Focusing on Quality - Flawed Survey or Responses Lacking? QualityInsider

[RoxaneB]

I received my QualityInsider email today and started to scowl as I read the survey results towards the bottom:

In the previous QualityInsider survey, we asked our readers how their company gets employees to keep their focus on quality, after the audits and annual reviews are over. Here's a sampling of the results:
• "They don't do anything."
• "We conduct daily lean dashboard reviews. Also, since we're ISO 9001-registered, we conduct monthly internal quality audits."
• "They don't! We panic annually when it's audit time."
• "Performance metrics are posted in production areas and on intranet. Problems receive a lot of attention from management (employees don't want that kind of attention)."
• "We have a weekly report card issued on all major projects/contracts that contains performance data. The card goes to president and all division managers. You don't want to get a bad report card."
• "We make employees responsible for identifying and solving quality issues. And we hold monthly (more often when needed) improvement meetings where the folks doing the work bring the quality issues to the table."
• "We publish a monthly quality audit newsletter, which includes summaries of all audits as well as quality objectives/metrics that are meaningful at all levels of the company."

Perhaps I’m getting irritated by the weather, even though we’re entering the final stages of winter or perhaps, just perhaps, I’m rather disappointed by the (albeit filtered) short-sightedness of these replies. Of course, the question itself is flawed. Why should audits and annual reviews (assuming reviews are done annually and not at some other frequency that effectively meets the needs of the organization) be the mechanisms by which a “focus on quality” is maintained? If anything, are these not Check items at a higher level? Should we not have other, more proactive, means in place at other levels within the process to continually remind people about why Quality is important? And I mean Quality as it pertains to everything…not just product specs, but delivery, attitude, cost. And I mean Quality as it pertains to all Stakeholders…not just the end user. Am I missing something here?

Judging by the responses, a few organizations are starting out on the right path. The first few words such as “performance metrics” and “report card” had me smiling…until I saw how it was used. “Don’t want that kind of attention” and “…don’t want to get a bad report card” just serve to reinforce the policing image that Quality professionals have been trying to shake free from. There’s nothing like a slap on the wrist to make people adopt an attitude of “We do this because of ISO”. A more nurturing and supporting environment evolves a culture which does the right thing at the right time to get the right result.

I work for an organization where, yes, no one wants a “bad result” but let’s face reality. “Murphy” tends to be a full time employee at most organizations and stuff happens. It’s all in how you deal with it. We’re quite willing to accept a bad result if you can show proper failure treatment, including the means to get the process back under control and obtain the desired results next time around.

I look at it like this. As a child, if I brought home a bad report card (yes, I wasn’t a perfect child…shocking, isn’t it?), the Management Team (aka the parents) sat down with me and we developed a plan to get things back on track. We looked at resource management (time availability, tutoring sessions, part time job requirements, social life, etc.) and coordinated it so that the goal could be achieved to everyone’s satisfaction.

Is it any wonder that these responses have a particularly negative slant? Fear sounds rather rampant and it doesn’t appear that there is much support in ways of properly treating failures or results outside of the expected control limits. If all the people do is report their metrics and there is no expectation for them to detail how they’ll get the process back to where it needs to be, the whole process of metrics becomes rather meaningless.

Metrics aside, there’s the organization that panics at audit time. Well, that’s natural. No one likes to be audited. Even me…I hope none of my coworkers read this…they’ll never let me live it down.

But in all seriousness, what does the audit have to do with a focus on Quality? What are they doing for the remaining 360-or-so days of the year when there is no audit? Forgoing Quality and Stakeholder satisfaction and replacing it with a “let’s-just-make-and-ship-what-we-want” attitude? If that’s the case, I too would panic come audit time.

Maybe I’m naïve enough to believe that the organization really does attempt to make itself capable of making a product or providing a service that meets requirements…isn’t that Quality? Personally, I think this person has missed the point of Quality…but I did say the question itself was flawed.

I fail to see the correlation between being registered to ISO 9001 and monthly audits, but I give a thumbs-up to the dashboard reviews, assuming that issues which are outside of the norm are responded to accordingly.

As for the newsletter, lovely idea but again…audits audits audits. This really isn’t the only way to focus on Quality issues. However, if this is the means chosen by the organization then to improve the summaries, I would expect to see the responses or action plans to fix the findings, as well, within the newsletter. They don’t have to be long-winded, but if I saw a problem in another department which could also apply to mine, seeing the resolution would provide me with a way to improve. How’s that for a focus on Quality?

Lastly, to the response of “They don’t do anything”, I have only this to ask…Why Should They? Do your fellow coworkers not understand the importance of Quality without having auditors pestering them or management review sitting down and analyzing the results? I find myself hoping that this response was filtered by the editors and that there was more saying that something along the lines of “…because the focus is instilled in our culture”, but based on the other responses posted, I doubt that this is the case.

Perhaps I am in a foul mood due to the -20C temperature (fyi, the groundhog lied!), but have I completely missed the picture with the selected responses? I like to think that the editor(s) would have selected the “best of the best” when it comes to the survey results/responses. If this is truly reflective of what was done, it is little wonder to me why the field of the Quality profession is so convoluted. We don’t know where to focus. We don’t know how to respond to results. We have expectations that policing (i.e., auditing) and a simon-says-approach (i.e., results from management review) are the means to keep a focus on quality within an organization.

I have friends and colleagues who continually urge me to look else where when I say negative things about my job or organization (hey, we all have bad days). However, when I look at responses such as these I’m very happy with my organization, our management system and our team. I fully believe that such responses would not be uttered by anyone here, no matter their position.

So, audits, management reviews and organizations aside, here’s my question to you…

How do your employees keep a focus on Quality?

 

[Jen Kirley]

Well Roxane,

I am also interested to know if those answers truly represent the population. The problem with surveys is that answers can be formed according to the respondent's mood at the time. Do they truly represent how it's being done? We don't know.

But why wouldn't they answer as they do?

If this is truly reflective of what was done, it is little wonder to me why the field of the Quality profession is so convoluted. We don’t know where to focus. We don’t know how to respond to results. We have expectations that policing (i.e., auditing) and a simon-says-approach (i.e., results from management review) are the means to keep a focus on quality within an organization.

Sure it's convoluted. There are good reasons for that. We're pulled from all sides: from profiteering to pragmatism, from all facets of ego and motivation (or its lack) to the fact of consequence. Sometimes the forces conflict with each other and the more forceful one wins out.

I wrote about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in When Employees Don't Follow Procedures. I also mentioned the article where one of the "The Enthusiastic Employee" authors reflects on the question his group gets: how to motivate people? His (their) response: "How to keep from destroying motivation?"

And yet if it really were true that incoming employees are essentially fresh-faced, spirited and driven to do right, wouldn't our work be easier?

I've seen them in various forums, including at the fresh-faced stage (in elementary, middle and high schools) and I regret to say that in so many cases, personalities are set before we (in the workplace) get them.

The matter becomes one of herding squirrels. It's not herding cats, because like squirrels, each of us has some kernel we're tying to protect--the object is not to create or maintain a sense of threatening that kernel.

To go about our kind of work without understanding this is, I do believe, a touch naive. We need to be optimistic, but aware that much of the challenges really aren't that much in our control. We do what we can, and sometimes make great progress--and sometimes little clear progress. Sometimes the progress is not so clear, but is real. It can be hard to tell sometimes.

I once worked in a tough environment where I mused to my coworker: "In a place like this, winning is getting out with your self esteem and integrity intact." In that place I understood that my progress was measurable in one worker at a time, fostering a certain progress of education and awareness and to let them know when they were feeling wasn't their fault.

I've tried to leave my field for journalism and education, and found I could not. My mind is set to the Quality Way. So, it's about working with the right mix of tools at hand.

What works for my workplace? It's not an inspired set of metrics, or Kum-Ba-Ya although there are employee events and some fun things. A safe work environment, adequate tools and well-defined instructions are important of course--but I've been surprised to find how many people don't have well developed instructions. I think that affects the quality attitude.

Underneath it all I think it's a sense of craftsmanship, an understanding that we as employees can't do well unless our employer does well first. It's made clear that scrap is bad and there is plenty of listening for input about what could be done better. Mixed in that is a stoic realism that not all advice will be heeded. In spite of that a sense of pride in work is maintained. It helps to have a good benefits package--whoever thinks no materialism is needed is just wrong.

Hang in there--Spring will come!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I share your concern. Quality is not a priority in preparation for an audit. Window dressing is. At least for a good percentage of the organizations out there. I know that you are venting, but the truth is that quality is not considered a value added function in many companies. As long as quality is associated with a department rather than a mind-set, it will not be part of the "corporate DNA". Do you ever wonder why organizations don't have an Ethics Management Department? Well....one of the reasons is that, in most companies, EVERYBODY is expected to behave ethically. It should be the same thing for quality. EVERYBODY should do the "right thing" when it comes to quality. People might have to be coached, but quality should never be a policing activity. We should not need a quality assurance department. We should only need a quality management mind-set ingrained in all employee's brains, actions and processes.
The other day, I visited a small organization that had the following sign in the lobby:

"Quality is the alignment of our business processes with the Voice of the Customer"​

I found it very insightful.

Remember. Only a few have seen the light....

 

[RoxaneB]

I am also interested to know if those answers truly represent the population. The problem with surveys is that answers can be formed according to the respondent's mood at the time. Do they truly represent how it's being done? We don't know.

I thought about it some more last night and realized that the responses are probably from people in the Quality field - considering the nature of the magazine. This made me worry even more about the responses. I wonder if the survey results would have been different if employees not in the traditional field of Quality had answered.

To go about our kind of work without understanding this is, I do believe, a touch naive. We need to be optimistic, but aware that much of the challenges really aren't that much in our control. We do what we can, and sometimes make great progress--and sometimes little clear progress. Sometimes the progress is not so clear, but is real. It can be hard to tell sometimes.

I totally agree and find myself in that exact situation quite regulary. However, getting back to the survey question, I just find the attitude of using audits and management reviews as the means to focus on quality a tad demoralizing and counterproductive to what Quality professionals are trying to accomplish.

I know that I can not control rework and scrapped product as I am not the one handling the product. However, I can teach people how to benchmark and standardize with the intent to reduce those negative results. A more proactive approach than relying on audits and reviews.

I've tried to leave my field for journalism and education, and found I could not. My mind is set to the Quality Way. So, it's about working with the right mix of tools at hand.

Again, totally agree. So, to ensure that a culture is established which focuses on Quality and understands the Voice of the Customer (or Stakeholder), shouldn't the right mix of tools go beyond audits and management reviews? Shouldn't the right tools be available to the right people at the right time?

What works for my workplace? It's not an inspired set of metrics, or Kum-Ba-Ya although there are employee events and some fun things. A safe work environment, adequate tools and well-defined instructions are important of course--but I've been surprised to find how many people don't have well developed instructions. I think that affects the quality attitude.

But do they need the instructions? If the process is standardized and it's non-critical task, the need to document it isn't necessary (in my opinon...oh, how I've mellowed in my old age). Even without a document processes, though, I would think that people should understand the importance of Quality and meeting requirements.

Underneath it all I think it's a sense of craftsmanship, an understanding that we as employees can't do well unless our employer does well first. It's made clear that scrap is bad and there is plenty of listening for input about what could be done better. Mixed in that is a stoic realism that not all advice will be heeded. In spite of that a sense of pride in work is maintained. It helps to have a good benefits package--whoever thinks no materialism is needed is just wrong.

I agree that support from the top is needed, but this support needs to come in more than just allocation of resources. It means that if I have a bad result, I'm not necessarily 'yelled at' but I am questioned on what I'm going to do to get things back to where they should be.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Yes, the tools should go beyond audit results and management reviews. Absolutely.

And in my mind, support means more than the material sense. It also means supporting my authority to go along with the responsibility.

Formal instructions aren't needed for everything. It can be tough to strike the balance. In general I advocate having at least what would be needed for effective cross training. The question should be: if so-and-so won the Powerball tonight and said "See ya, guys!" with an airy wave, could the operation continue with what we have? If so, good. If not, build the needed structure to support the need.

The problem with focusing on audit results is that it's like a car's rear view mirror. It shows a limited view that appears farther away than it is. That means, problems could be more severe than the audit reveals. Awareness of a process and responses to indicators should not rely on the occasional audit function.

The fact that so many people focus on such measurables hints that there's a long way to go before management understands what value it can bring to empower the people to their abilities. But such empowerment must be managed, and I fear that most middle managers aren't trained in such things. They're often technical experts with limited skills in human performance management. For such people, focusing on audit metrics is easy and seems justifiable.

Such organizations may find themselves performing sluggishly, and struggle with costs and market share without ever understanding why. Such organizations are in the overwhelming majority.

 

[Jim Wynne]

This is a very deep subject, and there are no simple answers. I freely admit to being a dedicated cynic regarding the state of American industry, but it's cynicism born of experience. When I talk to inexperienced purchasing and quality people about dealing with job shops, for example, I tell them that there are two things they must know if they expect to get positive results:

1. The single overarching, most important priority in the vast majority of job shops may be expressed in four words: Keep the machines running.
2. There's nothing you can do to change #1.

Once you understand that, you can formulate a plan. Almost every shop has plaques and awards and platitudes hanging on the lobby wall, the result of which is that plaques and awards and platitudes have no value. And it's not a case of these shops being bereft of ethical concerns; it's that there's a different code of ethics at work. Like it or not, in manufacturing, ethical relativism is very real, and if you don't understand that and expect that you can put your code of ethics in your briefcase and deliver it to problem suppliers with the belief that they'll see some sort of light, you're going to be disappointed every time.

As for the subject of the thread, the survey results, there's no telling how the results actually reflect the general population. There are an awful lot of people who do what they need to do to get the baby new shoes, and for the most part, those people are conscientious in the only way that counts for them. Until the people that own and operate the companies come to understand that there is more to life than short-term fiscal results, nothing will change.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Ethical relativism--what a succinct and dead-on-right term that one is.

 

[SteelMaiden]

We start right out in orientation making employees aware of quality (and safety #1, and environmental stewardship). We start out with "do the right thing" and build from there. We have crew meetings each turn and those summarize quality, such as rejects and customer complaints. We have dinners twice a year where managers talk about (among other topics) quality. We have e-mails that go out at least once a month with little smileys on goals met. There are special call-in lines that are updated daily for each dept with summaries of what happened the day before, what is happening now, and future events. We have (OK forgive me, I know this sounds like bragging) "The Best People in the World" working here, and every one of them truly takes responsibility for the product as if he had made it all by himself.

In other words, we started out a greenfield site and just built what we wanted as we went. Most of these people are young and did not have a lot of years at some other industry to tarnish their idealism. We have never once said "it cannot be done" therefore, they just take it and run with it. I'm lucky. I admit it.

 

[RoxaneB]

I share your concern. Quality is not a priority in preparation for an audit. Window dressing is. At least for a good percentage of the organizations out there. I know that you are venting, but the truth is that quality is not considered a value added function in many companies. As long as quality is associated with a department rather than a mind-set, it will not be part of the "corporate DNA". Do you ever wonder why organizations don't have an Ethics Management Department? Well....one of the reasons is that, in most companies, EVERYBODY is expected to behave ethically. It should be the same thing for quality. EVERYBODY should do the "right thing" when it comes to quality. People might have to be coached, but quality should never be a policing activity. We should not need a quality assurance department. We should only need a quality management mind-set ingrained in all employee's brains, actions and processes.
The other day, I visited a small organization that had the following sign in the lobby:

"Quality is the alignment of our business processes with the Voice of the Customer"​

I found it very insightful.

Remember. Only a few have seen the light....

So, how we get others to see the light? How can this process of alignment become contagious?

Yes, I know that this has been asked many times before me. It's just rather irksome to see a supposed Quality-based magazine asking such a flawed question and then seeing such disappointing responses.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

So, how we get others to see the light? How can this process of alignment become contagious?

In my humble (and I mean it) opinion, for quality to be ingrained in the "corporate DNA" and be contagious, the organization must have <TRUE> leadership and the resolve to promote trickle down quality.

True, sustainable and progressive quality will only happen if the people at the top comprehend it. It can NOT be done from the bottom, up.