waterdog said:
There are several reasons we decided to give PA to engineering and manufactiring. First of all, it makes sense to our organization. This may not work for every company, but it seems like a natural fit to us.
As long as it fits, that's great...but what I think Greg was saying was that concepts such as PA do not necessarily "belong" to one department. That's why, in an effort to demonstrate not only management committment but to also get global 'buy-in', owners of documents for such processes may experience better success (i.e., adherence to the process) if at a corporate level. But if it works for you...great!
waterdog said:
Quality, at least in my organization, rarely prevents nonconformance.
You are right that departments with the word "Quality" in their title are more likely to correct than prevent, but which department is responsible for implementing the PA processes? The CA processes? Internal audits? Nonconforming products? Customer complaints?
Preventive actions can be sourced out of many fields.
- Review the CAs...is there an adverse trend?...there's a PA!
- An Opportunity for Improvement...there's a PA!
- Review Nonconforming products...there's a PA!
- Review Customer complaints...is there an adverse trend?...there's a PA!
- Customer feedback with areas for improvement...there's a PA!
Perhaps you can understand why Greg and I disagree with Engineering taking 'ownership' of this process, based on that list.
waterdog said:
Second, we are trying to spread the responsiblity of meeting the standard (AS9100 in our case) among all management, and not just the quality department.
So, how does giving the ownership of PA to Engineering help out in this? Is it going to the Engineering Manager, instead? Maybe you could create an ownership area of Management instead of using Engineering?
waterdog said:
Third, there is nothing in the standard that says we can't.
We didn't mean that you couldn't.
But based on your post when you said Engineering was a better and left it at that, well, we had some concerns. I apologize if you thought we were saying that what you were doing was a no-no.
waterdog said:
It is important to note also that just because engineering owns PA doesnt mean quality can't write them, or sales, or the president. This goes for CA as well.
That alleviates much of our concerns, but I still think that creating an ownership area of Management would be more effective than making Engineering the owner of the document. I don't know much about your company, waterdog, but with mine, I know that our Engineering Manager would never write this document and it would fall to their department document author who understands only the Engineering facet of PA. It has been more effective for us to put the ownership of the process at the 30,000' level where all possible means of demonstrating PA can be identified (i.e., seeing all the trees within the forest).
waterdog said:
I am much newer at quality than most Covers, and perhaps I am a little naive, but it seems to me that the best thing about the standard(s) is that they are not rigid and you can be creative and find what actually works for you.
Naturally. The "shall's" are merely the
what to do, not the
how to do it. If giving this to Engineering is the best possible solution for your organization, great job!
From my 10+ of ISO and management systems (started when I was in university), I would offer up that there perhaps more suitable owners of the process.
. That is exactly what I meant it is just that you explained it whole lot better and without my subtle sense of sarcasm. Sorry Waterdogs if I cam across a bit strong.
