Methods of Communication - ISO 9001 requirements

[nitejava]

Re: Methods of Communication - ISO requirements

Our company is having the same situation. We do post Audit results, and how the company is doing etc.. the "Bigger Picture" I think the picture is too big and would like to break it down, and post relevant results, goals, improvements on white boards in the individual areas they come from.

I wouldn't say that Quality doesn't Matter to them, although, they act like it. It's that they've been trained that Production Matters. This is where they get immediate gratification; this is where they're rewarded. This is their area of expertise, and I remind them that I respect that. Also, they don't want to feel judged, for not knowing about things, when really, we failed to inform them.

I am forever handing out Q/A sheets related to Quality that applies to our policies and our upcoming ISO assessment. I had them out, one on one, and say, "Here you go, just things I thought some people might like to know, if you don't know already"

Areas have weekly Quality Workmanship meetings, an excellent way to demonstrate that communication is taking place. These meetings are meant to provide input to upper Management. To help keep Quality on Topic during their meetings, we will be developing quality based questions that they can brainstorm on, like we do in our meetings.

Whether, in the end, a person cares or not, will not take away from the evidence that we have already in place, methods for communicating and promoting awareness.


I am always looking for new ways to break down walls, if anyone has any suggestions... I am a sponge!

 

[Duke Okes]

How about calling it "How We're Performing"?

It shouldn't just be about quality metrics, and it should make it clear that everyone has an impact.

 

[Benjamin28]

Along the same lines of this idea, I wanted to stress that communicating quality metrics with your staff, preferably as a group rather than one on one, is indeed a good idea. I have seen this type of communication implemented with varying results, but typically you do see an improvement as far as human error is concerned.

When surrounded by peers, employees will typically strive to see the quality metrics show improvement...one on one with management they will typically disregard these metrics as "someone else's fault". Accordingly I prefer to make such quality or safety reports public within the company with anonymity to who made the error, which dept., etc...

Good thread though, I hope you are able to get your staff more involved and interested in the health of their business.

 

[JohnM]

A lot of these suggestions are good and worth implementing.

Getting people to read the board can be a problem. One trick our VP used was sending a company wide e-mail about the info being updated. He then asked a question about the board and announced the first person to reply ot the e-mail with the correct answer would win a lunch.

Good luck with the board!

 

[Wes Bucey]

I have some of the same "itch" on the back of my neck as Jim Wynne - certainly the auditor was correct about the casual, anecdotal nature of previous communication at parties and social events.

I am even less of a fan of "bulletin boards" which turn invisible within days, if not hours, of posting.

In my lexicon, "communication" is always two way, not one way. Where is the return communication from the target audience to assure the message is received, understood, assimilated?

Let's look at it from a BUSINESS point of view:
(I like the five W's)

1. WHO needs the information?
2. WHAT information does that person need? (WHAT will he do with it?)
3. WHY does that person need the information?
4. WHERE will the person get the information and return acknowledgement, comment, etc.?
5. WHEN will the information be transmitted (in relation to when it was gathered)?
6. HOW is always interesting - will the method of communication be evaluated for efficiency and efficacy?

If we aren't paying attention to these points, why bother?

 

[QualityGirl]

Hi John,
You are certainly in an unenviable situation. During our last audit we received great praise for our quality metrics (typical charts) & mini kaizen board. It is a simple idea - in one corner are printed cards with fields which are filled in by hand. If someone has a problem/idea for improvement they fill out one of these cards. They agree it with their supervisor and it is hung on the board (which has hooks). It moves along each week for four weeks and if it hasn't been resolved it goes to the top manager. In the opposite corner is another pocket for resolved cards. A card only goes into the resolved pocket when its resolution is agreed by the initiator, even if the idea has been deemed unfeasible the reason why must be communicated back to the initiator and they must agree with it. At the start there was a surge with many being opened but this leveled off and now it is working extremely well. There has to be an owner to ensure it runs smoothly, according to the rules, and there has to be management buy in. It is not only a way to communicate from the floor up, harnessing the experience of those doing the job, but also a way to move forward and improve at a pace that's right for you.

 

[Colin]

I find it interesting that many of the posts (very good that they are) talk about communicating about quality. In my book, quality is about doing the job right and is in fact, running the business.

I prefer to see communication about the way the business is running - not just about how many rejects etc have been discovered this month compared to last month.

I also agree with Wes when he talks about 2 way communication. It is not just about 'management' or the 'quality department' communicating with others, it is about giving people the tools to find things out too. In my experience, too many people like to sit there and shout "no one ever tells me anything". My question is "did you ever try to find things out yourself?" We cannot be expected to spoon feed people all the time.

 

[RickT]

The responses suggest some good food for thought.

I have always considered communication as a process and was taught that a process can only be properly effective when the process owner is involved.

In my mind the owner of the communication process must be Top Management (see the ISO 9000 definition).

It has been my experience that when Top Management become actively involved in the communication process it begins to show signs of effectiveness (see also ISO 9000's definition of effectiveness).

RickT

 

[somerqc]

Hi everyone,

After a few days off, I have had a chance to ponder the posts as well as my "uneviable" position of dealing with "Production Matters".

As I have stated before, I am in a position where I will not change how they think about the business. The owner has very little knowledge about business systems or about anything in terms of management theory and practice. I have learned (unfortunately, after I took the position) that he can sell very well but only wants the paper on the wall NOT the benefits of the system.

I have reduced my position to trying to keep my head above water and reaching a personal goal.

As it relates to the original situation, I am a proponent of using bulletin boards AS LONG AS THERE IS OWNERSHIP TO THE BOARD AND THE INFORMATION ON THE BOARD. At a previous employer with a corporately backed Kaizen system, it worked great and resulted in many rank and file ideas being implemented with dramatic results. In this case, corporate ensured that all the necessary training was conducted (in some cases, by corporate individuals) and all the necessary resources were made available.

Due to the environment at my current employer, I will be retired before ownership is looked at as a good thing.

I will be taking some of the ideas presented to try to gain as much as possible from this board.

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year

John

 

[M Greenaway]

Hi All

Quick question....

Does posting a metric on a board in the production area, of lets say 'on time delivery', with the belief that posting such information will improve performance perhaps suggest that the cause of less than excellent performance is soley the responsibility of the operators ??