It was brought up in a recent meeting with a client that a person serving in the position of a metrologist AND as the QM *could* be considered a possible conflict of interest.... :confused:

I have always taken the view that it strengthens the bonds in the workplace, since one of the fellow "lab-rats" could be turned to with questions and could bring up possible quality issues before they become quality non-conformances. :ca:

The client didn't have a problem with it, per se, but just wanted to bring it up because they had never run into that situation before....this, however, is the second company for which I have served in BOTH positions simultaneously.

Comments/Insights/Jeers?

Thanks,

B

It was brought up in a recent meeting with a client that a person serving in the position of a metrologist AND as the QM *could* be considered a possible conflict of interest.... :confused:

I have always taken the view that it strengthens the bonds in the workplace, since one of the fellow "lab-rats" could be turned to with questions and could bring up possible quality issues before they become quality non-conformances. :ca:

The client didn't have a problem with it, per se, but just wanted to bring it up because they had never run into that situation before....this, however, is the second company for which I have served in BOTH positions simultaneously.

Comments/Insights/Jeers?

Thanks,

BI guess I don't understand the function of a metrologist in any way that could be construed as a conflict of interest with a Quality Manager's function. Can you explain further?

I see no problems at all with that arrangement.

They were referring, I assume, to the possibility that "someone" (*ahem, you talkin' ta me?!*) ~could~ have a lack of integrity regarding their technical work OR "alter" paperwork for some reason....

I'm sorry...I learned from the old-school...integrity is the heart and soul of metrology...


B

My experience is the two positions with the highest integrity are metrologist and Quality Manager. Combining them would get more, not less, integrity.

I see no problems at all with that arrangement.Nor do I. Besides, there are lots of small organizaions around with that setup. Nothing to worry about.

/Claes

Agreed, I see no problem. I once had a similar concern about whether a registrar would have a problem with a person holding the titles of QA Manager and Production Manager at the same time, but I have since learned well that this is not a problem. No matter the position, integrity is the glue that keeps it all together.

My experience is the two positions with the highest integrity are metrologist and Quality Manager. Combining them would get more, not less, integrity.
As an aside, does anyone else ever get tired of people looking for that "unidentified person who lurks waiting to destroy all things"? Have third party registrations brought the quality profession to a new level of paranoia where we have to lock everything down so tight that the Q manager has to do everything himself cuz he can't trust anyone to do anything right? Document control, fudging records, on and on.... I really haven't had to face deliberate sabotage (sp?) where I work. People here are not going to jeopardize their jobs by deliberately sabotaging the company. But am I in a special category?

As an aside, does anyone else ever get tired of people looking for that "unidentified person who lurks waiting to destroy all things"? Have third party registrations brought the quality profession to a new level of paranoia where we have to lock everything down so tight that the Q manager has to do everything himself cuz he can't trust anyone to do anything right? Document control, fudging records, on and on.... I really haven't had to face deliberate sabotage (sp?) where I work. People here are not going to jeopardize their jobs by deliberately sabotaging the company. But am I in a special category?


I'm not sure if I completely understood the root of your question, but I think I have the gist. Along those lines, is it my Ego or am I trying to preserve my sanity by doing everything myself? Is that no one can do it *right* (if at all) or just that they don't do it *MY way*? I think in the Quality field (and I claim no expertise as I, as many others, migrated to the field out of necessity-not completely by career choice) has come to,over the past several years, the QM (at least in small companies like mine) being the little hermit who sits in an office until a registration or customer audit comes along....then it's BAM! "We need YOUR expertise since this is a Quality matter"....

Maybe I'm just venting....I actually enjoy the Quality arena. I hold no certifications and have had little formal training (QAF in the military....other than that, no company can ever spare the budget). I was pretty much self-taught (except for help from fine people like you guys when I got in a jam) and have usually worked for larger companies where the Quality environment was nearly revered. I was in a direct line with the company's CEO. Now, I am in a small branch where Quality is like some mystical religious practice (not that Metrology isn't ALSO regarded as such) and nobody wants ANYTHING to do with and I get shouldered with issues that really aren't even Quality related...

So, to sum up my drivel....I don't know if I am just an :ca: who wants things MY way....or if I'm the only one who will actually DO them so we don't have to face the wrath come registration (or heaven forbid CUSTOMER) audit time...

Perhaps I need to go have another cup of coffee and rest in front of the fire with the latest revision of 17025....

Nor do I. Besides, there are lots of small organizaions around with that setup. Nothing to worry about.

/Claes


I totally agree. I worked for a small company in which I was the entire quality department, the program manager and on occasion the receptionist. Never had any customers comment on the arrangement.

Jonell

As an aside, does anyone else ever get tired of people looking for that "unidentified person who lurks waiting to destroy all things"? Have third party registrations brought the quality profession to a new level of paranoia where we have to lock everything down so tight that the Q manager has to do everything himself cuz he can't trust anyone to do anything right? Document control, fudging records, on and on.... I really haven't had to face deliberate sabotage (sp?) where I work. People here are not going to jeopardize their jobs by deliberately sabotaging the company. But am I in a special category?

Steel,

It depends on the company culture. Some companies are pure as the driven snow. But some... The last few places I've worked there were "production" folks (in one place with the QM's help) who would deliberately "fudge" data because they thought "the customer could use it anyway" or "that test isn't important", etc. A few times they were probably right from a totally practical standpoint, but legally, morally, and from a slippery slope perspective I stood my ground. These "fudgers" would sometimes seek-out one of my underlings to get them to sign-off stuff that was not right as per the contract thinking they would be easier marks than I was. But I told my people to politely refuse, ask the "fudger" to sign it themselves if they wanted to, and they knew I would back them to the hilt. it got ugly sometimes, unfortunately. How often I got the "gray areas" lecture. :bonk: But my position was, if you wanna go over my head, feel free, the Prez is my boss, so let's go see him. Sometimes the Prez supported me, sometimes the Prez signed-off on the fudge. But my hands were clean, and my reputation among customers was sterling.

I'm not sure if I completely understood the root of your question, but I think I have the gist. Along those lines, is it my Ego or am I trying to preserve my sanity by doing everything myself? Is that no one can do it *right* (if at all) or just that they don't do it *MY way*?

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think she meant the reverse - I think she was asking why it's almost *assumed* that people will corrupt as much data as possible if given the chance. I agree that corporate culture drives it, though - just a few months ago the push was to attach names to CARs and hand out suspensions (because, *obviously*, people are making mistakes because they're lazy and not because our systems don't work...ri-i-i-ight). Now tell me that's not a push for fudging numbers...and now they've got me on the case - I'll be poka-yoke-ing from now until 2006, sounds like. I am far too sensitive for the backlash that's going to happen when this project gets underway...

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I think she meant the reverse - I think she was asking why it's almost *assumed* that people will corrupt as much data as possible if given the chance. I agree that corporate culture drives it, though - just a few months ago the push was to attach names to CARs and hand out suspensions (because, *obviously*, people are making mistakes because they're lazy and not because our systems don't work...ri-i-i-ight). Now tell me that's not a push for fudging numbers...and now they've got me on the case - I'll be poka-yoke-ing from now until 2006, sounds like. I am far too sensitive for the backlash that's going to happen when this project gets underway...
Blemon, yes, Rachel is thinking along the lines I was thinking. The registrar comes in and just assumes that if we don't lock everything down some schmuck is going to corrupt data just to be screwing it up. Now, since the registrar feels that way, and he also registers the customers' facilities, they get paranoid also. pretty soon nobody trusts anybody to do their job. My feelings are that if you give people ownership of the process, assign them the responsibility to run the process and hold them accountable for the output, life is just so much easier. Why should the QMS person be accountable for everything? I don't make the rules, I just make sure that they are documented and ask for evidence to show effectiveness?

Steel,

But my position was, if you wanna go over my head, feel free, the Prez is my boss, so let's go see him. Sometimes the Prez supported me, sometimes the Prez signed-off on the fudge. But my hands were clean, and my reputation among customers was sterling.

Absolutley correct! The Prez is paid to make those decisions (regardless of culture) thats why he/she is the Prez. Been there and done that. :agree1: A good many years have been spent in the quality arena wearing more then one hat. At my current location I wear them all. I do have a counterpart in Iowa. When I was hired, some four years ago, I was told that each and every employee is totally responsible for the quality of their own work and yes, I made certain that it was a part of our quality procedures! :ca:

It was brought up in a recent meeting with a client that a person serving in the position of a metrologist AND as the QM *could* be considered a possible conflict of interest.... :confused:

I have always taken the view that it strengthens the bonds in the workplace, since one of the fellow "lab-rats" could be turned to with questions and could bring up possible quality issues before they become quality non-conformances. :ca:

The client didn't have a problem with it, per se, but just wanted to bring it up because they had never run into that situation before....this, however, is the second company for which I have served in BOTH positions simultaneously.

Comments/Insights/Jeers?

Thanks,
B
I don't see a problem ... consider that there are one-person companies registered to various QMS standards and in them the person must wear ALL of the hats! Where I am, the lab supervior/quality manager/management rep sometimes takes a vacation from that stuff and turns out some calibrations. We've been registered to ISO 9001:2000 for over 3 years and it has not been a problem.