Misunderstanding No. 7: Failing to establish the concept of win-win cooperation with suppliers

 

In the quality management of the supplier, the concept of win-win cooperation with the supplier has not been established. The wrong thinking of "single win" and "unilateral" is the main reason for the damage to the quality of the supplier.

 

 

●For supplier management, "package management" or "card management", mistakenly think that "package" or "card" is management.

 

●Failing to realize that the relationship between the organization itself and the supplier is a "cooperation and win-win" relationship, and treat the supplier as a subordinate, subordinate, or even starter.

 

 

●Only emphasize the organization's own profitability, while ignoring the reasonable interests of the supplier; only emphasize the supplier's improvement of quality, and fail to provide the supplier with reasonable and necessary assistance and support to help it improve its quality.

 

● "Single-win" and "unilateral" supplier management will inevitably lead to non-cooperation, resentment and resistance from suppliers, which will naturally damage its quality, that is, the quality of the organization itself.

 

picture

 

08

Misunderstanding No. 8: Insufficient prior quality planning

 

 

The principle of "process method" of quality management requires that activities or processes are managed as processes, and the desired results can be obtained more efficiently. Specific to quality planning, the content includes: quality objectives, required activities and resources (including documents), quality verification criteria or standards, and quality records that need to be formed.

 

09

Misunderstanding No. 9: The role of the quality department is positioned incorrectly

 

 

The essence and core of modern quality management is prevention. Regarding the quality department as a "firefighter" or "rescueman", becoming a pure quality inspection department, and abandoning daily "fire prevention" and elimination of hidden dangers, abandoning other key quality management system processes, is obviously against the principle of prevention. It is obviously not in line with the principle of economic benefits to pay a high price for "fire alarms" and "dangerous situations," rather than for daily "fire prevention" and elimination of hidden dangers. This is obviously not in line with the principle of economic efficiency. The correct view is as Crosby said, the role of the quality system is prevention, not inspection.

picture

 

10

Misunderstanding No. 10: Absence of Top Management

 

 

The lack of top quality management managers mainly include: not participating in the formulation, evaluation and revision of quality policies and objectives. Failing to provide the necessary resources for maintaining the normal operation of the quality management system, and neglecting the need for the normal operation of the quality management system for a long time, or treating it as dispensable. The management review is not organized in a standardized manner, and the management review adopts the form, walks through the scene, and does not even participate in the management review.

 

●Not involved in the formulation, evaluation and revision of quality policies and targets.

 

●Failed to provide the necessary resources for maintaining the normal operation of the quality management system, and ignored the need for the normal operation of the quality management system for a long time, or regarded it as dispensable.

 

●The management review is not organized in a standardized manner, the management review adopts the form, walks through the scene, and does not even participate in the management review.

 

●Should shirk responsibility for major quality management measures that should be made, and leave it to quality or other departments that are powerless or unable to take responsibility for the decision-making effect.

 

●The responsibilities and authorities of the internal department and the quality management system of the post are not clearly assigned, or the assigned responsibilities far exceed the authorized limit, or even only grant responsibilities without authorization.

I have long ignored the modern scientific concept of quality and the study of scientific methods and tools of quality management, supported quality management, did not stress science, and commanded blindly with enthusiasm, "doing bad things with good intentions", or falsely supporting them.

 

The absence of the top management in the quality management work will inevitably lead to damage to the authority and seriousness of the quality management system and its operation, making the quality management system unable to maintain normal operation and naturally unable to achieve results.