Do Quality Systems really "run themselves"??

[SteelWoman]

I'm curious about what other Covers' experience is with this...

I've talked recently with some Quality people in industries both the same and entirely different than the industry I'm in right now (steel), and have heard several make the comment, "Well, you really put a Quality System in place, get it certified and then it runs itself."

Am I just incompetent or am I missing something, because that statement makes me CRAZY! I've worked with Quality in both large and small settings and I've yet to run across a system that "runs itself." Interestingly, the last person I talked to about this then went on to admit they are "barely squeaking by" in audits and their system is really quite weak.

The other thing here is I've seen a lot of postings lately for "consultants" and even "short-term Quality Managers" where companies seem to be buying into the thought that you can hire someone for 6 months to put a system in place and then send them on their way - the thing will run itself, right?

Is this a new trend or ??? What are your thoughts?

[cncmarine]

We all know that the registration of a new quality system means that the system has only met the minimum standards. The real growth of the system occurs after the system has been in place. If everything stops after registration then the system breaks down. (That takes care of the manager for 6 month theory)

The success of a quality system is based on continuous improvement. A successful manager never stops learning and growing. None of these activities “run themselves”.

[IEGeek]

Sort of defeats the continual improvement caveat huh?

My top management has that exact sentiment, "put the system in place, pass the audit, then it is out of sight and out of mind and it runs itself."

However, they did not count on me. Anyway, I agree with that statement a little bit (a very little bit) in this way. If the system is robust, the procedures are sound and the processes bulletproof, then they system can run itself, HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER that only means that you have the foundation for the future. Once our people know the polices, processes and procedures they should be able to do things from memory (i.e. verifying control plan prior to new production run, not starting work until SOPs are at the cell, not accepting material with no lot number etc) The system is running itself, but there is always room for improvement and there are always changes to be made and QA mgrs are a necessary evil

No longer does the QA Mgr or myself have to walk the system to make sure that our team members are following the system, thy know the system.

Just some thoughts.....

[amjadrana]

Registration to a quality system is just the beginning. Any improvement depends upon the top management committment. If top management is committed, then there are several areas that would need continual improvement. These are objectives and attainment of objectives, preventive actions, corrective actions, improving the processes. reducing the quality costs.

These can be achieved without having a quality system in place but a quality system gives a structure in place.

[SteelWoman]

Actually I TOTALLY agree that in a strong system certain aspects of that system DO run themselves - you should not have to keep reminding people to follow their procedures, fill out non-conformance reports, etc after the system is in place and people are trained on it.

Where I have an issue with this concept is the lack of understanding about all the "other stuff" that doesn't run itself - Supplier Development activities, Calibration of instruments, Capability Studies, procedure changes, continuous improvement activities, mrts, etc, etc, etc. There are - obviously - big sections of even a strong system that simply do not "run themselves."

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Originally Posted by SteelWoman

I've talked recently with some Quality people in industries both the same and entirely different than the industry I'm in right now (steel), and have heard several make the comment, "Well, you really put a Quality System in place, get it certified and then it runs itself."

Yeah, that'll be the day... It sounds like wishful thinking to me. As far as I know, it takes continual effort to keep anything, including a QMS running.

The question is what people mean when they say a system that runs itself? Small parts of a system can gain momentum largely by themselves: I used to have to chase people around in order to make them update their written procedures... these days they are chasing me with updates they want issued (I love it)! But then again, it took a lot of effort to convey the insight that written procedures can be a good thing.

/Claes

[SteelWoman]

I spend an inordinate amount of time chasing people around to make them do what they have to do for the Quality system - update CI plans, mark up procedure changes, provide required training, etc. Geeze, if there's a way to make this "run itself" I'll WELCOME IT with open arms, but more and more I'm confused over whether I'm a "Quality Systems" person or an over-titled babysitter.

[Kevin H]

Quality systems running themselves - I think part of it's corporate culture. My current employer and my previous employer both qualify as part of the steel industry. At the prior employer, I wasn't involved directly in managing the plantwide quality system - just ran the mechanical testing lab, its independently certifed A2LA subsytem and was an internal auditor. But we were committed (via emphasis by top management) to using the system. I planned on improving lab capability/capacity annually while working to reduce testing costs, calibration was a given - selecting vendors, scheduling them, etc. if I had a finding in an internal audit against me, I had to have a response to my manager for review within a week and we'd be meeting with quality systems in 2 weeks to reach agreement on c/a and a timeline. During 5 & 1/2 years, I had no customer complaints issued against the lab I managed.

At my current international employer, there is a stated committment to quality and we've been registered to both ISO 9001 & ISO/TS. I'm involved in running and administering the quality system. It is a constant battle to get most of senior management to respond to internal corrective action requests, nonconformances identified during audits, customer complaints, etc. in a timely manner. Even agreed upon decisions are not enacted in a timely manner. We do a number of things well, but I feel there are holes in our system I could drive a tank through. It's constant fire fighting, and I feel at times as though I'm a babysitter. About the 3rd or 4th time someone does something wrong (as defined by the system) I become the read & follow the procedure ogre.

So Steelwoman, I guess I'm in agreement with you - at least with my current employer. The firefighting just does not allow enough time for me to get involved in the really important parts of quality.