Reflections on the work of the quality manager in the company

INTRODUCTION

Sometimes, and especially if something has not gone quite right, those who are directly linked to the process, direction, department or area of the Management System, are the target of criticism.

Frequently, too much, according to my own impression if we compare it with the one dictated by the most elementary reason and correct common criterion, the phrase is heard…… "You are the person in charge of quality", and also "look, this is the person in charge of the quality, but it does not achieve it ”. Surely you have witnessed, in some cases, or recipient, in others, that when an auditor, for example, marks a non-conformity during an audit, it seems that all eyes are pointing towards that person to whom the poster has been hung of "responsible for quality". In fact, many times, those who occupy the highest management positions, assume that the "Quality" sector is solely responsible for everything related to the quality of a product or service.

Regardless of the size of an organization, it is common to find that those who are assigned the responsibility of managing quality, be it the Management Representative for the Quality Management System, the quality manager, the quality department, or as it is called, they are almost automatically responsible for the quality of the product or service, and even responsible for achieving and maintaining high efficiency and effectiveness of the processes. But why is this situation? What is it that causes this problem and this misconception to occur in different parts of the world, and regardless of the industry?

From now on, I will express some views on the aforementioned situation. I clarify that I will not write, as is usual, a scientific article in strict respect of the structure, order and rigor that characterize them. Rather, it will be an attempt to motivate dialogue between those who may find it interesting what I will summarize here.

How those who are wrong think like this

The first thing, and especially so as not to fall into another mistake, is to try to understand how those who say, for example: "this is a quality issue" think. It is likely that in many circumstances demotivation, frustration or another unhealthy feeling accompany the treated and, also, why not, the witness of such a situation, or the fatigue that one feels when faced with phrases and attitudes like that, make think that it is not worth certain efforts. But, quite the opposite: to the extent that the company we work for shows this type of behavior, it is a demonstration that we have much more work to do.

Since, in my view, this can be diagnosed as a paradigmatic paralysis, I will mention some paradigms that according to Montes explain the great error, and I will argue them from my own perspective:

Unawareness. Lack of experience, as well as lack of knowledge, leads to profound conceptual errors. Not understanding that when an organization receives for example a customer complaint or does not pass an audit, this is not the responsibility of Quality, it is clearly a mistake. In fact, and until it is understood that the responsibility lies with the entire organization and therefore everyone must join forces in the same direction, these problems will be recurrent.

This lack of knowledge, sometimes not recognized and much less accepted, motivates that people who express themselves in this way can be recognized immediately as:

People who are satisfied with the course of events, do not understand or visualize the problems; They are satisfied with their status quo, they have not advanced in time. Egocentric people who consider themselves the "best", the "wise", transmitting this erroneous feeling to the image of the company. If they also occupy positions of importance, these attributes are magnified. A danger that must be quickly detected due to its corrosive nature. People who think that the best and easiest way to do something is the one they know and have always applied; In other words, they only trust their own and insufficient experience, which is not exactly the experience of today People with a lack of strategic vision, who are not able to appreciate what is happening or may happen not only in their immediate environment, but beyond of this one.They do not have any information on how the world evolves and is expected to evolve People who continue to live in the past, with the technical knowledge inherent only to the specific professional activity for which they were trained and in which they have developed their work activities People who have not met, have not interpreted, or are simply not interested in either one or the other, since they do not need it to maintain their status, how the concepts associated with quality have evolved over the years, such as as synthesized in the tables shown.with the technical knowledge inherent only to the specific professional activity for which they were trained and in which they have developed their main work activities People who have not met, have not interpreted, or are simply not interested in either one or the other, since They do not need it to maintain their status, how the concepts associated with quality have evolved over the years, as summarized in the tables shown.with the technical knowledge inherent only to the specific professional activity for which they were trained and in which they have developed their main work activities People who have not met, have not interpreted, or are simply not interested in either one or the other, since They do not need it to maintain their status, how the concepts associated with quality have evolved over the years, as summarized in the tables shown.

The tables will allow us to have EVERYONE, those who express themselves this way and those who listen, at least an idea of the historical moment in which those who speak this way are found.

Historical evolution of quality

Also, it can give them some light on the importance and need for training, as a very effective way to overcome their ignorance of the issues on which they are issuing criteria. If you still do not understand it, I kindly invite you to analyze the content of figure 2.

Training, education and learning. Diagram

It is important to be prepared to understand these flashes of unfamiliarity. Personally, every day I value more the phrase of the President of the Republic of Cuba, Raúl Castro Ruz, when he said: “Mentality is what will take us to overcome the most work, being tied for many years to the same obsolete dogmas and criteria ”. Those who still have in their vocabulary the phrase "You. He is responsible for quality ”, in the style that concerns us in this writing, you should pay close attention to this phrase.

Disintegrating models. In certain models, managers or business owners sectorize the organization so that each unit functions autonomously. In this scheme, a quality manager or manager is appointed and a work team is formed around him. This sector becomes responsible for everything related to Quality, be it quality of the product or service, attention to claims, and even has the main objective of passing audits.

Those who decide and act in this way demonstrate a total ignorance of the development of science, of the new concepts associated with quality management, and of the most up-to-date way of ordering the operation of a company with a focus on quality. Without further ado, they are unaware of everything related to process management and the benefits that derive from it.

Understanding and managing interrelated processes as a system contributes to the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization in achieving its intended results. Consistent and predictable results are achieved more effectively and efficiently when activities are understood and managed as interrelated processes that function as a coherent system.

This approach allows the organization to control the interrelationships and interdependencies between the processes of the system, so that the overall performance of the organization can be improved. The process approach involves the systematic definition and management of processes and their interactions, in order to achieve the expected results in accordance with the quality policy and the strategic direction of the organization.

The people who express themselves and act in this way are unaware, or at least do not show confidence, that the application of the process approach in a quality management system allows: a) understanding and consistency in meeting the requirements; b) the consideration of the processes in terms of added value; c) achieving effective process performance; d) improvement of processes based on the evaluation of data and information.

In the same way, they overlook the possibility of achieving some potential key benefits such as: increased ability to focus efforts on key processes and opportunities for improvement; consistent and predictable results through an aligned process system; optimization of performance through effective process management, efficient use of resources and reduction of interdisciplinary barriers; ability for the organization to provide confidence to interested parties regarding its consistency, effectiveness and efficiency.

It may be useful to recommend some possible actions to improve the management of your organization, and avoid the emergence of small private villages that provoke serious interdepartmental struggles for resources, means, information, power; in short, always undesirable situations that lead to failure. These possible positive actions may include: defining the objectives of the system and the processes necessary to achieve them; establish authority, responsibility, and accountability for managing processes; understand the organization's capabilities and determine resource constraints before acting; determine process interdependencies and analyze the effect of modifications to individual processes on the system as a whole;manage the processes and their interrelations as a system to achieve the objectives of the organization in an effective and efficient manner; ensure that the necessary information is available to operate and improve processes and to monitor, analyze and evaluate the performance of the overall system; manage the risks that may affect the outputs of the processes and the overall results of the QMS.

This phrase is a kind of statement by those who cannot understand or are unaware of the concepts associated with process management. It is really typical of such a situation.

One way to help these people would be to explain to them that the organization must determine the processes necessary for the quality management system and its application through it, and must: a) determine the required inputs and expected outputs of these processes; b) determine the sequence and interaction of these processes; c) determine and apply the criteria and methods (including monitoring, measurements and related performance indicators) necessary to ensure the effective operation and control of these processes; d) determine the resources necessary for these processes and ensure their availability; e) assign responsibilities and authorities for these processes; f) address identified risks and opportunities;g) evaluate these processes and implement any necessary changes to ensure that these processes achieve their intended results; h) improve the processes and the quality management system.

If they understood it then it would not be strange to them that the heads of the processes would be responsible, among other aspects, for: the design, documentation and management of their processes according to information duly documented by the organization, in accordance with what is required by the standard reference and the specific activity of the organization, in addition to the custody, execution and control of the documents of their respective processes. Also, to guarantee interactions with the rest of the organization's processes. This interaction contributes to teamwork and to eliminate the unwanted effect of private villages and interdepartmental struggles.

This allows the method of measuring the effectiveness of the process and the criteria for its evaluation to be established, based on indicators determined by the person in charge of the process to respond to the objectives of their process as part of the objectives of the organization. It is the Responsible for the Process, who will carry out the evaluation thereof, indicating if necessary the corrective and preventive actions associated with the actual or potential Non-Conformities, which should be indicative of improvement in the effectiveness of the process.

III. The error comes from above. Generally the award of this “wrong” responsibility comes from the highest hierarchical positions. Although, and naturally, those who are immersed under a model of this type are "absorbing" this philosophy and respond accordingly, the fact that the phrase is heard more frequently coming from those "above" becomes something more than worrying, since it is assumed that these are the ones who should better understand the way to act, are the most interested, the most knowledgeable, because they are definitely the most responsible, they must be the motivators, coaches of their team, they must mark the direction of the organization, and not those to whom consciously or unconsciously they assign responsibility. Another interesting but very evident demonstration of ignorance.

The most worrying thing is that the phrase may begin to proliferate like a true epidemic whose contagion makes those who work in other areas, such as Human Capital, Economy, Purchasing or Logistics, Services, Maintenance or any other, come to think that when there is a quality problem of a product or a service, for example, the management of this problem is the responsibility of Quality. Watch out!!!!! This can prove fatal for an organization.

Lack of real leadership. For a long time now, the concept of leadership has been something that has been developed and deepened a lot. Those who are in charge of large projects are clear that a true and authentic leader is absolutely necessary so that this project does not fail. People who are in charge of key and strategic positions but who do not exercise genuine leadership, make these kinds of mistakes. They appeal that the way to deal with and solve problems is by assigning bosses, and each one is responsible for their own. Thus, it is up to the Quality manager or sector to do “Quality matters”.

Under current approaches to quality management, Leadership is put into practice through being able to establish unity of purpose and direction at all levels of the organization, and create conditions in which people are involved in the process. achievement of the objectives of the same. This will allow an organization to align its strategies, policies, processes and resources to achieve its objectives.

Organizational leaders are responsible for: - communicating the organization's mission, vision, strategy, policies and processes throughout the organization; - creating and maintaining shared values, fairness and ethical models for behavior at all levels of the organization; - establish a culture of trust and integrity; - foster a commitment to quality throughout the organization; - ensure that leaders at all levels are positive role models for people in the organization; - provide people with the resources, training and authority required to act with responsibility and accountability; - inspire, encourage and recognize the contribution of people.

Once again, the fact is obvious that when a manager expresses the phrase that gives rise to these comments, he is showing his incompetence and lack of knowledge on these issues.

Seen from the perspective of ISO 9001: 2008, where the figure of the Management Representative for the Quality Management System should have the responsibility and authority that includes:

a) ensure that the necessary processes for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained, b) report to senior management on the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement, and c) ensure awareness of customer requirements is promoted at all levels of the organization.

According to the text, it was not possible to certify the statement that this person was responsible for quality.

Today, under the perspective of ISO 9001: 2015, when the roles, responsibilities and authorities in the organization are specified, the standard expresses verbatim: “Top management must ensure that the responsibilities and authorities for the relevant roles are assigned, are communicate and understand each other throughout the organization.

a) ensure that the quality management system conforms to the requirements of this International Standard; b) ensure that the processes are generating and providing the expected outputs; c) report, in particular, to senior management on the performance of the quality management system and on opportunities for improvement. d) ensure that customer focus is promoted throughout the organization; e) ensure that the integrity of the quality management system is maintained when changes to the quality management system are planned and implemented.

Something very interesting in the way section b) is written to ensure that the processes are generating and providing the expected outputs. It impresses me that it is already starting from the fact that the organization is working by processes, not that it is going to work by processes. Interesting, don't think so.

Again it is not very adjusted to the text to interpret that a person is responsible for the quality. What is possible to interpret more clearly is that senior management is the most responsible for quality management …………. And that products and services are achieved with the required quality.

And who is the top management according to the ISO 9001: 2015 standard. Let's look at section 3.1.1 senior management: “ person or group of people who directs and controls an organization at the highest level”, referring to organization as: “ 3.2.1 organization: person or group of people who have their own functions with responsibilities, authorities and relationships to achieve their objectives ”.

There is no doubt, quality and its management are not associated with a single person. Then, there is no doubt either, those who express themselves this way do so wrongly. They must take care of their expression so as not to discredit themselves in the presence of others.

Can something be done to change the situation?

Of course yes. In fact, and even in a way, it can be said that when we witness such a situation, we can feel motivated. Why? Because that means there is a lot of work to be done, and those of us who work in Quality have the sensitivity and the necessary capacity to show another scenario. It is here and now where we must demonstrate our trust in man, in his virtues, his values, his principles and try to bring out the best of himself. You have to jump over the barrier of negativity.

Things we can do:

Change "responsible" to manager. Something that may seem insignificant, but it may be the excellent beginning, is to insist that there is no "one" person in charge of Quality, since we are responsible for Quality each and every one of us who is part of an organization or project. In fact, we are also all Quality managers, each process manager, in a structure that works by processes, is responsible for its process and the interaction, planned and documented with the rest of the organization's processes, is the responsible for the efficiency of their process and the satisfaction of the client, internal and external, as the case may be, with the activities associated with their process, as explained throughout this work, but it is also necessary that there is a person that is the direct counterpart in front of a customer claim,or contact with a Certifying Body. Differentiating and focusing on this conceptual difference is absolutely necessary.

On the other hand, perhaps what we are explaining can be better understood if we resort to analyzing the definitions provided in this regard by the Dictionary of the Spanish Language of the Royal Academy. In this, it is specified that the Manager is the one that manages; it comes from managing, and managing comes from management, which is described as “administration or direction of a matter, company or business”. This text itself defines that Management: “is the action and result of directing”, it is interesting here to compare how ISO 9001: 2015 defines the concept of management to notice the similarity between both definitions associated with the same concept. Defines the standard as management "coordinated activities to direct and control an organization" understood as directing, "make a thing go to a place or in a direction,point out how to do something or what to do in a place ”.

Undoubtedly, the common element of both definitions is "direct", and what we find in the Dictionary of the Spanish Language of the Royal Academy is compatible with the provisions of the ISO 9001: 2015 standard; By both paths, we coincidentally return to senior management. There is no doubt that one person is not responsible for quality, they are all the workers under the guidance and wise guidance of senior management as the person in charge of quality management.

React proactively. Faced with circumstances in which we are held responsible, respond firmly, but proactively. It is important to avoid the impression that we want to avoid responsibility. What we want is for everyone to become aware of the importance of "thinking in Quality", and each one from his place, from his process and in the interaction with the rest of the processes. Involve and integrate. Take advantage of and generate opportunities in which people from different sectors are integrated. For example, by participating in educational and informative workshops. Talk and insist with the management. Although it can cost, but you have to be persistent when it comes to clearly raising this concept. Perhaps the management or the owner of the company has not been able to see or understand the error and even the serious consequences it can bring. Speaking clearly and directly is the best way to deal with problems. It is not about avoiding responsibilities, but that they are assigned correctly. Never give up on the effort. Despite the possible, logical and occasional frustrations arising from misunderstandings and even pressures to comply "with others", they should never lead us to stop defending these socially legitimized concepts. Interpret and creatively apply the concepts, in an intensive and inclusive, which will contribute favorably to the solution of fundamental problems related to people, society, companies and their economic, social and cultural challenges, which must be at the center of the attention of any company Maintain the conviction that the Collective learns when it has all the information about the problem at its disposal, not just the opinion pre-established as correct in any preliminary assessment.We have to be able to create and ensure broad consensus and controlled execution.

Another valuable attempt to clear up these erroneous attitudes could be to apply many of the concepts and techniques referred to above in some works published by the author and which could be summarized as: firmness in convictions, spirit of cooperation, enthusiastic pioneer spirit, desire to to achieve important advances for the organization, confidence, patience and ability to persevere and, finally, good tactics and strategies to overcome difficulties, since the change in mentality will be so profound that it will exceed the limits of a simple technical matter.

Those of us who work on these issues should not have the slightest doubt that, in many companies and situations, the change will affect not only what managers, or senior management as referred to in the ISO standard, but also what they are; not just their sense of the task and how to tackle it, but their sense of themselves. Not only their way of seeing the world, but their way of living in it.

It is important to understand that values change with the knowledge and recognition of the person. Only the individual collectively is capable of mastering existing technology and creating new techniques and, furthermore, of generating ideas that could revolutionize the performance of a company.

As you will see, it will not be so difficult to change our image in the face of this “responsibility” that many of us can weigh heavily on. Being "Quality Managers" should not imply being the "only ones responsible for quality".

I am pleased to say that in the organization to which I currently provide my professional services for some time this phrase has not been heard. It is an organization that is managed by processes and in which all process managers have their roles, responsibilities and authorities defined by procedures, and the Management Representative for the Quality Management System, according to ISO 9001: 2008., and future Quality Manager, in accordance with the 2015 version, is part of the senior management with authority to coordinate and manage, among all the processes on a planned basis, all the activities of the organization to achieve the objectives set forth therein. It's not perfect ……..but it is…..and the system is continuously improved based on the experience of its practical application and the suggestions of all those involved with it …… ALL WORKERS.

We try today, and we will continue trying in the future, in the attractive and incessant march towards Business Excellence, that each worker in the organization recognizes through three simple words their role in achieving the quality of our services "QUALITY SOY YO".

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Contreras Torres, Francoise; Barbosa Ramírez, David. " From transactional leadership to transformational leadership: implications for organizational change." Virtual Magazine Universidad Católica del Norte, no. 39, May-August, 2013, pp. 152-164. Northern Catholic University Foundation. Medellin Colombia. Luis, A. "The change and its management in Corporación UNECA SA" Technical Report, 42p. Havana. Cuba. Luis, A. "CULTURE, BUSINESS VALUES AND CHANGE." Third version. September. 2007.Louise. "Change Management and Teamwork". Master Conference. Executive Training Course. Comercializadora Escambray. April 2011. Havana. Cuba. Louise. "Change Management, Leadership and Teamwork". Master Conference. Executive Training Course. Comercializadora Escambray. May 2014. Havana. Cuba. Luis, A. “NEED FOR CHANGE IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. SOME THEORETICAL PRECEPTS. ” http://mayabeque.blogia.com/2009/101502-guinesmio.-version-digital-de-la-revista-del-centro-univesitario-municipal-de-gu.php Luis, A."Proposal for a management model of a technological intelligence system to be applied by entities with a focus on project development, business, and marketing." Published in: https://www.monografias.com/trabajos58/gestion-sistema-inteligencia/gestion-sistema-inteligencia.shtml Luis, A. "Topics of interest for organizations that aspire to Business Excellence." Text in preparation. Unpublished. Louise.; Cárdenas, VM “ICT IN MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS EDUCATION. A PERSPECTIVE FOR THE MARKETER ESCAMBRAY. ” Published in http://www.gestiopolis.com/administracion-estrategia-2/uso-de-tics-en-la-gestion-empresarial-de-la-comercializadora-escambray-cuba.htm Luis, A.; Luis, S.“THE QUALITY SYSTEM, ITS BUSINESS IMPACT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE. ”March, 2007. http://www.gestiopolis.com/administracion-estrategia/impacto-empresarial-del-sistema-de-calidad-en-el-cambio-organizacional.htm Luis, A.; Luis, S. "The quality system, a reality to improve the management and increase the competitiveness of agricultural companies". Published in: http://www.monografias.com/trabajos58/sistema-de-calidad/sistema-de-calidad.shtml Montes, Marifé. "Why do you call us Quality Managers?" . Quality Responsible Club Courses in Food Quality and Safety » Blog » Why do they call us Quality Managers? September 30, 2015Noer, David M. (1997). "Change in Organizations". The path for the transformation of people and companies. PRENTICE HALL HISPANOAMERICANA, SA Printer Roma. Mexico DF