Introduction
Quality management system (QMS) implementation is a complex and dynamic process for all organizations. This emanates from change resistance and the need to sacrifice short term goals for long term ones. Cultural changes must take place in order to enhance the success of this implementation process. In the wake of these requirements, organizations should familiarize themselves with processes and challenges of executing a QMS in order to boost outcomes of the initiative.
Literature on quality management system implementation
The process of implementation
Prior to actual implementation, an organization ought to garner support from management. The QMS champion or initiator can achieve this by explaining the business advantages of a quality management system to them. He or she could mention aspects such as higher efficiency, better product quality, and greater accountability.
To convince them further, the change agent can collect information about QMS in competing firms and demonstrate to management the inadequacies in their organization. However, QMS initiators should do this tactfully; otherwise, they risk isolating the very people they need to get on board.
One ought to make a business plan on the system that illustrates potential financial and non financial benefits. A person will know whether management supports the strategy when they fully comprehend it, and when they create objectives or announce a quality policy. Managers who are behind a QMS process will also dedicate resources to the strategy and advocate for it amongst staff. Once implementation commences, they will expect progress reports on its outcomes (Tsiakals & West 2002).
After garnering management support, an organization should select a quality manager. This person will coordinate implementation as the process will involve various divisions of company. Additionally, the person ought to manage timescales by persuade managers to establish realistic ones. Every part of a QMS should meet set standards; consequently, the quality manager should check that people are meeting these standards.
Any issues that arise during the process of implementation should also be reported to management by this individual. The quality manager should work towards making all divisions independent from him in the long run. This means that as soon as they incorporate the QMS into their individual objectives, then he will be dispensable.
Once a quality manager exists and understands his full responsibilities as well as the short-term nature of his work, then a firm can proceed to make an implementation plan. This should contain details about the scope of the QMS as well as the training and participants involved.
Different aspects of the project should have different leaders that should be outlined in the plan. Resources and timescales must also be identified and outlined in it. While the latter phase is important, organizations should not spend too much time on it because it will stall the rest of the process.
Following the creation of a tangible plan, organizations ought to analyze their current processes. Firms may start from the top of the business to the bottom; typically, this would entail divisions such as marketing, logistics and production. They may also start from the bottom and work their way upwards.
Team leaders and other operational entities should be able to contribute here effectively. An easy way of analyzing these processes is starting with input, output, what gets done inside the organization, and reactions to shortcomings in production. Partnering with internal customers can assist in outlining this process even more effectively.
A company would not have a quality management system if all its processes were perfect. Therefore, the purpose of doing an analysis is to identity the areas that need improvement, which is the next step. Staff members can help with this as they know best the areas that need enhancement.
On the other hand, if quality personnel already exist, then they can also participate in the phase. If the QMS leader records non conformance actions and steps taken to eliminate them, then he or she will be well on his way to identifying those aspects that should be improved.
After carrying out all the above preparatory stages, an organization can then instate the quality management system. During this process, companies need to change their orientation from being prescriptive to focusing on competence among individuals. Moderate documentation or template completion should occur as excessive paperwork causes staff to do things merely because the QMS stakeholders expect them to do so.
A number of experts agree that the key to success in implementation is training and communication. Staff members need to learn about document writing and management, project management and quality auditing. They can also learn about business processes and improvement of workflow.
After staff members undergo these courses, they will be in a better position to own the QMS. Good communication during implementation should involve effective dialogues between individuals in order to deal with their concerns. Management should communicate staff responsibilities to the workers while personnel should provide feedback for their manager’s input.
Companies should carry out continual assessment of its processes. Usually, the latter aspect is enacted by the Quality System provider who checks to see whether the firm’s internal arrangements are reflective of the objectives in the quality system (Hoyle 2007).
Case studies of QMS implementation
Not all companies follow this step-by-step process to the letter. Some of them may opt to skip some phases, but may still realize impressive results. The main issue is to deal with challenges as they come along and cope with the dynamics. To understand the above statements well, three organizations that implemented quality management systems will be analyzed.
QMS in aircraft component manufacture
The first organization is an aircraft component manufacturer known as Kerala Hitech Industries (KELTEC). The firm implemented the 1SO 9000 quality system, which is a system of standardization that assists industries and service companies to provide high quality. The system had the following features.
It was a quality management system for the entire organization; companies cannot claim that their products are ISO 9000 certified because this system relates to the whole firm.
Governments do not require businesses to be ISO certified; organizations do so willingly. The certification process is not permanent, so institutions need to get regular quality audits by an external auditor after 6 months. The system also requires continuous quality improvement. Lastly, the system encapsulates all business processes from customer need identification to delivery of services from suppliers.
KELTEC chose to get this certification because it would provide them with a competitive edge. Most of its institutional customers forced it to gain certification, so it had to comply. Furthermore, international markets consider ISO 9000 certification a requirement for bidding processes.
The company also wanted to prove to its clients that it was credible. In addition, it is possible to use the system as a powerful marketing tool. The company needed to increase its profits by having efficient processes. It experienced static sales returns and wasted time on reworking its systems frequently. The organization knew that it could save on costs if it instated such a system. Furthermore, because it was in a technical industry, it needed to have technical specifications that partners recognized internationally (Aniyan 2002).
The processes in this organization were arranged as a series of sub assemblies. Some of them involved metal formation while others entailed joint welding as well as surface treatment. The company utilized a series of furnaces for the heating treatments. It also had welding machines as well as computer facilities and surface treatment machines. KELTEC already had a quality control team. Customers gave the company specifications, but the organization usually started with prototypes.
The firm started with an assessment of customer complaints or rejects and failures that occurred within the organization. It also analyzed the time it takes to collect information and products, and what it would cost the company to instate quality within its systems. The managing director worked alongside other managers in the assessment phase.
They used the SWOT method to achieve this. The firm discovered that there were issues with its use of technology, its relationship with external and internal partners, the degree of quality awareness as well as problem handling. After assessment of the issues that needed improvement, the company then created quality policy and objectives which were condensed into a few short sentences and displayed all over the organization.
Thereafter, the company formed committees responsible for the entire process. KELTEC organized resources and then established the list of documents. Afterwards, employees were taken through awareness training. This preceded the development of a quality manual. The contents of the drafts were implemented in each division and internal auditing occurred.
One of the key challenges that confronted the organization was adjusting to the frequent meetings that were required in the assessment phase. Some of the functional members felt that the meetings were too frequent. Additionally, some levels of management differed with others concerning the amount of resources that should have been allocated to the quality management system, especially in their respective areas of expertise.
During the documentation process, some divisional managers felt that functional heads were undermining certain processes that were required in the document list. It took plenty of consultation and deliberations to reach a consensus on these matters. When creating the quality manual, it was difficult to include the issues from all the aspects in the document lists. To some divisions, the quality manual was too long, so some of them failed to contribute to this aspect.
Some of the divisions realized that several instances of non conformance occurred even after following all the procedures in the document. Luckily, the company solicited for feedback from these members to outline those specific areas. Perhaps one of the trickiest aspects of implementing this system was the need to change the standard ISO protocols, as these are normally altered after five years. Because of the changes, the company needed to reengineer the process again in five years time.
It had to alter legal requirements, management responsibilities, designs and terminologies for all subcontractors. Employees were apprehensive about these changes when they wee introduced because it would take a toll on their present circumstances. The auditors also found that the company did not integrate customer requirements comprehensively in the system. All these challenges made the system painstaking, but its outcomes were worthwhile.
Wine making and ISO certification
Paros Inc. is a wine making industry that produced approximately three quarter of a million wine bottles annually. It opted to implement ISO 9000: 2000 certification in order to expand its market share as well as boost its internal operations (Alsowaisan & Youssef 2006). Initially, the company wanted to instate the quality management system independently, but realized that its resources limited this objective.
Consequently, it worked with an external consultant on the same. The company considered some of its major weaknesses prior to implementation of the quality system. It often engaged in short-term planning and employed employees seasonally.
Other factors that would necessitate a QMS or affect its execution were the relative small size of the company as well as the simple communication methods in the company. The organization possessed a series of grape suppliers and its management involved its CEO.
Implementation started with top managers who identified the non conformities and also allocated resources for the plan. They looked at the training needs as well as the calibration and measurement of devices. It was necessary to understand customer requirements; this was done through price and product lists.
The organization also studied its suppliers’ patterns as well as sales distribution schedules. Tangible objectives included promoting favorable agricultural practice, careful winegrower selection and a streamlined grape collection process. The company wanted to promote personal hygiene and outline the responsibilities of workers. The company also wanted to have a proper distribution of its products.
There were several challenges that arose during the implementation process that prevented the company from accessing the full benefits of ISO certification. The first challenges were manifested during the initial stages. Management had no experience with any quality management system.
They wasted a lot of time trying to create their own processes, but realized that this was not effective. Even the company’s staff members had little knowledge about QMSs so they had to undergo comprehensive training to achieve these means. It took a lot of time to get all individuals on board because courses had to induct them into the world of QMSs. These had to be complemented with industry-related seminars such as food hygiene as well as food safety hazards.
While training may be easy for organizations that have permanent employees, it can be quite difficult to train individuals who have no familiarity with the organizational quality culture. Furthermore, the financial incentives to train seasonal workers are minimal because they will not stay long enough to utilize the knowledge. The company tried coping with this challenge by having short-term seminars.
Many workers felt strained by the demands of the QMS. Since the whole implementation process took one year, all workers had to put in extra hours to cope with the new demands. This was a big challenge because the winery had a small number of workers. Even the financial and infrastructural resources did not offer a relief to the company. The firm struggled immensely to get money for compensating the QMS consultant.
Even third party certification was difficult to finance. However, the concerned company covered this challenge by collaborating with the government, which gave it support for the quality certification process. Aside from the financial incentives, it was difficult to get commitment from employees. The winery worked on this problem by enlightening workers about how the QMS would lead to better outcomes, such as greater customer satisfaction and fewer defective goods.
Quality Management System implementation in an NGO
The organization under consideration is DSC- it is a homeless charity that implemented a QMS for a period of 6 moths. The company followed all the typical processes of QMS implementation as outlined earlier in the literature review. However, it underwent several challenges during this process.
First, the organization had difficulties in deciding which QMS to implement. There were a wide range of choices, but the organization needed to make sure that it selected the one that fits with its values and mission. Aside from the mission-related factor, the QMS chosen needed to integrate with the company’s culture as organizational culture is very difficult to alter. After a lot of deliberation and compromise, DSC, chose ISO 9001.
The second challenge that the organization had to deal with was setting up policies and procedures for the quality management system. DSC had to strike a compromise between meeting its clients’ needs as well as meeting the specifications in the certification standard. This took a lot of time and forced the company to make some sacrifices on both sides. The homeless have unique needs, so it is difficult to standardize these as required by the QMS process.
The problem of staff resistance is quite common in most quality management systems and this case study was not an exception. Some of the staff felt that it was not realistic to expect them to do the same things as most of the members of the division because their roles necessitated different reactions.
Furthermore, because activities were highly diverse in this setting, many workers wondered whether they could meet the quality levels in other divisions (Beckford 2002). The company decided to focus on certain priority areas so as to solve the problem.
Communication was a serious challenge in the implementation process, as well. Top management made most of the decisions and conveyed them to low level employees.
Managers thought that conveyance of their decisions was adequate communication, yet most of the staff felt that they should have been consulted prior to making vital decisions. Many employees have experience and skills that management can use in quality management. Therefore, the company ought to have utilized this collective system in order to meet their needs.
In the training process, the firm had challenges with determining the kind of courses that it needed to teach its workers. However, because of financial challenges, the firm could not train them about everything that they required. Once again, they had to prioritize on the most vital issues in training.
Conclusion
All three case studies realized more benefits than losses from the implementation of QMSs. However, to really enjoy these gains, they needed to overcome a number of challenges. Most problems stemmed from financial shortcomings that relate to infrastructure, hiring consultants and training staff.
Additionally, there were inclusion issues that emanated from leaving most QMS decisions to top managers. If more workers were consulted, then greater buy-in would have occurred. Lack of experience and excessive work also challenged the firms under analysis. The company dealt with it by hiring consultants and educating staff about the usefulness of the QMS.
References
Alsowaisan, T & Youssef, A 2006, ‘An ISO 9001: 2000 based framework for realizing quality in small businesses’, Omega, vol. 34 pp.231-235.
Aniyan, S 2002, ‘Quality Management System Implementation at KELTEC’, Defence Science Journal, vol. 52 no. 4, pp. 393-402.
Beckford, J 2002, Quality, Routledge, London.
Hoyle, D 2007, Quality management essential, Elsevier Ltd, UK.
Tsiakals, J & West, J 2002, The ASQ ISO 9000:2000 handbook, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee.