The Perfect QMS: One without a Quality Manager? (your opinion wanted!)

[Benjamin28]

Hmm. What sophisticated processes are we talking about here? As far as I am aware Quality (as a synthetic discipline) has picked up on processes developed by a range of other functions and applies them. I can't think of any process that I do that couldn't be done by someone else.

Almost anyone can be taught to do anything given training and a modicum of intelligence! I can't think of any process I've seen that I could not learn with proper training. The point I was making is that a QM should be adept in statistics, experienced with quality programs/systems and client requirements, APQP, FMEA, CA/PA, Document Control, SPC, sampling plans, International & Industrial standards, client quality systems, internal/external audit systems, round robin testing, gage R&R, etc...in other words you need someone talented and knowledgeable in quality tools, their applications and management of quality systems.

But the OP is saying if you get others involved and give them ownership you will probably end up with a better system than if the QM sits at the centre and "owns" the QMS and tells others what they have to do.

I completely agree that if the majority of employees truly were making a daily conscious effort to support the quality system you would have one heck of a great system, but it would still require some form of central management from someone technically competent and experienced... And the idea of everyone contributing is indeed strongly promoted by any decent quality manager. Most of us in quality realize the importance of having your company culture involved and maybe even passionate about quality, and consider it part of the job to "inspire" employees to become more vested in the QMS.

Again it comes down to ownership. If the process is mine I will make sure it works - if it is the QM's I will let him / her deal with the cr*p if it goes wrong.

Perhaps here is the root of the problem. Quality Managers shouldn't be taking ownership of processes, they should be enabling employees to take ownership and improve. I.E. spc falls out of control on a process, quality manager issues a CAR to production manager, PM then meets with their staff and the QM to ascertain a suitable CA. The production staff should be fully invested under the direction of the QM who would be evaluating if the CA is appropriate and effective.

It just seems to me that what were talking about here isn't a problem with having quality as a separate department, but a discussion about poor management style of QMs...micro management?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: What's in a name?

I agree it is "normal" for Quality Managers to hold that title but I know of many organizations where it is not the case - a whole host of titles relating to standards, systems, compliance etc.

Let's not forget that the OP was about devolving quality aspects (as they relate to core and support processes) to the people with responsibility for the process / area. Leaving just a rump of "ISO stuff" that could be handled by an administrator as part of his / her duties.

Agreed with all the good stuff above - but do they have to be called a quality manager and does all the expertise have to reside in one head / pair of hands.

Just as one example - ISO says you have to have a management representative (and they have a series of duties to fulfil) - is it better that is a quality manager or the CEO?

No, I did not mean that the "title" was important. Wrong choice of words. I meant that the functional responsibility needs to be formally carried by someone for whom that is a primary responsibility and focus. The OP asked if it could be spread out among several people who have other, primary responsibilities.

My answer was intended to say it is legal, but probably will not be effective. It will get lost in the workload and lose effectiveness. Titles, however, I could care less about.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Almost anyone can be taught to do anything given training and a modicum of intelligence! I can't think of any process I've seen that I could not learn with proper training. The point I was making is that a QM should be adept in statistics, experienced with quality programs/systems and client requirements, APQP, FMEA, CA/PA, Document Control, SPC, sampling plans, International & Industrial standards, client quality systems, internal/external audit systems, round robin testing, gage R&R, etc...in other words you need someone talented and knowledgeable in quality tools, their applications and management of quality systems.




I completely agree that if the majority of employees truly were making a daily conscious effort to support the quality system you would have one heck of a great system, but it would still require some form of central management from someone technically competent and experienced... And the idea of everyone contributing is indeed strongly promoted by any decent quality manager. Most of us in quality realize the importance of having your company culture involved and maybe even passionate about quality, and consider it part of the job to "inspire" employees to become more vested in the QMS.



Perhaps here is the root of the problem. Quality Managers shouldn't be taking ownership of processes, they should be enabling employees to take ownership and improve. I.E. spc falls out of control on a process, quality manager issues a CAR to production manager, PM then meets with their staff and the QM to ascertain a suitable CA. The production staff should be fully invested under the direction of the QM who would be evaluating if the CA is appropriate and effective.

It just seems to me that what were talking about here isn't a problem with having quality as a separate department, but a discussion about poor management style of QMs...micro management?

Very well put, Benjamin!

 

[Paul Simpson]

Almost anyone can be taught to do anything given training and a modicum of intelligence! I can't think of any process I've seen that I could not learn with proper training. The point I was making is that a QM should be adept in statistics, experienced with quality programs/systems and client requirements, APQP, FMEA, CA/PA, Document Control, SPC, sampling plans, International & Industrial standards, client quality systems, internal/external audit systems, round robin testing, gage R&R, etc...in other words you need someone talented and knowledgeable in quality tools, their applications and management of quality systems.

As far as I can tell nobody is arguing with the point of a wide range of tools and techniques being used in a good quality system. Does it have to be a Quality Person, though. IMHO all of these tools and techniques are best in the hands of those doing the work - not people outside the process coming in.

I completely agree that if the majority of employees truly were making a daily conscious effort to support the quality system you would have one heck of a great system, but it would still require some form of central management from someone technically competent and experienced... And the idea of everyone contributing is indeed strongly promoted by any decent quality manager. Most of us in quality realize the importance of having your company culture involved and maybe even passionate about quality, and consider it part of the job to "inspire" employees to become more vested in the QMS.

Is this not a role of top management - that is even what ISO says?

Perhaps here is the root of the problem. Quality Managers shouldn't be taking ownership of processes, they should be enabling employees to take ownership and improve. I.E. spc falls out of control on a process, quality manager issues a CAR to production manager, PM then meets with their staff and the QM to ascertain a suitable CA. The production staff should be fully invested under the direction of the QM who would be evaluating if the CA is appropriate and effective.

OK I didn't put this very well. Here are a couple of examples. My point was that the department manager will probably already feel they own the processes that operate in his / her department. If, however, the QM "owns" the documented QMS then documentation is their problem - so if I change my process or responsibilities it is the QM's job to find out and fix the documentation. Similarly if the corrective action procedure is the QM's then I wait until CA is "done" to me rather than seeking out solutions.

It just seems to me that what were talking about here isn't a problem with having quality as a separate department, but a discussion about poor management style of QMs...micro management?

Very true. Some QMs seek to protect their position by having a controlling attitude to quality - and end up weakening their position because others don't buy into their vision of how the QMS works.

Very well put, Benjamin!

What is this, Helmut? My enemy's enemy is my friend.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: What's in a name?

No, I did not mean that the "title" was important. Wrong choice of words.

OK

I meant that the functional responsibility needs to be formally carried by someone for whom that is a primary responsibility and focus. The OP asked if it could be spread out among several people who have other, primary responsibilities.

What do you mean by functional responsibility? The OP was saying there may be no need for a "function" or department.

My answer was intended to say it is legal, but probably will not be effective. It will get lost in the workload and lose effectiveness. Titles, however, I could care less about.

Again what do you mean? Not only is it legal but it is allowed by the standard.

My recent posts have been to say if you get people within the organization looking after what they do then the "sweep up after" quality function is redundant and all the rest can easily be absorbed.

 

[Martijn]

It just seems to me that what were talking about here isn't a problem with having quality as a separate department, but a discussion about poor management style of QMs...micro management?

I've started this thread with an idea in my head about an organization without a quality manager. I'd say we're getting some very interesting opinions and visions on the pros and cons of such a decision, and I thank you all for your replies. To put my initial post into perspective a bit more, some background:

I'm quality manager for a European organization (responsible for one division, overall we have 4 divisions), 350 employees, 10 countries, 2 plants, three large contract manufacturers. We have local QC managers for the plants that deal with product quality, quality representatives for the other sales offices. --> this means I'm not somebody that needs to know it all, and is involved in all, we have well trained people on location for that. You could say that I'm the quality management system manager.

We've just implemented SAP as our ERP system, and earlier this year we have centralized our supply chain across all divisions. With this process centered re-organization we have:

• processes well defined and anchored in SAP
• process owners well defined and appointed
• process councils in place for process improvement and such

So I see a window of opportunity for our entire European organization (4 sales divisions, 1 supply chain organization) to take our quality management a step forward on an European level. The entire European organization consists of 2300 people or so, 15+ plants. As you can perhaps imagine, in such a situation, you do not want to be the owner of everyones "quality". You could create a hierarchical quality organization of course to cover all this in the traditional quality manager role", but me (and management) is not too keen on this, for reasons already discussed (ownership of quality and such).

Management recognizes this opportunity, and we are now discussing which route to take. I'm pitching my qualitymanagerless management system to them as well, but was also looking for some insights from my fellow covers.

The ideal outcome I hope to reach is:

• ISO requirements from my first post in the annual objectives of the process owners
• Top management takes responsibility for the "generic quality requirements"
• Top management realizes that the change process needs some professional guidance and coaching
• One management system, one certificate for the entire organization.

I'm in a situation where we will not have a 12 person quality department to take on "quality ownership". So I'm looking for a solution which provides sufficient structure, provided by quality leadership and process ownership. I agree that completely qualitymanagerless is more theoretical than useful, but adopting this approach might result in a very lean quality organization, which is most likely where we'll end.

 

[Wes Bucey]

FWIW:
Yesterday, I had an assistant editor of a quality magazine email me for permission to use excerpts from a 3 year old set of posts I made in the ASQ members only Forums. Before I could give permission, I had to go back and read them. I'm not sure yet how they will appear in print (if they do - editors are notorious for scribbling "dele" on prose authors feel is "deathless")

The two posts seem to be pertinent to this present discussion even though they were made in October, 2004.

Wes Bucey, Quality Manager
Posts: 1,136
Re:Is quality's role disappearing in manufacturing?
Posted: Oct 21, 2004 3:03 PM
I have long been an advocate of decreasing the size and simultaneously elevating the status and function of a Quality Department. In my view, the basic functions of incoming, in-process, and final inspection SHOULD be the province of operations. I see the Quality Department as:
1)in-house trainers of operations people who perform inspection processes
2)designers of inspection processes
3)collaborators with design engineers, process/production engineers, and customers in creating and evaluating Control Plans
4)customer contacts for questions of quality
5)supplier contacts for questions of quality
6)"court of last resort" for First Article Inspection, PPAP, FMEA, etc.
What do my colleagues think of this?
Do you feel this concept threatens your own job?
Does it threaten your coworker's job?
In point of fact, I think this concept is close to the Six Sigma philosophy which puts Quality as just one of many factors to be considered when improving the efficiency of an organization.
-Wes Bucey, Quality Manager

Wes Bucey, Quality Manager
Posts: 1,136
Re: Is quality's role disappearing in manufacturing?
Posted: Oct 22, 2004 12:21 PM
In my view, it means elevating inspectors/technicians to trainers/experts instead of them acting as policemen on the work of others. These are the guys who should be REVIEWING control charts and SPC calculations instead of filling in the blanks.

In high volume work, I see more and more demand for in-process inspection and thus "prevention" of making defective product, not "detection" after the product is built. I see a trend toward analysis and approval of a supplier's methods of delivery quality goods and less and less reliance on incoming inspection sampling to "detect" errors.

Supply chains need continual and constant communication about the status of products at any and every point in the supply chain, not just at the point of delivery when there is stress to get the product to the production floor.

The curse which pervades organizations is
"We've ALWAYS done it this way."

I'm not advocating eliminating human workers in favor of robots like Roger Smith of General Motors did years ago, I'm merely saying,
"Ounces of prevention are worth pounds of cure."
(Roger Smith was obsessed with the idea workers caused the defects in his products, not the processes created by management. It seems pretty obvious he NEVER witnessed the Red Bead Experiment from Deming.)

If we truly partner with our internal and external suppliers versus playing "gotcha" all the time, we can eliminate waste ("muda") and concentrate on value-added activity.

So, what's a realistic view of the future:
a) maintaining a force of inspector/policemen to detect flaws
or
b) integrating quality and production in a way to reduce flaws?
-Wes Bucey, Quality Manager

 

[humtum1977]

What leri says is not correct, In my view quality people should control quality dept. Operation's Manager or CEO or any one else are supposed to do their jobs for production, If Opn's Mgr. is head of quality then he we will be in between the prodcution and quality therefore he cannot judge the solution.

Regarding quality manager i think it is good to have it, because who will control all the activity and all the people in the dept., there should be one person either QM Or Mgt. Rep. who can concentrate only on quality process and nothing else and his motto will be only one quality.

 

[Benjamin28]

As far as I can tell nobody is arguing with the point of a wide range of tools and techniques being used in a good quality system. Does it have to be a Quality Person, though. IMHO all of these tools and techniques are best in the hands of those doing the work - not people outside the process coming in.

Why do we audit, why does it benefit us to have someone outside the process come in to check the quality of our work? If we were in utopia where nothing ever went wrong and no one ever fibbed and we had all the time in the world on our production lines, sure this would work.

Is this not a role of top management - that is even what ISO says?

Off the top of my head I think it is required that this is included in the quality policy statement which is developed by top management. But sure, it's top managements responsibility, and it's mid managements responsiblity, and it's low level supervisors responsiblity.

OK I didn't put this very well. Here are a couple of examples. My point was that the department manager will probably already feel they own the processes that operate in his / her department. If, however, the QM "owns" the documented QMS then documentation is their problem - so if I change my process or responsibilities it is the QM's job to find out and fix the documentation. Similarly if the corrective action procedure is the QM's then I wait until CA is "done" to me rather than seeking out solutions.

This sounds like an issue of office politics and nothing more...

What is this, Helmut? My enemy's enemy is my friend.

Enemies? Will there be swashbuckling? We may have contrary views on a hypothetical conversation about eliminating the quality management position or departement alltogether, but I don't believe this makes us enemies...

Anyhow, I run off of ISO 17025....where 4.1.5 item i specifies that we must have a "quality manager" responsible for the items discussed. Thinking outside the box of ISO does not conform and therefore is not allowed and so we will continue to have a quality manager.

 

[Martijn]

Regarding quality manager i think it is good to have it, because who will control all the activity and all the people in the dept., there should be one person either QM Or Mgt. Rep. who can concentrate only on quality process and nothing else and his motto will be only one quality.

Hi, welcome to the cove!

Regarding the above, the point we are trying to make is that one person with only one motto: quality, is not enough for an effective quality management system. Everybody should have quality as their motto.

PS if you are referring to something someone else posted, you can use the QUOTE button, this way people can see what you are replying to...