Anyone a "Total Quality Manager"?

[Chemstar24]

Hello Everyone,

I'm familiar with TQM methodology, etc.; however I want to get your thoughts and opinions on what TQM is as a role within an organization. Overseeing all of quality? Deeply involved in overall business practices? Preaching the TQM philosophies? I believe I was hired more as a ISO coordinator or QMS Manager than a TQM. Not involved with QA/QC activities or customer issues. Quality everyone's responsibility I know, but the traditional role of QM doesn't exist and roles and responsibilities are divided up between Sales, QA/QC, Project Management, and Leadership.

Thanks

 

[Randy]

Pretty much died 20 years or more ago it seems like.

 

[Ronen E]

the traditional role of QM doesn't exist and roles and responsibilities are divided up between Sales, QA/QC, Project Management, and Leadership.

Wow. To me that's a display of lack of commitment to Quality on top management's part, ensuring that TQM philosophy will NOT be applied. Do they not understand the dictionary meaning of "Total"?...

In such an org atmosphere, my advice to you is to get hold of your own Job Description, study it really well, clarify anything unclear with your direct superior, jot a memo detailing those clarifications as you understand them, have it singed and dated by your direct superior, and then apply it in your daily work as best as you can.

Also, the casual use of "QA/QC" shows to me a lack of understanding what each of them is. They are not the same. QC is a (small) subset of QA. The whole purpose of QA (or TQM) is to make QC redundant / minimal.

 

[Chemstar24]

Thanks for your response Ronen. Much appreciated!

This is a situation where the company is extremely successful, recognizes that larger global clients want to see a functional QMS and so they wanted to implement it, but they are stuck in their ways, and small in size. It is a very technical, heavy in design, company with large scale (14 week completion) projects. All that being said, it is very small group of management that has been here for 25+ years and my job description (which doesn't exist-but I will need created prior to audit) doesn't mean anything. I only have the job posting which covered a lot of things I'm not doing. Did I mention this is a new role for them?

They are only called QC here, but they handle some QA aspects. Traditional Quality Assurance doesn't exist. Quality is not involved in the different stages of the project. They don't want to call me Quality Manager, because they already have a QC Manager. Like I said, I'm more just an ISO coordinator for a company that never plans to obtain an ISO cert, but with a TQM title.

 

[Billy Milly]

I wouldn't evaluate such "diversified approach to quality" as a bad one on the first bat. If people are competent in their roles, this would be (in my opinion) an ideal scenario. Quality is a crucial part of every job
Story changes if there is a lack of competence or even worse, commitment. If those are not an issue, I would not tend to dismantle the current structure - let them be responsible for their area and provide them your support when needed (and clarify this responsibilities through work descriptions, as Ronen suggested). In my opinion, this is closer to TQM than tying everything to one person - with suitable commitment from everyone involved.

 

[Ed Panek]

Im not sure of your industry, but in medical devices regulators expect a Management Representative with some authority over product shipment. If several manager have that authority and are trained in the detection of non comformances it could be acceptable.

Im open to the idea though that the customers may have the final word here and that's the most important part. If your customers prefer this style then its probably ok.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Hello Everyone,

I'm familiar with TQM methodology, etc.; however I want to get your thoughts and opinions on what TQM is as a role within an organization. Overseeing all of quality? Deeply involved in overall business practices? Preaching the TQM philosophies? I believe I was hired more as a ISO coordinator or QMS Manager than a TQM. Not involved with QA/QC activities or customer issues. Quality everyone's responsibility I know, but the traditional role of QM doesn't exist and roles and responsibilities are divided up between Sales, QA/QC, Project Management, and Leadership.

Thanks

My colleague Randy is pretty much spot on in that the old terms are becoming more and more obsolete, BUT that doesn't mean the concepts are dead, just the terminology.

I've been successful as a consultant since the early 1990s with this philosophy:
"My entire career has been centered on the concept ‘Quality should be involved in every aspect of a company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service.’

This concept holds true whether the company is a manufacturer or service company (banking, insurance, communications, transportation, construction, janitorial, etc.) The major emphasis is on pleasing or delighting the customer while maintaining or increasing organizational profitability. (In the case of non-profits, does the organization's performance delight both recipients and the contributors? If so, the organization will continue to thrive.)

My advocacy and methods for Managing Change by deploying a System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) throughout an organization have been recognized throughout the world. The audiences for my SoPK presentation can [and should] include everyone in a business enterprise from the CEO and Board Chair to the newest dock worker or janitor. Organizations which deploy SoPK have a competitive edge over those which do not."

A small organization like yours is successful because it follows the idea of SoPK almost intuitively. I suspect most workers are long-time employees who work together well and communicate in an informal manner. This is a good start. Avoid drastic changes. Concentrate on documenting activity which is currently just done and accepted so potential customers and regulators can be appeased when they ask, "Show me the shall and documents to show the shalls are actually performed."

 

[Randy]

Want Quality across the board and to be personal? Work on these things and require everyone from top to bottom to take unscheduled flights in them as a normal practice. As Ford used to say "Quality is Job 1"

 

[Chemstar24]

A small organization like yours is successful because it follows the idea of SoPK almost intuitively. I suspect most workers are long-time employees who work together well and communicate in an informal manner. This is a good start. Avoid drastic changes. Concentrate on documenting activity which is currently just done and accepted so potential customers and regulators can be appeased when they ask, "Show me the shall and documents to show the shalls are actually performed."

Wes, I agree. That is exactly what is happening but as the business has grown exponentially (x2) in the last year in a half, that mentality and approach is not able to sustain the needs of the business. I came in documenting undocumented knowledge because there were not any procedures in place; however, in addition to adding the QMS with my arrival, we are now going to begin implementation of a new ERP. Yes, they had an ERP in the past, but manufacturing is not currently used. Most of the functionality is not used, including QUALITY and they blamed customizations and people as the reason it didn't work. Now you have a QMS where current state is being documented and within a couple of months went light speed with the implementation of a new ERP where the plan is to use all functionality. Talk about a MAJOR change for a business that is used to communicating verbally, not following process, and having all the hands in multiple pots impacting all aspects.

I have zero authority over quality as a TQM. To top it off all the executive management doesn't agree we need a QMS, yet being an outsider, I can see that the larger the systems get, the more evident it is that verbal communication and loose ways will not cut it as more mistakes are being made and requirements missed, because the tenured people want to keep with their old ways.

 

[Chemstar24]

I wouldn't evaluate such "diversified approach to quality" as a bad one on the first bat. If people are competent in their roles, this would be (in my opinion) an ideal scenario. Quality is a crucial part of every job
Story changes if there is a lack of competence or even worse, commitment. If those are not an issue, I would not tend to dismantle the current structure - let them be responsible for their area and provide them your support when needed (and clarify this responsibilities through work descriptions, as Ronen suggested). In my opinion, this is closer to TQM than tying everything to one person - with suitable commitment from everyone involved.

Billy,

I appreciate your thoughts here. It does make sense from that standpoint. I can work with that; but to what degree. My major concern is coming in thinking they wanted one thing and the reality of being an ISO documentation specialist, I guess. They don't follow best practices at all and my with my level of experience I can definitely see all the gaps, but when I say it to management I'm told "That's not going to change" or "we don't need that", but then with the ERP vendors coming then they say "oh yeah we want that". I don't get it.

I'm the only person at the company that has gone through full ERP implementation with a popular ERP vendor, been a super user and used all the functionality of the ERP. They currently use the ERP for costing only, but plan to use the new one for all aspects of the business. Not to mention the QMS is new and now the ERP is new for most disciplines of the business. I keep saying that I have major concerns regarding the change management, but they are just pushing forward.