Most failed projects begin with poorly defined requirements.

Organizations that struggle with outsourced projects which have gone bad or failed completely usually cite vendor management issues as the reason. It’s as if the vendor is always to blame, and the buyer is completely blameless. Rarely is this the case. Upon closer inspection, and in nine out of 10 instances, the root cause of these often-unspecified vendor management problems that allegedly lead a project astray can be traced to poorly defined requirements. Although clear requirements are at the foundation of any project, they are even more critical for outsourced ones where the rule of law, in the form of a contractual relationship, governs the nature of the relationship between buyer and seller.

via Get to the Core of Vendor Management Problems | Quality Digest.

Beware the single-definition paradigm

Trepanning is the process of drilling a hole in the skull. It was practiced as far back as 10,000 years ago. Archaeological artifacts lend credence to the lore that the process was used by some cultures to expel evil spirits. Apart from that occult-ish application, the process has been used for centuries to ease headache pain and other ailments. Scientists suspect that in some cases it may have actually been beneficial in relieving pressure on the brain.

via Preconceived Notions Can Stifle Innovation and Sidetrack Audits | Quality Digest.

The Presidential POWER Initiative: Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment

Each year Federal civilian employees are injured or fall ill on the job in significant numbers. Although the Federal Government has made progress in reducing workplace injuries and illnesses in recent years, its workers excluding those employed by the U.S. Postal Service still filed more than 79,000 new claims and received over $1.6 billion in workers' compensation payments in fiscal year 2009. Many of these work-related injuries and illnesses are preventable, and executive departments and agencies can and should do even more to improve workplace safety and health, reduce the financial burden of injury on taxpayers, and relieve unnecessary suffering by workers and their families.Therefore, I am establishing a 4-year Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment POWER Initiative, covering fiscal years 2011 through 2014. The POWER Initiative will extend prior workplace safety and health efforts of the Federal Government by setting more aggressive performance targets, encouraging the collection and analysis of data on the causes and consequences of frequent or severe injury and illness, and prioritizing safety and health management programs that have proven effective in the past.Under the POWER Initiative, each executive department and agency will be expected to improve its performance in seven areas:i reducing total injury and illness case rates;ii reducing lost time injury and illness case rates;iii analyzing lost time injury and illness data;iv increasing the timely filing of workers' compensation claims;v increasing the timely filing of wage-loss claims;vi reducing lost production day rates; andvii speeding employees' return to work in cases of serious injury or illness.Executive departments and agencies except the U.S. Postal Service shall coordinate with the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Office of Workers' Compensation Programs to establish performance targets in each category. The Secretary of Labor shall lead the POWER Initiative by measuring both Government-wide and agency-level performance and reporting to me annually.Each executive department and agency shall bear its own costs for participating in the POWER Initiative, and nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof.This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.The Secretary of Labor is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.BARACK OBAMA

via Presidential Memorandum–The Presidential POWER Initiative: Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment | The White House.

NQA, USA is pleased to announce their approval by the oversight body the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board ANAB to the newly released AS9100:2009, AS9110:2009 and AS9120 standards.In demonstrating its continued commitment as a leader in their field, NQA becomes one of the first certification bodies to offer registration to these new standards. NQA has already had a number of auditors take and pass the Aerospace Auditor Transition Training AATT course administered by Plexus International. This course is a prerequisite for any auditor before they are qualified to audit to AS9100:2009. According to NQA, USA Quality Manager Arlen Chapman, “we expect to have over 40 auditors qualified to conduct AS9100:2009 audits by the end of August of this year”.Mr. Chapman went on further to say, “We took this aggressive approach to be accredited as early as possible because our current and prospective customers want to transition to AS9100:2009 right away. Now we are positioned help them accomplish their goals”.With regard to the quality of their client base, Mr. Chapman also added, “Our customer base includes some of the most aggressive and forward thinking aerospace companies in the world. They understand that AS9100:2009 will help them realize significant improvements in both their quality systems and the quality systems of their many suppliers”.To request a quotation to the AS9100:2009, please contact Kirsten Smith at 800 649-5289 or via email to kirsten.smith@nqa-usa.com

When, how, and why for the upcoming aerospace standard

Finally, the long and arduous process that appears to be a requisite phase in the development of an international quality management system standard appears to be nearing an end. Though the AS9100:2009 and AS9101:2009 checklist have been available for quite some time, the aerospace industry has anxiously been awaiting the release of AS9104, the final document to complete the trilogy of aerospace standards.

via AS9100:2009 Frequently Asked Questions | Quality Digest.

On July 8, the Food and Drug Administration FDA announced an initiative “… to evaluate industry’s compliance and understanding of Part 11 in light of the enforcement discretion described in the August 2003 Guidance for Industry Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures—Scope and Application. See the FDA announcement for details.

via 21 CFR Part 11: Auditors Are at Your Door | Quality Digest.

Hearing Protection: It’s Not Just About Noise Reduction
Jul 1, 2010 12:00 PM, By Doug Ohlin
More than a desire for noise reduction, a worker’s priorities for comfort, convenience and communication can set the agenda for hearing protection acceptance and effective use.

Hearing protectors add foreign objects to our heads and ears. They can add unwelcome pressure, weight and warmth and interfere with hearing neccessary sounds. When we speak while wearing hearing protectors, our own voices don’t sound normal.

Earplugs take it one step further, as they must be inserted into our ear canals. Their invasive nature amplifies our awareness that something foreign is present. Our personal space just is not being shared, it has been violated by something entering within. Earplugs make it personal, and employees wearing them are going to demand (passively or actively) consideration of their needs and preferences.

For years, the hearing conservation mantra was, “The best hearing protection is the one that is worn.” Today, we don’t hear this as much and when we do, the word “properly,” is added. Our emphasis on proper use is the result of a plethora of studies that have shown that, as used in the workplace, wearing hearing protection doesn’t always equate to effective protection or to laboratory-generated noise reduction ratings (NRRs).¹ Noise reduction, as represented by the Environmental Protection Agency’s NRR, just may be the cover on the book.

via Hearing Protection: It’s Not Just About Noise Reduction | EHS Today.

By Kevin Beard, NQA-USA President

For years we have heard and seen signs of counterfeit products in the form of “Knock-Off” handbags, watches and other retail goods. Now imagine a scenario were counterfeit parts are unknowingly being purchased by your company and integrated into the product you deliver to your customer. This scenario may seem unlikely for your company, but it is becoming a bigger threat than many organizations realize.

Organizations around the world continue to look for ways to market their products to their customers at a competitive price. This effort quite often involves a strategy of utilizing the global supply chain to creating beneficial relationships that allow organizations to acquire good quality parts at the best price. As organizations start outsourcing some aspects of their product development and/or manufacturing, as well as stretching out the distances of their supply chains across the globe, the organization may be incurring certain risks associated with “supply chain integrity gaps”; that are allowing counterfeit parts to enter their products supply chain. Many organizations are unaware of the risk with these “supply chain integrity gaps”, and the efforts that less than reputable organizations are going to, to exploit these gaps and pass off counterfeit parts as original.

Visit to continue: http://www.nqa-usa.com/resources/articles_detail.php?id=72.

I often encounter the question of why various quality management system standards require the deployment of lower level process measures if the requirement from the customer is simply to deliver conforming product on time for the contracted price?

When discussing this in the office one of my seasoned colleagues Bob Parsons, came out with the following metaphor that he heard during his travels and I thought it might be nice to share with you all.

Imagine that you were to get into a car that only had one gauge on the instrument panel, a speedometer, and were to start driving down the interstate with a goal of maintaining a speed of 55mph, the chances are you would focus upon the speedometer and adjust the amount of pressure you applied to the accelerator to maintain a steady 55, and I hazard a guess that you would be reasonably successful in meeting this goal. Now after a period of time all things being equal the car would probably start to slow down and eventually come to a stop. Since the car only has the one gauge it would be difficult to ascertain the exact reason why the vehicle was slowing down. Most of us would make an educated guess that the vehicle had simply ran out of gas and indeed this may be the case, but this would be an assumption, not a conclusion based upon data.

Of course, the vehicle may have overheated, run out of oil or got a flat battery, with only one gauge it would be difficult to ascertain which system has failed or to get an early warning and hence react to the fact that a system was close to failing such as the fuel was running low or the vehicle was starting to overheat. Hence why modern cars have an array of gauges and lights to give the driver an instant status report of the current health of the vehicle and what actions, such as a need to get more gas, change the oil, fit new brakes, need to be performed prior to the vehicle suffering a catastrophic failure.

And such is the case for lower level process measurements. Although the goal is to produce conforming material and deliver the product on time, discovering there was a system issue at the point of delivery or post delivery is not an effective way of pro actively managing customer requirements. Like a modern vehicle, a process has a number of different components that need to be monitored to ensure they are operating within specified process parameters.  If the process to ensure that the vehicle has sufficient gas does not work the car may breakdown, similarly if the process to ensure that the barrel temperatures on an injection molding machine are within tolerance is not effective or does not exist, then if the temperature does move out of tolerance the potential to produce and possibly ship non conforming material is that much greater. An early warning such as a fuel warning light or an alarm on the barrel temperature indicating that a process parameter is of concern, prior to a process failure occurring gives the driver or operator an opportunity to react and ensure that action is taken to bring the process back under control. When these reactions occur it ensures that the goal of keeping the vehicle moving or producing conforming product will be achieved. Finding out that a barrel temperature was out of specification after non conforming product has been shipped or is ready to ship can negatively impact the primary objectives of delivering conforming product on time. Ensuring critical lower level processes have been identified, are being monitored and have parameters established can ensure that the top level goal of achieving customer requirements can consistently be achieved.

So take a moment, critically evaluate your processes and establish where the failure points may occur and ensure that tracking mechanisms are in place, no one likes to see the check engine light appear, but it sure beats the hell out of breaking down at 2am in the morning on a cold wet night on the I-90 with no cell reception somewhere in South Dakota.

One of world’s largest data centres certified to ISO 14001, ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 27001by Garry Lambert NGD Europe, one of the world’s largest data centres, located near Newport, South Wales, United Kingdom UK, was recently opened following completion of a GBP 200 million project to convert and upgrade the 750 000 sq ft former Hynix semiconductor plant into a state-of-the-art, ISO 14001, ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 27001-certified, Tier 3 mega data centre.

via One of world’s largest data centres certified to ISO 14001, ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 27001.