Encouraging Teams to raise Issues

[John Broomfield]

All,

Secondly my question. I have been engouraging all my workforce to raise internal non conformances when ever there has been an issue. This has led to some great results with corrective and preventative actions.However, the numbers have started to slow. On questioning them team there is an underlying tone that they will get ' hauled over the coals' if issues get raised. This stems from a previous management teams style.....

So i am asking if you have had any experience 're-branding' non-conformance reports to make them more user freindly and encouraging teams to report issues which are giving them problems.

Any ideas are greatfully received. Thanks.

Martin

Martin,

The only bad nonconformity is the one you do not know about!

I guess you are doing the job of the supervisors. They are meant to be obtaining suggestions from their teams.

Are the supervisors monitoring their processes?

TM may agree that Basic Supervisory Training is required by everyone who gets part of their job done by others.

The managers and supervisors may then realize they are responsible for the means of production.

Softening the name of nonconformity and avoiding face to face communication is unlikely to change the culture.

Perhaps start by blaming the system for every nonconformity (never should a person, department or the customer be blamed).

The supervisors could then meet with their teams for 30 minutes every morning when they expect to hear of lots of suggestions to improve things. Trained employees can then be engaged by their supervisors in the removal of root causes from the system.

Best wishes,

John

 

[Steve Prevette]

Believe it or not, I had good luck with a Suggestion Box at a Navy facility! You might think with the military chain of command stuff it would not have worked, but I got assigned (as about the 3rd senior officer in the 120 person facility) to facilitate the Suggestion Box. And the Commanding Officer basically declared as long as the idea would do no harm, we would IMPLEMENT IT. We actually got quite a few good ideas through the suggestion box. I did have to "push" a few things through the system (basically on behalf of some very junior folks) but was able to do so, with the CO's support.

 

[adickerson]

Sorry mate but I've got to dissagree with the suggestion box thing.

Suggestion boxs have a reputation for being dead end boxes.

The OP needs to be an open door, suggestion boxes are the neon lights of closed doors.

I agree with what you say about building trust, but let me turn that around a little. If your suggestion box is a dead end and nothing happens then the reason it failed is becasue management failed to use the tool - they broke the trust.

If you get the suggestions and actually talk about them at regular meetings and management reviews then you can get some real insight into the company. Even nasty or trivial comments can give you some ideas on how your system is working. For example if the suggestion to the quality department was to get rid of control charts becasue they are a pain to fill out and take too much time then you have something to look at: do your employees know why they are valuable, does the measurement system need to be more automated, are they being skipped over or just pen whipped, and what is the follow up to the operator about the results of the control chart?

Boxes work for me but I can see why they become a trash bin at other places.

 

[kgott]

Very good points there adickerson, particlalry about negative feedback. I like that.

 

[JaneB]

Rebranding alone won't do it. Sounds like there's an internal culture issue and unless that is addressed and changed, you can rebrand them to whatever you like, but it won't change.

Sounds like there's a need to rebuild trust in the organisation, and ensure that people aren't hauled over the coals if they raise issues. And just telling them that won't happen any more isn't enough.

There's a very good resource which was a web seminar on this very topic, which some interesting research & results. See here - link at bottom of site. The first few minutes are a bit confusing (recording started late) but it gets very interesting.

 

[eisoptrophobia]

Jane,
Thanks for the link to the seminar, it was great and has given me loads to think about.
Martin

 

[eisoptrophobia]

All,
Thanks for your input, i think i may have a long road but i thinkit may be fun. I must be a glutton for punishment.....

Martin

 

[Sardokar]

I have experienced what the OP described and I can say this :

does your Top Management NEED the Iso Quality System or do they just want it ?

WHY ? is it because they are conscious there exists some deep problems/crisis ? if no , then why ?


Your top management wants that "ISO" thingy to achieve what ? to Punish people ?

did you meet with all Head of departments and explain to them their help is crucial in the implementation of a quality system ? That if they are not role models this ssystem will not work at all ? How complete and sincere was their approval of this implementation?

Did you explain that ISO is a Management tool that allows to detect problems and fix them so they dont happen/dont happen again ?


did you explain that ISO is 3/4th of the time a carrot and only 1/4th a stick ? Do they agree ?


ISO is a carrot :

- By fixing competence Root causes we get more competent staff that increase customer satisfaction
-By changing and/or creating new Methodology Root causes we get a system that is more efficient/effective
- By fixing resource root causes ( human or Financial ) we are able to achieve work according to customer scope and increase customer satisfaction and therefore revenue

- ISO is a Stick :


* If the employee is not working right although there is no competence , no resource, no methodology problems ...this would mean the employee is not commited to his work

the fix here is to perform a performance evaluation and pin point those misbehaviors ... the employee would be given a deadline to either behave ...or get thanked

TO SUM IT UP

- if after a certain period ( let's say a couple of years ) you feel that not all Top Management ( GM + head of departments are 100% behind you ... look for another job

- if you feel they want ISO as a stick more than they want it as a carrot ...look for another job

- if you feel that although you explained it 100 times they still dont get/dont want to get why ISI is important and why they need it ... get another job

- If you are struggling and only being able to obtain the required activities/records done because the auditor is coming in an month ...lok for ano...i think you get the picture

Hope this helps

All the above come from IRL experience unfortunately ...and i am now able to know in the first couple of months if i am wasting my time in a company or not

 

[kgott]

What Sardokar rasies is, in my view, an important issue. The ususal reasons for most oprgansiatons seeking certification to ISO 9000 relate to getting the single on wall because customers or the market requires it. As most of us who work in quality assurance know, these are the wrong reasons.

THe right reasons are things to do with continuous imprvement, removing variation from processess, building efficient and effective managment systems, using ISO 9000 as a framework for managing busienss processes etc.

Most management people tend to be techncians off the shop floor with a narrow range of competiences who are good at making widgets and geting them out the door, Many of these people are techncially incompetent when it comes to managing the wider issues of a business such as human resources, safety and quality etc

This is why it is incumbent for us QA people to educate them on the positive reasons for using ISO 9001 as a framework for managing busienss processes. For as long as management only see ISO 9001 as a cost and not a benefit they the will never give it any support beyond getting the certificate on the wall, what else do we expect?

 

[eisoptrophobia]

Thanks,

I think that the initial reason for the 9001 was customer driven. The system was built by a consultant and driven by a team who had little or now understanding of the possibilities of what can be achieved.

Now that i am within this company i belive that the change is recognised and supported at the leadership level. I am just pushing against 10 years of the system being ingrained incorrectly at the shop floor level. (stick not carrot)

This change at the shop floor level is where i am getting the issues, the rebranding of the NCR was an idea to bring back the carrot attitude and show that change is being supported from above. At least if i have some big wins from the initial shop floor issues people may be more suppotive of change.

Thanks for all your inputs, they are greatfully recieved.

Martin