So my quality management position is being marginalized by my job.

[FloridaST]

I recently had a meeting regarding our corrective action process because it's widely misunderstood by most other departments. One of the top execs in attendance told me that quality needs to stop assigning the process owners (a term he didn't understand) corrective actions and to take care of them on our own... to take one for the team.

I suggested this was a terrible idea and if the process owner doesn't understand their role in whatever prompted the CA, it's a pointless exercise. He didn't want to hear it.

I dunno... time to move on me thinks.

 

[Randy]

Why not take the time to explain everything and the requirements of an ISO based management system including his responsibilities? Either that or like you said, figure out the color of your parachute & bail.

 

[Johnny Quality]

Sounds like you and your organization have a lot to learn if you are using terms that no-one else in the organization understands.

 

[Tagin]

It is perhaps an odd but necessary thing that as the Loremasters of Quality, so to speak, it is incumbent on the quality dept. to teach, convey, cajole, and mentor the rest of the organization in the mysterious runes and incantations of quality. (E.g., 9001:2015 7.3 Awareness) Doing so often requires speaking in their tongue, not making them speak in yours. The sacred texts (process docs) must be in the speech of the users, if they are to benefit from them.

Without that effort, there is no reasonable expectation that the rest of the organization should comprehend or respect the divinings of Quality. They see Quality only as a separate dept., mumbling cryptic clauses whilst reading the auras of nonconformances in their dark chambers, rather than as an integral part of the fabric and culture of the organization.

Yet, if the effort is made, and still the tribal elders of the organization are still loath to embrace and champion the ways of quality, then perhaps it is time to find a new tribe.

 

[Tidge]

Is it possible that there is an unstated/unexplored difference between the tasks of "managing the CA" and "accountability for discrete elements of the CA"?

The process owner certainly has a role to play within a CA (in their area), but managing a CA/PA is a different skill set. The "top exec" may be misunderstanding/downplaying this, and/or the OP may not have explained the specific elements of the CA that require process owner engagement.

 

[RoxaneB]

I recently had a meeting regarding our corrective action process because it's widely misunderstood by most other departments. One of the top execs in attendance told me that quality needs to stop assigning the process owners (a term he didn't understand) corrective actions and to take care of them on our own... to take one for the team.

I suggested this was a terrible idea and if the process owner doesn't understand their role in whatever prompted the CA, it's a pointless exercise. He didn't want to hear it.

I dunno... time to move on me thinks.

No one wishes to feel like they don't add something amazing to an organization. I am sorry to hear that you walked away from that conversation feeling marginalized.

There have been some great suggestions thus far including attempting to understand what the individual meant by his statement. The only way to do this is to ask...and to listen without taking it as a personal slight against you or your role. It may help to bring an example of a recent corrective action and allow him to show what he means. This could help the two of you speak the same language or maybe highlight that some work needs to be done on getting to the same wavelength.

 

[Michael_M]

If you decide to talk to the "top executive", make sure you try to do it as a one-on-one conversation or at most three people. It should not be this way, but I think when too many people are in the room, people are less willing to listen and spend too much time strutting. This is my experience and you may have a different view as this is a company culture thing.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

One of the top execs in attendance told me that quality needs to stop assigning the process owners (a term he didn't understand) corrective actions and to take care of them on our own...

Seems to me that the process owners have been complaining about being asked to participate in the problem resolution to this top exec. Getting dragged into root cause analysis and corrective actions is always a good excuse for why things don't happen in their departments and you are a good escape goat for their failures.

Is your organization ISO 9001 compliant? If so, how does top management comply with 5.1.1.c)? Is your organization ISO 9001 certified? If so, how does the external CB auditor check for compliance with that?

If this top exec does not understand that true corrective actions many times involve the re-engineering of BUSINESS PROCESSES, you won't be able to convince him of anything. At the end of the day, a significant percentage of "executives" have a massively flawed understanding of modern quality management and they do not listen to underlings. If your organization has this cultural incompatibility with XXI century distributed quality management, seamlessly embedded into the business processes, you will be professionally frustrated.

Good luck.

 

[qualitymanagerTT]

It is perhaps an odd but necessary thing that as the Loremasters of Quality, so to speak, it is incumbent on the quality dept. to teach, convey, cajole, and mentor the rest of the organization in the mysterious runes and incantations of quality. (E.g., 9001:2015 7.3 Awareness) Doing so often requires speaking in their tongue, not making them speak in yours. The sacred texts (process docs) must be in the speech of the users, if they are to benefit from them.

"Loremasters of Quality" - I like it!

Are the runes like flowchart and value engineering symbols?

Nothing much else to add, as the other posters have covered it pretty well.

 

[Steve Prevette]

On my last assignment of my "day job" from which I have retired from, there was a definite intent by management that "contractor assurance" as we were referred to as, should clean up after line management on corrective action problems. When I first joined the group, there was severe repercussions to some quality issues that had come up, and management was desperate to improve. We got serious on managing corrective actions and set up metrics and reports to track corrective actions and their progress. As things improved and they got out of the basement, they figured things were good enough and started to revert back to old habits. One memorable incident was an outside auditor found some asbestos work packages weren't handled properly. Nothing was done to fix them, and the only "corrective action" was an email was sent to all work planners that if they thought a job involved asbestos, they should contact an asbestos qualified person. A few months later my employer decided they had no more project work for me, but fortunately I had enough 401k's on hand to just retire.

In some cases, you simply cannot "take on" line management. Changes in management personnel also has effects - what was once a favorable management team can morph into a team adverse to quality. At least during my 28 year career in the Department of Energy world, there was always someone who needed help. One needs to be limber and go to where the cry for help is.