I believe I have posted a similar thread some time ago when writing of the FPS (Ford Production Sytem) performance measurables of SQDCME (Safety, Quality, Delivery, Cost, Morale, Environment).
I want to encourage some discussion regarding the validity of using these measurables within a business management system in general.
I firmly believe that the SQDCME measurables are valid measures that can be adapted from the Ford FPS into Business management in general.
The SQDCME measures, processes and procedures that Ford use, may not be applicable to other businesses yet, I believe it's clear that the FPS measures are a good benchmark for cloning, using and adapting the principles of the measures to encourage a structured approach to business processes that may encourage a universal business management operating structure.
Any tackers on this one?
Wallace.

Attached is an SQDCME image.
Wallace.

I'd love to hear about how you come up with - how you define - Morale.

Marc,
I can give you my particular interpretation and take on the Morale part of the SQDCME measures.
I hope all readers of this thread understand that, the purpose of this thread isn't to analyze the SQDCME measurables outwith the Ford interpretations.
I happen to believe the, SQDCME measures are a good benchmark for [B]"posible" adoption into business practices.
Attached is an image expanding the Morale branch. I certainly believe the Morale branch should be named differently.
Wallace.

I believe I have posted a similar thread some time ago when writing of the FPS (Ford Production Sytem) performance measurables of SQDCME (Safety, Quality, Delivery, Cost, Morale, Environment).
I want to encourage some discussion regarding the validity of using these measurables within a business management system in general.
Wallace.

Wallace

This fits well with what some call "Integrated Management", what I would call "good management" and what is, I believe, "Business Process Management".

My view is that the performance of a process ("running the business" is a mega-process) depends on how it is designed and managed. This (should) involve the recognition and management of all the factors that can influence the process, or that the process can affect, such as:
- the objective(s) of the process and of the organisation
- internal policies and values
- external standards and legislation
- risks and critical success factors
- the need (or desire) to measure performance
- customer and other stakeholder requirements and expectations
- assumptions, attitudes and prejudices
- the need to make best use of available resources
- the need to manage other outcomes from (ie consequences of) the process.

It looks as though your SQDCME can measure how well most of these are managed.

I agree with your take Peter.
The SQDCME measurables could be customized to fit any organization.
I have structured a quality manual around the SQDCME processes. The measures are forward thinking, in the sense that, Quality, Safety, Environment and business practices relating to Cost, Delivery and HR (Morale) may indeed be a structured in this manner in future revisions of Business standards. The by-product of using the SQDCME measures to communicate the specific attached branches causes the beginings of systems thinking.
Attached are a couple of example images of the SQDCME at work.
Wallace.

Marc,
I made a mistake in my reply to you.
It should have read: this thread is to analyze the SQDCME measurables outwith the Ford interpretations.
Wallace.

I'd love to hear about how you come up with - how you define - Morale.

Very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure morale. You know when it's down. Why? Absenteeism, employee turnover are a good starting point. I looks like by including it as a measurable that the originator really wants it to appear that they care about morale. How about the morale of their Suppliers? ;)

Energy,
Did you look at the image attachment?
As I have said, "I certainly believe the Morale branch should be named differently".
What would you suggest regarding effectively measuring Morale?
How about the morale of their Suppliers?
Let's define and measure Morale at home base first before asking a supplier to do the same. :rolleyes:
Wallace.

Energy,
Did you look at the image attachment?
As I have said, "I certainly believe the Morale branch should be named differently".
What would you suggest regarding effectively measuring Morale?
Let's define and measure Morale at home base first before asking a supplier to do the same. :rolleyes:
Wallace.

I don't believe you can truly measure morale. I had just left the computer so the missus could send an e-mail and was coming back to modify my post to delete the reference to Suppliers as "sarcastic". But, you beat me to it. Morale can be low for several reasons. Loss of a major contract, reduction of the work force due to cost cutting measures, key personnel leaving (either voluntary or dismissal), no raises, etc..Everybody knows why it's down but what do you do about it? Make speeches and talk about it among yourselves. They never correct it. When morale is high, who cares? Just the nature of people. I guess what I see is a noble gesture to address it, knowing full well it can't be measured qualitatively. I call it window dressing. Today was the first time I read the thread and that word "morale" was what stuck with me. Then, I saw Marc's post and thought, "Hey, that's what I was going to say." I don't know what you would call it. It's touched on lightly in the ISI 9004 guidelines. Again, I apologize for momentarily de-railing the thread. I agree that you can't flow down morale guidelines to your Suppliers unless you have your own morale issues defined and measurable. :agree:

Yeah,
I agree with your sentiments Energy.
It is obviously extremely difficult to measure Morale yet, I believe it's possible within the SQDCME measures.
My main point regarding the measures is that, they are indeed an excellent generic template for encouraging business to encourage the (So called)systems approach to continuous improvements.
I could talk about the Ford approach to the FPS measurables of SQDCME and bore you all to death, but I'm not going to do that (No way).
The SQDCME measures I believe can be customized into almost any business system functions.
Ther are many businesses who tend to forget or turn the proverbial blind eye to this measure. The organizations who do this are obviously those who, merely pay lip service to currently available business management systems, such as ISO.
I subscribe to a system of profound knowledge when it comes to Morale which is integral to Motivation, this all being associated with the psychology branch of a SoPK.
Wallace.

There are many businesses who tend to forget or turn the proverbial blind eye to this measure. The organizations who do this are obviously those who, merely pay lip service to currently available business management systems, such as ISO.
I subscribe to a system of profound knowledge when it comes to Morale which is integral to Motivation, this all being associated with the psychology branch of a SoPK.
Wallace.
Well, back to the Coffee Break Threads for me. Good topic, Wallace, and I'm sure there will be many takers. I'm over my head here, for sure. My dreams are much more simplistic! Like, are we in business tomorrow? Does my key still work to open the doors? :vfunny: Peace, my friend! :agree:

Thanks Energy.
Peace out. ;)
Wallace.

This in fact all ties in with the requirement of TS 16949


6.2.2.4 Employee motivation and empowerment

The organization shall have a process to motivate employees to achieve quality objectives, to make continual improvements, and to create an environment to promote innovation. The process shall include the promotion of quality and technological awareness throughout the whole organization.

The organization shall have a process to measure the extent to which its personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives


This is maybe limited but as we all know quality objectives can be anything.

If you have high morale this is motivation and the standard gives measurables
How many improvements, how many innovations, the savings etc....


From my knowledge this is very important to the Germans and it was in the VDA standard

Yeah Howard,
It certainly does.
The SQDCME measurables being part of the Ford Production System (FPS) must have been influenced by past standards.
FPS has been around since the mid 90's, so I can certainly see the linkage to system standards and their requirements.
The SQDCME measures are however very forward thinking with regards to what is currently available through standard requirements.
Wallace.

Marc,
I can give you my particular interpretation and take on the Morale part of the SQDCME measures.
I hope all readers of this thread understand that, the purpose of this thread isn't to analyze the SQDCME measurables outwith the Ford interpretations.
I happen to believe the, SQDCME measures are a good benchmark for [B]"posible" adoption into business practices.
Attached is an image expanding the Morale branch. I certainly believe the Morale branch should be named differently.
Wallace.

Morale is defined as:
"The state of the spirits of a person or group as exhibited by confidence, cheerfulness, discipline, and willingness to perform assigned tasks."

How do the measurables you have established address these points?

Simple Simon here - why not just ask our employees as we do customers.

Get a cross-functional team to brainstorm a list of 'importance' attributes that affect their morale or satisfaction. This first list will be big (50), use it and survey all employees asking them to rate each attribute (1-10) 1 being of no importance at all, 10 being extremely important.

You now have a ranked list of attributes that are of most importance to employees, pick the top dozen or so and these form the basis of the employee satisfaction survey. Again ask all employees to rate each attribute (1-10) 1 being extremely dissatisfied, 10 extremely satisfied.

You will then be able to identify the largest gaps between importance and satisfaction (as determined by employees), pick the top five and these are your priorities for improvement (PFI's).

Set measurable improvement targets, ACT! and review progress at the next survey. If you do make progress you can be sure that it will have impacted positively on employee morale, satisfaction, motivation etc. If you've not :eek:

Has anyone else used it?
How do you measure satisfaction?

If I've gotten confused and this is off topic someone please move it as I can't view attachments (because I'm too poor / tight fisted).

Simon

Sam, Simon. :bigwave:
You make the dicision of how to use the SQDCME measurables.
Your definitions and methods of measures are your own tailored methods and measures. It's as simple as that, it's not rocket science. :rolleyes:
The SQDCME measurables are an excellent template for Busines management in general, use it any way you wish.
I am interested in how it may be used by others but, as I wrote in a previous post, I'm not going to bore you all with the Ford interpretation of the SQDCME measurables. :(
The measures are a system in themselves, they are integral to each other, they are independent yet Interdependent. It's a great example of systems thinking simplified.
Wallace.

Very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure morale.

I disagree. It's just that most companies don't care about it -- or care enough to measure it and then address the areas that look like they need attention.

I used to measure the morale of the employees (~9) working under me via an anonymous survey. I listed several things that I thought were important and also gave them the chance to make open comments. I took pains to help them remain anonymous including asking them to take it home and complete it by typing and printing out the responses so I could not see the handwriting. And I took the results seriously and tried to address anything in my power. The employees loved it -- were delighted that someone cared enough to ask.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Will the measure be perfect? Nope, none are. But if we always waited for a perfect measure we'd never measure anything.

But, although I've had Top Dogs say they wanted to do this kind of thing company-wide, once I gave them a survey as a way to get started they insisted they would do it "when the time was right" -- which was never.

Mike S,
Apathy is one of the problems when it comes to a sound and structured approach to business measures.
The bottom up approach works as well as the top down approach regarding genuine support yet, I see the apathy problem rearing its ugly head all too often.
What I've seen in organizations that have been process oriented way before they ever decided to become registered to ISO or any other standard is that, they tend to be more successful in their implementation of business and CI efforts.
Apathy is dealt with very well in organizations that are process oriented and, this often leads organizations to have a structured systems thinking business approach.
Wallace.

I disagree.

I used to measure the morale of the employees (~9) working under me via an anonymous survey. I listed several things that I thought were important and also gave them the chance to make open comments. I took pains to help them remain anonymous including asking them to take it home and complete it by typing and printing out the responses so I could not see the handwriting. And I took the results seriously and tried to address anything in my power. The employees loved it -- were delighted that someone cared enough to ask.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Will the measure be perfect? Nope, none are. But if we always waited for a perfect measure we'd never measure anything.


Your method is just your view of the Department's morale. When I had eight "reportees", I didn't need any written questions to know what their concerns were and how they were feeling about work. They would say, "This sucks." Or, "Hey, I like that." I was their "leader". Not their boss. I was doing the same job as them until somebody got the bright idea to make me a Supervisor. Kind of like the Cove. :vfunny: The reason your method can't be used plant-wide is simple. Other Supervisor's can't or won't see the same results as you. Your yardstick is different than theirs. You can't measure morale uniformly. Too many variables. So, I disagree with your disagree. Now, back to the Coffee Break Threads, as promised. ;)

Your method is just your view of the Department's morale. When I had eight "reportees", I didn't need any written questions to know what their concerns were and how they were feeling about work. They would say, "This sucks." Or, "Hey, I like that." I was their "leader". Not their boss. I was doing the same job as them until somebody got the bright idea to make me a Supervisor. Kind of like the Cove. :vfunny: The reason your method can't be used plant-wide is simple. Other Supervisor's can't or won't see the same results as you. Your yardstick is different than theirs. You can't measure morale uniformly. Too many variables. So, I disagree with your disagree. Now, back to the Coffee Break Threads, as promised. ;)

When I ask their views how come it is my view? :confused:

Yeah, I already had a darn good idea what they all felt as I spoke with them as a group and 1 on 1 often. But this was just another tool -- and a chance to be anonymous just in case there was something they were afraid to share face-to-face, and occasionally there was some minor stuff. But one of my ulterior motives was to try to get this attitude to catch-on with the Top Dog and other supervisors. Yeah, I know the odds weren't great, but I did what I could do.

Sometimes I get a little idealistic and do things like try to push change from my little position near the middle of the company, or by writing my Congresspersons, or writing letters to the editor of the local newspaper. Maybe I go no good at all 95% of the time, but if I can do some small amount of good 5% of the time think how much good might come out of a lifetime. Call me silly if you want. But don't tell me "my" method "can't be used plant wide" --there are some plants where it has been used plant-wide and worked very well. Maybe not lots of places, but a few. It just takes the right leadership. One can dream can't they?

The company I work for did this. They had the employees complete an anonymous survey. Not a bad idea, however they didn’t like the results they got so they scraped it :biglaugh: and promoted members of our “Leadership Team” then laid a few folks off. Now that is a way to get morale up!

There is a free culture survey available right here at

http://elsmar.com/pdf_files/

if anyone wants to take a look at it. I don't know who to give credit to but I did not create it.

The company I work for did this. They had the employees complete an anonymous survey. Not a bad idea, however they didn’t like the results they got so they scraped it :biglaugh: and promoted members of our “Leadership Team” then laid a few folks off. Now that is a way to get morale up!

A morale improver indeed! The "Top Dog" in this company is an idiot, then, IMO. :frust: He did much more damage than if he had never sent a survey. But the tool (survey) itself is still not bad. Any kind of tool can be misued resulting in more damage than in the beginning. (Those of us who have done any amount of home/auto repair know this firsthand.)

The company I work for did this. They had the employees complete an anonymous survey. Not a bad idea, however they didn’t like the results they got so they scraped it :biglaugh: and promoted members of our “Leadership Team” then laid a few folks off. Now that is a way to get morale up!Ow! :eek: Good grief!

I don't usually express myself in this way, but that is stupid enough to make me question wether they were playing with full decks. :rolleyes: And exactly what idea did they have about the company morale when they issued the thing??? That they were considered heros and role models?

Anybody should be able to figure out that you can expect a good deal of flak if you send something like that out... Particularly the first time you do it. Then, if you play your cards right (Meaning: Do something about the things that annoy people) you will get a much better result next time. You will have shown the staff that you listen to them, and they have probably gotten a few things off their chests and will come forward with more constructive critique.

They started something that could have been good and turned into a big time disaster, proving to the entire company in no uncertain terms that they cannot be trusted... :bonk:

Mike expressed it well.

/Claes

Ow! :eek: Good grief!

I don't usually express myself in this way, but that is stupid enough to make me question wether they were playing with full decks. :rolleyes: And exactly what idea did they have about the company morale when they issued the thing??? That they were considered heros and role models?

Anybody should be able to figure out that you can expect a good deal of flak if you send something like that out... Particularly the first time you do it. Then, if you play your cards right (Meaning: Do something about the things that annoy people) you will get a much better result next time. You will have shown the staff that you listen to them, and they have probably gotten a few things off their chests and will come forward with more constructive critique.

They started something that could have been good and turned into a big time disaster, proving to the entire company in no uncertain terms that they cannot be trusted... :bonk:

Mike expressed it well.

/Claes

Funny thing is that they did re-do the survey about 6 months later and again didn't like the results they got so once again they scrapped it. You are right some of the "Leaders" are not playing with a full deck. They feel that if it was not for the "direction" they provide that things would be really bad. When you have "Leaders" of the company putting their name on the work others have done and taking credit for it what do they expect the morale to be. It would also help if these "Leaders" actually showed up to work half the time as well but hey what do the "little" people of the company know and that is the way they are treated "little people" that we can replace at anytime. If the job market was not so bad my guess is that 75% of the people would be gone and I include myself in that. What they don't like is the "little people" that know more than the "Leaders" so they put them down once the job Market opens up there is a good chance there will be a mass exedous. But hey everything happens for a reason right?

Funny thing is that they did re-do the survey about 6 months later and again didn't like the results they got so once again they scrapped it. You are right some of the "Leaders" are not playing with a full deck.

....once the job Market opens up there is a good chance there will be a mass exedous. But hey everything happens for a reason right?
You mean they did it twice?! :bonk:Now, I'm truly shocked :eek: . You are right my friend, everything does happen for a reason. The sad thing is that judging from your description those people wouldn't recognize reason if it bit them in their collective Gluteus Maximus...

/Claes

Funny thing is that they did re-do the survey about 6 months later and again didn't like the results they got so once again they scrapped it. You are right some of the "Leaders" are not playing with a full deck. They feel that if it was not for the "direction" they provide that things would be really bad. When you have "Leaders" of the company putting their name on the work others have done and taking credit for it what do they expect the morale to be. It would also help if these "Leaders" actually showed up to work half the time as well but hey what do the "little" people of the company know and that is the way they are treated "little people" that we can replace at anytime. If the job market was not so bad my guess is that 75% of the people would be gone and I include myself in that. What they don't like is the "little people" that know more than the "Leaders" so they put them down once the job Market opens up there is a good chance there will be a mass exedous. But hey everything happens for a reason right?


Was it the ARMY? I've seen this stunt so many times I can't count 'em. Every one of the service contractors that I'm familiar with do the same thing too (all the leadership are retired officers).

I may have started this thread prematurely focusing on the mamagement aspect relating to top management and how they measure (If at all) their own capabilities regarding SQDCME.

(1) What about the bottom up approach to the SQDCME measures?
(2) How would you use and infuse such a theory throughout your organisation?
(3) Do you beleive this system is sustainable?
(4) Are the SQDCME measures applicable to your business environment?
(5) If not, what SQDCME measure definitions would you review and change?
Wallace.

I recently re-visited an excellent book called Management Audits by Allan J Sayle ISBN 0-9511739-0-1, published in 1997, it remains to be an excellent and unique approach to Management audits.
Considering the SQDCME measurables, I looked again at the task process elements developed by Allan j Sayle for the purpose of audits and, I believe they may be an addition to consider for use within the SQDCME map.
Attached is a jpeg zip file of the information in a Visual Mind 6 format
Wallace.

Great thread everyone! Lot’s of juicy bits to digest!

Before I forget, I wanted to mention the title of a book that those following this thread might want to read. The title of the book is “Control Theory” by William Glasser. It is a short read, perhaps 2 or 3 nights of reading.

Glasser speaks to the point of Environment. Particularly, he makes to distinctions. First is “Boss Management”, the traditional “Boss knows best and tells us what to do!” The other is “Leader Management” where the leader works cooperatively with subordinates on a level playing field. I think that Energy’s posts in particular raise this distinction. But what is confusing my mind a bit is the distinction between Morale and Environment. I’m thinking that they are two sides of the same coin.

Connecting this thought with Herzberg’s separation of Hygienic and Motivational Factors, it begins to clear some of the confusion. Hygienic factors include among others: security, salary, status, work conditions, and company policy (I’m missing a few I think). Then there are the Motivational Factors: Growth, Job Satisfaction, Advancement, Recognition, and Achievement. To Mike’s point, exact measurement systems may not be achievable, but with prejudice, artful measures might give us a frame of reference to work within. As Energy points out, most folks can make a fair assessment of Morale with general feedback (comments/body language, etc.). But there is great danger in accepting things on face value. If we do this, we conveniently disregard biases known and unknown to us, as well as our limitations with understanding all the assumption, true or false, that are in play.

But as Dr. Deming often said, the most important numbers are “unknown and unknowable”. He quickly follows up that it would be a blatant disregard of management not to “manage the things that can’t be accurately measured.” Here, I think it comes down to collecting the data the best we can and attempt to take the Art of Management to the Science of Management. Many of the contributors here have offered some items for consideration.

What measures, soft or hard, are the most important attributes management should be concerned with? What environment (boss or leader) do you find your organization in? It seems clear to me that while Mike and Energy chose a leader management environment, the Big Fish the work for are entrenched in the boss management environment style.

Regards,

Kevin

Here's another SQDCME attachment that I have shared within a manufacturing environement.
It seems to be working regarding, motivating production employees to take part in identifying SQDCME improvement potential.
Wallace.