posted 07 February 2001 08:15 AM               

The designated "responsible authority" here is the ISO/QA manager. But in a sense "everyone" must play a part in it by following the procedures set within the system.

posted 07 February 2001 09:29 AM            

QA Manager leads the company in understading the quality requirements per the standard being applied. QA Mgr oversees the whole operation and helps lead the Department Managers in keeping compliance and searching for CI areas.

Each Department Manager is responsible for maintaining quality and continuous improvement of their quality system in their department.

Each employee has the responsibility to not accept "bad product" from any "customer" and to immediately act upon breaks / alterations from procedure.

posted 07 February 2001 01:30 PM               

Jim: I like the inclusion of "everyone". I agree. Here is my follow up question for everyone here at the Cove: do you think "everyone" really understands this responsibility?

Randy: A Dynamic Duo! Don't let your wife know that you are responsible for Quality. She might disagree (LOL)!

Louie: A nice broadening of the question. This is exactly right. Quality is everyone's responsibility, but Quality is born in the boardroom. If management is responsible for 94%, then management bears the greatest responsibility for improving the Quality System, ISO or otherwise.

Doug: One of three Core values? What are the other two? Your comment gets to part of the topic I didn't post. The "Convenience Factor of ISO". Responsibility to meet the standard is often stuck into the closet when it suits some folks. We have all seen this to one degree or another.

My second question, my brief disclosure, and your valued responses will drive the discussion a bit further, so I'll hold off a bit on posting my thoughts.

Regards,

Kevin

posted 07 February 2001 01:49 PM               

Now in reality the Executives only want to know when our registrar is coming in, the Managers don't want to do "the extra paperwork", so QA has to hold their hands and wipe their noses. QA also get to take the blame when things go wrong we often hear "I was never told that", or "We never had to do that before ISO". Yet when we get a compliment the Department takes the credit.

Ahhh the life of a QA employee, what a joy!!

posted 07 February 2001 09:52 PM               

Me: QS requires FMEA's
CEO - Company 1: We haven't had a customer ask yet for one. How many do we need to pass the audit?
QA - Company 1: I know we need to do them, but I won't get cross-functional help.
Sales - Company 1: Are we registered yet?
Who's responsible? - The management rep. - and QA department - just get them through the audit.

CEO - Company 2: We've done them in the past and learned alot. It would be a good thing to implement across the board. Can you train us? We want to establish a library of them to communicate lessons learned and improve for the next program.
QA - Company 2: Engineering is compiling a list of current projects we want to do FMEA's on.
Sales - When's the training? I want to understand this.
Who's responsible? - CEO - entire organization.

Yes, I've seen Company 2 in action - they do exist.

posted 08 February 2001 09:46 AM            

Our understanding is this:
I am responsible for making sure management knows what has to be done to meet/keep our certification. I also am responsible for making sure that the real workers understand what and why.

Management is responsible for backing me up, providing everyone with the resources they need to meet the quality goals, plans and system. It is their job to set an example for everyone else. If they don't show that quality is important, it certainly won't happen.

Everyone is responsible for quality. Only the operators themselves can control the quality, anyone else just verifies it. We have no "quality control" personnel. We do have quality assurance people. They take care of off-line testing etc.

I've work with various divisions and for the most part, everyone follows the same philosophy. There is some variance in level of commitment, but statistically there is variation in all processes.

I guess that when you can say that you actually enjoy showing up for work each day, and your co-workers aren't ready to vote you off the island, management commitment must be where it should be. We've had our moments where they didn't like what I've told them but in the long run, they've agreed that it needed to be done. We all go home friends at the end of the day.

posted 08 February 2001 11:36 AM               

For me, the Responsibility is everyoneâs. Each should understand what their contribution is to the system, and management must help folks to REALIZE this. To often, they are TOLD. This is not nearly as effective.

Accountability for the Organizations Quality System is the Presidentâs. The Responsibility is everyoneâs. Management must assume the bulk of the responsibility since they are in the position to do the most good, or, the most harm.

Laura: Great input! Company 2 do exist, are probably a nicer place to work, and have a better chance for success. They are intrinsically motivated. They are a Learning Organization. IMHO, they are the organizations we should be looking to work for or striving to become.

SteelMaiden:

ãOnly the operators themselves can control the quality, anyone else just verifies it.ä

I have to disagree with this statement for the most part. Operators are responsible for the remaining 6%. Management is responsible for the other 94%: the tools, equipment, the environment, the quality of inbound materials, etc., as well as the support and improvement of the System. Dr. Deming was clear on this responsibility. So was Dr. Juran.

ãI've work with various divisions and for the most part, everyone follows the same philosophy. There is some variance in level of commitment, but statistically there is variation in all processes. There is some variance in level of commitment, but statistically there is variation in all processes.ä

Absolutely true. Commitment comes from the belief that something is good or right and from individual loyalty. There must be rapport between components in a System. There must be a common AIM for a System. The same philosophy is a must in my book.

ãI guess that when you can say that you actually enjoy showing up for work each day, and your co-workers aren't ready to vote you off the island, management commitment must be where it should be.ä

Be careful. Donât confuse coincidence with a method. When things are good in an organization, it is normally attributed to Îgreat management practicesâ. This is often not the case. All it takes is a small recession to hit to surface the ugly truth; good timing and an eager market. Still, I am pleased that you have found Joy in Work! It helps to get one out of bed, work long hours without regret, and makes life a little sweater!

ãWe've had our moments where they didn't like what I've told them but in the long run, they've agreed that it needed to be done. We all go home friends at the end of the day.ä

Personal Motivation is always better than Impersonal Movement. Still, some need the nudge in the start before making realizations that what was encouraged is actually of personal benefit. Our commitment as Quality ambassadors is to educate folks on the work they do, on motivation, and how all the components in a system are interrelated.

More of my thoughts (opinions):

Most people exist in a System not knowing what they are supposed to be doing or what their true responsibilities are. They often leave work that is theirs for someone else never even knowing that it was theirs to deal with. I believe this stems from individual and organizational philosophical beliefs and are learned over a lifetime. One such philosophy is Quality. Others include: Customer, Systems, Variation, Knowledge, People, & Continuous Improvement. There are more. We constantly hear about things like Operational Definitions. There is a lot of merit for this. People in organizations must rally around common beliefs and definitions in order to approach and solve problems in a common, efficient manner.

Having ISO will not fix the problems of systems. People and the way they collectively think will. Everyone needs to know what ISO is and how they fit with it. When a Customer Service manager approaches the Quality Manager (ie. Management Rep) before an ISO audit to say, ãWhat do I need to be doing (or have done)?ä, it is too late. The misunderstanding must be cleared up. Anyone in a System should be asking, ãWhat is it that I do and am I doing it well?ä Managing an organization is everyoneâs job and responsibility, regardless if ÎManagerâ appears in your title.

An organization must have a philosophy on critical components that make up a system. What is your Organizationâs Philosophy on Quality?

Regards,

posted 08 February 2001 04:57 PM            

If your employees are content to know that their management feels they are only 6% accountable for the success (and hey, these days and times in our industry quality is everything.) of the company i say "good for you". Unfortunately, we have spent decades (that is a relative understatement, as we can trace our company's history back to the 1890's) instilling the belief that each and every employee is 100% in charge of the quality of the product they produce.

Our company has been used as the model for so many business admin and management degree and graduate courses at the good schools, copied by every company that came after us in our industry, and been the subject of so many research projects and books that I cannot even begin to count them all. Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery.

The main point of my previous post was that there are good companies to work for. Not only the Corp. I work for, but a number of others that have followed our lead in management styles and others that don't.

I plan on doing what I'm doing for a long time to come. I have no delusional misconceptions that will shatter in the next recession. Believe me, I've seen years so scary that it would keep you up at night. But, we weathered the storm, remained profitable when all around us were losing money, or their entire business. Is management responsible for that track record? Yes indeed, but there is not one manager in our entire corporation who would say that all of our years of success and quality were not a direct result of the hourly employee's 100% accountability for quality. After all, if all the employees get fed up and leave bcause they are not given the credit and recognition they deserve, who will the managers manage?

posted 08 February 2001 06:37 PM               

I am also pleased that we both agree that disagreeing isnât a bad thing and that we both have the opportunity to grow or modify our own theories with the things we share here. I had hoped to create an interesting thread and I am grateful for your responses. As Dr. Deming use to say, ãThere is more than one answer.ä He was right on this. One management style for one organization might not work well with another. One must be prepared to modify their theory of management or suffer the consequences.

Management doesnât know everything, nor will they ever. I have never endorsed this theory. They arenât always smarter either. If they had all the answers, then why are there any problems to start with? Dr. Deming gives an example in Out of the Crisis where he went to the floor, with the organizationâs senior staff in tow, and began talking with the workers. After a bit, the President grew impatient. He said to Dr. Deming, ãIf you wanted to know what was wrong, you could have spared the walk and just asked us!ä Dr. Deming replied, ãIf you know whatâs wrong, why donât you fix it?ä It is an important fact that FEEDBACK is a two way street. Communication must go both ways. I think we agree that management doesnât know everything. Dr. Deming spent a good amount of time on the floor. The workers gave him the best feedback!

I think you express your thoughts well, perhaps better than you give yourself credit for. I appreciate your humbleness on this. Perhaps I should learn this from you? I believe I might.

You said, ãI'll never convince anyone that I cannot manage a quality system without a seaside cottage and a mountain retreat, although I think that those things would make me a more productive, happier and less stressed employee.ä You might be right on this (especially with the boss). I would recommend a thread I started on ãDoes money motivate?ä and the suggested reading there. I think you might find that interesting as well.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on ã100% in charge of Qualityä issue. Most of the time, workers in a System are helpless (please note MOST) to control the outcome. The outcome is a reflection of the process (controls). Management is responsible for the System and the processes found in it. I would recommend Demingâs ãRed Bead Experimentä to help anyone who disagrees with my viewpoint (the SteelMaiden is not alone on this I am certain) to learn a bit about the dynamics of a system. If you still disagree, thatâs o.k. with me. Still, to expect a worker to give 100% effort 100% of the time would not be enough, accurate, or fair. Variation is inherent, guidance from management imperative. We will have our good and bad days. Asking for 100% is another thing, but I personally wouldnât attach a number to it.

If you believe what Harry S. Dent Jr. says (and I do for the most part), organizations with long histories are successful for many cyclical reasons. I would recommend his books, The Great Boom Ahead, The Great Jobs Ahead, and The Roaring 2000s where he explains that the overlapping and synchronizing of cyclical events have contributed to the longevity of our blue chip organizations. Better yet, he supports his contentions with pretty compelling evidence. Is GEs recent success attributable to Jack Welchâs wizardry or the Greatest Economic Boom in history? Probably a measure of both, I think. So is the success of your organization supported by a belief that the employee is 100% in charge of the quality of the product they produce? You might be right, and certainly in a better position to know if you are. I am skeptical. Your decades of success might be for different reasons than your organization currently believes them to be. Then again, I might be wrong.

The notoriety of your organizations may be for good reason. I am happy that you are happily working for a notable organization. I do not know the specifics of your organizations success to offer an opinion. I would need to know more. Imitation is flattery, BUT, it is also an invitation for disaster! Many organizations believe that by copying another organization, they will reap the same benefits and have the same success. If it were only that simple! This is the inherent danger to Benchmarking. Before adopting any method, an individual or organization must give careful consideration to this method. In a World of people and organizations looking for ãinstant puddingä, instant coffee, instant lotteries, instant success and of course, instant gratification, they are eager to adopt things on face value and often do. This is very true of the recent Six Sigma fad (my opinion). Everyone would like success, but at what price? Still, everyone wants to know the ãsecret ingredients for instant successä and they keep trying. Others will take advantage of this lack of understanding.

My theory on Îrecessionsâ are that they are mostly man made. This recent threat of one comes towards the top of the curve of the Greatest Boom, estimated to peak in 2009. Times will get much harder thereafter. Who will survive? Company 2 has the best shot in my mind.

Regards,

posted 09 February 2001 12:22 PM            

I enjoy a little give and take, and you are 100% correct in all of your observations...for your type of business systems.

I have read, and taught, the red bead experiment. It is a great tool to teach people with. It gives them something they can understand.

I have also read your thread on money as a motivator. And, if I may add found it very interesting. I won't drag this out much further, as it is mixing two threads, and the last time I looked, this was a forum, not a knitting class!

posted 09 February 2001 01:35 PM               

I look forward to your future contributions!

Regards,

posted 10 February 2001 01:09 PM               

I to have often wondered recently if we don't all do ourselves a dis-service in maintaing the terms "QMS" or QA as designations in the first place.

It seemed to become more clear to our manamgment that the use and application of QMS is far mor reaching than Product Qualty and not "just a QA thing" but should be viewed as MANAGEMENT Systems resulting in business and product quality.

Maybe if we used the terms MBSQ (Management of Business Systems Quality) instead of QMS and/or ABQS (Assurance of Business Quality Systems )instead of QA it would provide a clearer viewpoint??

Regards
Jim

posted 10 February 2001 08:06 PM               

My feeling is that organizations recognize this as "room to manuever" and a strategic advantage. This indicates to me that there is a lack of good organizational aim. A little, "We'll think quality while the Registrar or the Customer is here, but let's face it folks, we have a business to run! We are faced with reality and we need to bend our rules!"

How will any organization know if it is improving if 'shortcuts' are constantly the rule of thumb?

Greg, I think you understand that these components are interdependent. But I am not sure that by removing "Quality" from titles or functions you will have the positive effect you are hoping for. I don't see any problem with removing them, mind you, but my thinking is that this is a much larger issue. You will need to educate folks in your organization, help them to understand that these relationships exist. It must be a core transformation in understanding rather than a surface treatment of changing titles.

Back to the group.......

Kevin