New QA Manager - Top Management is Divided - Between a rock and a hard place

[Coury Ferguson]

Wow!

You have my sympathy!

I almost don't know where to begin to help you! If ever a guy were caught beween a rock and a hard place, you are the poster child!

Let's just look at the two problems you think you have Number 2 first. It makes no difference if the guy who signed the document is still employed or even alive! The document speaks for itself. The question here should be "How can I assure an employee using a document to do a job understands what he is supposd to do in the next couple of months?" -This is a training issue.

I agree here, that there are more underlying issues. The document itself is "living" therefore it doesn't matter. Training should take the precedence.

Problem 1 is really dangerous, both for you, personally, and for your organization. I have a hunch a case could be made to the customer to sign off on the assembly as built as long as the assembly has form, fit, and function to meet its requirements. This is a delicate, very political issue for both customer and supplier and you will never get the opportunity to try to negotiate the deal, given the current mind set of your AGM, and, presumably, his bosses above him.

I believe you are saying in simpler terms: There is legal ramifications associated with this decision!

This would be a wonderful case study for me (Wes Bucey offers service as "Strategy Advisor" - Seeking Case Studies for Book), but I doubt your top bosses would hire me.

I would present this to Wes as a case study.

By the way: When is this paper going to be available, Wes?

 

[Wes Bucey]

I agree here, that there is a more underlying issues. The document itself is "living" therefore it doesn't matter. Training should take the precedence.



I believe you are saying in simpler terms: There is legal ramifications associated with this decision!



I would present this to Wes as a case study.

By the way: When is this paper going to be available, Wes?

BOTH legal and economic! If the assembly EVER causes a problem down the line, this organization has some big time problems facing it. Customer will also be on hook for failing to assure integrity of its design by overseeing manufacturing process. If customer finds out beforehand, it's anybody's guess how it will react. The Question of passing certification is of least consideration here.

Case study:
Alas! On Aug 21, the hard drive on my desk top computer gave up the ghost. After two weeks of nibbling around the edges, I have to bite the bullet, remove the hard drive and send it to a lab to retrieve whatever it can. This is not cheap and I have spent the time interviewing several companies to decide WHICH I will entrust to perform the job.

I am mortified that I did not routinely back up my home computer as I did my business computers. If ever there was a case of "Do as I say, not as I do!" this is it. My notes and draft of my book are all on that hard drive. I can replicate everything, but it will take me a year or more if the recovery effort fails.

In the future, I will do a double backup - one to an on-site hard drive and one to an on-line server farm.

My grandmother used to say whenever she made an obvious flub which could have been avoided by close attention and forethought, "Too soon old, too late smart!" She sure knew what I feel right now.

 

[56flh]

Anyway so much for the whining (& I’m sorry), for some reason positive or negative I was transferred to this position & by all means I have to do this job. I plan to have the certification audit come December of this year & I need all your help. BTW I assumed this position December of last year & I was able to work full time only this June. The previous coordinator or QMR was our AGM himself.

IMHO I think this is the problem you are facing, someone who has brought you in as the scapegoat when the audit fails.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Case study:
Alas! On Aug 21, the hard drive on my desk top computer gave up the ghost. After two weeks of nibbling around the edges, I have to bite the bullet, remove the hard drive and send it to a lab to retrieve whatever it can. This is not cheap and I have spent the time interviewing several companies to decide WHICH I will entrust to perform the job.

I am mortified that I did not routinely back up my home computer as I did my business computers. If ever there was a case of "Do as I say, not as I do!" this is it. My notes and draft of my book are all on that hard drive. I can replicate everything, but it will take me a year or more if the recovery effort fails.

In the future, I will do a double backup - one to an on-site hard drive and one to an on-line server farm.

My grandmother used to say whenever she made an obvious flub which could have been avoided by close attention and forethought, "Too soon old, too late smart!" She sure knew what I feel right now.

If all else fails email the paper to your email address. At least there will be a copy somewhere, if that server doesn't fail.

I had a similar issue recently, but not as drastic as yours. I replaced my Primary Hard Drive (C:\) placed a lot of files in my Secondary Slave (E:\) as a back-up, but low and behold (must be a Microsoft problem), Windows XP Pro after boot wouldn't recognize E:\. I tried everything, the CMOS recognized the Drive, but XP wouldn't, so as a last resort I used the software provided by the OEM of the Hard Drive and it activated E:\ but formatted the drive. So I lost a lot of saved emails, word documents and such. Luckily I had 85% of the OEM Software, so it wasn't a total loss.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

IMHO I think this is the problem you are facing, someone who has brought you in as the scapegoat when the audit fails.

That appears to be a little harsh (and an assumption). I don't think that was the reason. Maybe ElmerP is qualified.

 

[JRKH]

Good day to all of you, this is my first post... pls, I ask for your patience. [/QUOTE]

Welcome to the cove. You are indeed in a tough position.

in order to pass the certification, my plan is to hide all component parts drawing & show only the assembly with an explanation to the auditor that our customer gave us the assembly drawings & from that all the component parts was developed by our sister company in another country. The dies were then sent here for us to produce & do the assembly. So basically, in the absence of the component drawings from the customer, we are free to do as we wish to the component parts as long as we satisfy all the requirements to the final product (fit, function, etc). Question, is this acceptable ? Pls consider that asking for a waiver from our customer would be impossible.

I would strongly recommend against this approach. Do NOT start out with a lie. If you attempt this it will likely fail and the AGM will have a perfect scapegoat.

Your best bet is to communicate, in writing, to everyone who needs to know the issues and retain copies of all communicatons and responses. Make sure that everything you can effect directly is in order. That way, when things go south at the audit, you will have the evidence to back up that you tried to address the issues.

In all I suspect you are being set up to fail.

James

 

[Craig H.]

That appears to be a little harsh (and an assumption). I don't think that was the reason. Maybe ElmerP is qualified.

It may be harsh, and an assumption, AND he is qualified. But I don't think he is being intentionally set up as a scapegoat. Even so, the result will, I fear, be very much the same. Possibly, because of the frustration factor, even worse. IMO what is important and what really is going to be difficult is getting the AGM to agree to any change in the way Elmer's tasks are approached. Any attempt to change might be seen as an assault on the boss's professionalism and intelligence. Or is that alleged professionalism and intelligence?

Of course in my case the "old" QA is now a VP, and he is supportive, so maybe not. I may be wrong about Elmer's case, but from what I have read I don't think so.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

IMO what is important and what really is going to be difficult is getting the AGM to agree to any change in the way Elmer's tasks are approached. Any attempt to change might be seen as an assault on their professionalism and intelligence. Or is that alleged professionalism and intelligence?

You are right Craig. The issue is getting the AGM to make the necessary changes to the system and the thought pattern.

Of course in my case the "old" QA is now a VP, and he is supportive, so maybe not. I may be wrong about Elmer's case, but from what I have read I don't think so.

You are probably one of the few that have that support because of the specific situation.

 

[just67horns]

I would strongly recommend against this approach. Do NOT start out with a lie.

I agree! As the initiator of this thread, with all of your help I have proceeded in what I feel is the right direction. I wrote a big long letter to TOP manangement, telling them that they are standing in the way of our success. On their side, it is a privately owned company, and they can do what they wish with it, but, When they decided to go TS, they must adopt the business model or fail. The VP I wrote the letter to doesn't like long letters, and asked me for 5 areas where they have caused issues. I gave hime 5 pages, but as he doesn't like to read, I wrote a summary on the front page, that asks them to give full authority to the local GM. I have spoken with him at length, and showed him the letter up front, and he really did not like it. He, and the VP, just told me to go over the GM's head (his own head) to get whatever I needed. I told them that IF I have to go over the GM's head every time I do not get my way, he indeed does not have the authority and responsibilities needed! He seemed to grudgingly agree! Two days later I sent the letter to the president, VP and GM only. 6 business days to the audit, and I am still trying to get top management involved. So far, they have not answered my letter! But, I am telling it like it is. I am telling them that They can do what they wish, but, they are not complying with TS, and we may not succeed. While they may hold me responsible and want to get rid of me, at least I told them the truth, cited TS over and over. I beleive we have a great auditor and his team will find similar issues, and maybe, after we fail (at a $20,000 cost) I will then have credibility around here with the TOP.

 

[ralphsulser]

Well, your closing meeting should be very interesting, if you get that far. They could stop the audit if they find majors. If they ask you if you want them to stop because of major findings, I would suggest to let them finish the audit to get the full picture of what needs to be done. But, then again maybe there won't be any majors. Wish you the best