Wherever the ISO9001 Standard is discussed, the one certain
item will be that of Improvement. Most often considered is
the Continual Improvement requirement of the ISO Standard
(section 8) or possible improvements to the Standard
itself. This latter particularly at the present time as we
await the publication of ISO9001:2008.
Seldom heard is any discussion on the fundamentals of
Quality Management as it is determined by individual
organisations, both within and without the ISO 9001
registration scheme. It is this that is discussed within
this short article.
Since the earliest days of structured Quality Management
Systems it has been an established practice to appoint a
Head of Quality function, normally but not always as a
'Quality Manager'. The proposition to be made here is that
this post is both unnecessary and frequently an encumbrance
to effective management.
Unnecessary because the requirements for ISO registration
do not demand it, and because at both the individual and
functional level this appointee does not in any real way
manage Quality. Manufacturing managers, accountants, sales
and marketing managers etc, are individually and
collectively responsible for the quality of their
management and delivery of the outputs of their function.
At the time of individual or corporate performance
assessment there is no escape from this responsibility.
Certainly the quality management is not renowned for
accepting responsibility for any deficiency in the quality
of performance at that time!
An encumbrance because despite this lack of accountability
for functional department performance, quality managers
through the activities of their staff occupy a position of
control, invariably negative, that takes from accountable
staff the authority to exercise the necessary authority in
furtherance of departmental business objectives. A classic
example of this can be seen across every industry in the
management of supplier selection. Typically purchases in
support of product development or production require the
selection of one or more suppliers. Purchasing agents are
mandated to select suppliers and agree terms for supply of
the required product or service, and are judged - and
sometimes remunerated - against their performance
achievement. However, their selection of a supply source
is commonly governed by a requirement to have a selected
supplier 'assessed' by the Quality function(a.k.a. the
Quality Manager) to determine suitability. This
determination is frequently an unproductive exercise, with
no measurable benefit, that results in significant
additional costs and delays that could be avoided. The
outcome of this appraisal process is often the rejection of
the proposed supplier by people with no responsibility or
accountability for their decision. Similar situations
exist internal to the organisation in the area of deviation
control (concessions) and internal audit. The overriding
issue is that responsibility for decision making has been
largely taken from those who will be held accountable for
the decision, and given to those ill equipped to make the
decision and with no responsibility for the outcome.
The proposed solution to this management structure weakness
is to re-allocate existing QA staff to those managers and
departments utilising the services provided. For example,
in this scenario vendor assessments would be performed at
the behest of the procurement function, which would manage
the staff and alone be responsible for determining actions
consequential to the assessment. This arrangement is then
to be repeated across the organisation wherever QA staff
are utilised and could be re-located.
The previous Quality Department would at that point cease
to exist. To satisfy the real need for some central
documentation management, and to act as a central resource
for internal audit of the management system, the post of
System Integrity manager/controller could be established,
with a clear responsibility for reporting on the integrity
and continued applicability of any documented management
system, with perhaps an ongoing responsibility for
representing the system status to visiting auditors and
customers.
There remains the question of providing an effective
internal quality system audit. This is a difficult issue
even in a well resourced enterprise, due to conflicting
calls on the available staff. The only satisfactory
solution to this is the outsourcing of the internal audit
task, and maybe the entire system integrity responsibility.
By so doing the audit requirement is satisfied, delivered
on time, by professional auditors, and at a cost that in
real terms is less than that of using occasional internal
auditors.
There are no obvious disadvantages here to this proposed
change. Managers with responsibility for any aspect of
quality (and don't they all have this) will have the
resources and authority to deliver on that responsibility.
Displaced QA staff will be located closer to the need for
their services, and can be seen to deliver value or move
on. The new position of System Integrity manager could be
a development post with high visibility for any suitable
candidate with a potential for higher office, while an
outsourced internal audit should bring an improved focus on
business needs rather than the more usual nit-picking
comments on minor breaches of procedure, as that is the
norm for so many audit reports.
----------------------------------------------------
Meon Consulting, founded by Ed Bones, was formed to assist
clients with managing their businesses in a manner
compliant with ISO9001/14001. Ed had earlier held a number
of senior posts with Hi-Tech companies in the UK, Europe
and USA. He has written and lectured on full range of
topics on quality improvement and TQM.
http://www.rent-an-auditor.co.uk .To obtain your FREE
Presentation please visit
http://www.rent-an-auditor.co.uk/contactus.html
No comments:
Post a Comment