Posts Tagged ‘analysis’

Is your company registered to ISO/TS 16949? If so, be aware that the new Measurement Systems Analysis (MSA) 4th edition is available!

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

According to the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG), The new Measurement Systems Analysis Reference Manual (MSA), Fourth Edition is now available!

Developed jointly by Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Company, the MSA reference manual provides guidance to automotive suppliers. The manual does not define requirements; it is a recommended guidance document and provides reference for selecting procedures to assess the quality of a measurement system.

The AIAG says that companies can begin using the MSA 4th Edition immediately. Due to the release of the MSA 4th Edition, the MSA 3rd Edition is now obsolete and no longer available through AIAG. However, it is recommended that you keep a copy of the MSA 3rd Edition for reference purposes.

The manual can be purchased through the AIAG. For additional help with MSA, contact G3 Solutions today!

Are company objectives for quality really working as a tool for improvement?

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Part of our top ten series of reasons some companies are not getting the most from their quality system -

Reason #7 – Quality objectives are never changed

One of the key requirements in quality standards such as ISO 9001, ISO/TS 16949, AS9100 and others is that an organization must establish and measure objectives for quality. Even though this is just one of numerous requirements found in various ISO standards, this one key mandate may provide the most overall benefit to an organization.

Setting objectives for quality throughout the company and monitoring those objectives should provide a useful overview of how well processes are performing. At times, we see companies that establish simple goals and objectives that are too easily met and remain virtually unchanged, sometimes over a period of years. When this pattern of perceived “success” in meeting objectives is investigated, it is often exposed that there is a company culture that assumes it is better to portray a positive than display any type of negative trend to either customers or third party auditors.

This can be a major roadblock in making the quality system a true tool for continual improvement. It often fosters a feeling of apathy in many employees who view the quality system as simple window dressing for keeping the current customer base happy and impressing potential customers. Once this attitude becomes part of the overall organizational culture, it is tough to reverse – but not impossible.

A primary function of top management should be to examine if current objectives and goals are providing a true evaluation of overall performance. The key output of this review should be to establish new goals that may be more realistic in terms of driving process improvement. Just because an organization may not be meeting goals and objectives and an analysis of data may show a negative trend, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the company is a quality freight train wreck.

By linking continual improvement initiatives and programs to numbers that aren’t traveling in the desired direction shows that the organization is truly dedicated to continual improvement. Once the top management of an organization like that described above makes a strategic paradigm shift in reviewing and understanding quality objectives, good things will happen. It will not only make the company look stronger to customers and auditors, but to those employees who are hoping for real process improvement.

Does this scenario sound familiar? If so, G3 Solutions can help!

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

Top ten reasons why some quality systems are ineffective -

Reason #8 – The quality system is handled by one person

At G3 Solutions, we often receive calls from companies that are in need of expertise to help with quality system issues shortly before a third-party audit. This is often due to a lack of resources and downsizing from the recent economic nightmare of the past year.

Unfortunately, those employees that fell under the umbrella of “quality” were some of the first to be downsized. Since these employees were in charge of such key systems as internal audits, corrective actions and analysis of quality data, the maintenance of these systems would continually get put off until the last possible minute, if they were done at all. This is not the way a well implemented quality system should work.

Generally, the reason for this type of system meltdown is that most, if not all key functions of the system were handled by one employee whose primary purpose in the company was to be “the ISO person”. They were responsible for making sure all of that ISO 9001 “stuff” got done, and now they are not around – and no one has a clue as to what needs to be maintained.

A well implemented system will almost run by itself, with just minimal oversight by the selected management representative. Key systems should be shared and divided by top management; not handled solely by the quality manager or ISO coordinator. Not only will this shared strategy help maintain key processes, but will also encourage and promote employees to work with and improve the quality system.

For further information on how we can help, contact G3 Solutions today!