Micro management of QA team members records

Hi all, what is your thoughts regarding the micro managements of QA’s record? Management is claiming it is just for improvement of staff but I do not agree with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What sort of micromanagement are they wanting to implement?
Are you aware of any genuine problems/issues that could have triggered this?

Is it actual micromanagement, as in they're expecting you to provide continuous hand-on direction of the minutiae of every detail of what each member of the QA team is doing, or more about observation/monitoring to understand resource use and possibly try to improve efficiency (whether justified or not)?

Thanks for reply. It is mainly for scoring the QAs performances. It has been created a huge stress for QAs.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think management of QAs is important not just in a resourse sense but for food safety and business sake. If a QA is responsible for tasks like sending finished product samples to the lab and calibrating probes, failure to conduct these tasks properly could potentially affect due diligence should an issue arise. Though I think monitoring in ways like checking record folders and regular 1 to 1 meetings is the best way to keep tabs on QAs without breathing down the neck or stressing them with pressure.

Management oversight is a norm and not an exception for well run companies. QA may sometimes feel like an island, but the department is not autonomous.   

 

Last year we did some humpty dumpty crisis consulting with a company where the QA department completely failed in doing what they were tasked with  - changing over to the SQF 8.0 standard.  Owners and managers made the error of just stopping by the door of the QA Managers office now and then asking if they were on track, but not really checking anything -- audit date comes and they fail big-time.  No oversight.