Feedback on Quality Objectives

imwilliam

Involved In Discussions
Small data sets do not preclude effective quantitative analysis. Can you elaborate on what you think is a constraint?

I also think you've received some really good feedback here as requested. The common approach to quality objectives is to be specific and where improvement is involved SMART. There is no requirement that your quality objectives be improvement related; they can be 'maintenance' of current levels (adverse events happen and preventive action is the ideal) What you will encounter is that your approach will likely face the same type of questions from an auditor. That doesn't mean the auditor is right, but uncommon approaches tend to attract more questions...One 'red flag' with these types of 'qualitative' objectives is that some organizations use them to simply check the box and not challenge their organization to more than minimal compliance rather than challenging them to real quality excellence. Hopefully our questions have provided you with enough impetus to self reflect and have prepared you for any future questions...


Hey Bev,

Yes, in part at least, I brought them here so folks would throw rocks at them; in the hopes that it would better prepare me for any questions an auditor might ask. And I thought a little pressure might help me refine them.

Appreciate all the feedback.
 

Funboi

On Holiday
TBH, most ISO auditors don’t touch things like objectives with much interest. The main focus is (still) “are you following procedures”. If you were to state, as robustly as you have to us, that these are your stated objectives, they’ll leave it like it is.

On the other hand, if you did stumble upon a good one, they might ask you for evidence that you are monitoring the effectiveness of the core processes and what results you have seen. Without that, monitoring against objectives - goals or some finite value which says you have “arrived” - you’ll likely attract a non-conformity.
 

imwilliam

Involved In Discussions
TBH, most ISO auditors don’t touch things like objectives with much interest. The main focus is (still) “are you following procedures”. If you were to state, as robustly as you have to us, that these are your stated objectives, they’ll leave it like it is.

On the other hand, if you did stumble upon a good one, they might ask you for evidence that you are monitoring the effectiveness of the core processes and what results you have seen. Without that, monitoring against objectives - goals or some finite value which says you have “arrived” - you’ll likely attract a non-conformity.

I think you're exactly right, Fun.

Thanks for all your feedback too.
 

Big Jim

Admin
Element 9.1.3 provides topics that you need to analyze evaluate and make a nice basic set of quality objectives.
a. conformity to products and services
b. degree of customer satisfaction
c. performance and effectiveness of the quality management system (often measured with on-time delivery)
f. performance of external providers.

There is a variety of ways each can be tracked. All of these can be easily measured and trended much easier than the convoluted concept the OP is trying to deal with.
 

imwilliam

Involved In Discussions
Element 9.1.3 provides topics that you need to analyze evaluate and make a nice basic set of quality objectives.
a. conformity to products and services
b. degree of customer satisfaction
c. performance and effectiveness of the quality management system (often measured with on-time delivery)
f. performance of external providers.

There is a variety of ways each can be tracked. All of these can be easily measured and trended much easier than the convoluted concept the OP is trying to deal with.

So, if a business is already tracking the things you mention, pre-ISO 9001, what's the benefit of elevating them to a quality objective in the context of implementing ISO 9001 in a one-man shop?

They are certainly easier as objectives, require a great deal less of me, but beyond that?
 

Big Jim

Admin
So, if a business is already tracking the things you mention, pre-ISO 9001, what's the benefit of elevating them to a quality objective in the context of implementing ISO 9001 in a one-man shop?

They are certainly easier as objectives, require a great deal less of me, but beyond that?

It is too your great benefit to determine what you are already doing to meet a requirement rather than coming up with something new. But then if you want to make things difficult for yourself, go right ahead. I certainly don't recommend it. You do not need to come up with new quality objectives if you already have a good set of them.
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
I sense that there are two separate things happening here: what do you need to do to comply and what you want to do that is above and beyond the standard because it’s the right thing to do. It isn’t an either/or choice.
 

matthewjd24

Starting to get Involved
So, if a business is already tracking the things you mention, pre-ISO 9001, what's the benefit of elevating them to a quality objective in the context of implementing ISO 9001 in a one-man shop?

They are certainly easier as objectives, require a great deal less of me, but beyond that?
I would say the business already had 'quality objectives' pre-ISO 9001, even if it didn't call them that. Our quality objectives are based on numbers: On-Time-To-Plan percentage, First Pass Yield percentage, etc. and we have specific targets for each. If your actual values that you present to the auditor are below those targets, you need to explain what your organization is currently doing to fix it. At least, that's been my experience.
 
Top Bottom