Why Getting Process Owners to put Pen to Paper Helps the QA Representative

Nowadays people tend to be comfortable with the idea of electronic signatures, not so much a password controlled image that is but just a name added usually to the footer of the document. It more often than not is the person who has written it which, in order to get the job done, is the QA person.

Personally, I am not convinced this works on two levels. The need to demonstrate documents have been reviewed before issue and the perhaps more nebulous one of instilling ownership with the process owner with a view to making it an effective process.

It is for both these reasons that I recommend that you adopt a double wet signature approach. First off, the process owner ‘authorises’ the procedure in that he or she accepts that it reflects how the process works in their department. Then the QA Representative ‘approves’ it in that it complies with the document control procedure and would stand up to audit.

If it get’s left to the QA person how do you know the head of department is happy with what has been written. They may not have even seen it!

Nothing beats signing off a document to get ownership, so I would always recommend that you consider this approach. Do you agree?

Food, Glorious Food – or is it?

Well, I guess many of you quality professionals are looking at the highly publicised failures within this particular business sector with your head in your hands, totally at a loss to explain how such serious issues can ever have been created.

As we know 9001 offers the basic framework by which to control business processes but above that you have far more onerous systems such and medical, aerospace, automotive and, of course, food.  How can such basic requirements as sourcing and identifying beef fail to the point that horse meat is allowed to enter the food chain.  Now OK the testing required may be expensive but there must be a possibility that a sampling process would suffice.  Mind, with all the testing that is now being carried on I wonder what the quality costs are running at now?

The supply should be controlled by the approved supplier list process backed by clearly defined purchase orders and adequate inspection on receipt.  The fact that all this seems so basic might suggest to some that a deliberate policy of ignoring the agreed procedures can be the only explanation.  One can understand some may be nervous of conducting a root cause analysis with that hanging over them as it may clearly be a complex situation. Looking at this article below it also appears that the recriminations are starting to fly. Just click the picture to open the full article.

Whether there is another agenda involved here or not, make sure you quality principles remain intact where ever you work.  More advise as to how to achieve that at the ISO 9001 Support Centre.

Are your Training records what you need, not what you’ve got?

In ISO 9001 the concept of keeping training records seems one of the simplest required, but more often than not I find it is the one area of the system that companies get, well, the wrong way round.

It is very common to find that the training records are there for each member of staff and within them I will find certificates from training sessions and other relevant qualifications for what the current job holder has achieved. Unfortunately, this doesn’t demonstrate competence for the job in hand as required by the standard merely what training and experience relates to the current job holder.

What you need to do first off is actually forget the person and focus on the job.  Take each position and list what skills your business requires from a potential job holder in order for the resultant output of work to be effective, as if you were recruiting from scratch. Most companies collate this information into a training skills matrix with the skill often down the left with the job title entered across the top.  Now you can add back each member of staff working for you under the appropriate job title and then what type of the records you have on their file as validation.

Instead of being swayed by what they have got already of file you assess them against the requirements of the job. Where there are gaps then you have neatly brought to the fore your training needs and requirements.  From there you can integrate those into an annual training programme and budget.

Some companies go to another level by highlighting the actual experience each employee holds for a task. for example, you might have a numeric, alpha or colour coded key to illustrate ‘Learning’, ‘Needs Supervision’, ‘Can work unsupervised’, ‘Can train others’ etc.

Sounds simple but you would be amazed how many companies shortcut the process.

Further information on maintaining your ISO 9001 system can be found at the ISO 9001 Support Centre as part of the service provided by The BPAS Group.

A Quality own goal from the Government by any chance?

CQI article - November 2012

This latest in the line of good content coming out of the CQI reflects on what they and I can only describe as a missed opportunity following the recent report on how much buisnesses adopting a Quality Management System in the UK could yield the GDP.

Having been asked to a meeting at BIS, Simon Feary talks us through the lacklustre response from them that basically revolves around their stance that they don’t see it as their role to tell business what to do. Maybe not in terms of operational specifics but surely some support and encouragement as to what might be a useful gconcept. Give me strength.

The Biggest Quality Failure of all Time?

Following on the theme from the last post the CQI continue to put out some thought provoking content in their September edition.

To attempt to précis this article or even put together a meaningful introduction strikes me as being somewhat futile. For those of you with the slightest interest as to what was at the heart of the banking collapse this is a must read.

It comprises a detailed and personal account of events from non other than Paul Moore, dubbed the HBOS whistleblower, because of his attempts to make known his concerns over the banking practices at the time. As you read through it you will I’m sure experience several emotions as the plot unfolds. He will be addressing the CQI Conference in November.

BS 8577 – Can we bank on it for our financial services sector?

LINK: BS 8577 – Can we bank on it for our financial services sector?

Readers of this blog won’t be at all surprised to see me put the spotlight back on this particular aspect of business as we come to terms with the misdemeanours of the last few years.  Delighted to see the CQI putting out some really good content on the subject as we all try and get the message out there that quality management systems have a part to play in preventing such fiascos.

Here Robert Gibson looks at the latest failures and plans from regulators to restore quality and professionalism. As Clive Adamson, Director of Supervison at the FSA, said at the Institute of Economic Affair’s in June “What we have learned from the past is that things go wrong when business models are not based on a sound foundation of fair treatment of consumers and a strong culture that supports this leading to products being sold that are not suitable for those buying them” in relation to the most recent mis-selling issues.  Love the observation that nobody seems to have recognised the need for banks to establish robust management systems.

Perhaps the message is at last getting though.  Well done the CQI.  Click the link at the top of the page as it might just go some way to restoring your confidence. It might you know . . . .

Ready to call in the auditors and get certified? Then make sure you shop around.

One aspect of getting certified that sites need to manage is who they select to do the certification audit.  In my opinion, the first thing to make sure of is that it is a UKAS ( or equivalent ) body so that you know you are getting a qualified service.  However, there are still organisations out there that operate outside those limits and it can be tempting to go with them if money is tight.  Having said that, the old adage that you only get what you pay for happens to apply whoever you select.

You might be forgiven for thinking that of all the business assessments that you have to pay for then surely the quality system will be one where everyone delivers from a level playing field – not so.  In fact on several discussions I have initiated on LinkedIn the concept of high cost – low cost auditors seems to be accepted as part and parcel of this process.

Can it make that much difference?

Well yes it can actually.  There are clearly the market leaders who, not surprisingly, charge a premium price.  However, even looking beyond them the differences can be significant.

Putting them all into the mix,  I had a single site with less than 10 staff and I did my usual of getting three quotes so the client could get a feel of the overall costs.  This was both for the Stage 1 and 2 certification audits then the annual maintenance and surveillance audits for the three year approval period.  Now, the costs ranged from £2750 to £3681, a difference of £931 or near as makes no difference a third.

So, don’t follow the crowd and go with what the rest have got.  Get several quotes when the time is right as you would for other business services you purchase and make sure you are on the right side of the line.  If you need any more help on this then I’m more than happy to help. Visit the web site on www.thebpasgroup.co.uk.