Quality Policy: Content Requirements

[ISO Cheesy]

It's # 2 for here Randy

 

[Paul Simpson]

What's it for

Again the question is what is the policy for. If you want something to easily satisfy the external auditor you have the "bells and whistles" policy. Every item of 9k2k, 14k, TS etc. included.

If you want a quality (or environmental) policy that works for the business you have the (respected) leaders of the business stating clearly to the workers in words they understand exactly what the company is looking to achieve - Hence the "I don't ship ****" The difficulty is to say something meaningful if 1) you don't believe in quality or 2) the workforce doesn't believe you believe in quality.

I don't have an answer to that one!

 

[Randy Stewart]

It's # 2 for here Randy

I don't mean to sound mean or anything (Carol, Cari, db, Energy, - shut up) but then design your system to correct it.
Management has put the policy out there, what are you going to do? Spend your time trying to get the policy changed or getting the system to support the policy?????
If they are changing the policy and everything sucks, then go for it. Go claim some small victories to get momentum and get rolling!

We'll be here Cheese!

 

[Wes Bucey]

I always look at "Mission Statements" and "Quality Policies" with a jaundiced eye.

Randy seems to have his finger on the pulse of the problem, but this is one time that really demands a grip on the jugular or carotid instead.

The policy is just meaningless toe jam without a Quality Management System (QMS) to back it up.

My suggestion is to pay less attention to some idiotic statement dreamed up by a "boss" while he was having a particularly idyllic bowel movement and more attention to what a gap analysis will show when comparing the organization's QMS with a Standard like ISO9K2K or TS16949.

At that point (depending, of course, on how high up the totem pole you sit), you talk about the measurables to reduce the Gaps which can make the airheaded Quality Policy seem almost achieveable in your organization.

Hey, Quality Policies with an idiotic ring abound throughout the real world! Remember "Quality is Job One"?

 

[ISO Cheesy]

Got your message load and clear, I didn’t plan on having Cheese with Whine when I started this thread.
I just wanted to see how far off I was and get your (the Covers) thoughts. I know that my Honeymoon here is almost up (4 weeks on job) and the time has come to go out and do some real work like making some improvements in the system. I’m just very careful of how I go about it, in my last job I was black- balled for my strong opinions. Just tryin’ to build my confidences up again. I know you all here will support me along the way.
Thanks for you feedback!!

Your right Wes...bigger fish to fry

 

[Rob Nix]

I prefer Dilbert's quality policy, "Quality! Productivity! Sarcasm!"

 

[db]

I don't mean to sound mean or anything (Carol, Cari, db, Energy, - shut up)

Okay

 

[ccochran]

Send it back to editing...

Cheezy & gang:

Here's my take on the policy. Firstly, it's not so much a policy as a motto. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's going to be hard to satisfy the requirements of 5.3 with a motto. Here are my specific issues with it:

*** It doesn't appear to be "appropriate to the purpose of the organization" (from 5.3 a). This requirement is generally intrepreted as some mention of what your organization's reason for existence is. A completely generic policy like this could have some trouble being deemed "appropriate." It also could have some trouble being taken seriously by employees.

*** Plain and simple, there is no commitment to continual improvement of any description (5.3 b). I'll give you the 'meeting requirements' portion, but there are a lot of people that would take issue with that, also.

If your job is to make sure your company is registered to ISO 9001:2000, then I would definitely address the shortcomings of this policy. Are there bigger fish to fry, so to speak? Of course. But if the policy is revealed to have shortcomings by someone other than yourself (the internal expert of things like this), then this could affect your credibility in influencing the 'bigger fish' later on.

When you're done with the policy, I'd love to talk with you about measurable objectives and methods for gauging customer perceptions...

Good luck!
CC

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Cochran
Center for International Standards & Quality
Georgia Institute of Technology
[email protected]

 

[db]

OK here is goes…I started at this company about 4 weeks ago. The first day I was here I was notified via e-mail what the new Quality Policy was. My first reaction was “How in the he** does this state our commitment to continual improvement or support the quality objectives.” (which are very fuzzy and not being measured)

I’m asking if any of you think the same as I or if I’m just being a pain in the :ca: . IMHO, it tells me that upper management just wants me to do things right the first time, but gives me no tools to do that….

Any feedback welcome

There are two separate items here. First, the policy; I think Stew did a nice job in defending it, however, the question is does management consider it the same way Stew did? "Quality is job 1" can be an effective quality policy if everyone knows what it means, and how they influence it. Your policy can work, provided management believes in it.

The second item (and the one that scares me more) is your comment that you don't get the tools to enact the policy. If you truly don't have the tools, then either your management doesn't believe in the policy, or there are some resource constraints that must be dealt with. Most of the time it is the case that the management doesn't believe in the policy. It was developed just for the auditor.

In reference to Craig's comments, You are right Craig, however if the organization can show clear connection through the quality objectives, then a slogan might suffice. One easy way to avoid this type of problem is to have a slogan represent the entire policy. It can be used as a reminder of what the policy represents and says.

 

[SteelMaiden]

I agree with Randy, but (playing Devil's Advocate), I can see many External Auditors having problems with it. Too short. No measurables. No obvious matching to what ISO 9001:2000 wants in a QualPol...except for meeting Customer requirements (which ISO Cheesy's organization has stated rather succinctly).

This then leads into other questions.

• What do Auditors really audit against? ISO 9001? Or their own internal Standard (i.e., perception)?
• To remove "creativity" and "individuality" from the QualPol so that it meets all requirements of ISO 9001:2000, is there really any benefit to having one? Makes it difficult for your QualPol to stand out from other organizations. And if you develop so that it just meets the requirements, how can the organization truly believe in it?

I like ISO Cheesy's QualPol and if the documentation supporting it is available, as Randy indicated, I wouldn't have a problem with it...but I can see a lot of External Auditors taking a red pen to it.

FWIW, the auditors I've worked with will live with a short quality policy:
XXXcompany, location is commited to meeting customer expectations through continual improvement of our products and processes.

I think that by adding something about the company's commitment to continual improvement the do it right the first time policy would fly....I just am kind of anal about putting "best" in the quality policy.