Making Your QMS Work

Most quality management systems don’t produce the desired results because of the way companies use it to affect their bottom line.

A QMS is often considered to be a burden, and there’s apathy in all levels of the organization toward quality. ISO 9001 systems, for example, are considered to be paper monsters. One can blame registrars, consultants or even management for not ensuring effective implementation of the QMS. The fact remains that QMSs create consistency, but in turn can be misconstrued by bureaucracy.

How does it happen?
It depends. Each implementation has its own reasons. Instead of worrying about why it happens, try to answer this question: How can you make your QMS more effective?

Any new methodology, system or tool has a goal behind it even before it’s documented. For example, the intent of Six Sigma is to have a great deal of improvement in a short period of time, or the intent of the Dorian Shainin methodology is to reduce variability.

Similarly, the intent of a QMS is to create quality thinking throughout the organization, a state of mind at each individual level through a system consisting of documentation, deployment, results and certification.

Looking around, however, it appears that a quality system certification became an end in itself, instead of a means to achieve the original intended outcome. Certifications provide easy money for registrars, some revenue opportunities for consultants and, of course, some shining moments for the quality department. All stakeholders end up focusing on the short-term outcome instead of taking the opportunity to create long-term value.

What can be done?
I’m not going over details of root cause analysis. I’m just going to bring up a few opportunities for improvement that companies commonly miss. Many companies focus on inspections instead of building in quality. They focus on corrective action forms instead of corrective actions themselves. They focus on the act of conducting internal audits instead of the opportunity to improve processes, and finally, they focus on management review instead of engaging senior management to utilize a QMS to drive performance improvement.

QMSs were standardized with ISO 9001 in 1987. Since then, about 1 million companies have been ISO 9001-certified. However, having such certification hasn’t resulted in the level of improvement that was originally expected. On the contrary, ISO 9001 is perceived by many as a burden in terms of documentation and bureaucracy.

The success of any quality management system depends on intent and execution.

Intent
When a management team commits to an ISO 9001-compliant system, a clear plan must be documented. In other words, what the management expects from the implementation of that QMS must be clearly spelled out in terms of standardization, utilization and performance. These aspects must be measured in terms of cost, quality, customer satisfaction and profit. With the goal established, someone is assigned to lead the QMS implementation.

Once the QMS is implemented, a management review should be conducted every month. A successful management review determines actions to be taken that will ensure continual improvement. The internal audit and corrective action processes are designed to help management achieve its objectives, and management must monitor their deployment and effectiveness. Audits are effective when new opportunities for improvement are identified, and corrective actions are effective when the fixed problems don’t recur.

Execution
A successful execution comprises three elements—approach, deployment and results—that are also used as guidelines for the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award.

Approach represents the design of the process, its definition and documentation. One can use the 4Ps model (prepare, perform, perfect, progress) as I described in “From PDCA to PPPP.” A sound design will cure many implementation evils.

An effective deployment ensures that the procedures are easy for people to follow and captures expectations for the next process or customer. An ongoing compliance audit armed with an edict for compliance from management will ensure well-documented procedures to begin with and continual updates of documented procedures that are aligned with the process improvements.

As to results, the proof is in the pudding. To achieve business objectives and good results from the QMS, performance targets must be defined. It must be clear that performance targets aren’t just windows, but point values along with the range around them.

This is different from defining lower and upper specification limits. Each process must have an expected target performance and must define methods to monitor the progress toward it. In many instances, tolerances without targets are defined. Results must include a certain level of performance close to excellence and aggressive goals for continual improvement. Aggressive goals for improvement imply emphasis on engaging employees intellectually so they come up with new ideas and solutions to process problems.

Without effective implementation and clearly spelled-out expectations, even a well-designed QMS will continue to produce unacceptable performance, mediocre improvement and a loss of business to competition. We must create value using QMSs, or they’ll become extinct in their current form.

About The Author