Overhaul QMS or start over? How do you decide?

[Jen Kirley]

In theory, I understand as a business model what they are wanting to do with BOS and Six Sigma. And they don't call it Six Sigma. Here it is TDR (Tear down and Redesign)

Sounds like Sandcastle Days in Imperial Beach, to me.



Really, from the sound of it your management's philosophies look like a dog chasing its tail. "It didn't work this direction--wait! I'll chase it the other way!" (spin spin spin) Pretty soon everyone falls down dizzy and quite fuddled. And they still don't have that dang tail.

Time to get back to basics. Wes gave some terrific advice.

 

[Jim Wynne]

When they talk all I hear is blah, blah, blah, strategy, blah, blah, blah, competitive advantage, blah, blah, blah, global, blah blah blah.

Sort of reminds you of this, no? (Only in reverse, of course )

 

[MichelleD]

That's just too perfect, Jim. I've needed this today. It's easy to get just the tiniest bit discouraged. But I have taken up the sword (or the standard) and am off to win the war. I know that's a really bad analogy but it's late in the afternoon and I've just left an 1 1/2 long meeting on the new corporate travel policy. We need a smiley face that's yawning.

And I know that we got off topic with Blue Ocean but it's interesting to me to see how much time and effort goes into these amazing banners that are hanging everwhere and everyones on a Six Sigma Project. If this much effort was put into ISO, (maybe) they would have had a great system.

 

[fuzzy]

That's just too perfect, Jim. I've needed this today. It's easy to get just the tiniest bit discouraged. But I have taken up the sword (or the standard) and am off to win the war. I know that's a really bad analogy but it's late in the afternoon and I've just left an 1 1/2 long meeting on the new corporate travel policy. We need a smiley face that's yawning.

And I know that we got off topic with Blue Ocean but it's interesting to me to see how much time and effort goes into these amazing banners that are hanging everwhere and everyones on a Six Sigma Project. If this much effort was put into ISO, (maybe) they would have had a great system.

Michelle,

You have received excellent advice from all your fellow Covers, but I think there is one more nugget that I can add from my experience...think about and plan what I like to call "your system architecture". How will the system be organized: from the manual (Level 1) down to the forms and records (Level 4)? Will you have an all-electronic super Intranet model, or paper and 3-Ringers up the wazoo?? I would guess that all the multiple systems, documents,etc. might have stemmed from a previous lack of system vision, and the will and discipline to maintain things. Design for simplicity as best you can, with the input from the systems users...

 

[Wes Bucey]

That's just too perfect, Jim. I've needed this today. It's easy to get just the tiniest bit discouraged. But I have taken up the sword (or the standard) and am off to win the war. I know that's a really bad analogy but it's late in the afternoon and I've just left an 1 1/2 long meeting on the new corporate travel policy. We need a smiley face that's yawning.

And I know that we got off topic with Blue Ocean but it's interesting to me to see how much time and effort goes into these amazing banners that are hanging everwhere and everyones on a Six Sigma Project. If this much effort was put into ISO, (maybe) they would have had a great system.

Now you have a sense of the kind of mentality Deming, Crosby, and others stretching back to Shewart and even further back to workers and architects on the Pyramids faced when dealing with dysfunctional management. All those Quality folk had struggles, but they learned how to eke out a few successes here and there, giving us (their heirs) a strong foundation to build on so we no longer have to reinvent the whole system from scratch alone.

Even better - we have the Cove to help spread the legacy they left. Take heart! We'll help you get through it - either to success or to use as a springboard to a more hospitable "ocean" to swim in.

 

[MichelleD]

Michelle,

You have received excellent advice from all your fellow Covers, but I think there is one more nugget that I can add from my experience...think about and plan what I like to call "your system architecture". How will the system be organized: from the manual (Level 1) down to the forms and records (Level 4)? Will you have an all-electronic super Intranet model, or paper and 3-Ringers up the wazoo?? I would guess that all the multiple systems, documents,etc. might have stemmed from a previous lack of system vision, and the will and discipline to maintain things. Design for simplicity as best you can, with the input from the systems users...

Good Point.....I've literally had to block an aisleway and get an IT guy to sit down and discuss how the system can be set up. We have the technology - we're just not using it. And if we set the system up in the right way this time, I'm hoping I can get a few more people on the bandwagon. I've already had a few move away from the dark side. And on the three ring binders, have you seen my desk? Do you have ESPN?

 

[Gary E MacLean]

System Archetecture - I like it - I'll use it.

All electronic may sound and feel nice and oh so easy but my guess is your "human" registrar auditor will want to touch and feel a hard copy. In addition unless you provide access to that etheral, electronic system, (7.5.1.b: "...the availabilty of work instructions as necessary.") every place you need documents, you really don't have a system.

4.2.3.d "...documents are available at points of use."

Be sure to define "Points of use". The definition should define where operators or system users can walk to and still be considered within their work station or still be in command of their operation. In some cases this may be all the way to the "front offices." In others you may not be able to allow some operators to go any further than five feet from their operation. However you define "points of use" your "applicable documents" must be available at those points.

So, all electronic may require a collection of terminals throughout the facility. Paperwork may require a series of notebooks throughout the facility. Whatever the case, one of the primary reason for the documents to begin with is to provide the user with instruction. It wouldn't do now would it, to develop sound documents then not let them see them.

One last point - try not to judge the validity or the effectiveness of your system entirely on the number of pages you have used to document it. There is no "best" number of pages or words.

If you get a chance watch the movie "AMADEUS" This is the incredible story of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It really isn't longhaired it is really very good. I use a scene from this movie in documentation classes. Mozart has just finished presenting his latest work to the Emperor or King whatever it is he was called. His latest work was long - really long. When he was done he ran to the King to see his reactions. The King yawned and said "It's too long - take some notes out." Mozart was flabbergasted - "take some notes out? Which ones? How can I do that? They all work with one another."

Maybe your work won't be a Mozart production but if you have done it right you are going to find that to remove 350 words simply to meet a volume requirement is going to feel a bit like you have been defiled. It's not about volume, it's about content.

Don't sacrifice clarity for the sake of brevity.

 

[fuzzy]

Good Point.....I've literally had to block an aisleway and get an IT guy to sit down and discuss how the system can be set up. We have the technology - we're just not using it. And if we set the system up in the right way this time, I'm hoping I can get a few more people on the bandwagon. I've already had a few move away from the dark side. And on the three ring binders, have you seen my desk? Do you have ESPN?

Yes I have clarence...been there and failed at a large company; more sucessful at a smaller private plant with the paper system where I controlled everything

You sound as if you have the right mind-frame-work to take on this challenge...so good luck. Keep using the Cove for knowledge and the all- important stress relief...on this show you get more than three lifelines

 

[MichelleD]

I appreciate all the support. The one thing I can say is that the employees here are looking for change. And maybe if I don't get alot of support from upper management right now, they will jump on board if they see everyone else has already jumped. There are some really great people here. They've just not had the chance to be heard in the past. One thing I've learned from being an auditor for so many years is that you have to listen. In the last internal auditor training class that I taught I used the Mark Twain quote: “If we were supposed to talk more than we listen, we would have two mouths and one ear.”

 

[Stijloor]

I appreciate all the support. The one thing I can say is that the employees here are looking for change. And maybe if I don't get alot of support from upper management right now, they will jump on board if they see everyone else has already jumped. There are some really great people here. They've just not had the chance to be heard in the past. One thing I've learned from being an auditor for so many years is that you have to listen. In the last internal auditor training class that I taught I used the Mark Twain quote: “If we were supposed to talk more than we listen, we would have two mouths and one ear.”

Hi Michelle,

Interesting point you raised about "listening." The word "audit" comes from the Latin word "auditus." It means a "hearing." In order to conduct a "hearing", the auditor must have excellent listening skills. I always view my auditees as process experts. If my job as an auditor is to conduct a fair assessment of the process, I am depending on the information shared by the auditee. I will miss out on a lot of good information if I do not listen very well.

Listening works for me. P.S. Don't tell my wife...

Stijloor.