Managing quality: word for word

Qualidoc quality management consultancy was established by owner and manager, Jean White in 1986. Here, she outlines three ‘need to know’ anxiety issues affecting suppliers faced with their new customers’ quality system requirements.

The English writer Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once said: "Depend upon it sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

Many successful applicants for prime contractors’ Approved Suppliers Lists must feel this kind of pressure. After the rosy glow of the new contract has evaporated, they meet the reality of their customer’s quality system requirements and begin to comprehend the magnitude of their new responsibilities. They discover that quality management is no longer the corporate poor relation, but the responsibility of everyone in the organisation.

For example, the AS9100D revision - based on ISO9001:2015 - requires that senior management must establish and monitor the integrity and resilience of the quality system via formal review. Despite rumours that ISO9001:2015 will be the last AS9000 revision based on ISO9001, I have it on the authority of the IAQG Requirements Leader (Boeing representative) in a recent email to me that: “ISO 9001 will continue to be the baseline of 9100 for the next revision with aviation, space and defence requirements added in to create 9100”.

Certification Body assessors and customer auditors are looking for evidence that quality system reviews are conducted by senior management according to a rigorous agenda, not to be confused with Material Review Board or other technical and system reviews.

Delivering expectations

In business planning, the company CEO will need to include: resources needed for quality system tasks; implied needs and expectations of customers and other interested parties and their impact on the quality system; changes which could affect the quality system (contract, legislation, suppliers).

My example of a Management Quality System Review Agenda comprises:

a) Quality Management Representative (QMR) report - status of quality system: results from internal audits; corrective and preventive action; regulatory, industrial and international standard compliance; customer complaints; quality objectives; on-time delivery status.

b) Other Attendees’ reports (e.g., operations director, purchasing manager, sales manager, financial director): Preventive action strategies (risk assessment and risk management); Quality objectives (strategies for continuous improvement); Cost of quality system; Benefits of quality system; Training; Customer satisfaction levels (implied needs, measurement and analysis techniques); Customer complaints; Changes which could affect the quality system (customer requirements, regulatory, standards’ revision); Relentless Root Cause Analysis (one major aircraft company in my orbit has a QMS form with this title).

The ‘Corrective and Preventive’ item in the QMR report above includes the need for vigilant root cause analyses for all NCRs.

The heat is on, as expressed at a meeting not long ago of Certification Body (CB) assessors convened by a major Standards Board (SB). The SB representative announced that nonconformances submitted with insufficient RCA would no longer be tolerated. The SB laid out his conditions for future submissions. I quote verbatim, grammar and style:

“90% of the rejections are covered in the following:

Employee Error/Human Error/Operator Error OR anyone else who made an error is not an acceptable root cause – Was the training in-effective? Was the procedure too vague?

Misunderstood the requirement/Did not know it was a requirement/Our consultant told us this was OK OR any other misunderstanding is not an acceptable root cause. Was the training effective?

We had a layoff/Mona was on maternity leave/we moved locations/we scaled back production/we are still closing out Wayne’s 40 deviations from the last audit OR most other employee or business conditions are not acceptable root causes - they are DIRECT CAUSES.

The root cause cannot be a direct cause. Example: Deviation – There were a number of internal audits scheduled for 2008 that were not completed. Root Cause – We had a layoff and we did not have enough Internal Auditors to conduct the audits.”

It is one thing to identify the true root cause - and well done if you have managed that - but another to ensure closure contains clear, specific, verified information including responsibility and authority. One alarming trend is the increase in OEM complaints to Standards Boards when they find these NCRs during their supplier audits. Result: intensified, extended and more frequent supplier audits, wasted resources, and huge embarrassment all round.

Documentation doldrums

Documentation continues to be an issue in certification and supplier audits. The preparation of quality records (i.e. policies, procedures, working instructions) is often the responsibility of those involved in the quality system.

In the enthusiasm for automated systems, it’s as well to remember that the aim in quality management is to build a resilient quality system with economical use of resources. The quality system should contain a rigorous foundation from which you can select an automated quality system which will best fit your business. I have been asked to ‘fit’ my quality system Qualidoc into automated systems and found that the categories in the receiving systems are poorly defined. They don’t allow for an automated process which is economical in time and other resources.

Before you write the first word ask these critical questions: Who are the readers? What do they need to know and in what sequence? When and where do they need to know? Who approves the first and subsequent drafts and authorises distribution?

Over the years I have found that quality system documentation (electronic and paper) has never lost its importance. My first job on a contract has always been to review the documentation, discard anything that is redundant and make sure the remainder is fit for use. This is especially important for language from which statistics are drawn.

We are in a ‘process’ world where everything is changing rapidly, so readers of quality records must be able to recognise a logical sequence of events. The readers’ needs are paramount; if they lose interest and focus, you have wasted their time - and worse, yours. You can't make a big splash when the tide is out!

www.qualidoc.co.uk