Leadership Attributes - Getting buy-in on Quality from other functions

[lk2012]

Nicely worded John.
The top level are happy to hear that we've got our TS with no non-conformance (notice the own-trumpet-blowing here) but they're not interested in supporting any further development. Customer-specific requirements are largely ignored until the proverbial hits the fan.
Do you think the root cause may be the key process managers are from non-Automotive areas trying to apply the same thinking to major Automotive OEMs?
Lil

 

[John Broomfield]

Nicely worded John.
The top level are happy to hear that we've got our TS with no non-conformance (notice the own-trumpet-blowing here) but they're not interested in supporting any further development. Customer-specific requirements are largely ignored until the proverbial hits the fan.
Do you think the root cause may be the key process managers are from non-Automotive areas trying to apply the same thinking to major Automotive OEMs?
Lil

Lil,

Your question suggests that top management think their management was mainly for (or solely for) certification in order to keep its automotive business.

What or who made them think this way? Were they reluctant to provide their organization with a decent management system until a customer forced them to "comply" with TS?

And, even now, is the certified management system worthy of their respect? The fact that auditors agree that is conforms to TS is not enough. Rarely does a valued management system come from such "reluctant compliance".

Their management system must make it easier for everyone to convert customer needs into cash in the bank. They may then get everyone behind it instead of tolerating a permissive environment (that is a 6.4 nonconformity, by the way!).

And ask yourself how much authority your Process Managers have formally delegated from the CEO and away from Departmental Managers? Are budgets allocated to processes or to departments? Answer these questions to see if your management system is truly process-based as it needs to be to make it easier for everyone to convert customer needs into cash in the bank faster.

John

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Nicely worded John.
The top level are happy to hear that we've got our TS with no non-conformance (notice the own-trumpet-blowing here) but they're not interested in supporting any further development. Customer-specific requirements are largely ignored until the proverbial hits the fan.
Do you think the root cause may be the key process managers are from non-Automotive areas trying to apply the same thinking to major Automotive OEMs?
Lil

I would say it suggests that top management does not truly understand the intent of TS, and the intent of continual improvement. A little more training as to the concept, and the benefits, from someone who actually understands the concept, may help them see the value.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I've got a similar situation:
the Quality department in our company is perceived as a nuisance and that's on a good day. On the bad days, other departments would try to hide things away from us or simply don't tell us until their in the bog up to their ears.
Any kind of continuous improvement ideas (and we don't even call it that, we call it 'development' or 'support' or stuff like that) are met with ignorance or sabotage.
Overall, it's causing the whole company major extra cost both financially and workload-wise.
Where are we going wrong?

Where are you going wrong, as an organization? Let me speculate, if I may…

As I have been voicing for many, many years now, every organization in the World is dysfunctional to a degree. Successful organizations are the ones that manage to keep their dysfunctions in check and mitigate the impact of dysfunction, on a regular basis.
As part of typical dysfunction, in terms of cultural incompatibility with MODERN quality management, it is very common for organizations top management to misunderstand that the objectives of the quality function are NOT intrinsically aligned with the business objectives for the organization. Unfortunately, all too often organizations allow the misconception that the quality function’s main job is to POLICE the rest of the organization and avoid shipment of bad parts. In other words, they allow and foster a culture to permeate where the quality function is misperceived by the rest of the organization as an adversary that they to fight against, rather than to collaborate with. This phenomenon is still very prevalent around the World.

Sometimes, the quality function of the organization also misperceives their role and acts as the policeman on the block, creating unnecessary friction and fail to do their part as a contributing function. We also need to realize that, unfortunately, too many quality professionals don’t know how to insert themselves, in an added-value manner in the organization’s business processes and (as I repeat myself) explain that the quality system of any organization is NOT the system of the quality department, but, and instead, the quality component of the BUSINESS PROCESSES. Until that epiphany/enlightenment happens throughout the organization and the quality function can demonstrate how they help mitigate the risks that could prevent the organization from reaching it’s short, medium and long term business objectives, working WITH (and NOT AGAINST) the BUSINESS PROCESSES, your dilemma will remain.

 

[Golfman25]

Some good points made above. Where does this idea of "police" come up? You start with the antiquated idea that "quality" can't report to production because that is somehow a conflict of interest. You are basically telling production that they can't police themselves and you need another department to do it. As long as you "need" a separate "quality department" you are in for the typical troubles and conflicts.

Imagine trusting production to produce and spending the quality department dollars on process improvement experts and other facilitators.