Our Division Head suggested that we change the name Quality System to something that doesn't include the word QUALITY. He feels that "Quality System puts the onus on the Quality Department to do anything relating to quality. He believes that "quality is everyone's responsibility"!

Any suggestions?
Lisa

Our Division Head suggested that we change the name Quality System to something that doesn't include the word QUALITY. He feels that "Quality System puts the onus on the Quality Department to do anything relating to quality. He believes that "quality is everyone's responsibility"!

Any suggestions?
Lisa

I'd suggest using what Roxy and a couple of other companies have. . . a BMS (Business Management System), and use the standard (ISO 9K2K or other) as a tool of the BMS.

I agree. Some of you may have noticed I have suggested Business Systems for years. Business Management System works for me!

I would certainly agree with the term "Business Management System" if you can add elements like :

Leadership,Strategic Planning, project management, Employee satisfaction,Business results to the existing ISO 9k2K requirements. These are the areas are either ISO9k2K is weak or not included.

Hope the next version of ISO 9001 will accommodate these missing links.

We added those elements, created our internal system and named Business Management System.

Govind.

I would certainly agree with the term "Business Management System" if you can add elements like :

Leadership,Strategic Planning, project management, Employee satisfaction,Business results to the existing ISO 9k2K requirements. These are the areas are either ISO9k2K is weak or not included.

Hope the next version of ISO 9001 will accommodate these missing links.

We added those elements, created our internal system and named Business Management System.

Govind.I have absolutely no problem with making the so-called Quality functions a subset of the business management system.

My caveat concerns organizations seeking to get registered to either ISO9k2k or TS16949. When I first tried to "blend" ISO9k2k and the Federal Aviation Administration's Fabrication Inspection System (FAA-FIS) to get FAA Parts Manufacturer Approval (FAA-PMA) status, it was as if I had prepared the documents in Klingon for a Dawson's Creek aficianado!

I was told in no uncertain terms in early 2001, "The FAA doesn't recognize any other Quality System but the FIS!"

Other organizations (compliant or registered with AS9100 or ISO9k2k) holding or seeking FAA-PMA were maintaining TWO SEPARATE Quality Manuals - one following a very prescriptive FAA outline, the other following the ISO offshoot.

The concept was just too alien for my FAA guy to grasp - I had to ultimately add a grid showing the relationship of FAA-FIS criteria to ISO9k2k criteria and walk him through the manual page by page until he "got it."

I strongly suspect many 2nd and 3rd party auditors may have a similar assimilation challenge.

Since I wasn't a Borg, I wasn't programmed to say, "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

I agree with the BMS suggestions. And welcome to the Cove Lisa :bigwave: Keep posting. The fact that your Division Head considers quality to be everyone's responsibility should keep your posts interesting.


/Claes

Yeah,
BMS seems to be the norm these days for defining an organizational standardized format.
I've noted BOS (Business Operational System) being used too.
Wallace.

Hi all,

I have always espoused a title such as BMS even though ours is still called a QMS...but I read an article the other day in the Australian Quality Magazine (sorry can't reproduce and have not got it handy) and it stated that many companies are now treading down this path but at what peril to our profession and quality as a stand alone system? I agree that Quality is everyone's business but time and time again quality is driven by the resident professional. In time will we simply become 'Business Graduates or Specialists' that specialise in quality? I personally think that this will be the case but will this be a bad thing? Food for thought?
PS: A BMS should encompass everything!!!!! (Safety, Health, Quality and Environment)

Greg B

BMS seems very intresting, I tried to use this name before, but oh a big conflict happened since we had a system called BMS already "Building Management System" ..

We use BMS.

"A rose by any other name would smell just a sweet"
Romeo & Juliet

I agree that Quality is everyone's business but time and time again quality is driven by the resident professional. In time will we simply become 'Business Graduates or Specialists' that specialise in quality? I personally think that this will be the case but will this be a bad thing? Food for thought?

I hear all the time that Quality is everyone's business but what does that really mean? If it means that everyone is responsible for seeing that quality is built into all products and services than it is contradictory to the concept that quality is determined by the process and management is responsible for changing the process.

If Quality means that there is a professional staff who works with management and workers to improve product and services than it will be driven by a resident professional as Greg noted. If good quality can happen on its own than the role of quality professional would never have been created to begin with. Whether the Quality Department is one person or many, they should be available to assist in the quality effort.

PS: A BMS should encompass everything!!!!! (Safety, Health, Quality and Environment) Greg B

More accurately, the concept of continual improvement should be in all areas of the company. That would include Human Resources, Training, IT etc. That is not to say that a quality professional would have to exist in each of those areas or even know all of what they do but the person should be knowledgeable in the quality concepts and techniques to use them anywhere. If changing the name is considered a way to get quality everywhere than you have to question whether management support for improvement really exists.

Bill Pflanz

[Quality] Champions are pioneers, and pioneers get shot at. The companies that get the most from champions, therefore, are those that have rich support networks so that their pioneers will flourish. This point is so important it’s hard to overstress. No support system, no champions. No champions, no innovation. In Search of Excellence by Peters & Waterman

More accurately, the concept of continual improvement should be in all areas of the company. That would include Human Resources, Training, IT etc.

Bill,
Do you believe there is a correlation between Quality and CI?
I guess this may depend on your particular definition of Quality.
I define quality as "the realization of value added steps, driven by needs that fulfill a desired outcome".
Wallace.

Bill,
Do you believe there is a correlation between Quality and CI?
I guess this may depend on your particular definition of Quality.
I define quality as "the realization of value added steps, driven by needs that fulfill a desired outcome".
Wallace.

Very fair question since I did imply the two terms were interchangeable. If the continual improvement is an intentional act of change, then I would assume its purpose was to improve quality as defined by you. If the continual improvement is not intential, than it is not driven by a desired outcome and happens spontaneously and therefore would not fit your definition.

Another thread talked about the difference between continuous and continual improvement but I would need to research the topic to determine how it tied to quality. :mg: Have I inadvertently started another philosophical question?

I am not sure if we should argue :argue: or call a truce :truce: .


Bill Pflanz

As many of you have stated, Business Management System works for me. I think that if you implement a "Quality" system you have no choice but to include good business practices into the system. Thus making it a true business system and not a quality system. The companies that just want a piece of paper (registration certificate) thinking that will get them sales will undoubtedly call it a quality system from now until they are out of business.

Is it a Quality Management system as in the quality of the management system or a Quality Management System as in the quality department system to ensure good product. If your definition is the second then you fall into the category of lost ships at sea. JMHO. :rolleyes:

We use Business Management System or just Management System. Marshall Space Flight Center uses just Management System. Going down to Management System effectively cutoff all means of escaping the "QMS."

http://www.bmpcoe.org/bestpractices/internal/nasam/nasam_18.html

Our Division Head suggested that we change the name Quality System to something that doesn't include the word QUALITY. He feels that "Quality System puts the onus on the Quality Department to do anything relating to quality. He believes that "quality is everyone's responsibility"!

Any suggestions?
Lisa

I've always liked Marc's "Cayman Business Systems" but I like the idea of just "Management System" (i.e. this is how we manage our company), as well.
In starting our TS registration project, one of the first things that happened was to cut down from a Quality Manual and Quality Assurance Procedures Manual to just a "Procedures Manual".

As you integrate your other practices, environmental (14000), accounting (there have been some good discussions here on that), advertising, etc. so that they can all be measured, analysed, improved and managed, it just makes sense to call it the "Management System".

It seems to me that we had this discussion once before. I believe it was over the Quality Manual vs. Operations Manual or something along those lines.
In my new position, we have segregated systems {Environmental, Production, Quality, Lab, etc.}. They look alike in structure, operate in similar manners, but are isolated from each other. We have achieved ISO 17025 accreditation and are in the middle of migrating to 9K2K from QS in a couple months. I have added ISO 14001 to the mix also {just to make things exciting}.
My emphasis has been on integration, especially since we have to upgrade our system. I have suggested changing from Quality Procedures {QP} to SOPs {the military guys will love that one}.
If you break it down it is how the company operates on a daily basis. We have an Operations Manager, Environmental Manager and I'm the QM, we discuss issues every day. We work together to correct concerns and to get product out the door. If our environmental system fails we have to shut down to prevent adverse effects on the community. And so on and so on.
All of us have to be on the same page in order to operate properly, we have to integrate or we would end up just pointing fingers and mumbling "what happened?".

My emphasis has been on integration, especially since we have to upgrade our system. I have suggested changing from Quality Procedures {QP} to SOPs {the military guys will love that one}.

You don't have to be a military guy to love the irony of the change. I remember changing the SOPs to QPs but the procedures themselves didn't change, only the names. Changing it back to SOPs would be no effort at all.

If you break it down it is how the company operates on a daily basis. We have an Operations Manager, Environmental Manager and I'm the QM, we discuss issues every day. We work together to correct concerns and to get product out the door. If our environmental system fails we have to shut down to prevent adverse effects on the community. And so on and so on.
All of us have to be on the same page in order to operate properly, we have to integrate or we would end up just pointing fingers and mumbling "what happened?".

You have the right idea in your organization but you seem to have the luxury of being part of the management team. If Quality is not at the same table as management hearing all business issues, participating in strategic planning and budgeting and working with all managers as an equal partner than it is difficult to be as effective.

I doubt if many quality professionals have the same opportunity.

Bill Pflanz

I would certainly agree with the term "Business Management System" if you can add elements like :

Leadership,Strategic Planning, project management, Employee satisfaction,Business results to the existing ISO 9k2K requirements. These are the areas are either ISO9k2K is weak or not included.

Hope the next version of ISO 9001 will accommodate these missing links.
If I have a problem with this is that ISO 9001 should not be the driver. I read an interesting article this morning on a site I visit from time to time. I don't know how long this link will stay valid, but as of right now it is:

http://www.qualitymag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,6425,127499,00.html
How important is a constructive culture to the short- and long-term performance and results of a company? Consider this example. A high-tech, Fortune 50 manufacturing company was losing $11 million annually. A cultural assessment identified a non-constructive culture that encouraged worker boredom, dissatisfaction and work avoidance. To turn around this situation, the plant simultaneously worked on both their processes and culture. After 12 to 24 months of process and culture changes where expectations of management shifted from an aggressive/defensive style to a more healthy, effective and constructive style, cycle times reduced by 68%, work-in-progress reduced by 38%, orders that were behind schedule reduced from 2,100 to 91, and the $11 million loss became a $24 million annual profit. Culture change was the foundation that helped this site return to profitability. It is the same culture that will raise productivity, profitability, morale—and help achieve ISO registration.

If the cultural assessment reveals a non-constructive culture, company management must know the ramifications. It is often recommended that several months be spent examining the culture and working to improve it before beginning the ISO registration process. This can be painful because it means close examination of top management’s behavior that is filtering down the corporation and creating a non-constructive culture, such as a passive-defensive culture.
The article title is "Culture Drives ISO Registration". I mention this because in all the implementations I've done I found out early that companies have what I call personalities. Some companies I did not even want to work with as it was obvious they were being forced into registration and would only go kicking and screaming. Harley-Davidson was like that. I took the job, but it was a real mess and to this day I believe Harley-Davidson management gives press to 'quality' but is so far off base it's unbelieveable. harley-Davidson sells a 'lifestyle', 'philosophy' and 'image' - not a 'quality product' per se. Unfortunately, I can't go into detail for obvious reasons but I will say I have 'worked with' Harley as recently as May 2003 and they had not changed since 1996-97.

If your company has a 'good' personality ISO 9001 isn't an issue because you're doing the right things anyway. Your success (or failure) is not related to ISO 9000 registration - in my opinion.

Now - to my 'main' :soap: topic. Quality. The very word. What is 'quality'? To me it is nothing more than the sum of a business (or, on a personal experience level) an 'experience'. Oh, we talk about quality of the product and give it definitions such as fitness for use, meeting customer expectations, meeting the spec, etc. But to me it's everything about something I 'buy' (and I use the word 'buy' loosely because people are also prone to ascribe 'quality' aspects to things they get for free. Linux is a good example of this.)

Back in 1968 I started doing business 'on the side' while in high school. The name of my 'business' was "Field Bio-Electronics". I did EEG tests at a number of hospitals in the Cincinnnati area, but I also repaired and aligned (calibrated) EEG and EKG machines as a 'sideline'. Then, around 1988, someone asked me why I was using that business name. By that time I no longer did electronics work in hospitals - I was in the business world in general.

That's when I changed my business name to Cayman Systems. All businesses are is a series of systems. As a biology person, a busines system was not terribly complex. It's pretty simple to my mind - and which is why 'The Process Approach' is, to me, baby talk. All businesses are nothing more than interacting systems - different interacting processes. Well, blow me over! A 'process approach'!

Back in the late 1990's Cayman Systems, a router company, threatened suit over the business name. See:

http://Elsmar.com/lawsuit/

So - I 'sorta' changed my business name to Cayman Business Systems - Because that's what this - what I then and now deal with - is all about. Interacting systems. Business, biological, cultural, ecological - all are interacting systems.

Starting at http://Elsmar.com/Imp/sld031.htm I express my interpretation of what a system is with consideration to being able to view any system from different levels. In college I had to be able to look at the cross section of a very young embryo on a microscope slide and be able to identify what system 'components' (liver, brain, spinal cord, eye, stomach, thigh bone, heart, thyroid, different muscles, etc.) were there and to be able to discuss which systems interacted (communicated) with others, as well as how - on the molecular level. On the other hand one can look at a human and disregard that level of detail and consider how the human 'black box' interacts with 'the world' at different levels - family, community, etc. Remember that in 1970 the word 'ecology' was new to 99% of the population.

With regard to businesses, I perfer http://Elsmar.com/Imp/sld039.htm because it is a view from a high level. The slides in between show you can go down to the 'molecular' level and back to a higher view.

What is quality to 'Everyman'? It's your entire experience. What is quality to a company? It depends. An example is Samsonite. I once was close to an individual deep in the bowels of Samsonite. Samsonite makes so much per 'item' that the typical response to a customer complaint was "Send them a new one". The profit margin is so high, and the tenor of the owners such that rather than address real problem areas it's easier to 'get on with life'.

I very much feel vindicated in that for years with ISO 9000 I felt, and was vocal about, the emphasis was on 'Show me where you comply with this clause'. To me it was basically an issue of showing what system addressed the clause requirement. What disturbed me was the idea that a 'standard' would proscribe requisite systems within a business.

I do go along with ISO 9000's requirements for certain systems to exist - mainly with respect to ensure world-wide liability clarity (such as a nonconformance and corrective action system and records requirements). I am not happy with some of the aspects of automotive's TS 16949 requirements being incorporated (where does a standard come off requiring customer satisfaction?). If a company lives or dies because of Customer Satisfaction, it should be the company's 'decision' (read: upper management and their directives) - not a mandate of a standard of a purely subjective aspect. Would ISO 9001 registration have changed Enron's business practices (consider the somewhat recently released tapes of the energy traders)? I seriously doubt it.

I repeat my suggestion from my earlier post in this thread - Company X Business Systems

No need for the word 'quality' nor am I convinced you need the word 'management'. Look at it as an interacting whole - not as a specific entity as happens when you introduce the word 'quality'.

You don't have to be a military guy to love the irony of the change. I remember changing the SOPs to QPs but the procedures themselves didn't change, only the names. Changing it back to SOPs would be no effort at all.
Bill, this file is 'dedicated' to you! The pages are NOT in order - it's from an old presentation I scanned some years back 'for reference'. But - I bet you'll understand...

Too big for an attachment - almost 11 megs - so here is the link:
http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/Specifications_Evolution.pdf

If you're on a Dial-Up, start the DL and go get some coffee, some Jameson - or whatever. It's about a minute on broadband.

This may be off your original topic, Marc. I was curious, so I went to the Quality site you cite and was struck by this opening to the article:"Culture Drives ISO Registration
Posted on: 06/01/2004
By Gerry Clarke
ISO registration is among the most desirable accomplishments a company can pursue. Adopting ISO registration improves internal processes, and usually reduces operational costs and increases sales and market share."

Nowhere in the article does the author explain her credentials for making such a bold statement ("most desirable"), nor whether she has a bias in terms of generating business for a company.


I agree with the general premise that folks forced to perform an activity, whether it is

ISO9k2k
or
brushing teeth after eating,
or
going to a specific church,
are not as likely to give the activity their devotion as much as if they had chosen the activity as an act of free will after being educated on all the good and bad points.

Nope - Can't see credentials. I read the article and thought about my experiences. I cited the article because of my 'company personality' evaluation 'belief'. I do NOT endorse the author's premise that "ISO registration is among the most desirable accomplishments a company can pursue." I do NOT agree with that premise.

My point was, and is, ISO 9K registration / compliance has little to do with a company's success or failure.

Bill, this file is 'dedicated' to you! The pages are NOT in order - it's from an old presentation I scanned some years back 'for reference'. But - I bet you'll understand...

Marc,

The document made sense to me. :rolleyes: Of course, the first document control system that I worked on was developed by a degreed financial auditor. To describe him as anal about the system would probably be a charitable description. My favorite procedure in our system was the 4 page document on the proper way to write a procedure. There were several supporting procedures for document control to supplement it.

The page where the document name types and identification codes are described brought back warm :biglaugh: memories of a system gone wild. When you are in the middle of chaos and under pressure to get certified, we all do crazy things. Was it overkill? Of course. Did it make the auditors happy? You bet. Would I do it the same way? Probably, if I had to keep lots of procedures organized.

In all honesty, the documentation can get out of control. When the plant is about to burn down or blow up (literally when you are in the chemical industry), the last thing that I would have checked was the procedure on what to do. Many of the documented procedures were used for training purposes and not daily use. The workers knew what to do.

I will make sure I keep a copy for future reference. Thanks, I think.

Bill Pflanz

Interesting,

I recently spoke with a 'sales representative' of our registrar, and told her that we no longer had a Quality Assurance Manager. - I am the management rep, and manage a "quality system" . to which I was asked... "then who is responsible for quality in your organization?"

Needless to say, I was aghast, and responded that all were responsible, within the realms of their various responsibilities.

I continue to be puzzled by the two visions - a business management system, of which 'quality' is a part, makes sense to me.

While our documentation is in the catch-up stage, we have a Business Management System.

Our sister facility in Chile has an Operations Management System.

While my business card still says Quality Assurance Coordinator on it, I share some similar responsibilties with people at our other North American locations called Management System Coordinators (MSC's).

And, on the lighter side, when considering the name change, we were originally going to call it simply our Business System (even thought that the word Management was too heavy)....but when we realized that every month we would have a BS Review, well....we opted to keep the word Management in. BS Review is sometimes too close to what is actually done! :rolleyes:

My point was, and is, ISO 9K registration / compliance has little to do with a company's success or failure.

Agreed!!!!!!! :applause:

Jonell

:applause: Dear Lisa:

There is a powerful tool available that can come up with very very professional sounding Buzz words for exactly the type of situation that you are facing. Look under the threads by Atul Khandekar. He has one that shows how to create high powered Buzz words, after dreaming up a three digit number at random. I created one yesterday - Overall Management Flexibility (OMF). This should work for any situation. Management can never go wrong if we adopt this slogan. There are many more that you can create. One that I can think of is a modification of Ford's slogan

Quality Is Not Our Job, Its Yours.

Charmed :) :thanx:

The discussion about the loss of the use of quality to describe management systems has been going on for years including when TQM became the popular buzzword. Maybe what we should do is take back the use of quality and make it respectable again rather than coining a new phrase like Six Sigma. If it was good enough for Juran, Deming and the other original quality gurus, it should be good enough for us "quality" professionals.

Bill Pflanz

Dear Lisa:

I just reviewed a very nice Powerpoint presentation by Greg B on Quality Management System, QMS (see June 2004 articles) which reminded me your situation. This is from Greg B.

The new slogan.

Who's responsible for Quality? YOU.

Charmed :) :thanx: