Quality Management System Assessment

Executive Self Assesssment

Purpose

This assessment evaluates whether your Quality Management System (QMS) consistently produces quality as a property of the system, under normal and stressed conditions.

It tests whether outcomes are predictable because the system is well designed and controlled or whether results depend on inspection, individual effort, firefighting, or post-hoc correction.

The objective is to assess the maturity of quality as a system capability:

• One that prevents defects rather than detects them
• One that supports compliance through design, not policing
• One that scales without increasing risk, cost, or managerial burden

Quality failures are treated here as signals of system weakness, not individual shortcomings.

What this is

A structured assessment across Quality Design, Process Control, Feedback & Learning, Accountability, and Improvement Discipline.

It identifies:

• Where quality is built into the system versus inspected at the end
• Whether variation is understood, controlled, or ignored
• How effectively defects and near‑misses drive systemic learning
• Whether leadership behavior strengthens or undermines quality

What this is not

• Not a certification or compliance audit
• Not an ISO or standard gap analysis
• Not a documentation review
• Not an evaluation of individual or team performance

This assessment focuses exclusively on system behavior and leadership conditions.

How to Use This Assessment

1. Complete the checklist (20–30 minutes)
2. Score each section independently
3. Identify where quality degrades under pressure
4. Prioritize changes that reduce variation and rework

Do not aim for perfect scores. Aim for predictable outcomes.

1. Quality Design (Built In vs. Inspected Out)

Check all that apply:

☐ Quality is primarily verified through inspection or testing

☐ Bugs or defects are discovered late in the development or release process

☐ Quality requirements are ambiguous or interpreted differently by teams

☐ Processes allow wide variation without clear limits

☐ Compliance requirements are bolted on after design

Healthy system signals:

• Quality requirements are explicit, shared, and unambiguous
• Controls are embedded early, where errors originate
• Acceptable variation is defined and understood
• Compliance and quality are designed together, not reconciled later

Red flag

If quality depends on catching errors at the end, the system is already producing failure.

2. Process Control (Stability and Predictability)

Check all that apply:

☐ Critical processes are undocumented or inconsistently followed

☐ Process performance varies significantly between teams or locations

☐ Controls rely on manual checks or individual judgment

☐ Changes are introduced without understanding downstream effects

☐ Process performance data is rarely reviewed by leadership

Healthy system signals:

• Critical processes are defined and repeatable
• Controls reduce reliance on individual vigilance
• Process changes are deliberate and evaluated
• Performance trends are visible and discussed

Red flag

Unexplained variation indicates weak process control, not execution failure.

3. Feedback & Learning (Signals, Response, and Adaptation)

Check all that apply:

☐ Bugs or defects are addressed case by case, without systemic fixes

☐ Root cause analysis stops at proximate causes

☐ Near-misses, incidents, or escaped defects are rarely captured

☐ Feedback loops are slow or informal

☐ The same issues recur over time

Healthy system signals:

• Bugs or defects trigger systemic investigation
• Near‑misses are treated as high‑value learning signals
• Feedback reaches decision‑makers quickly and unaltered
• Learning results in visible process or design changes

Red flag

If the same bugs or defects recur, the system is not learning.

4. Accountability & Ownership (Who Owns Quality)

Check all that apply:

☐ Quality is delegated to a separate function

☐ Accountability shifts when problems occur

☐ Escalation paths are unclear or avoided

☐ Quality decisions are overridden under time pressure

☐ Leadership visibility into quality trade‑offs is limited

Healthy system signals:

• Quality ownership is clear and shared
• Escalation paths are explicit and used
• Leaders are exposed to quality trade-offs
• Quality is not optional under pressure

Red flag

If quality erodes when deadlines tighten, leadership accountability is misaligned.

5. Improvement Discipline (Change Without Tampering)

Check all that apply:

☐ Improvement efforts are reactive or episodic

☐ Changes introduce new defects or instability

☐ Effects of changes are not measured over time

☐ Teams experience initiative fatigue

☐ Documentation trails behind actual practice

Healthy system signals:

• Improvement is systematic, prioritized, and paced
• Changes are tested before full deployment
• Effects are measured longitudinally, not anecdotally
• Improvements reduce variation and complexity

Red flag

If improvement increases instability, the system is being tampered with.

QMS Maturity Scoring

Score each area from 0 to 2:

• 0 = Weak or reactive
• 1 = Partially defined or inconsistently applied
• 2 = Stable, predictable, and improving

Record your scores:

Quality Design:

Process Control:

Feedback & Learning:

Accountability & Ownership:

Improvement Discipline:

Interpretation

0–4 → Fragile quality system

Outcomes depend on inspection, effort, and correction.

5–7 → Functional but unstable

Quality is maintained, but degrades under pressure or scale.

8–10 → Mature quality system

Quality is predictable, scalable, and supports compliance by design.

What to Fix First (80/20 Guidance)

Prioritize actions that:

• Reduce variation at the source
• Move detection earlier in the process
• Strengthen unfiltered feedback loops
• Align leadership behavior with quality outcomes

High-leverage actions often include:

• Clarifying one critical quality requirement end‑to‑end
• Stabilizing one high‑variation process
• Improving root cause analysis discipline
• Making quality trade‑offs visible to leadership
• Retiring low‑value inspections and checks

Quality improves fastest when the system is simplified.

Executive Summary (Optional)

Our quality system is strongest in [X] and weakest in [Y]. Current weaknesses increase variation and reliance on inspection. Addressing these gaps will improve predictability, reduce rework, and strengthen compliance without increasing overhead.

Why This Matters

Quality failures are rarely caused by lack of effort. They result from systems that produce defects predictably.

A mature QMS replaces inspection, heroics, and blame with design, control, learning, and leadership responsibility.

Next Step

Use this assessment as a baseline. Re-run it after major process changes, regulatory updates, or quality incidents.

Quality is not enforced. Quality is designed.