The Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums
QMS Responsiblity and Authority vs. Responsibility but No Authority
Please read this thread...
Software update
QMS Responsiblity and Authority vs. Responsibility but No Authority
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >
Forum Username

Elsmar Cove Forum Visitor Notice(s)

Wooden Line

QMS Responsiblity and Authority vs. Responsibility but No Authority

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Courtesy Quick Links


Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services


Howard's
International Quality Services


Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum


Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining


Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC



International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Content Display Modes
  Post Number #1  
Old 15th March 2006, 12:59 PM
bdetchevery's Avatar
bdetchevery

 
 
Total Posts: 9
Please Help! QMS Responsiblity and Authority vs. Responsibility but No Authority

Suppose a company wants to set a goal such that:

All requests to change a procedure are "turned around" within 2 business days. (By turned around I mean, issued, reviewed, approved, and released to the QMS)

Further Suppose that:

1) The "Quality Manager" is "assigned" responsibility for making this happen.
2) The owners and approvers of most procedures are higher up in the company that the QA Manager.
3) There is a massive 'backlog' of change requests that the QA Mgr has approved but they are sitting on the desks of other owners to approve before then can be released.
4) The QA Mgr sends are weekly report and meets once per week with his boss to talk about what change requests are still sitting on his, his boss, and other executive desks for approval.

Time passes and passes and on average it is taking about 3 weeks for a change request to be implemented. The QA Mgr's boss is not happy with this and feels that the QA Mgr is not meeting his/her expectation and should fix this problem.

My Questions:

1) To what extent do you believe the QA Mgr is responsible for ensuring that "higher-ups" complete their approvals.

2) More specifically, to what extent is the QA Mgr responsible for ensuring that his boss completes his/her approvals.

3) The QA Mgr attititude is such that he feels great responsibility for ensuring that those that report to him directly (or indirectly) but not for ensuring that those that are above him perform to their own expectations. In the end, will this attitude harm the QA Manager?..the company ?

I have my own thoughts on this scenario but am seeking others opinions before I commit to my idea. Any input is appreciated.

Thanks.

Sponsored Links
  Post Number #2  
Old 15th March 2006, 01:11 PM
RoxaneB's Avatar
RoxaneB

 
 
Total Posts: 3,012
Welcome to the Cove, bdetchevery.

It sounds like the QA Manager has all of the responsibility but none of the authority...in other words, he has the "To Do" list but not the means in which to successfully accomplish the items on it. In order for the goal to be met, he needs both.

Have these goals been communicated to the approvers? Has the QA Manager's boss contacted the approvers to say "Hey...here's what you guys are responsible for when a document lands on your desk or in your inbox"? And if the QA Manager's boss is one of the guilty parties...then there is not much the QA Manager can do. It sounds like management committment is sorely lacking.
  Post Number #3  
Old 15th March 2006, 01:13 PM
Jim Wynne's Avatar
Jim Wynne

 
 
Total Posts: 14,217
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by bdetchevery

Suppose a company wants to set a goal such that:

All requests to change a procedure are "turned around" within 2 business days. (By turned around I mean, issued, reviewed, approved, and released to the QMS)

Further Suppose that:

1) The "Quality Manager" is "assigned" responsibility for making this happen.
2) The owners and approvers of most procedures are higher up in the company that the QA Manager.
3) There is a massive 'backlog' of change requests that the QA Mgr has approved but they are sitting on the desks of other owners to approve before then can be released.
4) The QA Mgr sends are weekly report and meets once per week with his boss to talk about what change requests are still sitting on his, his boss, and other executive desks for approval.

Time passes and passes and on average it is taking about 3 weeks for a change request to be implemented. The QA Mgr's boss is not happy with this and feels that the QA Mgr is not meeting his/her expectation and should fix this problem.

My Questions:

1) To what extent do you believe the QA Mgr is responsible for ensuring that "higher-ups" complete their approvals.

2) More specifically, to what extent is the QA Mgr responsible for ensuring that his boss completes his/her approvals.

3) The QA Mgr attititude is such that he feels great responsibility for ensuring that those that report to him directly (or indirectly) but not for ensuring that those that are above him perform to their own expectations. In the end, will this attitude harm the QA Manager?..the company ?

I have my own thoughts on this scenario but am seeking others opinions before I commit to my idea. Any input is appreciated.

Thanks.
Does the three-week turnaround cause problems other than violating the requirement? If so, then evidence should be compiled that shows that things that need to happen aren't happening due to the inattention of the higher-ups. If no harm is being done, change the requirement.
  Post Number #4  
Old 15th March 2006, 01:32 PM
Celtic Warrior's Avatar
Celtic Warrior

 
 
Total Posts: 42
Couldn't it be that at least some of the responsibility lays with the QA manager for having accepted sucha target in the first place!
Anyhow given that he is in this position, one option could be to use the approval by default method to acheive his targets.
What I mean is instead of sending out the documents for approval and watching the 2 day window sailon by, then attach a message to the documents which states that the changes proposed will be implemented unless a challenge or altertnative proposal is registered within 48 hrs.
This way he gets to meet his target of 48Hrs or at the very least gets a response to bring about the change.
Take care when using this approach however as it tends to generate a sharp increase in the volume and intensity of the discussion!!
  Post Number #5  
Old 15th March 2006, 01:35 PM
Coury Ferguson's Avatar
Coury Ferguson

 
 
Total Posts: 4,592
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by bdetchevery

Suppose a company wants to set a goal such that:



My Questions:

1) To what extent do you believe the QA Mgr is responsible for ensuring that "higher-ups" complete their approvals.

2) More specifically, to what extent is the QA Mgr responsible for ensuring that his boss completes his/her approvals.

3) The QA Mgr attititude is such that he feels great responsibility for ensuring that those that report to him directly (or indirectly) but not for ensuring that those that are above him perform to their own expectations. In the end, will this attitude harm the QA Manager?..the company ?

I have my own thoughts on this scenario but am seeking others opinions before I commit to my idea. Any input is appreciated.

Thanks.

This sounds like these issues need to be discussed during Management Review Meetings, and documented as action items. In my opinion.

Last edited by Coury Ferguson; 19th May 2009 at 05:26 PM.
  Post Number #6  
Old 15th March 2006, 02:41 PM
ralphsulser's Avatar
ralphsulser

 
 
Total Posts: 1,573
Also if you have regular MRB meetings, this is a good place to discuss and resolve these issues. I have done this and also used the "default" method posted above. But, look at the look at the 2 day limit as Jim pointed out, and determine if that is a goal or just what is actually required in you system.
If it has been working, then change the specified time limit to fit the practice.
  Post Number #7  
Old 17th March 2006, 09:07 AM
bdetchevery's Avatar
bdetchevery

 
 
Total Posts: 9
Thanks Everyone ! A bit more info

Thank-you everyone for your ideas and suggestions:

A bit more of the story may be in order:

1) The requirement for the 2 day turn around comes from the QA Mgr's boss
which he got from the President.

2) Upon a discussion of this issue it was determined that the President considered '2 day turn around' to mean the time it takes the QA Manager to submit for approval to owners NOT the time for the entire change to be turned around. The QA Mgr's boss interpreted this requirement differently.

However, the "unresolved" question remains, to what extend is the QA Mgr responsible for ensuring that those that are 'above' him preform their responsibilities.

As for the idea of - "default approval if no response" I did not suggest this to the QA Manager. I have tried this at a company personally in the past and have gotten into trouble on external audits because I could not show that the documents were reviewed and approved by the appropriate personnel prior to issue which generated a non-conformance. In my case I did not have the authority to approve a document by myself, it took the approval of others as well. But I suppose if the "threat" of doing this worked, though it might not work out well for the company.

A bit on "Management Responsibility". In my opinion management is committed to maintaining the QMS that is in place but have reached a "conflict".

Suppose, for example, that I am the Director of Sales for the company that I am talking about. I am also the owner of all process documentation related to the companies sales process. My goals and objectives are to make x number of sales calls / visits per day/month etc, to obtain x contracts, and to ensure that those that report to me are meeting their similar objectives. If you have been in sales, it is not hard to see that this takes up all of my day. Reviewing and signing off on procedural changes is not in my immediate view. If I had to choose between preforming a follow-up call to a potential client or reviewing a procedure and sending my approval, the follow-up call takes precedence. This is my view and the view of the company. So unless someone is "in my face" to review/approve the procedure it will go to the bottom of my list. I know that these approvals are important they just have less importance then making the sale.

You can imagine this for almost any job position. The individuals are hired with certain goals/expectations of the job having more priority then others. If at the end of the day I am rewarded for my actions, even if I left a procedure go for weeks, months, without being updated then everyone believes I am doing my job correctly. If our procedures become 'out of date', I can always claim that the QA Manager did not get after me enough to do the updates.

Top Management can be committed to maintaining a quality management system. Part of that commitment is to lead by example and policies on how individuals should prioritize tasks to 'benefit' the company. In the end the evidence may show this prioritization has unwanted consequences but top management can still choose to interpret the evidence differently and continue down the same path regardless.

Thoughts?
  Post Number #8  
Old 17th March 2006, 09:31 AM
Jim Wynne's Avatar
Jim Wynne

 
 
Total Posts: 14,217
Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by bdetchevery

1) The requirement for the 2 day turn around comes from the QA Mgr's boss
which he got from the President.

2) Upon a discussion of this issue it was determined that the President considered '2 day turn around' to mean the time it takes the QA Manager to submit for approval to owners NOT the time for the entire change to be turned around. The QA Mgr's boss interpreted this requirement differently.

However, the "unresolved" question remains, to what extend is the QA Mgr responsible for ensuring that those that are 'above' him preform their responsibilities.
I don't see how the question is unresolved. What other responsibilities do upper managers have that the QA manager is blamed for if they don't get done? If the QA manager gets the information to his superiors within the two-day limit, how can he be considered responsible for what happens after that?

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by bdetchevery

As for the idea of - "default approval if no response" I did not suggest this to the QA Manager. I have tried this at a company personally in the past and have gotten into trouble on external audits because I could not show that the documents were reviewed and approved by the appropriate personnel prior to issue which generated a non-conformance. In my case I did not have the authority to approve a document by myself, it took the approval of others as well. But I suppose if the "threat" of doing this worked, though it might not work out well for the company.
In order for the approval-by-default strategy to work, the documentation must be written such that delegation of authority is officially passed down if the assigned approver hasn't acted within a specified period of time. The documentation isn't automatically approved; the authority for approval is tacitly delegated.

Quote:
In Reply to Parent Post by bdetchevery

A bit on "Management Responsibility". In my opinion management is committed to maintaining the QMS that is in place but have reached a "conflict".
The conflict is created because the top guy hasn't followed Deming's advice and established "constancy of purpose." This is, unfortunately, something you can't do much about outside of pointing out the conflicts and suggesting a better way. Unless nonconflicting, clear priorities have been established, management is not committed to maintaining the quality system, and shouldn't act surprised when it fails.
Reply

Lower Navigation Bar
Go Back   The Elsmar Cove Business Systems and Standards Discussion Forums > >

Bookmarks



Visitors Currently Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 Registered Visitors (Members) and 1 Unregistered Guest Visitors)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Forum Search
Display Modes Rate Thread Content
Rate Thread Content:

Forum Posting Settings
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Emoticons are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Discussion Threads
Discussion Thread Title Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post or Poll Vote
Responsibility and Authority - ISO 9001 Clause 5.5.1 Ted Schmitt ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10 23rd August 2016 07:52 PM
How to meet Responsibility and Authority (Clause 5.5.1) Requirements qltyscope1 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11 23rd February 2013 09:56 AM
Responsibility vs. No Authority in 9001:2008? QAMTY ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12 7th May 2012 06:34 PM
Responsibility and authority: New appointments required for changes in top mgt? Charles Corn IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2 8th December 2006 03:48 PM
What is the difference between Responsibility and Authority paciffic ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 24 11th April 2006 01:27 AM



The time now is 01:36 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.



Misc. Internal Links


NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"