Too often employees believe that the quality system is ‘man­agement business’ and it is a shock when they discover that everyone is involved. I have found also that academic training centres (universities, training colleges) do not give sufficient credibility to quality management, particularly in their engineering and business development studies.

We do not want to wait to put this right until the auditor arrives from the Certification Body for the all-important certificate assessment.  I encourage my clients to include training so that staff are aware of the impact of the quality system, as follows:

•  know where to find the Quality Policy Manual
• know where to find the Quality Policy statement by the CEO
• can describe, in brief terms, what the Quality Policy means to them
• know where to find their copy of the Quality Assurance Procedures
• if asked “how do you know how to do your job?” will have an appropriate response in their own words, such as “I have xxx number of years as … I have xxx certificates and I have working instructions on the intranet.”
• can find their working instructions on the Master Document List (read only)
• can realise and explain the impact of their work on the service or product on which they are working, or for which they are responsible. This is critical, as it depends on staff understanding the nature of ISO9001 and its effect on their work.  (A requirement of the standard and the assessor could ask this question).

I use my ISO Cheat Sheet to make this training less of an ordeal, and to prepare everyone for questions which are outside their normal range of activity.

Employees become accustomed to these questions.

Do you have an assigned responsibility and authority for training new staff in company processes?

During one of my contracts in marine freight forwarding I worked with a Maintenance Foreman who was responsible for isolating and identifying nonoperational forklifts used to move cargo. His habit was to remove the forklifts to a corner and attach a small (grubby) tag marked ‘DO NOT USE’ to each one.

Unfortunately, the night shift operators would decide that they needed an extra forklift, or another forklift would go out of action, and they would take one of the deficient forklifts back into operation. Much cursing, wasted time and frustration occurred the next day in tracking the whereabouts of the OOO forklifts. Clearly, the identification was inadequate for the job it was supposed to do.

With the QAM’s involvement, we set up a segregation (quarantine) area marked “NONCONFORMING ITEM: DO NOT REMOVE”. We devised a big tag with a skull and cross bones and the words ‘OUT OF ORDER! DO NOT MOVE!’ As identity for a nonconforming item (a controlled document) the tag carried a serial number, an NCR number from the NCR Log and a brief account of why the machine was out of action (leaking oil, gears seized).

This example shows that often people do not follow procedures and other instructions if they are not expressed in sufficiently dramatic, simple or sizeable terms, especially when they are in a hurry, or working under extremely difficult or hazardous conditions.

The document’s revision status should be current, at point of use and legible to the reader. The reader must always be considered when preparing any document. Quality records should be reviewed periodically with these considerations in mind. Any document on the Master Document List needs this kind of review.

The zeal for “measurement” and “continuous improvement” expressed through numbers has been gaining strength for some years. I have even seen one comment that “nothing in process development was any use unless it was, or could be, measured”.

I maintain that measurements can’t be made, or make any sense at all, unless they derive first from categories which are specific and concise: in other words, vocabulary (categories). For example, in managing risk we have to decide where there is potential for risk: what I call the “point of failure”, essential for relentless root cause analysis.

In identifying potential points of failure we are obliged to look at design, product development, process, documentation, employee calibre, environment, to name a few. The correspondence between description (category) and reality (condition) must be leak-proof, free from ambiguity and cause no delays in judgement.

I can hear the statisticians protesting about the rejection of numbers analysis, but a number does not say what is, except for counting heads and items; it simply indicates a condition which has had to be defined and clarified elsewhere by vocabulary.

The work in defining categories is well worth while if numbers are to provide true value as measurements for quality system assessments and other critical conditions

FROM: JEAN WHITE, QUALIDOC
WWW.QUAlIDOC.CO.UK

Apprentices are not confined to the “shop floor”. In my recent workshop on quality management for apprentices I had eight PhD university student/apprentices. They are working and studying. This is why we should get rid of the belief that students go to university or college and get a degree (with enhanced career potential) and apprentices’ career route is solely via training in a chosen industrial environment,with restrained potential for career growth.

Apprentices should be aware of the management structure; its responsibility and authority levels throughout the entire quality system from customer requirement (contract review) to delivery, where contract responsibility ceases for all interested parties.
Do you have an apprenticeship or other industrial training programme?

Does this include an introduction to quality management systems (QMS), including processes, authority and responsibility, documentation?

Are apprentices instructed in the role of quality management in engineering (e.g., aerospace, construction)?

Are they aware that the authority and responsibility of Quality Engineers can include the requirements of ISO9001:2008 (2015); e.g., formal design reviews, and participation in QMS internal audits?
Who is responsible for training new staff in company processes?

Do induction and other training plans include quality assurance at all stages of employment? For example, QMS involvement in new contracts, revised contracts, revised processes, revised industrial and quality management standards?

Are authorised and responsible personnel in the company (e.g., engineers, drawing office, purchasing) prepared for the sudden advent of formal QMS requirements arising from new contracts and amendments to contracts?Despite

Is the organisation up-to-date with verification of the QMS including
• allowing for ISO9001:2015 and AS9100D
• sufficient root cause analysis for nonconformances
• supply chain verification especially for counterfeit and otherwise suspect parts?