T
Re: Policy setting is way overrated!
Thanks, Sidney. What you say here is the basis for my opinion that QP's should be yanked. The goal of a business is to make money. If a business is pursuing ISO registration, it can reasonably be assumed that they understand how a well organized business system increases their chance of success. I would say that it also stands that anything they would include in a policy - "to provide the highest possible quality of products and services," etc., - is probably part of their overall company culture. I'm fortunate to say that this is true of my organization. We can't help but look at the policy statement on the wall and say "Well, duh!" If this isn't the case in a company, then that indeed tells me that their policy is nothing more than lip service to the standard.
That said, I also should point out that I think broadcasting statements through posters and such throughout the plant that speak to the importance of everyone's contribution and how it affects the success of the company - a passive form of empowerment, if you will - has great value. I simply don't like the idea of these things being "regulated" by a standard. I don't care for one static policy statement being considered the cornerstone of the system. It's the message behind it that counts. I may want to reword the message every six weeks and put up new posters to remind people that the system is alive and dynamic. I don't want to go through the steps of revising, re-auditing, etc. every time. I don't want my Quality Manager spending time training folks how the new statements align with the objectives. It's like telling cheerleaders that they must ensure that their routines align with the goals of the team. How ridiculous! It's about morale and getting buy-in throughout the organization - an understanding that success comes from happy customers and happy customers come from the work they are doing and the way they do it. It's not about pointing to an obtuse object perched high on a pedestal and making sure everyone pays homage.
Tym
Thanks, Sidney. What you say here is the basis for my opinion that QP's should be yanked. The goal of a business is to make money. If a business is pursuing ISO registration, it can reasonably be assumed that they understand how a well organized business system increases their chance of success. I would say that it also stands that anything they would include in a policy - "to provide the highest possible quality of products and services," etc., - is probably part of their overall company culture. I'm fortunate to say that this is true of my organization. We can't help but look at the policy statement on the wall and say "Well, duh!" If this isn't the case in a company, then that indeed tells me that their policy is nothing more than lip service to the standard.
That said, I also should point out that I think broadcasting statements through posters and such throughout the plant that speak to the importance of everyone's contribution and how it affects the success of the company - a passive form of empowerment, if you will - has great value. I simply don't like the idea of these things being "regulated" by a standard. I don't care for one static policy statement being considered the cornerstone of the system. It's the message behind it that counts. I may want to reword the message every six weeks and put up new posters to remind people that the system is alive and dynamic. I don't want to go through the steps of revising, re-auditing, etc. every time. I don't want my Quality Manager spending time training folks how the new statements align with the objectives. It's like telling cheerleaders that they must ensure that their routines align with the goals of the team. How ridiculous! It's about morale and getting buy-in throughout the organization - an understanding that success comes from happy customers and happy customers come from the work they are doing and the way they do it. It's not about pointing to an obtuse object perched high on a pedestal and making sure everyone pays homage.
Tym
, they should be invovled in this .
