Originally posted by Alan Cotterell:
In all Management Manuals I write these days, I include the use of one form only for reporting nonconformances
Having just sent some info to a company in asia, I was looking at my resume a few minutes ago. I can tell you that I first did this back in 1990 (FL Aerospace). One form for all. Back in 1994 I wrote my first nonconformance - corrective action database based upon a single form. I have preached this since that time.
I wonder how others feel about the level of empowerment this offers
The problem (if there is one, such as it is) with most companies I have worked with is not that their employees are not 'empowered' to report complaints and such as you mention. What you are implying is that employees will report all sorts of paroblems and then the 3rd party auditors will act as a police functionary to ensure upper management reacts. Ideally this might seem a smart move. However, in my experience there a combination of factors at work. Some employees are natural complainers. Some employees are apathetic. I could go on but will end with this comment:
Your proposition of using 3rd party auditors as 'police' is old, tired and disturbing. It has taken years to remove the immediate thought of
POLICE when the word quality comes up. Now you suggest that because companies cannot police themselves that this should be the job of 3rd party auditors. Although it is happening, to some degree, I don't see police intervention as the answer in most companies. I'm also sure most management feels this way.
Alan, in your posts you seem to constantly portray management as people who can't or won't do what is right. I'm a liberal democrat in the US which is essentially a statement of pro-labour. You take it to the extreme. In this post you say:
"...these reports are the first thing certifying bodies look for during third party audit, and they insist the reports must be 'closed out'. This clause seems to herald the end to employers paying 'lip service' to ISO9000..."
Dream on. In addition, you are close to advocating a situation where business is overseen because they're too stupid, corrupt or inept to "do what's right'.
One of your assumptions is that all these employees 'reports' will be valid and that they will get in the CA process. Often times there are NC's that simply do not require a CA. Christian had some very valid points in his post, as well.
Each company empowers employees in different ways and to different degrees. Some companies do not really require a high level of employee empowerment. Governments are quite like this. Citizens = Employees
You say:
"...when we implement a documented management system - empowerment or more executive control? We never seem to get three things together in any organisation - empowerment, ownership and participation. Do these things make up Industrial Democracy?"
What is industrial democracy? Is it like in a commune where everyone has a say? What is the opposite of 'industrial democracy'? If I started a business I would look at it as my business. Not a democracy. If I want advisors, I will hire and/or appoint them.
Now I know you're thinking of risk, as you always do, and of safety. As a business owner I have certain obligations. But many things can happen. An employee can screw up (Bophal, India - Union Carbide). A design can fail (the NASA space capsule that fire engulfed killing the 3 astronauts some years ago where it was found that the design engineers had for years been advising against using pure oxygen but NASA stubbornly refused to listen). However, empowerment and 3rd party police are not going to solve these types of problems.
You want a business where the foundation is 'democracy' I suggest you start one.
While empowerment is a good idea, in my opinion, the question becomes 'at what point does it end'? My experience is that there are some good companies, some bad companies and most are 'middle of the road'. Once a 'good' company, Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) founder (Olsen?) walked the halls talking with employees and in general was very involved. His business decisions were in part made on the feedback he got as he toured and met with employees on all levels of the business. DEC did well for many years but - despite the extremely high level of 'empowerment' it eventually (for all intents and purposes) failed somewhat miserably. Back in the 70's and 80's when he did this it was a rather novel idea. Take a look at many Silicon Valley companies in the US today - they are the evolutionary product. But we also have to consider what their core business. Writing software and designing computer components and hardware is not the same as 'heavy' industries such as metal stamping and forging. Is empowerment the same in both? No.
I'm sorry to say I see the term
empowerment as a gimmick term to a large degree. It has been bandied about for quite some time now. "Empower your employees to make decisions" is how I heard it first many years ago. And "Reduce micromanaging - empower your employees." You may say you are empowering employees. I would say you are involving employees in the business processes and you are giving them responsibilities. Is this a good idea? In my opinion, yes - it is. In some companies and industries it works better than in others.