Quality Objectives for a Business Consulting Company

[JaneB]

In every progress meeting we state some constraints which may prevent us from moving forward in a project and account manager will assist to solve these problems since he is more senior in the company and he is the one having good relationship with the client. so this is the reason I mentioned it's a dual responsibility.

Ah, now I see. In that case, I might agree although it's hard to say without knowing the company and the people involved. Ideally you'd get clearer about who is actually accountable for what, rather than just jointly assigning! With any 'joint' responsibility, it's seriously hard to hold people accountable: it's so easy for either party to say, well I did MY bit, it was the other guy who didn't. But perhaps you address those issues in, say, post-project debriefs or reviews.

If i say I want "ALL" the projects to be completed within agreed budget, means we are not looking for overhead cost at all!

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean here. Are you meaning, the company isn't making its margin? If so, add that in.

If I say I want to reduce the over budget from X amount to Y amount, then our team dont struggle that much to bring this down to zero! so i guess I already mentioned my target.

Yes, I agree. I'd go for zero! Who wants over-budget projects????

 

[neelu]

I would like to make some suggestions on the QOs under discussion:
1. Some of the objectives require 100% compliance; for example, 'ensure zero poor feedback'. I think when you set the targets for the first time you have to be fair to every process owner. I would prefer to expressing the target statistically: in the above case, you may say, "ensure poor feedback is not more than 10%"; this allows the process owner some gap which he can try and close systematically by taking definitive actions after analysing the reasons for the gap that currently exists. Further, if during the first year the achievement were 9% poor feedback, while reviewing the performance at the end of the target period (one year or whatever it is), the bar can be raised, say to 8% for the next year. This helps process owners to be more motivated and be positive towards 'QOs'!
2. In the Table of QOs under discussion, I could not find the period within which the objectives should be achieved. I guess this period is mentioned elsewhere; otherwise QOs will not be effectively measurable.
3. In regard to QO for QA Dept., method of measurement is indicated as 'audits'. I think this is a bit ambiguous; do you assume compliance based on final outcome as reported in the audit reports or in terms of 'nonconformities' reported? I have seen some Orgns. stating the objective as ' Reduce NCs from X to Y'.

 

[Sam4Quality]

Valid points there Neelu.

Originally Posted by neelu

I would like to make some suggestions on the QOs under discussion:
1. Some of the objectives require 100% compliance; for example, 'ensure zero poor feedback'. I think when you set the targets for the first time you have to be fair to every process owner. I would prefer to expressing the target statistcally: in the above case, you may say, "ensure poor feedback is not more than 10%"; this allows the process owner some gap which he can try and close systematically by taking definitive actions after analysing the reasons for the gap that currently exists. Further, if during the first year the achievement were 9% poor feedback, while reviewing the performance at the end of the target period (one year or whatever it is), the bar can be raised, say to 8% for the next year. This helps process owners to be more motivated and be positive towards 'QOs'!
2. In the Table of QOs under discussion, I could not find the period within which the objectives should be achieved. I guess this period is mentioned elsewhere; otherwise QOs will not be effectively measurable.
3. In regard to QO for QA Dept., method of measurement is indicated as 'audits'. I think this is a bit ambiguous; do you assume compliance based on final outcome as reported in the audit reports or in terms of 'nonconformities' reported? I have seen some Orgns. stating the ojective as ' Reduce NCs from X to Y'.

1. Regarding 100% compliance, your comments do hold ground. However it also depends on the history of the company's performance is that area. In order for Iman to say " to ensure zero poor feedback" probably means the feedback recieved is already good enough with some rare exceptions. Hence for him to 'achieve zero poor feedback' may not be that a difficult objective after all.
2. Exactly! That's why I have recommended using the QO Summary I have attached in my first thread at the beginning of this thread.
3. I agree.

Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh

If i say I want "ALL" the projects to be completed within agreed budget, means we are not looking for overhead cost at all!
If I say I want to reduce the over budget from X amount to Y amount, then our team dont struggle that much to bring this down to zero! so i guess I already mentioned my target. any suggestions?

Didn't quite get what you are trying to say here. Can you explain please.


Ciao.

___________________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

 

[JaneB]

1. I assumed (as Sam has picked up) that the organisation itself is in the best place to know that.
2. I would always leave it up to someone asking for help to choose their own format. I would never keep insisting someone ought to use mine.
3. I don't agree, particularly given a consulting services firm.

Keep focus on risk, content and importance, not simply numbers. (They may not even be up to knowing how many 'NCs' they have at this point, nor may they have a lot - it's not as straightforward a matter identifying an NC in that kind of environment). Even if they did, just focussing on reducing from X to Y is relatively pointless and may even produce unwanted side effects.

An example: someone forced that kind of objective through in a services environment. They got the numbers down all right - but it happened because the workers started getting OFF the line as quickly as they could (at the expense of fixing the real problem & the reason why people called). Which meant call rates went UP and customer satisfaction went DOWN.

 

[Iman Attarzadeh]

thanks for all the comments.

1) Agree with Sam and Jane since we already get good feedbacks from our clients.
2) Agree with all
3) I agree with Jane

one more thing Jane

In the modified excel sheet for the admin part you have mentioned (both external - you're using customers to tell you about problems! Any internal monitoring?) could please explain more?

honestly I cant come up with proper admin objectives since they are not much involved in the company in terms of responsibilities. they either answering calls, prepare employees applications such as leaves, visas... or a point of communication with our Group HR. so i would like to ask for suggestions on some general Admin objectives.

Thanks again.

 

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by JaneB

<snip>
1. I assumed (as Sam has picked up) that the organisation itself is in the best place to know that.
2. I would always leave it up to someone asking for help to choose their own format. I would never keep insisting someone ought to use mine.
3. I don't agree, particularly given a consulting services firm.

Keep focus on risk, content and importance, not simply numbers. (They may not even be up to knowing how many 'NCs' they have at this point, nor may they have a lot - it's not as straightforward a matter identifying an NC in that kind of environment). Even if they did, just focussing on reducing from X to Y is relatively pointless and may even produce unwanted side effects.

An example: someone forced that kind of objective through in a services environment. They got the numbers down all right - but it happened because the workers started getting OFF the line as quickly as they could (at the expense of fixing the real problem & the reason why people called). Which meant call rates went UP and customer satisfaction went DOWN.

2. Me too. It would do no good to any sensible person to have a document shove down his throat, whether the document makes sense or not. That's why we can only recommend, not impose.
3. Hmm, disagreements are fine. I have my explanation.

The QO in question (Reducing # of NCs) is a measurable, achievable and sensible objective, part of the Quality Assurance Dept. And even though, on the surface the idea looks to reduce the number of NC's (just the numbers), deep within such an objective gives room for clearer action plans for the entire company's processes. I would ask a question like, how will you go about reducing the number of NC's?
- Adequately close NC's and implement effective CA's for those NC's - Reduces the recurrence of NC's in these areas. (Practically speaking, many companies often get the same NC's even after so-called effective/adequate CA's)
- Closely monitor departmental processes for loopholes leading to potential NC's and take effective preventive actions - can reduce the number of NC's.

The example you gave is true and possible, then again the opposite is also possible. We can get the numbers down by having an appropriate action plan for it (focusing on the real problem) and effectively implementing it (CAPA) without compromising any other related processes.

Actually, its just a matter of 'in which scenario this kind of objective fits in best', and obviously we are not the best people to decide/force who needs it and who doesn't. In this case, Iman has decided not to use it, probably because he doesn't need it for his well-doing organization (very few NC's or no NC's).

Ciao.

______________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

 

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by Iman Attarzadeh

<snip>
honestly I cant come up with proper admin objectives since they are not much involved in the company in terms of responsibilities. they either answering calls, prepare employees applications such as leaves, visas... or a point of communication with our Group HR. so i would like to ask for suggestions on some general Admin objectives.

Thanks again.

Iman, I don't think it is neccesary to have objectives for Admin just because you don't have any. If there is nothing in the Dept. that is worth improving or directly effecting your customers (external/internal), then you might as well just leave it out.

Ciao.

______________________________
Sincerely, SAM
"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

 

[neelu]

About the three points, Sam, Jane and I have discussed; I would like to add some additional information as below:
1. Mine was a suggestion to Iman to use statistical approach wherever possible and 'no poor response feedback' case was an example I picked up where statistical approach could be used to advantage. Further, if 'no poor feedback' is the order of the day, there is no point in identifying this parameter as a 'QO'; because QO is invariably a quality characteristic that you have not achieved yet, but aspire to achieve.
2. Jane is right in that, in a discussion forum like this, we can only give suggestions and share experience.
3. I cited the third point reg. QO for QA to bring home the point that to define a QO for QA is very tricky and as Jane implied, can have negative impact-on the process of internal audit at least. Where 'reducing NCs' have been given as a QO, internal auditors may be hard-pressed not to report NCs!

 

[JaneB]

In the modified excel sheet for the admin part you have mentioned (both external - you're using customers to tell you about problems! Any internal monitoring?) could please explain more?

My comment was on the fact that the only way/s you appeared to have of finding out IF things were being done accurately was via your customers telling you. And while I think that's fine re. customer satisfaction, I'm less convinced that it's a good thing for other objectives. In this case, if it's important (customer messages not getting passed on correctly sounds so to me) I think I'd want to have internal ways of finding that out, not waiting to find out via customers, which could be too late!

But also, possibly various assumptions I'm making are wrong - I'm a little thrown by your use of the term 'monitoring' you see - I'd be more inclined to call it 'how measured/assessed.' (that is why, you see, it's so difficult to give accurate advice on objectives at a remote distance and without knowing any of the relevant factors!)

honestly I cant come up with proper admin objectives since they are not much involved in the company in terms of responsibilities. they either answering calls, prepare employees applications such as leaves, visas... or a point of communication with our Group HR. so i would like to ask for suggestions on some general Admin objectives.

Hmm - my first response is, fine, if they're not involved, then get rid of them and save the money Are they really irrelevant to quality of service? If they are, fine, don't bother with objectives. You need them only at 'relevant functions and levels' - so if they're not relevant, fine. There's no point in just throwing in objectives for the sake of having them.

But if, for example, they make mistakes on the visas, say, and you don't get someone with permission to work in time to meet a client deadline... wouldn't that affect service quality? You might try something like 'complete all paperwork accurately first time, with no rework/returns'.

PS - All -it's quality management we should be talking about (or at least I am), not 'QA'. And while many manufacturing organisations may well have a separate 'Quality Dept' or a 'QA Dept', I cannot think of one single service organisation I've consulted to that does (or would want to). Service companies are different to manufacturing and so are their quality systems! While yes the broad principles apply, their application often differs hugely.

 

[JaneB]

The QO in question (Reducing # of NCs) is a measurable, achievable and sensible objective, part of the Quality Assurance Dept.

I don't understand what you mean by 'part of the QA Dept' - what 'QA Dept'??

Sam, I agree that in theory reducing # of NCs sound sensible in theory. But in practice, it can often not be anywhere near as straightforward and as simple to do in service firms as in manufacturing. I know I've said this before & you've said why - I can only say (hope it doesn't sound patronising, not meant to be) that when you've had some reasonable experience in ISO 9001 in various service firms (not solely product/manufacturing etc) we can discuss further. But where someone lacks that experience, there's a whole lot of built-in assumptions & beliefs they have that mean no shared basis of understanding and I just don't have time for the lengthy explanations that might be required.

Actually, its just a matter of 'in which scenario this kind of objective fits in best', and obviously we are not the best people to decide/force who needs it and who doesn't. In this case, Iman has decided not to use it, probably because he doesn't need it for his well-doing organization (very few NC's or no NC's).

Yes, you're right that the OP is in the best position.

But not necessarily right that a low number of 'NCs' indicates his organisation is performing excellently. Again, I would avoid the focus on sheer quantity of NCs - it's often more indicative in a product/manufacturing organisation than in a service one. Often service co's have far fewer 'NCs' or "CAs' or whatever you call them than perhaps you are accustomed to. (Indeed, even the NC term is often of limited use here). But the content and the reason/s ... ah, that's where it's important.