September 10, 2024 • 42 mins
Transform your organization's approach to quality with Benjamin's strategies for engaging and empowering the workforce. Empowering employees with responsibility and capability at the ground level can operationalize quality, ensuring that processes like equipment maintenance and accurate data reporting are meticulously followed. Benjamin shares how transparency and stakeholder involvement can shift the mindset from viewing new processes as burdensome to seeing them as opportunities for improvement.
Read this episode's companion article or watch the video on YouTube.
Have questions, comments, or want to be a guest on an upcoming episode? Email podcast@aashtoresource.org.
Related information on this and other episodes can be found at aashtoresource.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kim Swanson (00:03):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:19):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Kim Swanson (00:23):
And I'm Kim Swanson .
Brian Johnson (00:24):
Yeah, today we have a guest, benjamin Trujillo,
from Integrated Quality.
That is his own organization,correct, benjamin?
That is correct, yeah.
So, benjamin, where are youcoming from?
Benjamin Trujillo (00:38):
I'm coming from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Brian Johnson (00:41):
Yeah, beautiful landscape there in New Mexico.
Now we brought or invitedBenjamin he's not here against
his will.
We have invited Benjamin hereto talk about quality and we
know that Benjamin is aconsultant who works in the
quality world and it is not atypical job that somebody just
(01:07):
has.
So you usually have come aboutdoing this kind of work from
past experiences, right withquality.
So my first question I have foryou, benjamin, today, is how
did you get here, how did youget into this line of work.
Benjamin Trujillo (01:24):
Well, that's an interesting question, and the
longer I'm in the field I cansort of push the envelope
further back into my past abouthow I think I got here, because
some of it was certainly whatwere the professional
opportunities that I had beforeme?
(01:44):
And from that line I was in mylate 20s and I was doing a job
that I was burnt out on.
It wasn't working out and,quite frankly, I went to a temp
agency and they said, oh,there's this engineering firm
that they need help with recordsand document control, which I
(02:05):
had background in just fromworking in various office jobs.
And so I ended up there andshowed an affinity for
organization and, for lack of abetter word, I enjoy managing
records and filing andorganizing.
I enjoy managing records andfiling and organizing.
And they basically looked atthat and said, hey, you know we
(02:28):
need to have a quality manager.
Would you be interested in that?
And I can say I didn't knowenough to say no and I was
interested enough to say yes,and so I did, I did and from
(02:49):
there, through the benefit ofjust projects that came along
and some mentors as well, itjust sort of unfolded in front
of me as a career path that Ifound interesting and that
touched on a lot of the thingsthat I like to do, which is,
again, I like to organize things.
I'm also very interested in howsystems operate, so how office
(03:10):
structures operate, how we dowork, and then I got to interact
with all of these people thatwere doing really interesting
things that I didn't do.
So it started just this firmthey had a testing laboratory,
(03:33):
and so getting to watch peopledoing you know, asphalt testing,
concrete, soils, aggregate, andjust having a curious attitude
of you know, hey, what's thatfor?
Why are you doing this, andthen seeing how quality
interacted with that.
It was just a nice confluenceof things I enjoy doing and
opportunities to learn a lotmore about the field of
(03:55):
construction, materials anddesign, engineering and all
manner of things.
Brian Johnson (04:01):
Yeah, now you cut your teeth on quality in the
construction materials testingindustry, as you were just
describing, and as a consultant,I wondered if you have gotten
involved in any other industriesthat you've carried these
quality concepts into.
Benjamin Trujillo (04:18):
I have, and primarily it's been the other
side of the fence, which isdesign agencies.
So, looking at everything, tobegin with a design study,
through the actual developmentof the design, be it in a design
build or design bid build, etcetera how do you set up those
(04:38):
processes for control of thedesign set and then into
construction support?
But I've also worked with afirm they build kilns and ovens.
So they needed some help comingup with a quality system that
(04:59):
they could use.
And I deal a lot also just withagencies that they have
different types of requirementsthat they have to respond to.
So I'm guessing most of yourlisteners, of course, they hear
requirements and they thinkAASHTO R18, astm c 1077, and
those you know, and there's justa whole cacophony of
(05:24):
requirements out there thatvarious organizations have to
respond to.
And one of the things I learnedwhen I opened up my own shop
was I suddenly had this greatopportunity to learn all about
all other types of requirementsthat are out there that people
need help figuring out.
Well, how do I respond to this,what does that mean from a work
(05:45):
process, and so it's just beena sort of an incredible arc in
that way.
Brian Johnson (05:54):
And I know just from working with our customers
in the Western States, quite afew of them work on nuclear
projects and I wondered if maybethat is one of the areas that
you've gotten involved with,because I know there are a lot
of process requirements for that, a lot of quality requirements.
Have you worked in thatindustry as well?
Benjamin Trujillo (06:14):
I have worked heavily in the nuclear industry
.
As you asked me, I'm inAlbuquerque, new Mexico.
I'm within 100 miles of twonational laboratories.
We also have a Department ofDefense presence, so it's very
much a part of the economy ofthe state that I call home.
(06:35):
At the same time, nuclear beingthat it's such a heavily
regulated industry is from thestandpoint of quality assurance.
I think one of the mostexciting fields to be in,
because we're given requirementsthat our clients need to be
(06:59):
able to comply with.
But figuring out how to do thateffectively and how to not have
spillover of those processesinto other project areas is it
can be a real tough nut to crack.
I mean, for me it's exciting.
That's what I love to do ishelp people figure out.
(07:19):
Okay, I need to be able torespond to the designer
construction of just acommercial structure, but I also
need to be able to respond inthe event that I'm doing
something that if something goeswrong during construction,
during operation, duringdecommissioning, there could be
true adverse effects on theworkforce, the public, the
(07:42):
environment, effects on theworkforce, the public, the
environment.
How do I have a quality systemthat I can efficiently leverage
across my company so thateveryone is working to the same
process but we're not hamperingourselves with sideways motion.
That from my experience.
From my experience, itdiminishes efficiency, keeps
(08:15):
people from buying in and ithinders quality because it
becomes an obstacle instead of asupport system.
So nuclear is great as sort ofa sandbox to really dig into a
lot of quality processes.
To really dig into a lot ofquality processes.
Kim Swanson (08:24):
If Benjamin is familiar to you, or maybe
familiar to you because he hasbeen part of a speaker at TechX,
I think, since its inception,since 2017.
Is that right, benjamin?
Benjamin Trujillo (08:37):
I was at the first one in Maryland.
I think I only missed the onethat was in Minneapolis.
Yes, you know, grateful to havebeen invited to all of them to
present.
Kim Swanson (08:56):
Yeah, no, your sessions, I know, at TechX are
always well received.
You get amazing feedback fromthat, and you've done the
Quality Manager 101 and 201 andother things for us as well.
But I want to know what you'rehere to talk about specifically
today, and so we had some emailsback and forth before we
recorded and it was, I believe,what we decided on.
(09:18):
Now you're going to be like, no, this wasn't it at all, but, as
I say it, you're going to belike, no, that's not what.
Benjamin Trujillo (09:23):
I said Show me the contract and we'll do a
review, Exactly right.
Brian Johnson (09:27):
Let's kick it back and forth for a little
while.
Kim Swanson (09:29):
Right.
As I'm saying, I'm like, oh man, this better be the right one,
but it was how to operationalizequality.
Is that what we're talkingabout?
Going to be talking?
Benjamin Trujillo (09:39):
about.
Kim Swanson (09:49):
Yeah, that is such a nice broad term that we can
talk about many things and say,yes, we were on topic.
But yeah, that is exactly right.
No-transcript.
Benjamin Trujillo (10:15):
I think the easiest way I've come up with to
describe it is we want to makesure that both the
responsibility and thecapability to invest quality
into the organization, into theproject, the product, whatever
it is, that we drive thatresponsibility and capability
down to the closest level of thepeople that are actually doing
the work.
So, speaking to the CMTindustry, how can I get
(10:38):
technicians to understand theirresponsibilities under the
quality program?
But I think, even moreimportantly, build their
capability so that you know someof this will sound very
housekeeping but you know downto things like making sure that
concrete field sets are cleaned,ready to go, the equipment is
(11:02):
verified and that thoseverification records are on file
if we need them things likethat To when they're out in the
field if something's gone wrongwith one of their pieces of
equipment.
You know that they understandthings like well one.
You know we have a backup planso that I can get more equipment
and actually continue testingwithout disruption of service
(11:23):
and actually continue testingwithout disruption of service.
But I understand what needs tobe done is sort of triaging the
equipment and what will be doneafterwards, once out of the
field, so that the laboratorycan put into gear what it needs,
to check out the equipment, seeif it's something that's
repairable.
Maybe it just needed to bere-verified or, you know, do we
(11:47):
have a larger problem?
How many data sets might wehave to go look at for prior
reported data out to clients,you know.
But having people understandwhere they fit, sort of, in
these processes and why we'reasking them to do what we do,
it's a common response, you know.
(12:10):
Why are we doing it this way?
Oh, because the quality programsays we have to, you know.
But what really it comes downto oftentimes is we're doing
things this way because we'vefound that that's how we can
make sure that both theindividuals in the company are
protected.
Because we've protected thedata, we've protected our
(12:33):
reputation by no one's losingtheir cool because the air meter
clogged up out in the field,and saving other people's time
and effort.
There's really nothing worsethan being presented with the
opportunity to go review perhapsup to a year's worth of data
(12:55):
reports, because that's the lasttime, say, the compression
machine was calibrated andsomeone's got to make sure we
didn't send out bad data, youknow, and someone's got to make
sure we didn't send out bad data.
So it's from my perspective,it's a way to really empower the
(13:16):
workforce.
When we talk aboutoperationalizing quality, do it
because I say you got to do itto.
We're doing this because thisis what our company stands for,
this is what we as individualsstand for.
And I would add to that comingout of nuclear, where nuclear
safety is such a big concern,and for those maybe not familiar
(13:40):
with nuclear industry, when wetalk about nuclear safety,
that's really where I've got thepotential because of a failure,
of there being a radioactiverelease that impacts the
environment, the public or theworkforce.
But we can also think of it interms of life safety, with
highways, bridges, things.
I don't think any of us want tobe in a situation where we look
(14:04):
at a nuclear safety or lifesafety event and go, oh, I might
have had a hand in that failure, either through negligence or
gross misconduct.
What's my responsibility, youknow, in essence, to my
(14:26):
environment and to the people Iwork with or just the people I
live around.
Brian Johnson (14:30):
A potential client that reaches out to you.
What is the number one thingthat they are calling about?
Benjamin Trujillo (14:43):
What is the main problem they're trying to
solve is either hey, we want togo for an accreditation and so
we're going to get a visit fromthe accrediting body to come in
and do their first audit.
Sometimes they might have aquality program begun, sometimes
they might have awell-established one, sometimes
(15:04):
they might not have one at all.
So that can range anywhere from.
Would you perform an audit ofour program and its
implementation to help us beready for the accreditation
visit?
Or it could be help.
We need a manual, we needprocess documents, we need the
whole thing.
Can you build that for us?
(15:26):
And I'd say that thentranslates over as well?
Again, given the industry I'min, we just got a nuclear
project and we've been told wehave to have an ASME NQA1
compliant program.
Do you know how to build one ofthose?
Do you know how to build one ofthose?
So, broadly speaking, those are, I'd say, no-transcript.
Brian Johnson (15:53):
Yeah, you've given quite a few examples of
really well-meaning,well-intended, quality-oriented
reasons that somebody might hirea consultant to help them with
some quality issues.
But one of the things I alwaysworry about when I hear a
laboratory say I don't reallyknow what to do, I'm going to
(16:16):
try to find a consultant to getme in order with all my quality
stuff, but it's like a separatething, it's like something that
I don't really have time for.
So we're going to kind ofoffload this quality portion,
which would fly directly in theface of this idea of
operationalizing quality,because it's not part of the
(16:38):
operation anymore, right?
So one of the questions that Ihad going into this for you that
I thought I was just reallycurious about is how often you
run into that where you get aclient that hires you and you
and you soon discover that, oh,they don't really want to change
, soon discover that, oh, theydon't really want to change,
(16:58):
they just want somebody who willsay, okay, here's the stuff
that will allow us to check thebox and say that we're in
conformance and move on, andthen we'll get back to doing
things the way that we weredoing it all along.
Do you run into that ever?
And if so, how do you convincethem that that's not the right
way to go?
Benjamin Trujillo (17:17):
So I'd say, first off, one of the hallmarks
of whether or not I will dobusiness with a client is that
we're not going to go down thatpath.
I'm not in the business ofgiving cookie cutter quality
programs.
Now that having been said,there are only so many ways you
(17:37):
can write a corrective actionprocess.
So how creative you want to getwith it, that's up to it, but
it really has to.
If we're serious aboutoperationalizing quality, then
there has to be activeengagement between, if it's a
consultant, the consultant inthe company or the internal
(17:58):
quality manager in the companyto really look at the processes
and how we're trying to writethem.
Looking at it this way, we havethe requirements, which are
typically pretty well understood.
You know we have to make surethat there's a process whereby
(18:20):
we've confirmed our testingtechnicians are qualified to do
the tests that they do.
Okay, that's the requirement,everyone agrees to that.
Now, how we get there as anorganization?
There are myriad ways in whichyou can run a qualification
program for your technicians andone of the biggest things you
(18:42):
can bring forward to people isthink creatively, think about
what makes sense for yourorganization because, again, the
requirement's pretty clear.
You just got to have a processand what your process says,
though that's what's going todictate how you do it, how
people understand what you do,but so that's what I really
encourage folks to take to heartno-transcript, but I think
(19:37):
that's all part of the process,and there's a lot of value to be
had in making those errors andpursuing lines that maybe you
find don't work anymore, becauseit helps to take away from the
quality system the idea thatit's this, these are the laws,
and we have to follow the laws.
It's, yeah, we haverequirements we have to meet,
(20:04):
but these, at the end of the day, are my organization's
processes.
They're how I want thisorganization to do its business,
and so I think we've cycledaway a bit maybe from your
question.
But again, it's really back toworking with management to say,
if you're really serious abouthaving an operational quality
program, then operationsabsolutely has to be involved in
(20:29):
the development of theprocesses, because, at the end
of the day, you own thoseprocesses.
The quality manager orconsultant assists in their
development, maybe in some casesfacilitates the update process,
for when operations says, hey,this isn't working, we need to
figure something else out, butit's really the sense that
(20:53):
operations owns it.
And when I say operations,that's not just confined to
leadership, that's everyonethat's got a task called out in
that quality program.
They're as invested as anyoneelse in the shape of that
program.
Kim Swanson (21:09):
What are some of the signs that you're looking
for to kind of know that thatcompany is going to take this
seriously and is not justlooking for box checkers?
Benjamin Trujillo (21:18):
Probably one of the first signs is do I get
to meet leadership of thecompany To show not just that
they have an interest but thatthey're actually willing to
commit resources not just to thedevelopment of the program but
towards its maintenance?
(21:38):
Because there are someorganizations where I have
developed a program for them andthen I also manage that program
, and then there are some whereI develop that program and as
part of the development processthey have to identify who's
going to be their quality peopleto oversee the management of
(22:01):
that program, and so they've gotto be involved from day one
with the development so they canunderstand.
Here's why we're slantingthings this way.
Here's what it says in theparent documents, meaning the
code of federal regulations or adepartment of energy order or
(22:21):
an industry consensus standard.
So you know the ASTM say we gotto do this.
Okay, we've got to figure out away that when you're doing your
qualification program I know youreally wish it was just every
three years you had to requalifypeople.
But you know C-1077 had to bedifferent.
You've got 24 months.
You've got to figure out how tomake it happen.
(22:41):
So definitely, gettingleadership, getting someone
identified and in some casesit's just sort of what's their I
don't know how to call it, butlike level of enthusiasm maybe,
for the topic, because I don'twant to develop something that
(23:06):
just ends up sitting on theshelf.
The reason I do quality isbecause I do think it does help
with business efficiency.
But again, coming from anuclear background, a lot of
this is about nuclear safety andlife safety and I would love to
(23:26):
see a world where everyone isvery much concerned with what's
the state of our infrastructureso that at least it's not
because of a bridge failure orsignal failure at a railroad
crossing that someone lost theirlife.
Brian Johnson (23:43):
What do you find to be the challenges?
You're getting hired by acompany to come and help them
with improving their quality orestablishing some quality
management processes.
Quality management processeswhat do you find are the biggest
roadblocks for them to acceptwhat you are trying to deliver
(24:08):
and just to accept you as beingsomebody there to help them?
Benjamin Trujillo (24:13):
I think there's always a concern, any
anytime an organization hiresany consultant, that is this
consultant just going to give mesomething off the shelf and
leave me high and dry?
So you know, depending on howthe organization wants to handle
it, you know it could be, yep,here's your program, we're all
done.
Or it could be here's yourprogram and now I'm your
(24:36):
training wheels and let's keepgoing.
Or there are a myriad number ofways to operate coming out of
that.
But I think that's a legitimatefear.
Nobody wants to get burned andbe handed something that just
leaves them where they started.
(24:57):
Other obstacles, I think isalways the classic.
You know, how do you change themindset of the workforce from,
oh, this is something that'sbeing foisted upon us and turn
that into something where theysay, oh, I can actually be a
contributor.
So strategies I've found thathave worked is you know, try to
(25:21):
be as transparent about thewhole process as possible.
So that means inviting instakeholders to, let's say,
we're going to, you know,develop the process document for
how we control the flow ofsamples from, you know, the
loading dock outside thelaboratory to where someone's
actually got a test specimen onthe workbench in front of them
(25:43):
and they're getting ready to dosomething.
Well, that's a lot of peoplethat need to be talked to to
find out, you know, what makessense as a process.
More importantly, I think, as aprocess, more importantly, I
think, to give them a sense that, okay, I do have input into
what is being asked of me.
Also, so they can understandthat the writing of these
(26:09):
process documents is not meantto in some way be prescriptive
on their ability to makedecisions or do their work.
One of the things I stress toorganizations is you know, there
are places where organizationshave to make decisions about how
they want certain things to behandled.
(26:29):
But the goal of a processdocument, when we start to get
into the house steps, is to givepeople the the capability to
look at, look at what'spresented in front of them by
way of a problem or or work, andhere's how they go about, you
know, wrestling with it andgetting a path forward.
(26:52):
Another practice that I've foundis I've got a number of
organizations where we basicallyhave periodic meetings to get
together and hash out how is theQA program working, and I think
the genesis for the first timeI tried it was basically it was
(27:15):
an organization.
I managed their QA program andwe had an external audit, and so
we got together to basicallysay, okay, we've got corrective
actions, we need to figure outhow to deal with these.
What are we going to do?
And so that started as justsort of a triage focused around
the audit, but then it becamepeople would come to it and say
(27:38):
well, I'm getting questions fromthese groups and I'd like to be
able to take an answer back tothem, because they want to know
why do I have to fill this pieceof paper out?
Why do I have to document thistype of review this way?
And what I've really appreciatedis is those meetings have one
(27:59):
allowed operations to reallydrive the changes to the quality
program documents, more so thanthe audits.
You know the audit still, youknow they come in, you have to
deal with them, but it's it's.
It's so much nicer when you're,when you're responding to an
internally raised issue andfiguring it out and making the
(28:20):
program work better.
You know that's a lot moresatisfying.
And then, coming back totransparency, having a lot of
communication back out about youknow, hey, we made a change to
these process documents and thereason being we had not foreseen
this issue or whatever it is,but it's sort of humanizing the
(28:46):
system so that, again, insteadof being this set of thou shalt
laws that you're going to getwritten up because you violated
laws, that you're going to getwritten up because you violated
it's these are living, breathingprocesses and here's some proof
that you can actually have animpact on the processes that
(29:07):
we're asking you to implement.
Brian Johnson (29:09):
I've got two questions left for you.
I know I've kept you on for awhile, but I've got two left.
One of them is about internalaudits, because I'm sure that
you get asked to performinternal audits from your
clients sometimes, or maybeoften, because it is an area
that laboratories typically atleast laboratories in our
program typically struggle tofigure out how to perform an
(29:32):
effective internal audit.
But you, as a consultant, youhave a lot of knowledge about
auditing internal audits qualitymanagement system, workflows,
processes, stuff like that butyou aren't necessarily internal
in that you don't know all ofthe inner workings of what goes
(29:53):
on there, all of the unwrittenthings that happen at one of
your clients' facilities.
So my question, based on thatlead up, is how do you carry out
an effective internal audit notbeing truly internal?
Benjamin Trujillo (30:12):
For a consultant to do internal
auditing and consulting.
You know that's got to betreated as two very different
things.
So there has to be agreement upfront that you know yes, we're
going to have this consultantperform an audit and then we're
going to have this consultantcome in and help us deal with
(30:36):
the outputs of the audit,because there has to be some
degree of, there has to be adependence between the two.
So it's possible to do theaudit plus consulting, but
depending on how that audit, howthe client wants to use that
audit.
Sometimes it can only be one orthe other.
But, that being said, in a lotof cases I can do a gap analysis
(31:02):
, essentially as part of theconsulting side, and, yes, you
can't get into all the nuancesof performance.
Usually the gap analysis isdone up front to look at okay,
what do you have by way ofprocess documents?
Maybe they have a manual, andmaybe they have a manual on some
procedures, maybe they havenothing.
But basically it's to say, okay, I've gone and looked at what
(31:24):
you've given me by way ofdocuments and I've looked at the
criteria that you say you wantto be accredited against, and
here's where we've got gaps andhere's what I think you need to
have in your manual to cover therequirements side.
And here's where I think youneed to develop some process
documents so that you can have aplace to explain the hows.
(31:48):
But that's sort of the startingpoint.
You know, it's a luxury to be ina position where I get to come
in, develop the program and thenalso do some management of the
program, because in best casescenarios I am getting to mentor
people who will eventually takeover the full operation of that
(32:08):
program.
But it means I also get to havesome look into the actual
workings of that organizationand it's, I think, as I'd said
earlier, there's only so manyways you can write a corrective
action process with a teamthat's invested out of that
(32:33):
organization.
That's where sort of thepersonality of the company
starts to come in and and informthe process document.
And that's a really enjoyablepart because that's where you
see it.
You know it's it's breakingaway from the, the template, and
into something truly unique.
So you know, I would say in alot of ways, that's that.
(32:54):
So you know, I would say in alot of ways, that's why you know
, start with a template ifyou're new to this, and just
work the process, because itwill build out.
If you're diligent about it, itwill build out into something
that works very well for yourorganization.
Brian Johnson (33:11):
Yeah, I love that answer because you touched on a
lot of areas that I thinkpeople struggle with and maybe
they don't realize or don'texpect when they're taking this
journey into quality, where theydon't realize that the
independence factor that youmentioned, they don't understand
that the continual improvement,the development, the buy-in,
(33:34):
all of these things have tohappen for it to be effective.
And, yeah, you can start with atemplate, like a lot of people
always say.
Why don't you just give us atemplate and we'll work with it?
Well, unfortunately, what mostpeople will do is they'll take
it and that's the end.
But if they care enough aboutit, it'll become something that
becomes part of theirorganization as much as anything
(33:55):
else that's part of theirorganization is.
Kim Swanson (33:57):
For laboratories or for people in laboratories or
quality managers at laboratoriesthat really want to kind of
help shift their culture attheir organization from a box
checking kind of thing to moreof operationalizing quality.
What are some like top fivetips you have for those people
(34:19):
that want to initiate thatchange within an organization to
make the mindset of, like it,really living and breathing
quality Okay?
Benjamin Trujillo (34:29):
Top five.
Huh, I mean, we'll see.
Kim Swanson (34:33):
It could be top three, top two.
I mean, I just said fivebecause I did.
There's no reason for that.
Benjamin Trujillo (34:39):
I mean, I think the first thing I would
say is, if that's theinclination, be transparent and
vocal about it.
And from the perspective ofsomething I like to say is, a
good quality system is sort ofthe infrastructure of the
organization.
And you know, engineers,technicians, scientists, et
(35:02):
cetera, they didn't get into thefield.
They got into because they wantto fill out quality assurance
paperwork.
They're there to do whatinterests them.
So one of the first things Ifocus on is always what you know
.
If I've got documents orrecords, what do I really need?
You know what is required bythe standard and can I lean it
(35:26):
down, can I make it?
You know, basically lessen thepaperwork load.
And you know I've been asguilty as probably any other
quality manager of going throughan audit and coming out of it
and saying, oh, I know how we'llfix this.
We'll have a form and peoplewill fill out the form and sign
off on it.
And you can just see the folkson the operations side of the
table again, hand over theirface, just shaking their heads
(35:50):
like why did we hire this guy?
So you know, looking at how youcan lean things down and that
gets into, I think, probably oneof the key areas.
That's a lot of fun to explorebut can also be daunting to an
organization which is how do yougrade application of your
(36:10):
quality system?
Because, again, we haveprojects of different levels of
risk, different levels of lifesafety, different levels of
complexity.
And so, looking at your qualityprogram, and you know saying
you know, I know I need to havetraceability of my test results
(36:32):
to my calibrated equipment.
Okay, you know what's sort ofthe minimum way that I can show
that I've got that traceabilityestablished?
And you know, do I have to workup potentially to a place where
I have a client who says I wantyou to provide me that
information as part of you know,my, my test report package?
(36:53):
You give me this concretereport.
I want to know which brakemachine you used, which platens
you used, et cetera.
And, and I want you to havecalibration, you know dates, et
cetera.
So, you know, having having theability as uh of a program to
actually maybe have some way tohelp people understand, here's
(37:14):
how we can bucket our projectsto more readily know, okay,
what's the level of rigor that Ineed to bring in terms of
quality processes?
How many levels of review, howmuch documented traceability Do
I actually need to keep markupsor review comments or can I
throw them away at project end,having an exercise to kind of
(37:40):
spell that out so that peoplecan go into a project saying,
okay, I've got someunderstanding of how to look at
this and assess it for risk.
What my clients' compliancedictates are how can I then
grade the level of quality,rigor and documentation
(38:01):
appropriately, confer with thequality manager to make sure
that they don't see that I'vegone off the rails.
But it's a nice way to empoweroperations so that it's not just
here's the quality program.
Go make it happen.
It's here's the quality program.
Go make it happen.
It's here's the quality program.
Use your professional judgmentto look at it and look at your
(38:21):
project criteria and let'sfigure out what the sweet spot
is.
And you know, I love thatbecause it builds some
understanding of quality for theoperations.
Folks that then have to gothrough that exercise, which I
think helps invest them in theprogram, but it just makes again
for a more operationalizedprogram.
(38:43):
It's not quality saying thoushalt, it's the organization
saying okay, what is the bestway for us to manage the risks
and the compliance criteria andefficiently execute on what our
client has asked us to do so.
I think that covers, like youknow, engagement, transparency,
(39:07):
and then I'd say if you are theconsultant or the quality
manager or whoever is you knowresponsible for doing this,
don't be afraid to make mistakesand don't be afraid to say I
don't know.
The answer is, I'll, I'll gofind it for you.
Um, you know it's.
(39:28):
This is about looking at theprocess and figuring out the
process, not not.
You know, hey, you got it wrong.
You know it's a world of andsometimes really Byzantine
requirements that we have toread, and sometimes there are,
you know, as many people as reada requirement, interpret it as
(39:50):
many different ways.
So, you know, that's sort ofthe reality in which we live.
Brian Johnson (39:59):
Yeah, I'm continually amazed by the
creativity that some people havein the way they can read a
requirement.
So, yeah, that must be achallenge.
All right, benjamin, thank youso much for your time today.
One last thing.
I know I said I was done, butmy last question for you is if
somebody wanted to reach out toyou, this is an easy one.
(40:19):
Somebody wanted to reach out toyou how would they do it if
they want to learn more aboutyour services and how to get
involved with you?
Benjamin Trujillo (40:26):
The easiest way is probably send me an at
B-T-R-U-J-I-L-L-O atI-N-T-Q-U-A-L dot com, or, if
you're old school like me, pickup a phone 505-306-4867.
Kim Swanson (40:43):
Thank you very much , benjamin.
And is there anything before wego, anything that you want us
or you want to tell people thatwe didn't ask you?
Is there something that youwere like, came into this and
were like I want to share X, yand Z and we just didn't get
there?
Is there anything like that?
Benjamin Trujillo (41:00):
We covered a lot of ground and I think we
covered good ground.
So, uh, no, nothing off the topof my mind, just uh, kim and
Brian, again, I thank you verymuch for inviting me to to be on
the podcast.
I admit I've listened to it forquite some time so I was like
someday, someday I'll be on it.
So you've made one of my dreamscome true.
Kim Swanson (41:26):
I love that, I love that, but that cracks me up, so
thank you for that.
Brian Johnson (41:32):
I love it and thank you for being a founding
speaker for TechX, too.
I'd say you've been a regularand somebody that people look
forward to seeing and learningmore about your experience, and
every year you're picking up newthings from your work that you
can share.
We appreciate you sharing thatwith the people at TechX.
So thanks again.
(41:53):
You will continue to be invitedto that until you say no, and
then we'll continue to ask untilyou say I'm sending you a cease
and desist letter, and thenwe'll probably stop at that
point, but I can't guaranteethat either.
So thank you.
Benjamin Trujillo (42:08):
Well, you're very welcome.
Thank you again.
Kim Swanson (42:11):
Thanks for listening to AASHTO Resource Q&A
.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
Resources social media accountsor go to aashtoresourceorg.
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:19):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Kim Swanson (00:23):
And I'm Kim Swanson .
Brian Johnson (00:24):
Yeah, today we have a guest, benjamin Trujillo,
from Integrated Quality.
That is his own organization,correct, benjamin?
That is correct, yeah.
So, benjamin, where are youcoming from?
Benjamin Trujillo (00:38):
I'm coming from Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Brian Johnson (00:41):
Yeah, beautiful landscape there in New Mexico.
Now we brought or invitedBenjamin he's not here against
his will.
We have invited Benjamin hereto talk about quality and we
know that Benjamin is aconsultant who works in the
quality world and it is not atypical job that somebody just
(01:07):
has.
So you usually have come aboutdoing this kind of work from
past experiences, right withquality.
So my first question I have foryou, benjamin, today, is how
did you get here, how did youget into this line of work.
Benjamin Trujillo (01:24):
Well, that's an interesting question, and the
longer I'm in the field I cansort of push the envelope
further back into my past abouthow I think I got here, because
some of it was certainly whatwere the professional
opportunities that I had beforeme?
(01:44):
And from that line I was in mylate 20s and I was doing a job
that I was burnt out on.
It wasn't working out and,quite frankly, I went to a temp
agency and they said, oh,there's this engineering firm
that they need help with recordsand document control, which I
(02:05):
had background in just fromworking in various office jobs.
And so I ended up there andshowed an affinity for
organization and, for lack of abetter word, I enjoy managing
records and filing andorganizing.
I enjoy managing records andfiling and organizing.
And they basically looked atthat and said, hey, you know we
(02:28):
need to have a quality manager.
Would you be interested in that?
And I can say I didn't knowenough to say no and I was
interested enough to say yes,and so I did, I did and from
(02:49):
there, through the benefit ofjust projects that came along
and some mentors as well, itjust sort of unfolded in front
of me as a career path that Ifound interesting and that
touched on a lot of the thingsthat I like to do, which is,
again, I like to organize things.
I'm also very interested in howsystems operate, so how office
(03:10):
structures operate, how we dowork, and then I got to interact
with all of these people thatwere doing really interesting
things that I didn't do.
So it started just this firmthey had a testing laboratory,
(03:33):
and so getting to watch peopledoing you know, asphalt testing,
concrete, soils, aggregate, andjust having a curious attitude
of you know, hey, what's thatfor?
Why are you doing this, andthen seeing how quality
interacted with that.
It was just a nice confluenceof things I enjoy doing and
opportunities to learn a lotmore about the field of
(03:55):
construction, materials anddesign, engineering and all
manner of things.
Brian Johnson (04:01):
Yeah, now you cut your teeth on quality in the
construction materials testingindustry, as you were just
describing, and as a consultant,I wondered if you have gotten
involved in any other industriesthat you've carried these
quality concepts into.
Benjamin Trujillo (04:18):
I have, and primarily it's been the other
side of the fence, which isdesign agencies.
So, looking at everything, tobegin with a design study,
through the actual developmentof the design, be it in a design
build or design bid build, etcetera how do you set up those
(04:38):
processes for control of thedesign set and then into
construction support?
But I've also worked with afirm they build kilns and ovens.
So they needed some help comingup with a quality system that
(04:59):
they could use.
And I deal a lot also just withagencies that they have
different types of requirementsthat they have to respond to.
So I'm guessing most of yourlisteners, of course, they hear
requirements and they thinkAASHTO R18, astm c 1077, and
those you know, and there's justa whole cacophony of
(05:24):
requirements out there thatvarious organizations have to
respond to.
And one of the things I learnedwhen I opened up my own shop
was I suddenly had this greatopportunity to learn all about
all other types of requirementsthat are out there that people
need help figuring out.
Well, how do I respond to this,what does that mean from a work
(05:45):
process, and so it's just beena sort of an incredible arc in
that way.
Brian Johnson (05:54):
And I know just from working with our customers
in the Western States, quite afew of them work on nuclear
projects and I wondered if maybethat is one of the areas that
you've gotten involved with,because I know there are a lot
of process requirements for that, a lot of quality requirements.
Have you worked in thatindustry as well?
Benjamin Trujillo (06:14):
I have worked heavily in the nuclear industry
.
As you asked me, I'm inAlbuquerque, new Mexico.
I'm within 100 miles of twonational laboratories.
We also have a Department ofDefense presence, so it's very
much a part of the economy ofthe state that I call home.
(06:35):
At the same time, nuclear beingthat it's such a heavily
regulated industry is from thestandpoint of quality assurance.
I think one of the mostexciting fields to be in,
because we're given requirementsthat our clients need to be
(06:59):
able to comply with.
But figuring out how to do thateffectively and how to not have
spillover of those processesinto other project areas is it
can be a real tough nut to crack.
I mean, for me it's exciting.
That's what I love to do ishelp people figure out.
(07:19):
Okay, I need to be able torespond to the designer
construction of just acommercial structure, but I also
need to be able to respond inthe event that I'm doing
something that if something goeswrong during construction,
during operation, duringdecommissioning, there could be
true adverse effects on theworkforce, the public, the
(07:42):
environment, effects on theworkforce, the public, the
environment.
How do I have a quality systemthat I can efficiently leverage
across my company so thateveryone is working to the same
process but we're not hamperingourselves with sideways motion.
That from my experience.
From my experience, itdiminishes efficiency, keeps
(08:15):
people from buying in and ithinders quality because it
becomes an obstacle instead of asupport system.
So nuclear is great as sort ofa sandbox to really dig into a
lot of quality processes.
To really dig into a lot ofquality processes.
Kim Swanson (08:24):
If Benjamin is familiar to you, or maybe
familiar to you because he hasbeen part of a speaker at TechX,
I think, since its inception,since 2017.
Is that right, benjamin?
Benjamin Trujillo (08:37):
I was at the first one in Maryland.
I think I only missed the onethat was in Minneapolis.
Yes, you know, grateful to havebeen invited to all of them to
present.
Kim Swanson (08:56):
Yeah, no, your sessions, I know, at TechX are
always well received.
You get amazing feedback fromthat, and you've done the
Quality Manager 101 and 201 andother things for us as well.
But I want to know what you'rehere to talk about specifically
today, and so we had some emailsback and forth before we
recorded and it was, I believe,what we decided on.
(09:18):
Now you're going to be like, no, this wasn't it at all, but, as
I say it, you're going to belike, no, that's not what.
Benjamin Trujillo (09:23):
I said Show me the contract and we'll do a
review, Exactly right.
Brian Johnson (09:27):
Let's kick it back and forth for a little
while.
Kim Swanson (09:29):
Right.
As I'm saying, I'm like, oh man, this better be the right one,
but it was how to operationalizequality.
Is that what we're talkingabout?
Going to be talking?
Benjamin Trujillo (09:39):
about.
Kim Swanson (09:49):
Yeah, that is such a nice broad term that we can
talk about many things and say,yes, we were on topic.
But yeah, that is exactly right.
No-transcript.
Benjamin Trujillo (10:15):
I think the easiest way I've come up with to
describe it is we want to makesure that both the
responsibility and thecapability to invest quality
into the organization, into theproject, the product, whatever
it is, that we drive thatresponsibility and capability
down to the closest level of thepeople that are actually doing
the work.
So, speaking to the CMTindustry, how can I get
(10:38):
technicians to understand theirresponsibilities under the
quality program?
But I think, even moreimportantly, build their
capability so that you know someof this will sound very
housekeeping but you know downto things like making sure that
concrete field sets are cleaned,ready to go, the equipment is
(11:02):
verified and that thoseverification records are on file
if we need them things likethat To when they're out in the
field if something's gone wrongwith one of their pieces of
equipment.
You know that they understandthings like well one.
You know we have a backup planso that I can get more equipment
and actually continue testingwithout disruption of service
(11:23):
and actually continue testingwithout disruption of service.
But I understand what needs tobe done is sort of triaging the
equipment and what will be doneafterwards, once out of the
field, so that the laboratorycan put into gear what it needs,
to check out the equipment, seeif it's something that's
repairable.
Maybe it just needed to bere-verified or, you know, do we
(11:47):
have a larger problem?
How many data sets might wehave to go look at for prior
reported data out to clients,you know.
But having people understandwhere they fit, sort of, in
these processes and why we'reasking them to do what we do,
it's a common response, you know.
(12:10):
Why are we doing it this way?
Oh, because the quality programsays we have to, you know.
But what really it comes downto oftentimes is we're doing
things this way because we'vefound that that's how we can
make sure that both theindividuals in the company are
protected.
Because we've protected thedata, we've protected our
(12:33):
reputation by no one's losingtheir cool because the air meter
clogged up out in the field,and saving other people's time
and effort.
There's really nothing worsethan being presented with the
opportunity to go review perhapsup to a year's worth of data
(12:55):
reports, because that's the lasttime, say, the compression
machine was calibrated andsomeone's got to make sure we
didn't send out bad data, youknow, and someone's got to make
sure we didn't send out bad data.
So it's from my perspective,it's a way to really empower the
(13:16):
workforce.
When we talk aboutoperationalizing quality, do it
because I say you got to do itto.
We're doing this because thisis what our company stands for,
this is what we as individualsstand for.
And I would add to that comingout of nuclear, where nuclear
safety is such a big concern,and for those maybe not familiar
(13:40):
with nuclear industry, when wetalk about nuclear safety,
that's really where I've got thepotential because of a failure,
of there being a radioactiverelease that impacts the
environment, the public or theworkforce.
But we can also think of it interms of life safety, with
highways, bridges, things.
I don't think any of us want tobe in a situation where we look
(14:04):
at a nuclear safety or lifesafety event and go, oh, I might
have had a hand in that failure, either through negligence or
gross misconduct.
What's my responsibility, youknow, in essence, to my
(14:26):
environment and to the people Iwork with or just the people I
live around.
Brian Johnson (14:30):
A potential client that reaches out to you.
What is the number one thingthat they are calling about?
Benjamin Trujillo (14:43):
What is the main problem they're trying to
solve is either hey, we want togo for an accreditation and so
we're going to get a visit fromthe accrediting body to come in
and do their first audit.
Sometimes they might have aquality program begun, sometimes
they might have awell-established one, sometimes
(15:04):
they might not have one at all.
So that can range anywhere from.
Would you perform an audit ofour program and its
implementation to help us beready for the accreditation
visit?
Or it could be help.
We need a manual, we needprocess documents, we need the
whole thing.
Can you build that for us?
(15:26):
And I'd say that thentranslates over as well?
Again, given the industry I'min, we just got a nuclear
project and we've been told wehave to have an ASME NQA1
compliant program.
Do you know how to build one ofthose?
Do you know how to build one ofthose?
So, broadly speaking, those are, I'd say, no-transcript.
Brian Johnson (15:53):
Yeah, you've given quite a few examples of
really well-meaning,well-intended, quality-oriented
reasons that somebody might hirea consultant to help them with
some quality issues.
But one of the things I alwaysworry about when I hear a
laboratory say I don't reallyknow what to do, I'm going to
(16:16):
try to find a consultant to getme in order with all my quality
stuff, but it's like a separatething, it's like something that
I don't really have time for.
So we're going to kind ofoffload this quality portion,
which would fly directly in theface of this idea of
operationalizing quality,because it's not part of the
(16:38):
operation anymore, right?
So one of the questions that Ihad going into this for you that
I thought I was just reallycurious about is how often you
run into that where you get aclient that hires you and you
and you soon discover that, oh,they don't really want to change
, soon discover that, oh, theydon't really want to change,
(16:58):
they just want somebody who willsay, okay, here's the stuff
that will allow us to check thebox and say that we're in
conformance and move on, andthen we'll get back to doing
things the way that we weredoing it all along.
Do you run into that ever?
And if so, how do you convincethem that that's not the right
way to go?
Benjamin Trujillo (17:17):
So I'd say, first off, one of the hallmarks
of whether or not I will dobusiness with a client is that
we're not going to go down thatpath.
I'm not in the business ofgiving cookie cutter quality
programs.
Now that having been said,there are only so many ways you
(17:37):
can write a corrective actionprocess.
So how creative you want to getwith it, that's up to it, but
it really has to.
If we're serious aboutoperationalizing quality, then
there has to be activeengagement between, if it's a
consultant, the consultant inthe company or the internal
(17:58):
quality manager in the companyto really look at the processes
and how we're trying to writethem.
Looking at it this way, we havethe requirements, which are
typically pretty well understood.
You know we have to make surethat there's a process whereby
(18:20):
we've confirmed our testingtechnicians are qualified to do
the tests that they do.
Okay, that's the requirement,everyone agrees to that.
Now, how we get there as anorganization?
There are myriad ways in whichyou can run a qualification
program for your technicians andone of the biggest things you
(18:42):
can bring forward to people isthink creatively, think about
what makes sense for yourorganization because, again, the
requirement's pretty clear.
You just got to have a processand what your process says,
though that's what's going todictate how you do it, how
people understand what you do,but so that's what I really
encourage folks to take to heartno-transcript, but I think
(19:37):
that's all part of the process,and there's a lot of value to be
had in making those errors andpursuing lines that maybe you
find don't work anymore, becauseit helps to take away from the
quality system the idea thatit's this, these are the laws,
and we have to follow the laws.
It's, yeah, we haverequirements we have to meet,
(20:04):
but these, at the end of the day, are my organization's
processes.
They're how I want thisorganization to do its business,
and so I think we've cycledaway a bit maybe from your
question.
But again, it's really back toworking with management to say,
if you're really serious abouthaving an operational quality
program, then operationsabsolutely has to be involved in
(20:29):
the development of theprocesses, because, at the end
of the day, you own thoseprocesses.
The quality manager orconsultant assists in their
development, maybe in some casesfacilitates the update process,
for when operations says, hey,this isn't working, we need to
figure something else out, butit's really the sense that
(20:53):
operations owns it.
And when I say operations,that's not just confined to
leadership, that's everyonethat's got a task called out in
that quality program.
They're as invested as anyoneelse in the shape of that
program.
Kim Swanson (21:09):
What are some of the signs that you're looking
for to kind of know that thatcompany is going to take this
seriously and is not justlooking for box checkers?
Benjamin Trujillo (21:18):
Probably one of the first signs is do I get
to meet leadership of thecompany To show not just that
they have an interest but thatthey're actually willing to
commit resources not just to thedevelopment of the program but
towards its maintenance?
(21:38):
Because there are someorganizations where I have
developed a program for them andthen I also manage that program
, and then there are some whereI develop that program and as
part of the development processthey have to identify who's
going to be their quality peopleto oversee the management of
(22:01):
that program, and so they've gotto be involved from day one
with the development so they canunderstand.
Here's why we're slantingthings this way.
Here's what it says in theparent documents, meaning the
code of federal regulations or adepartment of energy order or
(22:21):
an industry consensus standard.
So you know the ASTM say we gotto do this.
Okay, we've got to figure out away that when you're doing your
qualification program I know youreally wish it was just every
three years you had to requalifypeople.
But you know C-1077 had to bedifferent.
You've got 24 months.
You've got to figure out how tomake it happen.
(22:41):
So definitely, gettingleadership, getting someone
identified and in some casesit's just sort of what's their I
don't know how to call it, butlike level of enthusiasm maybe,
for the topic, because I don'twant to develop something that
(23:06):
just ends up sitting on theshelf.
The reason I do quality isbecause I do think it does help
with business efficiency.
But again, coming from anuclear background, a lot of
this is about nuclear safety andlife safety and I would love to
(23:26):
see a world where everyone isvery much concerned with what's
the state of our infrastructureso that at least it's not
because of a bridge failure orsignal failure at a railroad
crossing that someone lost theirlife.
Brian Johnson (23:43):
What do you find to be the challenges?
You're getting hired by acompany to come and help them
with improving their quality orestablishing some quality
management processes.
Quality management processeswhat do you find are the biggest
roadblocks for them to acceptwhat you are trying to deliver
(24:08):
and just to accept you as beingsomebody there to help them?
Benjamin Trujillo (24:13):
I think there's always a concern, any
anytime an organization hiresany consultant, that is this
consultant just going to give mesomething off the shelf and
leave me high and dry?
So you know, depending on howthe organization wants to handle
it, you know it could be, yep,here's your program, we're all
done.
Or it could be here's yourprogram and now I'm your
(24:36):
training wheels and let's keepgoing.
Or there are a myriad number ofways to operate coming out of
that.
But I think that's a legitimatefear.
Nobody wants to get burned andbe handed something that just
leaves them where they started.
(24:57):
Other obstacles, I think isalways the classic.
You know, how do you change themindset of the workforce from,
oh, this is something that'sbeing foisted upon us and turn
that into something where theysay, oh, I can actually be a
contributor.
So strategies I've found thathave worked is you know, try to
(25:21):
be as transparent about thewhole process as possible.
So that means inviting instakeholders to, let's say,
we're going to, you know,develop the process document for
how we control the flow ofsamples from, you know, the
loading dock outside thelaboratory to where someone's
actually got a test specimen onthe workbench in front of them
(25:43):
and they're getting ready to dosomething.
Well, that's a lot of peoplethat need to be talked to to
find out, you know, what makessense as a process.
More importantly, I think, as aprocess, more importantly, I
think, to give them a sense that, okay, I do have input into
what is being asked of me.
Also, so they can understandthat the writing of these
(26:09):
process documents is not meantto in some way be prescriptive
on their ability to makedecisions or do their work.
One of the things I stress toorganizations is you know, there
are places where organizationshave to make decisions about how
they want certain things to behandled.
(26:29):
But the goal of a processdocument, when we start to get
into the house steps, is to givepeople the the capability to
look at, look at what'spresented in front of them by
way of a problem or or work, andhere's how they go about, you
know, wrestling with it andgetting a path forward.
(26:52):
Another practice that I've foundis I've got a number of
organizations where we basicallyhave periodic meetings to get
together and hash out how is theQA program working, and I think
the genesis for the first timeI tried it was basically it was
(27:15):
an organization.
I managed their QA program andwe had an external audit, and so
we got together to basicallysay, okay, we've got corrective
actions, we need to figure outhow to deal with these.
What are we going to do?
And so that started as justsort of a triage focused around
the audit, but then it becamepeople would come to it and say
(27:38):
well, I'm getting questions fromthese groups and I'd like to be
able to take an answer back tothem, because they want to know
why do I have to fill this pieceof paper out?
Why do I have to document thistype of review this way?
And what I've really appreciatedis is those meetings have one
(27:59):
allowed operations to reallydrive the changes to the quality
program documents, more so thanthe audits.
You know the audit still, youknow they come in, you have to
deal with them, but it's it's.
It's so much nicer when you're,when you're responding to an
internally raised issue andfiguring it out and making the
(28:20):
program work better.
You know that's a lot moresatisfying.
And then, coming back totransparency, having a lot of
communication back out about youknow, hey, we made a change to
these process documents and thereason being we had not foreseen
this issue or whatever it is,but it's sort of humanizing the
(28:46):
system so that, again, insteadof being this set of thou shalt
laws that you're going to getwritten up because you violated
laws, that you're going to getwritten up because you violated
it's these are living, breathingprocesses and here's some proof
that you can actually have animpact on the processes that
(29:07):
we're asking you to implement.
Brian Johnson (29:09):
I've got two questions left for you.
I know I've kept you on for awhile, but I've got two left.
One of them is about internalaudits, because I'm sure that
you get asked to performinternal audits from your
clients sometimes, or maybeoften, because it is an area
that laboratories typically atleast laboratories in our
program typically struggle tofigure out how to perform an
(29:32):
effective internal audit.
But you, as a consultant, youhave a lot of knowledge about
auditing internal audits qualitymanagement system, workflows,
processes, stuff like that butyou aren't necessarily internal
in that you don't know all ofthe inner workings of what goes
(29:53):
on there, all of the unwrittenthings that happen at one of
your clients' facilities.
So my question, based on thatlead up, is how do you carry out
an effective internal audit notbeing truly internal?
Benjamin Trujillo (30:12):
For a consultant to do internal
auditing and consulting.
You know that's got to betreated as two very different
things.
So there has to be agreement upfront that you know yes, we're
going to have this consultantperform an audit and then we're
going to have this consultantcome in and help us deal with
(30:36):
the outputs of the audit,because there has to be some
degree of, there has to be adependence between the two.
So it's possible to do theaudit plus consulting, but
depending on how that audit, howthe client wants to use that
audit.
Sometimes it can only be one orthe other.
But, that being said, in a lotof cases I can do a gap analysis
(31:02):
, essentially as part of theconsulting side, and, yes, you
can't get into all the nuancesof performance.
Usually the gap analysis isdone up front to look at okay,
what do you have by way ofprocess documents?
Maybe they have a manual, andmaybe they have a manual on some
procedures, maybe they havenothing.
But basically it's to say, okay, I've gone and looked at what
(31:24):
you've given me by way ofdocuments and I've looked at the
criteria that you say you wantto be accredited against, and
here's where we've got gaps andhere's what I think you need to
have in your manual to cover therequirements side.
And here's where I think youneed to develop some process
documents so that you can have aplace to explain the hows.
(31:48):
But that's sort of the startingpoint.
You know, it's a luxury to be ina position where I get to come
in, develop the program and thenalso do some management of the
program, because in best casescenarios I am getting to mentor
people who will eventually takeover the full operation of that
(32:08):
program.
But it means I also get to havesome look into the actual
workings of that organizationand it's, I think, as I'd said
earlier, there's only so manyways you can write a corrective
action process with a teamthat's invested out of that
(32:33):
organization.
That's where sort of thepersonality of the company
starts to come in and and informthe process document.
And that's a really enjoyablepart because that's where you
see it.
You know it's it's breakingaway from the, the template, and
into something truly unique.
So you know, I would say in alot of ways, that's that.
(32:54):
So you know, I would say in alot of ways, that's why you know
, start with a template ifyou're new to this, and just
work the process, because itwill build out.
If you're diligent about it, itwill build out into something
that works very well for yourorganization.
Brian Johnson (33:11):
Yeah, I love that answer because you touched on a
lot of areas that I thinkpeople struggle with and maybe
they don't realize or don'texpect when they're taking this
journey into quality, where theydon't realize that the
independence factor that youmentioned, they don't understand
that the continual improvement,the development, the buy-in,
(33:34):
all of these things have tohappen for it to be effective.
And, yeah, you can start with atemplate, like a lot of people
always say.
Why don't you just give us atemplate and we'll work with it?
Well, unfortunately, what mostpeople will do is they'll take
it and that's the end.
But if they care enough aboutit, it'll become something that
becomes part of theirorganization as much as anything
(33:55):
else that's part of theirorganization is.
Kim Swanson (33:57):
For laboratories or for people in laboratories or
quality managers at laboratoriesthat really want to kind of
help shift their culture attheir organization from a box
checking kind of thing to moreof operationalizing quality.
What are some like top fivetips you have for those people
(34:19):
that want to initiate thatchange within an organization to
make the mindset of, like it,really living and breathing
quality Okay?
Benjamin Trujillo (34:29):
Top five.
Huh, I mean, we'll see.
Kim Swanson (34:33):
It could be top three, top two.
I mean, I just said fivebecause I did.
There's no reason for that.
Benjamin Trujillo (34:39):
I mean, I think the first thing I would
say is, if that's theinclination, be transparent and
vocal about it.
And from the perspective ofsomething I like to say is, a
good quality system is sort ofthe infrastructure of the
organization.
And you know, engineers,technicians, scientists, et
(35:02):
cetera, they didn't get into thefield.
They got into because they wantto fill out quality assurance
paperwork.
They're there to do whatinterests them.
So one of the first things Ifocus on is always what you know
.
If I've got documents orrecords, what do I really need?
You know what is required bythe standard and can I lean it
(35:26):
down, can I make it?
You know, basically lessen thepaperwork load.
And you know I've been asguilty as probably any other
quality manager of going throughan audit and coming out of it
and saying, oh, I know how we'llfix this.
We'll have a form and peoplewill fill out the form and sign
off on it.
And you can just see the folkson the operations side of the
table again, hand over theirface, just shaking their heads
(35:50):
like why did we hire this guy?
So you know, looking at how youcan lean things down and that
gets into, I think, probably oneof the key areas.
That's a lot of fun to explorebut can also be daunting to an
organization which is how do yougrade application of your
(36:10):
quality system?
Because, again, we haveprojects of different levels of
risk, different levels of lifesafety, different levels of
complexity.
And so, looking at your qualityprogram, and you know saying
you know, I know I need to havetraceability of my test results
(36:32):
to my calibrated equipment.
Okay, you know what's sort ofthe minimum way that I can show
that I've got that traceabilityestablished?
And you know, do I have to workup potentially to a place where
I have a client who says I wantyou to provide me that
information as part of you know,my, my test report package?
(36:53):
You give me this concretereport.
I want to know which brakemachine you used, which platens
you used, et cetera.
And, and I want you to havecalibration, you know dates, et
cetera.
So, you know, having having theability as uh of a program to
actually maybe have some way tohelp people understand, here's
(37:14):
how we can bucket our projectsto more readily know, okay,
what's the level of rigor that Ineed to bring in terms of
quality processes?
How many levels of review, howmuch documented traceability Do
I actually need to keep markupsor review comments or can I
throw them away at project end,having an exercise to kind of
(37:40):
spell that out so that peoplecan go into a project saying,
okay, I've got someunderstanding of how to look at
this and assess it for risk.
What my clients' compliancedictates are how can I then
grade the level of quality,rigor and documentation
(38:01):
appropriately, confer with thequality manager to make sure
that they don't see that I'vegone off the rails.
But it's a nice way to empoweroperations so that it's not just
here's the quality program.
Go make it happen.
It's here's the quality program.
Go make it happen.
It's here's the quality program.
Use your professional judgmentto look at it and look at your
(38:21):
project criteria and let'sfigure out what the sweet spot
is.
And you know, I love thatbecause it builds some
understanding of quality for theoperations.
Folks that then have to gothrough that exercise, which I
think helps invest them in theprogram, but it just makes again
for a more operationalizedprogram.
(38:43):
It's not quality saying thoushalt, it's the organization
saying okay, what is the bestway for us to manage the risks
and the compliance criteria andefficiently execute on what our
client has asked us to do so.
I think that covers, like youknow, engagement, transparency,
(39:07):
and then I'd say if you are theconsultant or the quality
manager or whoever is you knowresponsible for doing this,
don't be afraid to make mistakesand don't be afraid to say I
don't know.
The answer is, I'll, I'll gofind it for you.
Um, you know it's.
(39:28):
This is about looking at theprocess and figuring out the
process, not not.
You know, hey, you got it wrong.
You know it's a world of andsometimes really Byzantine
requirements that we have toread, and sometimes there are,
you know, as many people as reada requirement, interpret it as
(39:50):
many different ways.
So, you know, that's sort ofthe reality in which we live.
Brian Johnson (39:59):
Yeah, I'm continually amazed by the
creativity that some people havein the way they can read a
requirement.
So, yeah, that must be achallenge.
All right, benjamin, thank youso much for your time today.
One last thing.
I know I said I was done, butmy last question for you is if
somebody wanted to reach out toyou, this is an easy one.
(40:19):
Somebody wanted to reach out toyou how would they do it if
they want to learn more aboutyour services and how to get
involved with you?
Benjamin Trujillo (40:26):
The easiest way is probably send me an at
B-T-R-U-J-I-L-L-O atI-N-T-Q-U-A-L dot com, or, if
you're old school like me, pickup a phone 505-306-4867.
Kim Swanson (40:43):
Thank you very much , benjamin.
And is there anything before wego, anything that you want us
or you want to tell people thatwe didn't ask you?
Is there something that youwere like, came into this and
were like I want to share X, yand Z and we just didn't get
there?
Is there anything like that?
Benjamin Trujillo (41:00):
We covered a lot of ground and I think we
covered good ground.
So, uh, no, nothing off the topof my mind, just uh, kim and
Brian, again, I thank you verymuch for inviting me to to be on
the podcast.
I admit I've listened to it forquite some time so I was like
someday, someday I'll be on it.
So you've made one of my dreamscome true.
Kim Swanson (41:26):
I love that, I love that, but that cracks me up, so
thank you for that.
Brian Johnson (41:32):
I love it and thank you for being a founding
speaker for TechX, too.
I'd say you've been a regularand somebody that people look
forward to seeing and learningmore about your experience, and
every year you're picking up newthings from your work that you
can share.
We appreciate you sharing thatwith the people at TechX.
So thanks again.
(41:53):
You will continue to be invitedto that until you say no, and
then we'll continue to ask untilyou say I'm sending you a cease
and desist letter, and thenwe'll probably stop at that
point, but I can't guaranteethat either.
So thank you.
Benjamin Trujillo (42:08):
Well, you're very welcome.
Thank you again.
Kim Swanson (42:11):
Thanks for listening to AASHTO Resource Q&A
.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast ataashtoresourceorg, or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
Resources social media accountsor go to aashtoresourceorg.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.