As an auditor of Quality Systems and a consultant, I find myself in a unique position to observe the evolving conditions of many companies both domestically and globally. A conspicuous phenomenon is that the status quo or stability in Quality Systems which existed before the covid period have been profoundly upset in the post covid era. Generally, factors which have influenced instability in Quality Systems during and since covid include:
Many companies had to go into survival mode to stay in business, including: Downsizing staff. Rethinking their core business models; engaging in new operations and shelving legacy methods of generating revenue. Existing staff being cross utilized into new responsibilities and roles they have to learn from scratch. People performing quality functions who are noticeably inexperienced and not necessarily pleased to have found themselves in these roles all due to the aforementioned reasons. Yep, quite true . Quality and safety are complementary terms; you can’t have one without the other, and understandably the flying public and regulators place great emphasis and expectation on aviation firms exhibiting both characteristics. Company websites and CEOs/Presidents are thus fond of stating their unequivocal devotion to quality and safety. The question arises, that in the current environment previously described, what is a no-nonsense, honest assessment of your Quality System?
In their article “How to Incorporate AI Tools Into Your Quality Management System” 1
In case the font on the chart is too small, here are the same descriptions:
Minimal Compliance (Lowest Maturity) – In this level, leadership seeks certification only for appearances. The quality manager is solely responsible for compliance but lacks authority, leading to weak implementation across the company. Internal audits do not provide value. Management doesn’t understand the importance of root cause analysis and corrective actions, so the quality manager ends up trying to address someone else’s problems that they don’t have responsibility for. Procedural Adoption – Processes are documented and followed to pass audits, but buy-in from leadership and process owners is limited. Compliance is seen as the quality manager’s job, with minimal integration into daily operations. Processes get changed by the process owners without updating QMS documentation. Systematic Implementation – Management acknowledges the value of a QMS and enforces compliance within their teams. However, improvements are mostly reactive, and audits are seen as necessary formalities rather than opportunities for growth. Continuous Improvement Culture – Leadership actively participates in quality initiatives, fostering a culture of improvement. Teams engage with the QMS standard as part of daily operations, and compliance is viewed as a means to enhance efficiency. Full Integration & Proactive Engagement (Highest Maturity) – Top management owns their processes and QMS compliance, driving improvements independently of the quality manager. Audits are embraced as opportunities for learning, with leadership developing and challenging auditors to uncover weaknesses for continuous enhancement. Fear of reprisal is absent, and the business system is the QMS, fully embedded in the company’s culture. Currently, external quality system auditors are not required to rate your system according to this matrix. Its value lays in its use as a self-assessment tool.
A consistent principle in quality system standards is that of Continuous Improvement. Are you moving up, down, or are you stagnant on the scale? The suggestion here is that you consider using the matrix to analyze the state of your Continuous Improvement efforts. For example, integrate it into your internal/self-audit process. Create action plans to move to progressively higher levels.
For those you with ISO/EN/AS/IAS quality systems, consider making it an integral part of your Management Review process.
Make it happen.
Over ‘n out
Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto
www.AimSolutionsConsulting.com
CAVU Café: Royboy’s Prose & Cons Feed