This is a follow to a discussion in the "ASQ Releases New Membership Model - Will it make a difference?" thread.

I voted "yes" because I am the QA Manager, but I am also the Purchasing Agent as well.

I voted "Yes" because I get paid to be the Quality Systems Coordinator.

Jaime

I voted no because My job title is manufacturing engineer although my job function is QA. The philosophy is that each and every employee is directly responsible for the quality of their work and if that is taken seriously who needs QA. :cool:

Today, yes... tomorrow, who knows... Job titles change around here as frequently as our site management does = once every 3 to 4 years... Today I am the Quality Systems Analyst, tomorrow, they may call me the Systems Analyst or something else?

I voted yes, of course I made up my own title when I was first chosen to create a quality system to comply with the EU.
Of course now it is a very easy name to remember when something goes wrong--QA DID IT!
Bridget

Yes, Quality Director

Yes, Quality Coordinator

I have voted No.
Quality is a strategic issue and not a departmental issue. In my company there is no QA or QC department rather everybody is a QA or QC manager even the person who does job of security. I ask whether any job could be tolerated without feel of Quality. Whether manufacturing or Non Manufacturing, or purchasing, or Training, or fire and Safety service, every person should have responsibility of QA/QC .

Now will you please tell me what is the relevancy of separate QA/QC dept. or person who has responsibility of controlling or assurance of a product or service which was not produced by them. They are just inspectors.

I have voted No.
Quality is a strategic issue and not a departmental issue. In my company there is no QA or QC department rather everybody is a QA or QC manager even the person who does job of security. I ask whether any job could be tolerated without feel of Quality. Whether manufacturing or Non Manufacturing, or purchasing, or Training, or fire and Safety service, every person should have responsibility of QA/QC .

Now will you please tell me what is the relevancy of separate QA/QC dept. or person who has responsibility of controlling or assurance of a product or service which was not produced by them. They are just inspectors.I like your answer, Manoj.
Here's mine:
I tried to create the ideal "Quality Department" where the members performed the following functions:

met with designers, customers and production engineers to determine critical characteristics of products, Control Plans (FMEA and PPAP included) for making product, in-process inspection plans
design the format and instrumentation for First Article Inspection
Train operators to perform in-process and First Article Inspection
Take responsibility for selection, purchase, maintenance, calibration of measuring instruments
Train operators to use measuring instruments
Inspect and approve Quality processes at suppliers
Interact with customers on Quality questions
Conduct DOE, oversee training and implementation of SPC charting
Oversee corrective/preventive action research and root cause investigations
Act as "court of last resort" when operators, customers, or suppliers had questions about Quality
No one in the Quality department routinely performed inspections or acted like "policeman" for someone else's work. It was generally assumed some "process" was at fault for nonconformances and primary effort was discovering and modifying the process glitch. Egos were left at the door. "Blame" did not enter into any discussion or investigation at our shop or our supplier's.

Essentially, our Quality department was a knowledge resource for dealing with an ever-changing array of different products. Quality acted as important ambassadors to customers and suppliers.

I absolutely agree entire process should be slanted toward prevention, not detection of defects.

Is there an option to vote "all of the above?" The "official" title on my business card is VP, Technical Services. But on any given day, my position is either a QMS consultant, QMS auditor, QMS trainer, or some combination of the above. :confused:

QA Administrator on a defense contract, but we mostly provide maintenance and operations so there aren’t many products produced. I inspect and audit:

Electronic/Mechanical systems maintenance
Maintenance management, PM scheduling
Contract wide drawings and schematics
Calibration & condition of test equipment
Safety (AFOSH, OSHA)
Property Control
Logistics
Transportation
Security
Corrosion Control
Occupational Health
Environmental

Is there an option to vote "all of the above?" The "official" title on my business card is VP, Technical Services. But on any given day, my position is either a QMS consultant, QMS auditor, QMS trainer, or some combination of the above. :confused:Actually, I've ALWAYS admired the appellation, "Thaumaturge" (Miracle Worker, loosely defined) much more than "VP.":rolleyes:

No ... "Metrology Engineer"

Graeme

Actually, I've ALWAYS admired the appellation, "Thaumaturge" (Miracle Worker, loosely defined) much more than "VP.":rolleyes:
Yes, I'm kind of partial to that title too. Maybe I'll put that on my next business cards. It might at least raise some questions...

:nope:
I voted my job title does not include Quality!
How sad is that, I work for the automotive companies as 3rd party inspection. Someone please tell me how Quality does not fit into my job description. It screams Quality! :mad:

Nope, :nope:

My job title does not include quality, I am a "projects manager", and I deal mainly in supplier development and verification of their processes. We do have a Quality function and a separate quality manager, but I feel the quality department we have here in the UK is simply an inspection outfit. Verifying that product is correct and as per spec and ensuring that everyone is working to the letter if of our QMS/EMS.

I have strong opinions about the quality function and it's effectiveness, but hey, the management simply want to know we are not p'ing customers off and that money is well spent. As long as we have that ISO/TS certtificate on the wall they are happy, therefore, the function won't be changed.

I agree with most that quality should be a preventative thing, but unless you have a workdforce of pro-active, fanatstically motivated and dynamic people, you will never be able to install the proactive approach fully, to the working environment. That's a bit "cups half empty", but come on guys, we live in the real world and no matter what you say, you only have a limited amount of choices in who you employ!

I am starting to rant now, but I will watch this topic like an eagle, as I could pick up some valid pointers when I become the top dog for quality one day! :cool:

On the org chart it says "Director of Quality Assurance".
The owner often introduces me as "Our QA Guy".

and I'm OK with that.

I thought "Quality" is everybody's responsibility, so why bother if it is in the title or not ???

We are all part of the bigger picture QUALITY

:bighug:

Yes - Quality Systems Specialist

Yes, however I am the entire department as well.

I agree that everyone should be part of meeting and exceeding customer requirements and expectations. This is what determines the quality level does it not? If the customer PERCEIVES that you have meet or exceeded requirements and expectations, you would be considered to have high quality...at least by your customer(s).

As it relates to prevention, it is long road to change the culture from detection to prevention. I am currently 2 years into the process. We are making progress, but, as I am sure many have experienced here I am still dealing with hold outs. Why do they hold out? "Not my job" :nope:

So Yes, have quality in title...wish I didn't.

I am a ASQ CQA and a Quality Manager. I believe everyone should have the quality somewhere in their title. Everyone is responsible for quality.
Cheryl

Yes.
QA Engineer.

yes. dqmr as well.

As the "Admin & Systems Support Coordinator" I'm happy not to have "quality" in my title. In our organisation it's only likely to cause confusion, at best, and resentment, at worst. I prefer to make it clear that quality is intrinsic in everything we do - good, bad, or indifferent, it just is.

Yeah, Senior Quality Engineer.

No
But i'm a kind of scape goat that deals with all kind of quality related issues.

Yes: Quality Engineer.

:tg:

I prefer Quality Manager - I try to avoid that whole assurance vs. control fuss. Just get to the point.... I think it is irritating when they throw environmental into quality, just because the standard starts with "ISO". I know I can do it with a chemical degree, but I ponder some folks ability to suffer through it without that background. Some folks have a hard enough time determining the name of the elements listed on a steel cert...:rolleyes:

My title is Quality Assurance Manager. I also handle all ISO functions like internal auditing, contract review, management review and any other function the owners can't find someone else do.

QSA - Quality System Administrator

- That's pronounced "Guy who sits in office and creates policies, forms, manuals, and the occasional chart"

Yes, Quality Assurance Specialist

Hi,

I'm brand new here. In my present position, my title is Quality Assurance Manager, though I am also responsible for Safety/OSHA Compliance and general training.

I am transitioning from 9 years in neutraceuticals (FDA) to active medical devices (FDA). To me, "widgets is widgets", so it doesn't much matter whether it's a vitamin C capsule or an x-ray machine.

I'm looking forward to learning more from the folks on this forum.

Take care,

:biglaugh:
I voted yes but I'm also the Material Control Manager.
Thanks,
Keith

Yes- Q.A. Manager

Sounds like it would be interesting to see how many hold multiple titles versus how many are 'dedicated' Quality personnel. Generally, we tend to wear many hats , usually safety and training, but apparently quite a few others...

Yes, my title is Quality Leader.

Steve

Yes, Quality Engineer

I have voted No.
Quality is a strategic issue and not a departmental issue. In my company there is no QA or QC department rather everybody is a QA or QC manager even the person who does job of security. I ask whether any job could be tolerated without feel of Quality. Whether manufacturing or Non Manufacturing, or purchasing, or Training, or fire and Safety service, every person should have responsibility of QA/QC .

Now will you please tell me what is the relevancy of separate QA/QC dept. or person who has responsibility of controlling or assurance of a product or service which was not produced by them. They are just inspectors.

QC : is focused on product produced, defect detection, The product's producer responsible to the quality of the product, so everybody can be a QC (not a QA) even the person who does job of security, as long as he/she produces a product. Quality control is a strategic issue (If I can I use your terminology). However, QC can also be a departmental issue, a department who does defect detection before a product distributed.

QA : is focused on processes to build a product, defect prevention, QA does not directly responsible to the quality of products produced, the product's producer responsible to the quality of the product, and QA is not a product's producer except that QA produces policies, procedures and standards to ensure defect prevention does exist. QA is departmental issue.:D

BTW, I have voted yes