Quality Program Limits Staff Errors
- November 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm #55875
Our Quality Program went to six sigma with a goal of 99.65 in 2017. The monthly audits utilizing designed checklists produce limited opportunities vs potential defects. Over time, the numbers throughout the operation increase into the thousands, but trying to performance manage on an individual basis monthly is nearly impossible based on the current goal and number of opportunities. In some areas of our operation, if an Account Analyst receives 1 error then they will be under goal (99.65) for the year since the number of opportunities compiled over 12 months aren’t large on an individual basis.
The goal of 99.65 was thrown on us from a corporate standpoint and makes sense as the number of opportunities grow over the course of the year. Regarding six sigma, is there a minimal number of opportunities that need to exist when identifying the correct yield?
Your thoughts, ideas, and feedback is greatly appreciated,
TKNovember 22, 2017 at 5:10 pm #202001
Yes, you need a minimum sample size. You can find a lot of material on this subject. But I’m concerned that your management is violating Deming’s 8th point – drive out fear – by using quality data to evaluate the performance of individuals. Experience has proven to me that this is very bad policy. Your data should be used to evaluate how well the process is working, not to evaluate individuals. If you aren’t meeting goals, fix the process, fix the training. But do not blame individuals. If a person is unable to satisfactorily do the job this will be evident by other means.November 28, 2017 at 8:28 am #202016
Thanks for taking the time to write back and hope you enjoyed the holiday. Any specific material you can point me to so I can better understand? I agree that we should not be driving out of fear and that the information should be utilized to seamlessly fix any issues that are present driving to increase the overall quality of product. However, if there isn’t an established goal for an individual using this method than how do you performance manage from a leadership perspective? That is one of my major concerns based on the goal vs limited opportunities on a monthly basis per individual. The data almost has to be compiled over time to paint the true picture in my opinion
Thanks for your time and input…
TKNovember 29, 2017 at 5:08 pm #202020
If you aren’t familiar with Deming’s 14 points for management, look them up on this site or elsewhere. Look for something that includes reasoning behind them, not just the list. Better yet, read his book Out of Crisis. I could also refer you to Crosby, Juran, etc. Nearly all quality/process improvement authorities agree that people are not the problem. Most people want to do a good job. Those who don’t, or are just plain incompetent at that particular job, can be identified without using quality data to set and measure individual performance goals. Sure, we want, even need, to measure individual performance. Enlightened managers know that using quality data for that purpose is counter-productive. It creates a climate of fear where QA and auditors are seen as a threat. People become uncooperative rather than working together to improve processes so that everyone does better. Bottom line is that you should not be trying to performance manage on an individual basis in order to achieve your goal.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.