It's been a long time since we last had a chat. I'd like to talk with you all about the "daily battles" in quality management
Dear colleagues: It's been a long time since I last popped up in our "small circle" of quality professionals. In the past half a year or so, I've been fully immersed in system implementation. I've even been revising the "System Operation Guide" on weekends. Suddenly, I remembered that I should have a chat with you all - have you had any "epiphanies after hitting a snag" in quality management recently, or any "little tricks to convince the boss"? I really want to learn from you.
The exhaustion from promoting the system lies in the awkwardness of "having to do both this and that"
To tell the truth, what's most wearing in quality management has never been writing documents or conducting audits. It's pushing the system "downward". Every day when I arrive at the company, I'm either in the meeting room arguing with department heads about "whether this process can be retained", or at my workstation revising the 8th edition of the "Detailed Rules for Process Control". By the end of it, I'm almost forgetting the original intention when I first wrote about "closed - loop management".
For example, last week when I talked to Brother Zhang from the production department about "adding 3 in-process inspection nodes", he slapped the table directly and said, "A production line originally produces 600 pieces a day. Adding 3 nodes will result in a reduction of 120 pieces. Can you make up for the lost production capacity?" I quickly took out the data I had prepared in advance and said, "Last month, 90 pieces had to be reworked due to missed inspections, costing 35,000 yuan. Adding these 3 nodes will result in a reduction of at most 60 pieces, but it can save 28,000 yuan in rework costs." He stared at the data in silence for five minutes and then muttered, "Try it for a week first. You'll be responsible if there are any problems."
Another example is Sister Li from the R & D department. Every time we talk about "design review", she frowns and says, "The project is on a tight schedule. The review will take two days. Can you help me tell the client to postpone it?" I was well - prepared and handed her the "simplified review checklist", saying, "We'll only review the key parameters (such as materials and performance indicators), and the other steps can be carried out simultaneously. It'll take at most half a day. Last time, Project B skipped the review and we had to revise the drawings three times, which delayed the project by 10 days." She flipped through the checklist and hesitated for a long time before signing the document.
I've endured this kind of life, where I use data to silence objections and put on a smiling face to deal with everything, for more than half a year. Sometimes, when I think about it on my way home from work, I feel like my lips are about to get callused.
After making compromises to the end, the system has become an "empty shell on paper"
What's even more infuriating is the "cutting of the system" in order to make progress. Originally, the plan was to create a "full - process closed - loop": from supplier review to finished product delivery, clearly define the "inputs, outputs, responsible persons, and time nodes" for each link. As a result, after the discussions..
- The purchasing department said, "It's too troublesome to review the suppliers once a month. Change it to quarterly, or we won't be able to discuss cooperation."
- The Production Department said, "Cut 2 out of the 5 items in the final inspection. Otherwise, it will take an extra hour for one production line."
- The warehousing department said, "Do we have to fill out three forms for the inventory ledger? Simplify it to one. We're really swamped."
I even dare not look at the finally determined system myself:
- Originally, "Randomly select 10 pieces from each batch of raw materials" → Change it to "Randomly select 2 pieces from each batch".
- Originally, "Process inspection once an hour" → Changed to "Once every two hours".
- Originally, "Three people's signatures are required for finished product review" → Changed to "Only one person's signature is required".
Last week, an internal audit was conducted, and it was found that the effectiveness rate of the system had dropped from the initial 85% to 50%. That is to say, half of the processes were just "going through the motions". I clearly knew that such a system was "useless", but in order to ensure the project was launched on schedule, I could only grit my teeth and sign. After all, "start running first and then optimize" is better than "getting stuck and not moving forward". But when will the "optimization" be completed? No one can say for sure.
I'd like to ask everyone: How can we make the system "come alive"?
I've gathered you all here today just to have an open and honest talk. Have you ever encountered a situation where you "can't push things forward, can't cut through the obstacles, and can only hold back your frustration"? Is there any way to make department heads change from "passively cooperating" to "actively supporting"? Are there any techniques that don't require "putting on a smiling face every day" to make the system truly take root?
For example:
- How can we make the boss think that "the system is not a burden but a way to save him trouble"? (For example, can we talk to him using the indicators he cares about, such as "rework cost" and "customer complaint rate"?)
- How to balance the "rigor of the system" and the "flexibility of departments"? (For example, leaving "flexible space" for "key links", but never compromising on "core nodes"?)
- Are there any small actions that can turn the system from something on paper into something on - site? (For example, spending half a day on the production line every week to help employees solve the problems of troublesome processes?)
Even "the pitfalls I've stepped into" will do – at least it'll let me know that I'm not the only one going through tough times.
I'd like to hear your stories. Looking forward to your replies~