1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
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.

Other country practices

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by Kamuran CAN, Sep 16, 2017.

  1. Kamuran CAN

    Kamuran CAN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hello!
    I am curious about the quality management system of other countries.
    Unfortunately, there is no understanding of the quality management system in our country.
    This is because the quality management system is not supported by senior managers.
    This task is only given to one person. That person does all the work.
    Can you fully implement the quality management system?
    By the way, I am from Turkey.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2017
    Kamuran CAN, Sep 16, 2017
    #1
  2. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    723
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    Welcome to the Forum!

    Over decades in the industry and leading hundreds of 3rd party audits, I have learned that differences in management systems of all kinds are more about people and less about location. Here in the U.S. we have all sorts of approaches to management systems, ranging from that of the Benevolent Dictator (a machine shop owner I used to work for) to those with a cooperative "Total Quality Management" approach. Small town, big city, highly educated or not... the dynamics cannot be fully attributed to such factors.

    Quality Management can be technical, such as sampling plans, SPC and PPAP. Top managers typically do not have training or experience in such subjects and are happy to assign program responsibility to those that do. That having been done, it can feel normal to make that person "responsible" for the management system. That is where the problem begins, as management system personnel are viewed as non-productive, e.g. they do not create or deliver products or services, therefore they and their activities are purely cost items. Support for such activities can be perceived as having little real value.

    Management system personnel can address this problem by learning to "speak the language of money," and correlate cause to consequence in terms of cost and impact to profits. I attached a Cost of Poor Quality Calculator in the Resources forum, in case that helps.

    Change can be difficult, and may take a long time. There are many good books about change. Some people, like my old boss, will however never change so an organization's "culture change" relies on that person leaving and new, more progressive, executives to take over. There have, however been cases in which confronting hard reality can jolt a change of mind. A dramatic story is found in the Texas Nameplate Company, and in the owner's subsequent book Take It to the Next Level.

    A single person can implement a quality management system, but everyone has some responsibility or other to maintain it, depending on his her activities' impact on customer satisfaction. Even housekeeping personnel can be important, if customers visit and want to use the personal facilities. Top managers have a role, in Management Review at the very least, to consider the data you provide and make decisions that improve the organization and system's effectiveness. Such decisions include allocation of resources.

    I hope this helps!
     
    Jennifer Kirley, Sep 17, 2017
    #2
    RoxaneB, Atul Khandekar and Kamuran CAN like this.
  3. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    1,059
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    In the 1990's, those companies here who established a QMS that is compliant with ISO 9001 are from the private sector and majority are manufacturing firms. The primary reason was to satisfy the multinational-manufacturing companies or OEMs' requirements. During that period, suppliers located here in the Philippines must have the certificate to secure business from the big companies. At the onset of the 2000 version, those in the service sector started to embrace the requirements. These companies include hospitals, universities, airlines and later government agencies. In 2007, an Executive Order No. 605 from our President was issued to require government owned and controlled corporations, government financial institutions and state universities and colleges to pursue ISO 9001 certification. Though the intent was to enhance the services in the government, I believe, those in the private sector were more committed to live the spirit of the standard. To motivate people in the government in establishing a QMS, the succeeding President granted monetary incentives for obtaining certification to the 2008 version. Although less than noble, it's a start of something we can hope for.

    Because of the incentive, many government agencies applied for certification but on very limited QMS scopes. For instance, a light-rail government corporation only enrolled its "train crew management" process, a social security corporation only its "member registration" process, a government bank only its "lending programs and trust products". Many were certified but the scope covered are only a fraction of the entire operation. Many were guilty of misrepresenting the certificate (i.e. certificates are posted in their website, office premises and front-line areas as if the entire operation and all processes are covered). What's more frustrating is that Certifying Bodies allow such limited scope of certification.:(

    Now that the 2015 version clarifies that the organization context and the needs/expectations of interested parties must be considered in establishing the scope of the QMS, government agencies including certifying bodies should not conspire just to easily obtain their "incentives".:mad:
     
    tony s, Sep 19, 2017
    #3
  4. Kamuran CAN

    Kamuran CAN New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I hope QMS implementation will not be done to get a certificate. I hope QMS implementation will not be done to get a certificate. The better the accreditation companies, the better the QMS is implemented. If everyone does their best, quality improves accordingly. But if this task is delivered to only one person, then a meaningless situation arises and quality falls. Thank you for saying your views.
     
    Kamuran CAN, Sep 19, 2017
    #4
  5. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    723
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    Accreditation companies can enforce requirements, but regrettably there is variation among auditors, and some say among regions. Inspired top management is key and I am sorry to say this varies as well. I have seen it first hand... We can only do what we can. Sometimes that means planting a seed for change to come later. I have done that too.

    My best wishes to you. Please share your progress with us?
     
    Jennifer Kirley, Sep 20, 2017
    #5
    Kamuran CAN likes this.
  6. SpinDr99

    SpinDr99 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Like many of you, I've seen both types of organizations. Those whom are truly committed to positive change and growth by embracing continuous improvement and ISO requirements, and those that only want the certificate. I started my career in the former, and I'm now in the later. Talk about taking the wind out of the sail! My company still operates in its pre-ISO ways, thinks documenting non-conforming output and customer complaints is a bad thing and works endlessly to hide them. It becomes a struggle to show up every day. So like Jennifer noted, it's now becoming about planting seeds even though eight months after coming here, I'm not seeing any sprouts. Two months past Management Review and I'm struggling to sit with the GM to establish objectives, KPI's and Action Item due dates so I can publish the MR report.

    To make matters worse, while taking a Lead Auditor course with many auditors from that CB, the instructor blatantly stated that "you try hard not to make a major finding". My current CB auditor gives WAY too much leniency in order to keep the contract going. Talk about disheartening. However, I take a deep breath and insist these are the exceptions and not the rules, and move on keeping the faith that the seeds just need some water.
     
    SpinDr99, Dec 4, 2017
    #6