine was a suggestion to Iman to use statistical approach wherever possible and 'no poor response feedback' case was an example I picked up where statistical approach could be used to advantage. Further, if 'no poor feedback' is the order of the day, there is no point in identifying this parameter as a 'QO'; because QO is invariably a quality characteristic that you have not achieved yet, but aspire to achieve.
2. Jane is right in that, in a discussion forum like this, we can only give suggestions and share experience.
3. I cited the third point reg. QO for QA to bring home the point that to define a QO for QA is very tricky and as Jane implied, can have negative impact-on the process of internal audit at least. Where 'reducing NCs' have been given as a QO, internal auditors may be hard-pressed not to report NCs!

In the modified excel sheet for the admin part you have mentioned (both external - you're using customers to tell you about problems! Any internal monitoring?) could please explain more?

My comment was on the fact that the only way/s you appeared to have of finding out IF things were being done accurately was via your customers telling you. And while I think that's fine re. customer satisfaction, I'm less convinced that it's a good thing for other objectives. In this case, if it's important (customer messages not getting passed on correctly sounds so to me) I think I'd want to have internal ways of finding that out, not waiting to find out via customers, which could be too late!

But also, possibly various assumptions I'm making are wrong - I'm a little thrown by your use of the term 'monitoring' you see - I'd be more inclined to call it 'how measured/assessed.' (that is why, you see, it's so difficult to give accurate advice on objectives at a remote distance and without knowing any of the relevant factors!)

honestly I cant come up with proper admin objectives since they are not much involved in the company in terms of responsibilities. they either answering calls, prepare employees applications such as leaves, visas... or a point of communication with our Group HR. so i would like to ask for suggestions on some general Admin objectives.

Hmm - my first response is, fine, if they're not involved, then get rid of them and save the money :D Are they really irrelevant to quality of service? If they are, fine, don't bother with objectives. You need them only at 'relevant functions and levels' - so if they're not relevant, fine. There's no point in just throwing in objectives for the sake of having them.

But if, for example, they make mistakes on the visas, say, and you don't get someone with permission to work in time to meet a client deadline... wouldn't that affect service quality? You might try something like 'complete all paperwork accurately first time, with no rework/returns'.

PS - All -it's quality management we should be talking about (or at least I am), not 'QA'. And while many manufacturing organisations may well have a separate 'Quality Dept' or a 'QA Dept', I cannot think of one single service organisation I've consulted to that does (or would want to). Service companies are different to manufacturing and so are their quality systems! While yes the broad principles apply, their application often differs hugely.

The QO in question (Reducing # of NCs) is a measurable, achievable and sensible objective, part of the Quality Assurance Dept.
I don't understand what you mean by 'part of the QA Dept' - what 'QA Dept'??

Sam, I agree that in theory reducing # of NCs sound sensible in theory. But in practice, it can often not be anywhere near as straightforward and as simple to do in service firms as in manufacturing. I know I've said this before & you've said why - I can only say (hope it doesn't sound patronising, not meant to be) that when you've had some reasonable experience in ISO 9001 in various service firms (not solely product/manufacturing etc) we can discuss further. But where someone lacks that experience, there's a whole lot of built-in assumptions & beliefs they have that mean no shared basis of understanding and I just don't have time for the lengthy explanations that might be required.

Actually, its just a matter of 'in which scenario this kind of objective fits in best', and obviously we are not the best people to decide/force who needs it and who doesn't. In this case, Iman has decided not to use it, probably because he doesn't need it for his well-doing organization (very few NC's or no NC's).
Yes, you're right that the OP is in the best position.

But not necessarily right that a low number of 'NCs' indicates his organisation is performing excellently. Again, I would avoid the focus on sheer quantity of NCs - it's often more indicative in a product/manufacturing organisation than in a service one. Often service co's have far fewer 'NCs' or "CAs' or whatever you call them than perhaps you are accustomed to. (Indeed, even the NC term is often of limited use here). But the content and the reason/s ... ah, that's where it's important.

Thanks Jane and Sam for your help and support :)
I believe thread will be useful for other juniors like me.

:thanx:

Originally Posted by JaneB http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=304984#post304984)


I don't understand what you mean by 'part of the QA Dept' - what 'QA Dept'??

If you have a second look at Iman's QO file on the first page, or your modifed one on the third page, you will find that QA is a Dept. in Iman's service organization.

Jane, thanks for all the valuable inputs here; I will pick the suitable ones to add to my experience. :D

Ciao. :cool:

If you have a second look at Iman's QO file on the first page, or your modifed one on the third page, you will find that QA is a Dept. in Iman's service organization.

Oops, yes of course, you're right Sam. Sorry, assumptions again (mine in this case). I assumed there was no actual department as such, it was just a box for the role of quality manager or whoever - I'm assuming (!) you assumed (!!) it was a whole department. And either of us could be wrong/right/partially either... :lol:

That's OK Jane. We can share the assumptions ;). As long as Iman has got the solution to his query, all is well!

Ciao. :cool:

Well, to be more precise, we dont have a QA department...
Maybe it was my mistake...
We have a QMR, and 2 quality specialist which is a role assigned to them!
so can we say It's a department?

Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=305507#post305507)

Well, to be more precise, we dont have a QA department...
Maybe it was my mistake...
We have a QMR, and 2 quality specialist which is a role assigned to them!
so can we say It's a department?

Hi Iman

Thanks for clarifying that you don't have a QA Department. Jane would throw all the assumptions back on me now :lol:.

Well, you seem to have quite a force dedicated to quality. 1 QMR and 2 quality specialists should make up a department IMO. I mean if you three are purely dedicated to QMS and working towards improving processes and helping increase customer satisfaction, then why not?

Ciao. :cool: