I’m starting a new job in a few weeks. The companies operations were separated into four different QMS’ and each has its own ISO9000:2000 registration (go figure). All operations are located at one site. I was told that the reasoning behind this was that it was viewed as a more manageable (“bite sized”) method of achieving registration, in addition the “managers” of each operation had to become the “subject matter expert” for the ISO requirements and their QMS. However from what I’ve been told compliance to the QMS’ is an issue. I’ve been tasked with merging these 4 systems into one. I’ve been told that the managers involved all have very strong personalities. Does anyone have any experience in a situation like this? Any suggestions on how I should proceed?


Thanks,
Bob

Four different QMS’ and each has its own registration? Interesting setup to say the least.

Does anyone have any experience in a situation like this? Any suggestions on how I should proceed?Given the managers strong personalities: With caution...;) Ok, seriously: I understand that you foresee a bit of a problem in that respect? In any case you have some serious work to do, and you must have their support.

Some questions:

Who assigned you to the task? The boss of the four?
How different are the systems and the processes involved?
What is the level of interaction between the different operations?
/Claes

Claes,

Who assigned you to the task? The boss of the four?

My understanding is yes there boss wants the systems merged into one. The assignment will be coming from my boss at the company.

How different are the systems and the processes involved?

From what I saw and was told they have there own unique systems. The impression I was given that is somewhat like four separate companies. All with there own flavor of an ISO system.


What is the level of interaction between the different operations?

The best way to describe this is supplier/customer i.e. Design, Fabrication, Assembly, Test.



Bob

Wow, I don't envy having this kind of set-up! Manageable, perhaps...but very confusing (especially to employees who transfer from operation to operation).

First off, I would have your boss formalize (with you) what he wishes you to do you. What are his expectations and what are the goals? S/He then needs to ensure that you have authority to carry out your responsibilities...all of the requirements but none of the empowerment means this project will go no further.

Secondly, I would have your boss introduce you (and your role) to the four. Again, clearly define the responsibilities of everyone and reporting structure (if any changes).

Your role should be to present to the four (or maybe even develop with them) a plan to assess each of the four operations. Strengths and weaknesses will be evaluted and the output is to be one stronger system. If you want them to help, you need to sell this idea to them. Get them to buy in or else they'll make this project very frustrating for you...perhaps even stall it to the point it gets killed.

Odds are there will be much loyalty from the employees to their respective system...where possible, try to find strengths from every operation!

Roxy's on target again. . .

This doesn't sound too dissimilar to a central Corp. Hdq. with different plants. IMHO, I'd suggest ONE Quality Manual. . . and same company level procedures (Doc Control, Control of Q Records, etc).

That will at least start to standardize the nuts and bolts of the system. The QM and Standardized procedures would be controlled above the division level. They should not interfere with the day to day operation of the divisions. To that end, you will also get the added benefit of commonality of reporting to Company Central via standardized measureables that can be summarized and give a peak at the whole enchillada.

Then, as in many multi-location companies, generate the division specific procedures around their specific processes. Being you stated that there is a Customer / Supplier relationship, the CUSTOMER calls the shots as to what they need and want from the supplier. Not too sure if THAT will fly. . .but worth a look at.

Personality differences or not, that is the underlying mantra of the standards now.

Hmmm...thought of something here....

There were four separate certifications for a reason (i.e., "manageable"). What is prompting this sudden shift to one? Why is there this need to have one system from something that, I assume, has worked for the organization up until this point?

Hmmm...thought of something here....

There were four separate certifications for a reason (i.e., "manageable"). What is prompting this sudden shift to one? Why is there this need to have one system from something that, I assume, has worked for the organization up until this point?


You're starting to move to the Dark Side of the force now. . .

You're starting to move to the Dark Side of the force now. . .

And that's why I stopped asking any more questions...sooner or later, the men in white coats would be coming to take me away... :biglaugh:

And that's why I stopped asking any more questions...sooner or later, the men in white coats would be coming to take me away... :biglaugh:

:topic:

Or you could add Darth Roxy to the list of names you have amassed! Starring in the next episode of Star Wars whipping Luke into shape and standardizing the Colonial Fleet operational procedures. :lmao:

Or you could add Darth Roxy to the list of names you have amassed!

:topic: I do admit that if my darling Ottawa Senators lose tonight to the Toronto Maple Laffs I will be dressed in all black tomorrow....

At least my Red Sox took 3 of 4 from the D^&m Yankees! And of course. . . UCONN made our Spring here in CT!

Bob,

I merged 5 quality systems into one certificate for one of my clients. The advantages to the company are that it reduces registration costs. ( one document review vs. 4 reviews, sampling of sites, etc...)

You have to get a clear commitment from top management and the managers. There are some aspects in their systems that should be uniform ( the mandatory 6 procedures, resources and administrative clauses of the standard). The product realization ( clause 7 ) will probably vary between the companies. I used a couple of flowcharts for each site to show the differences.

You should create a project plan and get the managers to sign it.

You should be in control of the corrective and preventive action systems and internal audit. Your management review should be integrated with all 4 sites.

Danny

I’m starting a new job in a few weeks. The companies operations were separated into four different QMS’ and each has its own ISO9000:2000 registration (go figure). All operations are located at one site. I was told that the reasoning behind this was that it was viewed as a more manageable (“bite sized”) method of achieving registration, in addition the “managers” of each operation had to become the “subject matter expert” for the ISO requirements and their QMS. However from what I’ve been told compliance to the QMS’ is an issue. I’ve been tasked with merging these 4 systems into one. I’ve been told that the managers involved all have very strong personalities. Does anyone have any experience in a situation like this? Any suggestions on how I should proceed?


Thanks,
Bob
Last year I was responsible for merging QMS of 3 Business Units from the same site. In our case the story was different. The Business Units were run by 3 different Presidents and after downsizing of the organization, the 3 Business units were merged into 1 to head by one President. Main problem with these kinds of scenario is the key personnel from previously individual Business units will have strong sense of emotional attachment to their documentation and resist the integration of QMS.
Key is to start with processes which can be easily integrated without much resistance like the Common Quality Manual and 6 mandatory documented processes. Once this is done, the confidence increases and can gradually integrate other core processes one by one. Try to select best practices in the individual system and pool them into the integrated one. This way you provide win-win situation.Design and Development process was the most challenging for us to integrate.
My experience is:
The resistance to integration is merely the fear of unknown. If you can do a good job in regular communication and effective training, the integration will succeed.
Transitions are always difficult to people, trick is to do it gradually phase by phase.
Good Luck,
Govind.

Looks like you've had a number of good replies while I was sleeping... Good luck Bob, and please keep us informed about your progress. I think this may be a case we can all learn from.

/Claes

First I'd like to thank everyone for his or her help. The ideas of the project plan and the incorporation of best practices should help in selling this to the individuals involved. As always the greatest challenge for me will be dealing with the human side of the equation. I guess I’ll have to start practicing my “soft skills” (sometimes it so much easier to go thru an obstacle then around it).



Hmmm...thought of something here....

There were four separate certifications for a reason (i.e., "manageable"). What is prompting this sudden shift to one? Why is there this need to have one system from something that, I assume, has worked for the organization up until this point?



There were 3 reasons for the individual systems I was told:

1)The individual managers would become subject matter experts since they would be responsible for their own certification process.
2)The certification process would not appear overwhelming (more manageable).
3)There would be an element of competition that would hasten the completion/achievement of certification (gloating rights for achieving certification first).



Bob

There were 3 reasons for the individual systems I was told:

1)The individual managers would become subject matter experts since they would be responsible for their own certification process.
2)The certification process would not appear overwhelming (more manageable).
3)There would be an element of competition that would hasten the completion/achievement of certification (gloating rights for achieving certification first).

I understood that. I was asking what was prompting the sudden desire to merge them into one system. :)

I understood that. I was asking what was prompting the sudden desire to merge them into one system. :)


It was always intended to have one unified system (the last certification was received only two months ago). The entire certification process was dictated to them and paid for by a major customer. In my mind the whole method seemed to be case of too much money and not enough sense. So far everything I know is from managements perspective, I'm looking forward to finding the rest of story.

Bob

In my mind the whole method seemed to be case of too much money and not enough sense.Extraordinary :rolleyes: I believe we were talking about muda the other day? Well, at least you seem to be going to a place that can afford things...

And hey: If I didn't say it before... Good luck in your quest.

/Claes

Extraordinary :rolleyes: I believe we were talking about muda the other day? Well, at least you seem to be going to a place that can afford things.../Claes

Looks like the Muda-meisters are alive and well. . .

And absolutely. . . GOOD LUCK!