Employee Discipline - A critical process?

[qualitytrec]

I was on vacation this weekend and for some sick reason a post popped into my head I have tried to attach it here. ( I guess I must have an affection or psycosis for you all ).
Where is the Requirement that says employees have to follow work instructions? https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/threads/9541/

It seems to me that 4.1a where it reads "The organization shall Identify the processes needed for the quality management system and their application through out the organization." Along with 7.1 where it says "The organization shall plan and develop the processes needed for product realization." That we may want to concider (if we have not already) having a discipline process defined as part of a good QMS.
I know that all good Deming Disciples are probably bristling right now. But I know from personal experience that some people will intentionally do what they want regardless of WI's Process Requirements etc... What are your thoughts on this?

Regards,
Mark

 

[qualitygoddess - 2010]

Basically Al Want to Do Good Work

I once put a process audit system into place at a small factory, and linked it to operator performance (I did this under protest, believing that it was not necessary). Interestingly, it did work! Perhaps because we put a postive spin on it -- we issued operator pass rate graphs; we had a bonus linked to improvements in the scrap rate and based on a minimum operator audit pass rate of 99%; and an improvement tool (read suggestion box) where the operators could put together improvement teams and implement changes. At its very core, however, it was a discipline process. If the operator didn't pass the audits, they didn't keep their jobs. In the 3 years I ran this thing, we only fired 2 out of about 120 workers. Terminations for absence were 5 times higher. It re-affirmed by basic belief that people want to do good work.

--QG

 

[qualitytrec]

QG,
did the two who lost their jobs not pass the audit because they would not follow the proper instruction or was there possibly a process issue that affected 1.5% of your work group? I am asking for clarification because human factors are offten difficult to root cause and I am wondering what was found specifically that said it was the operator and not the process. Also, with this audit system you used was the discipline tiered or was it a single strike system?
Also, what part did training play in trying to get operators to a 99% pass rate? or did it? Were operators just teminated outright if they were not at the 99%? Was there a buffer period with the >99% target and a deadline to achive it? Just currious how you wroked it all.
Thanks for your response.

Mark

 

[M Greenaway]

Well I know if I was tasked with achieving an objective, like a 99% pass rate, or fear losing my job I sure would meet that target !

By hook or by crook

 

[qualitygoddess - 2010]

QG,
did the two who lost their jobs not pass the audit because they would not follow the proper instruction or was there possibly a process issue that affected 1.5% of your work group? I am asking for clarification because human factors are offten difficult to root cause and I am wondering what was found specifically that said it was the operator and not the process. Also, with this audit system you used was the discipline tiered or was it a single strike system?
Also, what part did training play in trying to get operators to a 99% pass rate? or did it? Were operators just teminated outright if they were not at the 99%? Was there a buffer period with the >99% target and a deadline to achive it? Just currious how you wroked it all.
Thanks for your response.

Mark

Mark:

As I recall, the two people refused to follow instructions, so they failed and did not try to use any of the options available to them. I didn't mention three important things -- 1. the process audits were set up with checklists that were split into two categories: the things controlled by the operator (like doing the process as written), and the process itself. Operators only failed for things under their control. 2. the appeal process. If an operator failed an audit, and did not feel it was justified, he could appeal to a higher authority. I won't go into all the details. 3. the deviation process. We had a very clear deviation process. If an operator identified a process or part of a process that could not be followed, he could write a deviation and follow the process to get it reviewed and approved. With over 3000 unique part numbers, we had to be careful!

As a side note, the operations manager used the individual pass rates during performance review time, and gave tiered raises depending on the individual's pass rate.

The audit was actually 3 strikes and you are out and it reset itself in a rolling 12-month cycle. We used an Access database to track it all.

Training -- lots of it! We had on-the-job training for skills, often with written and practical tests to verify capability (now called competence); we had a class on what to expect in an audit; there was a 1 month period grace period for operators to get used to being audited; quality had on-going meetings with improvement teams that coincided with our various corrective action plans from failure trend analysis.

Yes, it was complicated, but we saw dramatic improvements in scrap and customer returns. It worked for that business. I calculated the thing paid for itself in 6 months. After that, we went for ISO registration.

--QG

 

[qualitytrec]

QG,
that sounds like not only a great discipline process but also a great employee incentive process as well. Thank you for your input.

Mark

 

[qualitygoddess - 2010]

Glad to provide some ideas to keep those creative thoughts going!

--QG

 

[RoxaneB]

Where is the Requirement that says employees have to follow work instructions?

While there is no direct requirement indicating that we will follow work instructions, there are several requirements which support this implied requirement.

6.2.2 b) "...provide training or take other actions to satisfy these needs;" (side note, "other actions" could imply discipline)

6.2.2 d) "...ensure that its personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contriubte to the achievement of the quality objectives."

7.5.1 b) "...the availabilityof work instructions, as necessary."

8.2.2 a) "...conforms to the planned arrangements (see 7.1) to the requirements of this International Standard and to the quality management system requirements established by the organization."

So, while there is no written requirement that explicitly tells us to follow what the document says, many organizations have it as part of their employees training and/or job description to "follow documented practices as per training" or something to that extent. When the documented practice is not followed, things like Internal Audits findings and discipline issues arise.

More often than not, when a documented practice is not followed, our instinct is to train. I've started asking why do we always train? The individual was trained before. Maybe the issue is not training. Maybe the issue is that the documented practice is not the best demonstrated practice and should be re-written. Maybe the current state of equipment does not allow for the documented practice to be adhered to. Or maybe, the individual is being somewhat stubborn and no document will tell him/her how to do his/her job since s/he's being doing it for 20-someodd years.

And that's where the discipline process may come in. First off, we to ascertain why the individual refuses to accept the document practice. Change is not easy...even for those of us who advocate and cheer it on. And if we find it difficult, just imagine how difficult it must be for those who live for the routine natured provided by their job!

Perhaps not enough communication has been provided about the documented practice...about why we document our practices now...why documentation and standardization is so important to our organization. Try the cheerleader-approach first before going down the path of discipline.

But, when all has failed and it is obviously a discipline issue, having an accepted and followed disciplining process is important. You do not want anyone to say that a supervisor or team leader has favourites and is playing preferences. With representatives from supervision and from the floor, an agreed-to discpline process should be developed and incorporated as part of your Management System.

True, it adds little direct value to the Customer, but it ensures that all are made aware of and trained on it! No one can say they didn't know what would happen.

Of course, the discipline process will most likely be part of the collective agreement in a unionized shop and structured very clearly for you already.

 

[qualitytrec]

RCBeyette,
What you quoted was actually the title of the thread that sparked my thoughts. Sorry for any confusion.
Good in put. Of course part of the discipline process would be to determine the reason for "nonconformance". I am starting to realize that this QMS mentality really applies to all areas of the organization and not just to product. "How does this happen if there is no that" type of thinking. We have an issue here right now where we have no discipline process. The Owners simply say "we are an at will company if we do not like what someone is doing we do not need to follow a discipline policy". I am trying to show them this is not the right mentality to have at the risk (small as it is) that they may at will me.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this issue ( if discipline processes should be a critical process )?

Mark

 

[RoxaneB]

Of course part of the discipline process would be to determine the reason for "nonconformance". I am starting to realize that this QMS mentality really applies to all areas of the organization and not just to product. "How does this happen if there is no that" type of thinking.

That's been the best part of my professional development. I've said before that before I came to my current organization, the very thought of a Quality Manual got me all excitied. I lived and breathed ISO 9000.

It's been 3.5 years since then and while my social life has not improved , my ability to see beyond the requirements of ISO 9001 have grown immensely. I look at how our current management technolgies align with ISO.

Even better, for those organizations who take ISO 9001 and apply it to more than just their product, suddenly a whole new world of continual improvement is opened up to them.

We have an issue here right now where we have no discipline process. The Owners simply say "we are an at will company if we do not like what someone is doing we do not need to follow a discipline policy". I am trying to show them this is not the right mentality to have at the risk (small as it is) that they may at will me.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this issue ( if discipline processes should be a critical process )?

Do you mean that Management has a 'fire at will' approach to things?

Personally, I do not believe that discipline needs to be considered a critical process. It needs to be formalized and standardized so that no one can cry out later to unfair and unjust treatment. But discipline does not help get the product made, does not contribute to ensuring we meet requirements and, if anything, instills an environment of fear and distrust instead of teamwork.