Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

[Colin]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

True, but the standard tell you what topics you need to be measuring in element 8.4. You need to determine, collect, and analyze data that helps you know the health of the quality management system. The four topics are 1) customer satisfaction, 2) product quality, 3) process conformity, and 4) supplier performance.

You should have no trouble selecting quality objectives from among those topics, and since you have to do it anyway to fulfill 8.4, why not align them with your quality objectives?

I agree Jim, and these of course align quite nicely with what 8.2.2 wants us to monitor and measure. In addition, these are all helpful when looking for improvement, etc.

I think that this is one of the areas of ISO 9001 which shows some good 'joined up' thinking but so few organisations I visit have recognised this and they make hard work out of setting objectives.

 

[malamassi]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

yes it is, the quality objectives should be SMART where:
S: specific
M: Measurable
A: Attainable
R: Realistic
T: Timely

 

[Ron Tollett]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

Would anyone have examples of Quality Policies and aligned objectives? Much appreciated.

 

[howste]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

Here's one I've posted in another thread: Example Quality Policy - Objectives2.doc I hope it helps.

 

[ddchhaya]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

Dear Big Jim,
I need guidance. In fact anyone can chip in their bit.
The process is "Recruitment"
Metric is "Competence"
Competence is measured by the "Selection Committee"
So Committee is a measuring equipment.
Measuring equipment need calibration.
How to calibrate members of one committee? Or how to calibrate several committees that go on a big recruitment spree?

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

Dear Big Jim,
I need guidance. In fact anyone can chip in their bit.
The process is "Recruitment"
Metric is "Competence"
Competence is measured by the "Selection Committee"
So Committee is a measuring equipment.
Measuring equipment need calibration.
How to calibrate members of one committee? Or how to calibrate several committees that go on a big recruitment spree?

That would be a very awkward approach. It is generally more useful to choose KPI from among things that you can more easily measure. If you can't easily define how to collect the data, it is not likely to be very useful.

If you still wish to look for a measure for Recruitment, you may think about tracking the number of applications, or the ratio of applicants to new hires. You might not think that would to as useful, but something burned into my brain from business school is that complete information obtained six months after you need it is not nearly as useful as incomplete information when you need it. There are limitations to the usefulness of incomplete information, but if you know the limitations it is still much more useful if it is available when you need it.

I'm also not sure why you would choose to Recruitment as a core process. If you think you need one for Human Resources, why not measure productivity?

 

[ddchhaya]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

Thanks Big Jim!
I agree that there are other things that can be measured.
I am not talking about measurement.
I am talking about the need to calibrate measuring equipment.
Here it is committees or individuals on committee who measure competence as per input data on job description or job profile. I agree, productivity can be one aspect. Here we wish to focus on measurement of objectives coupled with calibration of measuring equipment. If committee is measuring competence, we need calibration!

 

[howste]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

People aren't equipment. I think you're trying to force the requirement where it doesn't make sense.

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

I agree with Howste on this. What you are suggesting doesn't make sense.

 

[pldey42]

Re: Quality Objectives - Do Quality Objectives have to be Measurable?

Until now we've been "Human Resources" - to be dug out of a cupboard full of mushrooms, used until exhausted, then disposed of in an environmentally friendly fashion.

Now we're equipment? To be labelled, left on a shelf, pushed, pulled, tweaked and tapped, then thrown back on the shelf?

Hmph. I quite like being "talent", as the SEI put it in the People Management Maturity Model.

That said, some organizations that deliver training services regard examinations as "test equipment" and calibrate their examinations by giving them in pilot trials to subjects whose abiilities are known, to see if the exam correctly discriminates between those who can and those who cannot.

Also, we've all seeen managers who are incompentent at assessing the capabilities of their staff, e.g. when they can't do the job themselves. Maybe we should allow ourselves to interpret the standard a little more creatively until someone revises it to truly reflect the challenges of what the SEI call Talent Management.

Just 2c,
Pat