Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification process

[SpinDr99]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

I agree that the CEO doesn't have to attend ALL of the meetings, but his commitment is also shown by making the effort and attend at least SOME of the meetings. It shows he/she wants to have their finger on the pulse of the QMS and not just through reports.

However, my question is how to demonstrate this commitment to an auditor. Something tangible, not just promoting the creation of a QMS and compliance with the standard. It seems like there should be more to be able to show an auditor. As an auditor, I'd feel much more confident with top managements commitment if I were to see more than what someone tells me during an audit interview. What exactly, I'm not sure. Any suggestions of documented evidence of commitment?

 

[nmgmarques]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

I agree that the CEO doesn't have to attend ALL of the meetings, but his commitment is also shown by making the effort and attend at least SOME of the meetings. It shows he/she wants to have their finger on the pulse of the QMS and not just through reports.

However, my question is how to demonstrate this commitment to an auditor. Something tangible, not just promoting the creation of a QMS and compliance with the standard. It seems like there should be more to be able to show an auditor. As an auditor, I'd feel much more confident with top managements commitment if I were to see more than what someone tells me during an audit interview. What exactly, I'm not sure. Any suggestions of documented evidence of commitment?

Things are a bit more complicated as of late. In the new 2015 revision it's now not as easy.

Clause 5 now requires top level management to demonstrate it is actively engaged in QMS activities. They can no longer simply delegate and ensure that the activities take place. Quality is now no longer a separate activity within the company but rather ingrained in the entire company and processes. So much so that TLM can no longer nominate a management representative (no longer present in the current 2015 version.

They went as far as defining TLM as the person or group of people who directs and controls an organisation at the highest level.

So this is the Top Level Manager. Not a management representative nor quality manager. However, the scope of the QMS applies to each individual part of an organisation. This means that if for example a plant is part of a bigger group made up of several plants and a headquarters. TLM refers to the person at the highest level of each individual plant and headquarters. Not the Top Management at the top of the pyramid (headquarters).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

Clause 5 now requires top level management to demonstrate it is actively engaged in QMS activities. They can no longer simply delegate and ensure that the activities take place. Quality is now no longer a separate activity within the company but rather ingrained in the entire company and processes.

That is correct, but this is nothing new with the ISO 9001:2015 standard.

So much so that TLM can no longer nominate a management representative

That is incorrect. The standard no longer requires the figure of a management representative, but it does not (and never would) prohibit the organization from having one. If an organization wants to appoint or maintain a management representative, they can.

They went as far as defining TLM as the person or group of people who directs and controls an organisation at the highest level.

The definition of top management in ISO 9000 has been in place for a long time and has not changed.

Before (top) management can commit themselves to an organization's QMS and the certification process, they have to understand what/how/who/when quality management really is.

In the Why do so many ISO 9001 Implementation Programs fail? thread which I triggered, back in 2011, I made the case

Going straight to the point, most quality programs fail because organizations don’t understand the difference of managing of quality and managing for quality.

Managing for quality is the concept that the organization business processes are designed, maintained and improved to incorporate proper quality principles and practices. So, quality and customer satisfaction become the natural result of running the organization’s business processes. Managing for quality requires that each process owner will ensure their processes have the appropriate requirements for effective and efficient quality, environmental, occupational health & safety (to name a few disciplines) embedded in the process. For example, a New Product Introduction Process (which is a key process for many organizations) goes across several departments and functions and transcends the requirements of ISO 9001 section 7.3. But, instead of developing, maturing and improving the NPI process, what do many organizations do? They have a procedure to comply with 7.3 of ISO 9001. Instead of someone at the Engineering function being appointed as the NPI process owner, someone in the quality function will be responsible to baby-sit the organization for compliance against 7.3. There are tremendous implications in the different approaches. While the first approach promotes process ownership by the appropriate individuals, the second approach promotes the unsustainable path of someone from quality “policing” other departments (such as Engineering) to ensure they go through their necessary steps of planning, input, review, output, verification and validation. Such path is ineffective and can not be sustained over time.

I still believe, more than ever, that until top management understands modern quality management, they can not commit themselves, as they have a very dysfunctional perception of how quality is supposed to be achieved.

 

[nmgmarques]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

That is incorrect. The standard no longer requires the figure of a management representative, but it does not (and never would) prohibit the organization from having one. If an organization wants to appoint or maintain a management representative, they can.

I think maybe I was not clear on what I meant. I mean that you can now no longer offload the responsibilities to a representative and claim ignorance. And despite the fact that there may be a rep, managements still has to provide reasonable proof they are involved in QMS and not just "checking in from time to time". TLM must be actively committed.

 

[Golfman25]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

I still believe, more than ever, that until top management understands modern quality management, they can not commit themselves, as they have a very dysfunctional perception of how quality is supposed to be achieved.

It's not so much not understanding as it is the push for the quality profession into all aspects of the business. ISO 9000 is not really a quality management system as much as it is a business management system. If we keep calling it a quality system, it will be given to the "quality department." There is no "business department" to give it to.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

I mean that you can now no longer offload the responsibilities to a representative and claim ignorance. And despite the fact that there may be a rep, managements still has to provide reasonable proof they are involved in QMS and not just "checking in from time to time". TLM must be actively committed.

Delegation of responsibilities will always exist. The intent of top management commitment towards the quality system has not really changed since the 3[sup]rd[/sup] Edition of ISO 9001. Requirements of the standard "don't exist" in the real world until robust verification of conformance happens. To think that most auditors (internal and external) will tell C-level suite executives that they can't delegate responsibilities which they think are mundane, is wishful thinking.

Some people think conformance to 9001:2015 will bring a tidal wave of top management commitment and involvement. To them, I warn: don't fool yourselves; misguided executives will always find the easy path out.

One thing is what the standard says and requires. What happens in the real world is, typically, drastically different.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

ISO 9000 is not really a quality management system as much as it is a business management system. If we keep calling it a quality system, it will be given to the "quality department." There is no "business department" to give it to.

It's not a system. It is a standard. If ISO 9001 were a business management system, then what would ISO 14001 be? And OHSAS 18001? And ISO 27001? Are they also business management systems?

The QMS is a critical component of an enterprise business management system, but, make no mistake, it is just a component of the whole system.

As 9001:2015 5.1.1.c) requires now, the QMS requirements have to be EMBEDDED in the business/operational processes of the organization, and (theoretically) top management must drive that. If that requirement is adequately understood and accomplished, that means that the "quality department" will no longer be the sole responsible for quality. That, in itself, would be a MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH for most organizations.

 

[Pancho]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

It's not a system. It is a standard. If ISO 9001 were a business management system, then what would ISO 14001 be? And OHSAS 18001? And ISO 27001? Are they also business management systems?

IMO, Quality is special.

ISO 9001 is the first management system for many organizations. Those that do it well will naturally grow their scope to encompass more than the narrow understanding of quality. I don't think that would happen as easily if an organization starts with one of the other standards.

 

[Pancho]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

Delegation of responsibilities will always exist. The intent of top management commitment towards the quality system has not really changed since the 3[sup]rd[/sup] Edition of ISO 9001. Requirements of the standard "don't exist" in the real world until robust verification of conformance happens. To think that most auditors (internal and external) will tell C-level suite executives that they can't delegate responsibilities which they think are mundane, is wishful thinking.

Some people think conformance to 9001:2015 will bring a tidal wave of top management commitment and involvement. To them, I warn: don't fool yourselves; misguided executives will always find the easy path out.

One thing is what the standard says and requires. What happens in the real world is, typically, drastically different.

Effective communication is the key to leadership. Communication is not effective if it does not have permanence. The management system is where communication acquires permanence.

I'd expect that, at the very least, good top executives write policies and actively participate in the design and continuous improvement of the key processes.

Yes, sales are important, and the CEO may need to do that. But only as long as, and to the extent that, he or she has not defined the process for effective sales to the point where others can do it with quality. Same goes for other common excuses that C-guys may give for not attending to their most important task: effective leadership.

CEOs cannot delegate leadership. They often do abdicate it, at their companies' peril.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Management Involvement / Commitment - CEO involvement in the certification proces

CEOs cannot delegate leadership. They often do abdicate it, at their companies' peril.

Leadership, as it relates to quality, is most often unexercised. Case in point: how many corporations you know have a CQO? In my experience, most of the time, for lack of proper understanding of what quality is and how to consistently deliver it.

One of the very first sentences in the standard reads:

The adoption of a qms is a STRATEGIC DECISION for an organization that can help to improve its overall PERFORMANCE and provide a sound basis for sustainable development initiatives.

Many "corporate types" who misunderstand quality as the outcome of inspection and testing will never understand the meaning of that sentence. From there, it will always be a downhill exercise in ISO 9001 implementation towards certification.