Quality Objectives - ISO 9001 2015

[Big Jim]

I'm not ignorant on the use of firearms. I've had my fair share of time at shooting ranges. I'm also aware of the precision of snipers and their weapons. I'm very aware of the need degree in your gun and wouldn't dare take one to a firing range that wasn't a 1 degree gun or better. I'm aware of windage and lead time. Once your gun is set up and you are practiced the rest of it becomes reaction based on intuition, skill, and experience.

I'm not sure how we got so side tracked. My point was that in some circumstances there isn't time for paralysis of analysis and you must react based on intuition, skill, and experience.

A sailor of a small sailboat doesn't take a computer, wind direction and speed sensors, current speed and direction sensors with him. He determines his direction based on the set of the sail and the rudder, and he constantly adjusts to the reaction of the boat and changing conditions while keeping his eye on his target.

 

[Marc]

I'm not sure how we got so side tracked.

Problems come into play with 'car' analogies. Using a more appropriate analogy in a business discussion would help. While I am sure there are a small number of businesses which have objectives related to how to aim a bow & arrow or a firearm, those are far afield of any objective or target in typical businesses, and as such pretty much become straw-man arguments.

I get your point, Jim, but the reality is if one wants to ask how one knows if objectives / targets are being met there has to be some type of measurement whether it is numerical or other such as observation. Even using your straw-man, number of bullseyes is numerical. Targets often have a number of rings with numerical values for each.

A sailor of a small sailboat doesn't take a computer, wind direction and speed sensors, current speed and direction sensors with him. He determines his direction based on the set of the sail and the rudder, and he constantly adjusts to the reaction of the boat and changing conditions while keeping his eye on his target.

Again with a straw-man. And that boat person will probably say "My destination is ...", not, "My target is..".

A bigger problem is that the two terms - Target and Objective - are, in English, quite often used interchangeably. I can say that my objective is to hit my target, for example. And I can say that my target is <x> which implies a specific outcome/objective. But definition-wise:

Definition of Target (English)
Definition of Objective (English)

I am curious how these two words are interpreted in various languages.

 

[Big Jim]

Marc,

I wish to continue to stress that I believe in running a quality management system with measurable objectives that are tracked by analysis of data. Someone may choose objectives that don't lend themselves to such tracking and the standard doesn't prohibit it. In my opinion it would be a bad business practice.

 

[Marc]

I undersstand, and for all intents and purposes I agree with you.

 

[Tagin]

...I am really concerned about whether to set OBJECTIVES that should be done first and then THINGS to be done (as stated by the 9001:2015 standard), or to set THINGS to do first, then set TAGETS of them. Is it possible that after defining the context, analyzing risks and opportunities, it will bring out what needs to be done first, then set the results to be achieved. This is more realistic, especially for small businesses...

As I understand it, this is what you are saying about Quality Objectives (QO):

[context+risk/opp] -> Determine QO Activities -> Determine QO Targets

is preferable to:

[context+risk/opp] -> Determine QO Targets -> Determine QO Activities

Is this correct?

 

[Randy]

Flitter....

What do you want to do?

How much do you want to do it? or How will you know when it's done?

Keep it simple and don't overthink.................Objectives are almost as simple as it gets, you meet 5,000 of them a day starting with "Get out of bed" and ending with "Go to bed".......... Organizations are the same way!

 

[Ninja]

I keep thinking about the question, because it seems so obvious why it is the way it is...and I think I understand now...

You choose an "objective" : Increase revenue by 10% over last year (Purpose)
Then you choose the avenue "Things": Marketing campaign in a new market segment (Plan)
Then you choose how to enact that Plan doing "Things": Market this way, using this ad agency...gear up new products (Plan)
Then you do it...(Progress).

Each step of the Plan may have specific targets...not the overall purpose, but it's own specific target for that step "After this step, we should get 100 new customer inquiries".
The new inquiries are not the overall purpose...that remains 10% increase in revenue...but it is a target (sub-objective?) which is chosen after deciding "things".

Is that what you're asking about?

Objectives comes before Things...because it's the main objective. There are many sub-targets along the way, and some must logically come after deciding the task...and all pointed toward the overall objective.