Developing QMS (Quality Management System) Measurables

[Proud Liberal]

Having been tasked with developing the measurables by with I'll be evaluated, I knew this would be the best forum to set the benchmark.

BTW, I work in a continuous environment (extrusion). Any experiences or comments would be appreciated.

[David Mullins]

Zeno! Mate!
What is your position in the company??????

------------------

[Proud Liberal]

I am the ISO9000 Coordinator and Quality Manager.

[Kevin Mader]

I recommend Deming's Red Bead Experiment for the powers that be who drive this request of you. Unfortunately, I fear it will be useless.

To me, this is management admitting that they haven't a clue. Sad, but often true. We are all part of the System, and System is Management's job! By asking you to determine your own measurables, they are delegating away responsibilities that just aren't - delegatable! Guess right, you win! Guess wrong, you lose!

Plain ugly! Best of luck to you! I hope you guess right!!

Regards,

Kevin

[David Mullins]

Zeno. Mate.

A sample employment agreement on the way, plus a bit of info on cost of quality, which is useful to demonstrate value of gains, and therefore your worth!

------------------

[Kevin Mader]

Originally posted by David Mullins:
Zeno. Mate.

A sample employment agreement on the way, plus a bit of info on cost of quality, which is useful to demonstrate value of gains, and therefore your worth!

David,

Respectfully, I do not see the correlation between CoQ reporting and an individuals worth (except perhaps the individuals salary as part of the Preventive Cost calculation).

CoQ reporting is a measurement of the System, not the individual. At best, it is an approximation of spending associated with nonconforming processes and products. It should be carefully used and understood to be riddled with errors.

I would recommend 'Abolishing Performance Appraisals' by Tom Coen and Mary Jenkins. They offer alternatives to the traditional lottery method of performance evaluations.

Regards,

Kevin

[Andy Bassett]

Interesting point Kevin, could you accept the proviso on it that Individual Performance Measurement do not work in ALL environments. (This appears to be similar to the Toyota arguement on another thread that ISO 9000 is not necessary in high discipline environments).

Here are my thoughts;

If you work in a established, well-managed company, where the company strategy is clearly known and implemented and motivation is high, them maybe Individual Performance Measurements are not needed or even counter productive.

If however your company is not so well structured, or operating in a changing business environment with a low discipline and a strong focus on the importance of the individual (ie said to be a trait of the Western World) then Individual Performance Measurements can provide some focus and channel some energy in the right direction. Maybe not an approach with a good theoretical foundation i know, but realistic i feel.

Zeno - If you are in the above environment i would not turn down the opportunity to create measurables against which you can be measured, as with a little thought you should be able to turn this to you or your depts/projects advantage.
In the pure sense it is not right that you are creating the measurables yourself, but maybe your company is just starting on this road, and over the next couple of years it is going to improve and develop the target setting process.

In the meantime, IMHO, make the most of it.

Regards

------------------
Andy B

[Kevin Mader]

Originally Posted by Andy Bassett

....If you work in a established, well-managed company, where the company strategy is clearly known and implemented and motivation is high, them maybe Individual Performance Measurements are not needed or even counter productive.

If however your company is not so well structured, or operating in a changing business environment with a low discipline and a strong focus on the importance of the individual (ie said to be a trait of the Western World) then Individual Performance Measurements can provide some focus and channel some energy in the right direction. Maybe not an approach with a good theoretical foundation i know, but realistic i feel....

Hello Andy,

I hope you don't mind but I took your quote and shortened it a bit. Here is some thought for the group.

For the first paragraph, I believe you are right. The organizational AIM is clear, well communicated, and leadership is present. A good foundation for good organizational and individual performance! Measurements are not necessary.

For the second paragraph, the AIM is not clear. The associate can not perform well in this atmosphere. Guidance through good leadership, management and some level of supervision is necessary, but missing. A poor work environment. Here, even a person with a good work ethic will be reduced to less. Things required to bring about good performance are out of the reach of the individual. They are management's responsibiility. Deming gave an example in The New Economics about a woman who tried as hard as she could to overcome these obstacles. She ended up frustrated. She did not know that the System was responsible for her problems. She thought she could change the outcome if she just worked harder!

Some would argue that you can evaluate a persons demeanor and state of mind. Measure them on individual traits and characteristics. A personal evaluation and compare them to the rest. Very few of us have the training or understanding to fairly label an individual. So who will do it? What scaling system will they use? Most managers charged with the task of evaluations lack both.

Sure, we all can determine the difference between those that make you feel happy and those who anger you. Placing a number to them is purely arbitrary. How would one rate my post here? A one or a ten? I'll bet I could get both! So which is right? Probably both.

Management should focus on the AIM of the organization and help associate achieve this AIM. I recommended Deming's Red Bead Experiment. If anyone is interested in a video presentation of this experiment, I have the name and address of a resource which sells them for $18. Or you can read the experiment in Out of the Crisis. It is a simple, but great way of learning that the System is responsible for most of the performance issues. Deming's figures on this in his estimation were 94%/6%. I believe he was right!!

Regards,

Kevin