Marketing Process as part of QMS (Quality Management System)?

[dv8shane]

This morning, I had a really interesting conversation with a manager. He asked about where marketing fits into an ISO 9001:2008 quality management system. It came up during a conversation over the marketing budget and stumped me a bit, because I normally think of quality management as beginning at the first point of contact with the customer (usually sales enquiry).

I've never really thought of this one before, so any advice would be appreciated!

My procedures for quoting and contract review as well as new customer business surveys are all implemented under the marketing's folder in my supplementary procedures

 

[John Martinez]

Re: Marketing process as part of QMS?

No area of our business processes are excluded from meeting the appropriate ISO/customer requirements. This includes, Marketing, Business Operations and Finance & Accounting departments.

Good for your organization!

 

[JaneB]

This morning, I had a really interesting conversation with a manager. He asked about where marketing fits into an ISO 9001:2008 quality management system. It came up during a conversation over the marketing budget and stumped me a bit, because I normally think of quality management as beginning at the first point of contact with the customer (usually sales enquiry).

It does depend to a large extent upon what 'marketing' actually translates into in your organisation. (eg, in some, it's considered to be much the same thing as sales, in others it's [correctly] not.)

My philosophy is to implement the QMS within a an overall Management System (nothing like getting the senior managers to take notice than calling it a Business Management System!). I've had experiences where QMS can be relegated to the quality dept.

I mainly work with service businesses, who don't have a so-called 'quality department'. Which I think is a good thing - everyone has a responsibility for quality, which yes, even includes marketing! After all, if they're not presenting the right information (for example) that's a problem.

The more holistic the system, the better it works across the organization.

Strongly agree.

 

[simonmaal]

Thanks, some great answers there. I was thinking about 7.2.1, and I can see the relevance of the other clauses cited in replies. In particular, I thinking about 7.2.1c (statutory and regulatory requirements related to the product). This part is particularly relevant to us because we are a cleaning company.

So there may be restrictions imposed by legislation (directly and indirectly), such as ensuring all cleaners working in schools have been police checked, all cleaners working on building sites should have CSCS cards (see http://www.cscs.uk.com/) etc. If we are advertising, cold calling, building a website etc, we need to make sure that we can legally do what we claim. We have no business pretending competence/compliance that we don't have. However, any discrepancies between claims and capabilities (e.g. we suddenly lose a lot of police checked employees after the advert was placed) can be picked up by the sales enquiry process linked with training and competence (although this creates a reliance on detection, which could potentially lead to unwarranted acceptance of an order that leads to collapse the day the job starts). Far better to ensure a good fit between advertising and capability!

The most significant advice here is the "business management system" given the psychological impact of that label vs "quality". I suspect the question I got asked (cited in my OP) was loaded and a bit of a trap used by the manager to trip me up. So this one bit of advice will now make me rebrand the full lot as a business management system. It's early days so it will not involve too much work.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Sorry but I didn't get to '4Ps'. Please elaborate.

Thanks.

Thanks to Le Chiffre for the Wiki link. The 4Ps stands for:

• Product - that we design and make based on identified customer needs - hence the links to product design
• Price - a lot of the research is based on what features and benefits the customer wants and the price they are prepared to pay for them - this builds the contract between the two parties and hence influences the QMS
• Promotion - the more traditional advertising side of marketing that we all know and love . Again this becomes part of the contract so if your marketing people say it will do something then your QMS needs to ensure that the product or service can deliver
• Placement - the distribution channel that gets the product to your customer and covered by the delivery aspect of the QMS - can have a massive impact on perceived quality

 

[John Broomfield]

This morning, I had a really interesting conversation with a manager. He asked about where marketing fits into an ISO 9001:2008 quality management system. It came up during a conversation over the marketing budget and stumped me a bit, because I normally think of quality management as beginning at the first point of contact with the customer (usually sales enquiry).

I've never really thought of this one before, so any advice would be appreciated!

simonmaal,

Yes, quote to cash seems sufficient but it is unwise for any management system to ignore the processes that determine customer needs and win more customer orders besides keeping the website accurate and up to date.

So, needs to cash is a better scope for just about any management system whether it is certified or not.

Does your system include managing accounts receivable (so the cash quickly arrives in the bank account and you can fund improvement - see 6.1)? Including managing accounts payable helps improve suppliers as you avoid paying for nonconforming purchased product.

Systems that cover needs to cash are more likely well supported by leaders instead of those old-fashioned quality systems that focus the reader more on the control of documents.

Remember also that when you use the system to improve productivity (thereby increasing capacity) it must also improve sales to avoid laying people off.

John

 

[simonmaal]

Does your system include managing accounts receivable (so the cash quickly arrives in the bank account and you can fund improvement - see 6.1)? Including managing accounts payable helps improve suppliers as you avoid paying for nonconforming purchased product.

Not yet - it's still in the process of being developed. I'll talk this over with the others because it's still early days, but I'm all for cradle to grave management (from marketing through to money in the bank!)

Systems that cover needs to cash are more likely well supported by leaders instead of those old-fashioned quality systems that focus the reader more on the control of documents.

Yes I agree. It frames the management system within the core of the business instead of it being a paperchasing exercise that people only really bother with when the certification body audit is imminent.

Remember also that when you use the system to improve productivity (thereby increasing capacity) it must also improve sales to avoid laying people off.

Another excellent point that puts the MS right at the forefront of the business. I can only hope my boss sees it that way!

 

[JaneB]

I'm all for cradle to grave management (from marketing through to money in the bank!)... It frames the management system within the core of the business instead of it being a paperchasing exercise that people only really bother with when the certification body audit is imminent.

The first way is intelligent. The second isn't. And will result in a poor system with dubious value.

Another excellent point that puts the MS right at the forefront of the business. I can only hope my boss sees it that way!

Sometimes, alas, bosses have had experience of those 'other' types of systems, and are unsurprisingly cynical about so-called 'quality systems'. If you keep framing things in language that makes sense to them and keeping the focus where it should be, even die hard cynics can often be turned into raving fans.