Monday, December 05, 2005

Report from Shanghai

I'm writing this month's column from a conference room in the Shanghai Academy for Quality Management, which I've had the pleasure of visiting this week. I'm here to discuss increased cooperation between Quality Digest and the SAQM.

Led by the dynamic Tang Xiaofen, the SAQM--which is somewhat similar to the American Society for Quality--is a leading provider of training, registration and certification services. It also publishes a number of books and Shanghai Quality magazine.

Quality Digest has run several Chinese-related news stories during the last two years from Shanghai Quality. I am pleased to report that we will begin publishing even more news and articles from China in 2006.

Since my last visit to Shanghai in 2004, the SAQM has moved into new headquarters, a world-class facility consisting of two seven-story buildings with impressive meeting facilities. What hasn't changed is the organization's intense focus on promoting quality awareness in China.

The good people from the SAQM have told me about the Chinese government's commitment to quality. In fact, the government has mandated a performance excellence standard for Chinese businesses to follow. In addition, the government has recently funded a survey to be conducted by the SAQM on the effectiveness of certification in promoting economic growth.

The Chinese government understands the importance of quality in keeping China competitive on the world market. It's unfortunate that the U.S. government has not taken a more active role in promoting quality as a key strategic advantage. The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award is an excellent program, but it has never been promoted as it should be.

China may have a political system different than that of the United States, but its economic system is as capitalistic (if not more so) than our own. Everywhere you go in Shanghai, you see signs of free enterprise: Advertising is everywhere, shops are full of designer goods, and entrepreneurship is alive and well.

While here, I was interviewed by Shanghai Quality. The editors were curious about my thoughts on how China could be more responsive to customer needs and how Chinese companies could better compete in the U.S. market.

I told the magazine that I believe it's absolutely critical for any successful enterprise, be it a manufacturer, service organization, government or charitable organization, to listen to the voice of the customer. At its core, quality is conformance to requirements. Those requirements are always determined by the customer, whoever that customer may be. The organization must constantly attempt to determine its customers' needs. The methods for doing so are relatively simple and well-documented: customer surveys, focus groups, feedback forms, etc. An organization that fails to listen to the voice of the customer (both internal and external) is doomed to failure.

Chinese manufacturers have had tremendous success in the U.S. market primarily because of the low cost and high quality of their goods. However, most of the Chinese goods sold in the United States are sold with a U.S. brand name or are somewhat generic in nature. As Chinese manufacturers begin to market products in the United States under their own brand names, they must be more conscious of the tastes of the U.S. consumer. As I mentioned previously, this requires listening to the voice of the customer. It's essential to be obsessive about determining what the customers' needs are and then meeting those needs. Low prices are attractive to consumers, but without quality the success of a low-cost strategy will be short-lived.

Through the enhanced cooperation between the SAQM and Quality Digest we hope to bring you more insight into the uniquely Chinese approach to quality. Just as we learned a great deal from the Japanese about quality during the 1980s and 1990s, I believe we will begin to learn about quality from the Chinese in this decade. I see great opportunities, for example, in using the Chinese model of government to promote economic growth through quality improvement.

The Chinese people have a unique history and have overcome great obstacles to take their rightful place on the world stage. Instead of fearing the Chinese, we in the United States need to be open to them and learn from their success. Our political systems may differ, but we do have a long history of cooperation and we share a dedication to ensuring better lives for our citizens.

There are those who may disagree with me. They fear China and worry about the United States losing jobs and our manufacturing base. I understand this concern, but China is here to stay. As I wrote last month, we feared Japan during the 1980s and the change that the Japanese manufacturing surge wrought. There will be many changes to our economy in the coming years. It's in our own best interests to embrace the Chinese and learn from them instead of turning away in fear.

What do you think of China and its effect on the U.S. market? What are your experiences with Chinese quality? What do you think the future holds for our relationship?

7 Comments:

At 1:03 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

First, a question - what unique quality tools have been introduced by the Chinese? My personal experiences with Chinese quality have not been terribly positive so far - I buy tons of their cheap stuff (no one else makes it) but I'm in no hurry to buy anything complex that they produce on their own.

"China is here to stay - get used to it." (As late at the 80's some people were saying that about the USSR.) This mantra, in various forms, is repeated for the purpose of dismissing wholesale the legitimate concerns of those who think the wisdom of our trade policies concerning China is questionable. Obviously China can't be wished away, but does that mean that we should do nothing in the face of a trade war? The Chinese State, which effectively owns/controls all manufacturing in the country, is not focusing on peaceful enhancement of the lives of the Chinese citizen, except to the extent that it is necessary to avert rebellion. If it were they wouldn't be routing water away from farms to supply manufacturing areas (thereby causing reduced crop yield). That's but one example of many that illustrate the devaluation of human life there. Instead of feeding the masses, China is building its military. The pollution problem is reportedly obscene in some areas, despite the fact that technology exists to mitigate that pollution. Perhaps they need help with ISO-14000 - yet another great consulting market waiting to be tapped!

High quality manufacturing in China, carried out by the Chinese themselves, is the last thing the civilized world needs. Especially when it degrades the economy of our own lands. We're arming the barbarians and tearing down our gates.

 
At 12:58 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

T. Scroggin is quite right that moving production from the US to a low wage country is natural as the product matures. The common assumption seems to be that we will always be well ahead of those low wage places - that they will never catch up. I'm told that we'll always have some kind of high-tech edge that will keep our industrial base going on to "the next big thing" while the slaves in the 3rd world grind out the easy stuff. I think Japan's success shows that isn't a realistic belief. China and the others are not content with B-team status, taking our cast offs and subsisting. What happens when the others catch up? When technological parity is achieved, victory will go to whoever is willing to live with the least return for their labor. I'm not eager to compete with the 3rd world on that basis. Accellerating the process by which other nations match our capabilities seems ill advised. I'd prefer to finish out my life span before that happens - before the last vestiges of Western dominance are gone.

But regarding China specifically - I suggest that there are more agreeable low wage countries to move work to, when it comes to our national/cultural interests. The world has an abundant supply of desperately poor people. If we MUST work with tyrannical enemy regimes to keep our wallets fat, then surely there are less dangerous ones to make rich...

 
At 1:52 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was interested to read the account of your visit to SAQM. The Shanghai Association for Quality is one of ASQ's Registered Service Providers, which means that they have certified trainers who offer some of ASQ's training programs, especially related to Quality Engineering. ASQ has opened an office in China and established a wholly foreign-owned enterprise called "ASQ China." The reason for doing this was not to take advantage of the high level of quality already existing in China, but rather to respond to a plea for help from various Chinese governmental agencies seeking to IMPROVE the level of quality. There is an admitted gap between where the Chinese manufacturing and service economy currently is and where they would like to be. Using the Body of Knowledge contributed by ASQ's thousands of members, we are systematically attempting to help close that gap. We are also responding to the needs of our members who are actively engaging in commerce in China. They have resoundingly told us that the supply of Chinese labor that is capable of understanding and implementing quality tools and processes is extremely low. Without such a trained labor force the quality of goods and services will continue to be low. We hope to be able to help our members in this regard. G Weiler

 
At 12:12 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I see great opportunities, for example, in using the Chinese model of government to promote economic growth through quality improvement."

Great goverment:
I think they lead the world in wide spread human right violations.

Did you write this under gun point?

 
At 1:04 PM , Blogger Scott Paton said...

When I said that we could learn from the Chinese government, I meant we could learn from their example of government driving quality improvement.

 
At 8:21 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just returned from a trip to evaluate the capabilities of a factory that makes a product my client intends to sell in the US market. It took all of 5 minutes before I was convinced that this particular Chinese company was capable of, and committed to, producing high-quality products. In fact, they are more focused on building quality in to their products than many of their US counterparts.

To enable this company to grow ans prosper, engineers account for roughly 10% of the factory's workforce. In contrast, many US companies currently view engineering as a necessary evil rather than the basis for growth and technological leadership.

I will also add that the factory workers I saw were actually working! The conditions were less than ideal, but certainly not inhumane. By comparison, many of the workers I see in US factories appear to be just putting in their time (e.g. lazy).

I'm NOT an advocate for the Chinese, but if US workers want to keep their jobs, they need to get serious about them - now!

 
At 10:47 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds like you are describing a US factory from the 50's and 60's. After we got comfortable with where we were regarding quality we started backing off to where we are now. The same thing will happen in China after they finish "selling themselves" to the foreign markets and feel that they too "...can't get any better than this".

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home