Leadership non-conformity, Top Management's involvement in Problem Solving

[Booker]

Dear,

In 2021 we had NC for Control plan 8.5.1.1, this year the same NC. Therefore automatically NC for Problem Solving 10.2.3 along with Leadership 5.1.
We see that the auditor did not see clear involvement of Top Management's attention in problem-solving.

Is there any hint around from your experience, on how to tackle and formally involve Top Management in Problem Solving? And improve Leadership?

Thank you.

 

[knightarmourus]

Put your top management as "champion" at the end of CAPA and ask for sign.

 

[Sebastian]

Were they trained according to IATF 16949?
Are they aware of their responsibilities defined per this standard?

 

[John C. Abnet]

how to tackle and formally involve Top Management in Problem Solving? And improve Leadership?

Well....this question is as old as the standard itself

There is no silver bullet for this. Often the individual responsible for the QMS (not how it's supposed to work....but often a reality), tries to make leadership think the way that QMS responsible individual thinks. I've sat in both of those chairs (i.e. QMS whipping boy and also Executive Leadership). I would counsel to view it through the eyes of executive leadership. What are the things that keep them awake at night? What/where are THEIR priorities? Then engage in discussions with Top Management on those topics. Instead of trying to "tell" them what they should be doing and how the QMS works....ASK them what their concerns and stresses are. ASK them if they see the QMS as an asset or a stone in the shoe (I/you can guess the answer). Then align what stresses them with how the QMS can possibly assist. This engagement and empathy with/for Top Management will put you/the QMS on a RELATIONSHIP path that can help achieve the "engagement" the standard requires.

It's not an overnight fix.

Hope this helps.
Be well.

 

[Steve Prevette]

See also the discussion over here. Are KPIs a requirement to determine Process Effectiveness? (elsmar.com)

 

[optomist1]

Hi Booker, a bit more I have found that issuing to management a periodic (weekly/bi-weekly) problem solving spreadsheet/or similar summary to delineate the problems, who, when and close out dates. The offenders or late responders are clearly identified and escalated for further action(s).

Hope this helps...Optomist1

 

[malasuerte]

Dear,

In 2021 we had NC for Control plan 8.5.1.1, this year the same NC. Therefore automatically NC for Problem Solving 10.2.3 along with Leadership 5.1.
We see that the auditor did not see clear involvement of Top Management's attention in problem-solving.

Is there any hint around from your experience, on how to tackle and formally involve Top Management in Problem Solving? And improve Leadership?

Thank you.

Well explain to them:
5.1: Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the quality management system by: a) taking accountability for the effectiveness of the quality management system; h) engaging, directing and supporting persons to contribute to the effectiveness of the quality management system;

And then follow

10.2.3: The organization shall have a documented process(es) for problem solving including:a) defined approaches for various types and scale of problems (e.g., new product development, current manufacturing issues, field failures, audit findings);

-----In your documented process, build a table that outlines when leadership needs to be involved.

 

[Johnnymo62]

Also, there is CQI-21 Effective Problem Solving Leader Guide.

 

[Tidge]

Is there any hint around from your experience, on how to tackle and formally involve Top Management in Problem Solving? And improve Leadership?

Frankly: In a majority of cases, I wouldn't want "top management" involved with problem-solving. As @John C. Abnet wrote: Management will have a particular set of priorities that almost certainly will not lend themselves to the sorts of things a (big Q) Quality Professional considers a "problem." I also would be concerned about a (perhaps) stereotypical modes of thinking with folks at that level in an organization... I'll allow forum members' imaginations to come up with potential examples.

A reasonable approach to the problem is to have top management appoint a specific individual with the responsibility to report to them specified (quality, production, whatever encompasses the realm of "problems") metrics, and have a pre-determined process for problem solving... if the process is going to be an ad hoc approach that top management wants to be involved with... OK, I suppose... but it is more than likely they would prefer to have someone at a lower level address non-conformances, etc. If top management establishes the plans and policies, they should be (mostly) covered.

 

[Randy]

Frankly: In a majority of cases, I wouldn't want "top management" involved with problem-solving. As @John C. Abnet wrote: Management will have a particular set of priorities that almost certainly will not lend themselves to the sorts of things a (big Q) Quality Professional considers a "problem." I also would be concerned about a (perhaps) stereotypical modes of thinking with folks at that level in an organization... I'll allow forum members' imaginations to come up with potential examples.

A reasonable approach to the problem is to have top management appoint a specific individual with the responsibility to report to them specified (quality, production, whatever encompasses the realm of "problems") metrics, and have a pre-determined process for problem solving... if the process is going to be an ad hoc approach that top management wants to be involved with... OK, I suppose... but it is more than likely they would prefer to have someone at a lower level address non-conformances, etc. If top management establishes the plans and policies, they should be (mostly) covered.

Total truth finally! You ought to see the "deer-in-the-headlights" look I get when I ask about the "competence" of people doing whatever......... Competence extends to "Top Management" and that opens 2 things immediately and starts entry into 2 others

Opens
1- Pandora's Box
2- A nest of snakes

Starts entry into
1- Minefield
2- Quicksand

Many, not all, but many, "Top Management" types have neither the skills, expertise, knowledge, background, wherewithal, understanding or anything else in their bag of tricks to fall back on with a vast majority of problems presented to SME's for resolution. Having a title or position does not make one omniscient, most of the time it just makes them paid better.

Take a good, hard, long gander at a lot of "Top Management" and you might find a financial whiz, great organizer, great PR type, nice smile, someone who knew someone, or rich uncle, but a serious person to get seriously involved in solving a "real" problem? Forget it, you'll wind up with nothing more than a talking head, taking up time and space with pretty teeth.

Formal involvement of Top Management in problem solving? Only if it's in their trick bag to begin with, other than that, involvement in a review of everything, ups-downs-ins-outs, and any decision necessary to toss $$ after it when needed.

Without anything more than what you provided.......Stupid NC not worth the ink.

1- What is the exact requirement for TM formal involvement?

2- What is the definition of "formal involvement"?