I started this in response to a very pointed question about the quality objectives in my manual asked by Shaun Daly in this thread:
TS 16949 Quality Manual (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5745)
Shaun pointed me to this thread for guidance:
Tips/Example for creating "documented" Quality Objectives. (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6430)
I read whole the thread. Unfortunately, my first (and only) registration was to 9k94 so I am struggling with what appears to be very specific requirements for TS. I would appreciate some feedback on whether I am on the right track with documenting quality objectives vs. the quality policy.
We currently measure all of the items referred to below including the cost/savings for things like process yield and scrap that can be associated with a $ value:
QP:"We are dedicated to high quality products that exceed our client's expectations"
QO:Customer complaints measurement. Complaints should go down in frequency and seriousness if you are effectively communicating and reviewing customer requirements. Maybe warranty return rate as well?
QP:"Every member of the Team is accountable for both process quality and product quality"
QO:Warranty return rate, on time delivery, cost reduction, process yield, variance, scrap and rework measurements. These should prove team accountability for process and product quality
QP:"We define quality in electronics as robust design, reliability and safety of product operation"
QO:Customer complaints, warranty return rate, and 100% UL listings measurement. "Robust" products in trucks may not be robust in boats. You need to understand your customer requirements. Reliability from warranty rate and UL for safety.
QP:"We are committed to continuous improvement in all aspects of our business, products and services.
QO:This is a toughy. I'd like to think that having a TS2 registered system proves this. However, a measure of corrective and preventive action clearance rates, or reducing product cost and warranty return rate at the same time might be useful.
QP:"Our progress is benchmarked through the use of statistical measurement tools."
QO:Well, I have to admit that this is pretty hard to measure. The number of times per week per employee that someone uses a statistical tool maybe? Howste said, "BTW, sometimes the quality policy changes as a result of looking at the objectives." Can we simply reference the measurement and improvement of the first four as proof of this?

Anyhow, do I really need to list a # for each of these measurements? I thought the goal of all of these QM systems was continual improvement, not hitting a number. Can I say I'll continually lower my warranty return rate or should I put my > 0.00034% goal in there and quit when I hit it? Deming's 10th point: Eliminate numerical goals for the work force. :confused:

Icey mountain asks,
"Anyhow, do I really need to list a # for each of these measurements? I thought the goal of all of these QM systems was continual improvement, not hitting a number. Can I say I'll continually lower my warranty return rate or should I put my > 0.00034% goal in there and quit when I hit it? Deming's 10th point: Eliminate numerical goals for the work force."


IMO, goals should be measured. If you do not know what your present operating condition is, then you cannot improve.
I agree, you should not set goals. Goals are meaningless. The idea is "continuous improvement".

Only me :)

Firstly, I believe that Sams company is already recommeded for TS registration - so his thoughts are far more valuble than mine.

My opinion that Objectives should have some sort of "target" value (numerical, yes/no, whatever) are based upon;

a)TS16949 5.4.1 "Quality Objectives shall be measurable" and

5.4.1.1 Note "Objectives shall address customer expectations".

We have 2 major customers, both Tier 1 automotive, who.........very kindly send us monthly reports on our performance. They expect us to meet PPM targets of 648 and 400 yearly.

Voila! instant Objective which addresses customer expectations, is measurable, and gives us a minimum goal to aim for. Fortunately for us, we did achieve those last year (for one customer at least).

Of course internally, we always aim for 0 PPM. Makes life easier in the long run. 45 weeks of the year we do hit 0, then we get the bonehead weeks.......

Other Objectives we have inflicted upon ourselves internally, such as "Carry out Employee Forum Meetings" are a simple Yes/No jobbie.

b) Experiance with ISO14001. We have to set "Objectives and TARGETS". For example Objective is to reduce waste material sent for Landfill, Target is -2% compared to last FY.

Sometimes we hit the target, sometimes we dont. Whatever, it is evaluated at the start of each FY for feasibility.

The Environmental training we had covered BATNEEC "Best available technique not entailing excessive cost". If it costs you £50k to save £1 of scrap - why bother? No sane person would insist on that (As long as you dont break any laws).

Havent tried to explain THAT line of thinking to our automotive customers yet :)

Shaun Daly wrote:
"Other Objectives we have inflicted upon ourselves internally, such as "Carry out Employee Forum Meetings" are a simple Yes/No jobbie."

What do you mean by "Yes / No " jobbie?

Andy

What do you mean by "Yes / No " jobbie?
Andy
If he carries out the Monthly Forum on monthly basis the answer is Yes and he has met this objective. If he doesn't have meetings for 3 months the answer is No and he doesn't meet the objective. (There is English and "English")

My opinion that Objectives should have some sort of "target" value (numerical, yes/no, whatever) are based upon;
a)TS16949 5.4.1 "Quality Objectives shall be measurable" and
5.4.1.1 Note "Objectives shall address customer expectations".

I am MEASURING my objectives! However, I cannot instantaneously achieve a given numerical value in my warranty return rate, for example. I can show you a graph with a steady negative slope in the rate. If is say the rate will be X, and then achieve it, I have to go back to the QM and change the rate to Y (less than X) vs. saying the rate will ALWAYS go down.
Now, if my customer REQUIRES the rate to be X or less that is a different story. We don't turn widgets on lathes, we make products that output 120VAC @ 60Hz. "220, 221, whatever it takes." We don't really get hard, fast numerical limits from the customer. Try calculating a Cpk when the only critical characteristic is "must operate any 120VAC appliance known to man, up to 30 amps". :eek:

"220, 221, whatever it takes." :vfunny: Nothing like a good movie plug!

Anyhow, do I really need to list a # for each of these measurements? I thought the goal of all of these QM systems was continual improvement, not hitting a number. Can I say I'll continually lower my warranty return rate or should I put my > 0.00034% goal in there and quit when I hit it? Deming's 10th point: Eliminate numerical goals for the work force.

For each of our objectives we have a Target and a Goal. Let's look at OTD since all of us have the same "Target" of 100%. We know we will not sustain 100% because of the business we are in - prototype. We actually had parts obsoleted while they were in transit. So we have a "Goal" of 95%, it's obtainable, achievable and sustainable. So our measures (graphs) have a line for Target and a line for Goal. Everyone of our measurables have this type of set up. Minority Supplier Development for Ford is required to be 5%, once again due to the business it's very difficult to maintain that number. We accept 3.5% but our target is 5%.
With your Warranty measure:
I would suggest that you don't put it in your manual. A statement that quality measureables will be established and monitored should be enough, then show how, where, why and when that takes place. It could be in another procedure.
Secondly, can set a % reduction for warranty and monitor that? The measurable could be 3% a year, show a comparison to last year and trend over time.
Lastly, so what if you miss your target. We established a measure to maintain a certain Operating Profit Margin and due to what has happened this year we are not going to make it. The whole point of having objectives is to improve the business, you are not going to fail an audit because you didn't hit the mark on an objective. The main point is that they (heres that phrase again) ADD VALUE.
To give you an example, here is our Safety Measurable for this year.

Randy,
Thanks a ton. This is just what I was looking for:
I would suggest that you don't put it in your manual. A statement that quality measureables will be established and monitored should be enough, then show how, where, why and when that takes place. It could be in another procedure.

I say "We measure warranty return rate, on time delivery, cost reduction, process yield, variance, scrap and rework. Continual improvement in these metrics demonstrates that every member of the team is accountable for process and product quality" in my QM.

Then in my QAP or PM for Quality Objectives I can list the Goals and Minimum Standards along with who, what, where, how, etc. Now I'm not showing my dirty laundry to everyone who requests a QM and I have a short QAP with matrix that I can revise frequently w/o changing the whole QM!

You're welcome.
It's 100 miles to Chicago, we have a half pack of cigarettes, a full tank of gas, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses. :thedeal: :smokin:

:agree: Hit it!

An interesting read on Objectives.

http://www.asq.org/pub/informed/past/vol8_issue8/fullarticle.html

A couple of paragraphs I took note of;

"One of the most effective ways that I have seen an organization use to demonstrate how its objectives are set was to create a simple diagram showing the top-level objectives and how these objectives applied to the various departments. Management created the tactical plans, including the measurements for the objectives, and the plans became a part of each manager’s performance review."

"Remember that what gets measured gets done. This is an important concept for Top Management to keep in mind in setting quality and business objectives and is consistent with what ISO 9001:2000 requires. Having measurements that accurately reflect employee and organizational performance is important, but it is more important to avoid selecting measures that drive performance in the wrong direction. For example, if the key measure of performance is the speed with which work is done and if speed causes mistakes, it does little good to tell employees to produce no defects. They will do what is measured: work fast!"

Shaun states,
"Firstly, I believe that Sams company is already recommeded for TS registration - so his thoughts are far more valuble than mine."

Wrong! Thanks for the plug Shaun but all "thoughts" are equally valuable.
As for targets and goals; according to Deming and others they are stopping points that inhibit improvement.
Understanding and defining the process capability leads to improvement. However, because our customers are goal oriented it makes it difficult to take this idealistic approach.

BTW who is the customer that allows a PPM of 400 and 648?

BTW who is the customer that allows a PPM of 400 and 648?
He'll never tell!
I always use the productivity/utilization argument. If you set a goal for productivity (amount of time spent working on product vs. the time allowed), you can bet that it will be met easily. All I do is charge the extra labor to administration and I'll always be under the target. You must also set the utilization goal (amount of time spent working on product vs. total time spent working). However, these reach steady state quickly. We have a maximum utilization #, since we mandate administrative work (team meetings, goal setting, customer evaluations, problem solving sessions, etc.) We can always improve the productivity #, though. That's supposed to be the goal of the administrative work.

BTW who is the customer that allows a PPM of 400 and 648?

Just some nice people :)

But that is stingy compared to us. We have a few Customer specified suppliers whose PPM to us is between 8000 and 35,000.

Those suppliers are QS9000 accreddited companies too.

No wonder British Manufacturing Industry is going down the pan.

I'm not saying it isn't important to you, but I don't put much stock in PPM as a measure. We had 1 month that our PPM was over a million, we shipped in 4 parts and the labels were reversed. You have to have a part tag to receive a label and if they are R & L handed parts you only get one at a time. So we don't know where this happened. The other 11 months the PPM is 0, so for low volume production it isn't much use as a measure.

I'm not saying it isn't important to you, but I don't put much stock in PPM as a measure. We had 1 month that our PPM was over a million, we shipped in 4 parts and the labels were reversed. You have to have a part tag to receive a label and if they are R & L handed parts you only get one at a time. So we don't know where this happened. The other 11 months the PPM is 0, so for low volume production it isn't much use as a measure.

Agree. It only serves one purpose; keep small suppliers "under their thumb" and keep them out of the kickback bracket.
The methodology doesn't even make sense.(for mfg.) If you're not shipping a million parts and don't even have the capability to produce a million parts, why should you be graded on a million parts.