Responsibility vs. No Authority in 9001:2008?

Q

QAMTY

Hi all

I´m a little bit in confusion regarding to define responsibility and authority

For example, I´m including the responsibilities in the Job Descriptions and also in the procedures.

But in fulfilling the norm for Authority, Should I mention authorities
for every actor in my procedures, or only for those who really have it?

For example, I may have a Manager who have both, but I may have a
guy with very low responsibility, and no authority e.g. someone who just archives a book.

If this guy has not authority, I may define AUTHORITY = NONE?
or simply not to mention it, just responsibility?

Do auditors take care of this?

What´s your opinion?

Thanks
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
Re: o define Responsibility but no Authority in 9001:2008?

Hi all

I´m a little bit in confusion regarding to define responsibility and authority

For example, I´m including the responsibilities in the Job Descriptions and also in the procedures.

But in fulfilling the norm for Authority, Should I mention authorities
for every actor in my procedures, or only for those who really have it?

For example, I may have a Manager who have both, but I may have a
guy with very low responsibility, and no authority e.g. someone who just archives a book.

If this guy has not authority, I may define AUTHORITY = NONE?
or simply not to mention it, just responsibility?

Do auditors take care of this?

What´s your opinion?

Thanks

ISO 9001 staets that the organization shall assure that responsibilities and authorithies shall be defined and deployed.
It is not a requirement to have them in the procedures, it is up to you how to proceed.
For instance, the organization could also think to have job description and responsibilities written and deploy them by training .
Auditors assess if the members of the organization have them clear, no requirement to document this in ISO 9001, unless you have set this requirement by your own.
This requirement on responsibility and authority is pertinent to management and the auditors directly verify it by interviewing mgmt as well as personnel in a cross functional way.:bigwave:
 
Last edited:

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Hi all

I´m a little bit in confusion regarding to define responsibility and authority

For example, I´m including the responsibilities in the Job Descriptions and also in the procedures.

But in fulfilling the norm for Authority, Should I mention authorities
for every actor in my procedures, or only for those who really have it?

For example, I may have a Manager who have both, but I may have a
guy with very low responsibility, and no authority e.g. someone who just archives a book.

If this guy has not authority, I may define AUTHORITY = NONE?
or simply not to mention it, just responsibility?

Do auditors take care of this?

What´s your opinion?

Thanks

If a person has the responsibility to do something, no matter how mundane the task might be, doesn't she also have the authority to do it? How can it be otherwise? It should be assumed that if a person has been given responsibility at any level, that person also has the authority to carry out the responsibility.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
If a person has the responsibility to do something, no matter how mundane the task might be, doesn't she also have the authority to do it? How can it be otherwise? It should be assumed that if a person has been given responsibility at any level, that person also has the authority to carry out the responsibility.
On a visceral level, I agree, but sad to say, I've come across a lot of cases where bossy bosses feel they have all the authority and the drones under their control only have responsibility to carry out orders - the thinking of those bosses was more the norm when I was in my 20's and even more prevalent when my dad was in his 20's.

Apparently, the Deming message hasn't fully penetrated some skulls.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
On a visceral level, I agree, but sad to say, I've come across a lot of cases where bossy bosses feel they have all the authority and the drones under their control only have responsibility to carry out orders - the thinking of those bosses was more the norm when I was in my 20's and even more prevalent when my dad was in his 20's.

Apparently, the Deming message hasn't fully penetrated some skulls.

I agree that responsibility without authority is a widespread problem, but the OP was referring to a situation where a person is charged with doing some form of archiving, so it should be assumed in a situation like that the person has the authority to carry out the task.

The troublesome thing about Qamty's question is that he seems to be responsible for assigning responsibility in written documents, but it's not clear whether he has the authority to do so. When it comes to R&A, there should be an unbroken, traceable trail of delegation from the top of the organization.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
I agree that responsibility without authority is a widespread problem, but the OP was referring to a situation where a person is charged with doing some form of archiving, so it should be assumed in a situation like that the person has the authority to carry out the task.

The troublesome thing about Qamty's question is that he seems to be responsible for assigning responsibility in written documents, but it's not clear whether he has the authority to do so. When it comes to R&A, there should be an unbroken, traceable trail of delegation from the top of the organization.
Right! We are enlightened, but how does a low-level employee make the process of an unbroken chain of authority and delegation of authority clear to the dinosaur in charge without jeopardizing his job?
 

Marcelo

Inactive Registered Visitor
Responsibility - who to blame if some activity is not performed.

Authority - who has authorization to perform the activity.

You can have responsibility for some task and delegate the authority to someone else, so you have to make ensure the one you delegate it to will perform it - otherwise you are to blame, not the one you delegate to.

Responsibility cannot be delegated.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
My view is that where responsibility is defined in process document, authority is presumed. In cases where dysfunction results from failure to uphold those authorities, (in my experience usually found during audits) management is responsible to correct it.

Sometimes the problem is structural. I know a guy who used to be defined as SPC Manager but he insisted he had no authority over the engineers, and that was the reason too many SPC issues languished. He would get them together in meetings, point out the things that needed to get done, and nothing would happen. Over and over.

He had a point. When the organization places emphasis on performance goals that don't clearly include system needs (like SPC in my example) the conflict of short and long term objectives can be settled with short term objectives winning out over long term objectives - even if the long term objectives will bring greater profit. In my view, this was what Deming was referring to in #1 (Constancy of purpose) of his 14 points for Management.
:2cents:

You shouldn't need to define a responsibility for every little thing, but if it helps by providing a means to point it out to those who are confused about that person's having authority to do something, so be it. Hopefully the practice will become obsolete as people grow accustomed to "sharing power."
 
J

Jeff Frost

QAMTY

If you have not already done so you should obtain the ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Packages from ISO/TC 176/SC2 (the group responsible for ISO 9001) which are very helpful in understanding and implementing the requirements of the International Standard and in your case their document on the “Guidance on some of the frequently used words found in the ISO 9000 family of standards” gives the following meanings to words Authority and Responsibility.


Authority: (1) Power to command or give a final decision, (2) Body that has legal powers and rights.

Responsibility: Task which a person or organization is required to do or control as part of a job, role or legal obligation.

As you can see in TC 176 view there is a very distinct deference between the meaning of authority and responsibility.

You can obtain the support packages and much more form the following link http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/open/tc176SC2public
 

qusys

Trusted Information Resource
QAMTY

If you have not already done so you should obtain the ISO 9000 Introduction and Support Packages from ISO/TC 176/SC2 (the group responsible for ISO 9001) which are very helpful in understanding and implementing the requirements of the International Standard and in your case their document on the “Guidance on some of the frequently used words found in the ISO 9000 family of standards” gives the following meanings to words Authority and Responsibility.


Authority: (1) Power to command or give a final decision, (2) Body that has legal powers and rights.

Responsibility: Task which a person or organization is required to do or control as part of a job, role or legal obligation.

As you can see in TC 176 view there is a very distinct deference between the meaning of authority and responsibility.

You can obtain the support packages and much more form the following link http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/open/tc176SC2public

Agree.:yes:
It looks like accountability and responsibility in other terms.
Account stands also for authority in ISO 9001, responsibility stands for the same in ISO 9001.
 
Top Bottom