Lack of Management Commitment and Cooperation in Implementation of QMS!

[Sardokar]

Hello to all

I was hired as a Quality coordinator for a big IT company about 10 months ago . This company had 3 other consultant try to establish for it an ISO system but they all resigned for various reasons.

in the span of 8 months I Basically wrote /ammended the Quality system with all the required procedures , ammending some of the old existing procedures and creating new ones from scratch.

we brought an external consultant to audit our QDS and basically no non conformance were detected , but he noted that the biggest part of the implementation had not been done .

The implementation problem has proven to be a huge problem since the company has very strong headed department managers who want to do things on their own way and often refuse to follow procedures.

Furthermore top administration has been somewhat reluctant to take serious measures against that kind of behavior since these department managers are "earning money for the company" ... top management has even been reluctant to file corrective/preventive actions against such behaviors

my question is... what should i do ?

I've been thinking more and more about resigning ...the implementation is proving to be such a head ache im losing sleep over it and feeling frustrated .

Please help

Thanks in advance.

[Gert Sorensen]

Hi Sardokar,

Welcome to the Cove.

It's sad to hear about the resistance/commitment from your management, unfortunately this is not a unique situation. For starters I suggest that you look at the similar threads at the bottom of the page, since this subject - in broad terms - have been touched upon several times.

[Jennifer Kirley]

Originally Posted by Sardokar

Furthermore top administration has been somewhat reluctant to take serious measures against that kind of behavior since these department managers are "earning money for the company" ... top management has even been reluctant to file corrective/preventive actions against such behaviors

Welcome to The Cove!

As Gert said, this is not a unique problem. In addition to going through consultants like governesses in the movie The Sound of Music, your quote above really put the finger on it.

But why would these middle managers not want to follow procedures? Are there aspects or controls that are absolutely required by a QMS ("Inspection? We don't need no stinking inspection!") that they simply don't think is necessary? Have you asked them - have you involved them in making those procedures so they will actually represent what is done and not make them think they're being redesigned as an organization?

To get buy-in there are some things you really need:

1. An understanding of why the whole project is important. Is it to gain market share through a more reliable product (build brand loyalty like with Toyota), reduce the cost of returned product, pass regulator audits, take the company public--why are you people doing this in the first place? Top manamement needs to do more than say "Now we will do ISO" or some such.

2. Involve them as qualified internal consultants. These are subject matter experts, so they should be asked what procedures should say...unless processes are being completely redesigned and there will be confusion and turf wars.

3. A set of measures to use for discussion of how well things are going. Not just for QMS implementation, but its expected impact that will affect them personally. Profits, market growth, security, personal pride in being THE brand to beat, or maybe a different one of these for each person. Motivation is a very personal thing.

4. Regular temperature checks to see what needs to be updated. Again, these managers should be intimately involved. If the procedure and process don't match, which needs to be changed more and why? In what way? Be specific and make it clear that if the process is sound, it may be the procedure that needs to be changed...or eliminated. Not everything requires a written procedure. Sometimes a flow chart and turtle diagram will do.

Sounds like you have a lot of challenges to deal with, and some may rest with you because you wrote these things and are now being told (without words) they are not acceptable for some reason. You have to look at this again and honestly determine if their attitudes are what needs changing--such a thing is like pushing a rock uphill.

I hope this helps!

[harry]

Welcome Sardokar,

Apart from the good points in Jennifer's post, you may have to consider this.

Quality Management Systems that are build around the existing operational methods of the company, meaning incorporate ISO requirements into the existing method or way of doing things (with minimal amendments here and there and only when necessary) are easily accepted. Systems that are built around a template normally required major changes in operational ways and methods create resistance from existing employees and management alike.

I don’t know which method was adopted in your place. I do know that it is an accepted fact that IT people resist perceived red tapes and systems because of the nature of their job. Therefore any system created without such considerations and flexibility is doomed to failure.

[Sardokar]

First off , thank you for the welcomes and the responses

second, let me quote a few of

Originally Posted by Jennifer Kirley

But why would these middle managers not want to follow procedures?

To get buy-in there are some things you really need:

1. An understanding of why the whole project is important.

2. Involve them as qualified internal consultants.

3. A set of measures to use for discussion of how well things are going.

4. Regular temperature checks to see what needs to be updated. Again, these managers should be intimately involved. If the procedure and process don't match, which needs to be changed more and why? In what way? Be specific and make it clear that if the process is sound, it may be the procedure that needs to be changed...or eliminated. Not everything requires a written procedure. Sometimes a flow chart and turtle diagram will do.

You have to look at this again and honestly determine if their attitudes are what needs changing--such a thing is like pushing a rock uphill.

I hope this helps!

Hi Jennifer .

Let me try to discuss your post point by point :

Some of the Things that are happening right now:

*recruitement is being done before even sending a recruitement request to the HR dpt, although the procedure and top management requires it...this has happened repeatedly and top management is reluctant to file a CAPA against the department manager .as to the "why" this is happening , it is widely known that the said manager is strong headed and never wanted ISO in the first place .

*most dept managers are "very busy" and the implementation is taking way too long , for example our department objectives are not yet set although weve been discussing it for over a month and a half and several reminders had been sent

* records of Customer complaints and relevant CAPA are not always filled...the organization used to keep them as email and the transition is being reluctant at best ,furthermore dpt manage are hardly setting the right example

etc...

to answer your points one by one , jennifer

1- i believe that the GM wants the ISO certification a commercial purpose first and foremost since a lot of foreign companies require the ISO certifications to accept to deal with another. They did formulate that they wanted to improve the "quality" of their organization but i do believe that the first point is the most crucial to them.

2- The department managers were involved in the creation of some of the procedures ( among others: the design and development , the sales, the support, the inspection procedure... )

3. good idea. Thanks

4.im not sure i understood you ,could you please rephrase or develop that point?

[M Greenaway]

If your problem is getting people to comply with procedures I would ask why these procedures are there in the first place anyway ?

[Jennifer Kirley]

Thank you for details that can be answered directly.

Top management needs to draw a line in expectations. Why they require HR requests needs to be defined (why does it matter enough for them to make a procedure out of it?) and why it matters if this is not done. Armed with this information, top management needs to weigh how badly they want that HR request, the damage if it's not made, and the degree to which they will press the point. This is top management's purview, but the issue must be raised as a valid CAPA and sent to top management if the middle managers refuse to accept it. It's no good to say, "Well, I guess you don't have to do this..." if the control really matters.

Department objectives are something that should be set as a management group so they will compliment each other, are acceptable as a group, and are vetted for organizational soundness and measurability. Everyone is busy, so this is something that may need to be done over an out-of-office lunch or management retreat. Sometimes it helps a lot to go for pizza and hash this stuff out away from the office.

If department managers were involved with procedure creation, are the end results something they approved of? Did they affirm their approval in some way? Why would they do that if there's no intention to uphold the promise? This might be a cultural issue, or they might think the procedure itself is not a good fit. That must be determined and the specifics addressed. Like I said, sometimes a simple flow chart and turtle diagram will do. But their essential controls must be defined, understood, obeyed and corrected as needed. Send the CAPA up the ranks if people refuse to respond to something they signed agreement with.

Customer satisfaction is a very big deal, and not only because ISO requires it. Tracking, understanding and improving customer response support is a critical part of keeping the company brand attractive. IT people sometimes find it hard to understand this, but top management gets to drive - and I mean drive - the effort to make sure customers are served well. If top management isn't willing to exert its authority to make sure customers are happy, you have a more profound problem than middle management not following procedures.

The reason for doing the customer satisfaction management thing needs to be discussed. I once read about a study (I think Coca Cola did it) that showed an unhappy customer will talk about the experience many times more often than a happy one. Westinghouse (I think it was) long ago determined that for every $1 spent to get a new customer, it cost $7 to get that customer back if lost. These discussions and descisions (to move from selling software to building lifelong software customers) are what transforms technical experts to business unit managers. Not everyone makes that transition well. How to deal with that is, again, a top management concern.

But the customer happiness project must be easy to manage and check for success. Ask these managers how that would best be done, and then act as an internal consultant to say, "Okay that's good, now how should we do XYZ (that pesky QMS requirement)?" If they give you the brush off, go higher because the question MUST be answered.

All of this stuff takes time; sometimes it takes a really long time. With some people you will find more business thinking than others; some will act like artists and others will think very pragmatically. Everyone has their gifts, so the organization's responsibility is to make those gifts profitable or examine if the person is still who, and what, they really need. Again, this is based on the business plan and top management's leaderhip.

As you go, you must critically examine the system's design (processes and procedures) and ask: Does the process need changing? Does the procedure need changing? Or, is it a simple matter of compliance? Do your procedures fit the need? Are they too bureaucratic or complex? Is there some reasonable middle ground you can find? This is what I mean with #4.

As a quality manager there is no way you can do anything more than guide people through this process. Top management gets to decide what it wants, but may not have anticipated the personal resistance to following certain rules. If the rules can be continuously flaunted your company may look like a 4077th M*A*S*H unit. But that unit turned out to be the region's best... rules need to be designed in a way that fits the organization's need. In an IT organization that need will include a greater sense of middle management freedom than, for example a pharmaceutical manufacturer.

Figuring out that vehicle is where you come in. Making sure it gets done is, ultimately, top management's job. How well these things suit you is what makes you decide if you should still work there.

I hope this helps!

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Sardokar

Hello to all

my question is... what should i do ?

Put everything into management review and let the top dogs worry about it, it's their problem to fix, not yours.

If top management doesn't want to fix it and it looks like you'll take the hit for their lack of whatever my suggestion would be to "stand up-hook up'-shuffle to the door-jump right out and count to 4".

I know it sounds easy, but I've done it myself in the past.