What are your 'Quality Objectives'?

[Sidney Vianna]

So, by May, you ought to get it?

Maybe their quality, errr, business objective is to increase circulation. No objective for timely delivery of the printed magazine...

 

[Paul Simpson]

The problem is that while I agree with that definition, ISO 9001 focuses on the quality of the product and the processes required to make that product to ensure Customer satisfaction. It does not prescribe to the concept of Stakeholder satisfaction - meaning Customer, Community, Team, Suppliers and Shareholders.

Exactly. Can you imagine the issues with getting around 100 countries (and however many individuals) to agree on a standard for "business" it's bad enough getting ISO 9001 reviewed every 5 - 9 years!

So, Organizations work on such quality objectives such as Keep the Customers Happy, Produce Less Rework, Increase Utilization. By keeping these objectives so focused on the Customer, my own experience has shown that the other processes like Safety and Environment have projects and goals, but the clear link as to why we are doing them didn't exist.

This is where we get a clear difference in the posters. People like me like the fact the business has all these good objectives in place but don't want them called "quality" while there are others who want to group all the objectives into a single pot - business objectives. I don't really care what people call them in their own organizations but believe it is important on the Cove that we understand what are business objectives, what are "quality" and what are joint.

Far from confusing the issues, my own experience with my company has shown that the multiple linkages between processes and objectives has helped understanding. Our own operators can look at metric in their area and say not only what they are track and how, but why they track it and who (and what) it impacts.

In assessment there are many companies who have tripped over because their system objectives haven't had enough "quality" in them - precisely because it has been confused, either internally or by their consultant.

The objectives are for the business. The metrics and their control limits or goals are specific to Quality or Safety or Environment or Production and so on.

Are there any top level "quality" objectives?

Unfortunately, by having merely quality objectives, some of our employees said, "That doesn't impact me. I don't touch the product." We didn't like that. So we have a collection of business objectives so that every employee is aware that they play a role within our business...that everyone contributes and everyone is important. Just because an individual may not touch the product, they may have an impact elsewhere. Slowly, our walls between departments and processes are being knocked down and this encourages all of us to move together in the same direction...that is towards the company vision.

I accept what you say about the difficulty in communicating objectives and goals. FWIW I have yet to find any organization where an individual is so far removed from the product / service that an overall objective can't be made meaningful to them.

I've hardly said that I'm blaming the auditor. What I am saying is that they expect me to have something clearly called a quality objective, I will fight that with every fibre of my being.

Can't agree more. As mentioned earlier you can call them what you like internally and although s / he may need some help in understanding your terminology they should be able to align your terms with ISO.

What they should not be required to do is accept business measure in lieu of "quality" objectives. There has to be enough in place to satisfy the ISO clause on quality objectives - in amongst other objectives the business uses.

As you said, there are business objectives with a clear cut quality focus. If our system does not meet the requirements, I can accept that. But I will not make the system pretty just for the auditor because they like things mirroring ISO. When an auditor comes here, some digging and explaining may be required because nothing says ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 or ISRS. Our matrix showing how the requirements of these standards align within our systems helps out, but we will not necessary match the wording of the standard just because the auditor wants it. There is no benefit or value for us to do that.

As above - perfect!

 

[ccochran]

Please also check the new thread and poll I just posted on this topic. It's entitled "Quality objectives - is this an audit nonconformity?"

Craig

 

[JaneB]

A very interesting discussion. Thanks.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Keep an eye out for the February issue of Quality Digest. I'll have an article in there entitled "The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes." One of the biggest mistakes will be Limiting Quality Objectives to Traditional Quality Topics...

Craig

Excellent article, Craig. Well done. And the the picture is great, too.

 

[ccochran]

Sidney,

Thanks so much fo you gracious feedback. You're a kind gentleman. I hadn't seen the finished photograph! That's not my foot or banana peel, though I have stepped on a few...

Craig

 

[Tupham - 2008]

That's not my foot or banana peel, though I have stepped on a few...

Craig

Great article, Craig! Now, to convince top management ....

 

[Don Palmer]

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

Interesting that you mention that you "personally believe the term 'quality objectives' is one of the most unfortunate and misleading terms in business." This term 'quality objectives' is the reason I just did a forum search and found this thread.

I'm getting ready for 'management review'.

This time I'm placing focus on 'business objectives' that could improve because of good quality practices.

Craig, as always thanks for your thoughtful posts. They help practitioners like myself find better ways.

In the past, because I didn't know any better, I used the term 'quality objectives' a lot. I've come to realize it's like slinging poop in the face of company founders and great executive managers. H*ll, we wouldn't be were we are today if it hadn't been for solid business practices (objective) wrapped in healthy blanket of good quality practices (objectives).

Putting quality objectives in front of business objectives is like 'putting the cart in front of the horse. And logic says it's more efficient for a horse to pull a cart then to push it.

My organization has understood quality and it's importance long before the 'Quality Standard' movement became the trend. Agreed, the 'standard' has it's place. But 'business objectives' should not play second fiddle to 'quality objectives'.

Quality objectives should align with business objectives, and not the other way around.

 

[ccochran]

Putting quality objectives in front of business objectives is like 'putting the cart in front of the horse. And logic says it's more efficient for a horse to pull a cart then to push it.

My organization has understood quality and it's importance long before the 'Quality Standard' movement became the trend. Agreed, the 'standard' has it's place. But 'business objectives' should not play second fiddle to 'quality objectives'.

Quality objectives should align with business objectives, and not the other way around.

Don,

Your post really struck me. Wise words, my friend. Your company is lucky to have you leading the charge.

Craig

 

[amanbhai]

one of our quality objective is to get our money back from those clients who beleive that we are a free cummunity service organization with certain terms & conditions.