(5) 5.1 Leadership and commitment
This is a 52 week discussion of the proposed 2015 revision of ISO9001. We challenge you to follow us each week, and review your QMS from top to bottom with us. By year end 2015, you can have your QMS upgraded and ready for the 2015 revision!
(Discussions appear here, but also in several groups on LinkedIn. Here on my website is a great home base to follow this challenge, because all 52 weeks appear together, but hey, whatever gets you thinking and talking is fine with me.)
In the past couple weeks, there has been some spirited discussion about how many “interested parties” there may be and how to know when enough is enough when considering things that “may impact” us. Where does it end? Everything from Murphy’s Law to asteroids has the potential to impact us, but must all of these be considered in our context? Considering interested parties and potential impacts gets us close to talking about “risk” and “risk based thinking”. But since “risk based thinking” or “RBT” is a powder keg discussion topic, I’m in no rush to tackle it. Not yet anyway. We’ll get there in a couple more weeks, but for now let’s move forward.
Now that we’ve done our best to define our context (who we are, what (and who) matters to us, what we do and what processes we use to operate), it’s time to switch gears and start looking at who’s steering the ship.
As I’ve said before, there are some dynamite improvements in this revision. “Leadership and commitment” is one of them.
“Management Responsibility” is now “Leadership and commitment”. It’s not so much the terminology changes that matter, but a subtle nuance in the intent of the standard. The requirement changes from “management shall provide evidence of its commitment to the QMS” to “Top management shall demonstrate their commitment…” and an expanded list of requirements explaining what is expected of management to really ensure the effectiveness of the QMS. It’s a simple change, but I think it’s going to cause as much of a stir as “Risk Based Thinking” in practice. Here’s why.
Previous versions required that management appoint a “Management Rep” to oversee the QMS. (More about that in two weeks, where we will discover this requirement has been removed from the standard entirely). The Management Rep was also required be a “member of top management”, so the typical organization would put a Management Rep on their organization chart as part of management. But in practice, many organizations would create an environment where “the real business” is run by one group, and the QMS is simply running parallel and is not integrated with what is really driving the organization. Of course, not ALL organizations have chosen this misguided path, but there are many a “management rep” out there who will be happy to see this new language. No doubt about it, the responsibility for the QMS now lies squarely on the shoulders of the real management of the business. And this is where I think things are about to get interesting.
To be compliant to this revision, an organization will have to be able clearly demonstrate that their MANAGEMENT:
- Takes accountability for the effectiveness of the QMS
- Establishes the quality policy and objectives and communicates them to the organization
- Squares the QMS with the businesses processes (that’s my favorite part)
- Provides the necessary resources including assignment of responsibilities and an ongoing commitment to the effectiveness of the QMS and
- Promotes continual improvement
For each of these above, we must ask, “Which leader is responsible for that?” “How can s/he demonstrate that it is being done?” The old days of an auditor interviewing a top executive, while the Management Rep telegraphs the “right answers” are over. With this language, the real leaders of the organization must engage and really steer the ship. Bravo to this change!
This section also includes (5.1.2) Customer focus. Here lies the first trip wire for “risk based thinking”. (Let’s call it RBT from here). “Risks and opportunities that can affect the conformity of products and services” must be assessed and managed as part of this clause. And so it begins. But, let’s don’t spend all our time on this yet. Management will, of course, be customer-centric and sensitive to risks to their customers. To demonstrate this, a simple SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis will suffice, and most businesses have already done one. Perhaps it can be reviewed as part of the business plan? Perhaps it becomes an input to management review? Keep this in mind as you develop this section of your QMS. Who is responsible? What must be considered? Who represents the needs of the customer? How?
THIS WEEK’S HOMEWORK
Review 5.1.1 Leadership and commitment for the quality management system. Then identify who in your organization is specifically responsible for EACH of the bullets (a thru g). Does management KNOW they are responsible? How can they demonstrate that they do, in fact, do each of these things? After that, move onto 5.1.2 Customer focus and identify who is responsible for each of these commitments (a thru d) and how each of them are met. You may want to use a SWOT analysis, or maybe you don’t. Remember, this is YOUR organization’s QMS. Build it to suit YOUR needs.
Stay involved and engaged – SUBSCRIBE!
FOR HELP WITH YOUR HOMEWORK – Check out my Management Team Workshop. This is a great opportunity to pull your team together to review your business plan, identify your objectives, upgrade your QMS to incorporate the upcoming requirements and identify your quality objectives and metrics.
