Quality Objectives - Is this an audit nonconformity?

[Sidney Vianna]

I would submit that one must carefully interview top management leadership before ascertaining if something should be deemed a quality objective or not; even the reduction of rework amount can be an "anti-quality objective" For example, if the effort to reduce rework is achieved by loosening the acceptance criteria of the product, in order to accept product which would be required to be reworked before, that could lead to detrimental impact onto the customer(s).

 

[uhohraggy]

Surprised this poll came out this way... very intriguing. This is definitely a nonconformance. Sydney nailed it earlier. Business objectives are not quality objectives. I've encountered many people and organizations that think they can simply redefine things. In fact I was reading a recent warning letter where the company tried to redefine their complaints to exclude product under warranty, which effectively circumvents the complaint system. This effectively circumvents having quality objectives.

Just looked back at the orginal post, so to be complete... and I apologize, I only have the 2008 ISO 9001...
REQUIREMENT: Exactly what they organization has committed itself to doing.

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

REQUIREMENT: Section 5.2 Customer Focus; Top management shall ensure that customer requirements are determined and met with the aim of enhancing customer satisfaction.
Section 5.4.1 Quality Objectives; Top management shall ensure that quality objectives, including those needed to meet requirements for product are established at relevant functions and levels within the organization, the quality objectives shall be measurable and consistent with the quality policy.

FINDING: The quality objectives have been redefined as business objectives effectively circumventing the requirement in section 5.4.1. of the standard. The quality objectives do not address customer requirements, nor enhancing customer satisfaction as per section 5.2 of the standard. In addition quality objectives do not meet the expectations of section 5.4.1 by including objectives needed to meet requirements for product.

 

[Big Jim]

Is it really lopsided away from quality? Or is it only lopsided away from product quality?

Here's the ISO definition of quality:

And since the word "object" can be confusing:

I hope this doesn't become a discussion about what is the definition of "it".

First I must correct something. I meant qualify my comments, not quality my comments.

Then I would submit that product is most certainly a part of quality, and on that basis this looks at first glance like they are not paying enough attention to quality.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Surprised this poll came out this way... very intriguing. This is definitely a nonconformance. Sydney nailed it earlier. Business objectives are not quality objectives.

I agree with you . This is not a matter of being picky about terminology, but the term quality objective is defined in ISO 9000 for a reason. It should be unnecessary to remind us all that ISO 9000 is a normative reference in ISO 9001.

If people accept any objective as a quality objective, they don't understand what a quality objective is, in the first place.

 

[Golfman25]

The quality gurus want it both ways. They encroach on the management of the business with all the "leadership," context of org., and risk stuff. They effectively broaden the definition of "quality," but then they go back to their quality roots and want "quality" objectives.

The reality is those stated 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

are good for the customer. Improved sales, profits and energy consumption allow the vendor to maintain competitiveness and hold the line on pricing. It allows them to reinvest in the company to meet the future needs of their customers. Nobody gets anything from a bankrupt company. Many customers do more financial analysis of their suppliers than quality system analysis.

Accident reduction also reduces countless costs and keeps production schedules moving. Many things used to reduce accidents have the effective of increasing productivity.

 

[ccochran]

Well spoken, Golfman25. As long as the quality objectives satisfy the requirements in 6.2.1 & 6.2.2 (established at relevant functions & levels, consistent with policy, measurable, etc), then they meet the requirements of ISO 9001:2015. Any further philosophizing is nothing more than subjectivity and opinion.....and we don't judge a QMS against subjectivity and opinion.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

ISO 9001:2015 6.2.1.d) reads:"...quality objectives shall be relevant to conformity of products and to enhancement of customer satisfaction...". To infer that (using one of the examples provided) an improvement of sales by 40% is relevant to conformity of product and/or enhance customer satisfaction is an unimaginable stretch; especially because, as already covered in this very thread, a poorly managed attempt to increase sales can lead simultaneously to negative impacts on product conformity and customer satisfaction.

 

[ccochran]

The definition of relevant is: closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered. Keep in mind that "relevant" indicates a close connection, not necessarily a cause and effect relationship in one direction or another. Using the definition of "closely connected," each of the original objectives can be claimed to have a close connection to conformity of products/services and customer satisfaction.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Sorry, Craig. But, to me that is subjective philosophizing.

Obviously, strong financial performance MIGHT lead to improvements in quality. But there is no guarantee an organization will use profits to enhance their equipment, training, etc... The owners might just use the extra profits to buy newer cars for themselves.

I can only imagine the following scenario where a supplier quality engineer is having a heated discussion with the supplier's quality manager about quality escapes and asks him: "what are you going to do to prevent shipping us bad products again?"

to what the quality manager responds:

"don't you worry; we boosted our marketing campaign and we are going to be selling much more, from now on...."

 

[Paul Simpson]

I'm 100% with Sidney on this. We can't make ISO 9001 a Business Management Standard by stealth. This point is, to me, an indication of whether people 'get it' or not.

The quality gurus want it both ways. They encroach on the management of the business with all the "leadership," context of org., and risk stuff. They effectively broaden the definition of "quality," but then they go back to their quality roots and want "quality" objectives.

Encroach?

Quality management has always recognized the role of leadership in delivering products and services that satisfy customers and end users. At least 4 of Deming's 14 points are about leadership behaviours.

When the working group was developing the 7 quality management principles (QMP) that underpin the ISO 9000 family of standards we recognized that 6 of the 7 applied to any other discipline than quality but we wanted to include the 6 (plus Customer Focus, the only 'true' QMP) with examples of how leadership and relationship management (that addresses 'Context' to your point) can influence the QMS and result in better products and services.

The reality is those stated 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

are good for the customer. Improved sales, profits and energy consumption allow the vendor to maintain competitiveness and hold the line on pricing. It allows them to reinvest in the company to meet the future needs of their customers. Nobody gets anything from a bankrupt company. Many customers do more financial analysis of their suppliers than quality system analysis.

Nobody is saying these are bad objectives for an organisation to have, far from it. Each of those objectives may have a 'quality' element to support it but, as I have posted much earlier on this thread, only Objective 5 is a 'quality' objective in its own right.

I'd agree that customers are interested in more than 'just' quality. I deal with a lot of questionnaires in a current project I have running and it is sometimes surprising what customers want to know compared with what they actually buy from you. A lot of their effort is spent on financial capability to ensure they have a secure supply chain. They're also interested in ability to consistently deliver the products and services they need. You may be financially sound but if you're continually letting them down on quality ....

Accident reduction also reduces countless costs and keeps production schedules moving. Many things used to reduce accidents have the effective of increasing productivity.

Agreed. How an organisation looks after its employees says a lot about the 'quality' of an organisation's management but it does not have a direct correlation with product and service quality and hence is not a 'quality' objective. I agree with the point about correlation between good OHS performance and good productivity, btw.

The definition of relevant is: closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered. Keep in mind that "relevant" indicates a close connection, not necessarily a cause and effect relationship in one direction or another. Using the definition of "closely connected," each of the original objectives can be claimed to have a close connection to conformity of products/services and customer satisfaction.

I can't agree, Craig, and am surprised you are arguing for this. We can get into the semantics of 'how close is close' but I don't see the value. We should be teaching people that quality objectives are a subset of business objectives relating to how well products and services meet customer expectations.