Replying to LO27960 --
Hello again Elixabete
You write:
>However, when experiments are carried out (I refer to
>experiments in the company procedures), how do we ensure consistency in
>the product or service? Are you referring to small/incremental changes?
>And if this were the case, would you include these changes in the quality
>manual of the company once approved and adopted so consistency can be
>ensured from that moment onwards? I don't know if I am answering my own
>questions or just guessing.
Our documentation is in 3 levels, corporate, division and work face.
Over the time we have been accredited the most changes to documentation
have been at division (Quality manual) and work face (Standard Operating
Procedures). This is as a result of how better to reflect the terms of
the standard (Quality Manual) and how to cement in best practice in
ensuring the product satisfies our customers (SOP's). You talk about
experimentation, we talk about small step improvements then documenting
them so that all shifts/operators (24 hour operation) can improve
together. At corporate level it is more policy than procedure. You go
onto say:
>On the other hand, during several interviews with two ISO external
>auditors, I was told that, most companies avoid having non-conformances
>(this occurs when operations/procedures are carried out against the
>specifications in the quality manual of the organization.) In many cases,
>this is the only way to improve and sort out certain situations but
>still, even when non-conformances are not necessary a bad thing, managers
>try to avoid them, especially when an external audit is close. What I try
>to say is that, according to these auditors, managers try to stick to the
>company's quality manual so that they ensure that procedures are carried
>out in a consistent way. Of course, changes may be necessary and
>sometimes, implemented. However, do you think that managers would be
>constantly questioning the way things are done or, on the contrary, would
>they try to conform to the way things are done as the best way to
>perform? This is where I see the incompatibility; not that much in the
>structure but in the philosophy of the LO against that of ISO.
In my experience this is where so many problems arise and they can take
years to resolve, we are "not there yet". Many managers see "the system"
as extra work rather than how we do things. They find it terribly
difficult to grasp the fact that a procedure is "the procedure" whether
your position is managing director or janitor and constantly do things by
making spot decisions without reference to procedure. This behaviour has
coast us dearly in the past by incurring fines for breaches of our
national health and safety legislation and by shipping faulty product to
our customers.
Having completed several internal audits and issuing non compliances
against the Quality Manaul and the standard, and observing how long it
takes to address non compliances gives me an insight into how difficult it
is for people in our country to think systemically.
I could go on at length and I won't so I hope what I've said helps you.
Regards,
Dennis
--"Dennis Rolleston" <dennisr@ps.gen.nz>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.