In the last two weeks we discussed an Olympic skater’s disqualification and came up with a possible root cause; in this case, human error. Specifically, everyone assumed everyone else was keeping track of the number of laps and, as it turned out, no one was.

Finding a root cause was the easy part. How does the skating team eliminate the root cause? How do they eliminate carelessness and inattention? How do they eliminate the possibility of even a momentary lapse in concentration? What’s the best corrective action they can take?

Carelessness and inattention being uniquely human qualities, the best corrective action, or countermeasure, is to do what you can under the rules to eliminate them. The first thing that comes to mind is an automated signal — for instance, a voice — triggered as a skater goes through an electronic gate.

They already have start and finish gates for all racing events. It wouldn’t be difficult to include a lap counter that would also prompt a skater, aurally or visually. Tell or show them what lap they’re on and when to change lanes. Wireless in-helmet communicators have been in use in the National Football League (NFL) for several years. The NFL ensures that no team has an unfair advantage. Everyone’s quarterback gets an in-helmet communicator.

While some, I expect, will say that communicators remove the “human factor” from the sport. What about body suits? Or the changes made to skates? Everyone has the same opportunity, so that it comes down to who is the better skater.

Better training under race conditions is another possibility. For instance, work on exercises that sharpen one’s mental acuity - concentration - during an event.

What does this have to do with your organization? Plenty. Take a look at your best and worst processes in terms of performance and consistency. Look at the numbers generated and determine where your weak points are. Why are those your weak points? What’s causing them?

Where is waste occurring, and how much? What kinds of waste are there?

Now, how do you reduce or eliminate waste? How do you prevent root causes of error and waste from recurring? Once you determine what corrective and/or preventive actions to take — and you take them — you’re on your way to making the process in question as foolproof as it can be.

Remember — inflated expectations are the worst form of sabotage. No process can ever be made completely foolproof. Nevertheless, you owe it to your customers — and your company — to try.

It was nearly a year ago that the Bizmanualz Quality Management System (QMS) was certified to the ISO 9001:2008 standard by Platinum Registration.

Nearly a year has passed since that certification audit and, as required, Platinum returned last week to conduct a surveillance audit of our QMS. That is, they reviewed our quality documentation and records to verify that we were in compliance with ISO 9001 and our QMS is healthy.

I’m happy to say we passed the surveillance audit. We didn’t get through the audit completely blemish-free, but that’s to be expected. (In fact, I’d be rather suspicious of an auditor if he/she didn’t identify something that needed improvement.)

Your registrar should find opportunities for improvement. Your QMS isn’t expected to be perfect. No matter how long you’re in business, you will never do things perfectly. That’s why continual improvement (clause 8.5) is in the international quality standard.

“Don’t worry about perfection. You’ll never achieve it.”
(Salvador Dali, 1904-1989)

Our auditor did identify a few “issues”. If her concerns had been serious enough – if, for example, we didn’t have a quality manual, as clause 4.2.1(b) requires — she would be correct in writing major or minor findings. We’d be required to address those concerns…those findings…in a timely manner or risk losing our certification.

However, our auditor identified several “statements of fact” (also called “observations”), which aren’t nearly as serious. We could ignore observations, which are a way of saying “you’re in compliance, so you don’t have to do anything.” Instead, we’ll use the auditor’s statements of fact to improve our QMS further.

You see, merely passing an audit isn’t good enough. Posting “ISO 9001 Certified” on your office wall, your stationery, and your product means nothing if you don’t back that term with action. If you don’t, your customers will see right through you.

That’s why customer satisfaction (clause 8.2.1) is a key requirement of the quality standard. In fact, you could argue customer satisfaction is the KEY requirement, and few would differ with you.

In the coming days, we’ll use the auditor’s statements to improve our system. And throughout the coming year, we’ll be doing a number of other things to continually improve our QMS. We have another surveillance audit in about a year from now and a recertification audit in 2012. We also have customers to take care of.

The Moral of the Story: Always practice the quality you preach and you’ll be ready for anything at any time. Right? Do you disagree?

There seems to be some confusion regarding use of the phrase “editable policies and procedures” to describe Bizmanualz policies and procedures manuals. I’ll explain what that means.

Bizmanualz policies and procedures are written in Microsoft Word 2003 format. While I work in Office 2007, I can save documents in 2003 format (“.doc”), so it doesn’t matter which of the two versions of Word you have. NOTE: If you have an earlier version of Word, like Word 2000, you may not be able to use many of the features that come with the 2003 version.

The first thing many companies want to do is change instances of “Bizmanualz”, “Bizmanualz, Inc.”, and “the Company” to their own company names. That’s easy enough. Find and select the “Replace” function (in Word ‘07, it’s the “Home” tab, “Editing” group, in the top right — in Word ‘03, find “Edit” in the Menu Bar, then “Replace…” in the drop-down menu).

Enter “Bizmanualz, Inc.” (or any proper name, phrase, etc.) in the “Find what:” text box and your company’s name (e.g., “AwesomeCo”) in the “Replace with:” box.

NOTE 2: “AwesomeCo” is used because it didn’t come up in an Internet search (surprised?). Click on the “Replace All” button and all instances of “Bizmanualz, Inc.” should read “AwesomeCo”.

That’s one example of what we mean by “fully editable”. See, once you purchase a Bizmanualz policies and procedures manual, it’s no longer a Bizmanualz document. It’s yours — change, remove, and insert whatever you feel is necessary.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking our products are ready to use “right out of the box” — they’re not. They’re written generally, so any company can use them. Edit, save, distribute, train on, implement, and use them.

NOTE 3: Be sure not to overwrite the original document, but use the “Save as…” function the first time you make a change to any document.

Oh, and another thing…the editing process goes much faster if you’re a frequent user of Word. If you don’t know Word, get training or find someone who’s already been trained and had experience. The more you know about Word and its features, the easier the transformation process will be.

Any questions? Please contact us via our web site, or enter your comments at the bottom of this post. Thanks for your time.

We had a customer ask us this week about obtaining “ASO certification”. Here, in a nutshell, is what we said in reply:

“We’re unfamiliar with ‘ASO’ certification (one of my cohorts “googled” the acronym and didn’t think any of the results fit, so we assumed they meant “ISO” - if we’re wrong, we’ll hear about it). However, if a company wants to obtain ‘ISO’ certification, it has to do the following:

1. Develop a quality management system (QMS);
2. Implement the QMS and collect data;
3. Review the data collected and use it to drive improvement;
4. After several cycles of the QMS, you should have an indication of whether it’s working. When you’re sure it is…
5. Apply for a certification audit.  Your country’s ISO member body should have information on certifying bodies, registrars, etc.;
6. A few weeks after you’ve been through the audit, the certication auditor will tell you if you passed (or if you didn’t, where you were weak and need improvement). If you passed, ring the bell! Have a party! Tell all your friends (Facebook and real), family, and business associates! Your Quality Management System is now ISO certified! And…
7. In the event you didn’t pass, make the necessary changes (at the bare minimum) and reapply for a certification audit.

One thing we didn’t tell the customer initially is, “Don’t have unrealistic expectations.” Developing and utilizing the QMS — as well as the subsequent audit — are going to take time and effort.

If you’re doing it purely for marketing’s sake, if you think you can knock out a QMS and pass a certification audit in a matter of months…you’re in for a load of grief. You’ll never get a solid QMS under you AND you’ll never make deadlines, because they’re unrealistic.

If you build a QMS because you want to provide your customers with the best everything — if customers are the reason for everything you do, including the QMS – you’ll take the time you need to get it right, you won’t set unrealistic goals and deadlines, and you won’t drive yourself crazy trying to figure out why you never meet expectations.

OK, so they’re not really easy steps…but the concept itself isn’t at all complicated. Each of the steps above is broken down into successively smaller pieces (things, activities, people, etc.) but if you start with the “big picture” and keep the big picture handy, you’ll do fine. Refer to it continually as you build. That’s where a lot of companies go wrong — they focus on just one part of the whole story as if that were the whole story, like the blind men and the elephant.

Keep your perspective. Remember — you’re in it for the long haul.  Best of luck in your QMS journey, and let us know if you’d like our help.

Let’s face facts. Most companies are never going to be innovators, and that’s fine. Most would rather lead their respective categories, anyway, and they lead by doing most of the important things — all coming under the heading of “customer needs and wants” — consistently better than their competitors.

What are the important things? Give your customers what they want (which varies from one customer to the next but can be lumped into one category, “value”). Give it to them when they want it and don’t make excuses.

Value translates to “quality”, which you can give a customer from the outset if you’re lucky. Anyone can get it right at least once but what most of us call “quality” comes about only through establishing consistency in a process. And consistency can only be determined over time.

So, how do you ensure consistency? Keep working at the process. Keep refining it. Implement “best practices”.  This will, at best, let you “keep up with the Joneses” (and Toyodas and Fords, etc.).

What if keeping up isn’t good enough? Yes, the silver medal is nice but wouldn’t gold…or platinum…be even better? How do you get ahead of the pack? How do you differentiate yourself in a way that really matters?

Well, what’s the difference between a company that successfully meets or exceeds most stated customer requirements — again, not a bad place to be — and companies that go beyond the known and measurable? The difference is marked by a willingness not to be defined — or confined — by conventional thinking. Innovators don’t think a subject to death: they act decisively.

Of course, they get it wrong a lot of the time but they don’t fret about their mistakes. They learn from them, and they keep moving.

Sure, “mistake-proofing” has its rewards. Mistake-proofed organizations are more certain, they’re more measurable, and they’re often profitable. Innovative companies aren’t afraid of mistakes, because they know that’s how we learn best, as companies and as individuals.

In fact, it’s when we get into a “rut” of consistency that we often lose our gift for innovating. Consistency is not necessarily better than creativity, and vice versa. Consistency and creativity need not be mutually exclusive, either…so we’d like to think. After all, innovation and change can go hand in hand. What do you think?

Can innovation and “best practices” coexist?

* * * * * * *

For More On This Subject…

• “How to Kill Innovation: Keep Asking Questions”, by Scott Anthony, HBR Blog Network (25 Feb 2010) - http://blogs.hbr.org/anthony/2010/02/want_to_kill_innovation_keep_a.html
• “Does Repeat Collaboration Really Kill Creativity?”, by Andrew O’Connell, HBR Blog Network (1 Mar 2010) - http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/03/if-repeat-collaboration-kills.html

We all know what “corrective action” is, right? If you don’t, it’s really easy. It’s an action you take to eliminate the root cause of a problem (or nonconformance), thereby preventing — or reducing the likelihood of — the problem’s recurrence.

So, define the problem. (Well, see, it’s like this. Our skater was ahead — I mean “way ahead” — in the longest of the long-distance races. It’s, like, six miles. And with nearly three-quarters of the race gone, his opponent’s nowhere near him. He might as well be in another building…or another country.)

Doesn’t sound like a problem to me. (I was about to get to that. It’s at that point that our guy’s supposed to switch lanes to the outside. Only our coach says, “INSIDE!”, and our guy GOES inside, like he’s told. And because he didn’t switch lanes, our man’s DQ-ed.)

DQ-ed? (Disqualified. He had the best time, but didn’t win the race. We had the best man, the best coaches, the best training, best nutrition, best staff, the fastest track…and we have nothing to show for all that. No winner, no medal, no endorsements…nothing.)

And why was your man disqualified? (Like I said, the coach said “go inside” and he went inside. The coach made a mistake. So did our skater, I guess.)

Why did the coach tell your skater to go inside? (He wasn’t paying close attention…he was distracted…he was confused, somehow.)

Why did the skater do what the coach said? (He trusted the coach. He wasn’t paying attention, either.)

Why weren’t they paying attention? (I can’t say for sure. Maybe they were so far ahead, they got a little careless.)

See what we did? Recognize the “Five Whys”? We got down to a possible root cause. I say ”possible” because we rely on an individual’s focus, memory and biases. If we subject several people, including the skater and coach, to the “Five Whys”, we get a somewhat balanced result.

Now that we’ve identified a root cause, how do we eliminate it? Better yet, “What does this have to do with MY business?” For the answer to these and other questions…

…stay tuned.

Much has been made of procedure writing, both here at Bizmanualz and around the Internet, but very little is said about an equally important part of the design and development process — procedure review.

Many problems with procedures that crop up after they’ve been implemented are traceable to inadequate or no review. Let’s say a procedure as written describes an ideal process, performed under ideal conditions (i.e., real-world conditions aren’t taken into account). If this isn’t caught in a procedure review, the end product will meet requirements only through luck. Luck being notoriously unreliable, inconsistent, and uncontrollable, you’re clearly better off with a review.

Why do you review anything? To ensure the accuracy and completeness of whatever it is you’re reviewing and to make sure everyone has the same understanding of the policy, process, or situation. In short, to ensure effective communication, which will lead you to the desired outcome.

Effective communication is a big reason why the international quality standard, ISO 9001, mandates design and development reviews (clause 7.3.4).  If you don’t review, you risk missing any number of product requirements, both stated and unstated, and you risk losing customers.

Need another reason to review policies and procedures? No one is perfect and no process is perfect. No one will write the perfect procedure the first time, every time.

Furthermore, no one — NO ONE! — can multitask. Your technical writer wears several other hats, right? That person is bound to temporarily lose focus on the policy or procedure they’re writing when other projects and other managers are continually demanding that their stuff is mission critical, “…so drop everything and work on this.” (Now, where was I?)

We all agree, then, that policies and procedures have to be reviewed, right? So, how’s it done? Well, one method that works is based on speech evaluations as done by Toastmasters. For a Toastmaster, learning how to evaluate a speech - or a written document - is as critical as learning how to give a speech or write one.

Objectives

Always start with the objectives or requirements. Were they clearly communicated to the technical writer? Did he/she understand them? Do you? Were the objectives prioritized and categorized? Were they SMART objectives?

Review

Did the technical writer achieve the stated objectives/requirements? (Have a list of the objectives in front of you as you review the document.)

Also, list some important, yet unstated, objectives. For example, correct spelling and good grammar are often taken for granted. Don’t make that mistake. Make up a checklist for often overlooked items, like “Are important terms defined?” and “Is ‘active voice’ used?”

Did the tech writer go beyond the stated objectives? For example:

The procedure mentions a packaging machine that a first-time reader may not be familiar with. The tech writer includes a long shot (photo) of the machine and a closeup of the control panel. The pictures aren’t a requirement; furthermore, they (and additional photos) push the document beyond the stated requirement of “six pages, maximum”.

Which is the SMARTer objective, user understanding or document length?

Reward

In your review, whether its written or oral, be sure to lead with those aspects of the procedure where objectives were met or exceeded. If critical objectives were not, consider possible explanations for that (the writer’s level of experience, competing projects, the amount of information provided them, clarity of the objectives, etc.).

The point is not to let the writer “off the hook” (or to find a hook to hang them on). It’s about encouraging the writer - praising what they did well and asking them to do better. Tell them, “Here’s what you did well.”

Don’t be vague or insincere, either. Don’t fish for compliments — you’re not helping them by telling them that their capitalization was great, or they had all the commas in the right places.

Be truthful, be specific, and give them something to build on.

Respond

Tell the writer exactly what you see in the procedure (ex., will the reader know who’s supposed to do what, when, and why?) Restate the objectives and indicate which were met, which were exceeded, and which weren’t met. Use a numeric scale in your review (rarely is anything “black or white”).

Beyond that, does the procedure “flow”? Did they use the PDCA model correctly? Did she or he use words, voice, style, grammar, etc., effectively? Does the story - and the message - come across clearly?

Tell them what they did well and point out specific opportunities for improvement. Hand the document back to them with another objective: you need the revision back for a “final” review by a specific date.

Remember that policy and procedure review is an integral part of a design and development process. After you’ve reviewed the document, the writer will probably have to make some changes. After the writer has revised the document, review it again.

Don’t review it to death, however. Four or more reviews of the same document should tell you that the review process has broken down…somewhere. It might be time - at least temporarily - to bring in another pair of eyes.

As a reviewer, you’re obliged to:

• Be sure that stated and unstated objectives were met;
• Be fair;
• Be consistent;
• Be thorough; and
• Point out strengths and opportunities for improvement in the document and in the process.

And as one of my favorite sports announcers (Jack Buck) used to say after every broadcast, “Thanks for your time this time. ‘Til next time — so long.”

* * * * *

For more on evaluation, see “The Three R’s of Evaluating“, by David Hobson, DTM (”Toastmasters” magazine, Nov., 2007).

The 2010 Winter Olympic Games begin in earnest tomorrow, February 13. (The overhyped, overwrought opening ceremony doesn’t count.) Alpine skiing, freestyle skiing, the biathlon, ice hockey, luge, speed skating, short-track skating, ski jumping…and that’s just the first day!

Some Olympic records – and a few world records – will be broken over the course of the next two weeks. You watch these athletes perform and you marvel at their power, their endurance, their finesse.

How do they do it? What makes them so special? Are they that different from you and me? Are they superhuman? No, not really. They’re just like you and me…well, maybe not now. But we all start out on equal footing.

The big difference? With a few exceptions, the athletes got their start fairly early in life. And almost from the day they laced up a pair of skates or strapped on skis, they had an ambitious, long-range goal – to be a pro, maybe even the next Wayne Gretzky or Herman Maier.

Mom and Dad encouraged and helped them. Their parents, and then their coaches, made up their plan. They knew that to get the big goal, these future stars had to accomplish a lot of smaller goals, and they had to do it in stepwise fashion.

The plan included competition, proper nutrition, and physical and mental training. Their coaches checked their performance in training and competitions. They analyzed the athlete’s performance, noted where they were reaching those small goals and where they weren’t, and revised the plan accordingly. Then, they executed the revised plan to improve performance.

They repeated this stepwise plan over and over until they reached their big goal, whether that was turning pro, making the Olympic team, making it to the medal round, or standing on the podium at the medal ceremony.

Think about that. They made a plan, executed it, checked their progress, and improved incrementally. What does that remind you of?

If you thought “Deming Cycle”, you’re right. Plan, do, check, and act — just like your organization should be doing (if it isn’t already). Your organization is just like that Olympic athlete. Improvement doesn’t happen overnight. It happens in stages, over time, following a plan.

Consider this: What are your goals for the short and long term? Do you have a plan to get there? Are you satisfied with your performance? More importantly, are your customers?

How do you get better? What will it take to make your firm stand out from the rest – to get to the Games, to the medal round, and maybe even the gold, silver, or bronze?

Are you monitoring and analyzing your performance in order to improve? Are you looking for overnight success, or are you looking for incremental improvement over time? Do you adjust your plan when you don’t meet your goals?

Enjoy the Games. And remember, as you’re watching the long hill jump – seeing that ski jumper glide down the ramp, pick up speed, then hurtle the length of a football pitch before touching down gently (we hope). Remember that it started with a plan…

So, what’s your favorite event at the Winter Games? Who’s your favorite athlete? Will they have to truck in snow? (Sounds like somebody had a plan.)

Thanks to recent reports across all media (ex., “Toyota’s Slow Awakening to a Deadly Problem“, 1 Feb 2010), we’re beginning to see the enormous scope of the acceleration error that has prompted the recall of millions of Toyota vehicles.

Toyota, a company long considered a paragon of lean manufacturing virtue (hence, its assuming the mantle of “World’s Largest Car Maker” from GM), appears to have a serious defect in many of its highest-selling products. “Unintended acceleration” has resulted in hundreds of accidents (reported so far) and the loss of untold lives. In the last two weeks, Toyota shut down the production lines of some of its most popular vehicles to address the situation.

Could it be, as some have suggested, that Toyota has been “hoist with (its) own petard”? Or, to put it another way, was Toyota done in by the very system designed to make it efficient and prosperous?

Just today (1 Feb 2010), Toyota “officially” announced it had found a way to correct the problem (one that goes beyond replacing or doctoring floor mats), but many people aren’t satisfied the manufacturing giant has found the real solution. And even if it has, it will be a long, long time before Toyota recovers from the damage it has done to its reputation.

Questions abound, including “Why didn’t Toyota conduct a thorough investigation when it first learned of the problem (back in 2007?)”, “Why did the company stay with the ‘floor mat’ explanation for so long?”, and “Why didn’t safety bodies (like the NHTSA) do more when they realized there was a problem?”

Toyota’s TPS system appears to be in need of a corrective action — the question is, “Where?” Is the problem in manufacturing only? Customer service? Marketing? Design & development? Outsourcing? Or, did Toyota get too big for its own good?

Toyota’s not the only organization incriminated in this scenario. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration doesn’t come out of this situation unbloodied and unbowed. There are allegations that it could have and should have done more to keep the defect, whatever its root cause, from getting out of control.

In a half-hearted defense of NHTSA, they appear to have been ahead of many of their counterparts around the globe. Recalls in Europe and elsewhere followed the recalls in the US. Furthermore, every government body is hurting. There isn’t anything they don’t need — the authority to inspect and recall, or enforce laws; more people; more training; and a degree of autonomy, so they’re not called on the carpet (truly, no pun intended) for doing their job.

No amount of corrective action, though, can begin to make up for the people who’ve already lost their lives. (Interesting how in a situation like this, we tend to say, “Lives were lost needlessly“, when the opposite is true. Too many times, lives have to be lost — often in numbers — before action is taken.)

Lessons we might take from this at this “early” stage? One: corporate management is increasingly susceptible to hubris as a company grows.   Maybe Toyota was afflicted with the same disease financial services caught — we haven’t seen a problem in so long, they must all be licked. Not that corporate “attitude” is the root cause of Toyota’s problem, or even a proximate cause, but the “floor mat” story should have given us all pause to reflect.

Two: nothing can completely take the place of testing and inspection. We have safety standards, regulations, etc., in place in the aerospace and food businesses. For better or worse, more is on the way. Why not make the automotive world jump similar hurdles (i.e., make safety mandatory)?

Three: the best designed, most rigorous systems eventually come apart when they’re not paid attention. CAPAs, like anything else in your Quality Management System, have to be applied continually in order for your company and your system to improve. Toyota has said it in so many ways: “Satisfactory” isn’t.

So, what happened? Your ideas?

(P.S. - Not like Toyota needed more bad news, but now they have a braking problem on the newest Prius. What do you think of that?)

In a blog post I recently read, the writer said that in America, when someone says “our policy is…”, the policy is stated and adhered to but in his country, “not so much”. He went on to say that the cultural signals are different between the two countries.

The writer goes on to suggest that in his homeland, they seem to operate on the premise that if most people are told, “We can’t do that…it’s against our policy”, they will not question the assertion and will just walk away. But, if you argue forcefully and with conviction, they will comply. In America, you don’t have to argue - they do what they say.

I’m happy he’s satisfied with the way things are here. I would argue, though, based on my many and varied experiences, that policy as written and policy as executed are two distinct branches on the same tree here, there, and everywhere else. And the wrong branch is dying.

I’ll give you an example: I once did business with a certain purveyor of wireless products and services before I became an employee. Once I became an employee, I naturally enjoyed a sizeable discount on everything wireless.  The service wasn’t that great but for the price, I felt I could bear some pain. A few years down the road, the company ”rightsized” and I became an ex-employee.

The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.
Socrates

At the end of my wireless contract, I looked at what the now ex-employer wanted to charge me for its goods and services (retail prices had gone up quite a bit).  I asked at a local office if my being a steady-paying customer for over eight years counted for something. What would they do to keep a good customer?

They said they were powerless to do anything - it was driven “by corporate”. I asked them to check with A/R and even offered to get my credit report to show I was a customer worth hanging onto. They wouldn’t deal, though.

I decided to take it to the corporate office. Sure enough, they were as indifferent to my “plight” as the local office. They said, ”If we do it for you, we have to do it for everybody.”

Their stated policy is to “give customers exceptional service” but what their actions say is “…as long as it doesn’t cost us up front.”  Their implicit policy is to treat customer service (or customer satisfaction) as a necessary evil.

The time-honored maxim — that it’s cheaper to keep customers than it is to replace them — seems to have lost its meaning. Perhaps, too, the concept of “cost control” has become the top priority…to the exclusion of everything else.

What do you think? More importantly, what do you tell your customers, and what do you do?