In many companies there is a position of "board of management representative for quality management systems." His or her role and influence on the system of administering a company differs from firm to firm. Hence the question of how to evaluate their efficiency, the more so as some aspects of their work are frequently ignored.

Management expectations

Evaluation of position efficiency should refer to the goals set for that position. The representatives themselves claim that their main objective is to "maintain the quality system", "maintain the ISO certificate" or "ensure accordance with the ISO 9001 standard." But is it really just control over the earlier introduced system that is required of the management representative for quality?

It seems that the representatives themselves have reduced their role to "safeguarding procedures" or "keeping the certificate" while management boards have uncritically accepted this simple goal.

Why certify?

It is chiefly auditors who ask this question. They also want to know what the management representatives will focus on after a quality certificate, such as ISO 9001, has been obtained. Some reply: "perhaps TQM or ISO 14001, or maybe 18001"...or even "the integrated system." But is this what the company really needs? Why introduce additional procedures if the quality system in effect is good with regard to formal compliance with the required standards (which is often even confirmed by the appropriate certificate) but has nothing to do with the company's current needs and problems?

Where are the results?

It is almost always a company's performance and its share in the market that constitutes the most significant operational goal. Good financial results can be obtained by applying operational measures for which specific goals and their priority should be specified.
Thus, a list of operational goals, ranked according to priority and ascribed to individual processes, is obtained. Only then should the representative propose their program for reaching these goals. Otherwise, the management will focus on carrying out its business while the representative's operations are confined to ISO procedures.
Every description of a process should include a clearly specified goal and ways of initiating the process and terminating it, while indicating critical points of the process (decisions, monitoring, critical operations etc.) and its crucial parameters (time, cost, number of operations etc.) There is a tendency to omit information regarding cost in process parameters. Why? It seems that the most obvious reason is lack of communication between the representative and the financial director. A matter-of-fact discussion should help change this situation.

Risk estimation

Now that the goals have been set, the processes defined and the
parameters specified, it would be helpful to know what the basic idea of the management systems is. An answer to this question should identify risk areas, estimate the risk involved, specify ways of monitoring and reducing the risk and eventually reduce risk to an acceptable level.

It is important to identify the hazards in implementing the goals set. One risk estimate technique in particular is applicable here. After the relative risk level has been estimated and the hierarchy of hazards drawn up, it can be reconsidered to what extent the management system permits control over individual risk factors. It will then transpire that the representative's "pride", i.e. the ISO quality system, hardly refers to the areas which potentially have the most adverse effects on attaining the company's goals. What conclusion can be drawn from this? It is high time that priorities in the representative's tasks were changed.

Monitoring

Monitoring and analyzing system processes is required by the standards, but it is permanently ignored, despite earlier declarations. What should be monitored? Primarily those process parameters which have a direct effect on customer satisfaction. Under ISO standards, customer satisfaction is monitored once a year through an opinion poll whose findings are later analyzed and discussed. It is apparent on this basis how much time a representative devotes to talking to the company's customers; how much time is spent on collecting information from customers; what questions are asked and how information obtained from customers affects processes and the representative's work. The conclusions are sometimes a bitter pill: information from customers reaches the representative, and affects their work, only when problems are really grave. What can be done to make the representative's work more useful to the company and to the representatives themselves?

Asking difficult questions is the first step. The management board should then "review the system." If this procedure is merely a formality, completed once or twice a year for certification purposes, then doing away with the division into "ISO" and "actual business" is impossible. The management representative for quality is just a rank-and-file officer in terms of their usefulness to the company and, more importantly, in terms of the company's financial results.

Who does what?

How can the management representative be evaluated? One way is to refer their actual operations to their desired role. Following are the most essential qualities in their work:

- analyst; analyzes objectives, process parameters, management efficiency in various areas of the organization, observes unfavorable facts (like incompatibility), efficiency of information technology systems supporting management and information provided by customers. Identifies hazards and risk involved in individual processes and goals.

- auditor; checks that operations are of significance to the goals set. Evaluates management at various levels as well as processes and efficiency of communication. Estimates to what extent the risk involved in individual processes is kept under control. Estimates the risk involved in the implementation of specific business goals.

- stimulator; learns new management methods, instruments and techniques and analyzes and estimates their usefulness to the organization. Observes the best management practices and suggests new concepts.

- partner and representative of the management board; supervises the implementation of projects, including those involving the implementation of information technology systems. Points to the need for a change of goals and priorities. Points to the need for changes in management and communication methods. Formulates suggestions for the management board and senior staff.

Det Norske Veritas (DNV) provides inspiration and methods useful in reforming representatives' work in the form of practical workshops and conferences. The material above only outlines the background and the direction of these reforms.

Szymon Kamiński

Director for Certification
Det Norske Veritas