a2hs_explain
a2hs_tap
a2hs_then
The average size of a QA department has increased considerably in recent years. More and more QA professionals are graduating. And the number of QA vacancies is growing steadily. Good news, you might say, for professionals like me who are passionate about the QA profession. But the question arises for me: isn't the QA department gradually developing hydrocephalus?
Of course, the growing attention for quality, food safety and sustainability is understandable. Laws and regulations are becoming increasingly tightened. Additional audits and new certifications follow almost automatically. The standard reflex is 'that someone needs to be added to the QA department'. And that the rules and processes in the organization are adapted to the new current events.
The question is whether you are working adequately by constantly 'keeping up' with the rules and that growing QA department. After all, as a company you lose your autonomy by handing yourself over again and again to the allegedly increasingly strict outside world. MTs who want to definitively put a stop to this race within their company would do well to ask themselves the question: what quality do we actually stand for and stand for? What is our own intrinsic motivation? And how do we ensure that we continue to achieve our quality objectives? Today, tomorrow and in the future? It is essential to realize that there are opportunities in all departments to successfully manage and safeguard quality. In other words: quality is not just the domain of the QA department.
So it's time to reinvent the QA department. What is the primary role and function of the QA department? Which QA professionals and which skills do you really need on board the QA department to structurally guarantee your intended quality and safety and to comply with all regulations? Wouldn't it be better to hire theoreticians and file experts, only when they are needed? And essential: do you dare to entrust quality, food safety and sustainability to teams in, for example, product development, purchasing, operations and sales? Because that makes it a self-evident part of people's daily work, their motivation and their alertness. Moreover, it provides more efficiency: no one wants production stops and rejected products due to quality issues. Everyone wants products to be made right the first time. Against the correct specifications, in accordance with all applicable rules and at the lowest possible costs. So let's not mold QA to the ideal theoretical model. Let's keep the QA department compact. This is possible if you give people in all essential departments responsibilities that become part of their normal work. And by focusing on their motivation and pride.
I regularly have fascinating discussions about this subject with companies, colleagues and peers. The question regularly arises: if you assign certain QA roles to employees, don't they have too much on their plate? I don't think so myself. QA is not an obligation, not a 'must', but an attitude. I'm curious about your vision. Do you agree with me? Or is it just my beautiful dream to be able to guarantee quality and food safety with a small QA department?
Lisette Holst
Associate Senior Consultant ARV Group