Eight Common Problems in Implementing Quality Systems and Their Solutions

As more and more enterprises begin to implement quality system management, what position does quality system management hold in the minds of enterprises?

Whether quality system management is positioned as an important part of the enterprise determines the attitude the enterprise takes towards product quality and the philosophy with which it operates. Products without quality bring endless pain, shrinkage, and even bankruptcy to the enterprise.

Quality system management has become a necessity and a trend in various industries, but few can truly utilize it to generate benefits and improve enterprise management levels.

Confusion in implementing and maintaining the quality system

1. Only caring about having a quality management system certification

80% of the top management in enterprises only care about obtaining the quality management system certification and do not care about, understand, or invest in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the quality management system operation. They even treat quality system management as a subsidiary department, causing resistance among leaders and employees towards quality system standard work, and everyone still works as they please.

Such long-term development will inevitably lead to a "two skins" phenomenon in enterprise management, where the established system does not match actual operation. Quality system management is purely for certification and decoration, while actual factory operation management remains autocratic. Leaders fundamentally do not place quality management in the correct position.

2. Merely a defensive weapon within the enterprise

Quality system procedure documents summarize quality management in the enterprise's operation process and serve as normative guidance documents. However, procedure documents cannot cover everything. Only by solving quality problems in production and operation management with correct quality awareness and thinking, following the cause-and-effect relationship of things, and continuously summarizing and refining can future guiding procedure documents be formed.

In many enterprises, quality management system documents have essentially become defensive weapons for various departments in management practice. Departments involved in discussions each hold their own views, all using documents as justification to shirk responsibility, causing serious internal conflicts, often leading to difficult decisions and difficult implementation. Daily management prioritizes conditions over actions and bargaining. Favorable tasks are eagerly undertaken, while unfavorable ones are avoided, all justified by citing document regulations. When reasoning fails, objective factors are emphasized, using "procedures" as a buffer or accepting only after negotiating conditions.

3. Believing the quality system covers everything and cures all problems

Quality system documents describe basic procedural requirements. We need to solve product-related problems in enterprise production and operation within this framework using the eight quality management principles, rather than blaming every enterprise management issue on quality system management.

In fact, in enterprise management, there are quality system management, personnel system management, financial system management, business decision management, etc. Quality system management only manages content related to product quality in production and operation.

4. Passive or even incorrect use of quality management system documents

Treating quality system management one-sidedly as an inspector of leadership instructions, with concentrated audits, special audits, monthly inspections, quarterly inspections, etc., making departments exhausted and extremely annoyed.

Quality management decline after certification is inseparable from leadership's one-sided understanding of quality. Top management must highly value understanding quality system documents. Promoting ISO9001 requires mobilizing many enterprise resources and new intangible resources. Relying solely on grassroots efforts to promote ISO9001 is very difficult due to lack of management authority and control over enterprise resources.

5. Treating quality system management as a "formality"

The quality system administrator position is essentially a vacancy, only remembered when leadership needs to handle quality incidents, treating quality system management one-sidedly as an accident investigator or merely a role busy with handling trivial tasks.

It cannot play the role of guiding standardized system operation because of insufficient authorization and low position benefits. It is not consciously or unconsciously valued by employees. The measures and methods formulated for quality system management are not implemented, and employees still act according to the "imperial edicts" of leadership.

6. Only focusing on results, not the process

Leadership management thinking that only looks at results and not the process contradicts the basic principle of quality management systems to "use process methods," leading to unconscious reduction or omission of quality management records or procedures during implementation. To provide evidence, false data is supplemented. As long as the "results are seen," over time, enterprise management levels will inevitably decline.

Due to the long-term and inheritable nature of quality management, factories must have a 5- or 10-year plan, starting from basic work, implementing quality concepts into the organization's specific operations through policy guidance and methods, and continuously conducting spot checks and supervision to stabilize and solidify employee behavior norms.

7. Only focusing on the number of quality audit nonconformities

The requirements for quality system certification are increasing. Nonconformities found in audits should be viewed correctly and not generalized. Having many nonconformities or general issues does not mean quality management is poor. Leaders should seriously consider what resources they provide for quality management and how to continuously improve quality system management through audit nonconformities.

8. Unable to communicate effectively during audits

Whether it is a second-party or third-party audit, communication during audits often fails. Some audit organizations even see themselves as "emperors," expecting audited factories to fully comply with their "unequal treaties" without any objections;

The leadership of the audited factory also aims not to offend auditors regarding system management requirements. In fact, the purpose of audits is to point out the problems and deficiencies of the factory. Only through mutual communication and thorough understanding of the issues can the purpose of genuine improvement be achieved.