Quality Objectives - Why not aim for perfection all of the time?

[curryassassin]

Sorry Paul,

Giving 110 or even 125% should be an exception, not the norm, and if this happens more frequently, then you should re-define your position with your manager. I was taught (during a very useful management training course whilst employed at a top 10 pharmaceutical company) that, if your manager asks for 10 tasks to complete, and you assess the resources required and say that you can only complete 8, you go back and ask 'which 8 do you want me to complete?'

Of course, when we were taught this on the course, we stated that senior management will still want 10 out of 10, and, luckily, we were told that they had also been trained this way.

Just to make my contribution to the objectives debate, doesn't ISO9000 talk about continual improvement ie improve/review, improve/review, in planned increments? So maybe have objective in Q1 80%, Q2 85%, Q3 90%, Q4 95%. Let's be SMART about it.

Cheers

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Question regarding Quality Objectives

Perhaps it would be best to just shed the % alltogether and go with simpler statements along the lines of, Our objectives are:

On Time Delivery
Quality, Defect Free, Product
Continual Reduction of Complaints

Measuring these objectives for continued improvement is sufficient to show you're meeting them or not. Putting a percentage in there seems a bit arbitrary and opens an auditor to find that you're not truly meeting your 99% target. But if you want to keep the percentage I would say, yah, why not make it 100%, if you're shooting to do your best you need to aim for the bullseye.

Right on. ISO 9001 does not require (artificial) targets. Drop the numerical targets from your declared objectives. Stick to Q objectives that support your business goals. Objectives can even be attribute type, instead of variable ones. Such as:

• Attain Boeing Gold supplier level by 2009

 

[Juliana - 2008]

Re: Question regarding Quality Objectives

I have found that achieving an 85% performance against a “goal” of 80% far more motivating than achieving an 85% result against a “goal” of 90%.

Not only that, but having unrealistic goals can have a demotivating and detrimental affect. It is much better to benchmark where the process is and improve on it from there. With an unrealistic Zero defects goal, people end up trying to hide mistakes, play the blame game and lose focus on team work because they are looking out for number 1.

 

[Tim Folkerts]

One idea I haven't seen expressed yet is a cost-benefit analysis. You could probably get 100% on-time shipping by hiring an extra person who stands around waiting to help with shipping, using overnight delivery, cutting back on the orders you accept to make sure you never are working close to 100%, etc.

Any goal is achievable. But you might bankrupt the company if you try too hard for perfection in any one area.


Tim F

 

[Jim Wynne]

One idea I haven't seen expressed yet is a cost-benefit analysis. You could probably get 100% on-time shipping by hiring an extra person who stands around waiting to help with shipping, using overnight delivery, cutting back on the orders you accept to make sure you never are working close to 100%, etc.

Any goal is achievable. But you might bankrupt the company if you try too hard for perfection in any one area.

Tim F

You would also need some sort of wizard with supernatural powers who could automatically put machines back together when they blow up, and also stop time from elapsing in the process. There are lots of goals that aren't reachable without the ability to defy the laws of physics.

Objectives aren't important. Achievement and improvement are. As a learned coworker of mine used to say, "Wishing is not a strategy."

 

[Stijloor]

Maybe we need to go back to Dr. W. Edwards Deming's Fourteen Points for a moment.....

Eliminate numerical goals, numerical quotas and management by objectives. Substitute leadership.

 

[pondo]

I would advise that you set your targets/objectives taking into consideration where you are now on the scale. In my TS16949 World you need to be demonstrating improvement continuously.

Take delivery. The customer requires no less than 80% weighted average over 6 months. You are at 82%. I would make your objective something like 85/90%. A year passes and you meet your objective. During Management Review it is then decided to up the objective to 95/100%...what ever is realistically feasible. This clearly demonstrates that you are both meeting your customer's requirements and continually improving.

Then put "High Quality at a Low Cost and Always on Time" on a banner, quality statement or wherever.

........................

 

[Jim Wynne]

Take delivery.

Please.

The customer requires no less than 80% weighted average over 6 months. You are at 82%. I would make your objective something like 85/90%. A year passes and you meet your objective. During Management Review it is then decided to up the objective to 95/100%...what ever is realistically feasible. This clearly demonstrates that you are both meeting your customer's requirements and continually improving.

Let's back up a minute. If we're at 82%, why change the objective? If improvement is expected, and the next time a measurement is made the number is 85%, then the customer requirement has been met, and there's been improvement, all without establishing or changing objectives.

And if continualous improvement is required, what happens if you do reach 100%?

 

[Tim Folkerts]

And if continualous improvement is required, what happens if you do reach 100%?

Then go for 110% on-time delivery by shipping them things they didn't even order!


Tim F

 

[fireonce]

Re: Question regarding Quality Objectives

If you can't achieve the perfect aim, it makes no sense for you.