14 replies to this topic

[Simon]

Using Quality Objectives to Drive Strategic Performance Improvement
Focusing your improvement efforts will bring you better results.
By Craig Cochran

ISO 9001:2000 requires that quality objectives be established at each relevant function and level within the organization (i.e., just about everywhere). The manner in which quality objectives are established and managed will have an enormous impact on the organization's performance. The quality objectives will either drive strategic improvements throughout the organization, significantly elevating the importance of the quality management system, or they'll simply become a meaningless exercise in data collection. It all depends on how the task is carried out.

Read Full Article

Feel free to add your comments...

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

ISO 9000 [in clauselets 3.2.5, 3.1.1, 3.5.1 and 3.1.2] defines a quality objective as "something sought or aimed for related to the degree to which a set of inherent distinguishing features fulfils needs or expectations that are stated, generally implied or obligatory".

Hmmm ... okaaay.

So perhaps Craig or one of the other quality professionals here can explain: is there a difference between quality objectives and other sorts of objectives? If so what are those other types of objective and how are they defined?

rgds Jim

[Simon]

"something sought or aimed for related to the degree to which a set of inherent distinguishing features fulfils needs or expectations that are stated, generally implied or obligatory".[/i]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does anyone know anyone who speaks this language.

Superlative salutations,
Simon

[Simon]

So perhaps Craig or one of the other quality professionals here can explain: is there a difference between quality objectives and other sorts of objectives? If so what are those other types of objective and how are they defined?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about a clue Jim? :)

Regards,
Simon

[masculinie]

Let me make an attempt here to provide some personal opinions:

Objective for product or service QUALITY is different from objectives for other performance such as finanace, sales, operations, adminsitration, environment, occupational health and safety, food safety, information security, social accountability etc....

In the ISO 9001 context.... product and service quality by management system way is for the sake of enhancing curstomer satisfaction....

Judging from the customer complaints or feedbacks.... the usual customer needs across the commerical sectors seem to be - wanting the product or service.... FAIRLY PRICED.FRESH.FAST.FABULOUS.... - this form part of the Quality Policy of each specific organization....

The usual questions in the free market are.... how fairly priced (or cheap) is fairly priced (or cheap)?.... how fresh (or with personal touch) is fresh (or with personal touch)?.... how fast is fast?.... and how fabulous (by quality level) is fabulous (by quality level)?....

These can be made measurable into a number of quality objectives consistent to the policy.... - level of which is dictated by the free market mechanism and not the generic ISO 9001 requirements....

Monitoring of objectives permits an organization to keep a lookout for means of actual situation control and relearning.... another source to prompt the management system to be revised with the new methods successfully employed in acheiving the objectives.... other than those old methods stipulated in the existing procedures....

The same methodology shall apply to other objectives or indicators.... for an organization to be target driven for risk-free performance - be it business or technical....

Masculinie

[Simon]

Good explanation Masculinie

My objective is to get off this computer by 9.00 p.m. It was defined by the wife.

Regards,
Simon

[masculinie]

Congratulations for acknowledging your 'boss at home' as your 'interested party'.... your poilicy would be wanting to please her.... with a measurable objective of 9.00am....

Drive hard for your strategic performance improvement to meet your objective.... if not - try changing your methods and still hitting it....

Luckily you still have a choice of whether you'd want to get your methods (of hitting 9.00am objective) documented in personal life :-)

At the end of the day.... when you meet your objective hence your risk-free policy.... - she is happy.... and finally you are happy....

Well done Simon.... - the concept of a risk-free management-system to link 'work' to pleasing all (as 'goal').... is well practiced in your personal life....

A house is not a home.... until we act for strategic performance improvement.... objective-driven as well.... :-D

Have a nice weekend,

Masculinie

[Jim Wade]

How about a clue Jim?  :)

I don't pretend to have 'the answer'. Simon. But I do have a view.

IMO, it is extremely unhelpful to differentiate between 'quality' objectives and other classes of objective - particularly in view of the fact that...

1) the approach to business that we call 'quality' can be applied to affect positively any objective.

2) the quality profession seems unable to define the difference, so it can't be significant.

Where does the distinction come from anyway? Did it exist before the age of BS 5750/ISO 9000?

rgds Jim

[masculinie]

Guess if we are to define the 'interest' and 'issue' for risk-free performance from the outset.... be it product quality and safety, public health and safety, personal health and safety, information security, social accoutability.... etc - we could appreciate it better that.... product (including food and medical device etc) quality and safety and the rest of the issues are somewhat independent.... by 'interest' or 'issue'....

Business quality may be defined by seperate Key-Performance-Indicators....

To differentiate them is bad.... but it does help focused anaysis by 'issue' to render risk-control most specific.... from the day of BS5750/ISO 9000....

Not to differentiate them is good.... but it doesn't help for specific risk-free control at the end of the day to assure the total business quality....

Again.... a matter of opinion.... :-)

Masculinie

[Simon]

Congratulations for acknowledging your 'boss at home' as your 'interested party'.... your policy would be wanting to please her.... with a measurable objective of 9.00am.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Believe me Masculine objectives become much more fervently pursued when the threat of physical violence hangs over you. By the way if I was still on the PC at 9.00 a.m. it would be certain

IMO, it is extremely unhelpful to differentiate between 'quality' objectives and other classes of objective - particularly in view of the fact that...

1) the approach to business that we call 'quality' can be applied to affect positively any objective.

2) the quality profession seems unable to define the difference, so it can't be significant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would happily remove most references to ‘quality' from ISO 9000, but are we saying ‘quality' as a word should not exist at all in business? I think it's almost perfect for describing the desired attributes of and objectives for a product.

I want to live till I'm ninety eight - it's a personal objective. When I buy a 3/8's Whitworth screw I want it to be exactly 3/8's - that's a quality objective isn't it?

It's way past 9.00 p.m.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

I think ['quality' is] almost perfect for describing the desired attributes of and objectives for a product.

That is perfectly reasonable, Simon, as a definition in a particular circumstance (if we were working together in a company for example and we all agreed "Q objectives pertain to the desired attributes of and objectives for a product. Right, chaps?"). And then we went on to define all the other classes of objectives that made sense to us.

But I don't think it's reasonable as a general definition of quality objective - the ISO 9000 definition, for example, gives a different view. So who is right?

... are we saying ‘quality' as a word should not exist at all in business?

Not at all. Use it if you must. But define it for each usage.

So one company might say "when we say 'Q objectives', we mean those objectives which pertain to the desired attributes of and objectives for a product".

Another organisation might say "we recognise that Q is a philosophy which we apply right across our whole operation, but we choose to categorise our objectives according to balanced scorecard thinking so we have no need for a category called Q objective. In fact, we don't use the Q word at all".

Yet another outfit might say "we like to differentiate between outcome (or lagging) objectives, and performance (or leading) objectives. We choose to call then all 'Q objectives".

Bottom line: all general definitions of Q (or Q objective) are close to useless. The only definition that matters is the one that people in an organisation agree is correct. And I would claim that any company that uses the word or phrase without having agreed what it means for that company is talking bo**ocks.

Just an opinion.

rgds Jim

Edited by Jim Wade, 08 November 2004 - 01:24 AM.

[masculinie]

Hope you survived al'right after crossing your 9.00pm objective Simon :-)

For one moment I thought we were talking about 'quality objectives'.... the next moment 'quality' slipped in.... and now we are whipping ISO 9001 a standard that is not meant for quality in general but quality in product or service in specific....

I'm not sure if we know what ISO 9001 is all about....

Before time objective is up and physical violence is set in.... - let me happily opt to quit the scene for personal health and safety objective sake.... for the time being....

Masculinie :-D

[Simon]

Hope you survived al'right after crossing your 9.00pm objective Simon :-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's OK I get a one hour extension on Sunday nights.

Hi Jim,

You know whenever you make a post it makes me think a lot.

I can confidently say (without fear of persecution) that I want a good quality of life during my 98 years existence on this planet. I know precisely what ‘good quality of life' means to me; however, I can't speak for anyone else with authority. I'm guessing Jim that your perception of ‘quality of life' may well be similar to mine but no doubt with some striking and unguessable (by me) differences. This gap between thinking and knowing can be dangerous and costly.

So I agree ‘quality' is firmly in the eye of the beholder and in whatever context the word 'quality' is used the meaning should be defined and agreed. Or as you say they are talking bo**ocks.

I would wager the word ‘Quality' (in terms of product) has been around for a very, very long time. It's a good word and I quite like it. I don't like the recent bastardisation of the word to precede just about every goddamn thing in business (e.g. management systems, planning, objectives, manager, audit, control, assurance etc.).

It's too narrow, perhaps even a misnomer. Business is much more complicated than ‘Quality' alone.

Back to Craig's article IMO it presents some useful ideas in plain language.

Regards,
Simon

[Jim Wade]

I'm not sure if we know what ISO 9001 is all about....

Hi Masculinie

Ah - if only we knew what ISO 9001 is all about. Or even better if we knew what all of the documents (it's 13 now, I think) that make up the ISO 9000 family are about.

But it remains a mystery.

rgds Jim

[Jim Wade]

So I agree ‘quality' is firmly in the eye of the beholder and in whatever context the word 'quality' is used the meaning should be defined and agreed. 

And I reckon that, once you have that agreement (in the form of a complete set of objectives), use of the Q-word becomes redundant and unhelpful.

You're better off using the words in your definition because they will be the normal words of the business and therefore more likely to be understood by colleagues at all levels.

This article goes on about this a bit - http://www.bin.co.uk/from_the_top.pdf

rgds Jim