What is a "Quality Policy"?

[AMIT BALLAL]

@Tyler, Quality policy should provide a framework for setting quality objectives ( as per 5.2.1 b). And the quality objectives derived from this policy has to be measurable (as per clause 6.2.1 b).
This ultimately means the same.

 

[John Broomfield]

Specifying that the quality policy "provides a framework for setting quality objectives" does not mean "policy has quality objectives" but the policy will state what is important to top management and you would expect the management system and its objectives to fulfill what is stated as important.

Usually the policy and the measurable objectives are stated in separate docs but need not be.

 

[John Predmore]

Our company Quality Policy states intentions. The Quality Objectives is a separate document which sets measurable goals. The reason for the 2 separate documents is the Objectives may be updated annually, and while the Policy is reviewed annually, it is updated less often.

The first sentence of our Quality Policy reads "[Company] will provide products which meet or exceed customer requirements and expectations". This translates seamlessly into the first Objective, Customer Acceptance Rate. The first year, the goal might have been >90%. The second year, 94%. The third year, 95%. The third sentence states "...enable employees to do their job right the first time and every time". This translates into a KPI of Yield, and the goal for Yield is typically raised each year as we make improvements.

 

[Mark Meer]

I have to confess: I've always found the requirement for a quality policy to be of questionable value.
In my experience, quality policy statements are typically pretty boilerplate and are often so generic as to apply to any company (e.g. "meet or exceed customer expectations"). The (measurable) objectives, on the other hand, are very useful for monitoring and improvement.

I understand that the objectives are supposed to follow from the policies, but it seems that there is no reason quality objectives couldn't be defined without necessitating first establishing policies.

 

[Jim Wynne]

The first sentence of our Quality Policy reads "[Company] will provide products which meet or exceed customer requirements and expectations".

I have to confess: I've always found the requirement for a quality policy to be of questionable value.
In my experience, quality policy statements are typically pretty boilerplate and are often so generic as to apply to any company (e.g. "meet or exceed customer expectations"). The (measurable) objectives, on the other hand, are very useful for monitoring and improvement.

I understand that the objectives are supposed to follow from the policies, but it seems that there is no reason quality objectives couldn't be defined without necessitating first establishing policies.

There is a vague idea that all quality objectives should somehow be traceable to top management, with "top management" being defined as a person who can change anything they want to change, at any time, without the possibility of being overruled. It makes sense at face value, but I agree that it often devolves into impotent motherhood statements. These things are often written in the passive voice (saying what will be done rather than what is done) and involve a lot of striving. In @John Predmore's example, it would be better (imo, of course) to say "[Company] consistently provides products that meet requirements" and let it go at that.

 

[John Broomfield]

I’m inclined to agree with you, Mark, on quality policy statements, but we’re still emerging from a period when most folk think quality isn’t really manageable. Many still think sorting good product from bad (inspection) will result in better quality.

Witness: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.

So, it may be useful to have top management clarify what they mean when they say their company delivers quality services and products.

As we build maturity of quality management we could perhaps replace the quality policy with the organization’s mission (aka the system’s purpose).

 

[outdoorsNW]

The quality policy is a bureaucratic waste of time that has no correlation to the actual quality of a company's products. Ideally the quality policy would be eliminated as a requirement.

 

[Cari Spears]

There is a vague idea that all quality objectives should somehow be traceable to top management, with "top management" being defined as a person who can change anything they want to change, at any time, without the possibility of being overruled. It makes sense at face value, but I agree that it often devolves into impotent motherhood statements. These things are often written in the passive voice (saying what will be done rather than what is done) and involve a lot of striving. In @John Predmore's example, it would be better (imo, of course) to say "[Company] consistently provides products that meet requirements" and let it go at that.

"...involve a lot of striving." lol

 

[Jim Wynne]

I’m inclined to agree with you, Mark, on quality policy statements, but we’re still emerging from a period when most folk think quality was is really manageable. Many still think sorting good product from bad (inspection) will result in better quality.

Witness: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.

So, it may be useful to have top management clarify what they mean when they say their company delivers quality services and products.

As we build maturity of quality management we could perhaps replace the quality policy with the organization’s mission (aka the system’s purpose).

What would be the point of building maturity of quality management if quality isn't really manageable?

 

[Jim Wynne]

All quality people should read George Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language. There's an observation in it that describes my feelings about most quality policies, and why they're useless: "Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Just substitute "A quality policy" for "Political language."