1. Performance

2. Summary Frameworks for self-sssessment Many organizations are turning to total quality models to measure and improve performance. The frameworks include the Japanese Deming Prize, the US Baldrige Award and in Europe the EFQM Excellence Model. The nine components of the Excellence Model are: leadership, strategy partnerships, people, resources and processes (ENABLERS), people results, customer results, society results and key results (RESULTS). The various award criteria provide rational bases against which to measure progress towards TQM in organizations. Self-assessment against, for example, the EFQM Excellence model should be a regular activity, as it identifies opportunities for improvement in performance through processes and people.

3. Methodologies for assessment Self-assessment against the Excellence Model may be performed using RADAR: results, approach, deployment, assessment and review. There are a number of approaches for self-assessment, including groups/workshops, surveys, pro-formas, matrices, award simulations, activity/process audits or hybrid approaches.

4. C apability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) assessments In CMMI a set of requirements for increasing levels of maturity are defined and assessments are made to determine how mature the assessed entity is. Maturity is defined in a framework that sets out the ‘criteria’ that make up excellence in the area of focus; for each criterion, a set of requirements are arranged in a hierarchy, usually with 5 levels: basic at level 1 and world class at level 5, with possible intermediate steps in between. CMMI assessments should prompt appropriate action by showing both the current status and what needs to be done next to advance up the maturity curve; the assessments often lead to standardized reports.

5. Securing prevention by audit and review of the system There are two major elements of error or defect prevention: checking the system, and error/defect investigations and follow-up. Six methods of checking the quality systems are in general use: audits and reviews, surveys, inspections, tours, sampling and scrutinies. Investigations proceed by collecting, checking and selecting data, and analysing it by deciding causes, notifying people, recording and reporting findings and outcomes.

6. Internal and external quality management system audits and reviews A good management system will not function without adequate audits and reviews. Audits make sure the actual methods are adhering to documented procedures. Reviews ensure the system achieves the desired effect. System assessment by internal audit and review is known as first party, by external customer as second party, and by an independent organization as third party certification. For the latter to be of real value the certification body must itself be recognized.

7. FRAMEWORKS FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT ‘Total quality’ is the goal of many organizations but it has been difficult until relatively recently to find a universally accepted definition of what this actually means. For some people TQ means statistical process control (SPC) or quality management systems, for others teamwork and involvement of the workforce. More recently, in some organizations, it has been replaced by the terms Business Excellence, Six Sigma or Lean. There is even ‘Lean Six Sigma’ again Most TQM approaches strongly emphasize measurement Perhaps the most famous and widely used framework for self-assessment is the US Baldrige ‘Criteria for Performance Excellence’. Many companies have realized the necessity to assess themselves against the Baldrige and Deming criteria, if not to enter for the awards or prizes, then certainly as an excellent basis for self-audit and review to highlight areas for priority attention and provide internal and external benchmarking. (See Chapter 2 for details of the Deming Prize and Baldrige Award criteria.) CMMI is also in common use, particularly in software development and engineering environments such as aerospace, defence, security and electronics. assessment frameworks, such as CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration).

8. The European excellence model for self-assessment In 1992 the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) launched a European Quality Award The EFQM Excellence model recognized that processes are the means by which a company or organization harnesses and releases the talents of its people to produce results performance. The EFQM have thus built a model of criteria and a review framework against which an organization may face and measure itself, to examine any ‘gaps’ Self-assessment promotes business excellence by involving a regular and systematic review of processes and results. It highlights strengths and improvement opportunities and drives continuous improvement.

9. The European excellence model for self-assessment

10. Enablers see text for details

11. Scoring within the self-assessment process: Chart 1, the enablers

12. Assessing the enablers criteria The criteria are concerned with how an organization or business unit achieves its results. Self-assessment asks the following questions in relation to each criterion part: – What is currently done in this area? – How is it done? Is the approach systematic and prevention based? – How is the approach reviewed and what improvements are undertaken following review? – How widely used are these practices? Results The EFQM Excellence Model’s result criteria of: customer results, people results, society results, and key performance results focus on what the organization has achieved and is achieving in relation to its: – external customer – people – local, national, and international society, as appropriate – planned performance.

15. RADAR system Self-assessment against the Excellence Model may be performed generally using the so-called RADAR system: Results Approach Deployment Assessment Review

16. METHODOLOGIES FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT A flow diagram of the general steps involved in undertaking self- assessment is shown in Figure 8.7.Figure 8.7. There are a number of approaches to carrying out self-assessment including: – discussion group/workshop methods – surveys, questionnaires and interviews (peer involvement) – pro formas – organizational self-analysis matrices (e.g. see Figure 8.8.)Figure 8.8.) – an award simulation – activity or process audits – hybrid approaches. Whichever method is used, the emphasis should be on understanding the organization’s strengths and areas for improvement, rather than the score. The scoring charts provide a consistent basis for establishing a quantitative measure of performance against the model and gaining consensus promotes discussion and develop- ment of the issues facing the organization

17. The key steps in self-assessment

18. Using assessment Whatever the main ‘motors’ are for driving an organization towards its vision or mission, they should be linked to the five stakeholders embraced by the values of any organization, namely: Customers Employees Suppliers Stakeholders Community

21. CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION (CMMI) ASSESSMENTS Read alone Capability and Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is an approach which can be used to guide improvements across a project, a division or an entire organization and helps to ‘integrate separate organizational functions, appraise the effectiveness of current processes and prioritize improvement activity’. The tools and techniques can be used at the: – Process Capability level (continuous representation) to satisfy specified product quality, service quality and individual process performance objectives – Organizational Maturity level (staged representation) to support the application and use of a defined set of capable processes in line with the organization’s overall business objectives A set of requirements for increasing levels of maturity are defined and assessments are made to determine how mature the assessed entity is. Frameworks exist, such as CMMI for software development (see www. cmmiinstitute.com).www. cmmiinstitute.com). electrical student

22. CMMI – maturity levels

23. Important SECURING PREVENTION BY AUDIT AND REVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Error or defect prevention is the process of removing or controlling error/defect causes in the management systems. There are two major elements of this: Checking the systems Error/defect investigation and follow-up.

24. Checking the systems There are six methods in general use: Quality Audits and reviews, which subject each area of an organization’s activity to a systematic critical examination. Every component of the total system is included, i.e., policy, attitudes, training, processes, decision features, operating procedures, documentation. Audits and reviews, as in the field of accountancy, aim to disclose the strengths and the main areas of vulnerability or risk – the areas for improvement. Quality Survey, a detailed, in-depth examination of a narrower field of activity, i.e. major key areas revealed by system audits, individual sites/plants, procedures or specific problems common to an organization as a whole. Quality Inspection, which takes the form of a routine scheduled inspection of a unit or department. The inspection should check standards, employee involvement and working practices, and that work is carried out in accordance with the agreed processes and procedures. Quality tour, which is an unscheduled examination of a work area to ensure that, for example, the standards of operation are acceptable, obvious causes of defects or errors are removed, and in general quality standards are maintained. Quality sampling, which measures by random sampling, similar to activity sampling, the error/defect potential. Trained observers perform short tours of specific locations by prescribed routes and record the number of potential errors or defects seen. The results may be used to portray trends in the general quality situation. Quality scrutinizes, معن النظر which are the application of a formal, critical examination of the process and technological intentions for new or existing facilities, or to assess the potential for mal- operation or malfunction of equipment and the consequential effects of quality. There are similarities between quality scrutinies and FMECA studies (see Chapter 6)Chapter 6) The design of a prevention programme, combining all these elements, is represented in Figure 8.11. Figure 8.11.

26. Error or defect investigations and follow-up The investigation of errors and defects can provide valuable error prevention information. The general method is based on: 1.Collecting data and information relating to the error or defect. 2.Checking the validity of the evidence. 3.Selecting the evidence without making assumptions or jumping to conclusions. The results of the analysis are then used to: 1.Decide the most likely cause(s) of the errors or defect. 2.Notify immediately the person(s) able to take corrective action. 3.Record the findings and outcomes. 4.Report them to everyone concerned, to prevent recurrence

27. Error or defect investigations and follow-up It is hoped that errors or defects are not normally investigated so frequently that the required skills are developed by experience, nor are these skills easily learned in a classroom to form the skeleton of an error or defect investigation questionnaire. This can be set out with the following structure: 1.People – duties, information, supervision, instruction, training, attitudes 2.Processes – systems, procedures, instructions, monitoring, control methods 3.Technology – description, condition, controls, maintenance, suitability 4.Environment – climatic, space, humidity, noise.

28. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AUDITS AND REVIEWS A good management system will not function wit hout adequate audits and reviews

29. assessment The assessment of a quality management system against a particular standard or set of requirements by internal audit and review is known as a first-party assessment or approval scheme. If an external customer makes the assessment of a supplier against either its own or a national or international standard, a second-party scheme is in operation. The assessment by an independent organization, not connected with any contract between customer and supplier, but acceptable to them both, is known as an independent third-party assessment scheme.

30. Quality auditing standard There are available several guides to management systems auditing (e.g. ISO 19011) and the guidance provided in these can be applied equally to any one of the three specific and yet different auditing activities: 1.First party or internal audits, carried out by an organization on its own systems, either by staff who are independent of the systems being audited, or by an outside agency. 2.Second party audits, carried out by one organization (a purchaser or its outside agent) on another with which it either has contracts to purchase goods or services or intends to do so. 3.Third party audits, carried out by independent agencies, to provide assurance to existing and prospective customers for the product or service. The generic steps involved then are as follows: 1.initiation, including the audit scope and frequency 2.preparation, including review of documentation, the programme and working documents 3.execution, including the opening meeting, examination and evaluation, collecting evidence, observations and closing the meeting with the auditee 4.report, including its preparation, content and distribution 5.completion, including report submission and retention.

31. When audit Any instrument which is developed for assessment, audit or review may be used at several stages in an organization’s history: 1.before starting an improvement programme to identify ‘strengths’ and ‘areas for improvement’, and focus attention (at this stage a parallel cost of quality exercise may be a powerful way to overcome skepticism and get ‘buy in’) 2.as part of a programme launch, especially using a ‘survey’ instrument 3.every one or two years after the launch to steer and benchmark

32. periodic Useful guidance on quality management system audits is given in the international standard ISO 19011, Guidelines for auditing management systems. A quality management system review should be instituted, perhaps every 12 months, with the aims of: 1.ensuring that the system is achieving the desired results 2.revealing defects or irregularities in the system 3.indicating any necessary improvements and/or corrective actions to eliminate waste or loss 4.checking on all levels of management 5.uncovering potential danger areas 6.verifying that improvements or corrective action procedures are effective