VP of "Quality" now also manages "Production"

[mguilbert]

Based on your replies it seems this person has a very strong QA background and understands the importance of the standards and quality. In the last few years we lost two QA Directors. They are both now VPs over different sides of production. They both make decision with quality in mind. I would take a wait and see perspective. If quality goes down and the contratual needs are not met then you can decide what pressure needs to be applied to the supplier to improve quality.

Hope this helps.

 

[db]

Based on your replies it seems this person has a very strong QA background and understands the importance of the standards and quality...

I agree, this could be a very positive thing. I would much rather see someone with a quality background taking over production, than someone with a production background taking over quality. Time will tell.

 

[bmwquality]

Both sceanarios are equally concerning to me. I have a CQM+CRE+CQE but I don't actively work in the quality profession today. Without competent management and execution of the production activities, Quality Assurance will denigrate to Quality Control and then I'll have new problems to face.

This new management scheme obviously concerns me and is very rarely seen within the Tier-1 supply chain.

 

[TPMB4]

This is a strange situation to my novice eyes. A big name car manufacturer like BMW is finding they have little or no ability to influence a supplier. A Tier 1 contract which seems to favour the supplier a lot more than the customer. A customer who has very little control over their own tooling just because it is on a supplier's site.

I work for a Tier2 or 3 company and we basically dance to the tune of every customer (apart from the very small ones who we service well but work in partnership with). We do get our wins but if the customer insists we have to cave. Why? Because they take their business elsewhere. I don't know why you can't. Even taking a part of it away could help.

Of course my first suggestions should have been to try and work with the supplier. Give it time and help guide them along. It might work very well indeed and you have a better situation with them. It might fail and they step back a bit. Either way there is a benefit to a Quality guy going into Production although the concern is this is the top guy and he is keeping Quality as well. The benefit I see is someone who has committed him or herself to Quality for a long time will be invested with the principles of Quality Assurance through their very marrow. They may well make production decisions with a weather eye on quality. Isn't that a good thing?

Downsides are mostly down to the fact that he might be poor with the production side of his new role. If that is happening then no matter how good his Quality credentials are he will fail in production side which means quality will also suffer.

I still struggle with the balance of the relationship between supplier and customer that I perceive you to have from your posts so far. Could be reading it wrong.

 

[bmwquality]

No, you aren't reading this wrong. I have a very 'unique' situation with this particular supplier in that I have a legally binding contract to which we both must follow. I cannot remove and relocate tooling on my whim, as I can with any other supplier. My hands are tied. The supplier is also bound by performance metrics, which only if not met, allow me to move tooling.

 

[PaulJSmith]

Surely there is no conflict of interest in the arrangements here?

While it may seem that way in theory, the reality is quite different when you've actually experienced it first-hand. Perhaps my negative experience has unduly colored my view, but I still have doubts about the wisdom of combining these two positions. You simply cannot be true to both in the real world and still be effective in both. When a decision must be made, one guy will be making that decision, and what might be a formidable argument from a separate Quality Manager will likely go unheard.

Just my opinion.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

You simply cannot be true to both in the real world and still be effective in both.

I understand your concern, but, as Jim Wynne mentioned the organizational structure is secondary to the corporate ethos.

In my way of thinking, the most forward thinking and progressive organizations would NOT NEED a separate quality department or function because quality would be seamlessly embedded in the business process and decision making cycle.

To me, the argument that quality and production responsibilities are normally in opposing sides is archaic.

Obviously, the supplier in question might be combining the responsibilities for the wrong reasons, but we can not assume that the organizational arrangement being proposed is, in itself, bad.