Is this practice common? 1 Quality Manager covering QA, QC, QE, SQE

[jimmymustang06]

I'm a Quality Control Mgr. over everything quality PPAP, APQP, CA, ..etc.. The gentleman who took care of our TS "system" left the company and all of those responsibilities fell into my lap, of course with no more $ .. Is it common to have 1 Quality Manager covering QA, QC, QE, SQE and every other acronym with a Q in it?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Is this practice common?

I'm a Quality Control Mgr. over everything quality PPAP, APQP, CA, ..etc.. The gentleman who took care of our TS "system" left the company and all of those responsibilities fell into my lap, of course with no more $ .. Is it common to have 1 Quality Manager covering QA, QC, QE, SQE and every other acronym with a Q in it?

I don't know if you're asking whether it's common for one person to do all that by herself, or whether it's common for a quality manager to have primary responsibility (with help from staff) for those things. The size of the company matters too.

 

[jimmymustang06]

Re: Is this practice common?

I'm wondering if it's common practice to have one person in charge of making sure all of that is done, and done correctly. We used to have QA for the ISO/TS stuff but now that has been dumped on me.. I guess I'm wondering if I'm justified in expecting a raise? The size of the company is 400 and spans 2 facilities in 2 states. I have folks working for me, but at the end of the day, I'm ultimately responsible to make sure it all gets done..

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: Is this practice common?

I'm wondering if it's common practice to have one person in charge of making sure all of that is done, and done correctly. We used to have QA for the ISO/TS stuff but now that has been dumped on me.. I guess I'm wondering if I'm justified in expecting a raise? The size of the company is 400 and spans 2 facilities in 2 states. I have folks working for me, but at the end of the day, I'm ultimately responsible to make sure it all gets done..

Companies of 400+ employees often have a "Quality Director" with overall responsibility (a real management position equal to a COO) for

1. meeting Standards,
2. ensuring product quality,
3. overseeing the supply chain by satisfying customers and suppliers, and, just incidentally,
4. ensuring the organization conforms to all government regulations.

The Quality Director usually has folks reporting to him who are direct supervisors or middle management to administer EACH of the above functions.

So, to directly answer your question, if you have the power to appoint individuals to carry out those function while you oversee what they do and ensure it all comes together smoothly, you probably need a new title and more money (subject, of course, to the availability of $$ in the organization, which you'd know if you followed Deming's SoPK.)

If you don't have this power to add subordinates, then you are in the uncomfortable position of having to set priorities in handling the functions so you don't exceed your work week hours - not really ideal for you or the organization.

Whichever situation pertains, you'll probably need a sophisticated presentation to the top boss

1. to justify elevation in rank and pay or
2. gain an understanding that ALL the functions for an organization of 400+ cannot be completed by ANY one person in a normal work week.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Is this practice common?

I'm wondering if it's common practice to have one person in charge of making sure all of that is done, and done correctly. We used to have QA for the ISO/TS stuff but now that has been dumped on me.. I guess I'm wondering if I'm justified in expecting a raise? The size of the company is 400 and spans 2 facilities in 2 states. I have folks working for me, but at the end of the day, I'm ultimately responsible to make sure it all gets done..

Managers are responsible for stuff, but generally not personally responsible for as much as you seem to be. If you can't delegate and trust the people to whom you assign work, that's a different sort of problem. Maybe you need to stop thinking that you have to do it all, and think about getting some experienced and reliable people to help, if you don't have them already.

As far as the money is concerned, in general, more responsibility means more pay, but not always.

 

[jimmymustang06]

Thanks guys.. I was just wondering.. I've been at this company for a VERY long time and have worked hard to get to this position, so I don't have any other reference point. Then along came a recession and the company got VERY lean with regards to resources.. now everything in our place is back to good (even better, in fact) the company is VERY reluctant to add resources, when it seems to be getting done right now with the resources we have.. but it's making for some late nights and frustrations for me.

 

[ScottK]

Re: Is this practice common?

Companies of 400+ employees often have a "Quality Director" with overall responsibility (a real management position equal to a COO) for

Gee, Wes. Now I'm all ashamed of only being a QA Manager.
Maybe I should have rethought giving up a QA Director job to step "down" to a QA Manager job with a different company for a lot more money and larger staff of degreed professionals.
I guess I'm not a real manager anymore.

 

[Marc]

I'm wondering if it's common practice to have one person in charge of making sure all of that is done, and done correctly. We used to have QA for the ISO/TS stuff but now that has been dumped on me.. I guess I'm wondering if I'm justified in expecting a raise? The size of the company is 400 and spans 2 facilities in 2 states. I have folks working for me, but at the end of the day, I'm ultimately responsible to make sure it all gets done..

It's not unusual at all. It is also common for a company to add additional responsibilities on an employee (especially these days) without a change in name of the position, much less a pay increase. I hear about it all the time - More so these days (from friends) than when I was working, but this isn't new. It has happened to me, the first time being back in the 1980's and the most recent back in 2002 when I was helping a company with customer problems (and I was just a consultant!). In the 2002 incident it took a few months but I was in a meeting and my "boss" started complaining to me about not getting everything done. I got up, left the meeting, went to my office, packed everything up and walked out. Luckily I was a consultant and didn't need the "job". It was great money, but not worth the hassle.

BTW - The 2002 contract was for me to handle one customer. Within about 5 months they "assigned" several more to me. It came to a point where there simply weren't enough hours in a day to deal with everything. I was lucky because as a consultant I was getting paid very well and my pay was based upon hours worked per day with time and a half for every hour over 8 hours in a day. I got in one heck of a lot of overtime, but I reached a point where the money wasn't worth it. I was even in on saturdays and most sundays which was very profitable for me, but left me little time to do anything else.

What you have to decide is whether you want to continue to work for a company that operates this way. While you may be able to convince upper management that you deserve a pay raise because of additional responsibilities being given to you, you may also convince them to start looking for someone else who they believe (right or wrong) "can handle" the additional responsibilities.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Re: Is this practice common?

Gee, Wes. Now I'm all ashamed of only being a QA Manager.
Maybe I should have rethought giving up a QA Director job to step "down" to a QA Manager job with a different company for a lot more money and larger staff of degreed professionals.
I guess I'm not a real manager anymore.

The problem with generalities - there's ALWAYS someone with an exception. Titles mean less than actual functions, responsibilities, authorities, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,

THE PAY$$$$$
​

 

[ScottK]

Re: Is this practice common?

The problem with generalities - there's ALWAYS someone with an exception. Titles mean less than actual functions, responsibilities, authorities, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,

THE PAY$$$$$
​

to remain off topic for a bit more:
These days the exception that you are referring to is the rule.
QA titles are all over the place from multi billion dollar internationals to 2 million dollar locals.
Who'd have thought that the head quality position of a large division of a major medical device company I've worked with would be "Quality Leader".

It's good lesson for people new to QA that want to advance their career in our world... titles are only meaningful within each organization: Company's A's Chief Quality Officer may have less responsibility than Company B's QC Supervisor. Don't shut down an opportunity based only on title - read the job description first.