Quality Policy awareness records

[Jane Austen]

Agree 100%. But here we are with a dozen or so responses which basically amount to "it's on the wall" "blah, blah, blah." So why is the stupid requirement even in the standard?

I have mixed feelings: I 100% agree that the interpretation of the requirement from the standard in the majority of organizations is not appropriate or proportionate (in the sense that either a lot of resources are waisted on printing and cards and rubber stamps of approval etc. and the real meaning and purpose of the QP is often missed). However, I do think it is important to have such requirement and that organizations should address it. Why? Because before we ask the question “how do we satisfy an external auditor about this ISO requirement just so we don’t get a finding?” we need to think “why is a QP valuable?”.
I’m always trying to go back to Deming, the quality gurus, the fundamentals of the quality profession, and continuous improvement and think: does a requirement make sense from that perspective?
In my view it makes sense to have a QP, when the focus is about what type of culture our organization has and how is it quality oriented. I would rather have employees say “I don’t remember the policy by heart, but I know where to access it and I know that it contains higher level values that our leadership and all employees should share and work by” (and yes you can have a short training to employees to teach them about this topic, but not just to satisfy the requirement, but for the actual higher level purpose).

 

[Ed Panek]

Id be surprised if any quality issues were ever resolved via "Creating a better quality policy"

 

[ScottK]

Ideally I would use the quality policy to drive quality objectives which drive KPIs which are used to make business decisions.
But

Id be surprised if any quality issues were ever resolved via "Creating a better quality policy"

But the can be (and have been in some places I ran the QMS) used for Business Improvements - ideally but a quality policy would be used to drive the Quality Objectives which will then drive KPIs which are reported regularly (minimum at Management Review) which will then give insight as to where improvements can be made.
If senior management are 'believers', this works. If their not, then it's just a formality to tick boxes.

 

[Randy]

Agree 100%. But here we are with a dozen or so responses which basically amount to "it's on the wall" "blah, blah, blah." So why is the stupid requirement even in the standard?

Because the sun rises and the rain falls.

 

[Randy]

AUDITOR (to assembler): Hello, Do you know what the Quality Policy is?

Bonehead auditor.

I spent some time supporting a single company with mutliple sites; all employees had a card-sized copy of the Quality Policy in our lanyard-worn IDs. There were also posters up.

A card size copy of the policy? Kinda like the "Miranda Rights" card I had to carry 50+ years ago........"Yep you have rights-shut up and don't say anything"

Actually, I had about a dozen pulled out this week on 2 different audits I was doing, my response "Great, what's it mean?" a couple responses -

 

[Bev D]

This is just like a lot of the clauses in the standard, any standard. If it is just a check the box (or pull out your card or look a the wall poster) it is meaningless fluff. If it’s something that has real meaning and is actually followed then it is helpful. In my last organization some departments/groups believed it and followed it, others treated it like toilet paper. Records of understanding are no more meaningful than training records. The proof is in wan the organization does - as Randy outlined above…

 

[cosmeticqg]

I am so happy to see these comments. Agreed 100%. What do folks recommend instead of a documented policy that no one reads?

 

[Jean_B]

Quality policy is a 'power' in the organization because it is authorized by top management, but the power is not one-directional as you might imagine.
Since it is underwritten by top management, if decisions made by top management deviate from it the workfloor can put them on the spot and have them explain action vs generally stated intent of quality.
The examples @Sidney Vianna notes are good examples.

This is one of the most inane and misapplied requirements of the standard. The PERFECT time and place to ask anyone (especially the higher ups) about the quality policy is when you uncovered situations such as:

1) Someone with authority releasing nonconforming products to the customer to make quotas.

2) A salesperson deliberately lying to a customer about delivery dates

3) Refusal to address a customer complaint just because they represent only 0.002% of your business volume.

4) etc ad nauseum.

The intent of the policy requirement is to basically inform the whole workforce that the organization is committed to satisfy customers as a business strategy. The way the standard is phrased and how organizations attempt to comply with it is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, silly and non value added.

However the policy is but a shield, and hitting back up the org-tree is a skill.
Remember: if you are a professional then decisions made according to the company's system are on the liability of the company, while those outside of the system are not on the company but on the person(s). The policy is there to start that conversation between persons, and if you're smart you're doing it in a way that generates written evidence of somebody else deciding you must and not you by yourself.

By extension, your system should grow and change within the framework the quality policy has set, or otherwise by default you are creating ambiguity or areas where you admit personal/professional judgment weighs more heavily than the system. That, too, is a choice. That's why example 3 of Sidney is a grey zone; perhaps the policy does set thresholds or resource prioritization in a way that that customer complaint does not get adequate attention to be resolved.

Quality is not by default striving for perfection, it is a conscious decision on a reasoned level of quality usually founded on liability, regulatory obligations (including the room they do give), branding, relations, impact, resilience/robustness, market position, etc. The quality policy is the documented statement of the vision and/or mission that intertwines with these.

 

[Qual_Eng_17]

SCENE: Manufacturing floor. AUDITOR is accompanied by PLANT MANAGER who is guiding a tour. the tour group approaches a work station with an ASSEMBLER.

AUDITOR (to assembler): Hello, Do you know what the Quality Policy is?

This exact situation has happened multiple times in my facility, the FDA inspectors like to ask this at random when dealing with shop floor personnel.

 

[John Predmore]

What do folks recommend instead of a documented policy that no one reads?

Every employee should be prepared to answer the auditor question "What is one action you personally take in the course of a typical workday to put the quality policy into practice? Can you show me how you do that?"