From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:19:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Standardization of QMS /Leben/Pfrang
From: "Pfrang, Doug"
> From: "Leben, Bob"
>
> We're a company with three manufacturing plants spread across
> N. America making the same finished product.
-----------------------snip---------------------------------
> My questions:
>
> - Is standardization of documentation really beneficial
> when each plant operates more or less independently?
Probably not. The resources and cultures of your various plants might allow standardization, but, unless the plants really want to standardize, my preferred strategy would be for each plant to offer its documentation for voluntary, as opposed to mandatory, use by the others. Mandating standardized documentation, except where there is a clear business need, often encounters strong resistance.
> - Will we be creating more work for ourselves in the name
> of consistency with no real payback?
Depends on your situation, but it sounds like you have answered your own question. If you cannot identify a real payback, then you will be standardizing merely for its own sake, which seems unnecessary.
> A team member feels strongly that we can not proceed without
> having the same registrar.
> - Should this be a concern?
Well, your plants obviously have existed for some time with the same registrar, so your colleague is probably in error. Try quantifying the costs & benefits, and then compare them.
> Looking for pro/con advice from distinguished listmembers...
> Bob Leben
Bottom line: If your plants really want to join together and standardize everything, and they'd get a big morale boost and cost savings by doing so, then they probably should. But if they aren't clamoring for it, and there is no compelling business reason to drive them in that direction, then the downside probably outweighs the upside.
-- Doug
******************************
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:20:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Standardization of QMS /Leben/Hankwitz
Bob,
Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover enacted the Voluntary Standards Program back in 1921. It was Walter A. Shewhart and W. Edwards Deming that discovered and professed that quality has a direct relation to variation back in the 30's. The International Organization for Standardization was founded over 50 years ago as a result of the need to standardize around the world.
The need for standardization is no longer the question, it's how fast and effectively can we do it?
If any of your plants ever communicate with each other, it will be a lot easier to get your points across if you're all working off the same page (procedures). It will be extremely beneficial if you move people from plant to plant to address peaks in workload. They wouldn't have to be re-trained every time they walked in the door.
The amount of payback you get will be determined on how effectively and efficiently you integrate your systems. Combining them for the sake of combining them will produce minimal results. Combining them to create something better than you had before will reap untold benefits. The only guarantee in life is that everything you do will result in change. A change for the better or worse is up to you.
It looks like you have a great window of opportunity open for you. I'd go for it while you have the chance.
John
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:19:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Standardization of QMS /Leben/Pfrang
From: "Pfrang, Doug"
> From: "Leben, Bob"
>
> We're a company with three manufacturing plants spread across
> N. America making the same finished product.
-----------------------snip---------------------------------
> My questions:
>
> - Is standardization of documentation really beneficial
> when each plant operates more or less independently?
Probably not. The resources and cultures of your various plants might allow standardization, but, unless the plants really want to standardize, my preferred strategy would be for each plant to offer its documentation for voluntary, as opposed to mandatory, use by the others. Mandating standardized documentation, except where there is a clear business need, often encounters strong resistance.
> - Will we be creating more work for ourselves in the name
> of consistency with no real payback?
Depends on your situation, but it sounds like you have answered your own question. If you cannot identify a real payback, then you will be standardizing merely for its own sake, which seems unnecessary.
> A team member feels strongly that we can not proceed without
> having the same registrar.
> - Should this be a concern?
Well, your plants obviously have existed for some time with the same registrar, so your colleague is probably in error. Try quantifying the costs & benefits, and then compare them.
> Looking for pro/con advice from distinguished listmembers...
> Bob Leben
Bottom line: If your plants really want to join together and standardize everything, and they'd get a big morale boost and cost savings by doing so, then they probably should. But if they aren't clamoring for it, and there is no compelling business reason to drive them in that direction, then the downside probably outweighs the upside.
-- Doug
******************************
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 08:20:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Standardization of QMS /Leben/Hankwitz
Bob,
Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover enacted the Voluntary Standards Program back in 1921. It was Walter A. Shewhart and W. Edwards Deming that discovered and professed that quality has a direct relation to variation back in the 30's. The International Organization for Standardization was founded over 50 years ago as a result of the need to standardize around the world.
The need for standardization is no longer the question, it's how fast and effectively can we do it?
If any of your plants ever communicate with each other, it will be a lot easier to get your points across if you're all working off the same page (procedures). It will be extremely beneficial if you move people from plant to plant to address peaks in workload. They wouldn't have to be re-trained every time they walked in the door.
The amount of payback you get will be determined on how effectively and efficiently you integrate your systems. Combining them for the sake of combining them will produce minimal results. Combining them to create something better than you had before will reap untold benefits. The only guarantee in life is that everything you do will result in change. A change for the better or worse is up to you.
It looks like you have a great window of opportunity open for you. I'd go for it while you have the chance.
John