When Quality Assurance Answers to Production - Who should quality report to?
I liked this dialogue:
Subject: COMMENT: To Org Chart Or Not, To QC or Not /Naish
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:07:45 -0600
From: PNaish
I frequently see this thread or the concept of Quality Control and who they should report to.
Once again I feel obligated to present a concept where there is either no QC or QC does report to production.
My first thought relates to quality Control versus Quality Assurance. I still hear control used alot. This seems strange since ISO focuses on prevention and not on catching it before it gets out. While catching bad product is also important to ensure customer satisfaction the most cost effective measures are prevention not capture.
A second thought is the need for QC or QA as a separate group. A number of my clients have no QC or QA function as such. They simply have another employee check the work being done. They usually do this as a part of the next process while they are performing that next process. This includes packaging checking for the right product codes and the like before putting it into the box. And then Shipping checks the label before putting on the weigh bill. This reduces non value added processing and still allows for verification.
The same thing holds true in manufacturing. One department verifies what they are using is correct before building it into the product or process they are at.
I know some think this is not real world but I can show you companies which practice this religiously. And they are the ones with error rates both internal and external at less than .1% routinely. They can make more profit off less cost by ensuring each step verifies it is correct before going on.
Now back to the idea of QC not reporting to production. If one practices prevention and criteria is clearly defined why is there a problem with QC working for production? This says you can't trust production. If you can't trust production what difference does it make who QC works for since production can always find a way to get it out.
I remember a number of years back when I worked at Intel. We had QC gates after each process including a post packaging audit. We found it funny when we got back three boxes from a customer one month that had been received with nothing in them. And another month the product had a candy bar in it. This was many years ago before ISO and I am sure this does not happen as regularly as it did then. But all the QC did not prevent bad product or in this case missing product from being shipped to the customer.
I also remember my years at RadiSys Corporation when I was the QA Manager. I reported directly to the Director of Manufacturing. At that time all production worked directly for him. I never once had to argue with him about sending out product that was bad quality or did not meet the customer's needs. In fact if there was ever a question and I wasn't around he always had the product reworked just in case. Some of the time I would have shipped it as it met the standards but the workers were being cautious and wanted it to look its best. (The issue was over a slightly tilted component that was not functionally affected by the tilt. It just didn't look as good as it could.) Here again it was a test technician who found it as he was doing his tests and wanted it to be the best it could be. We had no QC doing the inspections but chose to have the technician trained to check it as he went thus reducing non value added processing.
My next point relates to an organizational chart. I prefer having most of our clients have organizational charts as they are good visual aides for employees to see who reports to whom. However, all of the responsibilities and authorities are contained in the procedures, work instructions, and job descriptions. We have two clients who have only a few employees and have chosen in the past not to have an org chart.
The standard does not require an org chart. It simply states that the relationships and authorities need to be clearly defined and implies that those that need to know have access to determine what is required. An org chart is one way of doing it. But I have had a client where the org chart only confuses the issue because they have a great deal of matrix management and a large company with over 700 employees. The structure is complicated and I had suggested they were better off only doing immediate department charts if they do them at all. They are better served by clear procedures and instructions on who to go to for authorities and responsibilities for each of the processes contained in the procedure or instruction. Employees can't follow the org chart but they can follow the procedures and instructions.
My final point is there is no right or wrong answer to this question. It is simply what works for a given company and what doesn't. While the standards may be interpreted one way or another the bottom line to any of this is: does it work for your company? If the answer is no try another method or better yet find out why it doesn't work and develop a plan to either make it work or adjust it so it can work. If all employees are empowered and feel they are a part of the success of the company, they will do a good job and the need for QC is minimized.
Thought: How can you tell a company is successful? The boss can go on vacation for an extended period and the plant runs smoothly and profitably without him.
(That means the boss at any level of the company. If a company depends on the boss or on one person it is doomed to fail when that person leaves. Look at companies that have lasted through centuries and those that have died over night.)
Phyllis
I liked this dialogue:
Subject: COMMENT: To Org Chart Or Not, To QC or Not /Naish
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:07:45 -0600
From: PNaish
I frequently see this thread or the concept of Quality Control and who they should report to.
Once again I feel obligated to present a concept where there is either no QC or QC does report to production.
My first thought relates to quality Control versus Quality Assurance. I still hear control used alot. This seems strange since ISO focuses on prevention and not on catching it before it gets out. While catching bad product is also important to ensure customer satisfaction the most cost effective measures are prevention not capture.
A second thought is the need for QC or QA as a separate group. A number of my clients have no QC or QA function as such. They simply have another employee check the work being done. They usually do this as a part of the next process while they are performing that next process. This includes packaging checking for the right product codes and the like before putting it into the box. And then Shipping checks the label before putting on the weigh bill. This reduces non value added processing and still allows for verification.
The same thing holds true in manufacturing. One department verifies what they are using is correct before building it into the product or process they are at.
I know some think this is not real world but I can show you companies which practice this religiously. And they are the ones with error rates both internal and external at less than .1% routinely. They can make more profit off less cost by ensuring each step verifies it is correct before going on.
Now back to the idea of QC not reporting to production. If one practices prevention and criteria is clearly defined why is there a problem with QC working for production? This says you can't trust production. If you can't trust production what difference does it make who QC works for since production can always find a way to get it out.
I remember a number of years back when I worked at Intel. We had QC gates after each process including a post packaging audit. We found it funny when we got back three boxes from a customer one month that had been received with nothing in them. And another month the product had a candy bar in it. This was many years ago before ISO and I am sure this does not happen as regularly as it did then. But all the QC did not prevent bad product or in this case missing product from being shipped to the customer.
I also remember my years at RadiSys Corporation when I was the QA Manager. I reported directly to the Director of Manufacturing. At that time all production worked directly for him. I never once had to argue with him about sending out product that was bad quality or did not meet the customer's needs. In fact if there was ever a question and I wasn't around he always had the product reworked just in case. Some of the time I would have shipped it as it met the standards but the workers were being cautious and wanted it to look its best. (The issue was over a slightly tilted component that was not functionally affected by the tilt. It just didn't look as good as it could.) Here again it was a test technician who found it as he was doing his tests and wanted it to be the best it could be. We had no QC doing the inspections but chose to have the technician trained to check it as he went thus reducing non value added processing.
My next point relates to an organizational chart. I prefer having most of our clients have organizational charts as they are good visual aides for employees to see who reports to whom. However, all of the responsibilities and authorities are contained in the procedures, work instructions, and job descriptions. We have two clients who have only a few employees and have chosen in the past not to have an org chart.
The standard does not require an org chart. It simply states that the relationships and authorities need to be clearly defined and implies that those that need to know have access to determine what is required. An org chart is one way of doing it. But I have had a client where the org chart only confuses the issue because they have a great deal of matrix management and a large company with over 700 employees. The structure is complicated and I had suggested they were better off only doing immediate department charts if they do them at all. They are better served by clear procedures and instructions on who to go to for authorities and responsibilities for each of the processes contained in the procedure or instruction. Employees can't follow the org chart but they can follow the procedures and instructions.
My final point is there is no right or wrong answer to this question. It is simply what works for a given company and what doesn't. While the standards may be interpreted one way or another the bottom line to any of this is: does it work for your company? If the answer is no try another method or better yet find out why it doesn't work and develop a plan to either make it work or adjust it so it can work. If all employees are empowered and feel they are a part of the success of the company, they will do a good job and the need for QC is minimized.
Thought: How can you tell a company is successful? The boss can go on vacation for an extended period and the plant runs smoothly and profitably without him.
(That means the boss at any level of the company. If a company depends on the boss or on one person it is doomed to fail when that person leaves. Look at companies that have lasted through centuries and those that have died over night.)
Phyllis
The good thing is that both Managers are willing to start working together. They are both from different cultures and see the benifit of not only a visula but a written system like ISO/QS to help learn and grow with Company. Long road ahead. Are there basic job descriptions that I can pull from to form a foundation other than element breakdownsI actualy broke down a listing of responsibility if you would like to view and feed back on.
great topic thankx
