Top Management Quality Objectives Missing - ISO 9001:2000 5.4.1

[BradM]

You have missed the important part of 5.4.1. It states," Top Management (TM) shall ensure the QO's are established .....at relevant functions and levels withing the organization. TM is an important (or most important) function at the top level. If QOs are not established at the TM level, it shows that TM is not considering themselves important and that may not meet the intent of ISO.

Do you consider top Management one of the most important function in a company at the top level?[/color]

You make a good point, and I understand your concern. I am a big letter of intent, guy. IMO, quality objectives have been relegated to catchy phrases like the one on the post you provided. Mind you, I'm not ridiculing it, just saying they used the letters of the company name to make their quality objectives. So, if their quality objectives ever change, they'll have to be formed with those letters in mind, etc.

For there to be an effective quality system, there has to be objectives/goals of the system. While the management of company X doesn't have quality goals like company Y, that does not inherently mean they are wrong or inferior; just different.

If you are the auditor- in the end it's your decision. If you feel the system is lost in the desert without goals, then state as such. If you cannot see where they are documented, then state that. However.. as hard as it is, try to remain objective to the organization, and provide value to your work.

 

[Paul Simpson]

It's a good general point well made in this thread - the standard asks the top management to ensure the objectives "are established at relevant functions and levels within the organization." It doesn't say what those levels are and what functions they need to cover. As an auditor you have to assess the effectiveness of the objective setting process as a whole - not by going in with preconceived ideas about what they must have.

Personal goals may be part of the systems and some managers like to lead from the front with objectives either for themselves or for the organizaion as a whole. But you mustn't insist on it!

As has been mentioned - that is a short route to the invitation to use the door.

There is a role internally or as an external auditor to test reasoning and the objective setting process and independent questioning adds value - but, after all, it is "their" system.

 

[harry]

ISO 9001:2000 5.4.1 states,"Top management (TM) ensures that quality objectives (QOs)..... are established at relevant functions and levels within the organization." Top management of a company reviews the QOs of all the departments. The QOs have been track, and measured. The company is using a so called "bottom up" system flowing up QOs up to TM and say that those are the top level objectives also. These lower level objectives are pretty specific like reduce turn around time by X-hours. Basically TP doesn't have top level QOs written anywhere. Any comment on this flow up method of managing Quality Objectives?

I believe it is a N/C because Top Management is a critical level of the company and there should be QOs established just like lower levels and function is like Purchasing and Production. What do you think?

The ‘bottoms-up’ goal setting approach (a kind of joint goal setting) is a good method that originates from America and now being adopted by many forward looking organizations worldwide. It’s better because:

1. Goals are set by relevant people/department themselves after having understood the guidelines or policies formulated by the top dogs. As a result there is ownership.
2. These goals had gone through the tough negotiation table and both management and departments are committed to it. (Management Commitment)
3. The departmental or front line people know the market better than people sitting at the corporate office and thus the goals set are more realistic.

Just because your current employer does not practice it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. People who audit or consult could do much better if they care to be equipped with some practical business knowledge.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

ISO 9001:2000 5.4.1 states,"Top management (TM) ensures that quality objectives (QOs)..... are established at relevant functions and levels within the organization." Top management of a company reviews the QOs of all the departments. The QOs have been track, and measured. The company is using a so called "bottom up" system flowing up QOs up to TM and say that those are the top level objectives also. These lower level objectives are pretty specific like reduce turn around time by X-hours.

It appears that there are objectives set (emphasis added in Bold), and they are measurable, which would meet the intent of ISO9001:2000, in my opinion.

Basically TP doesn't have top level QOs written anywhere. Any comment on this flow up method of managing Quality Objectives?

In my opinion, it does meet the intent of the standard.

I believe it is a N/C because Top Management is a critical level of the company and there should be QOs established just like lower levels and function is like Purchasing and Production. What do you think?

They have been established.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I'm confused. If Top Management is not setting the objectives and direction of the organization, who is? And, if TM is not, what ARE they doing?

The intent is the leadership sets the goals and agenda, and rolls it down, down, down to all the relevant levels.

 

[Tym Tucker]

Just to simplify things....

Our top management established three Quality Objectives which are applicable to ALL levels (including top management) :

1) Continually improve our processes and our Quality Management System
2) Attend all of our clients requirements
3) Reduce our internal costs and delivery times.

IMO, it´s as simple as that... they are all measureable, and every level of the organization and process is directly involved in each objective.

I'm resurrecting an old thread here, mostly because this post hit the nail on the head with my current dilemma. We're due for another surveillance audit in a couple months and I was reviewing the registrar's last report. It stated that we needed more quality objectives. Ours are:

I. Customer Confidence
(a) Orders delivered error free - percent of orders shipped without verified customer returns.
(b) Orders delivered on-time – percent of orders shipped later than the dock date originally quoted to the customer.

II. Improvements in Our Capabilities
(a)Maintain or improve our internal defect rates.

III. Employee Confidence
(a) Maintain or improve the level of employee satisfaction in both their jobs and the environment in which they perform them.


They're all measurable (measured and reported) and relate directly to our Policy. We're a small company and if any process breaks down we know where, how, and why immediately if not sooner. I can find no value in measuring, for example, if purchase orders are placed on time, if jobs are released on time, etc. We've done it, found it to be in control for a long enough period of time, and quit doing it because again, no value. I can see where a large, departmentalized company may need to know which link in the chain is causing problems and they get this info from internal metrics, but here we're all involved solely in the three listed above.

I'm sure the auditor is going to try to give my QA Director another finding, then they're going to come to me to see why top management didn't establish these lower level objectives and there'll be an hour of my life I'll never get back...

Oh yeah, and:

We never ship anything late and have exceptional customer quality ratings.
Our internal defect rates have gone down (from when I started here 19 mos. ago and implemented this QMS) and are stable.
Our employees are happy.

Am I missing something here, still, or am I rightly prepared to defend my interpretation and perspective?

Thanks,

Tym Tucker
VP Ops
Cable Technologies, Inc.

 

[pldey42]

"I was reviewing the registrar's last report. It stated that we needed more quality objectives."

When a registrar writes a non-conformity he or she is supposed to indicate the requirement of ISO 9001 that is not being met. (Non-conformities are the only things you need to fix. If they write observations or opportunities to improve, you can accept or reject them as you choose.)

There is no requirement to have "more objectives", only a requirement to have objectives, which you have met.

I think it would be reasonable to ask the registrar which objectives, specifically, are missing and why you need them. As you say, there is no value in measuring things for the heck of it. If a registrar says simply and vaguely, 'set more objectives,' you're within your rights to say 'No.'

Just 2c,
Pat

 

[Paul Simpson]

Now this is a thread I'm happy is resurrected!

I'm resurrecting an old thread here, mostly because this post hit the nail on the head with my current dilemma. We're due for another surveillance audit in a couple months and I was reviewing the registrar's last report. It stated that we needed more quality objectives.

Pat is spot on here. There is no clause the auditor can raise a finding on. You have objectives.

Ours are:

I. Customer Confidence
(a) Orders delivered error free - percent of orders shipped without verified customer returns.
(b) Orders delivered on-time – percent of orders shipped later than the dock date originally quoted to the customer.

II. Improvements in Our Capabilities
(a)Maintain or improve our internal defect rates.

III. Employee Confidence
(a) Maintain or improve the level of employee satisfaction in both their jobs and the environment in which they perform them.

What's more IMHO they are all valid under ISO 9001. Relating, as they do to quality of product or service (internal and external).

I particularly like the employee confidence objective.

They're all measurable (measured and reported) and relate directly to our Policy. We're a small company and if any process breaks down we know where, how, and why immediately if not sooner. I can find no value in measuring, for example, if purchase orders are placed on time, if jobs are released on time, etc. We've done it, found it to be in control for a long enough period of time, and quit doing it because again, no value. I can see where a large, departmentalized company may need to know which link in the chain is causing problems and they get this info from internal metrics, but here we're all involved solely in the three listed above.

Again very valid justification - particularly if you can show that you've been down this particular road and have found no benefit. You can even log it as an improvement that you've stopped wasting time and effort!

I'm sure the auditor is going to try to give my QA Director another finding, then they're going to come to me to see why top management didn't establish these lower level objectives and there'll be an hour of my life I'll never get back...

I love the bit about an hour of your life .....

Certainly if you can get your QD to prepare the case before the auditor comes in it could head off the wasted hour. He / she should explain to the auditor that your organization has reviewed the previous findings and found they are unjustified. If the auditor can show what clause of the standard your practises have been found to be non compliant with then he / she can make the case to your QD and apply for an interview with you. Don't be afraid to use the threat of contacting the CB's management with a complaint and to have them replaced.

Oh yeah, and:

We never ship anything late and have exceptional customer quality ratings.
Our internal defect rates have gone down (from when I started here 19 mos. ago and implemented this QMS) and are stable.
Our employees are happy.

Looks like you have some effective measures.

Am I missing something here, still, or am I rightly prepared to defend my interpretation and perspective?

Without the exact wording of the N/C it is impossible to give you a 100% answer but with the information available I would say you are perfectly within your rights to defend your company's position.

 

[CliffK]

The auditor's statement about needing more quality objectives may not have been a finding. Many times these observations come out of the auditor's mouth during the audit; sometimes they show up in the narrative of an audit report.

Some folks take these statements as precursors of future findings (fix this or I'll gitcha next time), or as Good Things to do, just because an auditor said them. Most egregious example I know of: an organization changed the words "quality control" to "quality assurance" in approximately 30 documents because an auditor indicated a preference for the latter term.

ISO 9001 says you must have quality objectives for the relevant levels and functions. You get to decide what is relevant and what is not.

If the auditor disagrees with you, the burden of proof falls on him, not you. It's up to him to show the adverse effects of having "too few" quality objectives.

 

[Tym Tucker]

Thanks for the replies Covers!

I failed to mention in my original post that we weren't given a NC, it was just an observation listed as a "system weakness" and these "opportunities for improvement" would be reviewed at the next audit. That's why I wanted to make sure we did indeed have a full understanding of the requirement and that we could effectively communicate that we were meeting it in a way that was meaningful to our business. I appreciate the feedback!

Tym Tucker