What are your 'Quality Objectives'?

[Jim Wynne]

Howdy, folks:

I had an idea for an interesting poll. What are the most common 'quality objectives'? Of course, you might not call them quality objectives, but everybody here has some kind of measurables that they're tracking and trying to improve. I was a little constrained by the fact that the poll could only accomodate 14 choices, but I tried to consolidate the most common ones I see, though. Thanks to Al Dyer for inspiring this discussion.

Craig

I think you need to add this objective, culled from a recent post by a particularly insightful contributer:

'Get mo better'

 

[RoxaneB]

Could you please attach an example or send it PVT?

regards!

Unfortunately, I am unable to send a specific example as all objectives, metrics, goals, etc. are maintained in a software program exclusive to our organization. I tried to explain the drill down methodology in my previous post in this thread, however, if you require more information, please feel free to ask here or Private Message me and I shall do my best to explain.

 

[qualeety]

Another managment review form found

the credit goes to the unknown author (not sure where i got this from)

 

[Tupham - 2008]

I remember seeing previous discussions on whether "$" can be used as objectives.

My

This is an 80-year-old family owned company just now embarking on ISO 9001 certification. It's one of those "let's do it because it's a good idea" projects, so the KPIs we have in place at present are based around a staff bonus scheme. The targets are mostly percentage increases in gross profit, sales to budget and sales to last year, reduction in outstanding debtors, and a few others. I will be putting some controversial ideas forward when I can manage to get a management meeting organised - phrases like "customer satisfaction", which is currently unheard of.

I will be spending some time reading the threads you mention. Thanks!

 

[qualeety]

am getting tired of semantics....

This is an 80-year-old family owned company just now embarking on ISO 9001 certification. It's one of those "let's do it because it's a good idea" projects, so the KPIs we have in place at present are based around a staff bonus scheme. The targets are mostly percentage increases in gross profit, sales to budget and sales to last year, reduction in outstanding debtors, and a few others. I will be putting some controversial ideas forward when I can manage to get a management meeting organised - phrases like "customer satisfaction", which is currently unheard of.

I will be spending some time reading the threads you mention. Thanks!

Am i the only one who is getting sick and tire of samentics...walking around in a circle...without going anywhere...(don't tell me about spiral theory )

i think tupham's company got the RIGHT idea, although it is politically incorrect.

customer satisfaction and process efficiencies are great objectives...but THE ONLY OBJECTIVE FOR ANY COMPANY SHOULD BE SURVIVAL...without that, everything is meaningless...sadly, no companieswant to disappear...when you think about it...all companies act as a living organism...want to grow and survive...

so how do they survive?....... by "constant cash flow / profit"...of course, you can improve customer satisfaction or improve efficiencies or many other means...but the bottom line is.....DID WE MAKE/COLLECT ENOUGH MONEY TO SURVIVE....for this reason, i think monetary objectives are much more meaning for employees than "typical quality objectives as listed"

example: monthly charting of "possible year end bonus" vs "customer returns"...which one would be more effective and motivating force for the employees?

of course, there are many obstaicles...sharing actual financial info with employees is no no in many companies...thus, we have to play this game of "quality objectives" or other measures.....

BTW, has anyone seen a mission statement or policy statement saying....WE ARE HERE TO MAKE MONEY TO DO GOOD THINGS (like lining pockets of CEO and upper management)

Sidenote: I saw a tombstone with the following inscription: "I WAS A SINNER"...how true is that, huh?

 

[Old Quality Gal]

"customer satisfaction and process efficiencies are great objectives...but THE ONLY OBJECTIVE FOR ANY COMPANY SHOULD BE SURVIVAL...without that, everything is meaningless...sadly, no companies want to disappear...when you think about it...all companies act as a living organism...want to grow and survive...

so how do they survive?....... by "constant cash flow / profit"...of course, you can improve customer satisfaction or improve efficiencies or many other means...but the bottom line is.....DID WE MAKE/COLLECT ENOUGH MONEY TO SURVIVE....for this reason, i think monetary objectives are much more meaning for employees than "typical quality objectives as listed"

example: monthly charting of "possible year end bonus" vs "customer returns"...which one would be more effective and motivating force for the employees?"

Well said! All of our objectives are required to be mapped into alignment with revenue and compensation and impact on the cost of doing business.
That is not to say that we don't make conscious decisions to impact short term cost factors for projected long term gains!
I think it is the perceived estrangement between "Quality Objectives" and "Business Objectives" and considering making money politically incorrect that turns many business managers off to many quality and continual improvement programs ( I said many not all).
There is a clear line between ruthless, unethical business nastiness and pragmatic business centric objectives. I think it is not productive to require that quality objectives pass some test of altruism to be considered legitimate and productive.
Regards,
Mary

 

[ccochran]

This is generating exactly the spirited debate I hoped it would. I personally believe the term 'quality objectives' is one of the most unfortunate and misleading terms in business.

Craig

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I personally believe the term 'quality objectives' is one of the most unfortunate and misleading terms in business.

Craig

We had an interesting discussion along those lines in the Is a Sales Growth Objective a 'Quality' Objective ? thread. In my opinion, quality objectives are required to provide direction to the quality system, which is a subset of the organization business processes. A lot of confusion happens because people want sell the (flawed) idea that ISO 9001 is a business management model. It isn't.

If I were to ask: Is reduction of waste a quality objective? Most people would say: No, that is an environmental objective. An important one, for that matter. But just because it is important, it does not fulfill the definition of what a quality objective is.

Actually, in an attempt to reduce waste, I might design more environmentally friendly packaging material that provides less protection to the product being delivered. Just an example of how an environmental objective might have negative impacts on quality performance. Similarly, profit growth might have negative impacts on quality, etc... That is why management has to assess and balance the different objectives an organization aspires to reach.

 

[Paul Simpson]

We had an interesting discussion along those lines in the Is a Sales Growth Objective a 'Quality' Objective ? thread. In my opinion, quality objectives are required to provide direction to the quality system, which is a subset of the organization business processes. A lot of confusion happens because people want sell the (flawed) idea that ISO 9001 is a business management model. It isn't.

Agree with pretty much all of this until the last phrase. It is true the objectives should be specifically to do with quality, including product quality. However, if a company is using a true integrated management system the systems and processes they have within the system for quality will be imossible to separate out quality from the Business Management System. The ISO 9001 auditor's role then is to look for and separate out the "quality" bits in their own mind and assess the effectiveness of (in this case) the to management's setting of quality objectives (as required by 5.4.1). In the course of doing that I may see objectives relating to many other things but I am looking out for product and process measures that relate to how well requirements are being met. In the original list I saw maybe 4 that could be "quality" others are business (although the "quality" should contribute to the business).

If I were to ask: Is reduction of waste a quality objective? Most people would say: No, that is an environmental objective. An important one, for that matter. But just because it is important, it does not fulfill the definition of what a quality objective is.

Actually if this waste objective is linked to scrap product then it is a true "quality" objective with a knock on on environmental performance.

Actually, in an attempt to reduce waste, I might design more environmentally friendly packaging material that provides less protection to the product being delivered. Just an example of how an environmental objective might have negative impacts on quality performance. Similarly, profit growth might have negative impacts on quality, etc... That is why management has to assess and balance the different objectives an organization aspires to reach.

Too true and this is where good senior managers earn their salt - where they balance the overall objectives based on benefit to the business rather than their own personal interests.

 

[SteelMaiden]

Given: THE ONLY OBJECTIVE FOR ANY COMPANY SHOULD BE SURVIVAL

But, in order to achieve that, you need a plan of action. Part of that plan is (or could be) to gain market share.

After all, with a bigger market share there will be more profit, and more money to spend on other improvments that will affect "quality" maybe new or improved testing equipment, for example?

Reduction of waste? Won't that (or couldn't that) save money, thus increasing profits allowing more money to be bundgeted on improvements that will ultimately improve customer satisfaction, helping to grow market share and on and on?

Environmental, vs. Quality? is there a difference? If you have turned your site into a superfund site, you won't have to worry about making money. You'll be more concerned about staying out of jail. How much product (quality product) will you be producing then? As said earlier, if you are not integrating your systems and teaching your employees that we have to have it all, you are probably going to be the next T-Rex, buh-bye.

We did not create any of our quality objectives as an end all be all. Every one of them was created to help us, which in turn would help the customer. And, yes, one of our objectives is to increase market share. It helps our customers because volume is money, the more we can produce, the more cost effective we are. It costs us several thousand dollars to come up from a dead stop. If we can keep our books full, you, the customer do not have to eat that cost.

My problem is not coming up with objectives...my problem is that auditors try to pigeon hole things into enviro, safety and quality. I have a real hard time separating the three. If my people are getting hurt, or my plant is polluting the world, can I say that we have quality? There are a few of us at the Cove in the same industry here in North America, I know for a fact that we are all dedicated to safety and the environment as well as quality and customer focus. We have far exceeded the requirement in the kyoto (sp?) accord already, quality in the past 15 years far exceeds anything the customers would have dreamed of, and the industry safety record has been steadily improving the past ten years. I think that is quality.