How is your BMS (Business Management System) evolving?

[ccochran]

Roxane,

First of all, congratulations on your super accomplishments! You always impress the heck out of me.

So, what's next in your continual improvement path? How about introducing your strategic planning process to your business management system. It's not a topic that is directly addressed in ISO 9001, so most organizations don't really consider it something that can be scrutinized. It's something that's key to your success, though, so why not include it. There are a number of other BMS "add-ons" that you could consider introducing to your system that could really drive broad organizational improvements. I've assisted a few larger companies in writing their own standards that include some of these topics. If you or anybody else is interested, I would be happy to share some of these additional requirements.

Keep up the good work,
Craig

 

[Paul Simpson]

...And last week, with SA#10, we hit a secondary milestone....0 findings. Can I get a whoop!whoop!

Is this then the measure of a good audit? My question is: did you feel the audit reflected how you see your system? If the answer is yes then you have an effective partnership with your audit provider. If the answer is no then it needs development:
- if they raise findings when you don't think there are any then there is a problem
- if they give you a clean bill of health when there are issues then they are not providing the service you pay for. I would like to know what others think.

So, for those of you who have experience with a mature Business Management System (note...Business....not just Quality!), how do you find the evolution it progressing? Do you still experience systematic issues? Or have you moved on to the nit-pick details?

Great question! As a rider is the registrar / certification body in tune with your system?

 

[RoxaneB]

Is this then the measure of a good audit? My question is: did you feel the audit reflected how you see your system? If the answer is yes then you have an effective partnership with your audit provider. If the answer is no then it needs development:
- if they raise findings when you don't think there are any then there is a problem
- if they give you a clean bill of health when there are issues then they are not providing the service you pay for. I would like to know what others think.

Great question! As a rider is the registrar / certification body in tune with your system?

Is a measure of how good the system is? No. Is it nice to have such results though? Yes. The way I'm looking at it is that there were no findings but four good Opportunities for Improvement. That is a positive audit, in my opinion.

First of all, congratulations on your super accomplishments! You always impress the heck out of me.

Thank you.

So, what's next in your continual improvement path? How about introducing your strategic planning process to your business management system. It's not a topic that is directly addressed in ISO 9001, so most organizations don't really consider it something that can be scrutinized. It's something that's key to your success, though, so why not include it. There are a number of other BMS "add-ons" that you could consider introducing to your system that could really drive broad organizational improvements. I've assisted a few larger companies in writing their own standards that include some of these topics. If you or anybody else is interested, I would be happy to share some of these additional requirements.

Hmmm...are you sure you're not peeking through my windows here? We currently have a very indepth annual planning process (for up to 3 years in advance) at the facility and department and crew and individual levels. What's not so strong, however, is showing how all levels tie into corporate objectives...it's possible to show, but in a roundabout way.

However, the concept of improving this set-up is already in motion at the corporate level. We are looking at implementing a programme that will document and control objectives from our parent company to our North American head office to the site senior management and so on...plus allow communication to flow in both directions.

Key Indicators will be tied in to these objectives.

As an interim step, we've clearly shown how new processes/resources/technology impact our BMS, along with strong control over capital projects and long-term investments, and a new-found focus on Operator-involvement.

There is always room for improvement in any organization’s BMS however mature they are. At this point, I would also focus on reviewing the existing BMS and adding improvements to make it Scalable upwards and downwards.

Ask yourself questions like, if the Organization ramps up multiple times the current volume, recruit twice the employee strength, expand horizontally into other product families; will the system cater?

and the exact reverse: Downsizing scenario, will the system sustain?

By (re) designing a system scalable in either directions, you can maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the system without spreading thin.

Wes and I had a productive discussion in ASQ Board some time ago in the very same topic. Hope I did not distract the flow of this thread.

No, I don't believe you changed the flow of the thread.

That's a good point...scalability. However, I think that it is important to develop a system that is effective to the NOW, while taking into account that modifications may be necessarily in the FUTURE. We're in the middle of such a situation right now.

In the past, Excel met our needs for Action Plans and Key Indicators. With around 15 sites in North America and a few more than that in South America, we're evolving to have continent-specific systems for these tools. We are standardizing methodologies and terminology. Once we are happy with the set-up, the next step will be to evolve to one server for all of the company.

This new software is necessary to help manage our Company as it grows. It allows Management to see, at a glance, how the sites are doing compared to one another instead of one site at a time. It is assisting us in our standardization process, ensuring that we all start to speak the same language.

 

[Rachel]

Is this then the measure of a good audit? My question is: did you feel the audit reflected how you see your system? If the answer is yes then you have an effective partnership with your audit provider. If the answer is no then it needs development:
- if they raise findings when you don't think there are any then there is a problem
- if they give you a clean bill of health when there are issues then they are not providing the service you pay for. I would like to know what others think.

Paul,

I am with you 100% on this. Not to take away from Roxane's illustrious accomplishments - but I see your point.

We had our first surveillance audit to the 9001:2000 standard in December. Our auditor came back with 3 OFIs and *no* non-conformances. To me, that is totally ludicrous. I can see our system - I know where the holes are. I also know that there's the whole standard disclaimer ("just because we don't see them, doesn't mean they're not there...") but really - I thought he should have looked harder. Our last auditor was pulled from us to focus on TS audits - and I am not totally pleased with our new auditor. It seems you can talk your way out of anything.

I didn't see our last round as being value-added. For our next round, he has already let me know which processes he plans to examine - and I know that they are the ones with the biggest holes. Regardless of whatever we do to prepare - if we walk away from that one with no nonconformances, I think I will be requesting a new auditor.

Just my ...

Cheers,
-R.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Audit as a mirror?

Thanks, Rachel and I quickly want to add that the post was not meant to belittle the efforts of RC. Well done again.

Speaking from experience of both sides of the fence, I have had auditors come in to assess what I think are good systems effectively implemented and they have left us with a long list of nit picks and a very demotivated team.

On the other hand one of the last companies I worked for had useless systems when I joined and I was struggling to get principles understood by the management team, we were in trouble with a lot of our customers and we weren't following our control plans (does everyone have their violins out at this point?). Cut a long story short (I will leave the bit about him falling asleep in a meeting for my book!) he left us with a clean bill of health and my ambitions to have the MD take quality systems seriously in tatters. I left within six months.

Subject for a poll I think.

 

[RoxaneB]

Paul and Rachel,

For the most part, I agree that the number of findings raised is not indicative of how good the audit was, however, I also look at it like this. This was our 10th Surveillance Audit, we've been registered since 1998, we have an active CI programe and strong operator involvement. At this point, our findings (if there are any) should focus less on systematic issues and get to the point of nit-pick details. And there should be strong Opportunites for Improvement. This is what will make the audit beneficial and worth-while.

At our level, there should be nothing "wrong" (per se) with the System...but plenty of areas to improve upon.

For a first Surveillance Audit, yes, I would expect to see some Nonconformances issued. It's a young system that probably has not yet been fully adopted by all. At our age, though, the System should be a way of life.