Quality Policy vs. Objectives, Goals, Mission, Target, Vision - Differences

[Ted Black]

Quality Objectives

I agree with the contributors that use a two level (simple) explanation for the quality policy and objectives. I have two questions however: 1. Do you need a quality objective for each process or is a few that are key to the entire organization acceptable? 2. Where and how are organizations documenting their objectives (e.g. a list in their quality manual that lists the objective, the way it will be measured and what the goal is)?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[gpainter]

#1 No
# 2 that is what we are doing

 

[JodiB]

Ted,
My opinion is that you do not need a quality objective for each process but that if the process makes a contribution to the quality objective for another process, then a smaller target for that contribution is set.

We are not documenting our objectives in the quality policies manual because then we would be revising the manual upon each change of objective. We will document the objectives by distribution to employees and posting in relevent locations, including our QMS network site.

Our objectives are fairly straightforward as far as goals and the way they will be measured since they are performance based, so I don't know that any additional documentation is needed as you describe.

However, for our process criteria for success and methods of measure, there is a title page that introduces each process (on our network) and we have those listed there.

 

[JodiB]

Jim,
I know you get hung up on the word "quality". I don't have that problem. Because I see "quality" as meeting requirements. And those include the requirements of our organization for our own selfish purposes - such as making money and keeping our company running as lean as possible.

Our quality objectives look at those things that we see as both cost-effective for us as well as service-improving for our customers.

To establish a pool of possible objectives from which the top mgt. group could then choose a few from, i interviewed each member of management to find out what they wanted to accomplish with a QMS. I found it amazing that one of the VP's as well as the CEO said that they would like to find a way to gauge the happiness and satisfaction of the employees. That they found employee satisfaction as a key element of our success! In other words, something that we think is a requirement for our organization .....and that is "quality". So we will set a "quality objective" to do some things we feel is crucial to employee satisfaction.

(It's friday, the margarita blender is churning away, we had a potluck bar-b-que for lunchtime, and half the staff is dressed in Hawaiian shirts. Think we're experiencing some satisfaction? Oh yeah! Now to spend some "quality time" with that margarita.....)

 

[Ted Black]

"Quality"

Jim,
In my opinion, you have explained a fundamental problem with the ISO series of standards. I think that ISO should revise the standards and remove every instance of the word quality from the text. Don't you think managers would pay more attention if ISO 9001:2000 was a "Management System" standard.
Our manager's feel that it is something separate from their actual business objectives (most of which are sales goals). Do you have any advice on moving employees and managers to a place where the ISO standard is a core of their business rather than a periphery?
:truce:

 

[gpainter]

Remember Quality is whatever a company has to do to deliver a product that the customer wants.. I think this is sort of the defination of Quality based on ISO 94. What I tell when I train that trditional Quality is only 1/20th of the 94 standard. I believe Quality was removed in the title of the 00 standard.

 

[Ted Black]

2000 Version

Both ISO 9001:2000 and TS 16949 (based on ISO 9001:2000) still have titles that read "Quality Management Systems". I think most traditional quality people realize that this is a standard for the entire business (since they usually are required to do the implementation) however, it is convincing the other departments that ISO also includes their area.

 

[Kevin Mader]

Observation:

We love to label things, don't we?!

Is making the distinction between Business and Quality Systems helpful, or does this just create a muddled picture?

In some instances, I can see where making the distinction can be useful, especially in the sense of explaining 'traditional' viewpoints. In many other instances, it is not only unhelpful, but unimportant as well. An example is when making a determination about what measures to talk about during Management Review. Should they all be 'traditional' Quality System measures or should other areas such as 'efficiency' be discussed? What ingredients are necessary to create a good meeting? What are you measuring?

Personally, I try to view things from a larger System's view. Traditionally, I like to include the Business, Quality, and Safety systems. All subsystems are present in our work places as well as elsewhere.

To think that there isn't any overlap is a gross oversight. I think that the confusion exists in where things overlap and our need to place a label on that 'gray' thing. In my experience, this happens often. Lots of time lost on trying to put the right label to something. In the end though, how important was the label?

Kevin

 

[RosieA]

This is an interesting discussion.

I think the desire to keep quality objectives separate from business objectives has its roots in early TQM efforts, where the gurus urged us to separate financial aspects from quality meetings because, at the time, financial objectives overwhelmed the meetings and quality didn't get the focus.

I think quality has made significant progress in the last 20 years and we are at the point now, where if we continue to separate business issues from quality issues, quality runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.

I've made an attempt to merge the two, and its worked successfully for several years. Here's the text from my procedure on setting objectives:

 

[Marc]

This is a pretty good old thread. Just wondering if anyone has anything new to add or any clarifications / observations on the thread to this point.