Can quality management really be flexible?

Thread Content

A common misconception is that it’s difficult to carry out quality management in companies – one must be responsible for the quality of products while also giving way to the company’s operational and production needs, often having to resort to makeshift solutions. It is these adaptations that have led to questions being raised about the quality management system, and even to its improper implementation. In companies, disputes often arise between quality management personnel and those in technical, production, and marketing roles. Quality managers insist on adhering to rules and standards to ensure product quality, while technical and production staff often argue that it won’t affect the quality of the products, that it’s just a minor issue, or that it’s necessary for marketing and delivery purposes; they then seek special approval from their supervisors or departments in order to make exceptions. Such compromises may seem reasonable to everyone, but they undermine the authority and effectiveness of quality management, thereby posing challenges to the quality management system. Over time, such compromises will become more and more common, and eventually the quality management system will become nothing more than a formality; there will be no quality assurance in the product production process, and risks will arise as a result. There was an incident in the production process of a certain product (PCBA) where the process flow for the soldering stage was as follows: board inspection – paste application – component placement – reflow soldering – AOI inspection – visual inspection – quality check – shipment or further processing. One day, the manager said that marketing required urgency and that production needed to be accelerated. Then, the lower-level managers in the execution team began to meet, and they decided that, in order to complete the task, since there weren’t many surface-mounted components in this product and the AOI inspection was a bottleneck in the process, and the equipment was already busy, the AOI inspection would be omitted. The results met the needs of marketing work. By the time of the quality management system audit, this approach had been in use for half a year. From this incident, we can see the following points: 1. As managers, they merely issue orders without considering whether the available resources are sufficient; there is a lack of awareness regarding quality management, and an administrative \"bureaucratic\" culture prevails. 2. As lower-level managers at the execution level (in areas such as technology, quality, production, and marketing), they naturally will not go against their supervisors’ wishes; instead, they will find creative ways to meet their tasks. Technically, no risk assessment was conducted for the decision to temporarily remove AOI, and there was no written technical notification for the change. At a deeper level, it is also possible to reflect on whether the production process for this product is reasonable; since the AOI step can be eliminated, was the original process design unnecessary and thus resulted in additional costs? Instead of persisting in raising doubts and opposing the removal of the AOI process, the quality management personnel notified the production line to proceed with inspection and release. Or, technical or production aspects are emphasized to the extreme, with no consideration given to quality management. 3. Removing the AOI process, since it is a temporary measure, should be effective only once, and tracking must be ensured. It has not recovered for half a year – as a quality management professional, did one adhere to the principles of quality management? Quality management must follow rules and operate in accordance with the requirements of the system, but in reality the system fails. There are many similar cases, and no serious non-conformities were found in either internal or external audits. Since \"adaptation\" is an administrative order from the company’s leadership, what should the quality management department, as a subordinate department of the company, do? Ad-hoc handling undermines the seriousness and standardization of quality management system documents or measures, and can even lead to distorted implementation. Over time, poor execution within a company leads to a situation where quality management and actual operations are separated from each other. Regarding their understanding of quality management, most companies do not view quality as a competitive advantage; rather, they see it as a task that must be carried out. They approach quality inspections, audits, and corrective actions in a perfunctory manner, making changes only to the issues that have been identified, leaving everything else unchanged. They are unable to make systematic improvements by drawing lessons from these situations. To fundamentally address the issue of a disjointed quality management system caused by \"ad-hoc\" approaches, quality management must vigorously promote and implement an operational management style centered on quality management. Quality management is placed at the core of the company’s top management, with all departments carrying out their research and development, production, and marketing activities in accordance with the requirements of the quality management system. Quality standards stem from customer needs; the purpose of a company’s production is to meet those needs. Therefore, customer requirements must be expressed clearly and precisely in order to guide production and quality control. The implementation of requirements for detail, standardization, and documented procedures is an important aspect in ensuring quality. All quality management activities are carried out in a standardized manner in accordance with the requirements of the quality management system, and the management of various relevant departments also operates under the constraints of these system requirements; there is simply no room for \"flexibility\" in quality management. In this way, a corporate culture that places emphasis on quality management can be gradually established. Once such a culture takes root in the company, the process of producing its products will experience accelerated growth, and product quality assurance will be ensured naturally. The company will be able to produce high-quality products, and its growth and expansion will no longer be a dream. However, only a few \"deviations\" are needed to destroy such a culture; take the paid leave system for example – its original purpose is that the designated annual leave allows one to take time off without it affecting work, and such time off is still counted as working time. However, some company owners are shortsighted and deduct wages during vacations, which not only harms the interests of the employees but also violates relevant policies and regulations. Although it seems to save the company a little money, it actually sets a very bad example for the employees. From the perspective of quality management, it means that company leaders fail to follow established rules, which in turn demotivates employees. Once such an attitude takes hold, it affects the quality of work, and this work quality in turn impacts product quality; ultimately, poor product quality leads to losses for the company. Quality process control is inadequate; there is no proper attention paid to quality issues that arise. When problems affecting product quality occur during the company’s operations, the causes are not analyzed in a timely manner, and instead so-called \"workarounds\" are used. If quality management does not put an end to such practices, quality issues are very likely to occur. Although it appears to meet the requirements of the quality management system, no effective control measures have been implemented, which results in the risk probability of second and third quality incidents increasing exponentially. Based on my experience and insights gained over many years in quality management, I believe that quality management is not as difficult as it seems; it’s just that we make it too complicated ourselves. Why do we keep striving for new quality management methods instead of implementing and sticking to those that already exist? In real-world business, many companies advocate for and implement total quality management, lean manufacturing management, 6 Sigma management, benchmarking, and so on. Sometimes, there is a tendency to imitate mechanically, with little actual effect. Why? When faced with tricky problems in quality management, people resort to \"workarounds\" – if such a problem arises today, the quality management system documents are modified accordingly; if another problem occurs tomorrow, the documents are changed again. Unreasonable practices or causal relationships are given a reasonable appearance. The same quality issues keep recurring almost infinitely. In our reports on addressing customer complaints, we often respond with things like “strengthening process control, requiring employees to conduct self-inspections, implementing standardized management, strictly following standard operating procedures, providing retraining, and enhancing employees’ quality awareness,” over and over again—once, twice, five times, ten times... Sometimes even we ourselves get numb to it, don’t we? Employees’ awareness has not translated the eight quality management principles, such as “systematic approach to management, process approach,” into practical work. Therefore, similar problems often arise from both internal audits of quality management and external audits for the certification of quality management systems. Quality management is carried out year after year, yet problems do not decrease, nor does there be any significant improvement in product quality. Quality management must adhere to principles and see them through to the end; one must be willing to say no to \"compromises.\" There are no special exceptions when it comes to quality, and a veto system based on quality standards is essential. Only in this way can a company establish itself in the market and survive, develop, and grow.