Blogs are a great interactive communication vehicle.  We first started writing to answer many questions about policies and procedures, quality, and management systems. We now have three blogs.  One focused on longer quality articles.  One focused on shorter comments (this blog).  And one focused on the OnPolicy document revision control software.

The blog content comes from our training classes, consulting practice, and the policies and procedures manuals themselves.  Over the years we have written about a wide range of topics.  People still ask questions and we are still answering them every month.

Below are some of the top questions regarding quality management systems.

1. What’s the Difference Between Policies and Procedures?
2. Are Procedures the Same as Work Instructions?
3. What’s the Difference between Corrective Action and Preventive Action?
4. What’s the Difference Between Verification and Validation?
5. What is a Lean ISO 9001 Quality Management System?
6. What Procedures Should You Write?
7. What is Continuous Improvement?
8. What is a Process Map?
9. How Are PDCA Cycles Used Inside ISO 9001?
10. Why Policies and Procedures Don’t Work.

If you have any questions about ISO 9000, quality, lean six sigma, or management systems design, ask them below and I will be happy to answer them in an upcoming blog post.

I’ve noticed the topic of “sustainability” is piquing the interest of an awful lot of businesspeople of late. I believe it’s an issue worthy of serious consideration but I have a few questions before I proceed:

• How are we defining the term? Do we agree on what it means?
• Is there anyone on the inside (developing sustainability policies, setting sustainability objectives, implementing sustainability practices and procedures, etc.)?
• Are most of us aligned with the status quo (i.e., standing on the shore, waiting for some other fool or brave soul to test the water)?

There are plenty of references to sustainability floating around the web. In Quality, we continually refer to a practice known as the “5S’s”, the key “S” being “sustainability”. Sustainability is often linked with the construction business, LEED certification being the hottest topic in the industry. Our friends at ISO – the International Organization for Standardization – have issued a number of standards that directly or indirectly address the issue, such as:

• ISO 15932, “Sustainability in Building Construction – General Principles“;
• The ISO 15686 series on “Building and Construction Assets – Service Life Planning“; and
• ISO 14001, “Environmental Management Systems“.

I’m curious to know what all of you think, so I’ve started a poll on LinkedIn — look for “What’s the status of your organization’s ‘sustainability program’?”. For those of you who have a LinkedIn account, I hope to hear from you soon. (For those who don’t, it costs nothing to sign up.) I’ll post the results for you in the near future.

Thank you for your time, as always.

Steve

Anyone will tell you it’s impossible to know how well your business is doing if you aren’t taking measurements. Those same people will tell you you have to measure the “right” things.

Yes, it’s just that simple…or so they’d have you believe. How do you know you’re measuring the right things, though?

W. Edwards Deming

W. Edwards Deming was one of the pioneers of management by measurement. Dr. Deming recognized that all processes are flawed — some more than others — and that variation can and does occur at every step in a process. The causes of that variation need to be identified and reduced if product quality is to be improved.

Deming believed that organizations must continually monitor and measure their processes. He taught that process data should be examined by managers to determine the causes of variation, eliminate them, and improve the process. This idea became known as the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” (PDCA) cycle.

The “plan” phase of the cycle is where, among many things, you state the goals you have in mind for the process. What are the expected results? In other words, how do you know the process works if you’re not tracking (measuring) its progress?

Your objectives have to be SMART – specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. If your objectives aren’t all of the above, your best-designed process plan is still doomed to failure.

Specific – Define your objectives in concrete terms (i.e. increase by 50%); fuzzy won’t do.

Measurable – Objectivity is the key here. Weight, time, growth, revenue — these are things we can measure with ease. We can’t measure “goodness”, “attractive”, or “quality” with certainty; they’re all relative (and subjective) terms.

Attainable – Your objectives must be realistic. Perfection is impossible, especially the first time around. No process is 100% efficient — variation will occur. One of your implied objectives is to reduce the variation in your process.

Relevant – While increased efficiency and decreased variation do result in cost savings, not every process can be directly measured in terms of euros, yen, or dollars saved. Make sure the people directly involved with the process can understand the process objectives.

Time-bound – Efficiency is determined by comparing output with various costs, like time and money (e.g., dollars per hour, units produced per minute). Even with pure research and development projects, you don’t have an infinite budget; you have to say, “We need tangible results by ‘x’ date.”

Does any of this ensure you’ll be measuring the right stuff from the outset? Well, no. You’ll actually have to rely on experience and research to help you set objectives the first time through. But, once you have the process in place — you’ve been through the “plan” phase and now you’re “doing” it — you’ll be gathering enough data from your process that you can “check” it and determine if you’re headed in the right direction.

You then “act” on that information and make corrections, if necessary. That’s the surest way to know — keep measuring and comparing as you reiterate the process.

Any questions? Comments?

Real leaders — not those people who run for office every other year, promising “real” leadership for a change — possess a combination of qualities and characteristics that make us want to follow them. Whether we naturally gravitate to these quality individuals or we subconsciously recognize their leadership, we follow them. We’re pretty good at recognizing greatness in certain people.

Why are some people great leaders? What do they possess that we don’t?

“What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder? What makes the dawn come up like thunder?”
Cowardly Lion, “The Wizard of Oz” (1939)

Leaders generally possess these characteristics:

• They are credible;
• They’re persuasive;
• They’re able to plan effectively;
• They have a strong belief system (a sound moral/ethical code);
• They communicate extremely well (direct, to the point);
• They’re confident, both in their abilities and in the abilities of others;
• They’re goal-oriented;
• They’re charismatic;
• They do what’s right, not necessarily what’s popular;
• They are decisive, especially in crises;
• They are responsible;
• They’re knowledgeable and experienced (and they share their knowledge and experience);
• They don’t become complacent (they don’t rest on their laurels);
• They trust, but don’t assume; and
• They have an eye for talent.

“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”
Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1 (1776)

But where does it come from? Is there such a thing as innovative leadership quality? It seems anyone can be trained to be a manager, but leaders are cut from a different cloth. Why? It’s not that they’re born that way. They can be made, but there’s no easily reproducible process, no easy-to-follow recipe or we’d be doing it all the time.

The service academies seem to have the greatest success in this regard — they purposely educate and groom individuals to be leaders by instilling discipline, self-sacrifice, and an unshakable work ethic and by constantly emphasizing the need to plan for the best but prepare for the worst. Still, even they don’t have anything close to a perfect track record when it comes to turning out leaders. Similarly, there are outstanding leaders throughout history who never served in the military.

“The real leader has no need to lead; he is content to point the way.”
Henry Miller (1891-1980)

How are leaders best made, in your opinion? Or are they born? Do you go looking for leaders or do you wait for them to come to you? Does your organization have a process for identifying and training potential leaders?

For many companies, it’s that time of year — time for year-end performance reviews. Time to see if we can find our performance reviews from last year, or head over to Human Resources to get a copy. For managers, time to dust off the performance reviews from last year and see if anything’s changed.

If you’re like most of us, you haven’t kept a daily diary of your accomplishments, so you have to construct an account of the last 12 months from long-buried memories in just a few days. You don’t bother listing your close calls, almosts, and never-weres — you need to put a positive spin on your year.

You might go into the review feeling you did a “more-than-adequate” job, even if you can’t quantify it exactly. Then again, you might approach the review with a sense of foreboding. You’re not well prepared. Maybe you feel like you’re going to get slammed. Maybe you wish the shoe were on the other foot. Maybe you wish everybody would just forget about it.

The performance review, as most of us know it, is a broken process. Lately, there appears to be a groundswell of support for the idea of doing away with performance reviews. According to an article in a recent Wall Street Journal, many HR professionals are “frustrated that managers don’t have the courage” to give constructive feedback.

In an interview from July, 2010, UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert said that performance reviews should be dispensed with altogether because annual reviews don’t promote candid discussions about problems in the workplace or their potential solutions.

Going back to 2006, the Harvard Business School’s “Working Knowledge” page ran an article by James Heskett, one of the HBS faculty, in which he called into question the main objective of performance reviews. Professor Heskett asked, “Is (the objective) to weed out poor performers? To recognize the so-called A players? To provide the basis for compensation decisions?” He concluded that we don’t do a good job of establishing or communicating objectives.

W. Edwards Deming, one of the gods of quality, called the performance review one of the “deadly diseases of management“. You’re not going to find a much stronger indictment than that.

It’s been a few years since I’ve had a formalized performance review. The manager in question got much more out of the typical performance review because he always had the performance of the group in mind. He linked my performance to that of my teammates, which helped create and maintain a team ethos.

Unfortunately, his type of performance review wasn’t the norm. Too often, the performance review is an exercise with no apparent purpose, except to satisfy a regulatory requirement or follow a decades-old policy. We go through the motions but don’t accomplish anything. By conducting performance reviews the way we do, we miss so many opportunities for improvement.

We all deserve better from this “process”.

* * * * * * *

I’m currently conducting a performance review poll on LinkedIn. Please drop in (it’ll only take 10 seconds, if that) and register your opinion. Or, post a comment below.

What do you think? Do performance reviews work for your company or your group? Or, do you think the performance review should’ve been retired with the mechanical adding machine and green eyeshades?

* * * * * * *

REFERENCES

• Light, Joe, “Human Resource Executives Say Reviews Are Off the Mark”, Wall Street Journal (Nov 7 2010) – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704575596723632340284.html
• NPR Staff, “Annual Job Review Is ‘Total Baloney,’ Expert Says”, NPR-dot-org (Jul 8 2010) – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128362511
• Heskett, Jim, “What’s to Be Done About Performance Reviews?”, HBS Working Knowledge (Nov 27 2006) – http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5563.html
• “Management’s Five Deadly Diseases – a Conversation with Dr. W. Edwards Deming”, Encyclopedia Brittanica Educational Corporation , 1984 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMAwIHGN0Y. (Video is approx. 15 minutes long.)

FURTHER READING

• Peralta, Eyder, “Top 10 Performance Review Euphemisms”, NPR-dot-org (Nov 9 2010) – http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/09/131189907/top-ten-performance-review-euphemisms

Information technology is changing the way business operates and increasing the need for consistent computer usage, security, and clear policies. Establishing policies and procedures for Information Technology (IT) management issues like:

• Information security;
• Computer usage;
• Network management; and
• IT policy

is now easier than ever using MS-Word templates available in the Computer and Network Policies, Procedures and Forms manual.  The IT manual enables business owners, IT managers, and IT departments to use customizable prewritten documents to protect and control their IT assets.

Easy IT Standards Compliance

Today’s business owners, Chief Information Officers (CIO), Chief Operating Officers (COO) and business leaders are required to comply with various federal regulations and international IT standards (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley, COBIT, ITIL, ISO 27000, ISO 20000). To meet these regulations, companies must demonstrate adequate internal controls of business records, information security, and quality management through effective use of policies and procedures and/or associated document compliance management software.

Computers and IT are important parts of business operations, routinely storing and circulating volumes of information between various business processes.  Many business functions necessitate the use of computer systems and networks. Since businesses and computer systems are increasingly interconnected, the need for controls such as IT policy, information security and computer usage guidelines become equally important.

The “Computer & Network Policies, Procedures, and Forms” manual addresses critical IT management issues and is an invaluable resource for any IT manager or IT department.  It complements our highly successful Accounting Policies, Procedures, and Forms Manual and, when combined, both publications provide a complete compliance solution.

Facilitate IT Management

The Computer & Network (or the IT) Manual provides a framework upon which a company of any size can improve the capabilities of their current IT system, systematically forecast IT needs and budgets, facilitate IT asset management, and resolve IT security issues.

By addressing core IT management issues, this manual helps many small and medium size companies that don’t have an experienced CIO leading the way to formulate best practices and optimal standards to establish a formal IT policy. This is the first publication to identify and provide the guidance and the tools for business leaders to accurately and efficiently determine the hardware, software, training, and security requirements of the organization.

Easy MS-Word Customization

The Computer and Network Policies, Procedures, and Forms Manual discusses strategic IT management issues including IT security, control of computer and network assets, and includes a section on creating your own information systems manual along with a computer and IT security policy guide.  Since all this content is available in editable MS-Word files, you can easily edit and customize the manual to create your own IT policy and corresponding procedures.  View a free sample from the manual today.

It was recently announced by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) that the Baldrige National Quality Program shall henceforth be known as the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. NIST, which administers the Baldrige Program, has decided not to rename the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, or MBNQA, for now.)

What’s the significance of the name change? What’s the difference, if any, between “quality” and “performance excellence”?

There are several interpretations of the term “performance excellence” posted on LinkedIn. Compare these with what Winder and Judd said about “quality” a few years back in the Quality Digest magazine. There’s an entertaining article on defining performance excellence that ACCA (the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) published a little over a year ago.

Perhaps more importantly, there’s NIST’s explanation for the name change. They express the belief that the definition of “quality” has changed over the last couple of decades. It appears the term “performance excellence” suggests a more holistic approach than does “quality”. (And maybe NIST just thought it was time to freshen up the award, to bring it back into the business world’s consciousness.)

What do you think? Is there any substance to NIST’s argument? Which term — quality or performance excellence — means more to your organization? And is the Baldrige program more useful than, say, ISO 9001?

Customers demand consistency — they need it to make informed purchase decisions.  We’ll start with an example: Let’s say you run a restaurant.  At your restaurant, you have a different chef every day. Each chef makes the menu according to their preferences.

If your menu changes every day — if there’s a high degree of variability — most customers will be put off. Some people like variety and go out of their way for it, but most of us are creatures of habit. We find something we like and we stick with it; we go where we know what we’re getting. If we don’t know what to expect from you, you may not be in business for long.

It’s generally not good business to let your employees make your products any way they want, whether your product is hamburgers, tires, or remote data backup. Too much variation, or inconsistency, in your product will hurt your business.

Consistency with quality means value, and value means happy customers. Happy customers will return, and they’ll tell their friends. who will tell their friends, and they’ll grow your business.

If yours is like most companies in these difficult times, you’re struggling. Every employee reacts to their own problems and can’t be bothered with others. Furthermore, no one has the time or “luxury” to look ahead, let alone ensure consistency in the here-and-now.  The result is a decline in quality, revenues, morale, and…the number of employees.

You can do something about this! Work towards improving consistency in your work first.  Good management looks ahead, plans for the future, defines the “product”, and develops measurable objectives, active job descriptions, and clearly defined policies and procedures.

Consistency equals quality, doesn’t it? Not necessarily. You can make a consistently bad product, which obviously isn’t good for your business.  You need to make a consistently good product, which ISO 9001 — specifically, a quality management system designed around the ISO 9001 quality standard — can help you produce.

Quality management works toward delivering a consistent product, inside and out. Unless everyone in your business is doing everything they can to deliver a consistent product internally, you won’t see consistency in your finished products. Be a leader and deliver consistent products consistently. If you deliver high quality consistently, everything else takes care of itself.

Should your company decide to undertake a large project without assembling cross-functional teams — for example, a development and implementation project that requires a sizeable number of your staff at all levels and could take six months or more – it will greatly reduce the project’s chance of success. In other words, cross-functional teams produce results!

“Break down barriers between departments.”
from Deming’s 14 Points

We are not advocating that you “put a committee at the top of every task”, or “there has to be unanimous agreement on every detail of the project plan“.  We are saying that capable project leaders assemble capable and diverse groups of assistants and empower them.

Why? By assembling a cross-functional team, you ensure “out-of-the-box thinking.” Conventional thinking doesn’t breed the kind of change you need. In fact, conventional thinking can be dangerous to your company. Think about it:

• Does conventional wisdom ”always” work?
• Can you think of companies that no longer exist because they stayed with the status quo?

When you gather people from diverse backgrounds, departments, and levels, everyone’s thinking outside other’s boxes. Let’s say I’m in the “development box”. The people in the “accounting box” and the “marketing box” are outside my box, and vice versa. We’re bringing a fresh perspective to each other, thereby strengthening the project and assuring better results. It’s similar to what Mendel discovered over a hundred years ago about cross-pollination — the result is a hybrid more robust than its parents.

Everyone’s opinions have some merit. Anyone who’s been with your company for a couple of years or more probably knows your business well enough that their observations and opinions have validity.

Those who stay in their boxes — companies that get the same teams together every time to think over important stuff and don’t reach into the employee pool for new, fresh ideas and thinking — are handicapping their efforts. They can barely see to the top of their boxes, let alone see what’s outside.

Leaders have the necessary forward vision to see the immense benefits their organization gains by using cross-functional teams. How often do you use cross-functional teams?

* * * * * * *

Recommended Reading:

• McCafferty, Dennis, “What Your CFO Is Not Telling You”, CIO Insight (Sept. 20, 2010),  http://www.cioinsight.com/c/a/Business-Intelligence/What-Your-CFO-Is-Not-Telling-You-802981/

One question asked endlessly in business, academic, political, and other circles is, ”What’s the difference between a manager and a leader?”

The most often quoted answer seems to be, “The manager does things right – the leader does the right things.” What exactly does that mean – “doing the right thing”?  Does that mean history tells us whether the leader did the right thing? Can someone be a leader even if they end up on the losing side?

A leader is one who knows that though the risk of failure may be great, they don’t give up on themselves or others. Leaders are people of exceptional character who are capable of bringing others through a crisis. All leaders share certain qualities or characteristics, including:

1. Self-respect and respect for others. If you don’t have a healthy self-respect, you won’t respect others. If you don’t respect others, they will not respect you. You can’t lead people who don’t respect you.

2. The ability to communicate effectively. Leaders say what they mean and mean exactly what they say. Effective communicators are far more persuasive than those who don’t communicate well.

3. Integrity and character. Leaders are not swayed by unsubstantiated opinions or unfounded rumors. Fame, power, or material gain don’t motivate them. Leaders have integrity, that strength of character that resists assault.

4. Having a vision, a mission (or a purpose), a sense of direction, and a clear set of goals. Moreover, they know that their job isn’t done when one set of goals is reached. Leaders know that life is a journey.

5. Being grounded. Leaders have a vision of what the world around them ought to be, but they are also pragmatic. Things will not always go smoothly, but leaders understand that and have the presence of mind to deal with that.

6. Courage. Fear is a powerful motivator; it causes many of us to turn away from our goals when our belief in ourselves and our cause isn’t strong. Leaders aren’t fearless — leaders make a conscious choice to act in spite of their fear.

7. Persistence, commitment, and dedication. It’s like they always say: “Winners don’t quit, and quitters don’t win.”  Nothing worth having comes easily. When setbacks crop up, leaders don’t flag because they always have their eyes on the prize.

8. Humility. Leaders aren’t self-promoting or self-aggrandizing. They don’t take all the credit. They give credit to others and refuse it for themselves.

9. A sense of responsibility. Leaders are willing to bear the ultimate responsibility for their undertakings. They don’t point the finger of blame when things go awry.

10. Decisiveness. When action is called for, real leaders don’t waffle. Knowing that a window of opportunity exists (“the time to act is now”), they act quickly and effectively, based on the best available information.

Most importantly, leaders have these characteristics in balance. Some may tell you there is one characteristic more important than the rest. They’ll say something like, “Oh, you have to have that ‘vision thing’ above all else.” Not true – people won’t follow someone who has vision without courage or humility, for example.

What about you? What do you think are the most important qualities in a leader? Who do you consider a leader and why?

Thanks so much for your time.