ISO 9001 - Your Management Representative

As part of ISO 9001:2008, clause 5.5.2, the standard requires that Top Management appoint a member of management to serve as the Management Representative for the organization’s Quality Management System.

Expanding upon this requirement, we can consider this appointment to include the responsibility and authority to manage, monitor, evaluate and coordinate the organization’s quality management system as necessary to meet customer and other requirements and to achieve specified quality objectives. This individual would also then be responsible for communicating with Top Management, as well as the customer and other interested parties on matters pertaining to the organization’s quality management system (see ISO 9004:2000 also).

This appointment is typically documented by Top Management (e.g., President, CEO, COO, etc.) in the form of an appointment letter or other similar written statement; however direct reference within the organization’s quality manual is an equally acceptable method. In the later case, the responsibility and authority is not delegated to a particular individual, but rather to a particular position/title within the organization’s management structure, which is then assumed by an individual when they are assigned to this particular role.

Specifically, as stated within the ISO 9001 standard, the responsibilities of a Management Representative are as follows:

• Ensure that the processes needed for the organization’s QMS are established, implemented, and maintained;
• Report to top management on the performance of the QMS to Top Management and any need for improvement;
• Ensure the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout the organization; and
• Act as liaison with external bodies and customers on matters relating to the organization’s quality system.

While these responsibilities are defined within the standard, they are by no means all-inclusive. The actual scope of the Management Representative’s responsibility will undoubtedly vary from organization to organization, as each organization will have its own unique needs as determined by its size, the scope and the complexity of its operations, and other factors.

It’s important to note here, with regards to the responsibilities stated above, the use of the terms “ensure” and “report”, and the absence of any reference to the actual (hands-on) development, implementation and on-going maintenance of the management system itself. For these activities, it is the responsibility of the organization to define the individual who is responsible; in some organizations, it may be the Management Representative, or it may be assigned to other personnel within the organization.

While ISO 9001 does require that the Management Representative to be a member of management, no guidance is provided on the actual selection process, particularly with regards to the skills, knowledge and or abilities that are desirable. Again, this is left to Top Management of the organization, as they must ensure that the individual selected has the traits necessary to ensure that the outcomes desired by the organization are met.

The process of selecting a Management Representative should consider the responsibilities that this individual will assume and the role they will play in the actual management of the organization and its activities. For large organizations, this will require a degree of management "savvy", the ability to interact with key decision-makers as well as make key decisions, the ability to ensure conformance and to drive change. For smaller organizations, the management representative may be required to take a more hands-on approach, handling not only management issues related to the QMS, but also being directly involved in the administrative functions that make up this system and keep in it running.

An understanding of the requirements specified by the ISO 9001 standard is obviously necessary; however a deep level of subject matter expertise may only be necessary if the individual is going to actively manage the day-to-day activities and functions associated with the organization’s management system. Regardless of the capacity in which the Management Representative will function, competency is the keyword.

As a final note, you may have realized that I never mentioned the position of Quality Manager (or similar title) in this article. There’s no reference or requirement in the ISO 9001 standard regarding this position. A Management Representative is a required by the ISO 9001 standard; having an individual assigned as Quality Manager is not – it is a choice made by the organization, based on resource needs and other factors, including the products and services offered and the degree of control that is required. For small organizations, there’s often little value obtained by adding additional head-count, as the duties required to maintain and administer a system can be shared amongst existing personnel. For larger organizations however, the level of activity is much greater, and often necessitate this position, or similar, to ensure compliance with specified requirements.

http://www.masquality.com

Breakthrough Performance

I’m going to start this article by noting that I’ve never been a huge fan of the practice of benchmarking, particularly within one’s own industry. As a personal belief, I think that this practice establishes false performance standards that ultimately limit the performance of an organization, rather than to promote its on-going development. While some companies may initially benefit from this exercise, benchmarking places emphasis and value on another’s accomplishments rather than on promoting an internal culture where truly breakthrough performance is a regular occurrence.

In order to realize breakthrough performance, we need to re-calibrate the way we rate our performance and move away from a relative scale (ourselves vs. our competition) to an absolute scale (perfection). Average businesses are those that meet customer expectations, while better-than-average businesses make every effort possible to exceed these expectations. In contrast, businesses that are truly noteworthy have learned to shatter these expectations by performing at a level that the customer had yet to even consider. This level of performance doesn’t come from benchmarking; it doesn’t even acknowledge that the competition exists.

The competition is irrelevant. If you’re referencing your performance against that of a competitor, you may be performing better or worse or even equal to, however this also means that you’re still comparable. Assuming that you and the rest of your competition are doing things the same way, using the same performance standard, you’re not a true industry leader - you’re still just a follower, albeit you may be on the upper-to-high side of mediocrity. To coin a phrase, think “a league of their own” – not only should you be better than the competition, you shouldn’t even playing in the same ball-park. There’s a reason Hyundai’s and Ferrari’s don’t race together.

Perfection should be the goal. Industry best-practices should only serve to identify the minimum level of performance that should be tolerated; these practices shouldn’t ever be considered as a basis for goal-setting. To survive in a competitive business environment, we shouldn’t be focusing on best practices, but rather, we should be constantly looking to develop even better practices. To have the “least” amount of rework, repair or returns, or to have the “most” on-time deliveries is the point from where your continuous improvement journey truly begins, rather than being the end. The real goal is an absolute one - to never have any bad product, never have any returns and to always deliver on time. While I acknowledge that such a level of performance is nearly impossible to attain and its achievement is subject to an endless list of constraints, perfection should always be the target that we’re aiming for.

The past is history. I can't discount the importance of "lessons learned" or the value of celebrating past accomplishments, however I will say that the only time that really matters is now and tomorrow. Success doesn't consider where we started, where we’ve been or how far along we’ve come; there isn’t any award given to the organization that’s the "most improved". The most important measure of performance is not the one that's behind us, or in the case of our competition, around us - it's always the one that's in front of us. Going forward, the goal is more than merely replicating the incremental gains of the past - its about finding new ways to exponentially improve our performance.

Breakthrough performance has nothing to do with your competition. It is about where you are now, and where you are going; it is about your future state and how far (or how close) you are to a state of perfection. Just because you are as good as your competition doesn't mean that your competition is any good.

http://www.masquality.com

ISO 9001 - The Adequacy of Your QMS

While I’ve briefly touched on the topic of QMS adequacy in previous discussions, I decided to commit an entire article to this subject based on its considerable importance. Many organizations experience difficulty with the concept of adequacy as it applies to their QMS; they really don’t have a full understanding of what this term relates to, or more importantly, how to assess whether or not their QMS is meeting this key requirement of the ISO 9001 standard.

Before we go any further, let’s first consider the meaning of the word “adequate”, or as used in throughout this article, “adequacy”:

Adequacy – Sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need*.
*Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

From the definition above, we learn that “adequate” relates to meeting both requirements as well as needs. If we apply this definition within the framework of an ISO 9001 based Quality Management System, we can therefore determine that a quality management system should be capable of satisfying applicable requirements including those specified by the organization, the customer, and any applicable standards and/or regulations.

In developing your QMS, and in the subsequent evaluation of its on-going performance, an adequate QMS means much more than simply addressing the clauses that make up the ISO 9001 standard. In addition to the requirements of ISO 9001, what are the governing codes, standards and/or specifications that the organization is working to? What customer specifications and other requirements does the organization need to meet? Finally, what other policies and other procedures have been established by the organization, and how does this QMS serve to ensure compliance? All of these considerations must to be taken into account when determining whether or not a Quality management System is adequate.

Assessing a QMS for adequacy however, relative to the above considerations, can be problematic for many organizations. With insulated management and silo-like structures, these organizations lack a comprehensive understanding of what requirements they’re actually working to. Such requirements may be known to pockets within the organization, but often they are not known across the organization, so there is little or no global understanding or awareness.

While a single organization, which produces a single product, in accordance with a single set of requirements is most likely a simple case requiring a simple solution, the complexity of many organization's operations makes their identification of these requirements and needs considerably more difficult. Multiple sites, multiple products, multiple standards, multiple sets of customer specifications, etc. all factor into the adequacy of the QMS. Without a good understanding of your entire business, and the corresponding requirements and needs that apply, it is nearly impossible to make a valid assessment of the adequacy of the QMS.

Just because an organization that has a documented system that addresses the requirements of this ISO 9001 standard, this only contributes to its adequacy; it doesn’t totally satisfy this requirement. In order to be totally compliant with ISO 9001, you QMS must not only address each applicable requirement of the standard, but also be in compliance with any additional requirements that may apply to your organization and its products. This means that a typical ISO system audit, in-and-of itself, has limitations as far as this determination is concerned. Product and process data can be used to supplement any conclusion, but as these are typically reactive measures (based on identified nonconformances), they only address issues when noted, rather than evaluating all areas of concern.

So exactly how do you find out what all of these requirements are? - Better start asking, researching and learning. If this is a new QMS or one that's under development, it's always better to find out at the beginning

http://www.masquality.com

Fourteen Points of Total Quality Education

Libyan Labiosa and Philip Cassone from the International Center for Accelerative Learning (ICAL) provided us with the following guest feature, which is an adaptation of Deming's "14 Points for Management" to corporate training and educational processes; the result - Total Quality Education.- M. Randig

Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s principles support the global success of Toyota, Proctor & Gamble, Ritz Carlton, Harley-Davidson, and many other leading organizations. His teachings are essential for the effective application of Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, Loyalty / Net Promoter and other quality improvement, customer retention and business growth methods.

Deming’s 14 Total Quality Education points were created for the White House Task Force for Education in 2000 and presented to a congressional committee by Libyan Labiosa in conjunction with her position on the board of the National Learning Foundation within the United States Department of Education.

The 14 TQE points are as meaningful today as they were a decade ago. For education to be meaningful in a rapidly changing world, it must adapt. We are in a globalized society and the worldwide education system must adapt to fit the times ahead. To date the results have not been encouraging.

There is an international test from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that measures average mathematics literacy, reading literacy, science literacy, and problem-solving scores of 15-year-olds from over 50 industrialized countries. The highest possible score is 1000.

Currently the highest scoring nation in the world is Finland with a average score of 550 and the USA is in 29th place with an average score of 483.

In the USA, Massachusetts is the highest scoring of all 50 states with only 44% of its students at performing grade level in 4th and 8th grade. Washington DC is dead last with less than 10% of its students performing at grade level.

It is clear that Deming’s 14 points of Total Quality Education bear taking another look at in a time where the best scoring nation in the world is only at 55% and the best scoring state in the USA is at 44%. As Deming so eloquently puts it in his quote at the end of this article, we have no less than our survival at getting our educational systems right.

Fourteen Points of Total Quality Education
(Adapted from Deming’s Total Quality Management principles)

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of education and learning with the aim to prepare learners to be productive in a changing world.
2. Adopt a new philosophy. We are in a new information age. Western educators must awaken to the challenge, must learn new responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.
3. Cease dependence on testing to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for testing as the only way of measuring quality. Ensure that quality is always present in the classroom.
4. End the practice of awarding students on the basis of grades. Instead minimize competition with others. Move toward a goal of learning as a long-term reward in itself.
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of education and learning to improve quality and student productivity.
6. Institute interactive and creative teaching and learning.
7. Institute leadership. The aim of leadership should be to help people do a better job. Leadership of educators is in need of overhaul, as well as leadership of students.
8. Drive out fear so that everyone may work effectively for themselves and their community.
9. Break down barriers between administrators, teachers, parents and students. People in education must work as a team to foresee problems in the educational process.
10. Always expect the best from students.
11. Eliminate minimum requirements for achievement. Each student assumes a proactive role in his/her education.
12. Remove barriers that rob the students of their right to pride in achievement. The responsibility of educators must be changed from sheer information giving to ensuring knowledge through use of global teaching strategies.
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
14. Put everyone in the system to work to accomplish the transformation.
    
    “No one has to change. Survival is optional.” Dr. W. Edwards Deming
    

© 2008 International Center for Accelerative Learning. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.center4al.com/

http://www.masquality.com

Customer Feedback

If a customer has an issue with your products or services, some customers will complain; some will say nothing; other customers will simply take their business elsewhere, and unfortunately, you will probably be the last to hear about it. Your customer’s perception of your performance varies considerably from your own, and in most cases, you’re not doing as well as you think.

Repeat orders don’t indicate satisfied customers. What they do indicate, is that your customer hasn’t found an alternative supplier that does a better job. While some customers are extremely loyal, many are just waiting for a better option to come along. You won’t have high customer retention rate if you don’t do a good, make that great, job.

We can often relate “good” to degree that we were able to meet customer requirements and needs. The term “great” however, is much more ambiguous; it relates more to customer wants and expectations, and our ability to surpass them. If we do what we’ve agree to, on the date it’s agreed, for the price agreed, we can assume we’ve done a good job. Our internal perception of our performance is of little value; the only opinion that matters is the customer’s.

Only by continuously meeting the requirements of our customers, and relentlessly working to exceed their wants and expectations, can we ensure genuinely satisfied customers (and long-term customer retention). Customer requirements continuously evolve and their wants and expectations are dynamic. Perception is just as important as actual performance, and there’s no way to gauge a customer’s overall experience without asking – How well did we perform? What can we do better?

Below is an overview of a basic customer feedback process, which breaks down each activity into one of four primary steps: Development, Distribution, Recovery, and Analysis/Reporting. There is no one-size-fits-all solution or approach, but this should be enough to get you started.

Development

There are a variety of methods for acquiring customer feedback; each method has its own particular strengths and weaknesses, and requires varying degrees of resources. Methods for obtaining feedback may include surveys or questionnaires, user groups or smaller focus groups, one-to-one interviews and more. For the sake of brevity, I’ll stay away from any discussion on survey design here, but such methods for monitoring and measurement should be controlled appropriately; the development process should ensure that the method is reliable, repeatable, and that the information it obtains must not only be quantifiable, but must also be relevant to the organization, and to the achievement of its stated goals and objectives.

Distribution

In order to obtain useable, relevant information, we need to ensure that we reach the right personnel within the customer’s organization. In larger organizations, this can be a daunting task; with silo-like structures common to both organizations, it is not unusual to end up approaching the wrong individual or department. While obtaining information from the purchasing department, accounts payable, or another party that wasn’t directly involved in the work performed may help your feedback rating (most will say “great job- excellent!”), it will accomplish little more than a virtual “pat-on-the-back” – this information is useless. The only source of information that matters is from the actual user of your products or services. Your sales, production or service personnel usually know who to contact and can often provide valuable assistance in collecting this feedback.

Recovery

While finding and contacting the right people can be a challenge, it is a minor setback when compared to soliciting a response to our feedback request. The primary obstacle is that we really don’t have any sort of “carrot” – there’s no reward to offer our customers for its timely (if ever) return. Feedback tends to come quickly if there’s a problem – the customer wants the prompt resolution of their issues. If there’s no issue (except possibly marginal performance), feedback becomes much harder to solicit, as there’s little to no motivation to respond. Some retail chains have found that by offering coupons or other incentives for completed questionnaires it is easier to obtain this information. Other companies may hold a drawing or offer prizes, as appropriate; some companies may make a charitable donation each time feedback is given. Again, there are no one-size-fits all solutions, and trial and error may be needed to determine the one that works best for your situation.

Analysis and Reporting

The final step of this feedback process is the analysis and subsequent reporting of the information that has been obtained. How this analysis is performed is going to really be based upon the feedback methods used, the type of information that’s acquired, and the degree of reporting that is required by the organization’s management. Quite often, advanced statistical techniques are unnecessary, and tend to serve the ego of the analyst more than the needs of management.

Reporting may trigger other processes, such as those used for corrective or preventative action, and this data may subsequently be used as input as part of the organization’s process for management review. As I mentioned above, the information that is obtained through this process must be relevant to the organization, and to the achievement of its stated goals and objectives. Not only must this data be informative, it has to be actionable.

http://www.masquality.com