Quality Policy

LindaS · April 2003

I have been asked by upper management to develop some type of policy to consistently address quality problems. We are a custom wireform manufacturer and are having increasing problems with "bad" parts being produced.

Does anyone have any type of policy that addresses this?

lorrie · April 2003

We just recently wrote a new "Performance Expectation Policy." We don't feel good about implementing a policy like this, but felt we need to make the employees aware of the importance of paying attention to quality. Our policy has 2 parts: Minimum speeds required and Maximum errors allowed. Consequences include written warnings, then unpaid suspensions, and the option of termination if the employee is simply unable or unwilling to meet standards.

The standards we met came from past performance of the majority of employees. We sincerely felt that everyone we had on staff were capable of meeting the standards with a little effort, in other words we were not trying to eliminate anyone. So far it has worked well. At least one slacker has improved greatly, and now that the policy has been in place a few months, there is very little grumbling.

LindaS · April 2003

How do you determine the "maximum errors allowed"? Do you use a percentage of the total job, a set number, or is it left to the discretion of the supervisor? The problem I am having is determining what is acceptable. My first thought is using a percentage i.e., if a certain percentage of the total job (possible 10%) is scrap, this constitutes more than is acceptable and the ee is to receive a verbal warning. The other problem is to determine what timeframe to use in determining when the ee moves to the next level of discipline - 3 months, six months, one year.

lorrie · April 2003

We used a variety of things to come up with our maximum errors allowed. Since we are a warehouse the errors occur when an order is picked wrong, not poor product quality such as in your case. It is very difficult to come up with an acceptable error rate because we cannot exactly pinpoint the cost of an error. A customer receiving the wrong product might decide to take their business somewhere else. We do have checkers whose job is to check the product, and this catches most errors before they get out the door.

It seems like a starting point might be to look at some kind of average of past performance, and use cost analysis to determine the maximum waste allowed. I worked closely with the supervisors to determine the length of time, then after writing the policy I compared this timeline to a history of errors and speeds to see the effect. We made a few adjustments before printing. Our goal was to encourage a few stragglers to work harder, but not to get rid of anyone. Although we realized that might have been the result if it had not been successful.

Next I would like to work up some kind of reward system to encourage high speeds without errors...

LindaS · April 2003

We already have performance rates for each job that comes into the plant. Employees are made aware of what that rate is and if they do not make at least 80-90% of that rate it is considered unacceptable. Each week rates are run and if an employee is at or below 70% overall for that week they are counseled verbally first and if it continues for more than one week, they receive an oral written warning. As long as the supervisor applies this consistently, it works well.

The problem I have for this issue is that when "bad" parts are run they are typically unable to be used so they are considered "scrap". The amounts of scrap are getting just too high. This is typically a result of the employee not watching their machine and not doing their quality checks like they are supposed to.

One of the concerns voice by a supervisor is that they fear we may lose some "good" operators if we employ the progressive discipline for this issue. I explained to the supervisor that if they are consistently running scrap parts, they are not a "good" operator to begin with.

It is not my intent to terminate anyone but there seems to be an increasing sense of complacency regarding this issue.

Pork · April 2003

Lorrie: We have, likewise, begun to review quality issues as the perdominate cause and affect of the end-result of write-ups and termination. I would appreciate it if you would e-mail me a copy of your new performance policy program. Pork

lee2 · April 2003

Another thought: consider a TQM approach.

lorrie · April 2003

I just emailed that policy to you, I hope it gives you some good ideas. Of course I am always open to ideas also, especially if you see some major problem!

System · May 2003

Hi!

I'm wondering if you'd be willing to share your "quality policy" with
me also. Our policy section gets thicker and thicker and thicker and th......

THANX!

[email]hrdir@iximd.com[/email]
or FAX (410) 398-0128

"Sam"

Crout · April 2003

The problem with your mandate is that Quality is a process, NOT simply a policy. To think so is to think that you can treat people like gasoline engines....if you want a higher output you just put more pressure on the pedal. Real Quality improvement does not work that way.

LindaS · May 2003

Crout:

I agree with your statement regarding quality being a process but we are at the point that these employees are provided with training on the machines (extensive), they are also provided with a sample of what the part should be upon completion (this is approved through our Quality Manager) and they are provided with information regarding what, if any, tolerances there are for a particular job.

This situation is the result of employees simply failing to do the required quality checks as parts come off their machine and/or having a general attitude of complacency regarding their work.

So although I agree with your statement that quality is a process, I feel that at our organization we have the process in place and now we have to address the employees who fail to follow that process.

Lorrie - would you please email that policy to me as well? My email is [email]LindaS@Merrill-Mfg.com[/email].

Thank you.

sonny · May 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-02-03 AT 06:37AM (CST)[/font][p]I think Crout and lee2 may have been thinking a little bigger picture. One might argue that you have a procedure in place more so than a TQM process. Do the employees really understand the consequences of the bad parts? how it effects the company? Have you solicited their input as to how to improve the process? May be off base, but think this is what Crout and lee were referring to.

System · May 2003

It seems to me that the first step is to establish acceptable scrap rates, which probably needs to be done jointly by the operations manager (what's feasible) and the number crunchers ($).

While you're measuring each worker's scrap rate, you should also total the scrap rate for each supervisor's crew. If top brass is serious about this issue, they'll pressure the supervisors. If top brass doesn't hold supervisors' feet to the fire, then you'll know that this policy isn't worth a hill of beans.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Quality Policy

Comments