The Quality "Policy" - How does it differ from other company policies?

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by Randy

You can call anything, anything you want as long as it's understood what you're talking about and the dynamic of the document is not diminished...

Get out of the box..........

I apologize that what I am about to point may not be of any direct help to the poster of the topic of discussion. Furthermore, I would like to stress that I have the deepest respect for all of you people, especially involved with quality.:truce: The below post is only for the purpose of clarifying my thinking.

“My ‘home’s’ ‘potato’ says that the ‘house’ shall devise ‘future’ for all core ‘parts’ of the ‘home’.”

If I ask you to simply read the above statement and understand it (even in terms of quality!!), I am 200% sure that you won’t be making head or tail of it! I know your answer here is ‘yes’! And the reason is because I used quality words for ‘anything’!

Now, the understanding part,
Home = company
Potato=quality policy
House=organization
Future=quality objectives
Parts=processes

To deduce the outcome of the above statement, through re-wording 'anything' to the correct standardized words of quality.....

“My company’s quality policy says that the organization shall devise quality objectives for all core processes of the company.”

Now, you clearly understand the statement? I am 200% sure, your answer is ‘yes’!
Reason:
I used the internationally standardized words for making you understand what I am talking about. People have been using these words for a long time to have them standardized.

I think that’s part of the purpose of the ISO standards – STANDARDIZATION.
If all things in the world, both seen and unseen, did not have a standardized word for it, then everything in the world would definitely be ‘anything’ called ‘anything’, and purpose 'anything', and I am 200% sure that NO ONE in the world would understand what everyone is talking about!

If you have a hole in your shirt, one fine day that hole is bound to become larger with regular use. So, you eliminate the root cause of the hole in the shirt. A similar thing is what the ISO standards are trying to do, and that’s what I am trying to do.

Nomeclature may be a trivial matter, but does have the power to 'confuse'! Big Time! Especially coming from highly recognized sources!

Ciao.


___________________________
Sincerely, SAM

"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

 

[AndyN]

Looking back over this thread is interesting and somewhat confusing. I'd like to throw in my with a simple description........

We have a 'quality' policy in my house - shoes off at the front door (if you came in the house that way)

Is it documented? (no, but I know that to comply and if we had more folks in the house I would post it clearly to better communicate it).

Do my sons and their friends 'know' it? Oh, yeah. I treat my sons as 'supervisors' of their visitors, as guests you understand. It's their 'job' to communicate the policy to the guests.

Do I make provision for resources to implement the policy? - you betcha. There's a boot tray (2 for more friends shoes) to catch the dirt and water from the snow etc that comes in on the shoes.

Is it deployed? Oh, indeed, I do periodic audits when I walk past the door. When I detect a non-compliance (my son Stuart's girlfriend doesn't 'get' the use of the tray, so there's a dirty patch on the floor now) I bring it to the attention of the 'supervisor' in a non-threatening manner; "Hey, Stu. Please make sure Brittany understands why her shoes need to be in the tray, will you? Otherwise you'll be cleaning the floor....."

Result? We have clean floors because the policy is effectively implemented (with 1 minor non-conformity this year). Is it suitable?

I'll leave you to decide!

 

[RoxaneB]

It sounds as if the manager of the OP is confused because of the word "policy". While part of me wants to tell this manager to stop looking at the literal meaning of the word and instead focus on understanding the meaning and intent of the "quality policy', I know we can't do that. Managers are such a overly sensitive group of people.

My own organization also has policies, protocols and procedures...plus a quality policy at the sites which are registered to ISO 9001. I do not find that we experience confusion because we focus more on the purpose of each document instead of the name of the document.

What I find helps to explain the difference/purpose is a pyramid. There are levels within the pyramid. We put the different types of documents at certain levels and explain their purpose, the information flow, etc. I have found that a visual explanation of the documents is more easily understood than simply showing a definition of each document type up on a powerpoint presentation.

 

[Randy]

I audit folks all the time that use the word "policy" instead of "procedure" and have used "vision statement" instead of "quality policy" and you know how much I cared? -ZERO-....Just as long as they knew what they were talking about and could tell me....I don't care and it don't matter

Sam4Quality...I'm a 3rd party CB auditor so I see and here more stuff than what others do that never leave home or go beyond the walls of their company. One of the "personal attibutes" an auditor has to display is that of being ... open-minded, i.e. willing to consider alternative ideas or points of view....as defined in ISO 19011:2002....that's why I say that it doesn't matter what the word is.

 

[RoxaneB]

I audit folks all the time that use the word "policy" instead of "procedure" and have used "vision statement" instead of "quality policy" and you know how much I cared? -ZERO-....Just as long as they knew what they were talking about and could tell me....I don't care and it don't matter

Sam4Quality...I'm a 3rd party CB auditor so I see and here more stuff than what others do that never leave home or go beyond the walls of their company. One of the "personal attibutes" an auditor has to display is that of being ... open-minded, i.e. willing to consider alternative ideas or points of view....as defined in ISO 19011:2002....that's why I say that it doesn't matter what the word is.

Sadly, Randy, while I take the same approach as you, not all auditors are so...open-minded. In fact, "inflexible" is often an attribute I would use to describe them. I had one auditor write us up because folks didn't know the quality policy...they knew their role when it came to making good product that met specs but because the employees couldn't recite the policy, a "finding" was issued. By the end of the audit, we had it down to a (non-value-added) OFI.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Sadly, Randy, while I take the same approach as you, not all auditors are so...open-minded. In fact, "inflexible" is often an attribute I would use to describe them. I had one auditor write us up because folks didn't know the quality policy...they knew their role when it came to making good product that met specs but because the employees couldn't recite the policy, a "finding" was issued. By the end of the audit, we had it down to a (non-value-added) OFI.

It occurs to me, when thinking about incompetent auditors, that the people we have here who have a great deal of experience at it--Randy, Helmut, et al) (A) understand what's actually important and don't get hung up on inconsequential stuff, and (B) spend a lot of time here trying to help people. In other words, there seems to be a significant correlation between competence and willingness to help others see the light.

 

[JaneB]

It occurs to me, when thinking about incompetent auditors, that the people we have here who have a great deal of experience at it--Randy, Helmut, et al) (A) understand what's actually important and don't get hung up on inconsequential stuff, and (B) spend a lot of time here trying to help people. In other words, there seems to be a significant correlation between competence and willingness to help others see the light.

Well said, Jim. I'd agree.

I've seen a lot of external auditors on the job. The competent ones, as you say, do focus on what's important and don't waste time on the inconsequential or the quite trivial. And every one I've seen has also loved to help others, and been very willing to assist them in that.

The opposite is also true.

 

[JaneB]

With respect, Sam, I think your argument here is invalid and distinctly far-fetched. To me, it's just silly to insist that the quality policy must always be clearly labelled as Quality Policy. I could also add, rigid, overly dogmatic and not supportable in 9001 or 9000.

I've not encounted this particular point of view from any external auditor yet (and I thought I'd come across some with fairly myopic views at times). To date, if someone has chosen in what is their system (not the auditors!) to call their quality policy something else, or even to meet the requirements in some unique ways, no auditor has insisted it must be labelled as you say.

But I suppose there's always a first time. If it did happen, I'd register a complaint, first with their technical manager and if unresolved to their CB and if necessary, ask for a ruling. If the CB agreed with this point of view, I'd advise my client to switch to a better CB and who didn't have such a rigid and dogmatic view.

Yes, standardisation is important. But documents like company visions and missions are in fairly wide use in the business world - we're not talking about such farfetched things as 'potatoes' and 'houses'.

I care much more that people understand what's needed and are Doing Good Stuff that meets it, than I do about them using the exact words and terms according to my or ISO 9000 definitions! And all the competent auditors I know have a similar outlook.

Insisting that a QP must be called and labelled a QP? Nope.

 

[Sam4Quality]

:truce::truce::truce:Egad, what have I put myself into? . I did not expect this to go this far; I guess I caused a bit of a furor!

Firstly, I would like to thank all you senior gentlemen and gentlewomen, senior in age, knowledge and experience, for showing me the mirror. I have been thinking of this topic for a while (I couldn't sleep yesterday night!)and now I do realize I went a little more than off my track in trying to defend something which probably hold no grounds for auditors who have experienced this scenario and many more of a similar kind. I have too, a similar one 3 years back, under the guidance of a 3rd party CB auditor!! I think his explanation to the auditee on insistence of correct usage of terms made a direct impact on me, and thereafter the 'inflexible' auditing part of my ongoing career.

Inflexible? Yes, I have been, but not with companies I have audited, but with fellow and senior auditors who have shown excessive rigidity and bossy attitudes. I was once even barred from continuing an audit for arguing with an auditor to be more flexible with the auditees than he was.

Incompetent? I dont think so. I don't think I can compare myself to all you senior quality-neers here, in terms of auditing or quality knowledge or experience, but I do share the same approach of open-minded, flexible and out-of-the-box auditing.

Without sounding like a receding snail moving into its shell, I am fully aware that the purpose, relevance of any document holds the most importance over all other trivial matters during auditing, and I always will be a proponent of this. What I also almost never ignored was what the document was called, especially if it had something to do with what the standards said.

Despite all of the above, its easy to fall into the category of incompetent, inflexible, rigid (adjectives, adjectives...) auditors, especially being in their midst and having high regard and respect for them. All this does not take away anything from that CB auditor who effected me; however, I definitely will try to change my mindset on these particular issues. Well, I ain't an all that out-of-the-box auditor, after all; maybe my not-so-varied auditing experience got the better of me.

I also think there's a huge professional culture difference between the east and the west. Register a complaint against one of the CB auditors? That's a bit to far-fetched out here I think!

Jane, Randy, Jim, RC - I have come here primarily for learning more about quality, and ofcourse imparting some of my diminutive wisdom on it. I will always appreciate your contributions here in this cove and you for helping me further understand something very basic as an auditor.

I really look forward to many more quality discussions within this cove (not similar ones, I hope not:mg:!), that may help me come out a better quality professional than I am.

Ciao.


__________________________
Sincerely, SAM

"To achieve the impossible, it is precisely the unthinkable that must be thought!"

 

[Jim Wynne]

Inflexible? Yes, I have been, but not with companies I have audited, but with fellow and senior auditors who have shown excessive rigidity and bossy attitudes. I was once even barred from continuing an audit for arguing with an auditor to be more flexible with the auditees than he was.

It's generally not a good idea to engage in vigorous debate with auditors while the audit is in progress. It's enough to calmly voice disagreement and then wait for the closing meeting to get the hammer out. I think you may know this now, though.

Incompetent? I dont think so. I don't think I can compare myself to all you senior quality-neers here, in terms of auditing or quality knowledge or experience, but I do share the same approach of open-minded, flexible and out-of-the-box auditing.

I see now where my comments regarding competent auditors might be interpreted as suggesting that you aren't one, but that wasn't my intent. You seem to be a bright and capable person, and my comment was of a general nature and certainly not directed at you personally.

Without sounding like a receding snail moving into its shell, I am fully aware that the purpose, relevance of any document holds the most importance over all other trivial matters during auditing, and I always will be a proponent of this. What I also almost never ignored was what the document was called, especially if it had something to do with what the standards said.

I must assume, then, that if you were stranded in the desert without food or water for three days and came upon a big container labeled "horse manure" that you wouldn't look inside to see what was actually in it (food and water) and die of hunger and thirst as a result. This akin to the Fallacy of composition, wherein one projects the properties of part of an entity onto the entity as whole. In this case, you assume that a "vision statement" or something called "What the Boss Expects"" can't be a Quality Policy because its title doesn't include the phrase "Quality Policy." But the title has no bearing on the contents, so long as the contents are understood to mean what ISO expects a quality policy to mean.

I also think there's a huge professional culture difference between the east and the west. Register a complaint against one of the CB auditors? That's a bit to far-fetched out here I think!

There has been some conversation here in the past on this subject: the idea that cultural differences have a bearing on QMS development and auditing. It's true, and many people in this part of the world don't realize it, or how it affects the global nature of QMS development. See International Differences in Third Party Auditing and Auditors

Jane, Randy, Jim, RC - I have come here primarily for learning more about quality, and ofcourse imparting some of my diminutive wisdom on it. I will always appreciate your contributions here in this cove and you for helping me further understand something very basic as an auditor.

I really look forward to many more quality discussions within this cove (not similar ones, I hope not:mg:!), that may help me come out a better quality professional than I am.

There are few of us here who don't learn something new on a regular basis by our participation in the Cove. We're glad you're here, and I know that your perspective can help others--even the more experienced of us.