（收藏）The 10 Biggest Quality Mistakes 质量工作十大错误

标签: Quality The Biggest Mistakes 质量 3分钟前



One of the most effective ways to improve is to learn from other people’s mistakes. Experience has taught me that there are plenty of mistakes out there to learn from. The trick is to recognize them and understand what to do instead. Unfortunately, I keep seeing the same mistakes over and over. They aren’t mistakes because they violate a standard such as ISO 9001; they’re mistakes because they violate good sense. Let’s examine the 10 most common quality mistakes and see how they can be corrected.
改进最有效的的方式之一是从别人的错误中学习。经验已经教我有太多太多的错误值得学习。关键是识别这些错误然后晓得该怎么做。不幸的是，你常常看到同样的错误在不断的重复着。错误不能称其为错误，不是因为违反了ISO9001之类的标准，而是违反了自身的判断力。让我们琢磨一下十大典型错误以及如何纠正。

1. Limiting quality objectives to traditional quality topics 在传统质量问题上限定质量目标

The term “quality objective” is an unfortunate one. It introduces subjectivity (i.e., quality) into a subject that should be quite clear (objectives). A much better term would simply be “measurable objectives” because that requires less interpretation. The word “quality” clouds the issue and makes many people want to narrow the focus of what a quality objective can be.
“质量目标”一词很不恰当。它把主观概念（即质量）引入到应该非常清晰（客观）的实物中。较好一点的词是“可测量的目标”，因为不需要太多的解释。而“质量”一词混淆了问题，使得许多人想要缩小质量目标的关注范围。
The truth is that quality is reflected in everything an organization does, and a quality objective can be anything measurable that relates to the organization’s success. A quality objective might relate to finances, customer feedback, safety, efficiency, speed or innovation. All these attributes relate to quality in one way or another. When selecting quality objectives, organizations should examine what matters most to their success. Whether the resulting measure is tied to traditional quality control or quality assurance is irrelevant.
事实是质量反映组织所做的每一件事，而且质量目标可以是与组织成功有关的可测量的任何方面。质量目标可能与融资、顾客反馈、安全、效率、速度或发明相关。所有这些属性都与质量有着千丝万缕的联系。在选择质量目标时，组织应考虑什么对其成功密切相关。是把作为结果的测量关联到传统质量控制还是质量保证是无关的。

1. Holding infrequent management reviews 主持为数不多的管理评审

Management review is the process used by top management to analyze data, make decisions and take action. Ideally, it’s a preventive process because data should indicate threats before they blossom into full-blown problems. If top managers are unable to analyze data proactively and prevent problems, then they’re not doing their jobs. Holding management reviews once or twice a year ensures that actions taken won’t be preventive. Only through timely and frequent data review can actions be preventive. Once or twice a year won’t cut it.
管理评审是最高管理者用来分析数据、作出决定和采取行动的过程。理想的管理评审是预防过程因为数据在成为既成事实之前就显示出了征兆。如果最高管理层不能提早分析这些数据并阻止问题的发生，那么他们将失职了。每年举行1到2次管理评审不能保证采取预防措施。只有通过定期经常性的数据评审，才能实现预防作用。每年举行1到2次管理评审不起作用。
Many people argue that their organizations already review data on a weekly and monthly basis. This means that management review is still after the fact; the decisions have already been made. Management review must be included in existing meetings. Instead of a twice-yearly dog-and-pony show, cover the inputs and outputs of management review as they occur naturally during existing meetings. After a month or two, you’ll have addressed all the required inputs and outputs. Using this approach, you’ll have information that’s timely and resulting actions that are preventive. Another advantage is that you dispense with the need for long, laborious management reviews. They happen in a smooth and effective manner that’s much more likely to drive improvements.
许多人争辩组织已在每周每月进行数据评审了。就是说管理评审仍然是事实发生后才进行决策的。管理评审必须包含在公司现行的例会中，而不是一年两次的盛大表演。把管理评审的输入和输出自然而然地融入现行的例会中，一二个月后，你就涉及了所有标准要求的输入和输出。利用此方法，你就获得及时信息，并实施具有预防作用的措施了。另一个优点是把费时费力的管理评审分散开，分配到例会中。这样，就在平稳有效的方式下进行管理评审，从而更有可能推动改进工作。

1. Sending out long, complex customer surveys 发出冗长而复杂的顾客调查问卷

The days of the long and complicated customer survey are over. People don’t have time to complete them. Even when organizations design shorter surveys, the questions are often confusing and fraught with interpretation problems. The scales that accompany the questions are often unbalanced and illogical. As a result, organizations end up with a small amount of valid data. Better to have no data at all than data that could lead you in the wrong direction.
那种冗长而复杂的顾客调查问卷已经一去不复返了。人们没时间填完它。即使组织设计了较短的问卷，问题本身也经常是模糊的充满了多重解释的问题。问题所附带的分值也经常是不均衡和不合逻辑的。其结果是组织得到一少部分有效的数据。没有这些数据也比把你带到沟儿去的数据要好。
Instead of a survey, why not simply ask your customers what they like and dislike? Don’t limit their responses to survey topics. Let your customers dictate the content of their feedback in response to open-ended questions. Few are more powerful than the following: What do you like? What don’t you like? What would you like to see different in the future? Open-ended feedback is also much easier to understand and take action on. A customer- satisfaction index of 3.8 is hard to interpret. On the other hand, seven out of 10 customers telling you that your Web site is confusing is very easy to interpret.
除调查表外，为什么不能简简单单地问问顾客喜欢什么不喜欢什么呢？在调查主题上不要给顾客的回答设限。让顾客口述对问题自由回答。没有什么比以下问题更有力的了：你喜欢什么？你不喜欢什么？今后你想看到的变化是什么？同时可自由回答的反馈信息更容易被理解和采取行动。3.8分值的顾客满意指数是很难解释的。而，10个顾客中7个告诉你告诉的网站让人看了糊涂是非常容易解释的。

1. Assuming everyone knows what “nonconforming” looks like 假设每个人都知道不合格像什么

When I visit organizations, one of my favorite questions is, “Where do you put the nonconforming products?” Control of nonconforming products is one of the most basic kinds of controls, and it speaks volumes about the rest of the controls embraced by the organization. Unfortunately, where I often find nonconforming products is wherever someone decided to leave them. They’re not uniquely identified, either. In other words, nonconforming products are treated no differently than any other products. When I ask why this is happening, the most common answer I get is, “Because everyone knows that’s nonconforming.” No, they don’t. No matter how nonconforming a product is, there will be someone who won’t recognize it as such. The stories of bent, broken and blown-up products that somehow got used anyway aren’t urban legends. They’re true.
在我参观组织时，我最喜欢的问题之一是“你们把不合格品放在哪儿？”不合格品的控制是所有中最基本的，足以说明这个组织其它方面的控制了。不幸的是，我经常发现处置不合格品的地方就是某人决定丢弃这些不合格品的地方。不合格品也没有被进行唯一性识别。换句话说，不合格品的处置与其它产品没什么两样。当我问为什么会这样时，最常见的回答是“因为每个人都知道那是不合格品”。不对，他们不知道。无论一件产品多么的不合格，总有人不认为那是件不合格品。有些人以某种方式使用弯曲的，破损的和毁坏的产品，这样的事不是神话。是真事儿。
Smart organizations positively identify all nonconforming products, and really smart organizations segregate them to remove all chance of accidental use. Error-proof your control of the nonconforming product process so that nobody has to assume anything.
聪明的组织积极识别所有不合格品，并且将其分离，避免非预期使用的机会。对不合格品进行防错控制不给人留下可乘之机。

1. Failing to use the corrective action process 未能采取纠正措施

Corrective action is the systematic way to investigate problems, identify their causes and keep the problems from happening again. Nobody wants problems, but it’s essential to have a way of dealing with them when they come up. The more the corrective action process is used, the better the organization gets at addressing its risks and problems. That’s why I’m astounded when I hear about organizations that avoid using their corrective action processes. Of course, I always ask why they’re doing this, and I often get one of these answers:
纠正措施是全方位的方式来研究问题，究其原因并保证问题不再发生。某人需要出现问题，但当问题出现时，起码得有个办法来解决它。采取纠正措施越多，组织就越能注意风险和问题。这就是为什么但我听到组织避免使用纠正措施时晕倒的原因。当然，我经常问他们为什么这样做，我经常得到的答案是：
• Corrective action isn’t effective for large problems. 纠正措施对大问题无效。
• Corrective action isn’t effective for small problems. 纠正措施对小问题无效。
• Nobody understands root cause. 没人了解根本原因。
• Our problem-solving tools are confusing. 不理解解决问题的工具
• Our procedure requires too much paperwork. 工作程序需要填写太多的表格
• Corrective action takes too long. 纠正措施耗费太长的时间
• I hate our corrective action form. 我讨厌纠正措施表格
• Top management frowns on corrective action because it means that someone screwed up. 最高管理层对纠正措施呲之以鼻，因为它把人搞的一团糟。
These aren’t corrective action problems but problems with the organization’s approach to corrective action. An effective corrective action process is typically seamless, simple and intuitive. The whole point is to add a little structure to problem solving, not to create additional bureaucracy.
这不是纠正措施的问题，而是组织使用纠正措施的问题。一个有效的纠正措施过程是无缝的，简单且直观。其要点是给解决问题增加一点点组织机构，而不是产生额外的官僚机构。
Here are some hints to make your corrective action process more user friendly and effective:
• Strip it down to the essentials. A corrective action must clearly describe the problem, how it’s caused, actions taken to remove the causes, results of actions taken and how the actions were effective. Only include additional elements when you can prove that they add value.
• Remove all jargon from the process. Strange words only discourage people from using the process.
• Don’t insist on a raft of signatures . It’s not necessary for half the management staff to sign off on every corrective action.
• Remove paper from the process as much as possible. Use electronic media to track corrective actions.
• Communicate corrective actions widely. When people see that corrective actions accomplish something, they’re much more likely to participate in the process.
• Provide problem-solving tools, but give people some discretion in their use . If your procedure requires a failure mode and effects analysis to be completed for every corrective action, it will probably discourage people from starting corrective actions.
• Use teams for corrective actions whenever possible. This gives people experience in the process and also increases the effectiveness of most solutions.
以下是使纠正措施更容易使用、更有效的提示：
l 拨开疑雾直至问题的本质。纠正措施必须清晰地描述问题，问题是怎么发生的，在原因处采取行动，采取措施的结果以及措施如何有效果。只有在可以证明其增值时，才把额外的元素。
l 驱除过程里所有的行话。怪怪的词汇只能不让人们使用这些过程。
l 不要坚持要求大量的签字。让大半个管理人员签署每个纠正措施是没有必要的。
l 尽可能的除去书面表格。用电子媒介来跟踪纠正措施。
l 广泛宣传纠正措施。当人们看到纠正措施达到了某个目的时，他们就更希望参与进来。
l 提供解决问题工具，但让人们在使用这些工具时有发挥的空间。如果过程需要每个纠正措施完成失效模式和后果分析的话，那么该过程就会阻止人们开始使用纠正措施。

1. Applying document control only to official documents 只对正式公文应用文件控制

Most organizations do a decent job of controlling “official” documents, the procedures and work instructions that form the core of the quality management system (QMS). These are often written, approved and issued according to very specific guidelines. What organizations don’t do very well is control unofficial documents, many of which are more important than the official ones. What am I talking about? Here are some examples that are often found in production areas:
• Post-it notes with special requirements written on them
• Memos that include procedural steps
• E-mails with customer specifications
• Photographs showing what a product should look like
• Drawings indicating how product components fit together
• Samples of product showing defect limits
大多数组织在控制形成质量管理体系核心文件的正式公文、过程文件和作业指导书时做的都很好。这些文件常常被写出书面形式，走批准程序，并按照特定的规则发放。而做的不够好的是控制非正式的文件，许多文件比正式公文还重要。我在说什么呢？以下是在生产区经常发现的例子：
l 书写有特别要求的随意贴
l 包含过程步骤的备忘录
l 带有顾客技术规范要求的emal
l 产品样件照片
l 表明产品元件如何组装在一起的图纸
l 表明缺陷接收极限的样件
These informal resources become documents when they’re shared for people to use, and they’re some of the most important documents within an organization. They’re distributed and posted in a hurry--usually without control--because the information they communicate is considered critical. Nobody can quibble with the speed of distribution, but the lack of control guarantees problems later. I’ve seen 10-year-old memos posted in organizations that exhorted personnel to perform obsolete job steps. When documents aren’t controlled, mistakes and nonconformities are inevitable. Apply document control to all documents, and scrutinize your document control process to keep it streamlined and effective.
当这些非正式资料被发放到相关人员使用时就成为了组织内最重要的文件。这些资料被得到快速的发放和公布——通常是在失控状态下的，因为人们认为这些资料所承载的信息非常重要。没人对传播速度提出质疑，但失控将会导致以后问题的出现。我见过有10年之久的广告张贴在组织里，宣传已不存在工作的完成步骤。当文件失控时，错误和不合格就不可避免了。对所有文件实施文件控制，研究文件控制过程使其有效。

1. Focusing audits on petty, non-strategic details 注重无关紧要的非战略细节的评审

Auditing is the process of comparing actual operations against commitments the organization has made. It’s a simple, fact-driven process that can generate huge improvements. However, these can occur only if auditors focus on the right things. Too often, internal auditors become preoccupied with petty details and neglect the big issues. They’re uncomfortable examining the big, strategic issues. It’s much easier just to nitpick. Organizations rarely provide enough training and skill-building to their internal auditors, so it’s no wonder that they aren’t prepared to carry out their duties to the fullest.
鲁棒评审是将实际操作与组织作出的承诺进行比较的过程。评审是个简单用事实说话的过程，它可以产生巨大的改进。但是，这只有在评审人员关注到正确的事儿上时才会有效。通常，内审员全神贯注于无关紧要的细节而忽视大问题。内审员对评审大的战略性问题感到不安。鸡蛋里挑骨头显得更容易些。组织很少给内审员提供足够的培训，所以毫无疑问内审员没有准备好全力完成他们的职责。
A robust internal auditing process examines make-or-break issues. Here are just a few of the items that internal auditors should probe in detail:
鲁棒【robust原意是健壮和强壮的意思，鲁棒性（robustness）就是系统的健壮性。它是在异常和危险情况下系统生存的关键。所谓“鲁棒性”，是指控制系统在一定（结构，大小）的参数摄动下，维持某些性能的特性。根据对性能的不同定义，可分为稳定鲁棒性和性能鲁棒性。——jelly】评审过程研究体系成功与失败的问题。以下仅仅是内审员要细查的几个项目：
• Customer satisfaction. Is the organization capturing and analyzing customer satisfaction data? How is it acting on the data? Do trends show improvements in customer satisfaction?
l 顾客满意。该组织捕获和分析顾客满意方面的数据吗？趋势显示出在顾客满意方面的改善了吗？
• Management review. Does management review happen as planned? Does the necessary information and data get reviewed? What actions result?
l 管理评审。管理评审按计划进行了吗？必需的信息和数据得到评审了吗？措施的结果是什么？
• Corrective action. Is corrective action applied to existing nonconformities? Is it timely? Does evidence indicate that causes are removed to prevent recurrence?
l 纠正措施。纠正措施应用到现有的不合格了吗？及时吗？有证据显示不合格的原因被消除（为防止再次发生）了吗？
• Preventive action. Does the organization take preventive action based on data and information? Is it effective?
l 预防措施。组织进行预防措施是基于数据和信息吗？是否有效？
• Internal audits. Are audits scheduled and carried out based on status, importance and prior audit results? Do audit nonconformities become corrective actions? Is the entire scope of the management system audited?
l 内审。内审是否按其进行？内审是基于体系状况、重要性和以前的内审结果吗？内审出的不合格转化成为纠正措施了吗？管理体系整个范围得到评审了吗？
• Objectives. Are objectives established and communicated? Do employees understand them?
l 目标。目标是否得到确定并公布？员工是否理解？
• Control of nonconforming products. Are all nonconformities positively identified? Are dispositions carried out as required? Are trends analyzed for improvement?
l 不合格品的控制。所有不合格是否被积极的识别？是否按要求进行了处置？其趋势是否进行了分析，以进行改进？
There are, of course, many other important issues an audit process could examine. The point is that internal auditors should go after the items that really affect the organization’s success. Focusing on petty details serves no purpose but to confuse everyone about the purpose of audits.
当然还有其它重要的项目内审过程可以检查。要点是内审员追逐那些实际影响组织成功的项目。关注于无关紧要的细节没有用，而且使人们不清楚内审的目的。

1. Training some personnel, but not all 培训一部分员工，不是全部

Most organizations provide significant training to hourly production personnel. Salaried and managerial personnel are often neglected, however. Why? Because there’s a perception that salaried workers don’t affect product conformity. This is a serious error.
大多数组织对生产线上的拿计时工资的员工提供大量的培训，而常常忽视拿月工资【意指非生产一线——jelly】的员工和管理人员的培训。为什么？有种感觉认为拿月工资的工人不影响产品的符合性。这是极其严重的错误。
All personnel must be included in the training process. Salaried and managerial personnel need more--not less--training because their decisions and actions have more lasting effects. When an hourly employee makes a mistake, it could cost money. When a top manager makes a mistake, it could put you out of business. Doesn’t it make sense to train these people? Do it early and often.
培训过程必须包括所有员工。拿月工资的工人和管理人员需要更多的——而不是更少的培训，因为他们的决定和行为有较长时间的影响。当拿计时工资的工人产生错误时，会造成成本。当高层管理人员产生错误，就有可能把企业干灭火。这不说明要培训这些人的问题吗？尽早并且经常培训他们吧。

1. Doing anything just because an external auditor told you to 做外审员要你做的每件事。

External auditors wield great influence. Their statements and judgments can have a lasting effect on the way an organization conducts business. This can be good or bad. Usually, it’s bad. Most external auditors working for a registrar are removed from the realities of running a business. They travel from organization to organization, gradually collecting paradigms about the way a QMS should be implemented, maintained and improved. These paradigms are sometimes reflected back to the organization in the form of recommendations or nonconformities.
外审员有巨大的影响力。他们的话语和判断在组织从事业务中有持久的影响。这也许是好的影响也许是坏的影响。通常，是坏的影响。大多数外审员为某一注册机构工作，已经与经营活动脱离。他们从一个组织走到了一个组织，逐渐积累各种范例，即质量管理体系应该如何实施、保持和改进方面的范例。这些范例经常以建议或不符合项的形式反映给组织。
In my travels to companies, I often ask people why they’re carrying out a process the way they are. I always raise this question when the process seems unwieldy or illogical. In a surprising number of cases, the answer will be, “Because the external auditor said we should do it that way.” What a waste. Do a reality check on the auditor’s recommendations. Never do anything just because an auditor would like it done that way. A certificate on the wall isn’t worth it.
在我对公司进行走访时，我经常问人家为什么按照他们的方式执行一个过程。当这些过程看起来不实用或不合理时，我经常问这样问题。回答就是“因为外审员说我们应该那样做”。多可惜！要对外审员的建议进行实际检查。永远不要做任何事情仅仅是因为某个外审员希望那样做。挂在墙上的证书没有用。

1. Employing someone who only oversees the QMS 雇用专职人员维系体系

Having a person who does nothing but oversee the ISO 9001 (or any other) QMS is one of the worst ideas in the history of quality. Why? Because it guarantees two things:
First, the QMS coordinator will become isolated from the rest of the organization. Because the person does nothing but serve the QMS, he or she loses touch with why the organization exists in the first place. The system becomes paramount over the organization’s business concerns. Second, the QMS will become bloated and bureaucratic because it must expand to completely fill someone’s time. Procedures become more complicated, methods more cumbersome and the benefits more ambiguous.
找个人什么也不做只是维系ISO9001质量管理体系是质量史上最糟糕的主意。为什么？因为这将生产两个问题：
第一，QMS专员就被组织的其它部门所隔离。因为此人什么都不做只是维系QMS，他/她与组织存在的初衷相背离。第二，QMS将被泡沫化，并形成官僚政治，因为QMS必须膨胀到可以使这个人天天有事做的程度。过程文件变得更加复杂，方法更加笨拙，而QMS的益处就越来越模糊了。
A QMS is nothing more than a guiding structure of methods, and it shouldn’t take a huge dedication of time and effort to maintain. Yes, someone should keep the system on track, but that person should have other responsibilities as well. Pair the ISO 9001 coordinator job with other responsibilities that focus on understanding what the organization does, especially responsibilities related to the product, customers and improvement. If the QMS is so bureaucratic that it requires the time of an entire person (or, heaven forbid, an entire staff), then the system needs to be streamlined. An effective QMS should make an organization more competitive, not weigh it down.
质量管理体系只是各种方法导向性结构，不应该花费巨大的时间和精力来维系。是的，有人应该保证体系运行正常，当该人应该还有其它职责。把ISO9001专员的工作与其它专注于理解组织做什么，特别是与产品、顾客和改进相关的职责相联系。如果QMS太官僚了，以至于需要一个整人（或者整个团队，但愿不会如此！）的时间，那么这个体系就得改进了。一个有效的QMS应该使组织更具有竞争力，而不是把组织压垮。

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Posted by Craig Cochran at 8:07 PM 12 comments
Labels: auditing, improvement, ISO 9001, ISO 9001:2008, QMS, quality, standards
http://craigcochran.blogspot.c ... .html