Explain to us:

1. The return and benefit to companies which choose certification. Show us the ROI, the lower Cost of Poor Quality, the reduction in scrap, rework, and defects, the improved service levels, and all the other quantifiable measures which demonstrate benefit. And do it by disentangling certification from implementation - by comparing certified companies against a control group of non-certified companies having the same QMS baseline.

2. How certification is anything other than verifying conformity to requirements. And while you’re at it, you might want to enlighten us as to why many of the certifications done so far contain a major nonconformity – the lack of objectives. As the late Dr. Eicher of ISO said, “ a system without objectives clearly cannot possibly deliver quality.”

3. How the distortion you have introduced into the marketplace by fostering the notion that “certification is quality” is beneficial. And show us how all the regalia, banners, flags, and seals you provide your clients with to proclaim themselves “ISO 9000 Certified” isn’t misleading – its the QMS which is certified, not the company, and in many cases the scope of certification only covers a portion of their operations (a fact now addressed by the scope exclusions of ISO 9001:2000).

4. The hypocrisy whereby certified companies, which are encouraged by ISO 9000 to move beyond inspection for quality, have to be subjected to a system of inspections for verifying their ongoing conformity and “commitment to quality.” How do surveillance inspections help certified companies improve quality? As Deming said in Out of the Crisis, “Inspection does not improve quality, nor guarantee quality. Inspection is too late. The quality, good or bad, is already in the product.” Substitute the word “company” for “product” and you’ll have the answer.

I’ll be watching to see if a certification body steps up to the plate to address any of these issues. Somehow, I think the silence will be deafening. Cheers,

Lean

Lean,

You seem to be a man/woman on a mission -- almost fanatical in your drive. In 2 days I've seen you start several threads and make many posts all focused on this one issue. I'm not criticizing -- I share many of your views -- but I am just wondering if you could fill us in on "why" you feel so strongly on this one subject. Just being curious...:confused:

I too have to wonder about the motive behind this tyrade.

I'm beginning to think that Lean is a member of some radical anti-ISO group that is trying to form their own standard :vfunny:

(I think there are a couple other members here as well :vfunny: )

Do we have someone new who is grinding the axe?

I see where return on investment was brought up. Interesting!

Jim Wade said:

It appears that many auditors don't understand what an objective is; they seem to think that simply to mention the word in the 'quality' policy does the trick.

This particular shortcoming is not only a major nonconformity, it's also just about the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine! Since the purpose of the system is to provide the means for achieving objectives, giving a certificate to a company with no objectives is simply obscene.

Of course, now that TC176 has dicovered this brilliant new idea of measurable objectives (wow, that is so neat!) all will be well [insert sarcastic smiley].
rgds Jim
Jim,

Do you seriously think the lack of a written objective in your QMS is "obscene" and "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine"? An objective is defined by ASQ as "a specific statement of a desired short term condition or achievement; includes measurable end results to be accomplished by specific teams or individuals within time limits". So the lack of that being written down is as bad as it gets? If so, I'd expect any company with a cert given by a registrar who did not require the objectives should be out of business in a matter of weeks due to suddenly shipping terrible quality or not shipping at all.

Don't get me wrong -- I think objectives are important, but the MOST important part of a QMS? No. That's being a bit dramatic to me. JMO.

the lack of that being written down is as bad as it gets?
What's one of the 3 basic rules of ISO???? If it's not documented it didn't happen!!!!
I don't know if I can agree that it's the worse that can happen. I do know if you don't have something documented and to judge against (measured) that the objective remains too ambiguous and open to interpretation.
I'm beginning to think that Lean is a member of some radical anti-ISO group that is trying to form their own standard
He's too late for that Richard, Vanguard already beat him to the punch.

Look at the name used. That should tell you something.

If you follow the Lean Manufacturing 12 guiding principles, add in integrity and customer satisfaction, you can beat the socks off of ISO, QS, or any other standard out there. The lean stuff has been preached to me for 8 years and it has only been in the last 3 that it has really started to make practical sense to me.

You only have to look as far as Toyota to get the big picture. For those of you in the B3 nest, it is time to be afraid, very afraid!!! If we don't change our ways there is going to be some "LEAN" years ahead. And remember, Toyota, Honda, etc. do it without a need for ISO. They have had some favorable things to say about 16949 but not much for ISO.:eek:

Stew/Jim,

Of course I understand if it is not written down it can be too ambiguous and open to interpretation and there is no proof that it happened and all that. Regarding objectives as well as other requirements. And, yes, objectives are important and yes, it would be a major NC. No argument on any of that.

But, as Jim says, the lack of written objectives being "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine"? I suggest with all due respect that Jim doesn't have a very good imagination! I've seen (and can imagine) much more damage done by lack of a functional calibration system, or doc control system, or the lack of adequate training, do tremendous damage to a company and their customers; much more than I can see happening because somebody forgot to write down things like "increase customer satisfaction index in the X division by 20% over the June 2002 value in the next 3 months" or "increase OTD to 98% in all product lines by January 2003" or such things. But hey, that's just MHO and I've been wrong before.

Others?

Mike S. said:

Stew/Jim,

But, as Jim says, the lack of written objectives being "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine"? I suggest with all due respect that Jim doesn't have a very good imagination! I've seen (and can imagine) much more damage done by lack of a functional calibration system, or doc control system, or the lack of adequate training, do tremendous damage to a company and their customers; much more than I can see happening because somebody forgot to write down things like "increase customer satisfaction index in the X division by 20% over the June 2002 value in the next 3 months" or "increase OTD to 98% in all product lines by January 2003" or such things. But hey, that's just MHO and I've been wrong before.

Others?

Like ineffective product Realization (Contract Review) that caused incorrect product to be built and shipped to the Customer? Improper packaging causing damage to equipment? When I think back on the things that I've seen go wrong with over 35 years in this business, major catastrophies, not one was ever attributed to failure to have a written objective. I'll stop here.:rolleyes:
:ko: :smokin:

I think the questions Lean has posed are questions that we have all asked at one time or another.(or at least should have).
And so far Lean is right "the silence is deafening". We have criticised and not responded. Could it be possible there is no answer.

Jim Wade said:

Your viewpoint on this topic depends on what you think is the purpose of a management system.

I believe that the purpose of a management system is to help us achieve our objectives. It follows that having no objectives means that the system has no purpose and therefore must fail.

If, however, you think the management system has some other purpose (to get a certificate for example) then - of course - you will have a different opinion. And perhaps even express it.

rgds Jim
Jim,

Lean started things by saying that some companies get certs for their QMS with a major NC present - specifically no written objectives in the QMS documentation. Lean sees that as a problem -- so do I. So far, so good. But then you up the ante by a ton saying the lack of written objectives are "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine".

Consider a scenerio:

You have a choice of buying a critical component for your mfg. company from one of two possible vendors. One has a perfectly functioning QMS EXCEPT that they got an "obscene" cert from a "charlatan" registrar who gave them the cert even though they did not have clearly written objectives as a part of their QMS documentation. You therefore do not know if they have objectives or not.

The other supplier has well written objectives such that TC 176 itself would consider them to be absolutely compliant and reasonable, but this company also has a poorly functioning contract review, calibration, doc control, and training system.

The future of your company depends on you getting your product to your customer on-time and correctly, and this component getting to your company on-time and in-spec is critical to that happening. Whom do you buy from?

Just because some company does not have written objectives DOES NOT mean it "has no purpose and therefore MUST fail". Looking at the real world, I submit to you that there are thousands or maybe millions of successful companies operating right now that do not have written objectives. They may be run by people who would not even understand what you mean if you asked them to verbally state "what are your company's objectives". Yet they survive and often thrive. Why?

"If you can't measure it, you have not really understood it" is the essence of what Lord Kelvin said over a century ago.

Can we expect any real and consistent results without clearly stating our objectives?

Cheers Lean!

I am still interested to hear from Lean regarding Mike's original response; that being his reasoning for this "crusade" ;).

Jim Wade said:

OK Mike .... let's say you are right: the purpose of a management system isn't to provide the means to achieve objectives.

Its purpose is, in fact, ____________________________________

Please fill in (or is it 'out'?) using black ink and capitals.

rgds Jim

BTW I never said the company must fail because of no objectives
No, no, Jim, first things first. I asked you a direct question which you very convieniently ignored. Which company do you buy from in my scenerio?

"BTW" -- I wonder if objectives can possibly exist even if someone forgot to write then down in some specific place?
:confused:

I am not a registrar, but may offer a couple of observations?

First, about objectives. I submit that ALL for profit companies have one overall objective: PROFIT. The trick then becomes (for QMS) minimizing overall quality costs (including failure and the "unknown and unknowables). Fact is, many companies do have this written down (read their annual report).

Second, I don't care what you call it. I don't care if it is lean manufacturing, 6-sigma, TQM, ISO-9000, whatever. The fact is that lean's question about ROI is going to be difficult to answer without identifying the organizations who are serious (top mgt committment, etc.) compared to the window dressers. Any of these tools, seriously and correctly applied, can do wonders for an organization. They can also be good PR tools becuse of the success some have had using them to improve.

Am I totally off base here?

Ravi Khare said:

"If you can't measure it, you have not really understood it" is the essence of what Lord Kelvin said over a century ago.

Can we expect any real and consistent results without clearly stating our objectives?

Cheers Lean!

Lord Kelvin said it right. And, when you open up the Company's ledger and the numbers are black, not red, it is clearly understood. The reason you are in business is to make a profit. Do I need to put that in writing? The rest of this objective thing is to force you say otherwise to satisfy an external organization's idea of objectives for YOUR business. It's just another hoop we are made to jump through if we want that worthless certificate on our wall. :agree: :ko: :smokin:

Hmmm


How could we improve without an objective (and of course a plan) ?

How would we know where we are, or if we were getting better ??

Martin and All,

Am I being unclear? Let me reiterate: I don't think anyone is saying you should not have objectives. And I think everyone agrees ISO 9001 clearly calls for them to be be written down -- good practice of course! And their lack would be a 9001:2000 NC. I know, understand, and agree with Lord Kelvin's popular quote from 1891! I'm not in any way campaigning against objectives! Cool?

But, if a company did not for some reason comply and write them down in the QMS documentation it is still pretty well understood by most people that the company is in business to make a profit, first and foremost! In other words, common sense tells most of us that they indeed have (at least) one objective, whether it is written down or not.

The issue I raised simply questioned the logic of calling the lack of a written objective or objectives "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine". That's all. I just do not think the majority of Q professionals or businesspeople in general would agree with that quote. If I'm wrong on this last point I invite everyone to tell me I am wrong.:bonk: :frust:

Remember the Franklin Quest Planner?? The old system before Palm Pilots. In the section for setting goals it states "write your goals so that they are achievable instead of writing something abstract." Making a profit is an abstract statement.

Are there worse things that can happen, I believe so. But it has been my experience that if we won't document something there is a reason or an excuse. We don't want to be held accountable either in a personal matter or professional.
Just MO
:ko:

Jim Wade said:

True, Mike. The question is irrelevant and it bores me. Do please excuse me - I'm going to mingle now ...

rgds Jim

Did you have your pinkie extended as you typed that, Jim? The snobbery just dripped off that post, but that's what you wanted, wasn't it? Mission accomplished. You 'da man, all suave, sophisticated, and debonair, dismissing the great unwashed with a wave of your royal hand.

The question was directly related and quite relevant to your stated opinion and my challenge of it, it just took the issue out of the theoretical, idealized fantasy world you seem IMO to sometimes reside in and bring it out into the real-world in the form of a simple, real-world type of question. Why is it you won't answer a simple question? Maybe only YOUR questions are "relevant"? Maybe only questions that do not challenge your all-knowing opinions are "relevant"? Don't give me the boredom stuff, either. You and I both know the real answer, don't we?
:ko:

But that's okay! "It takes all kinds," my Mama told me. We all have our faults and tolerance is part of life. I only have one feeling left, but the good thing is you didn't hurt it! :vfunny: I'll live on, I'm happy to report. And I'll keep challenging things that I think need challenged. Whether or not I, or my posts, are dismissed as irrelevant and boring. As with all opinions, one must consider the source. :p

Did you have your pinkie extended as you typed that, Jim? The snobbery just dripped off that post, but that's what you wanted, wasn't it? Mission accomplished. You 'da man, all suave, sophisticated, and debonair, dismissing the great unwashed with a wave of your royal hand.

Whew!! What are you trying to say Mike? Don't hold back man. Speak up, you're amongst friends:vfunny:

Jim Wade said:

True, Mike. The question is irrelevant and it bores me. Do please excuse me - I'm going to mingle now ...

rgds Jim

Now children! Mama Steel does not job into these catfights often, but if I remember my psychology correctly, the minimization of other peoples feeling and minimization of the importance of their questions, thoughts and input have some pretty clear cut meanings.

Jim, you are an intelligent person, obviously well educated and well read. You should not stoop so low as to be condescending, it does not become you, nor does it enhance your reputation. There has been some excellent input by many, so let's everyone remember that what works for one does not work for all.

BTW, we have a whole boat load of quality objectives, we have quality objectives from EVERY area, and you know what? If I had to create a translation of all of them into one statement, they'd be "reduce costs to increase profits" Bottom line. If you aren't making money, you won't stay in business, I think that is the first thing they teach in economics of business 101?

SteelMaiden said:

BTW, we have a whole boat load of quality objectives, we have quality objectives from EVERY area, and you know what? If I had to create a translation of all of them into one statement, they'd be "reduce costs to increase profits" Bottom line. If you aren't making money, you won't stay in business, I think that is the first thing they teach in economics of business 101?

You go, Steel. But if you don't write dem objectives down, how the heck we gonna member dem and knows what we is doing? Shucks and Golly Gee. I'm sure that the poor worker looks at that objective every day as the cornerstone of his/her existance. What's his/her objective? $$ No, wait. They could be selling drugs. Time to go. :bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Jim Wade said:

We agree, I think, that since objectives are required by ISO 900x:1994 it is wrong that many organizations without such objectives have been awarded a certificate? Agreed?

The only purpose of the management system, I strongly believe, is to help us achieve our objectives.

Because the purpose of a management system is to help us achieve our objectives, a management system without objectives must, by definition, be purposeless, flawed, useless, a waste of time and money, as helpful as a chocolate blast furnace [pick your own words].

For such a situation then to be blessed by the authorities with the award of a certificate is fundamentally and seriously maddeningly wrong and bad and .... [insert strongest possible language] :o

rgds Jim
Jim,

Let me try... Paragraph by paragraph...

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. Conditionally agreed. If there were truly NO objectives whatsoever, in ANY form, I would agree. But... Just because the objectives are not WRITTEN DOWN does not mean they don't exist. I know of many companies (some I have worked for, others I just personally know of) who do not have their objectives written down, yet they DO have objectives -- they know what they want to accomplish. I know of no company of any size with no objectives at all in any form, nor can I imagine such company exists any more frequently than a 2 headed snake.

For just one example, a Mom and Pop type diner and store, in business for over 20 years, quite successful, profitable, loved by the community, lots of patrons. Less than 10 employees. They do have a "management system", though not ISO or anything so formal. They do not have written objectives. Yet that does not make their management system "useless".


4. As I have said before, there should be no ISO cert if there are no objectives written down somewhere in the QMS (and no cert if there is any other major NC).

QUICK SUMMARY IMO: Written objectives - vastly preferable in general; definitely required for a compliant ISO QMS. Not an absolute prerequisite for a successful company with a successful "management system". Lack of written objectives is not the most damaging lack in a quality' management system that I (personal opinion) could imagine and is not even in my top 3.

Done for today!:frust:

Jim Wade said:

Hi Steel

Just so I understand: are you saying you advocate dropping all objectives except: 'reduce costs' and 'increase profits'?

rgds Jim


hey bud! nope, but i cannot think of a single objective that doesn't somewhere down the line come down to the bottom line. Have you seen any? I can't imagine that a quality objective would be written that says, improve customer satisfaction by giving them free product for the next 10 years.:bonk:

If you can give me an example of a quality objective that will not help the company increase profits, reduce costs, or gain market share, I'd be interested in seeing it. Other than a not-for-profit or philanthropic endeaver, that is. and even those have to maintain some sort of in-flow of cash, or they'd be out of business also.

as always, your viewpoints are anxiously awaited, (but sometimes I wonder how many are your actual viewpoints and how much is calculated for forensics:D )

Jim Wade said:

Hi Steel

Just so I understand: are you saying you advocate dropping all objectives except: 'reduce costs' and 'increase profits'?

rgds Jim

Thanks Jim for bringing that typing finger back down. ;)
I think Steel means, at least as I saw it, they have them all written down-posted as ISO would like to see it. All those "goals/objectives" are driven by and towards remaining profitable. It's something that forces a company to become creative to justify an external organization's interpretations so we can get the "badge". The goals and objectives are there. If they weren't, who would pay the registrar? Do you need to write down "Reduce energy costs"? "Increase Market Share'? These people are and were probably in business before ISO became the buzz word. Their "Business Management Plan" may have been just fine, but they want the certificate, so we play their silly game. Auditors enforce the silly rule. No doubt, you have to have them written down. But, not because you got to have them written down to do business. Not one person in my very large family ever heard of ISO, and most of them earn a much better living. :( How can that be? How can they be in business and not have some pinhead telling them that they don't have measurable goals/objectives? It's a not so funny joke.:ko: :smokin: OOPS, you beat me to the post, Steel.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to do a benchmarking exercise on 'objectives'.

I wonder should we benchmark against Ford, 3M, GE, IBM, etc ?

Or benchmark against the mom and pop shops ??

I wonder which has defined quality objectives ???

I wonder.....

I wonder.....


:thedeal: :biglaugh: :p

Experience and wisdom provided by some very intelligent people tells me that the only way to improve is if you:

1. Develop an effective plan.
2. Implement the plan.
3. Monitor the results.
4. Make course corrections based on the results.

This well known and straight forward approach seems to consistently hold true and has been shown to be effective for the simplest to most complex processes, systems, functions, companies....

So, if this is so straight forward where are most of the problems encountered? It seems to me that the most difficult part of the process is developing the plan. Many people are good at implementing, monitoring, and correcting a plan but it often proves to be much more difficult to develop the plan in the first place.

Why is an effective plan difficult to develop? IMO most ineffective plans share a common problem - thats right, a lack of clearly stated and communicated objectives that form the basis of the plan and provide the ability to monitor the results. In addition, many plans are great for a particular function, process, or division of a company but never achieve the intended results because the objectives do not make sense in the larger scheme of the system.

My belief is that if you don't have solid objectives then you can't have an effective plan and if you don't have an effective plan then you can't improve. Unless your system includes only one person then I believe that you must state objectives for all to see and understand so that the many pieces of the system are working together. In fact, many people (particularly athletes) find it very useful to write down personal objectives so they can be reviewed and challenged for validity from time to time.

Why is it such a big deal to write down the objectives? My experience in sports and business has shown that a resistance to writing down objectives usually means one of three things:

1. There are no objectives.
2. The objectives are not concrete enough to have any real meaning or measurable enough to let you know when they are achieved.
3. The objectives conflict with the overall needs of the person or system.

So....I hope that the above is somewhat correct because we are setting up our new QMS with an overall goal to improve our business and with written, measurable objectives as the centerpiece. Who knows - we might even get a certificate to replace our old one!:)

There is 1 and only 1 true Objective for business...$$

Everything else that is done supports the reaching of that objective.

It's kind of like the military (especially here in the good old US of A, and especially concerning the Army). There is only 1 objective or mission and that is "to be successful in battle" everything else is secondary at best. All other little tasks and programs and the warm fuzzies do nothing but support (or detract from) the obtainment of that objective.

When we realize, accept, and understand what business's mission is, then we can plan for and ensure its success.

Randy said:
It's kind of like the military (especially here in the good old US of A, and especially concerning the Army). There is only 1 objective or mission and that is "to be successful in battle" everything else is secondary at best.

I agree Randy - it's also kind of like sports. The mission of most sports teams is to win. Successful sports teams and military organizations must, however, develop objectives in support of their missions.

For example, I am sure that the mission of all pro football (American) teams is to win. The good ones also set specific mesurable objectives beyond their win-loss record for both the season and for individual games and believe that these objectives will drive their improvement and allow them to win.

If a team took the field with only the objective to win it would be chaos. The quarterback may think they are going to win through the air, the running back on the ground, and the kicker by kicking the most field goals. Clearly there must be stated objectives, a plan to meet the objectives and an on-going assessment of how well things are going. Winning (or making a profit) is just not enough.

Jim Wade said:

It is far too simplistic to believe that there is only one objective. And a little depressing to see that view promoted in this place.

rgds Jim

Is it?

Jim you asked if we could agree that there are more than 1 objective....

Sure between all of the areas, I have documented 20 quality objectives, which means that for this year anyway, we have found 20 ways to reduce costs, gain higher market share, improve effeciency, which allows us to sell to customers at a lesser price than our competition while still being more profitable:rolleyes: :ko:

I'm still waiting for you to show me an example of an objective that does not....I know you don't like to be backed into a corner, but come on big guy, show me the objective evidence. Let's play fair, you expect the rest of us to lay our cards out.

Here is another slant that popped into my otherwise empty head.

Perhaps we should consider levels of objectives, as we do with levels of processes. We all no that a process can be broken down into sub-processes, and I am sure we can all realise the limitiations of just defining our business as one big process.

Perhaps the same could be said of objectives, sure our primary objective may be profitability, but to have that as a single objective makes it difficult for us to target our actions to achieving it. If we break our objective of profitability down into objectives for work in progress scrap, customer returns, delivery to request, etc, etc then we have objectives we can actually work with.

Makes sense to me :thedeal: :thedeal: :thedeal:

SteelMaiden said:

I'm still waiting for you to show me an example of an objective that does not....

Steel -

I don't believe that it is an issue of whether or not reducing costs, gaining higher market share, improving efficiency etc... are good objectives and whether or not they all result in making higher profits. Making money is clearly a necessary condition for the survival of most businesses and most (if not all) objectives will ultimately tie to profit.

IMO the real issue behind setting and communicating objectives is identifying priorities and making the organization aware of the few key things that need to improve. I am sure that most of us do not have enough people and resources to work on everything at once. In addition most of us do some things very well and applying our scarce resources to improve things we already do well would benefit the organization little, if any.

If you don't set objectives, develop a plan, and communicate clearly to the organization then you may well end up with a lot of good intentioned people working on random acts of improvement that do not help the organization achieve its objectives in the most effective and efficient way possible.

M Greenaway said:

Perhaps the same could be said of objectives, sure our primary objective may be profitability, but to have that as a single objective makes it difficult for us to target our actions to achieving it. If we break our objective of profitability down into objectives for work in progress scrap, customer returns, delivery to request, etc, etc then we have objectives we can actually work with.

Very well said - if you are currently losing money then profitability may be an objective that needs to be stated and focused on. If you are currently making money then breaking that objective down into smaller more actionable objectives makes a lot of sense.

I don't want to start a semantics debate but I believe that there is a very fine line between mission, goals, and objectives. For the purpose of the QMS it seems that we should be looking at objectives that lead to action (improvement) and go beyond just describing a desired end state.

Ah

Should have known that with such a good idea I must have read it somewhere ;) :) :D

"to be successful in battle"

I don't know if I can agree with this or not Randy. I would agree that on a soldier's level it is correct. Please understand, I'm not trying to make it political or personal.
In 'Nam we were successful in battle but lost the war, IMO mainly due to a lack of a real objective. We would take a hill and give it back in a couple days only to take it back again in a month or so. The upper level objective was win the war, but to lay the ground work, or lower level objectives, was so messed up that a true direction was lost. That's all I want to say about that.
If we put this on a company level, to make a profit is too big an objective to be maintained by just working to that. Also, if each individual is only concerned about "making a profit" you'll get contrasting efforts and end up missing the mark. 1 department takes more time to put out the product causing the next to have less time to do their work and ultimately the company misses a delivery. However, if the management of the company has a plan on how to achieve the objective of making a profit and uses steps to ensure progress then everyone is successful. It is the step to achievement that make the BIG objective reality. The game plan.
Most of us need to reference the picture on the puzzle box once in a while to check our progress (intermediate goals) in order to complete the picture (ultimate goal).

:)

What is the "objective" of a Nonprofit company?

Kevin

P.S. Personally for me, Objectives support business Goals. In many posts here, I have seen Goals stated as Objectives. Perhaps this is just a semantics thing. But are we speaking the same language. Just curious...

What you guys are stating is all well and good, but you still haven't be able to disprove or invalidate my argument (except for our Brit bud who nominally agrees). All of your arguments are supportive of the prime "objective" of business - more $ at the end of the day.

Jim Wade said:

Hi Steel

I'm glad we agree on the point I was making -

As for your question, I think I know what you are asking, but my mother (a politician) taught me

You ask for "an example of a quality objective that will not help the company increase profits, reduce costs, or gain market share"

Q1: what is a 'quality objective', as opposed to some other sort of objective?

Q2: over what period of time are we talking (for example: the duration of the subject objective itself?, the duration of some other linked objective? something else?

rgds Jim

Yes, I was certain that from the way you write, you were from a political family or were a politician yourself
:vfunny: :biglaugh: :rolleyes: :bonk:

I, myself, would probably never admit to that:eek:

What I get from your posts is that no matter what you espouse, depending upon the phase of the moon, high tide on the Thames or whatever...you have separated QMS from the overall business systems. Sorry, I can't do that in clear conscience. The business is a business, all facets are critical to the business. If they are not critical, we must eliminate non-value added processes.

So, what part of my request for an example of an objective that does not support the bottom line do you not understand?

Answer to your Q1 - an objective is an objective, if it pertains to the company there is some way it relates to quality and there is some way it relates to the bottom line. I am sure that there are objectives that really don't belong in a business system i.e. (I'm not afraid to give an example) If you have an objective that you want to get laid twice per week by your secretary. You know what? This is not a business related objective. So now you should understand what I am talking about when I say objective, right, are we clear?

Q2, what duration? Well now I guess that depends on the objective doesn't it. I have documented objectives for a lot of years, and guess what? Some of them show up on the list every year, maybe the amount of change I wish to see varies, maybe not. Duration means jack, except that it sets a baseline measure to compare future measurements for a given period (usually a year, but sometimes a quarter, or a week, whatever)

I can appreciate your methods, and understand that your posts are meant to make people think and widen their views. Hey, I like a good debate as much as the next guy or gal. You are good at it, but I think you owe all of us an honest answer once in a while instead of constantly hiding behind yet another question. You know exactly what my question was, so grow some b*&^s and answer it, in your own opinion, is there a company objective that does not, in the end, boil down to the bottom line?

If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

Kevin:

I can't get the cool quote box to work, but you asked about objectives for non-profits.

Doesn't the lack of the obvious, overall objective (profit) make it even more important, even crucial, for nonprofit (and governmental?) organizations to have clear objectives?

I used to be involved in Jaycees. Great group, but I think that the reason they are having problems keeping members is that the initial stated mission - building leaders - has been lost IMO.

The Red Cross is a great group, no doubt. How does the money taken in for 9/11 victims fit in with their objectives? Is this possibly why they are taking heat for how it has been handled?

Great question, Kevin. Anyone out there with upper-level non-profit experience who can shed some real-world light?

SteelMaiden said:

Hey, I like a good debate as much as the next guy or gal. You are good at it, but I think you owe all of us an honest answer once in a while instead of constantly hiding behind yet another question. You know exactly what my question was, so grow some b*&^s and answer it, in your own opinion, is there a company objective that does not, in the end, boil down to the bottom line?

If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

Jim, Steel, Mike S.,

This statement sums up many of the contentious threads we have had on many subjects. I don't care if I get pinned down, proven wrong or concensus has me totally off the wall. Eventually I concede when I'm handed that contadictory piece of information that caused me to continually argue in the first place. When I make reference to egos, it usually is because of stuff like this. As someone said "Leave the ego at the door". Answer the questions. Asking another question without answering the original question looks like "ducking", "diversion" "evasiveness" and "obvious slight of hand" that fools nobody. Even us dum uns! :bonk: While I'm not proud of it, my dastardly behavior that gets me in trouble is a result (Not all the reasons) of frustration of watching this go on all the time until my soup boils over.

Jim, stop worrying about "winning", you will anyway, most of the time. Just answer the questions.....you have time. I know I answer all yours. Maybe too sarcastically, but I'm working on that! I hope you don't take this personal. It's not meant to be. Look back at some posts, see the questions asked and see the questions you ask in response. No clear cut answers. Just more questions? C'mon, lose one for Gipper! :ko: :smokin: :agree:

If you supply the B3 it would seem that they want you to be a non-profit supplier!!!:vfunny:

overall objective (profit) make it even more important, even crucial, for nonprofit (and governmental?) organizations to have clear objectives?
I don't know about that. I few just re-invest into the organization (i.e. BCBS). They may not be out for a profit but they can hide it if they do.

All of your arguments are supportive of the prime "objective" of business - more $ at the end of the day.
You're right, it the path we take to get there that is being debated. I don't think a company will get there without setting up intermediate goals along the way.

Energy & Steel,

Ever get the feeling you're being ignored? At least YOU got ignored in a nice way!:vfunny: :biglaugh:

I worry Energy might not sleep tonight! :rolleyes:

Mike S. said:

Energy & Steel,

Ever get the feeling you're being ignored? At least YOU got ignored in a nice way!:vfunny: :biglaugh:

I worry Energy might not sleep tonight! :rolleyes:

Yep, I guess I am in some pretty good company. I must have bored someone.

BTW, our e-man will be ok. If only the good die young, us sarcastic folk are likely to live forever!

I don't think they are being ignored...

Steel issued the challenge.

You are good at it, but I think you owe all of us an honest answer once in a while instead of constantly hiding behind yet another question. You know exactly what my question was, so grow some b*&^s and answer it, in your own opinion, is there a company objective that does not, in the end, boil down to the bottom line?


We all know how long it takes to grow b*&^s . Just might take Jim a little longer...:rolleyes:


The anticipation of the reply is killing me...

Craig,

You said something that caught my eye that reminded me of something Dr. Deming said in response to this question, “How do you create a leader?” (asked during one of his seminars where the questioner wanted Dr. Deming’s recipe for creating a leader)

Dr. Deming’s response, “You do not create leaders. They create themselves.”

I wonder if the Jaycee’s mission was ever achievable. Noble yes: achievable no.

What are the objectives of the Red Cross? You could very well be right.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin,

Despite my respect for Dr. Deming, I don't look at each of his opinions/answers as the final word. No one deserves THAT much respect (no mortal, that is). I happen disagree with him (and you I guess?) on this point. Do doubt some, maybe a majority, of leaders "create themselves" for the most part, but I think it is possible for organizations to make leaders out of folks who, without the organization's influence and teachings, would not otherwise have become leaders. One fine example might be our Armed Forces. Yet, some people cannot be effective leaders no matter what. JMO.

IMO, Demings reference to leaders creating themselves relates to the "natural born " leader.
Those indviduals trained to be leaders are only following a sewt of guidelines established by someone else. In essence they are not leaders ,but followers.

Jim Wade said:

O yes they are, Ken.

I'm following Marc's good advice: to ignore negative personal comments, from you or anyone else, aimed at me or my long-dead but much-loved mother.

rgds Jim

Jim,

By you deciding that a post is negative and personal and invoking Cove advice about ignoring the same, you have found yet another avenue to use to avoid answering questions that you can't or are not as intellectually stimulating as yours. Good. But, these little elves will not go away. They will be in every thread where you preach the same thing over and over to ask those trivial nerve wracking questions that end up being personal, in your eyes. See you around.:agree: :ko: :smokin:

Jim Wade said:

OK Mike .... let's say you are right: the purpose of a management system isn't to provide the means to achieve objectives.

Its purpose is, in fact, .....TO MAKE MONEY. HOWEVER, INCREASING PROFITABILITY IS NOT NECESSARILY DEPENDENT ON HAVING WRITTEN OBJECTIVES IN MY QMS SO THAT AN OUTSIDE AGENCY CAN SAY THAT MY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS WOEFULLY LACKING AND DENY ME MY MERIT BADGE.:p

Please fill in (or is it 'out'?) using black ink and capitals.

rgds Jim

BTW I never said the company must fail because of no objectives.....THAT IS TRUE. YOU SAID IT IS THE WORST THING YOU CAN IMAGINE-WELL, ER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I'M NOT GOING BACK TO CHECK AND RUIN THIS EXCELLENT POST :vfunny:

Jim,

Can I try. See above.

See how easy it is Mike S.? I kind of like this method of filling in the blanks. Peace y'all.:ko: :smokin:

NYHawkeye said:

Steel -

Making money is clearly a necessary condition for the survival of most businesses and most (if not all) objectives will ultimately tie to profit.



It's right there, Pussy Cat. :biglaugh: The rest of it looks good, too, but all boils down to money. To let any of the other "objectives" lapse/decline may cause you to lose money and run an unprofitable business.
As for Jim's reluctance to commit on this issue, he hates the word "Quality". maybe even people with "Quality" in their titles. Gee, I hope not. :eek: If you had substituted it for the word "business", your query may have been successful. :agree: :ko: :smokin:

Jim Wade said:

I'll repeat what I have already said... profit is never the only objective.



I know. I really liked Steel's suggestion regarding a non-monetary objective. makes one really want to go to work!
:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

Mike S. said:

Jim,

Lean started things by saying that some companies get certs for their QMS with a major NC present - specifically no written objectives in the QMS documentation. Lean sees that as a problem -- so do I. So far, so good. But then you up the ante by a ton saying the lack of written objectives are "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine".



Mike S.,

As I re-read the earlier posts, trying to figure how we got to monetary vs. all the other "honorable and noble" objectives Jim has pointed to in his latest post, this quote was the one you mentioned in regards to "written" objectives:

Lean said this...

2. How certification is anything other than verifying conformity to requirements. And while you’re at it, you might want to enlighten us as to why many of the certifications done so far contain a major nonconformity – the lack of objectives. As the late Dr. Eicher of ISO said, “ a system without objectives clearly cannot possibly deliver quality.”

Is this where the word "written" objectives came from , or was it another post? If it was this, a few of us (Me, too) have been spinning our wheels in vain. It appears that "lack of objectives" may be more than just not having them written down. Maybe Lean can come back and comment on that. By the way, have we seen him/her lately?:rolleyes:
In fact, after posting this I went back to see Lean's post and there is only one. The thread starter!! It's like throwing a firecracker into the chicken coop or chucking a piece of meat into a pack of dogs. You then just sit back and watch the fun. I think weez bin had, real good!
:ko: :smokin:

Yeah,

Even though the name of this forum is "Philosophy, Gurus, Controversy and Evolution" , We needn't take it literally...;)

/Claes

Good advice Claes.

Which we could apply to ISO9001 itself, although it says its a standard on the cover we neednt take it literally..........

...... oh no here we go again :biglaugh:

Mike,

You’ll have to forgive me, but I have been playing my Deming tapes in the background last week (stuff on the radio here is sometimes unbearable). Nonetheless, Dr. Deming is one mortal I have immense respect for and, in keeping with my general practice, I like to give credit to the folks who have shaped my thinking when I use their thoughts.

I guess my question for you is what is your definition of a Leader? I’ll admit that many extrinsic influences can make an impression on a person, but the Vision itself is the most personal part of a Leader, and something the individual creates and is intrinsic in nature. I think that it is the difference between Inspiration and Motivation.

Regards,

Kevin

Jim Wade said:

The 'written objectives' part of this argument was one of at least two things invented along the way; both by the same person (who has done that before elsewhere).

That person, and the rest of us, could take a leaf from your book, energy: let us read carefully what is written to make sure it is understood before launching into attack mode.

rgds Jim
Jim,

I don't think ANY participant in this thread objects to having their name mentioned in regards to what they have said/done in this thread (or others), as long as it is associated with factual information. I'm going to guess you are referring to me since I think I started actually using the word "written" in this thread. Or, to use your words, chosen because they sound more sinister, "invented along the way." If you objected to the word "written" why wait until dozens more posts are posted before objecting? Did it take that long for you to come up with a diversionary excuse for your refusing to answer simple, straightforward, relevant questions?

I submit that it was quite reasonable and appropriate to assume that you were referring to a lack of "written" objectives.

Lean brought up the lack of objectives with this post:

"And while you’re at it, you might want to enlighten us as to why many of the certifications done so far contain a major nonconformity – the lack of objectives."

I figured he is complaining that the objectives are not listed in any of the QMS documentation yet they still got a cert. So, why is it a great leap of logic to think he is referring to "WRITTEN" objectives? Did the auditors accept verbal objectives as being okay to meet the requirements of the standard? Gimme a break.

Next, Jim, you said "A tiny criticism, Lean. I suggest the word 'many' in the above sentence should be 'most'.
It appears that many auditors don't understand what an objective is; they seem to think that simply to mention the word in the 'quality' policy does the trick. This particular shortcoming is not only a major nonconformity, it's also just about the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine! Since the purpose of the system is to provide the means for achieving objectives, giving a certificate to a company with no objectives is simply obscene."

Again, in your own words, you are referring to lack of objectives in the QMS which, to most reasonable people, means they were not written down. (If someone told any of us that a company was given a major NC by a registrar auditor for the total lack of a quality policy wouldn't nearly everyone assume that the quality policy was not WRITTEN down, and that even if the MR was able to quote a quality policy verbally this would not be acceptable? Or is this unacceptably "inventing" things???):rolleyes:

Finally, I asked you a simple question that wasn't too boring or irrelevant (or difficult?) for you, clearly mentioning the word "WRITTEN": "Jim, Do you seriously think the lack of a written objective in your QMS is "obscene" and "the most damaging lack in a 'quality' management system that one could imagine?"

To which you replied succinctly: "Er ... yes."

So, Jim, don't go acting wounded and misunderstood and try to deflect attention to someone else whom you accuse of inappropriately "inventing" things along the way. I thought you were smart enough to read, comprehend, and follow along with what was being said and if you came upon something that you did not completely understand or something that you thought was "invented" or inappropriately injected into the thread you could have done what you so very often, asked a question requesting clarification. But instead, you gave a simple and direct answer with no concern over the word "written".

Finally, I invite you to cite the instances where I have supposedly "done that before elsewhere". Don't imply wrongdoing by someone if you're not willing to be specific. I imagine we'll once again find no fire to accompany your smokescreen.

Lean raises a very interesting question: how many organizations are registered without verifiable Objectives?

Having written objectives is nothing new to this latest release of ISO9000:2000. It has been a requirement since the 1987 document. Only in this release, higher emphasis has been placed on this need. I guess that the intention is that, if we give it greater emphasis in this release, then folks will have to do it. They have always had to do it, expressed or implied.

Writing down things help to serve as reminders, especially when we lose our way, is not a bad thing. However, my guess it that if one has to write down everything, then it might be that their isn’t a clear Vision of what needs doing. To make a Vision reality, one must adopt things intrinsically and pursue the Vision. They must understand the purpose and meaning to the work. While this is good for one, or maybe a business culture, objectively it is difficult to prove to an outsider, especially those who want quantitative data or are hung up on the need to measure everything. The notion that nothing can be improved without measuring it is simply false. This aside, the registrar is looking for established and written objectives and measurement systems kicking back data for analysis and presentation. It takes a good deal less effort when someone hands you these things than it is to do the true in depth investigation required to determine progress. Personally, I think it is the obligation of the auditor to do this work. Nonetheless, if these measurement systems exist for the purposes of advancing and improving the system, then it should be a basic formalization process in ones Quality Program to make it easier and less subjective.

Just a few thoughts.

Regards,

Kevin

Lean should explain where he/she got that information from. It's easy to spout off without the facts. :p Having said that, I propose that it could be that "lack of objectives" may be that not seeing "written" objectives/goals (forget the subtle differences), auditors then ask the questions "What are your goals/ objectives and are they measurable?" Not being able to procure a satisfactory answer for both and recommending the Company for Certification is absurd. What Auditor would do such a thing? This is another "view" provided by someone who imagines that this is going on. We should be careful about carrying this "fact" too far until an example or further explanation is forthcoming. It's akin to me saying saying that Authorities have captured bank robbers and refuse to prosecute. It flies in the face of standard practice.
It's like another statement I read here in the Cove regarding the "practice" of using linked procedures/processes to satisfy process interaction as being a no no. (I disagree with it anyway.) Save it for one the "Process" threads. The point being, have you intimate knowledge of it? If not, is it a case of letting your imagination run wild?:vfunny: :ko: :smokin:

Energy,

You may be right -- I have seen no PROOF either way to say whether there are certs being given out without objectives present. Regardless, my focus was on Jim's statement that lack of objectives is the worst lack in a QMS that you can have (or something to that effect) which I think is absurd. The only thing I can show proof of is that documented (written) objectives are an ISO 9001:2000 requirement.

Jim Wade said:

Hi Mike

Sure, here's a further specific from this very thread...

I wrote: I believe that the purpose of a management system is to help us achieve our objectives. It follows that having no objectives means that the system has no purpose and therefore must fail.

You replied: Just because some company does not have written objectives DOES NOT mean it "has no purpose and therefore MUST fail"

As I pointed out at the time, I said "system", but you replaced it with "company". A system can fail (as many ISO 900x-based systems do fail; our colleague lean is correct IMO) without the company failing.

rgds Jim

Okay, Jim, I'll buy that one. I mistakenly thought you were saying that the company would fail while, upon closer examination, I see I was wrong. :eek:

However, your statement "The 'written objectives' part of this argument was one of at least two things invented along the way; both by the same person (who has done that before elsewhere)" seems to imply that I make a habit of "inventing things along the way" which are inappropriate (i.e. "at least two things" in this thread and also "elsewhere" who knows how many times more). Yet only one example cited. Hmmmm..... But okay, I'll still play.

This is the kind of reply I expected -- defend always and forever your position despite any facts to the contrary or questions presented and dodge any uncomfortable questions. Since you did it to Steel (and others) as well, at least I know it's not personal. I never cease to be amazed, though, at your uncanny ability to dodge any issue where you are uncomfortable and just continue on as though nothing ever happened, exuding confidence all the way. I can't imagine that is a simple skill to perfect. Some people might not be able to look in the mirror if they did that.

Nevertheless, at least the regulars in the Cove know and understand you and your ways and are able to temper your rhetoric for any new and/or inexperienced people who might be misled by some of your wilder rantings. The goal is that both sides get presented so they can make up their own minds. Too often the press is one-sided. Thankfully it does not need to be that way here in the Cove.

BTW -- I wonder if "lean" didn't really stop posting, he just went back to his original screen name????:confused:

Jim Wade said:

But I have examined hundreds of registered systems and I KNOW that the majority of those have no written objectives. Part of the problem may have been that, since earlier versions of the 'standard' didn't actually specify that the objectives have to be measurable, auditors - who are often not business people - may have confused vague aspirational statements with objectives.
rgds Jim

Jim,

Not that I'm saying you are wrong here, you may be right, but forgive me if before I'd take this as gospel ("hundreds of registered systems" with "no WRITTEN objectives") I'd have to see them myself or have the opinion of an impartial and knowledgable third party. (BTW - Interesting your use of the words "WRITTEN objectives" there!) You can be so strtongly opinionated that what the majority would consider as acceptable you might consider unacceptable due to your sometimes narrow interpretations. Perhaps you can cite some other sources or point us to examples?

I am a bit lost.

Are we all agreeing that we need quantifiable objectives ?

Are we arguing that they dont need to be written down ??

Is our stance on the argument on 'written' objectives based on a perception of what ISO9001 says, or what we consider best practice ???

And are we arguing that a lack of objectives is not the most damaging thing to our system/business ????

And does are agrument on the lack of objectives being serious come from a view of the health of the business, or specific product quality ?????

Or none of the above ??????

Mike S. said:

BTW -- I wonder if "lean" didn't really stop posting, he just went back to his original screen name????:confused:

Mike S.

You think? Any ideas on who that may be? Wouldn't be that hard if you registered with a sibling's computer. :vfunny: Pretty shifty thing to do. The field narrows somewhat because Lean posted from Canada. HMMMMM. You are a piece of work! Naturally, I like that. :vfunny: :agree: :ko: :smokin:

Well its my hunch that energy, Mike S and the other Mike are one and the same as well :biglaugh:

M Greenaway said:

I am a bit lost.

{I get that way sometimes, too, no shame.}

Are we all agreeing that we need quantifiable objectives ?

{Yes, at least I agree.}

Are we arguing that they dont need to be written down ??

{My thought is that for ISO 9001 they MUST be written down, and for good practice outside of ISO requirements they SHOULD be written down. However, I submit that even in organizations where they are not written down there still exist objectives, but in perhaps a more ambiguous and less ideal form. IMO no one opens or runs a business with no objectives at all, and I tried to provide examples in an earlier post.}

Is our stance on the argument on 'written' objectives based on a perception of what ISO9001 says, or what we consider best practice ???

{Both, see above.}

And are we arguing that a lack of objectives is not the most damaging thing to our system/business ????

{YES!}

And does are agrument on the lack of objectives being serious come from a view of the health of the business, or specific product quality ?????

{Both. They are linked anyway. But regardless, can't just about anyone think of many worse things for the overall health of a business or specific product quality than the lack of written objectives? Again, I say "WRITTEN" because I submit that all (or 99.9% of all) businesses have objectives, either written, unwritten, or both.}

Or none of the above ??????

ah OK

So are you saying that an objective can still be effective even if it is not written down ?

It can be, Martin, IMO. I know personally some small business owners who have prospered for decades who have no written objectives at all (never had any), yet they do have objectives in their minds. They are happy, they are successful, they give to the community, they are satisfied with their life and their business. Could they have been even more successful if they had written objectives for decades? Only God knows.

Ah

So in the context of a small business we may consider the need for formal communication of business objectives unnecessary ?

Maybe, not wanting to drag this thread off course, do we consider therefore that ISO9001 is essentially a big business tool only ??

M Greenaway said:

Ah

So in the context of a small business we may consider the need for formal communication of business objectives unnecessary ?

Maybe, not wanting to drag this thread off course, do we consider therefore that ISO9001 is essentially a big business tool only ??
Aaagggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Are we speaking the same language??? Am I such a poor communicator that I cannot get across a simple point? Or is there a UK conspiracy to drive from me what little sanity I have left?:biglaugh:

ISO is or can be a good tool for businesses of all sizes. I only have personal knowledge of small companies with no written objectives. I am quite certain, however, there are successful businesses of most all sizes that have no written objectives, though it gets less likely as the size grows as this is often a requirement of investors, boards of directors, banks, and upper-level bureaucrats which are more prevalent in larger companies.

Martin, you're also taking the tack of asking lots of questions. How about giving your opinion?

Mike

I tend to get beaten up when I state an opinion, so my new tactic is to just ask questions.

Interesting that you say you only have experience of small companies. That may well be where our differences of opinion come from on certain issues.

I have worked for small companies, and huge multi-nationals - as a great man once said 'one size does not fit all' (or words to that effect).

I think the importance of communicating clear objectives does increase as the size and therefore complexity of an organisation increases. I cannot imagine an Operations Manager (or other senior 'top management' bod) walking around to 500 employees to tell them what their objectives are, how well they are doing, and what the plan is of achieving the objectives.

Hey Jim. No worries here. There are more distressing things going on in my life to let this one qualify. ;)

I have read a few different definitions myself over the years, but I guess I most relate to Philip Crosby’s definition of a leader as he defines in his book, The Absolutes of Leadership.

Crosby believed that we might be leaders in one segment while not in others. While everyone has the ability to be a leader, only a few will spend a majority of their time in the leader’s position to be recognized as a ‘leader’. He also stated that we move about between 5 types of leadership, where as we are most notably recognized by our predominant type. It was a good book for me and a quick read at that. Most here will buzz through it in 2-4 hours.

For me, leaders aren’t born. They generate themselves. But we digress. Perhaps this topic would be worthy of another thread??

Regards,

Kevin

From the U.S. Marine corps website; Leadership.:)

Jim Wade said:

Yes - I think so, Kevin

Will you do the honors?

rgds Jim

Uh, before we go. I think Sam's post regarding leadership qualities for the marines is informative. I was especially fond of :

tact
integrity
unselfishness
knowledge (key)
know yourself and seek self improvement
bearing

Looking at those requirements, I now know why I joined the Navy. Having said that, ex-jarheads I have met must have left those qualities in the Corp. Not you, Sam. Randy? Never met him. But, I'm thinking tact here. :vfunny:

O.K. Kevin, do your thing, Super Seymour Moderator. :ko: :smokin: :rolleyes:

Mike S.

You think? Any ideas on who that may be? Wouldn't be that hard if you registered with a sibling's computer. :vfunny: Pretty shifty thing to do. The field narrows somewhat because Lean posted from Canada. HMMMMM. You are a piece of work! Naturally, I like that. :vfunny: :agree: :ko: :smokin:

Mike-

I think our buddy (a.k.a. Lean) is also our new friend Systems_Thinker who posted an initial offering on "Systems Thinking" several weeks ago Why do I think this? They are both from Canada and look at the salutations that each of them use (Cheers!).

Tom

From the U.S. Marine corps website; Leadership.:)
Nice attachment. Thanks, sam!