Disappointed in leadership buy-in to QMS

[Johnny 3484]

This is an age old issue of mindset - for example anything identified as Quality is automatically assumed to the responsibility of Quality, take the age old question of 'Who is responsible for quality' 9 out of 10 will answer quality because of the associated word of Quality being used, without even thinking past that.
i have undertaken the decision to remove the word 'Quality' in order to remove the onus being put directly onto the Quality team and replaced it with the word 'Business' this includes every reference where quality would have been used, Business Management System, Business Policy, Business Manual, Business Processes etc, in doing this i have de-sensitised the word Quality and replaced it with a word that now incorporates everyone within the business as this is what the new ISO 9001: 2015 standard was trying to do in order to make every one responsible instead of one department based on a single word.
i hope this makes sense - it did in my head as i was writing it lol.

 

[Ed Panek]

Another thing to consider is that senior management and investors have a different business goal that is not expressed to the company at large. For example, if the company is at a point of growth that M&A from a larger company is imminent it may be harder to create changes.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

i have undertaken the decision to remove the word 'Quality' in order to remove the onus being put directly onto the Quality team and replaced it with the word 'Business' this includes every reference where quality would have been used, Business Management System, Business Policy, Business Manual, Business Processes etc, in doing this i have de-sensitised the word Quality and replaced it with a word that now incorporates everyone within the business as this is what the new ISO 9001: 2015 standard was trying to do in order to make every one responsible instead of one department based on a single word.

While the intent is commendable, most business processes have many other aspects/facets to be managed. For example, processes have to be managed for environmental and occupational health & safety concerns. Do your procedures cover those aspects, as well? Because if they don't, they are being managed ONLY for "quality". So, you can call them business processes, but if they are limited to the management of the quality facet, you are not TRULY managing the whole business process; you are still managing a subset; the quality one.

 

[John Broomfield]

Yes, we are in the business of understanding and fulfilling requirements, not just quality requirements.

And let us not forget there is such a thing as the quality of environmental management, quality of safety, security and whatever management.

But are customer requirements held up as sacrosanct?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

But are customer requirements held up as sacrosanct?

Peter Drucker quote:

The purpose of a business is to create a customer.

I would enhance it to The purpose of a successful business is to create and retain delighted customers.

 

[Johnny 3484]

While the intent is commendable, most business processes have many other aspects/facets to be managed. For example, processes have to be managed for environmental and occupational health & safety concerns. Do your procedures cover those aspects, as well? Because if they don't, they are being managed ONLY for "quality". So, you can call them business processes, but if they are limited to the management of the quality facet, you are not TRULY managing the whole business process; you are still managing a subset; the quality one.

Hi Sidney thank you for your comments- currently we are only certified to ISO 9001:2015 we do have an HSE system in place but internally only.
i see where you are coming from and expanding out from the QMS (Or BMS) into HSE for example would bring with it more challenges, only having to look at a single system does have its advantages

 

[Jim Wynne]

Yes, we are in the business of understanding and fulfilling requirements, not just quality requirements.

Sometimes the requirements don't take into account logic, reason and the laws of physics. In many of these cases, patiently explaining the problems with the requirements will be an exercise in futility and we're left with attempting to do the impossible. If you work in a job shop, you might have multiple instances of this going on concurrently. It's not as simple as just saying "do the right thing" as you seem to think it is.

And let us not forget there is such a thing as the quality of environmental management, quality of safety, security and whatever management.

You're describing a potential for infinite regress.

But are customer requirements held up as sacrosanct?

The customer is often wrong, and intractably so. In those cases, we are faced with deciding whether to give them what they asked for, or give them what they obviously actually need. Sometimes doing this requires prevarication of some sort. If all customer requirements were held as "sacrosanct" and immutable, the manufacturing world would come to a screeching halt in no time.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

only having to look at a single system does have its advantages

A single system cannot be misperceived as a business system, simply because a business has to cater to many stakeholders, not only the customers; thus playing with the words quality and business does not make much sense, the way I see it.

As I mentioned in post #11 of this thread, if an organization TRULY complies with 9001:2015 5.1.1c), that's a major breakthrough because quality is seamlessly embedded into the business processes, something I have been advocating for, way before the ISO HLS document created that requirement.