Criteria to raise a Nonconformance based on KPI values

[Big Jim]

Why do you need a corrective action for non-achievement of quality objectives? Corrective action is defined as "action to eliminate the cause of a nonconformity and to prevent recurrence". Is there a nonconformity in the first place? What is the requirement? Do you think you can't prevent the recurrence?

Since one of the inputs during a management review is the extent of meeting the quality objectives, the decisions and actions on unmet objectives resulting from the management review can already serve as the organization's evidence in addressing unmet quality objectives.

I think some are missing one of the more pertinent requirements. It's in 4.4. In particular 4.4.1 c and 4.4.1 g.

"The organization shall determine the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization and shall . . . determine and apply the criteria and methods (including monitoring, measurements and related performance indicators) needed to ensure the effective operation and control of these processes . . . evaluate these processes and implement any changes needed to ensure that these processes achieve their intended results . . . "

 

[Mike S.]

Don’t confuse random variation for directed action...

This is a very important point, and one that way too many managers violate on a regular basis. 1 or 2 or 3 points is not necessarily a "trend", it may simply be noise.

Measure more frequently if need be, i.e. don't just look at an annual OTD or yield KPI and try to glean information from it by comparing it to last year. Looking at monthly or weekly numbers may be more valuable, using SPC rules as Bev suggested.

 

[Mike S.]

I'm in love with the green, yellow, red, and reviewing metrics over time in a simple chart format to identify trends. It is a firm demonstration to the top management commitment to the system that should engage all empoyees.

I respectfully disagree. I think simple red-yellow-green indicators shows that top management is too lazy to be "bothered" by actually looking at real numbers and analyzing data using simple but highly effective tools that anyone with a high-school education should be able to easily understand....IF they cared.

 

[RoxaneB]

I respectfully disagree. I think simple red-yellow-green indicators shows that top management is too lazy to be "bothered" by actually looking at real numbers and analyzing data using simple but highly effective tools that anyone with a high-school education should be able to easily understand....IF they cared.

In my own experience, combining the colours WITH the numbers is the best approach. Colours don't give the results, but everyone, regardless of their education level, can't easily "see" the patterns when it's just numbers. I work with nurses and physicians and therapists and engineers - safe to say that they're an educated group. That said, throwing only numbers at them doesn't always help them understand the situation, even if the target is also provided. Colours and graphs allow for an easy-to-conversate-about visual.

 

[Mike S.]

I don't suggest "throwing only numbers" at anyone, either. But a run chart, process behavior/control chart, and/or Pareto chart with limited text and "numbers" should be able to be understood by virtually anyone who has any business being employed.

 

[RoxaneB]

I don't suggest "throwing only numbers" at anyone, either. But a run chart, process behavior/control chart, and/or Pareto chart with limited text and "numbers" should be able to be understood by virtually anyone who has any business being employed.

Personally, I find your statements such as "anyone with a high school education should be able to easily understand", "....IF they cared", and "...be understood by virtually anyone who has any business being employed" to be somewhat condescending and patronizing. We don't all have the same basic skill sets, let alone levels of expertise within those skill sets...even those in senior leadership levels. Perhaps they were placed in those positions for their skills and knowledge in areas where you do not excel.

Rather than demean their comprehension levels (either in person or here online), I find it far more value-added to explain my own interpretation and analysis of the story. What I often discover then is their ability to discuss some of the why's (i.e., the reasons why the outcomes are what they are), the drivers, the situations. This leads to the discussion regarding actions to be taken and if said actions are based on anecdotal or objective evidence.

More often than not, once the tables and graphs are explained, they get it and they're able to explain it and work from it, but that initial support is often needed (and our leaders are humble enough to ask for it).

 

[Jim Wynne]

I think that people are mischaracterizing and misunderstanding the nature and purpose of objectives. As I offered in an earlier post, an objective is something created as part of a plan to achieve an improved level of performance, not something to track the present level. What people seem to be describing and defending here is the tracking of requirements. Big difference.

 

[Mike S.]

Personally, I find your statements such as "anyone with a high school education should be able to easily understand", "....IF they cared", and "...be understood by virtually anyone who has any business being employed" to be somewhat condescending and patronizing. We don't all have the same basic skill sets, let alone levels of expertise within those skill sets...even those in senior leadership levels. Perhaps they were placed in those positions for their skills and knowledge in areas where you do not excel.

Rather than demean their comprehension levels (either in person or here online), I find it far more value-added to explain my own interpretation and analysis of the story. What I often discover then is their ability to discuss some of the why's (i.e., the reasons why the outcomes are what they are), the drivers, the situations. This leads to the discussion regarding actions to be taken and if said actions are based on anecdotal or objective evidence.

More often than not, once the tables and graphs are explained, they get it and they're able to explain it and work from it, but that initial support is often needed (and our leaders are humble enough to ask for it).

You are apparently once again inferring what I did not imply.

I never said that people should be born with the ability to understand a run chart, process behavior/control chart, and/or Pareto chart with no training or explanation provided.

I am simply saying that IMO we need to stop distilling results into nothing more than red-yellow-green indicators. Given some basic training virtually anyone in the workforce can, in a short time, be taught to understand a run chart, process behavior/control chart, and/or Pareto chart.

Especially management level folks should care enough to want to learn and know more than what is provided by a traffic light. (Is that also all they want from their finance people? Their kids' teachers?) In my experience everyone who wanted nothing more than a pass/fail or red-yellow-green indicator for KPI kinda stuff was not really interested in the least in the performance numbers or improving them, they just wanted to pretend to be without being bothered.

 

[Big Jim]

You are apparently once again inferring what I did not imply.

I never said that people should be born with the ability to understand a run chart, process behavior/control chart, and/or Pareto chart with no training or explanation provided.

I am simply saying that IMO we need to stop distilling results into nothing more than red-yellow-green indicators. Given some basic training virtually anyone in the workforce can, in a short time, be taught to understand a run chart, process behavior/control chart, and/or Pareto chart.

Especially management level folks should care enough to want to learn and know more than what is provided by a traffic light. (Is that also all they want from their finance people? Their kids' teachers?) In my experience everyone who wanted nothing more than a pass/fail or red-yellow-green indicator for KPI kinda stuff was not really interested in the least in the performance numbers or improving them, they just wanted to pretend to be without being bothered.

My experience doesn't match yours. I'm neutral about red-amber-green, but I have seen it in place in some extremely sophisticated companies with highly intellegent and educated leaders. If it works for them, don't knock it.

 

[Kronos147]

I respectfully disagree. I think simple red-yellow-green indicators shows that top management is too lazy to be "bothered" by actually looking at real numbers and analyzing data …. IF they cared.

I find it lazy when there is no scale attached to numbers.

I meant more along the lines of what Roxane said, have the numbers, and the scale. But to have numbers and no pre-conceived idea of what is good or bad, what is expected or what needs to be corrected, is the more common problem I encounter with organizations.