Quality Objectives - Is this an audit nonconformity?

[ccochran]

Requirements: Section 4.2.1 requires documented statements of quality objectives.

Finding: The quality objectives described by the auditees are listed in the quality manual as business objectives.

Bill,

Thanks for giving it a go. Nice work.

The operative word in your requirement is 'documented.' So, you would expect the finding to include something about the objectives not being documented, but that's not exactly the way you wrote it. It seems that the requirement and finding don't match.

By the way, the objectives for this company are documented, with revision status, approval, and all the other hallmarks of document control.

Craig

 

[Old Quality Gal]

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

Craig,
I tend to agree with Randy on this one. I think that the stars around all of this align to my satisfaction that they have objectives in place and are working to make them effective.
I would be leaning towards an Observation, not a non-conformance that stresses at least tying these "business objectives " into elements of customer satisfaction.
Improving sales etc may not translate into a satisfied existing customer base. If their complaint rate and handling along with sufficient voice of the customer stuff happening in design etc I wouldn't even write the observation.
Regards,
Mary

 

[AndyN]

Craig:
Are there (other) operational measurements? For example, is anyone measuring and monitoring on-time delivery? Are there other measurements in place to indicate process performance?

If there are, I'd like to know how these feed up to the objectives stated. If I couldn't see this (or, as previously mentioned, the quality policy) I'd be closer to being able to write a non-conformity. The objectives 'link' the policy to the process performance indicators, so there's a clue, I believe.

Given the information so far, even if I don't like their objectives, there's insufficient to write a finding for anything, ISO related or not.

So, when are we going to find out the outcome of your scenario? Did it actually happen? What was the outcome? Spill the beans.....

Andy

 

[ccochran]

I would be leaning towards an Observation, not a non-conformance that stresses at least tying these "business objectives " into elements of customer satisfaction.

Mary,

I like your thinking! I don't like the idea that they don't have anything that ties to customer satisfaction either. An observation might be a good way to get their attention.

Craig

 

[ccochran]

Craig:
Are there (other) operational measurements? For example, is anyone measuring and monitoring on-time delivery? Are there other measurements in place to indicate process performance?

If there are, I'd like to know how these feed up to the objectives stated. If I couldn't see this (or, as previously mentioned, the quality policy) I'd be closer to being able to write a non-conformity. The objectives 'link' the policy to the process performance indicators, so there's a clue, I believe.

Given the information so far, even if I don't like their objectives, there's insufficient to write a finding for anything, ISO related or not.

So, when are we going to find out the outcome of your scenario? Did it actually happen? What was the outcome? Spill the beans.....

Andy

Andy,

Excellent analysis and commentary. I need to start auditing with you...

Craig

 

[Randy]

1st...you folks that agree with me quit it! It's scary:mg:

OK, back to business......


I really think they may be addressing "customer" satisfaction as it is defined by the organization. It's the organization who says who the customer is or who the customers are, not the auditor.

Do I like the documented objectives? No particularly because when I think customer I think of who the receiver of the final product (or service) is and not an internal customer or stockholder or someone who is not contributing to the financial growth through the "purchase" process (the end user so to speak).

We really need to step waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back and look at this in a purely objective, unbiased fashion in order to see where this organization may be coming from. Additionally if (big "if" here) we think about it the achievement of these objectives, or the results of them could be passed on indirectly to the "cash" customer in the form of reduced operating costs equalling reduced product cost, improved product quality from a more stable (continued competent) workforce because of reduced injury rate and possible need to train new employees to replace those that may be unable to return, so on and so forth.

As an aside, this is one of the best exercises I can remember here in the Cove. Thank you Craig

 

[Crusader]

Observations aren't taken seriously. I stand by my choice for a nonconformity. I see it's "thin" grounds but it is for the better in the long run. I don't see that the standard is adequately addressed with the information presented so far.

 

[Tupham - 2008]

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

Following the recent in-depth discussions (for which I most grateful, everyone!), I've come to the conclusion that business objectives and quality objectives go hand-in-hand. If the purpose of the QMS is to continually improve processes and outcomes, then all of the above are valid, as long as the improvements implemented to achieve them do not result in reduced customer satisfaction at any level.

The way I see this scenario, the 20% improvement in sales could be achieved by improving customer service - the easiest sales growth to generate is by upselling to or reactivating existing customers.

The increased sales would not doubt increase profit $s, so no. 2 comes as a direct result of the improvements in no. 1.

Reducing energy consumption is not only good business sense, it's good for customer relations - as long as the reductions are not gained by cutting light, or reducing other resources necessary for good productivity.

Reducing time loss accidents means trained, experienced staff are on the job for longer periods, so customers don't need to put up with as many untrained newbies (not that newbies are a bad thing - just that they take a while to get up to speed) or perhaps don't get serviced at all while the employee is off work.

And no. 5 is obvious - reducing re-works has to improve customer satisfaction and the business's bottom line.

As long as it all hangs together - no, no nonconformances from me.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Thanks for everyone's fine responses. None of the folks who believe these aren't appropriate quality objectives have taken me up on my challenge. Write the nonconformity! If you need more information, just let me know. If you think you can write the nonconformity, please use this 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.

Craig

With the caveats in my earlier post (that objective setting and deployment requires assessment not just a hypothetical yes / no) I'll rise to the challenge - although I'm not sure what purpose it serves ....

ISO 9001.2000 Clause 5.4.1 requires the organization to establish quality objectives at relevant functions and levels.

Of the objectives presented for assessment only one (reduction of rework) relates to product or process quality. This provides insufficient evidence of objective setting related to the company activity and policy.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Crusader,

Ah, but they did commit to the ISO 9001:2000 standard. Give it a go! Good commentary, by the way.

Craig

Sorry, Craig. I didn't see this post before I posted my NC. If I had then there is no NC
...and I wouldn't be there
.... and I wouldn't have started reading this thread
..... and I would have made better progress towards meeting my objective of making better use of my Cove time in 2007!

Thanks anyway!