What are your 'Quality Objectives'?

[Tupham - 2008]

Wow! I started a storm - fantastic! And I've gained even more insights to help me in drafting our "quality" objectives. Thanks, everyone!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

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.

A heartfelt response. For those who follow my take on management systems, I have stated several times in the Cove that an integrated approach to manage an organization is the way to go. Undoubtedly there are many synergies between Q,E & S. Many quality initiatives can have positive impacts on E&S and vice versa.

However, as I tried to explain, at times, there will be conflicting objectives. Besides the example I have already offered, let me mention another one which is very current. As part of the European drive to reduce and restrict hazardous substances, we are using lead-free components and solder in electronic equipment. Many experts are concerned about the long-term performance of lead-free solder. Some are even mentioning a significant increase in product failures, due to the changes. Time will tell. However, if the problem is real, that would be a clear case where we try to improve one thing, reduction of hazardous substances in this case, and, unintentionally we suffer a quality problem, such as reduced MTBF.

On top of that, in the world of management system assessment and certification, for the most part, it is a segmented approach. It is not a matter of pigeon hole objectives, but make sure you comply with a standard you want to demonstrate compliance with. So, if you hire me to verify your system against ISO 9001 and you present me objectives related to EPA NOV's or OSHA reportable incidents and accidents, you are showing me apples when I ask for oranges.

 

[ccochran]

I've taught my clients to reject all potential auditors who insist on traditional 'quality objectives.' Whatever helps drive the quality of the organization's results is a potential quality objective. It could be environmental compliance or it could be reduction of product defects, or it could be one of a thousand other things. It all depends on the organization and their challenges.

A registrar actually wrote this audit nonconformity against one of my clients recently: "2 out of your 4 quality objectives were not sufficiently quality related." Needless to say, the nonconformity was appealed and my client prevailed. They also found a new registrar.

Craig

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I've taught my clients to reject all potential auditors who insist on traditional 'quality objectives.' Whatever helps drive the quality of the organization's results is a potential quality objective. It could be environmental compliance or it could be reduction of product defects, or it could be one of a thousand other things. It all depends on the organization and their challenges.

A registrar actually wrote this audit nonconformity against one of my clients recently: "2 out of your 4 quality objectives were not sufficiently quality related." Needless to say, the nonconformity was appealed and my client prevailed. They also found a new registrar.

Craig

Craig, do you diagree that an overly biased focus on profit growth could lead to quality problems?

 

[Old Quality Gal]

Craig, do you diagree that an overly biased focus on profit growth could lead to quality problems?

I know you asked Craig but I am in agreement with him and give my clients the same advice.
I think of compliance as a sliding scale with noncompliance on one end and most people are all over that scale trying to slide to the other end, aggressive compliance.
I agree that you can have purely business objectives that take their toll on quality. What comes to mind is a chap whose name I think was Lorenzo and he was first praised for a slash and burn approach to supplier management at Volkswagen a few years ago.
His tactics just rushed right to the bottom line......at first. They ultimately were so shortsighted and punitive they ran some suppliers out of business completely and reduced a productive stable, quality oriented supplier base to rubble. It took them years to rebuild.
Like every awful business robber baron he was snatched up by another company, GM I think but not sure and finally faded into oblivion. Or at least I lost track of him.
I think it is fair to say that business goals should most certainly have some sort of vetting process for ethics and long term potential impact good and ill.
Regards,
Mary

 

[Madfox]

I totally disagree with several of my co-posters.

It's quite often that I see business objectives placed under the "quality objective" umbrella. I don't write a non-conformance, I simply discuss it with the client, and if the meeting/exceeding of said objective doesn't result in a more-satisfied client, I just "don't go there!"

Been wrong before. See inventory turns alot and questioned one company who had it as an objective. Hey, it's in place to refresh raw material with a limited shelf-life...no problem!

Come on, think about it. Why do you see business objectives under the quality objective umbrella? Because it's usually the first time this organization has had a formal program of goals, objectives, etc. I was just at a company where the QM manager wrote a NC against the sales manager cause they didn't make their sales goal for a specific quota. Sure, it was done with the president's OK, but I mentioned to the QM that I wasn't comfortable with the QMS being utilized this way. (And for all those business objective devotees, would you be comfortable signing off on a response to a NC from the CFO or controller?)

Second big point...On a daily basis I see disconnects between quality and profitability. Case in point, two weeks ago. Each operator drops off his/her first piece at the quality shop and waits by the machine until approved. My first response; "can't you kind of trust the people who have been here 20+ years, and assume their parts are OK?" "Nope!"
I mentioned this to a ex-Big 3 type just today..."I've seen this before, all the operators coordinate their drop-offs to overload the QA dept., and they get even more time to read the paper!"

I'm a finance-type, even taught it, and would love to discuss inventory turns, cash flow, etc. But, I'm there to audit to the ISO 9001:2000 standard, not GAAP!

ISO is not, and never was, meant to improve efficiency or profitability.
(Ref ISO 9001:2000 1.1...nothing about $) The ISO founding fathers were omniscient enough to include the word "appropriate" in vital areas.

The Madfox

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Hypothetical scenario:

The 4 following are the presented "quality objectives":

1. Improve sales
2. Improve profit
3. Reduce energy consumption
4. Reduce accidents

When interviewed about working towards these objectives, management explains that for objective # 1, they plan to invest heavily in marketing. Objectives 2, 3 and 4 will be pursued by outsourcing ALL the manufacturing to a low cost supplier in Bongo-Bongo. None of the actions are aimed at improving customer satisfaction, product performance, etc...Actually by outsourcing all the production to a low cost supplier, chances are, new quality problems will be introduced, and quality will suffer.

I am all for non-traditional quality objectives. But to accept anything as a quality objective, irrespective of it's contribution to customer satisfaction or quality performance is not is not in line with the underlying concept of quality objectives.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I've taught my clients to reject all potential auditors who insist on traditional 'quality objectives.'

While I'm all for selecting a registrar that understands your business and who you can work with I'm not sure about your advice here. The registrar / CB has a responsibility to assess the effectiveness of your QMS. Full stop / period. Unless you contract with them to assess something else, EMS, OHSMS, etc., etc.

Whatever helps drive the quality of the organization's results is a potential quality objective.

It is a case of cause and effect (or, in the case of the European Business Excellence Model enablers vs. results). By setting and tracking quality objectives you hope this leads to an improvement in market share, profitability etc. But profitability, market share are not "quality" objectives. For reasons listed earlier.

It could be environmental compliance or it could be reduction of product defects, or it could be one of a thousand other things. It all depends on the organization and their challenges.

All of these objectives in your original poll may be objectives of the business - it doesn't make them "quality."

A registrar actually wrote this audit nonconformity against one of my clients recently: "2 out of your 4 quality objectives were not sufficiently quality related." Needless to say, the nonconformity was appealed and my client prevailed. They also found a new registrar.

Craig

Without knowing the context I can't comment here. It is certainly badly written. The issue identified by your old registrar might have been better written as:

"There was insufficient evidence of quality objectives at relevant functions and levels (although there were other non-quality objectives available in the business)."

BTW. Great thread!

 

[ccochran]

ISO 9000:2000 defines a nonconformity as a "non-fulfilment of a requirement." So, in order to have an audit nonconformity, you have to find a requirement that the identified conditions do not meet. The problem with all of these angles is that there are no specific requirements in ISO 9001 around the 'qualityness' of quality objectives.

It's helpful to remind ourselves of the requirements related to quality objectives in ISO 9001:2000:

1. They must be documented (4.2.1 a)
2. Their establishment must be ensured by top management (5.1 c)
3. They must include those objectives needed to meet requirements for product (5.4.1)
4. They must be established at relevant functions and levels (5.4.1)
5. They must be measurable (5.4.1)
6. They must be consistent with the quality policy (5.4.1)
7. Planning must be carried out to meet quality objectives (5.4.2 a)
8. They must be covered during management review (5.6.1)
9. Personnel must be aware of how they contribute to the achievement of quality objectives (6.2.2 d)
10. In planning product realization, the organization must determine quality objectives for product, as appropriate (7.1 a)
11. The organization must improve the QMS through the use of quality objectives, et al. (8.5.1)

Unless we can cite evidence that fails to meet one of these requirements (or some other internal requirements), then we don't have an audit nonconformity. The requirements around quality objectives provide guidance to the organization, but they also give the organization a great deal of discretion regarding what they should address.

We can't audit against opinions and philosophies, we have to audit against requirements.

Craig

 

[ccostello4]

Hello all,
Well for some reason my last post was deleted so let me try agian..
Attached is an example how I measured our Quality Objectives and how I presented them to top management at our quarterly management review.
All objective must be measurable and not out of reach. Dont make objectives unrealistic just to stir the pot in your organization. Objectives are a great tool to achieve continual improvment and customer satisfaction. If they are unrealistic lets say you set On-Time delivery at 100% and you constantly achieve 90% then that objective is unrealistic and should be revised so improvement can be made. 100% is unrealistic for any objective.
I had some great help form my auditors on this and what I have in place is exactly what they were looking for.
Hope this helps.