(c) Copyright 2005 Craig Cochran
About 2,400 words.
The easiest way to improve is to learn from the mistakes of other people. Experience has taught me that there are plenty of mistakes out there. The trick is to recognize them and understand what to do in their places. Unfortunately, I keep seeing the same mistakes over and over. They aren't mistakes because they violate a standard like ISO 9001, they're mistakes because they violate good sense. Let's examine the top quality mistakes I run into and see how they can be corrected:
About 2,400 words.
The easiest way to improve is to learn from the mistakes of other people. Experience has taught me that there are plenty of mistakes out there. The trick is to recognize them and understand what to do in their places. Unfortunately, I keep seeing the same mistakes over and over. They aren't mistakes because they violate a standard like ISO 9001, they're mistakes because they violate good sense. Let's examine the top quality mistakes I run into and see how they can be corrected:
Limiting quality objectives to traditional quality topics
The term 'quality objective' is an unfortunate one. It introduces subjectivity (quality) into a subject that should be quite clear (objectives). A better much term would simply be measurable objectives, since that requires less interpretation. The word 'quality' clouds the issue and makes many people want to narrow the focus of what a quality objective can be.
The truth is that quality is related to everything an organization does, and a quality objective can be anything measurable that relates to the organization's success. A quality objective might relate to finances, customer feedback, safety, efficiency, speed, innovation, or anything else. All of these attributes are connected to quality in one way or another. When selecting quality objectives, organizations should examine what matters most to their success. Whether the resulting measure is tied to traditional quality control or quality assurance topics is meaningless. What matters is measuring what will drive excellence.
Holding management reviews once or twice a year
Management review is the process of top management analyzing data, making decisions, and taking action. Ideally, it is a preventive process, since data will hopefully indicate threats before they blossom into full blown problems. If top management is unable to proactively analyze data and prevent problems, then they're not doing their jobs, plain and simple. Holding management reviews once or twice a year ensures that actions taken won't be preventive. Only through timely and frequent review of data can actions be preventive, and once or twice a year won't cut it.
Many people argue that their organizations are already reviewing data on a weekly and monthly data. When the time comes for management review, it's after the fact; the decisions have already been made. This means that management review needs to be rolled into existing meetings. Instead of a twice yearly dog-and-pony show, just cover the inputs and outputs of management review as they occur naturally during existing meetings. Over the course of a month or two, you will have addressed all the required inputs and outputs. The big advantages to this approach are that the information is timely and the resulting actions are preventive. Another advantage is that there's no need for a long, laborious management review anymore. It happens in a smooth and effective manner that's much more likely to drive improvements.The term 'quality objective' is an unfortunate one. It introduces subjectivity (quality) into a subject that should be quite clear (objectives). A better much term would simply be measurable objectives, since that requires less interpretation. The word 'quality' clouds the issue and makes many people want to narrow the focus of what a quality objective can be.
The truth is that quality is related to everything an organization does, and a quality objective can be anything measurable that relates to the organization's success. A quality objective might relate to finances, customer feedback, safety, efficiency, speed, innovation, or anything else. All of these attributes are connected to quality in one way or another. When selecting quality objectives, organizations should examine what matters most to their success. Whether the resulting measure is tied to traditional quality control or quality assurance topics is meaningless. What matters is measuring what will drive excellence.
Holding management reviews once or twice a year
Management review is the process of top management analyzing data, making decisions, and taking action. Ideally, it is a preventive process, since data will hopefully indicate threats before they blossom into full blown problems. If top management is unable to proactively analyze data and prevent problems, then they're not doing their jobs, plain and simple. Holding management reviews once or twice a year ensures that actions taken won't be preventive. Only through timely and frequent review of data can actions be preventive, and once or twice a year won't cut it.
Sending out long, complex customer surveys
The days of the long and complicated customer survey are over. People don't have time to complete them. Even when organizations design shorter surveys, the questions are often confusing and fraught with interpretation problems. The scales that accompany the questions are often unbalanced and illogical. As a result, organizations end up with a small amount of invalid data. Better to have no data at all then data that could lead you in the wrong direction.
Instead of a survey, why not simply ask your customers what they like and don't like? Don't limit their responses to the topics on a survey. Let your customers dictate the content of their feedback through open ended feedback. There are few questions more powerful than the following: What do you like? What do you not like? What would you like to see different in the future? Open ended feedback is also much easier to understand and take action on. A customer satisfaction index of 3.8 is hard to interpret. On the other hand, seven out of ten customers telling you that your website is confusing is very easy to interpret.
Assuming everyone knows what "nonconforming" looks like
When I visit organizations, one of my favorite questions is "Where do you put the nonconforming products?" Control of nonconforming products is one of the most basic kinds of controls, and it speaks volumes about the rest of the controls embraced by the organization. Unfortunately, where I often find nonconforming products is wherever someone decided to leave them. They're not uniquely identified either. In other words, nonconforming products are treated no different than any other products. When I ask why this is happening, the most common answer I get is, "Because everyone knows that's nonconforming!" No, they don't. No matter how nonconforming a product is, they will be someone who won't recognize it as being bad. They will try to use or deliver it. The nonconforming product will end up somewhere it shouldn't, I promise.
Smart organizations positively identify all nonconforming products, and really smart organizations segregate them to remove all chance of accidental use. The stories of bent, broken, and blown-up products that somehow got used anyway are not urban legends-they're true. Error proof your control of nonconforming product process so that nobody has to assume anything.
Failing to utilize the corrective action process
Corrective action is the systematic way to investigate problems, identify their causes, and keep the problems from happening again. Nobody wants problems, but it's essential to have a way of dealing with them when they come up. The more the corrective action process is used, the better the organization gets at addressing its risks and problems. That's why I'm astounded when I hear about organizations avoiding the use of their corrective action process. Of course I always ask why they're doing this, and I often get one of these answers:
* Corrective action is not effective for large problems
* Corrective action is not effective for small problems
* Nobody understands root cause
* Our problem solving tools are confusing
* Our procedure requires too much paperwork
* Corrective action takes too long
* I hate our corrective action form
* Top management frowns on corrective actions because that means someone screwed up
These are not problems of corrective action in general, but problems of the organization's approach to corrective action. An effective corrective action process is typically seamless, simple, and intuitive. The whole point is to add a little structure to problem solving, not to create additional bureaucracy.
Here are some hints for making your corrective action process more user-friendly and effective:
* Strip it down to the essentials. A corrective action needs clear problem description, identification of causes, actions taken to remove causes, results of actions taken, and confirmation that the actions were effective. Only include additional elements when it is proven than they add value.
* Remove all jargon from the process. Strange words only discourage people from wanting to use the process.
* Don't insist on a raft of signatures. It's not necessary that everybody and their mother sign off on every corrective action.
* Remove paper from the process as much as possible. Use electronic media.
* Communicate corrective actions widely. When people see that corrective actions actually accomplish something, they're much more likely to want to participate.
* Provide problem solving tools but give people some discretion in their use. If your procedure requires a
* Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to be completed for every corrective action, it will probably discourage people from opening corrective actions.
* Use teams for corrective actions whenever possible. This gives people experience in the process, and also increases the effectiveness of most solutions. Not all problems are suited to teams, of course, but most are.
Using questionnaires to evaluate suppliers
If you ask me how good I am, I'm going to tell you I'm great. Who wouldn't, especially when his wallet depends on it? The information you get when you ask people to rate themselves is inherently biased. When you ask suppliers to complete a questionnaire, you're definitely asking for biased information. It's no way to evaluate supplier performance.
The best way to evaluate suppliers is the most obvious: track their actual performance against your expectations. Evaluate them the same way you would if you were spending your own money. When evaluating a supplier, the following questions come to mind:
* Did the product or service arrive when promised?
* Was the product damaged?
* Was the quantity and identification correct?
* Did the product or service meet all performance requirements?
* Are the supplier representatives knowledgeable?
* Were problems resolved adequately?
* Was billing accurate and timely?
Capture information on supplier performance in real time, not weeks or months after the fact. Make the process for capturing the information simple and streamlined, and you'll find that the value of the data increases significantly. Then you might actually be able to help your suppliers improve their performance, which is the point of collecting the information in the first place.
Applying document control to official documents only
Most organizations do a decent job of controlling "official" documents. You know: the procedures and work instructions that form the core of the management system. These are often written, signed off, and issued according to very specific guidelines. What organizations don't do such a good job on is controlling the unofficial documents, many of which are even more important than the official documents. What am I talking about? Here are some examples that are often found posted in production areas:
* Post-it notes with special requirement written on them
* Memos that include procedural steps
* Emails with customer specifications
* Photographs showing what product should look like
* Drawings indicating how product components fit together
* Samples of product showing defect limits
* Product recipes written on scraps of paper
These informational resources become documents when they are shared and posted in production areas for people to use. These 'point of use' documents are some of the most important documents within an organization. They are distributed and posted in a hurry-usually without control-because the information they communicate is considered critical. Nobody can quibble with the speed of distribution, but the lack of control guarantees problems later on. I've seen ten-year-old memos posted in organizations that exhorted personnel to carry out obsolete job steps. When documents aren't controlled, mistakes and nonconformities are inevitable. Make sure to apply document control to all documents, and scrutinize your document control process to make sure it's streamlined and effective.
Focusing audits on petty details
Auditing is the process of comparing actual operations against to the commitments the organization has made. It is a simple, fact-driven process that can generate huge improvements. These improvements only come if auditors focus on the right things, though. Too often, internal auditors preoccupy with petty details and neglect the big issues. Why would internal auditors do this? Because they're uncomfortable examining the big, strategic issues. It's much easier just to nitpick. Organizations rarely provide enough training and skill building to their internal auditors, so it's no wonder auditors aren't prepared to carry out their duties to the fullest.
A robust internal auditing process examines make-or-break issues. Here are just a few of the things internal auditors should probe in detail:
* Customer satisfaction: Is the organization capturing and analyzing customer satisfaction data? How is the organization acting on the data? Do trends show improvements in customer satisfaction?
* Management review: Does management review happen as planned? Does the necessary information and data get reviewed? What actions result?
* Corrective action: Is corrective action applied to existing nonconformities? Is it timely? Does evidence indicate that causes are removed to prevent recurrence?
* Preventive action: Does the organization take preventive action based on data and information? Is it effective?
* Internal audits: Are audits scheduled and carried out based on status, importance, and prior audit results?
* Do audit nonconformities become corrective actions? Is the entire scope of the management system audited?
* Objectives: Are objectives established and communicated? Do employees understand how they can contribute to objectives? Is the organization meeting its objectives?
* Control of nonconforming products: Are all nonconformities positively identified? Are dispositions carried out as required? Are trends analyzed for improvement?
There are of course many other important issues an audit process could examine. The point is that internal auditors should go after the big hitters-the things that really affect the organization's success. Focusing on petty details serves no purpose but to disillusion everyone about the purpose of audits.
Training some types of personnel, but not all
Training is at once a soft process and a hard process. It is soft in that it deals with people and human dynamics, and it's hard in that it directly affects the conformity of products. Most organizations recognize this fact and provide significant training to hourly production personnel. Salaried and managerial personnel are often neglected, however. Why? Because there is a perception that their actions don't affect product conformity. This is a serious error.
All personnel must be included within the training process. Salaried and managerial personnel need more-not less-training, since their decisions and actions have more lasting impacts. When an hourly employee makes a mistake, it could cost money. When a top manager makes a mistake, it could put us out of business. Doesn't it make sense to train these people? Do it early and often.
Doing anything just because an external auditor told you to
External auditors wield great influence. Their statements and judgments can have a lasting impact on the way the organization conducts its business. This can be good or bad. Usually, it's bad. Most external auditors working for a registrar are removed from the realities of running a business. They travel from organization to organization, gradually collecting paradigms about the way a management system should be implemented, maintained, and improved. These paradigms are sometimes reflected back to the organization in the form of recommendations or nonconformities.
In my travels to companies, I'll often ask people why they're carrying out a process the way they are. I always raise this question when the process seems unwieldy or illogical. In a surprising number of cases, the answer will be, "Because the external auditor said we should do it that way." What a waste. Never do anything just because an auditor would like it done that way. A certificate on the wall isn't worth it.
About the author
Craig Cochran is the North Metro Regional Manager with Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute. He's the author of Customer Satisfaction: Tools, Techniques and Formulas for Success, The Continual Improvement Process: From Strategy to the Bottom Line, and Becoming a Customer Focused Organization, all available from Paton Press (www.patonpress.com). Craig can be reached at craig.cochran@edi.gatech.edu. Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute can be reached at www.edi.gatech.edu or 888-272-2104.
* Strip it down to the essentials. A corrective action needs clear problem description, identification of causes, actions taken to remove causes, results of actions taken, and confirmation that the actions were effective. Only include additional elements when it is proven than they add value.
* Remove all jargon from the process. Strange words only discourage people from wanting to use the process.
* Don't insist on a raft of signatures. It's not necessary that everybody and their mother sign off on every corrective action.
* Remove paper from the process as much as possible. Use electronic media.
* Communicate corrective actions widely. When people see that corrective actions actually accomplish something, they're much more likely to want to participate.
* Provide problem solving tools but give people some discretion in their use. If your procedure requires a
* Failure Modes and Effects Analysis to be completed for every corrective action, it will probably discourage people from opening corrective actions.
* Use teams for corrective actions whenever possible. This gives people experience in the process, and also increases the effectiveness of most solutions. Not all problems are suited to teams, of course, but most are.
Using questionnaires to evaluate suppliers
If you ask me how good I am, I'm going to tell you I'm great. Who wouldn't, especially when his wallet depends on it? The information you get when you ask people to rate themselves is inherently biased. When you ask suppliers to complete a questionnaire, you're definitely asking for biased information. It's no way to evaluate supplier performance.
The best way to evaluate suppliers is the most obvious: track their actual performance against your expectations. Evaluate them the same way you would if you were spending your own money. When evaluating a supplier, the following questions come to mind:
* Did the product or service arrive when promised?
* Was the product damaged?
* Was the quantity and identification correct?
* Did the product or service meet all performance requirements?
* Are the supplier representatives knowledgeable?
* Were problems resolved adequately?
* Was billing accurate and timely?
Capture information on supplier performance in real time, not weeks or months after the fact. Make the process for capturing the information simple and streamlined, and you'll find that the value of the data increases significantly. Then you might actually be able to help your suppliers improve their performance, which is the point of collecting the information in the first place.
Applying document control to official documents only
Most organizations do a decent job of controlling "official" documents. You know: the procedures and work instructions that form the core of the management system. These are often written, signed off, and issued according to very specific guidelines. What organizations don't do such a good job on is controlling the unofficial documents, many of which are even more important than the official documents. What am I talking about? Here are some examples that are often found posted in production areas:
* Post-it notes with special requirement written on them
* Memos that include procedural steps
* Emails with customer specifications
* Photographs showing what product should look like
* Drawings indicating how product components fit together
* Samples of product showing defect limits
* Product recipes written on scraps of paper
These informational resources become documents when they are shared and posted in production areas for people to use. These 'point of use' documents are some of the most important documents within an organization. They are distributed and posted in a hurry-usually without control-because the information they communicate is considered critical. Nobody can quibble with the speed of distribution, but the lack of control guarantees problems later on. I've seen ten-year-old memos posted in organizations that exhorted personnel to carry out obsolete job steps. When documents aren't controlled, mistakes and nonconformities are inevitable. Make sure to apply document control to all documents, and scrutinize your document control process to make sure it's streamlined and effective.
Focusing audits on petty details
Auditing is the process of comparing actual operations against to the commitments the organization has made. It is a simple, fact-driven process that can generate huge improvements. These improvements only come if auditors focus on the right things, though. Too often, internal auditors preoccupy with petty details and neglect the big issues. Why would internal auditors do this? Because they're uncomfortable examining the big, strategic issues. It's much easier just to nitpick. Organizations rarely provide enough training and skill building to their internal auditors, so it's no wonder auditors aren't prepared to carry out their duties to the fullest.
A robust internal auditing process examines make-or-break issues. Here are just a few of the things internal auditors should probe in detail:
* Customer satisfaction: Is the organization capturing and analyzing customer satisfaction data? How is the organization acting on the data? Do trends show improvements in customer satisfaction?
* Management review: Does management review happen as planned? Does the necessary information and data get reviewed? What actions result?
* Corrective action: Is corrective action applied to existing nonconformities? Is it timely? Does evidence indicate that causes are removed to prevent recurrence?
* Preventive action: Does the organization take preventive action based on data and information? Is it effective?
* Internal audits: Are audits scheduled and carried out based on status, importance, and prior audit results?
* Do audit nonconformities become corrective actions? Is the entire scope of the management system audited?
* Objectives: Are objectives established and communicated? Do employees understand how they can contribute to objectives? Is the organization meeting its objectives?
* Control of nonconforming products: Are all nonconformities positively identified? Are dispositions carried out as required? Are trends analyzed for improvement?
There are of course many other important issues an audit process could examine. The point is that internal auditors should go after the big hitters-the things that really affect the organization's success. Focusing on petty details serves no purpose but to disillusion everyone about the purpose of audits.
Training some types of personnel, but not all
Training is at once a soft process and a hard process. It is soft in that it deals with people and human dynamics, and it's hard in that it directly affects the conformity of products. Most organizations recognize this fact and provide significant training to hourly production personnel. Salaried and managerial personnel are often neglected, however. Why? Because there is a perception that their actions don't affect product conformity. This is a serious error.
All personnel must be included within the training process. Salaried and managerial personnel need more-not less-training, since their decisions and actions have more lasting impacts. When an hourly employee makes a mistake, it could cost money. When a top manager makes a mistake, it could put us out of business. Doesn't it make sense to train these people? Do it early and often.
Doing anything just because an external auditor told you to
External auditors wield great influence. Their statements and judgments can have a lasting impact on the way the organization conducts its business. This can be good or bad. Usually, it's bad. Most external auditors working for a registrar are removed from the realities of running a business. They travel from organization to organization, gradually collecting paradigms about the way a management system should be implemented, maintained, and improved. These paradigms are sometimes reflected back to the organization in the form of recommendations or nonconformities.
In my travels to companies, I'll often ask people why they're carrying out a process the way they are. I always raise this question when the process seems unwieldy or illogical. In a surprising number of cases, the answer will be, "Because the external auditor said we should do it that way." What a waste. Never do anything just because an auditor would like it done that way. A certificate on the wall isn't worth it.
About the author
Craig Cochran is the North Metro Regional Manager with Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute. He's the author of Customer Satisfaction: Tools, Techniques and Formulas for Success, The Continual Improvement Process: From Strategy to the Bottom Line, and Becoming a Customer Focused Organization, all available from Paton Press (www.patonpress.com). Craig can be reached at craig.cochran@edi.gatech.edu. Georgia Tech's Economic Development Institute can be reached at www.edi.gatech.edu or 888-272-2104.
Comments :
Post a Comment