The "formalism" dilemma in promoting the quality management system in Japanese-funded enterprises: After obtaining the certification, for whom are we actually building the system?
Currently, I'm a full-time employee at a Japanese-funded manufacturing enterprise, in charge of the full-process promotion of the ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 (formerly TS 16949) quality management systems. This includes everything from building the framework of system documents and aligning the rights and responsibilities in cross-departmental processes, to planning and implementing internal audits and coordinating on-site inspections with external certification bodies. Over the past year or so, my work has covered almost all aspects of implementing these systems from scratch. At the end of last year, we successfully obtained the IATF 16949 certification. The management held a brief celebration, but I couldn't get excited throughout. I know better than anyone that this certificate is just a symbol of "completing the task," not the result of "management improvement."
The "two - layer skin" phenomenon in the system operation: The documents are beautiful ornaments, while the implementation is a habitual compromise
Three months after the certification was approved, I followed the internal audit team to visit the production workshops, raw material warehouses, and R & D laboratories. The more I saw, the colder I felt: the requirements of the system had not been integrated into the daily management at all. Instead, it had become a situation of "one set of documents for writing and another set for actual operation", a so - called "two - faced approach".
For example, the change management in the production department - According to the mandatory requirements of IATF 16949, any changes in raw materials, processes, or equipment need to identify risks through FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis), update the control plan, and be verified by the quality department. However, last month, in order to rush an urgent order for a certain customer, the workshop director directly replaced a low - cost plastic particle supplier without conducting FMEA or notifying the quality department. As a result, a large - scale cracking occurred during the assembly of these injection - molded parts. It took 3 days for rework, and 1200 pieces of products were scrapped, resulting in a direct loss of nearly 60,000 yuan. If FMEA had been carried out as required by the system, the risk of "large fluctuations in the melt flow rate of raw materials from the new supplier" should have been identified long ago, and the problem could have been avoided in advance.
Another example is the implementation of standardization in incoming material inspection. The system documents clearly state that "incoming materials need to undergo the 'three - inspection' process of appearance, dimensions, and performance." However, the quality inspector thought that "performance testing takes 2 hours and affects efficiency" and directly skipped the performance inspection step. Last month, a batch of hardware parts had no appearance problems, but their dimensions deviated by 0.5mm. It was not discovered until they were assembled into finished products, resulting in the rework of 150 products. The "preventive measures" in the system have become a prelude to "putting out fires after the fact."
There is no sign of the system's improvement in management in these details. Instead, it is like a "chicken rib": it's tasteless to eat (it doesn't solve practical problems), yet a pity to discard (after all, money was spent to obtain the certificate).
The "utilitarian perception" of the management: The system is a "tool for obtaining certificates" rather than a "management means"
The more fundamental contradiction lies in the management's positioning of the system. What they want is "obtaining certificates + passing audits", rather than "improving management through the system".
Before the certification, the management was willing to cooperate: supplement materials, conduct temporary training, adjust processes, and even allow me to use production time for a mock audit. However, on the day after the certification was passed, the general manager had a talk with me, saying, "We can put the system-related matters on hold for a while and focus on the production progress." I once tried to promote the in - depth application of the Five Tools (APQP, FMEA, PPAP, SPC, MSA). For example, conduct stage reviews of APQP for new product development to avoid situations like "modifying the design while developing, which led to a 30% rework in the later stage" as before. Or use SPC to monitor the temperature fluctuations of injection molding machines and replace "judgment based on experience" with data to reduce defective products. But the general manager's response was straightforward: "These tools are too complicated. The front - line employees have a low educational level and can't learn them. Instead, it will delay production." The HR department was even clearer: "The budget for talent cultivation should be allocated to skills that 'directly create value' such as lathe operation and welding. There's no need to arrange system training - anyway, we can just supplement the materials before the audit."
In their perception, the system is not a "management tool to help enterprises reduce costs and increase efficiency", but a "showy project to cope with customer factory inspections and certification body audits". What they care about is "whether they can pass the next supervision and audit", not "whether the system can help reduce rework in production"; they are concerned about "whether the documents are completed", not "whether the employees truly understand the requirements of the system". Even once, the sales director told me, "Customers only look at whether there is an IATF certificate and won't check how you actually do things. As long as you have the certificate, there won't be a shortage of orders."
The essence of the "sense of uselessness": We are building a system for "reviews", not for "enterprises"
What confuses me the most is this state of "doing useless work" — I clearly know that the value of the system is to "reduce human errors with standardized processes" and "reduce risks with preventive tools", but in reality, the system has instead become the scapegoat for "formalism".
For example, during the internal audit last month, I found that the batch management in the warehouse was completely in a mess: raw materials were not stored in batches when they were put into the warehouse, and they were taken randomly when being taken out, which made it necessary to check the ledger for three days to trace the flow of a certain batch of raw materials. I proposed a solution - using a barcode system to label each batch. By scanning the barcode, the storage time, supplier, and inspection results could be checked, and the cost would be about 20,000 yuan. However, the finance department said, "The budget is tight. Let's wait until next year." The warehouse supervisor said, "We can manage with the current situation. There's no need to spend this money." Finally, this problem was written into the audit report, but up to now, the warehouse remains the same - because the management thinks that "as long as the ledger is completed during the audit, we can get through it."
What makes me even more sad is the employees' resistance: The workshop workers said, "The system just makes us write more reports." The quality inspectors said, "The system just makes us do more useless work." Even my colleagues in the Quality Department asked me, "What's the point of doing all these?" — It was clearly meant to make everyone's work more standardized and easier, but in the end, it has become a "burden".
I want to talk with my peers: Is this a problem unique to me, or a common misunderstanding in the industry?
Recently, I've been constantly reflecting: Is it my method of promoting the system that's wrong, or has the entire industry's understanding of the "quality system" gone astray?
Clearly, the core of IATF 16949 is "continuous improvement", but we've stopped at "getting the certificate"; clearly, the five major tools are "powerful tools for problem-solving", but we've regarded them as "troubles"; clearly, the management should be "promoters of the system", but our management has become "obstacles to the system".
I don't know if there are any colleagues who are in the same situation as me. Every day, I'm engaged in the work of "supplementing materials and dealing with audits". I watch as the gap between the system and actual management grows wider. I clearly want to make a change, but I don't know where to start. I clearly understand the value of the system, but I can't convince the management and employees. I clearly spend time and energy, but I can't see any actual results.
Is the dilemma of "difficulty in implementing the system" due to my personal lack of ability or a misunderstanding of the "quality system" within the entire industry? I'd like to hear everyone's answers.