Disagreements on Quality Policy

[linthorn]

I'm trying to develop the policy statement for our 9k2k registration. After reading the posts here, and searching the web, I have found numerous QPs which are vastly different. The problem is that many of the policies I have found, which state that they are 9k2k don't seem to fulfill the requirements of section 5.3. Probably the most egregious is from the Marshall Space Flight Center:

MSFC Quality Policy
“MSFC policy is to provide quality products and services to our customers through the Marshall values: people, customers, excellence, teamwork and innovation.”

This is from their 9k2k page (to which they are certified). Help me if I am misunderstanding. I don't see compliance to 5.3.b, either on the requirements or to a QMS (which isn't even mentioned). The policy we currently have is something like:


"...to consistently ensure customer satisfaction and loyalty by continually improving our ability to meet or exceed our customer's expectations for professional expertise and knowledge-based services and support."


Although I don't like this, I can't say that is inferior to MSFC's. Am I right that this policy is asking for a NC?

 

[Aaron Lupo]

Re: Dissagreements on Quality Policy

linthorn said:

I'm trying to develop the policy statement for our 9k2k registration. After reading the posts here, and searching the web, I have found numerous QPs which are vastly different. The problem is that many of the policies I have found, which state that they are 9k2k don't seem to fulfill the requirements of section 5.3. Probably the most egregious is from the Marshall Space Flight Center:

MSFC Quality Policy
“MSFC policy is to provide quality products and services to our customers through the Marshall values: people, customers, excellence, teamwork and innovation.”

This is from their 9k2k page (to which they are certified). Help me if I am misunderstanding. I don't see compliance to 5.3.b, either on the requirements or to a QMS (which isn't even mentioned). The policy we currently have is something like:


"...to consistently ensure customer satisfaction and loyalty by continually improving our ability to meet or exceed our customer's expectations for professional expertise and knowledge-based services and support."


Although I don't like this, I can't say that is inferior to MSFC's. Am I right that this policy is asking for a NC?

How do you know what the Marshall Values are? Maybe the Marshall values include continual improvement, customer satisfaction etc...?

 

[energy]

This one?

MacDougals is committed to maintaining a customer focused Quality Management System that:

* Produces products and services that meet customer/regulatory requirements

* Is communicated from Top Management to all levels of the organization

* Continually monitors to improve all aspects of our Quality Management System

They shun the "exceeds" customer/regulatory requirements because it can't be verified. Came right out of the standard. No?

The policy statement is also auditable so you have to be able to back it up. JMHO

 

[gpainter]

To meet and excede customer expectations would certainly include a commitment to C/I and customer satisifaction

 

[CarolX]

let us look again

Hello linthorn and welcome to the Cove.

I gather from your post you are trying to satisfy the requirements of 5.3 in one short and sweet paragraph. Well, I think you can and probably have....

"...to consistently ensure customer satisfaction and loyalty by continually improving our ability to meet or exceed our customer's expectations for professional expertise and knowledge-based services and support."

5.3.a is appropriate to the purpose of the organization

Looks ok to me...your purpose is to satisfy the customer.

5.3.b (paraphrase here) comply with requirements and continous improvement

Looks good...you address customer satisfaction (complying with requirements) and continual improvement.

5.4.c provides a framework for establishing and reviewing objectives.

Does your system provide for this, i.e. your Quality Manual, procedures, work instructions. I may be off base, but where does is state in the standard that these details should be in the policy? Paragraph b is the only on required to be included in the policy.

5.4.d is communicated and understood

Again, this should be covered in training documents.

5.4.e reviewed for contiuing suitablity

And once again, covered by your supporting documents.

I equate the Quality Policy to be nothing more than a glorified tag line, like the old Zenith tag line "The quality goes in before the name goes on".

Don't do too much of this



JMHO,
CarolX

 

[E Wall]

By definition - QUALITY POLICY

I recommend this thread, and specifically Greg Mack's post:
Quality Policy

 

[Michael T]

I hear ya!!

linthorn,

Welcome to the Cove. You have indeed come to the right place for lively discussion on this issue and a wide variety of others.

I feel your pain!! I've fought the same battle. Carol is right on the money.

It seems to me that a Quality Policy should be something that is easily remembered by all personnel of the organization. Afterall, isn't the Quality Policy the verbalization of the spirit of the organization? So, the way I see it, if it is too wordy (and it will be if all those items from element 5.3 are included) no one will remember it, let alone understand it. It becomes too cumbersome. I know the guys on my shop floor would never remember something that is more that 2 (short) sentences long.

I've gotta agree with Energy on this one too... (I've been agreeing with him alot lately... ) The word "exceed" is extremely difficult to verify. While exceeding customer expectations is a noble goal, if you aren't doing it (and/or don't have a way to verify you are or aren't) you've got a N/C on your hands.

Cheers!!!

 

[linthorn]

Here's the thing

Thanks for all of your replies. I had read the referenced thread on the plans vs objectives. Here's my sticking point: Doesn't section 5.3 require things be addressed in the Quality Policy? Although I agree that a simple, to the point policy is best, 5.3 (b) requires that the policy address "requirements" and "continual improvement of the QMS". The policies I included failed to address these things. Our policy can be deemed to include requirements, and it does reference improvement, but I am unsure about if the QMS needs to be specifically referenced.

I do agree with the "exceeds" issue. No one ever believes it even if we do support it "110%"

How about the fact that the policy only addresses our "ability" to do work, rather than the performance of said work?

I do appreciate your help. We are a small company and putting ourselves through this process is a little daunting. We are working with a consortium, but I like to understand what we are doing. I get tasked with selling it to our people.

 

[M Greenaway]

Linthorn

Quality Policies are a great place to debate semantics.

As you have noticed yourself they are all different, and you might expect them to be so as they are supposed to be the unique view of the company on how it sees 'quality' within its organisation. However as you have rightly identified ISO9001:2000 does give you some apparent mandatory inclusions for your policy.

In order to save time at audit debating semantics (probably best left for here in the cove !) it is a good idea to use the words of the standard as far as possible. So if it says 'include a commitment to continual improvement' simply include these words i.e. the organisation is committed to continual improvement of the QMS blah blah blah.

You could argue that your policy which states that you plan to exceed customer expectations necessitates continual improvement of the QMS. i.e. if your QMS is currently meeting their requirements and you change nothing you will at best just continue to meet requirements. If however as you say you will exceed requirements your QMS will have to be improved. So I think you have covered the requirement but you might have to argue your case.

As for the distinction between 'ability' and 'performance' there is perhaps little difference as an assessment of ability is surely based on an analysis of performance. Again you could argue your policy covers performance.

Hope this helps.