Quality Objectives - Is this an audit nonconformity?

[ccochran]

Here's an interesting challenge for the fine minds of this forum. It follows on a discussion regarding 'quality objectives.'

You and a partner are performng an ISO 9001 audit on a meduim-sized company that manufacturers widgets. The company has developed and deployed 5 quality objectives:
1. Improve sales by 40%
2. Improve profit by 20%
3. Reduce energy consumption by $1 million
4. Reduce loss time accidents to 0
5. Reduce product rework to 0.2% of total production

Your auditing reveals more facts regarding these objectives:
*** The company does not call their quality objectives by that name. They are called business objectives, and their quality manual defines them as such.
*** You interview 15 people in various departments, and all of them are able to describe the objectives and exactly how they contribute to them in their jobs.
*** Records of management review indicate that the objectives are covered and progress is reviewed.
*** The company has made improvements in 3 of the objectives in the past year. Specific plans are in place to improve the others.

Your partner you’re auditing with wants to write a nonconformity against the quality objectives. You’re considering it. Is there a nonconformity?

If you decide there’s a nonconformity, you must write it in a two part format:

REQUIREMENT: Exactly what they organization has committed itself to doing.

FINDING: Exactly what the organization has done that contradicts the commitment in the requirement.

What is your decision?

Craig

 

[Randy]

I voted "No" at this time because I have questions. If there is a question to be asked then there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding of Non-conformance.

I need to see the Q Policy in order to determine whether or not these "Objectives" are consistant with it.

I would want to know how these objectives relate to customer satisfaction, improvement of quality performance and the meeting of "defined" requirements.

It doesn't really matter what "ojectives" are called as long as they are understood as to what they are.

Were the 15 people interviewed also at releveant "levels" of the organization or were these folks all managerial level?

 

[ccochran]

I voted "No" at this time because I have questions. if there is a question to be asked then there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding of Non-conformance.

I need to see the Q Policy in order to determine whether or not these "Objectives" are consistant with it.

I would want to know how these objectives relate to customer satisfaction, improvement of quality performance and the meeting of "defined" requirements.

It doesn't really matter what "ojectives" are called as long as they are understood as to what they are.

Were the 15 people interviewed also at releveant "levels"f the organization or were these folks all managerial level?

Randy,

Very good points. Here are some clarifications:

*** The objectives are indeed consistent with the themes in the policy.
*** The objectives are what they are; none of them specifically deal with customer satisfaction.
*** The 15 people interviewed represented a wide range of personnel at all levels of the organization.

Another detail: Your partner on this audit does not believe the objectives are sufficiently quality related.

Craig

 

[AndyN]

Here's an interesting challenge for the fine minds of this forum. It follows on a discussion regarding 'quality objectives.'

You and a partner are performng an ISO 9001 audit on a meduim-sized company that manufacturers widgets. The company has developed and deployed 5 quality objectives:
1. Improve sales by 40%
2. Improve profit by 20%
3. Reduce energy consumption by $1 million
4. Reduce loss time accidents to 0
5. Reduce product rework to 0.2% of total production

I don't believe that these are 'quality' objectives (maybe the reduced rework). Apart from anything else, they aren't customer oriented! So, like Randy, I'd want to see the 'Quality Policy' and what it said too. It's unlikely, in my experience, that the policy would be appropriate either.

Voting on or writing a non-conformance from this 'case study' is going to be difficult, without further information.

Craig, what prompted this - some past experience of an audit finding?

Andy

 

[Randy]

The organization defines "quality" with respect to internal & external requirments and the need to achieve customer satisfaction.

Top management has to be the approver or authorizer of the objectives because of the resource allocation requirements it has to fulfill and of course the requirement that any need for change be determined through the review of them (the level of achievement). If management approves that is its decision.

The customer is also defined by the organization (internal, external, and even the organization itself). The "customer" may very well be satisfied with a reduced injury rate, reducing electrical costs and everything else.

So if the stated objectives are what you say,

and the existing conditions are what you say,

and the circumstances are what you say,

I'll say, good luck, nice work, and keep improving. (Conformance) What's for lunch?

 

[potdar]

Wxcellent poll Craig.

I would like to invite comments on one more 'quality' objective. This is a real life audit experience - this time from India.

"Ensure that 100% of working staff are literate."

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

What is your decision?

Based on the information given thus far: Conformance... However:

They are on track with three of them. Fine... Which ones?

I would like to know more about the other two (Again, which ones?): Why no progress in the last year? Is it a question of resources, or a slow start?

How about deadlines? What timespans are we talking about?

No. 1 & 2 combined would be hard to achieve without improving quality... But it could be done by cutting corners.

No. 3: (Reduce energy consumption by $1 million) does not necessarily have to mean improved quality (or, indeed the environmental impact). It could in fact make both worse.

No. 4: (Reduce loss time accidents to 0). I am unfamiliar with the term. H&S? If so, it could improve quality, but it could also mean a slower production.

No. 5: (Reduce product rework to 0.2% of total production) To 0.2% from what?

Bottom line: We need more information.


/Claes

 

[amanbhai]

what a coincidence! I just had a very hot discussion about the Quality objective with one of the divisional Manager or services Head about the Quality objectives.
I asked about the status of the Quality objectives which i could not get & hence I concluded that they are not measureable.
I decided that it is an NC since their status are not known & hence are not measureable.
i' m right? do I have to change my decision?

 

[chergh - 2008]

Giving the conditions surrounding consistent with policy etc. then these are fine as objectives.

The first two objectives should be included in more companies quality objectives IMO. Inreasing sales and increasing profite are two items that almost all senior management are able to relate to. Given that senior management support for their QMS is an issue for many companies having items that help the management to relate to a QMS has to be a good idea.

The sales objective in particular is one that I feel is good. Sales is a process the same as manufacturing or customer support is.

To improve sales you can look at training provided to sales people, the quality of supporting literature, methods used to generate sales leads. Sales people are also in the front line dealing with the customer.

Sales people are perhaps the best placed to get feedback surrounding a company's product and the improvements that customers would like to see to these products. They can also help in identifying what exisitng issues for a product are and what new product lines a company should be looking at.

Given this from my perspective I believe a sales orientated objective is highly desirable and what more appropriate objective measure can there be for this process than an increase in sales.

Linking sales and profit into a companies objective help identify the QMS as something that is important and worthwhile to everyone in the company. I understand why some people don't consider them "quality objectives" but to some extent I believe that the Quality Management System is dead, long live the Buisness Management System.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

I voted "No" for the reason that the objectives, no matter what they want to call them (Q or Business), have been established, they are monitored and measured.

The only question that I would have is: Was internal action taken by missing certain objectives/goals?

From the business perspective, I would revisit the objectives to see if they still are on track with the Business, during the next meeting.