Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Local Variations

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by PaulE, May 18, 2019 at 7:15 AM.

  1. PaulE

    PaulE New Member

    Joined:
    Saturday
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi.
    I work for a large corporation where the QMS systems and processes arent suitable for some parts of the business.

    How are other organisations managing different ways of working within the silos of large organisations?

    For instance, are they using temporary variations?

    How are the changes and local variations managed and controlled to esure compliance?

    Any tips / hints and how your organisation 'works in practice' are greatly appreciated.

    Paul.
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    1,367
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    PaulE - welcome.

    This is a common issue with quality management systems in as you say, large corporations. Frequently, the quality manual is the only shared thing. Process documentation is unique to a division or site. It may be that the system is older and, as a result, it may have been written to be "one size fits all", but the 2015 version is likely to be best addressed at a business unit level. Dare I say also that much of this type of documentation was forced by the Corp Quality folks on the rest of the business because that's what they thought would work.

    How is yours structured?
     
  3. PaulE

    PaulE New Member

    Joined:
    Saturday
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hi Andy.

    Thank you for the response - nice to know this isnt an isolated issue.

    The company has historically been a hub and spoke type structure, this has led to a command and control culture, and bad decisions driven from a central office by people that are out of touch with the business. As you would expect, the performance and efficiency is badly affected (e&p are my responsibility). There is a movement away from this setup - downsizing the central resources, pushing power to the deveolved offices etc. However, there are still people, processes and systems in place for the old ways of working, this transformation is also my responsibility.

    So, i have created local plans for h&s, quality and environment, made them work for the particular contract / project. This brings you to where we are today - setting the q / h&s / env objectives for each unit is hugely dependant on change from the head office - hq staff still beleive the contracts / projects arent 'allowed' to change things locally, the contracts / projects under pressure to perform and take ownership for setting and achieving their own objectives.

    I have drafted a change policy that can be strapped onto the qms in place, and will bring the firm upto 2015 standards - I think there isnt the structure left in place at the hq to take on new ways of working and policy changes at the moment.

    Hope this makes sense - let me know if you want any detail / information.

    Thanks again, your message has been hugely helpful.

    Paul.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  4. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,697
    Likes Received:
    1,367
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Paul - good to know this helps! It was common here in the USA when ISO 9001 first arrived, because it was the Fortune 1000 companies who were first adopters.

    If we think at a process level, regardless of specific business units, they are probably 80% common. Where they are different, this can be adjusted to suit local needs by other means. With the advent of ISO 9001:2015 it makes it a LOT easier.
     

Share This Page