The “battle” for the quality
During the process of implementation (or implementation as some colleagues prefer to call) of a System of Quality Management we produced what we call “small battles” between the various members of the company and the consultant and / or Quality Manager and between the various departments of the company, the result just by setting the structure and final utilization management system to implement and often the viability of its integration in the state.
These differences in criteria are rooted in multiple causes but generally could be considered the following five:
Clichés or preset situations. Many managers do not know what that means Quality Management System and the benefits (usually medium and long term) implementation in your company. Situations like the only pursuit seal leading to “mark” a system of “minimum” to get the accreditation (and thus some commercial competitive advantage) facing certain projects or the belief (which we have contributed largely all) that the quality is just a cumbersome set of “roles” that slow down the work of the entity carry on many occasions to have a “default” view of quality and often to consider the system as a “ballast” necessary for the company.
“Adverse” staff. Reactions Many of the employees of the entity considered higher quality as “workload” that management imposes an “extra” and without consideration. The worker believes (and this becomes much more important in the current economic situation) that the quality will “take” a longer time in the development of tasks without observing a profit on it. This situation is exacerbated in some states where prior to the implementation process and there exists a “true” bitterness between workers and management. From my point of view this is a very complicated situation where the quality becomes “a weapon” between different departments of the company.
Lack of resources. This point has a double version: one consideration of many small and medium enterprises that a quality system is not within reach and in the background (and understanding the resources in its broadest sense: time, personnel, infrastructure, etc.) to pretend the implementation of a management system without consideration of a number of basic needs which in many cases are only temporary (time for training, meetings, lines of computer integration, audits, reviews, etc.).
Short-termism. Many organizations want (in a logical way) that the “performance” of a Management System start giving “off” in a very short space of time. The vision of medium- and long-term quality and its focus on continuous improvement (in many companies can not raise all the improvements in one fell swoop because there is no time, means and resources and also can not go crazy staff) . Here comes full consideration, by the entity, the costs of a Quality System observing those of directness: consulting, training, auditing and certification.
The “historical” company. Here come into play the famous phrase known to all who are dedicated to quality “has always been done this way” already devastating and offers a “predisposition” against to any organizational change or process. The phrase is not owned by any of the “estates” of the company observed in both the direction and the middle managers and the workers themselves. The intended improvement in quality in relation to work, processes and organization of the company “hits” frontally with preconceived ideas so different actors of the entity.
Although the above reasons I have separated into five, and is seen as the most general we can find in our work all tend to have as the main reason the lack of which leads to the implementation (of an operating mode) of a System of Quality Management in an organization.
From my point of view the work of the consultant and / or Quality Manager must offer “solutions” and be prepared to successfully face all the problems that may arise, and there are a number of actions to be taken to try to eliminate or at least minimize difficult situations:
initial approach procesode stages of implementation. Usually made with the company address where it is exposed and comments that involves implanting a quality system (both pluses, which are many, as against paragraphs in the early stages also exist). This program will bring together the needs of the company with the structure necessary to implement the quality system, defining the resources (of all kinds) and marking the “red lines” that should not be crossed. Its advantage is that predisposes to address in its “active” role of the system and provides a realistic view of what will be achieved with the implementation and evolution.
Quality with a formative and participatory load. The quality (or its implementation) is not a generation of procedures under Article 10 should be implemented by workers without their opinion. The analysis of a company, its processes and interactions between them and the people who make up (in addition to the means at their disposal) should take into account the views of workers and extract meetings for improvement and even correct wording of a procedure or instruction. Staff participation from the document generation process is a strong point that eliminates many problems later in awareness sessions or development work. One should not forget that quality means (or should mean) the improvement of the whole company including its members, must be considered quality records the filled in persons and should be participants why thereof as well as its design (and evolution).
Defender clearly that quality is for any company. And always beyond the means that the entity can “put into play”. The criteria of ISO, EFQM, etc. they are universal (hence its greatness) and applicable to any independent organization of its resources. Dynamic improvement and process optimization study data and analysis of results for marking goals and objectives can be addressed with enthusiasm and a computer (the price adjustment both consultants as CAs in recent years also helps). The premise is that any organization can be more efficient and optimize their lines of work.
Quality medium and long term. The do see this to the managements, in some cases, remains a challenge but a global vision of what means a quality management system over time to the entity primarily focused on optimizing their work control and customer reviews progressive improvement coupled with a good economic approach (companies are still businesses and should generate profits *) that can generate quality is usually a good argument for quality.
*Observation. This is an imponderable that often we forget and we must take into account improvements in the approach and objectives as there should (or should) look Pyrrhic victories.
Quality as evolution. Just as markets and customer needs evolve companies must also evolve. The quality has been ranked as one of the most highly regarded management systems by the Executives. In my opinion its universality (no matter the size or business sector), its depth (involvement of the entire organization), versatility (two similar companies may have different system and both considered correct) and evolution (standards evolve with the times and integrating aspects will initially not considered). This consideration may arise as an alternative to “always been done” offering at all times sought or predictable change advantages and relying on the “deviations” or lack of opportunity in which the company incurs if no go “updating”.
The ultimate goal of a good quality system is its successful integration into the development work of the entity. The “controls” posed any system and the analysis of data to be collected from all company processes help decision making to improve the activities of the company and approach challenges and objectives necessary to the survival of the medium and long term. The quality system must be present in each and every one of the participants of the company and not be something parallel and costly (in every way) that does not add value to the entity.
Our job is not infrequently to harmonize the requirements of the standard with the resources and type of organization of the company and “distribute” the system load among all its members but making all actors participating in the same getting the whole company note advantages which in many simple but not always a good challenge sometimes.
“You have to lead people gently toward what they already know is right.” Businessman and consultant.
Borja Arrizabalaga Uriarte