Having a quality system registered to ISO standards is becoming less and less credible to supplier quality professionals, especially if it is an oversees company.  Is it just a money game?  This issue cuts to the heart of quality professionals.  The market, the future of quality (and this blog post respectfully) cry out for RAB/QSA to increase confidence in ISO registration.

An increasing number of organizations are requiring ISO/TS/AS, etc. registration for the QMS of their suppliers (TS even requires it), and yet, the credibility of that registration among customers is going down (based on experience from myself and colleagues).  To most supplier quality professionals, a potential supplier highlighting registration to an ISO standard gets only a mild reply.  Most Supplier Quality Engineers continue with a full qualification anyway because of the range of performance demonstrated by registered systems.  This is due to the gap in expectations…. one side seeks registration (a piece of paper on the wall) as the goal, while the suppliers want an EFFECTIVE QMS, conforming to an ISO standard.  Registration seems to have little bearing on the actual system effectiveness.

To the best supplier quality professionals, registration to an ISO standard may mean that the supplier may have basics for:  doc control, a non-conforming procedure, corrective action, etc.  But do those systems work?  Are they followed?  Maybe, maybe not.  Sometimes the most that can be hoped for is a shared vocabulary.  If the supplier is in Asia, they may not even get that.  Why is this??

Let’s talk about how this system works.  RAB/QSA is the body that authorizes Registars to issue certificates registering QMS to ISO standards.  RAB/QSA is based in Australia and also has close relations with ASQ in Milwaukee.  There are roughly about 20 or so Registars worldwide, which are separate companies, often offering other services like consulting and training.  A company seeking to register their system selects and hires a Registrar.  The company also selects an auditor, which is then contracted by the Registrar.  The auditor conducts the audit, and if the report is favorable (Registrar and company getting copies), the Registrar issues the Certificate and the company is considered “certified to” the standard.  There are a few opportunities for weakness in this system.

First, an ISO certificate means almost nothing in Asia.  Registars are not consistent with applying an INTERNATIONAL standard.  That means it’s supposed to be the same thing in Asia as in US or Europe.  Auditors contracted by these Registrars need to fulfill their professional duty and RAB/QSA needs to step up with their oversight in the activities of who they authorize.  In Asia, ISO registration can be seen as a piece of paper for which you pay a fee.

Second, companies get to choose their own auditor.  This is a major issue!  On the side of registration, when company chooses (and basically pays) the auditor, it can be in the auditors favor to pass the company on the audit so they get invited back to do the next audit (and collect another check).   The message is, BS with me for a few days, pay the fee, you’ll get your cert.  Here’s some examples:

• While in a conference room in Asia for a supplier qual, with their 9001 cert on the wall in front of me, this company’s quality staff and management couldn’t produce one shred of a system.  No manual, policy, objectives, procedures, internal audits, etc.  I verified the issuing registrar is a legit one in Asia.  How?
• I recently was touring a company in the US, and the quality policy was posted on the wall (good).  The quality policy itself was non-conforming (bad). (9001 5.3.b)  Upon questioning, “top management” also had basically no understanding or knowledge of the system they were running (including quality objectives). This company is registered.
• I witnessed a TS registration audit where the auditor asked about ensuring compliance to customer specific requirements.  The company responded with blank stares.  After a couple other questions it was clear they were not conducting activities to ensure compliance, did not have a copy of customer requirements, nor even a list of automotive customers.  Cert granted.
• I visited an ISO 17025 lab where documented procedures (like how to run a test) where not followed.  Access to doc control system for the lab wasn’t a mgt. priority.
• “Yeah, we have some problems in our system, but we have a great relationship with our auditor.  He’s a car guy, like me, so we’ll be ok.”  Hugh?  This 17025 system was a wreck.

These are just a few.  Find fault with them as you will, but the clear image I have of many 3^rd party auditors (whether seeing directly or from the results of the work) is that professional duty is not being done and customers (Auto customers for TS, etc) are not being represented/protected.  Perhaps there is a conflict of interest!

I’ve talked with many Quality Managers who feel choosing their own auditor is necessary because of the inconsistency between auditors.  Some auditors are poor listening, arrogant jerks.  Some witch hunt.  Some don’t behave professionally, like return phone calls, get reports out on time, or keep appointments.  Some nitpick findings out of NOTHING.  Some don’t bring value to the audit process for the customer or the company.  Sadly, this is all true!  Great variety exists!

An audit should be basically repeatable and reproducible.  That is, auditors auditing the same location should come to the basic same conclusions (if audit has similar scope and objectives) as another auditor.  Don’t we expect this, even from tape measures?  (Yes, auditing is based on sampling, etc and some variation will exist, which is why I say “basically.”)  The solution is to get competent auditors who are accountable.  Registrars need to ensure this, with top oversight going to RAB/QSA.

Steps for Registrars and RAB/QSA

First, ensure the auditors are ship shape.  Get rid of the riff-raff and good-old-boys.  A point of this post is not to insult auditors, but to show respect for the good ones by recognizing there are a few bad apples.  Have follow-ups to ensure quality of audits. (Suggestion, to ensure quality and reproducibility, require registered companies to opt in to being chosen at lottery for a second audit to verify compliance.  Or consider having auditors randomly paired in twos to visit…this will increase cost, but may help auditors to keep each other honest….brainstorming here…)  This will be tough because this is what many of your “customers” will not want.  But consider who the true “customer” is…not the company being audited, but their customers and society.

Then, have an auditor selected for the company.  Try telling your city building dept, county health dept, EPA, etc. you want to choose your own auditor/inspector and see how that goes.  If problems arise between auditor and company, do your job and manage it.

Second, reclaim the credibility of the ISO system.  If it is a money game to auditors, Registars, and RAB/QSA, that is a self-defeating cycle.  The more it becomes a money game, the less credible it will become.  The less credible it becomes, eventually less registration will occur.  The business will shut down.

Third, companies, RAB/QSA and registrars need to work together to stop dumbing-down the system.  If many companies were audited and required to be conforming to requirements, a lot of certs would be pulled.  With many companies “requiring” suppliers to be certified to ISO, that would shut down a lot of cogs in our industrial machine.  This kind of “too big to fail” problem is the same seen with auto-maker and bank bailouts recently.  In the long run, we lose.  As a group, each need to do their part to make the US competitive by providing quality products in an efficient manner that is win-win for all stakeholders.

Fourth, a small poke at RAB/QSA.  Does RAB/QSA have a system to manage the quality of its products/services?  Would that system be considered compliant to a standard (say ISO9001 or 17021)?  How effective is that system?  Practicing and preaching go together.  I don’t know if they have a system or not, but based on the results in the field, I’m not sure its effective.

As a Quality Professional, the ISO system is near and dear. When designed, implemented and maintained effectively for the business, it is a powerful guideline to help ensure quality and provide common language to professionals.  This blog entry is a respectful attempt to address the BIG ELEPHANT in the room in the world of quality….ISO registration is quickly becoming a joke.  For many, it is already.  Some companies do it well, others don’t.  That inconsistency provides the hypocritical fuel that damages the quality profession.

Please comment below and thanks for subscribing.

PS – RAB/QSA Leadership – I’d be happy to talk with you!

PSS – I’ve posted similar topics on LinkedIn discussion boards and the conversation can get heated and wild.  There are a lot of deep feelings here by many, on many view points stemming from different positions and experiences.  Let’s pull together and get rid of this elephant by acknowledging it and having a workable solution.

• “ISO/TS requires that we have a Certified Lead Auditor for internal auditing.” (wrong)
• “I need to become a Certified Lead Auditor (RAB/QSA).”…often per above (wrong)
• “We need to hire a Certified Lead Auditor.” (wrong)

In auditing training courses, there are those certified by RAB/QSA and those that are not.  Taking an RAB/QSA certified course DOES NOT make you a Certified Lead Auditor.  Yep you take a test.  Yep you get a certificate at the end.  That certificate certifies that you have completed the training requirement towards becoming a Certified Lead Auditor.  It is one of MANY requirements to be come “certified.”  To check out those requirements see:  http://www.rabqsa.com/qb_qms.html.  (Note – In the experience referenced in the link, auditing experience doing auditing in your company doesn’t count…it has to be with an RAB/QSA Certified Auditor observed environment.)

Training certified by RAB/QSA has been reviewed by RAB/QSA and meets their requirements.  It is often good training, and you often pay more for the “RAB/QSA” endorsement.  It can be a good bet if you don’t have any references to good training otherwise.  For the success of a QMS, I recommend auditor training for all leaders within an organization that has a QMS compliant to ISO 9001.

Secondly, needing “Lead” auditor training may be a bit much for many situations.  “Lead” auditing training is often meant for those who have an auditing team with them.  If it is just you, you may not need it.  If you are bringing in new auditors into a mature program with experienced auditors, you likely don’t need it.  Deciding this can save you 2 days of training and $$.

Basically the only reason to be come a “Certified Auditor” or a “Certified Lead Auditor” is if you want to quit your job and go to work for a Registrar, or as a consultant contracted by a Registrar.

Thanks for subscribing and commenting below.

PS.  A short note about the ISO requirement mentioned above.  ISO requires that you have competent auditors.  What determines that competency?  However your system defines it.  Look at your procedures.  If you require an RAB/QSA Certified Lead Auditor, you have a pretty high bar….one that you’ll basically have to pay a consultant to come do.  If you go too skimpy, a registration auditor may take issue.  So figure out what is best for your organization.

To review the award, it contains 7 criteria areas can be used in your organization to help align your resources and activities towards selected objectives for the betterment of the performance.  These seven areas are:  Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer Focus, Workforce Focus, Operations Focus, Results.

So how do I start in my organization?  First, download the criteria from NIST at:

http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/criteria.cfm

Second, Baldrige criteria are arranged in 3 categories of increasing complexity:  Basic, Overall, Multiple:

• The basic requirement is the main question at the top, next to the point value.
  • For section 1.1 Senior Leadership the basic criteria is:  “How do your senior leaders lead?” with the idea being what do they personally do.
• The Overall requirement are the bold sentences just in the top of the blue box below the basic requirement.
  • For section 1.1:  “Describe how senior leaders’ actions guide and sustain the organization.  Describe how senior leaders communicate with your workforce and encourage high performance.”
• The Multiple requirements for each section are denoted by the a, b, c, etc within the blue box.

If you are having trouble answering the basic requirement question, look to the overall requirement to help get you started.  If you still need more assistance, talk about the items listed in the multiple requirement.  That will help you form your basic or overall requirement explanation.

MATURITY WITHIN EACH CRITERIA

In order to demonstrate the performance of your organization at each of the requirement levels (Basic, Overall, Multiple) for the first 6 criteria, the acronym ADLI is used:  Approach, Deployment, Learning, Integration.

• Approach – What is the method/process that addresses the criteria?
• Deployment – How well is the method/process consistently executed?
• Learning – Describe a feedback loop in the process for continual improvement?
• Integration – How well spread is that method/process throughout the organization?

For Results category, to demonstrate performance the following attributes are looked for, summarized in the LeTCI (Levels, Trends, Comparisons, Integration) acronym.

• Levels – your current level of performance
• Trends – sustainability, rate/breadth of improvement
• Comparisons – performance relative to benchmarks (competitors, industry leaders, etc)
• Integration  – alignment of results with organizational goals or requirements

SCORING

Each category has a maximum point value.  More points are given as more of the requirements are met.  For instance, if you demonstrate ADLI for the Basic requirement, you may get 30% of the max points.  If you also demonstrate ADLI for the Overall requirement you get more points.  If you demonstrate only A of the multiple requirements, you still get more points.  As you increase in fulfillment and complexity of the requirements, your score increases.

Contact your state Baldrige program for more information.  (MN Council for Quality in MN…other states are listed here:  http://www.baldrigepe.org/alliance/  )

Thanks for subscribing and commenting below!

The 7 criteria areas can be used in your organization to help align your resources and activities towards selected objectives for the betterment of organizational performance.  These seven areas are:  Leadership, Strategic Planning, Customer Focus, Workforce Focus, Operations Focus, Results.

Here are some examples from the basic requirements:

• How do you design, manage and improve your work systems?  6.1
• How do you build and effective and supportive workforce environment? 5.1
• How do you engage customers to serve their needs and build relationships? 3.2
• How do you develop your strategy? 2.1

So how do I start in my organization?  First, download the criteria from NIST at:

http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/criteria.cfm

Second, Baldrige criteria are arranged in 3 categories of increasing complexity:  Basic, Overall, Multiple:

• The basic requirement is the main question at the top, next to the point value.
  • For section 1.1 Senior Leadership the basic criteria is:  “How do your senior leaders lead?” with the idea being what do they personally do.
• The Overall requirement are the bold sentences just in the top of the blue box below the basic requirement.
  • For section 1.1:  “Describe how senior leaders’ actions guide and sustain the organization.  Describe how senior leaders communicate with your workforce and encourage high performance.”
• The Multiple requirements for each section are denoted by the a, b, c, etc within the blue box.

If you are having trouble answering the basic requirement question, look to the overall requirement to help get you started.  If you still need more assistance, talk about the items listed in the multiple requirement.  That will help you form your basic or overall requirement explanation.

(A great thing about the progressive point system is that you can get credit, even when starting out.  Many states will give acknowledgement to companies who are just beginning the journey.  Even if your organization doesn’t file an application, just using the questions as discussion starters can help increase the performance of the organization.  A post on scoring will be following….)

For more info email:  contact@beaconquality.com

Thanks for subscribing and posting comments below.

Sound familiar?  It’s fear.  It’s natural in all of us.  Some corporate cultures stop it.  Some cultures do nothing to stop it, or even attempt to use it as a hammer.

Drive out fear and put personnel at ease by assuring no person will be unemployed due to an improvement effort.  (And then follow through with it…..people react to what you do more than what you say.)  I hear your WIIFM management station tuning in broadcasting, “How can I afford that….”  The answer is twofold:

1. First, you must, or your savings won’t be properly realized due to resistance.
2. Second, if jobs are eliminated, transfer the people somewhere else where focus is needed.  Natural turn-over will close the headcount gap and when it does, don’t rehire.  It is often less expensive to keep an employee than find, hire and train a new one.

Adapt these two suggestions above to suit your situation and leave a comment below with your own suggestions, successes or questions.

Drive out fear to make room for improvement.

PS  This topic was discussed at a Manufacturers Alliance meeting today.  If you are in the twin cities, check out www.mfrall.com for Lean/CI/Six Sigma interests.

Thanks for subscribing!

Check out www.beaconquality.com or to help study for ASQ Certs, www.qualityreviewinaflash.com

Why is risk reduction better than risk management?  Because millions of managers in this country are engaged in risk management and it’s like playing roulette. ‘Taking some calculated risks and making it through the day is considered success.  Ship the defective product, and if the customer doesn’t notice, we’ve earned our pay today,’ is the status quo. In fact, most businesses in the US operate this way, and it’s hard to believe that there is shock when it happens.  For instance, recently Toyota had a run in with a brake issue.  The response was comparison between US and Japanese quality, and how US is doing better.  Other comments included notions of the fall of Toyota quality.  The truth is, it could have been any one of the automakers, and Toyota’s number came up this time.  It should be noted that their number comes up far less than the others.

Referring back to management of quality, it typically focuses on 3 main areas:  product, process, business.

• Product quality revolves around whether or not a product works the way a customer wants it to for as long as they want it to.
• Process quality deals with the whole value stream – supplier to customer – to provide product to customer in an efficient, effective manner, including getting it to them on time.  With the product, it includes the total customer experience.
• Business quality deals with how business resources are aligned and utilized for efficiency and effectiveness of company operations.

Quality professionals are equipped to reduce risk in each category.  Risk in any of these areas can lead to lower customer satisfaction and higher costs.  It can be said a measure of quality system maturity is the extent that the senior leaders feel that the quality function is there to reduce risk and lead to lowest total cost.

One more note on quality and risk and that’s its relation in six sigma.  Six sigma focuses on decreasing variability.  In many occasions, reducing variability reduces risk.  Whether six sigma professional, auditor, engineer, etc., all quality professionals speak the language of risk.

The “strengths” concept has been made popular by the Gallup organization, as well as several resulting books.  Buying the “Strength’s Finders” book will get you a code to take the assessment online, which I recommend doing.  It’s important to discover or confirm, what we do well.  In a global market, it is vital to differentiate ourselves from others, and knowing our strengths can help us do that.

I like to think of finding a strength as trying to tune an analog radio (the old kind with a dial).  Much of the spectrum is static.  As a station is approached, its garbled signal starts to become recognizable.  However, once directly on the signal, *BING, that stereo light comes on and it comes in loud and clear.  Move a little to the right or the left and it starts to fade.  Pinpoint that strength and get right on it.

Similarly, in western music, the 1^st, 3^rd and 5^th of a scale make a chord.  If any of these notes is slightly out of tune, the cats come in quick.  With each note right on, magic happens.  Combine your strengths to make your own music.

Passions come in to play on the angle of what motivates us to perform.  Strengths do offer insight, but often what we are good at may not be what we like to do.  Friends of mine operate a business called Passionwerx that helps organizations and individuals utilize this powerful concept.

Once equipped with this knowledge, management support for a role where strengths and passions can flourish.  With the right environment, the result will be performance excellence.  Quality is about ensuring that resources are used efficiently and effectively, and that includes YOU.  (Some lean experts include lost creativity in the list of wastes!)  Find your strengths; feed your passions.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/14/ford-expands-f-150-pickup-recall-to-nearly-1-2-million-vehicles/

Ok, so if you didn’t read it, here’s the sum up.

2004-2006 F150 trucks have a wire in the steering wheel that can be damaged over time and cause air bags to deploy unexpectedly.  Although no resulting accidents, 269 reported cases have resulted in 98 injuries, some serious.

Ford knows about this issue and made production changes in 2007.  Ford has also recalled 150,000 trucks for this issue in February.  These are both good moves, but the NHTSA has been pushing for a full recall.  Ford has been resisting saying truck owners get a warning when the airbag light comes on.  (*cough   WEAK)  However, they have agreed to issue the full recall.  This quote came from Ford’s Safety Director James Vondale:

“To reassure customers of Ford’s commitment to safety, and to eliminate any possible customer confusion, Ford is voluntarily recalling this remaining population of vehicles”

Ok, now the rant part.

While the quote from Vondale may be true, it may be better to qualify it by adding the parenthesis at the end of  “(because we were pressured to.)”  Now that doesn’t sound like volunteering, it sounds like cooperating.  Similar to how I wouldn’t say a bank teller at gunpoint “volunteered” to give money to a masked man.  If Ford wanted to “volunteer” they should have done so fully in February.  Good job trying to save face and trying to look like heroes instead of one who made a mistake.  Doing what you are pressured to do isn’t much of a “commitment.”

Also, regarding the reassurance of Ford’s customer safety cited in the quote,  I think the original message came through louder of  “We gave you a warning light, you idiots.”  Perhaps Ford remembers Apollo 13 also had many warning lights aboard, but that doesn’t change the situation much.  Congratulations on lowering that FMEA Severity score from a “10″ (injury) to a “9″ (injury with warning), assuming the light is an effective warning.

It’s a numbers game to Ford.  Stop playing games with injuries, people and quality.  You will lose.

I read this article and had to blog a little because quality and integrity go hand in hand.  Quality folks need to set the example.  Management needs to set the example.  Our nation’s leading companies like Ford need to set an example.

ASQ certifications are held in high regard.  Part of what protects their reputation is the difficulty in obtaining certification, culminated in an exam.

We recommend purchasing ASQ’s Handbook or Indiana Quality Council’s Primer for the test you are taking. They are a good baseline for study, as well as a resource to bring into the exam.

HOWEVER, even with reference materials and copious prep/study efforts, there isn’t enough time to look up a lot of information during the exam.  The more you can recall from memory, the better.  Therefore, recommended are  flash cards from www.qualityreviewinaflash.com  that will help you to retain information and build the confidence you need.  Don’t be stuck at a desk with a book, take your study on the go with a stack of cards in your pocket!  Each flash card set cover key concepts, vocabulary words, acronyms, people, tools, statistics, when to apply what tools, etc. spanning the scope of the entire body of knowledge for each certification.

Prepare early, prepare often for success!

As it turns out, in my other pursuits of smart people, I’ve found they use a smart tool called a SMART goal.  (Like that segway there??)  This type of goal statement focuses our efforts and helps define success.  Yep, another acronym:

SMART

Specific

Measurable

Attainable

Relevant

Timely

• Most start with Specific, but we’ll save that one for last.
• Measurable doesn’t necessarily mean there has to be a sophisticated data collection in place, complete with G R&R, sampling, capability and SPC charting.  The purpose is to have sufficient data to have fact based decision making.  The other, probably main purpose, in this bullet item is so when you know you are DONE.  Let me repeat that – the measurable part of the goal statement lets you know when you’ve reached the goal…when you are done.
• Attainable also has a two prong contribution.  The first has to do with ability.  An item “inside your area of concern, but outside your area of influence” is not a great candidate for a goal statement.   I can have a goal that the STL Blues win the Stanley Cup, but all my efforts so far haven’t amounted to much.  A lot of goal statements become demoralizing when management imposes them on people with little control on the outcome.  The other ‘A’ words I like to use with this section is ‘achievable’ and ‘aggressive.’  Can the goal be accomplished?  A goal to become the captain of the STL Blues this year is not attainable for me.  Aggressiveness is a descriptive derivative of ‘achievable.’  The goal has to be achievable, and with the right amount of aggressiveness.  Getting out of bed today is a good goal, but is that really aggressive enough?  Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish success from setting the bar a little too low (are you really great at performing or really poor at goal setting?).  Make sure you have enough input to the outcome and that the desired outcome is a reasonable stretch.
• Relevant also has two prongs (is there a theme here…perhaps it should be a SSMMAARRTT goal….).  The first is that the goal should be aligned with other and overarching objectives.  How does the goal relate to other things trying to be done?  The second prong is related and answers the great question, ‘Whats in it for me?’  A great point to address if the goal is to be deployed to others besides yourself.  Answer for them, ‘Why should I care?’
• Timely implies defining the scope of when this will be accomplished.  Items with no time constraint often don’t get done.  I’ll save for retirement sometime…or I’m thinking about starting that garage project..,etc all have a vagueness about them that almost ensures failure.  Your mortgage company, on the other hand, ensures that there is a timely requirement about when payment is due, and chances are it get’s done (prior to 2007 that is).  This portion also lays the ground work for where milestones can be placed to track progress.
• Specific is saved for last because the above helps describe what to be specific about.  Say what you mean, or else you may get something you don’t want.  Use the items prior to this as a space to explore desires to make a precise statement.  It’s critical to your success.  It’s also critical for morale if the goal goes beyond yourself as employees hate coded requirements or ambiguous measures.

Professionally, team charters often include a SMART goal statement.  I encourage you to use them personally also.  A life coach or executive coach should be trained to help you develop these types of goal statements.  Seek one out if you know one.  Use the SMART goal as a framework tool to  strategically move you towards your desired future.