Can anyone adequately define what should go into a strategic business plan, and what should be set as strategic business objectives as opposed to quality objectives ?

Even the hallowed ISO9004 appears to make a distinction, but what is it ?

Strategic is pretty much considered to be a long term process

M Greenaway said:

Can anyone adequately define what should go into a strategic business plan, and what should be set as strategic business objectives as opposed to quality objectives ?

Even the hallowed ISO9004 appears to make a distinction, but what is it ?

JMHO. What i would like to see in strategic planning is where are you today and where do you want to be in the future and what steps are you going to take to get there. Quality/Business objectives- what makes sense to your company what would you like to acheive during the business year what are your goals for this year. Do you want to improve your on-time delivery rate, improve the effectivness of your quality system, break into a new market or increase your market share, do you want to decrease errors in your product, have you had a problem in the past with Corrective Actions not being addressed that could be a goal as well, your company is unique and your goals and objectives should fit you. If an auditor does not like your goals/objectives and planning (as long as they seem reasonable) that is too bad nothing says they have to like them just that you have to have them.

Can anyone adequately define what should go into a strategic business plan, and what should be set as strategic business objectives as opposed to quality objectives ?

I think you are talking two different things. "Objectives" are the outcomes you seek. skullsike's "To make a profit!", for example. The "Plan" is how you intend in achieving the objective. There are two levels of plans. "Strategic" plans are long range plans, normally associated with "terminal" (or final) objectives. "Tactical" plans are short-term and focused on "intermediate" objectives that keep us on track to the terminal objectives.

IMNSHO

My thinking is they are the same thing.

To point to a business plan and say these are our business objectives, and then to another document and say these are our quality objectives seems somewhat daft.

Strategic planning? I miss one thing among the stuff mentioned above...

The basic business idea... The idea or ideas that forms the very foundation of, or maybe even got the company started in the fist place. Surely we need to review that, and decide if it's still sound before any visions, strategys, policys or objectives of any kind can be set? If it is not, no amount of planning will help.

An example: I'm sure that manufacturers of horse shoes got something to think about when automobiles became common... Not at once of course, but log term: :eek:

/Claes

M Greenaway said: To point to a business plan and say these are our business objectives, and then to another document and say these are our quality objectives seems somewhat daft.
I agree. It is unhelpful to make a distinction of that sort --- between business objectives and quality objectives.

When we know what our objectives are, it gives us an exact and precise definition of "quality".

M Greenaway said:

To point to a business plan and say these are our business objectives, and then to another document and say these are our quality objectives seems somewhat daft.



I would agree with what I believe most people are saying in this thread - at the highest level the quality objectives can and should be the same as business objectives. That is, all parts of the business should share a common high level vision and set of strategic objectives.

Where the distinction can be drawn, however, is not on what needs to be achieved but on how it will be achieved. For example, if a company has a business objective of growing by entering a new market the "quality" system can play a key role in getting the business processes positioned to succeed in the new market. The quality objectives can be used to ensure that the business processes are capable of achieving whatever the new market requires whether it be higher reliability, faster delivery, better service, etc...

Simply saying that the business objectives and the quality objectives are the same may be correct but it is not enough. The gap between current performance and desired performance should be analyzed, objectives should be developed to close the gaps, and actions taken to meet the objectives. The quality management system can be used to close the business process gaps.

In my opinion, they differ. Quality objectives and planning run parallel with business objectives and planning, with quality objectives being obviously more customer focused, while business planning tends to lean towards the financial management, marketing, and profitability of an organization. Balance it out, then you're hittin on all cylinders. ISO 9001 doesn't guarantee profitability. When not implemented correctly, it can be a large expense. ISO 9001 really doesn't touch on marketing and profitability very much, just pleasing the customers that you already have, but your strategic business plan better!

Strategic planning:

The process by which an organization envisions its future and develops strategies, goals, objectives and action plans to achieve that future.

I think if we combine Randy's definition with Freddie's thoughts we are real close.

Strategic planning is the process by which an organization envisions its future and develops strategies, goals, objectives and action plans to achieve that future. Strategic business objectives are generally focused on financial management, marketing, and profitability while strategic quality objectives focus on satisfying current and future customers. Strategic business and quality objectives may focus on different areas but share a common vision and direction.

Jim Wade said: From an up-to-date viewpoint of 'quality', Freddie's statement is untrue, as an examination of either Baldrige of the EFQM Model will show.

Freddiem11's statement might be inconsistent with Baldrige, or the EFQM Model, however that does not make his statement untrue.

If we look at quality objectives as a sub-set, of the overall business plan then we will see that "quality" and "business" are in fact the same. The quality side of things helps support the business side of things. The comment of "balancing it out" should not be under rated.

I am not impressed by MB. Just like companies that just "go for the flag" in ISO, most of the emphasis I see with Baldrige is centered around companies that just "go for the award". In end result is still the same. The focus becomes the "flag" or the "award", rather than the benefits from having a system you can benefit from.

Kinda reminds me of folks who go on a diet to lose X number of lbs. They might get to the desired weigt, but other than a few lbs lighter, there is no change. The real winners are the ones who change their lifestyle. The weight loss is a by-product of the change. ISO/Baldrige should be the same. They should be by-products of a good operating system, not the ends.

Hi!

If I may, there is something from an earlier post that I would like to add to. There are actually three main levels of planning (well, really more than that, but these are the three tought in Business School): Strategic, Tactical, and Operational. The last one hasn't been mentioned.

Like many labels of this sort, drawing the line between them can sometimes be hard to do, though.

Craig

If you look at this debate from a systems perspective then you can conclude that there is really no difference between a "business" objective and a "quality" objective.

If this is true then why do we tend to divide objectives into categories such as business, quality, etc... ? While it would be nice to always look at the complete system directly it is just not feasible. If the system is not broken down in various ways then it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure how well it is operating in order to identify those things that need to be done for improvement.

The typical problem with breaking the system into components, however, is that the once the components are established they tend to take on a life of their own and become less and less related to the overall system. Pretty soon the components are all meeting their objectives but the system is stagnate or worse yet, deteriorating.

So.....I believe that you can group your objectives into whatever categories you are comfortable with - just make sure that they really support the mission and objectives of the overall system and continue to do so in the future.

db said: I am not impressed by MB. Just like companies that just "go for the flag" in ISO, most of the emphasis I see with Baldrige is centered around companies that just "go for the award". In end result is still the same. The focus becomes the "flag" or the "award", rather than the benefits from having a system you can benefit from.
That may be so for Baldrige, although I am surprised to hear it.

But is not so in the case of he EFQM Model. Very few organisations proceed to seek an award. Most focus on a process of improvement through self assessment

db said: ISO/Baldrige should be the same. They should be by-products of a good operating system, not the ends.

Agreed, but that ideal is harder to achieve in the ISO 9000 environment because of the fact that go/nogo certification is the norm. The EFQM, and Baldrige, models encourage continual improvement along a sliding scale (0 - 1000).

Skullsite said it in a nutshell:

A companies purpose is to make a profit.

Strategic plans need to fit into the scope of profit, and this almost always means supplying a quality product, ensuring a stable workforce, controlling suppliers, and giving the customer what they bargained for.

Strategic plans are for deciding what "market" to persue, currently or in the near and far future. Quality manuals, procedures, key measurables etc... are tools to meet short and long term quality goals.

Example:

ISO9000 company XYZ supplying wire to a hardware company has a long term goal to supply the automotive industry with their product. They must first determine the new requirements for going to the next step and how to achieve them (tools)

I guess most would call it a business plan, separate from day to day activities but using day to day tools to monitor the direction they they have planned for the company.

Al...

Jim,

Ask any business owner why he/she is in business, it is to make money. They may be captains of industry or consultants, they have one thing in mind$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Which is good!!!:bigwave:

Sorry your managers don't think making money is the cornerstone of business. I guess they just funnel all the profits into increased wages!?

You'll have to forgive me, Al, but my mother tongue is English so I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that "making money is the cornerstone of business" and that business owners "have one thing in mind $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$".

In what way precisely is money the 'cornerstone'? Are there no other stones?

What does having only $$$$ 'in mind' mean exactly? Do these business owners think of nothing else?

In plain English, do you mean that profit is the only objective of a business? If not, what do you mean?

Confused of Ballykissangel :confused:

Tom Harris said:

In plain English, do you mean that profit is the only objective of a business? If not, what do you mean?

Confused of Ballykissangel :confused:

Tom,

While I can't speak for him, I believe that is exactly what Al is saying. All the other things that happen like creating jobs, supporting the community and other nice fluffy sounding phrases are a result of being prosperous. We can say things like like 40% Customer Results, 18% People Results, 12% Society Results, 30% Key Performance Results [includes profitability]. To me, and I'm not sure about Al, these things are only tossed about by those who have a vested interest in making it sound very professional in the hopes of suckering in a client to convince them that they can do more than just make money. In plain English, without the capital, these other things don't happen. But, if all these normal occurances work well, you should make more money. That's basic business. You can make it difficult to understand because a lot of people make their living doing just that, or focus on making more money and the community will benefit. I expect a lot of flak and smoke about how there is more to it than that, but I'm watching a fledgling business getting started and will tell you, without money there will be no donations to causes, no new hires, and (OH MY GOD), no Key Performance results! :vfunny: :agree:

I believe that everyone is getting too focused on trying to reach agreement on what the true "purpose" of business is.

I think it depends on your perspective. If you are a shareholder then profit may be the purpose of the business in your eyes. If you are an employee then stable employment may be the purpose. If you are a local politician then community involvement may be the purpose. If you are a customer then good products may be the purpose.........

I would suggest that the debate should not be focused on the purpose of a business but rather gaining a better understanding of what conditions are required for success. No matter if you are a customer, employee, manager, shareholder, or politician there should be some common set of conditions that we would all agree are necessary for a business to be successful and continue into the future.

IMO, both the Baldrige and EFQM models present a pretty good picture of the conditions (satisfied customers, profit, good community involvement, stable employement,...) that must be present for a business to be successful regardless of how you define success.

Pick any purpose you want - the other conditions are still required for you to achieve success.

Jim Wade said:

Would you agree that, as part of agreeing a particular set of conditions, it would be normal and natural and correct to establish a set of objectives and measures and so on that help us know the degree to which we are achieving the conditions?



Absolutely.

Objectives and measures must be set not only to let us know to what degree we are achieving the conditions but also to help prioritize our improvement plans.

The key thing to remember is that these conditions are all interrelated. It is too easy to believe that as long as we are profitable that everything else will take care of itself or as long as we have satisfied customers that we will be profitable. The required conditions need to be continually monitored and improved.

All of the conditions are necessary and dependent on one another - they must be managed as a system.

NYHawkeye said:
---X---
It is too easy to believe that as long as we are profitable that everything else will take care of itself or as long as we have satisfied customers that we will be profitable. The required conditions need to be continually monitored and improved.
---X---


Yes... Very true and well worth mentioning...

/Claes

Since we’re on the subject of the all mighty $, I would appreciate some opinions on attaching quality objectives to pay. Our company has a year-end incentive program where if pre-defined objectives are met, a bonus check will awarded. Several mangers have defined quality objectives to this reward system. If the objective for the order entry group is to reduce order entry mistakes by 20%, then the order entry person may be inclined to cover up such mistakes in order to ensure the 20% reduction. The manager says that their department quality manual states that “all employees are required to report all quality problems” and no one would dare violate this rule. Does this system run contrary to the quality system? Is an outside auditor able to declare this a non-conformance? My lead (RAB certified) auditor says it runs contrary to the intent of the corrective action system, the managers like to use this “incentive”. What’s a management rep to do?

Rgds,
Todd

I would have to go along with your auditor. I don't think the $ incentive goes along way in promoting quality unless it is linked to customer returns. As for finding a nonconformance, if the external auditor can't support the finding with evidence that s/he is covering up issues then it shouldn't be a NC. Just because you or I "FEEL" it is contrary, without back up data that's all it is - feelings. Nothing more than feelings, oops got carried away:vfunny: .

Now for the other part of this thread.
Whether it is personal, family, business, etc., a plan must have goals. We have to have a way to gauge success, progress and failure. As a business we may take a job and break even just to show another potential customer that we can do the work. The long term may be for profit but the short term was new customers. We need to show our steps towards the mark not just that we've arrived. From the business goals we develop plans to get to intermediate steps or objectives, these in turn help to keep us on track.
A company may have a goal to increase it's marketshare. That should result in more profit, but it may just solidify longevity. Maintain the profit but have to spend more money in equipment and people. So I don't think profit is the only goal of business.

It is quite possible for non-profit organizations to implement Quality Management Systems, and even win quality awards. ISO purposely used the word "organization" vice "company". Be sure to see the big picture you company guys! Remember, MB and ISO 9001 have stretched into the educational arena, state and federal government agencies, etc. My government organization is not allowed to make a profit, so it's not even on our list of objectives, either list. We are strictly time and materials. However, our business objectives exist in the form of capturing marketshare, providing value, supporting our customer's (and the fed government's) mission, and reducing labor rate. All of these run parallel to the quality management system objectives of reducing waste/rework, meeting customer requirements, and continually improving our processes. People who think that government agencies can't be competitive with the private sector are sadly mistaken. It just took some time to catch up with the lates trends(remember , we still have TQM), which are sure to change!:vfunny:

NYHawkeye said:
...
The key thing to remember is that these conditions are all interrelated. It is too easy to believe that as long as we are profitable that everything else will take care of itself or as long as we have satisfied customers that we will be profitable. The required conditions need to be continually monitored and improved.
...


And that's where stragetic planning comes into play. The goal of any business is to make money. As a shareholder, I want the shares to be higher than what I bought at. As an employee, I want to continue bringing a paycheck. As a politician, I want an organization that will encourage people to spend money.

So I made money this year....great! Strategic planning sessions will basically say that I still want to be making money five years from now. Now I need to detail the steps that will ensure my strategy is a success.

This most likely means implementing some funky new tools to evolve my system...ahem....continually improve. Quality Objectives...reduce rework by x% by 200y...develop new applications/Customer base by z% by 200a....and so on. Key Indicators, measurables, goals will be implemented.

A structured Management System will be developed, implemented and maintained to provide the foundation for my continual improvement and thus lead to my strategic planning being a resounding success.

Yes, they all interrelate...but the underlying reason for all of this is money.

Should I create a company, I do it because (a) it's something I like to do and (b) MONEY. The fact that I have happy Customers, thrilled Shareholders, deliriously enthuasiatic Employees, a supportive Communitity, and a tickled-pink Politician....hey...that's all icing on the cake.

Blame Humanity for placing such emphasis on economic standing, but we've been this way since our neanderthal ancestors first traded something they had for something they wanted.

Do people or entities go into business to lose money?

Do they go into business to ensure people have jobs?

Do they go into business because it is in the "public good"

Do they go into business to make friends?

Do they go into business so they can pay taxes?

Do they go into business because of altruism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO to all of the above!


Profit has to be the cornerstone of a business entity otherwise there is no use in going into business.

No profit = no insurance, no payrolls, no donations, no new capital investments that help make other companies profitable.

Profit enables employers to increase wages, add benefits, and improve workplaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Does a business have responsibility to the community in which they are located? YES, and it is mandated through local taxes for the privalige of doing business.

After a business is charged taxes, what is the rationality of donating more to the community? Simple, public good that will draw new customers and thereby increasing profit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, what happens when a company does not make a profit?? Any takers.

And yes Tom, you are very confused, have I taken Energy's place on your ****e list???:biglaugh: :rolleyes:

Al...

Al Dyer said:

Profit has to be the cornerstone of a business entity otherwise there is no use in going into business.



Al -

I think that you can find many examples out there where an entrepreneur started a business with very little or no consideration for profit. In fact, in the high tech world I think many people start up new businesses simply because they love innovation and seeing new things created. Often, they don't even realize that they are starting a company. Granted, to survive these businesses must eventually address the need for profits but the initial spark has nothing to do with making money.

If people only started businesses based on making profit I am afraid we would miss out on many innovative breakthroughs. Clearly, I could never argue that making a profit is not a necessary condition for the survival of a business. To say that it must be the cornerstone for starting a business is a little strong in my opinion.

There are a number of elements that must be balanced for the survival of a company and the importance of each element is different for different people and can change as a business grows and matures.

I repeat my question to you, Al

Do you mean that profit is the only objective of a business? [YES or NO]

Assuming (as far as I can decode what you write) that your answer is YES, here is why I disagree....

It is necessary to differentiate between:

a) recognising that a business (over time) needs to generate money in order to survive. No question about that.

b) recognising that, over any one period of its operation, having only one objective or goal (whether it's profit or whether it's not) is - to put it mildly - not good practice.

Making money is necessary and some objectives are directly related to profit. But it is never the single objective or goal of a [legal, quality-oriented] organisation to make money. In fact, it is perfectly feasible and normal for businesses, sometimes by design, to operate at a loss for a period.

Most [legal, quality-oriented] companies always have a range of objectives, all of which are important for the organisation to survive - the real "cornerstone"!

ADDED: just saw NYH's reply. I think he says it better. And he's a Yank and so will no doubt carry more weight. ;)

RCBeyette said:

Yes, they all interrelate...but the underlying reason for all of this is money.



Nicely said...that's what was orginally implied before those that make a living at spending other people's money touted their beliefs. We have the same old twisting words and votes for and against this and that which mean jacks**t, except to those that aspire to confound the poor masses with their philosophical car wash.

I also like this:

Al D says,

Do people or entities go into business to lose money?

Do they go into business to ensure people have jobs?

Do they go into business because it is in the "public good"

Do they go into business to make friends?

Do they go into business so they can pay taxes?

Do they go into business because of altruism?

Not as polished as some of the experts here, but it will do. How many of these philosophers are running their own businesses? Maybe one. And that business is to convince others that they can't possibly manage theirs without his help!$$$ OOPS! That's profit! :vfunny:

Tom Harris said:

Making money is necessary and some objectives are directly related to profit. But it is never the single objective or goal of a [legal, quality-oriented] organisation to make money.



Darn - you had to add that part about legal!

I was going to use ENRON as an example of a business that had only one objective. ;)

NYHawkeye said:

Darn - you had to add that part about legal!

I was going to use ENRON as an example of a business that had only one objective. ;)
Aha!

To tell the truth, I had drug-running in mind (someone else's example somewhere here, I think). But these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Other exceptional examples are, presumably, any businesses that Al or energy have managed in the past or (and the blood freezes in your veins at the thought of it) will manage in the future, Bet you'd keep your resume up to date if you found yourself employed there, huh? ;)

Here is a pretty good example of balanced corporate objectives.

http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/corpobj.html

Interesting - the purpose of profit is "to finance our company growth, create value for our shareholders and provide the resources we need to achieve our other corporate objectives."

Profit is not the end objective but rather an enabler for the other objectives.

Originally posted by Tom Harris
Aha!
Other exceptional examples are, presumably, any businesses that Al or energy have managed in the past or (and the blood freezes in your veins at the thought of it) will manage in the future, Bet you'd keep your resume up to date if you found yourself employed there, huh? ;)


Originally posted by Jim Wade
Hmmm.
Do I put my trust in the likes of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard and now Carly Fiorina?

Or do I believe our own Bill and Al?

Tough call. :biglaugh:

rgds Jim


Okay, I'll say it, Al. It seems we're heading down the rocky road again. It seems that these egotistical P****s from across the great Ocean want to antagonize again by using member's names to get their little holier than thou philosophical messages through to those they think pay attention. While we discussed profit as the underlying factor for being in business, there were no reference to any individuals. You're crossing the line, Girls. If we want to start down that path again, I'm more than willing. Pat yourselves on the back all you want...tell each other how smart you are. If you want to throw those not so veiled insults at me or anybody else, you can expect retaliation of the sorts that get everybody all stirred up. What I'm seeing, reminds me of a saying, "A Leopard never changes its spots, just locations.":smokin:

OK - so I shouldn't have named names. Sorry.

Here's what I should have said:

"Other exceptional examples are, presumably, any business run by anyone ill-informed enough to seriously believe that profit is the sole objective".

If the cap fits... ;)

So, would you argue that HP boss Carly has it wrong and these other ill-informed people (that for some reason we mustn't name) have got it right?

"Not so veiled insults" is absolutely correct. As those that post are from sods from an ultra-socialistic, pompous society, I take it with a grain of salt. Look, I see that Mr. Thumb has dropped another brilliant load of wisdom.:rolleyes:

What are the tax rates on businesses and business owners on the island these days, 80%-90%? They still go into into business although profitability must be tough. They must be very altruistic to want to feed the government which then feeds the people after they take their cut.

This thread was very good until a couple of people got scewered for posting their opinions which led to personal attacks.

If you really wish to haxh it out be man enough to take it to another thread and a Energy and I will make our feeling very clear to you. Now go "spend a penny" and sod off. :thedeal:

Originally posted by Al Dyer

Now go "spend a penny" and sod off. :thedeal:

Ah, so that's your contribution to the discussion, eh, Al?

Run out of arguments, perhaps, have yer?

Come on, no-one likes a sore loser! Either admit with good grace that you are wrong or give us some reasoning for your position. That's how arguments are supposed to go. Show us why HP (for example) is wrong and you are right.

What about that Carly, eh? I could. Her real name is Carleton, you know. Brilliant.

Originally posted by Tom Harris
OK - so I shouldn't have named names. Sorry.

Here's what I should have said:

"Other exceptional examples are, presumably, any business run by anyone ill-informed enough to seriously believe that profit is the sole objective".

If the cap fits... ;)

So, would you argue that HP boss Carly has it wrong and these other ill-informed people (that for some reason we mustn't name) have got it right?

Actually, your latest post would have been quite in line with how the thread was going. And, I thank you for trying. Yes, the cap fits. But, I never ran a business. Did you? Do you? Are you an employee with definite ideas on how a business is run? Most of us work or have worked for someone and are not privy to these progressive pie in the sky business decisions. Our input to those stategic decisions have been limited to listening to what the bosses/owners are going to do and ensuring that we do our part. It's OKAY to talk about here because most of the ones reading it aren't in a position to do anything about it anyway. Those of us in the trenches aren't afforded the luxury of daydreaming about stuff we read and having the opportunity to implement it. If you are, you're a lucky person.

As for other your statements like these: "ill-informed people you mustn't name" or "any business run by anyone ill-informed enough to seriously believe that profit is the sole objective", please don't pout. It's very unbecoming. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. Go ahead and continue to use my user name and others to personalize your masterpieces. I'm just saying that I don't want to have to revert to bad behavior to combat "pointed" attacks on members who disagree with you or the other sarcastic psuedo intellectual. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, I admit, but I think I understand when things are starting to get a bit too personal. :agree: :smokin:

Originally posted by NYHawkeye

Interesting - the purpose of profit is "to finance our company growth, create value for our shareholders and provide the resources we need to achieve our other corporate objectives."

Profit is not the end objective but rather an enabler for the other objectives. [/B]


I really like this perspective. As far as Carly, I don't know enough about the inner workings at HP to have an opinion, but I do have a few HP products that have performed perfectly for a few years now. Other "technology" companies, in my experience, have not performed nearly as well. Maybe we can get Gates to spend some time with her.

Craig

Originally posted by energy

Most of us work or have worked for someone and are not privy to these progressive pie in the sky business decisions. Our input to those stategic decisions have been limited to listening to what the bosses/owners are going to do and ensuring that we do our part.... It's OKAY to talk about here because most of the ones reading it aren't in a position to do anything about it anyway. Those of us in the trenches aren't afforded the luxury of daydreaming about stuff we read and having the opportunity to implement it.


That's where we differ on the role of the 'quality' professional. It is clear that many who play that role see themselves as distinct from - even at loggerheads with - management.

My view is that the 'quallity' function is an integral part of management and the people carrying out that role need to think and act like good managers. More than that, they need to accept the role of educating managers about the sorts of things we are talkng about here.

So when I hear 'quality' professionals saying things like "there's only one objective" and "there's no difference between a process and a procedure" and rubbishing anything that goes beyond auditing and bloody ISO 9001, I see red at the sheer irresponsibility of it.

Not everyone needs to strive to understand this stuff, but those that don't at least try shouldn't be part of the 'quality' profession. IMHO

Originally posted by Craig H.

I really like this perspective.



Yes - it seems to me that this approch does not diminish the importance of profits but supports the notion that profit for profits sake alone is not enough.

Another neat way to look at it -

It starts with profit and it ends with profit but the things done in between are what count the most.

Originally posted by Tom Harris

My view is that the 'quallity' function is an integral part of management and the people carrying out that role need to think and act like good managers. More than that, they need to accept the role of educating managers about the sorts of things we are talkng about here.



Well said!

Originally posted by Tom Harris

So when I hear 'quality' professionals saying things like "there's only one objective" and "there's no difference between a process and a procedure" and rubbishing anything that goes beyond auditing and bloody ISO 9001, I see red at the sheer irresponsibility of it.

Not everyone needs to strive to understand this stuff, but those that don't at least try shouldn't be part of the 'quality' profession. IMHO

Good reply, Tom. Why didn't you say that in the first place? To the last sentence, I'm not anymore, at least "officially".:vfunny: But, I can still have an opinion, steeped though it is in "realities".:agree:

We have found that a balanced scorecard approach works well for helping us form our objectives, plan to meet them, and track our progress.

If well built, the scorecard will also exhibit corrective actions, preventive actions, and continual improvement actions along the way to meeting the goal (objective).

:)

Diana said:
If well built, the scorecard will also exhibit corrective actions, preventive actions, and continual improvement actions along the way to meeting the goal (objective).

Good point Diana. The scorecard lets you know where you are in relation to where you should be going, and the rest gently (?) steer the organization to ensure you stay on course. Of course, through continual improvement, sometimes we shift the goal.

Diana / db

How do you format a scorecard? One of the things I have been struggling with is how I am going to compile our raw data to present at management reviews. I had the idea of creating paretos, moving average charts, etc. that include current performance and goal lines, but this reports only one specific indicator at a time. A number of lower level indicators may contribute to an overall objective, such as productivity. Or one lower level indicator may contribute to more than one overall objective.

Any suggestions?

Hello Diana,

Could you post an example of your companies score card?

Thanks
Paula