It is the common issues with companies, they are are just focus on certificate achievement, instead real implementation of QMS (Quality Management System) for improve their internal management.
Here as below some question that you have to ask your self :
1. Does your company prioritize QMS implementation or certification?
2. Is your company focused on implementing a QMS or obtaining certification?
3. Is your QMS implementation driven by operational goals or certification requirements?
4. Does your company emphasize QMS implementation over certification?
Some more questions and straight forward my personal view that may blow your mind ! .
It’s no secret to any quality specialist that often implementing, and certifying for quality management systems (QMS) are formal. Actually, there are not using by senior management, to solve real problems. Even do not bring the company the proper effect. According to international studies, only 30% of certified systems operate and meet the letter and spirit of ISO 9001.
The main reason for this situation, I believe, is the existence of two parallel systems in Companies:
A formal QMS, documented in accordance with the requirements of the standard, which is created specifically for auditors in order to obtain a certificate, and
A real management system that is not documented, within which senior management makes adequate decisions.
With the help of ten practical tests, in my opinion, it is possible to check how real the QMS is ?. Typically, the following questions are not asked in certification audits. Perhaps because by asking them, the certification body risks losing most of its customers.
In my opinion, these tests can best be useful by the heads of enterprises themselves. Who wish to check whether all the features of the QMS are really use. Whether they have managing to create a really convenient and practical tool for improving their own work.
How realistic is the quality policy?
It is useful for the first manager to ask how he sees the strengths and weaknesses of his organization, the main goals and objectives facing it. At the same time, it is important not to refer to the quality management system, the requirements of the standard and the like (this will be perceived as a hint). You need to focus on a real vision of the state and prospects of the enterprise by its management.
The answer received should be comparing with the content of the officially declare the policy of the enterprise in the field of quality. They will not always coincide. Often, the policy is a formal document that is written to a greater extent for auditors, and does not reflect the real life of the enterprise. I have come across a case where the policies of a steel mill, and a dairy plant coincide verbatim.
In many cases, even the text of the policy is develop not by the top management, but by the quality manager. On the basis of this, it is possible to draw conclusions about the attitude of senior management to the QMS – either as a working document or as a mechanism for obtaining a certificate.
Are the indicators of process monitoring realistic?
The scheme of this test is similar to the previous one. The head of the enterprise can be asked what it means for him to perform a particular process well. For example, personnel management, marketing research – those where the concept of “good process execution” is not always obvious.
The same question can be asked to the manager of the corresponding process. At best, their responses should coincide with each other and with the monitoring indicators for this process. It often happens that these indicators are chosen not on the principle of “what information is needed to evaluate the process”, but “what quantitative information is easy to collect”. After that, reports are made on the monitoring of indicators for which no real decisions are made.
In my opinion, the selection of process monitoring indicators can be an important tool for aligning the priorities of senior management and process managers. For example, the head of the marketing service may believe that his task is to conduct research according to the adopted methods and prepare appropriate reports. What decisions will be made on their basis is not a marketing issue.
At the same time, the CEO is confident that the main task of the marketing service is to increase sales. I’m not judging which of them is right, but it’s clear that they need to reconcile their positions. And the definition of monitoring indicators (sales volumes, the number of reports prepared, something else) can be a good basis for this.
Are management decisions made within the QMS?
It is useful to ask the heads of enterprises of different levels to give examples of recent decisions regarding the introduction of improvements or other problems. (See the orders and minutes of meetings in which these decisions are reflects). Most likely, these decisions affected the quality of products or services, the functioning of the QMS. Often such decisions may considers as corrective (if the impetus for them was a certain problem) or preventive actions.
But it is not always the decision-making, the form of its registration and control of its implementation that are elements of the documented QMS. Often, when developing a QMS, a special system of corrective and preventive actions is introduced, with separate cards for their registration, etc. Most often, only actions based on the results of internal audits are recorded in such cards (as a maximum – actions after the detection of non-conforming products).
At the same time, a huge number of improvement actions (and among them the most important, strategic ones) remain outside the system. As a rule, they are issue in the form of orders and orders of senior management or minutes of various meetings, commissions. These schemes are not always reflect in the QMS documentation as possible forms of corrective actions. It is not difficult to understand that strategic decisions that are made outside the QMS can contradict the system and lead to its gradual destruction.
Are management decisions made on the basis of information received within the QMS?
Speaking about the improvement decisions made by the managers of the enterprise at different levels. It is advisable to ask on the basis of what information they were made. It often turns out that the collection and receipt of such information is not regulating by the QMS.
A situation arises when an enterprise has two systems for reporting on the activities of processes / departments: For auditors and for themselves. Each middle manager submits a monthly or quarterly report within the QMS. Which is considered formally and on the basis of which formal decisions such as “recognize the functioning of the process as effective” are made. At the same time, a huge amount of information is provide to senior management. Both in the form of a variety of written reports and in an informal form, on the basis of which real decisions are completes.
Top management is a consumer for each of the QMS processes – a consumer of information about the functioning of this process. And, if the needs of the consumer are not satisfy with the product or services. If he does not receive exactly the information that they need, in a convenient form and with a convenient periodicity. They will never treat the QMS as a working tool.
Another way to conduct such a test is to review the information that is on the CEO’s desk (or is in his computer) and with which he really works, and then try to find the same information in the QMS.
Is there a parallel management system for management orders and orders?
When analyzing orders, protocols of activities that reflect the decisions of senior management. It is advisable to pay attention to whether such words as “monthly”, “quarterly” or even “permanently” are found in these documents. When it comes to the deadline for the implementation of a certain activity. If it exists, the functioning of the QMS is under threat.
After all, everything that require to performing at the enterprise regularly is part of the processes and belongs to the scope of QMS regulation. Such orders contain requirements for the same processes. But most often – not coordinate with the requirements of the QMS. After all, rarely will anyone dare to draw the attention of the general director, who signs an order on the procedure for concluding contracts for the purchase of any raw materials. That this activity is already regulate by the QMS “Procurement” process, and that the order must be compared with this process.
Moreover, in most enterprises, employees clearly know which sanctions may follow for non-compliance with the order of the director, and which – for violation of the requirements of the QMS. Therefore, in case of such disagreements, it is the requirements of the system that will most often be ignored.
Order Performance
Another disadvantage of the system of “permanent” orders is the complexity or impossibility of their coordination with each other. After all, if there are hundreds of orders that are issue every year, it is almost impossible to choose and take into account those of the previous ones that relate to the same process when preparing the next order.
In large enterprises, I found three or four different orders on the same topic, which were issued several years apart: the previous order was forgotten (but not officially cancelled) and a new one appeared instead. In contrast to this scheme, QMS documents provide better preservation of the institutional memory of the enterprise.
What can be the subject of orders, and sales services, etc. with a working QMS? First of all, this is the conduct of one-time works or improvement projects that have a limited period of implementation. If the management wants certain work to be performed regularly, then the paragraph of the order should not look like “monthly perform …”, but “make changes to the QMS documentation, providing for monthly implementation …”.
Does the system include elements of financial support for the functioning of processes?
The ISO 9001 standard does not contain requirements for the management of financial resources and this is not verified during certification. But by creating a QMS for the needs of the enterprise, and not only for certification, it is almost impossible to completely bypass these issues. After all, it is difficult to convince top management to take seriously a system that is not aimed at ensuring the financial stability of the enterprise.
Usually, we are not talking about the full integration of all accounting issues into the QMS, but if we want it to work truly. It is extremely useful to reflect some elements in the QMS.
In my opinion, this primarily applies to:
- Expanding the list of monitoring parameters and goals of the enterprise at the expense of financial indicators (it is difficult to believe that profit is not really the goal of the enterprise).
- Analysis of the financial component of improvement projects (corrective and preventive actions, development of new types of products) and development plans of the enterprise. Even if this is not provide for in the QMS documentation. Such an analysis must be carrying out, otherwise there is a risk that the enterprise simply will not be able to implement all the improvement actions. That are plan within the framework of the QMS due to lack of funds.
- Financial settlements with consumers and suppliers. As a rule, the process of QMS “Procurement” is develop on the assumption that the company is able to pay suppliers in a timely manner. But real problems begin precisely when there is not enough money for everyone.
If senior management is not able to solve all these problems with the help of the QMS. It will create other tools that are not agreed with the QMS, but from its point of view, more priority.
Enterprises that are not yet ready to fully integrate financial management into the QMS. (For example, to ensure proper transparency of processes) can be advised to “designate” the corresponding large blocks in the processes, without describing them in detail, and determine responsibility for them.
Do employees recognize themselves as participants in the processes?
It may be useful to ask employees from different structural units who their manager is. As a rule, the majority points to the head of their department, and only a few remember that they take part in the implementation of several processes, the “owners” of which also direct their work.
This is the simplest indicator that process management in the enterprise does not really work (other signs may be budgeting, analysis and evaluation of activities in the context of structural units, not processes). Ideally, each employee should feel equally like a process operator and an employee of the department.
Often, processes, especially cross-functional ones, at domestic enterprises do not become a “reality”, remain a set of separate actions united only by a common QMS document. All this makes it impossible to use the advantages inherent in the process approach and significantly reduce the number of problems that arise at the joints between structural units.
Is QMS documentation used to resolve conflicts between departments?
At any enterprise, there are situations when different departments see differently the distribution of responsibility, interaction with each other, the order of performance of certain works. Most often, such situations are discussions at meetings with the participation of the first head of the enterprise, who acts as an arbiter in such conflicts. It is very indicative whether they refers to the QMS documentation.
Evidence of a working QMS can be, for example, the following reaction: “Let’s see what is written on this topic in the documentation.” If nothing is written, it means that you need to make a decision and reflect it in the documentation. So as not to return to this issue again. If something is written, it should be done, and if what is written does not suit the manual, initiate a revision of the documentation.
But most often, when considering such conflicts, managers do not even remember the existence of QMS. Or worse, remembering, they say that the system remains as it is, but in this particular case, for a variety of reasons, it is necessary to act contrary to it: “The system is the system, but life!…” These managers give a clear signal to all subordinates that the QMS has nothing to do with real life and create an informal system of oral agreements that contradicts the QMS and destroys it.
Do internal audits provide useful information to senior management?
Important indicators of the functioning of the QMS are the tasks. That are assigned to the internal auditors, and the information collected during the audits. Top management really needs professional, and independent information about the state of affairs in the enterprise:
1. Whether the activities of all personnel are aim at implementing the strategy.
2. Whether there are activities that do not create value.
3. Whether it is possible to initiate improvement projects, etc.
Therefore, it is useful to revise the internal audit protocols, to check whether they provide management with such information. Or it is force to receive information from others sources.
Often, the observations of auditors actually has limits to a list of detected & unapproved copies of documents, unsigned protocols, unidentified units of products in the warehouse, etc. Of course, this information may also be necessary at its level. But it is unlikely that senior management will consider it as a basis for determining an improvement strategy. Most likely, they will conduct a formal analysis of it (since this is required by the standard), but real decisions will be made elsewhere.
Perfunctory….
In fact, the problems in the enterprise are much more serious, but the audit procedure, qualifications or orientation of the auditor do not allow them to be detected. In particular, it is often easier for auditors to verify formal compliance with QMS documentation than to assess its effectiveness and need for improvement.
One of the indicators that management considers internal audit as a working tool is the conduct of unscheduled audits, the establishment of individual goals for each audit (not general – “check the compliance of the system”, but specific – “to determine the reasons for the increase in costs …”), the development of individual checklists for these purposes. Ideally, senior management should know that if there are problems in some unit. It is more effective not to demand explanations from its management, but to conduct an audit there to obtain objective information about the causes and possible ways to eliminate them.
Does the QMS change when the company’s strategy changes?
This test can be used in enterprises where the QMS has been operating for several years. Of course, during this time, the situation on the market being changing. The competitive environment are developing, new competitive advantages have been determined, the strategy of the enterprise has been clarified, and perhaps radically changed. QMS is a tool for implementing the strategy, so significant changes in the strategy cannot but affect the QMS.
For example, at the time of the introduction of the QMS, the company was a monopolist in the market and had no problems with sales, and after a certain time the competition are increase. It was force to defend its market share. Of course, this should cause changes in marketing activities, advertising, sales, perhaps in production planning, data analysis, etc. And if all these processes remain unchanged, then the QMS as a means of implementing the strategy does not work.
After significant changes, the enterprise must change the policy. The indicators of monitoring processes and the schemes of their implementation, and possibly the very structure of the processes. After all, to a large extent, the QMS is aimed at turning the decision of senior management (“we must develop a certain competitive advantage”) into specific actions that employees perform when they come to work in the morning. Otherwise, it may mean that either the strategy (if nothing changes at all in the enterprise) or the QMS (if changes occur, but they are not reflected in the documentation) does not work.