Once upon a time there were three little companies

I think too much sometimes and it leads to severe daydreaming.  I began wondering why some companies become part of the “excellence” we grow to admire, and why others flounder.  So I thought I would make up a story of the three little companies that go “we passed TS”.

Once upon a time there were three little companies.  To keep them straight let us call them Straw, Wood and Brick. All three companies are TS-16949 certified, and re-certify when the time comes.  My question, which company is better at the end of an audit?  Straw who passes with flying colors, meaning no majors or minors to be found; Wood who passes perhaps with just 1 minor; Or, Brick who passes with maybe three minors?

Decide yet?  If not, try to.  After all, this is just a fictional story.

Now let us add some more depth.  All three of these companies, typical to most, choose to internal audit themselves thirty days prior to the external audit. Straw's internal auditor is like the external auditor, asking questions, asking for proof, and then reports out that there are minors and perhaps a major finding.  Wood asks each department manager to audit their own process and to shore up holes.  Brick does the internal audit similar to Straw, however they dig deep and when something is not quite right the audit stops to allow the auditee to make corrections, with a return at a later date to complete the internal audit.

Decide yet?  Did you change your mind yet?  After all, this is just a fictional story.

Yes, now some more depth.  This almost feels like a deep dive problem solving event.  Anyway, let us say Straw’s internal audit report to management placed several of the auditees under severe scrutiny because it was reported the auditees failed the internal audit.  The internal audit instructions were to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” and make sure all the paperwork matched.  Wood’s audit report to management from the department managers was that they felt the process was captured and the recommendation was “steady as she goes”.  Brick's audit report stated some minor findings, and time had to be given between the audit processes to correct issues that could be interpreted as additional minors perhaps turning into a major.  Trust was given to the people in the process to make the corrections themselves.

Decide yet?  Did you change your mind again?  After all, this is just a fictional story.

To side track a little to a real life story. I fly as a hobby, or at least I did many years ago.  One time near the local airport my engine stopped.  The prop was static – not wind milling.  This was a hand prop airplane, meaning I could not press a start button, nor walk outside in mid air to try to start the engine.  I had an adrenaline rush, and an attitude like, “okay, time to get down to business”.  This is the same as my passion for Lean Manufacturing. While flying, as long as I knew how to obtain the maximum glide slope I could sustain my flight for a safe outcome. The same goes for continual improvement.  Meaning there will always be short comings and room for continual improvement.  Recognize that and go for it, one increment at a time, stretching the sustaining between each increment.  After my engine experience I had a flashback to it when on July 19, 1989 United Airlines Flight 232 had a catastrophic failure of its hydraulic system.  I remembered thinking, whom would I rather have as a captain?  One with several years of experience and no accidents, or one close to retirement who may have had several accidents?  After my engine experience I can now say I will choose the person who has been through the problems to guide me to safety.  There is a solid foundation to base decisions and to continually improve from.

So now let us get back to the fictional story and add some more depth.  Straw passed the external audit with flying colors.  No major or minor findings, though through the process only documented proof of what showed “a perfect record” was presented.  Business continued status quo, still shipping defects and believing processes did not need to be improved.  I might even re-write this fictional story to show that the foundation was still crumbling, under the premise of good work.  

Wood passed, perhaps not as fancy as Straw, but with honest effort and a breath of relief once it was over, and with the attitude “were good until the next audit”.  Brick passed, but with respect to audit outcome not as fair as Straw and Wood.  However they came out saying “we did well and know what we need to do to improve.”

Decide yet?  Did you change your mind at all?  After all, is this fiction when you look at how companies treat TS-16949 to improve quality?

Is there a moral to the three little companies? – Perhaps.  Straws who arrange their house to please an auditor, or Woods who arrange their house just to get by may find in the long haul that time (the Wolf) will still get them.  However, the Bricks who have such a strong foundation of continual improvement shall be able to weather time.

12/25/2011 - Please note that passing an audit does not mean the organization is providing a quality product / service / or information.  All passing an audit means is that controls put in place by management are, for the most part, being followed given the sample size of the audit.  Whether the controls are appropriate is not the concern of the audit per se.  Though feedback should be given to management by the auditing organization for continual improvement.