Quality Objectives - Is this an audit nonconformity?

[AndyN]

I voted no. When we are audited the auditor goes to the Quality Dept. The quality department then shows them objectives that are quality related which roll up into the business objectives.

Oh, my gosh........!

 

[RoxaneB]

You know...I think we're speaking the same language but with different accents.

If I want to satisfy the requirements of the standard I need to demonstrate the organization places a great deal of emphasis on Quality of product and service by setting policy, objectives and targets and then implementing same.

I can appreciate that approach having, in my not so distance past, believed that ISO 9001 was the "cure" to all quality problems and the very thought of a quality manual got me all excited.

And while I still ensure that our ISO 9001:2000 requirements are met within out system, my main goal is to ensure streamlining and integration to help maintain one culture and one language within the organization.

At the same time I can integrate quality with all the other good things the business does and mix the QOs in with other BOs - no problem - I think it is a great idea, and here's the rub - so long as I don't skimp on quality by mixing it in with all the other good stuff. Because if I do I cannot expect my management system for quality to be recognized by an external body as meeting the standard - because it doesn't.

But what gives an external auditor the right (or ability) to determine if an organization is skimping on the quality aspects of their management system and customer satisfaction? Okay, if there is absolutely nothing related to quality in any of the business objectives, there's a case for discussion, but if the organization can demonstrate that at least one objective aligns with quality and has supportiing evidence to justify the one link, including resource allocation, financial considerations, legal ramifications and technological advancements, I don't believe that the auditor has much to justify a finding.

The point was merely that your objectives are not quantifiable in themselves - therefore for an external auditor they will assess your projects and KPIs to see if they satisfy the ISO clause. That's it. Full stop / period.

Correct, they are not. As a complete sentence, they are not in the format of a traditional objective. I thought I had explained that. We don't state how they will be quantified because:

• They may be measured in more than one way (i.e., more than one KPI will contribute towards the achievement of the objective).
• Consistency. By stating the objectives in a clear, uncluttered manner, we are less likely to regular revisions to them. Year over year, our employees know that we aim to be the supplier of choice, that we aim to improve process efficiency, that we aim to provide a healthy and safe work environment, etc. Year over year, our projects and KPIs (the means by which an objective is quantified [because there are goals for each KPI] and achievement tracked) will be adjusted to ensure that the steps are taken and the resources provided to achieve the objectives.

Sorry - example hypothetical objectives with no numbers against them. I'm sure you can put your own percentages in place of A and B.

I wasn't asking for numbers. I was asking how you measure whether you achieved the level of A or if you were still at a B percentage. Essentially, there would be some form of KPI to track scrap generated to determine if levels were decreasing. Ideally, there would also be some project (or 5W1H) developed so that the organization had a plan to get from B to A - because, I think we'll all agree, that improving process efficiencies isn't going to happen by .

Your scrap objective example, Paul, would be considered a project within my organization and the KPI established would show a goal of A from our current performance of B. To support why are doing the project, we would align it with the objective of "Improve process efficiency."

However, the generation of scrap may only be an issue in one department. Another department may have another, more heavy hitting issue, to focus on in their attempts to improve process efficiency. It could be something like equipment upgrades. When they plan their project, they will align with the objective of "Improve process efficiency."

At company meetings, a team environment is created when people realize that they are all working towards one objective together, but with different projects. But it means that every area is continually improving.

I recognize, Paul, that for many organizations a statement of "Reduce scrap levels from B to A" is accepted as an objective. I can even understand why. However, my own organization has a slightly different approach. With 16 departments at this location alone and every department has at least one project, that would be a lot of objectives to try an manage. Streamlining them into powerfully concise statements and then aligning projects and KPIs to them is an option, I believe, for organizations that are a bit more complex in their structure and are aiming for integrations of their processes, departments and systems.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: You know...I think we're speaking the same language but with different accents.

You know...I think we're speaking the same language but with different accents.

If I had a penny for every time I had something similar in a debate on this site.

I can appreciate that approach having, in my not so distance past, believed that ISO 9001 was the "cure" to all quality problems and the very thought of a quality manual got me all excited.

We are in agreement. I can honestly say I have never been excited by a Quality Manual. I also know that ISO 9001 is not a panacea (thanks Jim!) and look at it as a framework that you hang all the other quality tools from to achieve organizational goals ...... for quality!

And while I still ensure that our ISO 9001:2000 requirements are met within out system, my main goal is to ensure streamlining and integration to help maintain one culture and one language within the organization.

No disagreement here! Part of my other role is in other fields (like Environmental and Health & Safety - I even audit the standards and specifications). One of the biggest challenge to management systems professionals is to translate the language of standards for the benefit of employees of their organization and to translate their organizations operations for the benefit of external auditors (used to standards terminology).

Now if you are lucky and get an auditor who can do their own translation .... seems like heaven!

But what gives an external auditor the right (or ability) to determine if an organization is skimping on the quality aspects of their management system and customer satisfaction?

They have a responsibility to carry out the mandate you have given them by making an application to their employer - the registrar of your choice.

Okay, if there is absolutely nothing related to quality in any of the business objectives, there's a case for discussion, but if the organization can demonstrate that at least one objective aligns with quality and has supportiing evidence to justify the one link, including resource allocation, financial considerations, legal ramifications and technological advancements, I don't believe that the auditor has much to justify a finding.

As I mentioned in my first post a lifetime ago (for those still awake!) my original suggestion was for another poll option: "It depends" and then went on to say:

The process of assessing objectives is not a digital / yes - no activity but a series of questions against the requirements of ISO.
In order to assess the effectiveness of the objective setting process I need to understand what the key measures of QMS effectiveness are for this particular widget making business.

• If the rework percentage is appropriate then conformance
• If there is a more appropriate quality measure such as customer returns, PM, customer satisfaction then non conformance

Is the objective established at relevant functions and levels?

• If it covers a range of areas then conformance
• If it is an isolated objective in one particular department then non conformance

You get the idea - hypothetical situations don't often make for good assessment.

So I have to assess if the top management have appropriate quality objectives and they are deployed. I cannot take account of other objectives but I can search to find relevant quality objectives from anything the organization puts in front of me - it doesn't have to have a "quality" label for me to recognize it as such.

Correct, they are not. As a complete sentence, they are not in the format of a traditional objective. I thought I had explained that. We don't state how they will be quantified because:

• They may be measured in more than one way (i.e., more than one KPI will contribute towards the achievement of the objective).
• Consistency. By stating the objectives in a clear, uncluttered manner, we are less likely to regular revisions to them. Year over year, our employees know that we aim to be the supplier of choice, that we aim to improve process efficiency, that we aim to provide a healthy and safe work environment, etc. Year over year, our projects and KPIs (the means by which an objective is quantified [because there are goals for each KPI] and achievement tracked) will be adjusted to ensure that the steps are taken and the resources provided to achieve the objectives.

Rox. As said before your system looks fine.

I wasn't asking for numbers. I was asking how you measure whether you achieved the level of A or if you were still at a B percentage. Essentially, there would be some form of KPI to track scrap generated to determine if levels were decreasing. Ideally, there would also be some project (or 5W1H) developed so that the organization had a plan to get from B to A - because, I think we'll all agree, that improving process efficiencies isn't going to happen by .

Exactly, the objectives beget targets which beget process measures at all relevant levels etc. That is the fun bit of assessing the objective setting and measuring process.

(I can't believe I managed to get "fun" and "assessing in the same sentence! )

Your scrap objective example, Paul, would be considered a project within my organization and the KPI established would show a goal of A from our current performance of B. To support why are doing the project, we would align it with the objective of "Improve process efficiency."

No problem!

However, the generation of scrap may only be an issue in one department. Another department may have another, more heavy hitting issue, to focus on in their attempts to improve process efficiency. It could be something like equipment upgrades. When they plan their project, they will align with the objective of "Improve process efficiency."

Again no problem.

At company meetings, a team environment is created when people realize that they are all working towards one objective together, but with different projects. But it means that every area is continually improving.

Sounds great.

I recognize, Paul, that for many organizations a statement of "Reduce scrap levels from B to A" is accepted as an objective. I can even understand why. However, my own organization has a slightly different approach. With 16 departments at this location alone and every department has at least one project, that would be a lot of objectives to try an manage. Streamlining them into powerfully concise statements and then aligning projects and KPIs to them is an option, I believe, for organizations that are a bit more complex in their structure and are aiming for integrations of their processes, departments and systems.

As I said earlier if it works for you - it works. It also looks like it meets the requirements of ISO!

 

[AndyN]

O.K, so I've been sleeping with one foot out of the bed over this thread. It must be one of the longest and most volatile for a long time (well, apart from the 1 page manual one)........

It seems to me that there's a difference of view over what are objectives and what's an outcome or result of achieving the objective(s). In Roxanne's case, her company being "the supplier of choice", seems to me to be the result or outcome of achieving internally set, customer oriented (quality)objectives, such as lowest cost (read low/zero rework, scrap, inventory, etc.), best delivery performance etc. Also the 'goals' of sales/profitability are also outcomes of achieving objectives which control internal costs and delighting the customer.

So, I'm kinda with Paul on this (and it's not a nationality thing) but the op objectives are not objectives.................they're outcomes!:mg:

Andy

 

[Greg B]

O.K, so I've been sleeping with one foot out of the bed over this thread. It must be one of the longest and most volatile for a long time

I actually aplauded this thread for NOT being volotile. I think it has been conducted and debated very well. There will be no shifting Roxy or I and I guess the same is true for you and Paul. 90+ % disagree with Paul according to the poll but he is still allowed to voice his opinion. Even if it is driving me up the wall

So, I'm kinda with Paul on this (and it's not a nationality thing) but the op objectives are not objectives.................they're outcomes!:mg:

I hoped beyond hope that we would not go in this direction We are again at the cross roads of does a horse push or pull a cart and that is when these threads have historically deteriorated into a real sqaubble. If we go on about things like when is an action Corrective or Preventative or in this case when is an objective and outcome or a goal we will surely undo the good work that this thread has done. IMHO, we should maybe put this one to rest and applaud the manner in which we have conducted the debate. I know I may regret this but it will be my final post on this thread. Thanks everyone especially Craig, Paul, Roxanne and Andy

 

[AndyN]

Greg


Andy

 

[BradM]

BTW: Thank you to all. This has been a bit mind-boggling keeping up with the thread. It's good to see a group who spends so much time helping others, have an opportunity to have a challenging mental game for the learning and pleasure.

From the strict auditing standpoint, I still stand by my original post on this of No nonconformity. I guess if my customer requested specific auditing of the top-level management portion, I would do some digging and be much more concerned with clear purpose of the quality system as elucidated by management. As far as the overall quality system: I would surmise there are bigger fish to fry in this organization than trying to understand objectives.

I don't know if these are quality objectives. I am unsure right now of what quality is. In my pre-Cove days, there was a fabulously interesting thread on the ASQ site about the definition of quality. What is it?

Is quality specifically linked to customer requirements? What about internal customers? Internal/external customers? Does quality change, and by how much? In the end, quality is about making money (or minimizing danger), right? If "yes", then business objectives can be quality objectives.

Or your definition of quality may be more limited. It may focus around customer requirements, Costs of Poor Quality, etc. Thus, business objectives may not be identified as quality objectives. This is a fine line, here, but nonetheless a line. Reduce scrap is a business objective, but rework is a quality objective.

My point is this: everyone on this thread is right to a degree. We all have different interpretations of quality and how it is measured. Thus, we would probably see a compilation of audit results on this scenario that resembles the voting on the first page.

 

[potdar]

Brad,

I havent gone through the ASQ thread on definition of Quality. But in the perspective of an ISO 9001 QMS, the definition of quality is pretty simple - each user of the standard defines Quality as visualised by him in the Quality documents within the framework of the guiding principles defined by the standard.

Quality as defined by a manufacturing organisation may be totally different than that defined by someone like a hospital or a school.

 

[RickT]

I am in complete agreement with Randy. There is not a nonconformance based on the info provided. I
n addition to knowing more about customer satisfaction, I would like to go the next step and ask about customer perception of the organization's customers of its ability to satisfy their requirements.
Finally, I say Bravo to the organization for NOT considering it necessary to separate quality objectives from business objectives.

 

[Tim Butler]

Craig,

There is no nonconformity based on the facts below. An auditor should
be able to differentiate between the fact that the client meets the
requirement but calls them quality objectives vs business objectives.

The only thing you might suggest (OPI) is that they change the term to quality objectives just so this does not come up again.

This response came from an active ISO Lead Auditor at a registrar I used to work for.

Tim

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