Il forum sulla Qualità di QualitiAmo

[QualitiAmo - Stefania]

Su The Economic Time potete leggere un articolo dal titolo: "'Quality revolution' with inconsistent impact".

Potete tradurre il testo in italiano con il traduttore automatico di Google.

Such a marvelous idea. The infusion of ideas and disciplines into organisations of all sorts that would simultaneously increase customer
satisfaction, raise employee morale, and bring dramatic benefits to the bottom line. Rarely has any philosophy had such a heralded beginning followed by such inconsistent impact.

To explain what went wrong, the following analogy is offered. Imagine someone finances the construction a building that, at the time it is constructed, is the envy of all. The proud owner had assured that all of the most modern materials and methodologies were used — with the result that the edifice is much admired and, to varying degrees, often copied.

Now imagine that with the passage of years, the building falls from favour. The normal progression of improvement in both materials and methods combined with changing tastes can be just as unkind to oncegreat buildings as to organisations. In this case, let’s assume that the owner wisely decides it is time to overhaul everything by looking for ways to improve every aspect of his or her creation. The decision is made, in other words, to become part of the Quality Revolution.

And then the problems begin. Imagine that the only building-improvement artisans that can be found are carpenters. “Not to worry ,” the carpenters assure the boss, “We’ll use our approach and our methods to fix everything that is wrong.” For our purposes, assume that the carpenters, against the better judgment of the builder seeking improvement, are hired and, many months later, it is discovered that they have done some things very well (the carpentry aspects, that is) but other parts of the building look worse than ever.

Now imagine that the owner goes back into the marketplace, looking for a different group of problemsolving mechanics. This time, the only home improvement experts he can find are plumbers. They assure him that their plumbing skills will more than suffice to fix everything. After getting results that, after many more months are once again wildly mixed, the boss would be forced to once more go back into the “improvement skills/methodologies marketplace” , where the only people to be found are painters. And so on...

None of us are surprised that using one specialty skill at a time is both inefficient and ineffective. Yet this woebegone builder’s experience is an accurate description of the experiences of many companies seeking “quality.” “Quality” as practiced by the vast majority of organisations worldwide and as taught by virtually all “quality societies” or consultant firms has only rarely been “total” (an implied promise of one of the original tools, Total Quality Management). It has, rather been the sequential flogging of a series of this-will-solveeverything tools with minimal attempts at trying to combine the merits of two of them and virtually none at simultaneously blending three or more. In short, the Quality Revolution has fallen short because it has rarely actually been tried.

Returning to the owner and his once-great building for a moment, consider this question: Would a builder intent on regaining the Number One spot begin by saying, “I wonder which one aspect of the house I need to improve?” Instead, wouldn’t he begin by saying, “Are there any aspects of this house that I can afford to ignore?”
What then of the organisational leader who understands that his or her organisation is falling behind and is not performing up to its potential ? Would it be smarter to ask, “Who should I involve in this effort to improve?” or to ask, “Who can I afford to exclude from this effort to improve every aspect of the organisation?”

To choose the first question is to immediately limit the possibilities. To ask “Who should I involve?” is to limit participation because the workforce is immediately divided into those who will be chosen to be part of the solution (often, mostly consultants) and those unnamed individuals who, by not being named, become bystanders whose ideas are not sought. Down that path lie one-tool-at-a-time efforts that only make use of the ideas and participation of a limited number of people.

The second question throws open the doors to a full range of possibilities . Once the leader and his or her top team asks the second question — “Who can we afford to exclude?” — and finds themselves answering “Nobody,” they are on the road to 100% employee involvement and the opportunity to simultaneously use all tools for improvement which are appropriate to any portion of their specific organisation . In other words, the first question leads to the sequential use of single tools and/or a myopic focus on one capability or feature of the organisation; the second question means the organisation will have a complete tool box at its disposal so that many challenges can be met at the same time.

The approach that is structured to incorporate the wide variety of quality and productivity tools that have been developed over the last several decades is called a “Complete Quality Process” (CQP). Put most simply, ISO, Six Sigma, Lean, TQM, Kaizen, and all the other tools — each incredibly useful and powerful for particular types of challenges — are the subsets. CQP is the superset.

Because no two organisations have identical sets of strengths and weaknesses, no two CQP efforts will be exactly the same. The mix of tools and the amount of time invested in each will vary. All CQP efforts will, however, share seven components, none of which look particularly original at first glance. The “trick” is doing them all at once, with information flowing freely between all involved . The components are:

Top Management Commitment:

Beginning with the CEO, all members of the management team of an organisation need to make personal investments of their egos, their time, and their energy. They must understand that if this effort fails, it is their fault. Their involvement and support must be active, obvious, and informed.

Leadership:

Leadership at every level must be evident — something that is only going to happen because of a conscious effort of instruction and repeated discussion. Two points to begin with: “A manager cares that a job gets done; a leader cares that a job gets done and he or she cares about the people who do the job” and “Leadership is a subset of love.’ Leadership should be a common topic of conversation within the organisation .

100% Employee Involvement — with a structure:

Everything from Kaizen to Six Sigma to Lean fits here. Every employee must know how he or she is expected to take part in the continual improvement of the organisation and the tools must be available. This will require, among other things, a “quality department” that coordinates the introduction and use of quality tools throughout the organisation, is responsible for insuring that all needed instruction is provided, and tracks results. The most obvious — and continuing — feature of a CQP effort is the membership of all employees on at least one “quality team,” a team that is empowered to use authority that is equal to its responsibility. Communications. Of all sorts. In every direction. And the understanding that communications consists of transmission and reception — and that if a message is garbled, responsibility for clarification lies with the transmitter, not with the receiver.

Training:

An eternal obligation and investment of time and money. Training in leadership, quality-specific topics and tools, and expertise-enhancing procedures are all needed.

Measurement:

Progress can not be measured unless there is proof both of where an organisation used to be and where it now is. Ways to take those two measurements and how to plan the journey from one point to the other are many; the selection of the best tool for each specific opportunity will be a combined responsibility of the quality department and the people on the scene.

Recognition, Gratitude and Celebration:

Saying “thank you” must be an integral part of the company culture. Folks who are taking part in the improvement of the organisation are not just “doing their jobs” (they didn’t work in this improved way last week or last month and they got paid; their new, improved performance deserves acknowledgment) and “allowing them to keep their jobs” is not gratitude, it is simply prudent business.

The Complete Quality Process is a logical and practical way to take advantage of all of the knowledge within an organisation, enhanced by all of the tools developed to make improvement possible — thus making it possible to truly be a “quality” operation and watch your profits, your customer satisfaction, and your employee morale climb steadily. The option? You could imitate the hapless builder in the story and first hire a covey of carpenters . . . and then a plethora of plumbers . . . and then a plentitude of painters . . . and so on until you give up and accept who you are: an also-ran .
_________________
Stefania - Staff di QualitiAmo

ISO 9001:2015 - SI AGGIUNGE ALLA COLLANA DEI LIBRI DI QUALITIAMO IL NUOVO TESTO CHE SVELA I SEGRETI DELLA FUTURA NORMA



IL PRIMO LIBRO NATO SULLE PAGINE DI QUALITIAMO



HAI DATO UN'OCCHIATA AL REGOLAMENTO DEL FORUM PRIMA DI SCRIVERE IL TUO MESSAGGIO?