Any suggestions on how this can be achieved in a quality program with a historically quick cycle time for managers, engineers, upper level quality personnel, (not inspectors).
How can people be convinced that quality initiatives are not just "flavour of the week" or a passing fad? Does training everyone on these programs help appreciably? I was with a company, not in a quality role, and when we had training on "lean manufacturing" I don't recall overwhelming support arising from the classes.
Results of quality programs can be hard to justify to the manufacturing floor, which operates on a case-to-case basis, not a systems viewpoint. Are there programs for systems training for manufacturing personnel? (I checked the Cayman Systems offerings and found ISO for hourly employees, but not systems viewpoint for them. Did I miss something?)
Thanks,
The original posting by Mac did not specify any particular aspect of "RESPECT". whthere that be personal respect, respect for the system, for the Q Prog or wahetevr. I will take it first as meaning respect for the quality person striving to improve quality by various means, including the Q Prog which happens to embrace the QMS and so forth.
Those I have respected have been people who have not only known what they talk about but have been able to practice/ demonstrate what they preach, give sound advice (as a mentor) and help me (or others) in some meaningful way or other.
Quality programs can hardly now be regarded as "flavor of the month" as American (and other nations') business in particular has been grappling with them for decades. A meaningful Q Prog is not a quick fix - though too many hope or regard it as such. Even Toyota admits it still works on that stuff after decades. And Mr Juran is now 100 years old having advocated and argued the merits of Q progs for years.
Training without applying the subject matter so as to acquire competence and measured beneficial results is a waste of money. That certainly deserves no respect. And if training is delivered by an unconvincing teacher (perhaps appearing less than experienced or able in the subject himself/ herself) will not build respect for that particular training, either.
Results of quality programs are certainly hard to justify if at the outset the quality program itself does not require goals accompanied with relevant targets (time frame for results and "quantity" required) and also incorporate data capture mechanisms for measuring progress that the doer and management can comprehend. Given that shortfall in content, the quality program itself deserves no respect, as it has no meaningful purpose for those entrusted with applying it. At the heart of PDCA is the first step - "plan". But, plan for what? If the "what" is some defined end goal specified by (inter alia) such targets, the rest (DCA) can acquire greater impact. Then the PDCA itself will also be respected.
Yes, there is systems training for employees available from a wide variety of sources but, as is the case with all forms of training, exercise due diligence and remember caveat emptor.