Personnel Unaware of the Quality Policy

[Jim Wynne]

Here is Motorola's. It says everything and nothing...

I think it does indeed say nothing, but I don't think it says everything. For example, ISO 9001-2000 5.3(c) says that the quality policy must provide "...a framework for establishing and reviewing quality objectives." I don't see that in Motorola's, nor do I see it most of the other quality policies I've seen.

 

[RoxaneB]

I guess I'm in the mood to stir the pot today (it is Friday the 13th, after all)...

Does the Quality Policy need to say that it will provide the framework or does it need to provide the framework? Those are two different approaches.

 

[BradM]

Bringing up communication is an excellent point in all of this. Communication is two-way, and implies and understanding/ acceptance, etc.; some level of communication back. One-way speech is a lecture, (or as Randy stated, information).

If the problem is communication, is this a finger pointing exercise, where upper management expects the quality team to perform this communication, or is it the upper management's responsibility to communicate?

Which to me brings us back to the original topic. Is this a non-conforming item? I say if there is no evidence that communication has occurred, then "yes"; it's a finding (or an observation).

Are employees not proud of that policy? Rather, do they laugh and snicker as to how 'untrue' it is, yet no one makes an effort to improve it?

Communication is two way. If there is not an avenue for communication regarding the quality policy, how few avenues are there for communication regarding more critical items, like incorrect procedures, etc.? Is that a fair question?

 

[Coury Ferguson]

I guess I'm in the mood to stir the pot today (it is Friday the 13th, after all)...

Does the Quality Policy need to say that it will provide the framework or does it need to provide the framework? Those are two different approaches.

Rox,

I feel that it provides the framework. This is the beginning of the Philosophy of the company, in my opinion.

Stirring the pot?

 

[Jim Wynne]

I guess I'm in the mood to stir the pot today (it is Friday the 13th, after all)...

Pot is illegal where I live, but I can see where it might help in trying to understand all of the bafflegab in the standard.

Does the Quality Policy need to say that it will provide the framework or does it need to provide the framework? Those are two different approaches.

What does "framework" mean?

 

[RoxaneB]

What does "framework" mean?

That is a thread unto itself, I believe.

Courtesy of the online dictionary of Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: frame·work
Pronunciation: 'frAm-"w&rk
Function: noun
1 a : a basic conceptional structure (as of ideas) <the framework of the United States Constitution> b : a skeletal, openwork, or structural frame
2 : FRAME OF REFERENCE
3 : the larger branches of a tree that determine its shape

So, I deduce that the Quality Policy is the overlying concept of a Quality Management System. It is from the Quality Policy that the concepts of the QMS are developed, including objectives, standards, results, etc.

These concepts support the intent of the Quality Policy.

 

[RoxaneB]

If the problem is communication, is this a finger pointing exercise, where upper management expects the quality team to perform this communication, or is it the upper management's responsibility to communicate?

Section 5.3 merely states that Top Management will ensure that the Policy is communicated and understood. No mention of responsiblity in this section. Please see Clause 5.5.1 for that part.

Which to me brings us back to the original topic. Is this a non-conforming item? I say if there is no evidence that communication has occurred, then "yes"; it's a finding (or an observation).

I wonder what the Original Poster's organization has established for defined responsibilities. Does the role/responsibility for communicating the Quality Policy need to be defined? Probably if there is a wide-spread problem in the understanding of the Quality Policy.

The bigger issue is the understanding of the Quality Policy. If folks don't know why it's important to keep the customer happy, that's scary.

Are employees not proud of that policy? Rather, do they laugh and snicker as to how 'untrue' it is, yet no one makes an effort to improve it?

Are they proud of our Policies? No. Those words are just words to them. But, to be honest, I doubt that they think about the Policies. They think about going home to their family in one piece. They think about ensuring that the creek behind us can still provide clean water to the wildlife. They think about how our products are used in the real world. They are proud of our actions, their actions and our site's performance when it comes to Safety, Environment and Quality.

 

[Jim Wynne]

If folks don't know why it's important to keep the customer happy, that's scary.

What's even scarier is the idea that some sort of formal policy is considered necessary in order for customers to be kept happy. It's like having a policy that insures that the employees understand the need to keep breathing.

 

[chaosweary]

Section 5.3 merely states that Top Management will ensure that the Policy is communicated and understood. No mention of responsiblity in this section. Please see Clause 5.5.1 for that part.

I wonder what the Original Poster's organization has established for defined responsibilities. Does the role/responsibility for communicating the Quality Policy need to be defined? Probably if there is a wide-spread problem in the understanding of the Quality Policy.

Correct there no one is defined as having the responsibility to communicate the policy directly. It is in the quality manual but reading the quality manual is not mandatory. I have been writing it as an observation, even though I really know it should be a minor.
Ok, now internal struggle, does anything really change if people know and understand the policy or don't?
Is there really an impact to quality (process & product) and to the customer? If by knowing & understanding the policy has no impact, should it be a part of the iso9001:2000 standard or rather why should we care about it?

 

[RoxaneB]

Here I go again with more "pot stirring". Most of would probably agree that no where in the clause for Management Review does it state that Management Review must be in the form of an actual meeting. Management Review must simply be conducted and records retained, right?

Okay...so why do you need to develop something specifically called a Quality Policy? If you have a statment which meets the requirements of 5.3 but is called "What We Do" or "Our Reason for Being" or whatever you want, isn't that sufficient? Especially if people understand and can explain that much more effectively than some high-level statement or two called a Quality Policy?