Monday, January 30, 2006

The Future of Quality

We’re five years into a new millennium, and we’re all still waiting for the “next big thing” to show up in the quality world. Six Sigma? TQM? ISO 9001? They’re so 20th century. Because of my position with Quality Digest, I am frequently asked what the next big thing will be. Apparently, being a columnist makes one somewhat of an oracle. If only that were true, I’d being driving a Lexus instead of a Toyota.

Although I don’t know what the next big thing will be, I suspect that it will have something to do with a focus on a return to the basics of quality and sound business management. After all, it doesn’t matter how slick your quality system is, without a profit, you won’t be in business for long.

I also believe that it’s time to re-examine the very basics of quality itself, starting with the definition of quality. The most popular definition of quality is Philip Crosby’s “conformance to requirements.” There are a number of other definitions out there, but they’re pretty similar to Crosby’s.

Crosby’s definition of quality was written in the 1960s. Much of the rest of our thinking about quality came from the 1920s (Walter A. Shewhart and the gang at Western Electric), the 1940s (Joseph M. Juran and W. Edwards Deming) and the 1950s (Armand V. Feigenbaum). Sure the Japanese kicked our butts in the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and . . . well, you get the picture, but most of the quality lessons we learned from them were the same ones they learned from Juran and Deming following World War II, it just took us a bit longer to get the message.

Over the years, consultants have picked ideas they liked best from these gurus and repackaged them into things like ISO 9000, Total Quality Management and Six Sigma, but is there anything really new here? For example, most of the statistical and data analysis tools and techniques that form the heart of Six Sigma have been around a very long time.

As I said earlier, we’re five years into a new millennium. Isn’t time for new thinking? Not only has the calendar changed, but so too has the very foundation of our economy. Manufacturing is this country is disappearing faster than beer at a fraternity party. Whole industries have disappeared and whole new ones have come to life. Yet, our thinking about quality is still rooted, for the most part, in the 1920s.

Of course, statistical methodology doesn’t become obsolete, but are there new ways to apply it? Don’t new industries, new business models, new types of organizations demand new ways of measurement, accountability and quality analysis?

For example, how do we accurately measure customer satisfaction when we never see or hear our customers? Some very large businesses are practically virtual. Customers never enter their physical site, rarely call them and only interact with them electronically. Even traditional bricks-and-mortar businesses have outsourced much of their customer relationship management to third parties, which may be as far away as India.

Will the tools and techniques from the last millennium work in this one? Is the work force of today ready for the quality challenges of tomorrow? Do we even know what those challenges will be?

It used to be relatively easy to deal with problems: you walked out of your office and stepped onto the plant floor. You could talk with the manufacturing engineer, see how the machine operator performed his or her job, watched the product move from raw material and one end of the line to packaged good leaving the plant at the other end. Now your plant may be half a world away. Your designer may be in India, your machine operator in China and your customer in Japan. How do you ensure quality design, manufacture, shipment and customer satisfaction?

It’s fashionable for corporate America to downplay the role of the quality professional. It’s even fashionable for some to say that quality is disappearing as a function within organizations. But I think the quality professional’s role is more important today than ever before. It’s just evolving, whether we want it to or not.

We need an open, active, lively discussion of the role of the quality profession and what quality is and will be in the years to come. I encourage the American Society for Quality, as the professional society for quality, to take up this challenge. Survey your members, senior management, customers, suppliers, governments, information technology departments, education institutions and any other organization that is involved in this thing called quality. Discuss these issues at section meetings, division conferences and the annual conference. Find out what your members need to be successful now and in the future. Redefine quality for the 21st century.

I also encourage Quality Digest to investigate and report on the future of the quality profession and the changing role of the quality profession.

I want to know what you think about these questions. How do you define quality? How does your organization manage for quality in the 21st century? How is your job as a quality professional evolving? Is ASQ meeting the needs of the quality profession today? What do see in your quality crystal ball for the future?

14 Comments:

At 4:18 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that the question might be restated as "Is there a future for the quality professional?".

For many years Quality people have properly pushed the idea that responsibility for quality lies with the people doing the work, whether they be in Sales or Design or Manufacturing, and not with the inspectors and Quality Engineers, etc. Surprisingly, business has finally bought that concept, and quality departments have become smaller and smaller, as knowledge of quality principles has spread throughout all the functions and departments within most organizations.

We used to say, "My job is to work myself out of a job". I think that at last we have done it.

 
At 1:34 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

You didn't mention the Baldrige criteria. That has "been around" since 1988 - and is a living thing in that it renews itself at least every 2 years. Baldrige is a "learning" entity. I think that is the difference between it and Lean, ISO, 6 Sigma. Starting out just for business, it is now associated with Health Care and Education , shortly Government and Non Profit. Think about it.

 
At 12:40 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a career quality professional in an "old" very mature industry - rubber manufacturing - , I am seeing my role change quickly. We have become "partners" with partners of the Chinese. My role in this selling out of American manufacturing is to advise, correct, proof read, and create the documentation process to allow the automotive assembly plants to become comfortable with the idea of component manufacturing from China. You would be surprised at the relative ease this change in source is accomplished at "American" auto makers and the very slow, methodical, almost plodding acceptance by the so-called transplants and their suppliers. Even when based purely on cost, the transplants continue to be very aware of the risks. I know this response does not answer anyone's question regarding the new role of the quality professional in the 21st century. At this point, at least in the automotive component manufacturing sector, this outsourcing has become akin to a pyramid scheme and we are not far from the last one standing.

 
At 8:12 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Future of Quality. Important questions and thanks for asking.

An expanded definition of variation may be just as important as one for quality. A definition and understanding of numerical literacy is also important.

Quality: Doing the right things, right as defined by others. Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right things. Efficiency is in the realm of science and effectiveness the realm of religion. Peter Drucker referred to management as doing things right and leadership with doing the right things.

Variation. Reducing variation is the key to quality. Variation represents the difference between the ideal (quality) and actual. The ideal represents a standard of perfection that one can strive for but never achieve: a fact that makes improvement possible.

Numerical Literacy. Includes an understanding of the Shewhart methodology for managing variation, e.g., two causes of variation, two types of data, two types of systems/processes, two types of mistakes.

ASQ publications reviewers have embraced this expanded definition of variation, and you may see ASQ giving it more attention soon.

Future of the quality profession?
Includes expanding the application of the quality technology to help prevent war and if prevention fails, to help resolve the conflict quickly and decisively with a minimum amount of resources. Technology is defined as the practical application of knowledge.

The Next Big Thing? The U.S. Department of Defense is developing an integrated approach for effect based operations (EBO) to help optimize military power through better integration with the other elements of power (diplomatic, informational, economic). The acronym diMe with a capital M reflects a military-centric focus. The key to the prevention of war is to maintain a strong military (Leviathan) force and for the other elements of power to apply the quality paradigm to reduce the causes that lead to war (DImE). Quality is the common ground and reducing variation is the key to quality.

Bottom Line It’s not that we don’t have the technology to resolve most of the world’s problems. The challenge for quality professionals is to help develop Leaders who can successfully apply the quality technology that will result in an upward trend in the number of things gone right, and a downward trend in the number of things gone wrong. The result will be a better quality of life for us all.

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

I do not see Quality professionals working differently, rather employing new tools to measure, define, and control processes.
It's seems that it is the need of Management to come up with new Quality programs. How does "6-Sigma" differ from "Process Engineering" of the late '50's? We seem to have a need for a new magic bullet. I like to call it "Management by Magazine."

 
At 8:56 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't see you mention "Lean Manufacturing". The principles should apply to all organizations. We can examine how long it takes us to get ready for work in the morning and elimate unnecessary steps, or move them to the previous evening. Then we can make improvements. Toyota has been so successful with these methods. If we, as quality professionals, can work with production staff on focused improvemnet projects we will be seen as usuful again!!

 
At 6:05 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've been disappointed in the quality world since I began working for a heavy highway contractor. Quality in the construction industry is stripped to its bare bones and still works. Which made me realize that all of the tracking, paperwork, six sigma hoopla,etc., was unnecessary.

Continuous Improvement is the mindset to have. You need to keep it simple and make it easy to understand, comply with and use.

ISO, TQM, and Six Sigma are all flavors of the month. The same things reinvented with a new twist and more complexity. We need to get back to the basics:

Strive for continuous improvement. Provide a quality product or service at a low cost, while keeping our workers safe. That's the bottom line.

 
At 1:37 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott, I'm 60 years old, have been a quality professional since I was 26, worked in every business market from high tech, gov, electronics, commodities, to food. I define quality as whatever the customer wants it to be. When I was young and passionate I bought into every latest "program" that came up. Now that I'm old and broken (read "wise") I stick to the basics and borrow the tools that work at the time for the business I'm in and the maturity of the company. There is no magic bullet. There is no one program that has all the answers. I have seen the future: We have enough "tools". Let's use them.

Dennis Jones: dennis@fiberdyne.com

 
At 12:37 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree that the world of qulaity has changed greatly as the "Future of Quality" article stated, it is greatly influenced by the e-business explosion. I don't think there has been a great emphasis on quality perceptives on the part of a lot of website/software developers and it shows in many of the e-business sites. As a quality manager, I spend a lot of time (often not very productive)on customer's websites and juggling this against the time I need to do actual problem investigation and problem solving. Certianly the definition of "Quality" needs to change from "conformance to requirements" to something else which would adequately encompass the new "e-world of business". Unfortunately, I don't even have a good suggestion to offer at this time, except that we need to get to working on it.

I am also seeing some partial revolt to the impersonal nature of e-business in some of the TV ads which emphasize the fact that some companies are promoting the personal contact as a sales and marketing tool. I think this has been driven by the fact that there are times when actually talking to someone is best quality solution, something that I think website and software developers are very unaware of. This has to change.

 
At 11:55 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I began my quality career in 1966 as a Quality Engineer in a defense electronics manufacturing plant. We used a very simple document Mil-Q-9858 as a foundation for the Quality System. This, sample plans, SPC Control Charts that were regularly updated using a slide rule and a yellow tablet put us on the Moon. I joined the ASQC that same year and later became a CQE by passing a test of 600 questions in 6 hours. At that time many employers were putting considerable weight on the CQE and CRE when searching for new employees. These tests seem to have moved from a heavy emphasis on performing the function to being able to fit in politically and socially with what are recognized today as “Quality Professionals”.

The only real change that I have seen in the last 40 years is the change from what I call Quality Processes that Taste Good to Quality Processes with Good Taste. Good Taste seems to be a very important element in any business process today.

I could only guess how many ASQC Meetings, not very many ASQ Meetings, I have attended. I virtually stopped after the name change. It was just one more of the “Good Taste” stuff. The dinner programs and tutorials are the same old stuff over and over again. If you don’t believe in the “good taste” concept you get nothing out of it. The ASQ is driven by consultants – someone must put all those ads in the periodicals. The same is true with Quality Digest.

How has ASQ helped and supported the Quality Professional in the recent past? The organization makes sure that we have sufficient exposure to consultants and the new tools that are being formulated to sell to “top management”. Top management needs the buzz words and acronyms.

Real Quality Professionals don’t need that stuff – we just need management to point to the business at hand and say, as another comment pointed out, “get out there and work yourself out of a job”.

 
At 9:16 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quality defined:
Your article stated that quality is “conformance to requirements”. What if the requirements are total crap? What if the requirements have not been validated, or are inaccurate? I cannot tell you how many times I have revised procedures that do not produce the desired results. Initially, requirements should be validated to ensure that they are valuable and accurate. Now then, quality can be defined as conformance to validated requirements that produce the desired results and ensure utility and profitability. There is no point in conforming to lousy requirements.

ASQ:
ASQ certifies various quality professionals who perform a plethora of tasks. For instance, the new quality manager certification is titled Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence. Any number of people in any number of vast industries, performing completely different jobs can all have this certification. The skill sets are all over the freaking map. As an ASQ certified quality manager, I can personally attest that no one – and I mean no one – gives a rodent’s backside about that credential. It is the same as saying, “I’m a business man.” Well, what the heck does that mean? Donald Trump is a businessman, but so is a loan shark and a black marketer. I am recertifying on March 4, 2006 but only because the ASQ certification is the most recognized and available credential in the quality profession. I know my skill set and capabilities, and I know how hard I have to work to obtain such a certification, but it means nothing to my employer. An ASQ certification should indicate that a particular quality professional with a specific certification can perform at a certain level and possess certain skills, in the same way that a medical degree indicates that a doctor can perform specific medical procedures.

Quality Manager:
What the heck is a quality manager? Everyone is a quality manager these days. I am currently looking for a new company to work for, as my current employer defines quality management as conducting Sarbanes-Oxley financial audits. If you view position postings on any job finder web site, you will see that the job specifications and skill requirements call for everything from training call center operators to dietary supplement sales. The ambiguity of quality management is rampant all over the market place. There is an epidemic of miss-use of terms such as quality, quality manager, quality assurance, etc. These terms are used more freely than xeroxing a copy or using a kleenex to blow your nose, regardless of the type of copier or facial tissue you use. The Quality professionals have allowed industry to take these terms and apply them to any and every kind of job imaginable. No wonder when I apply for a quality manager position, I have to carefully read the position requirements to make sure that I am not applying for a cosmetics counter clerk position in some department store. Not that there is anything undesirable about such a career endeavor – it’s just not my personal preference. My point is that the future of the quality profession is uncertain because the definition of quality professional is uncertain.

The future:
The future of quality depends on those driving the quality discipline as a science, a specialized field of study. Everyone and anyone can learn quality techniques and principles, but I believe that quality is a science and should be held in such regard. Not all individuals will drive quality in the same way a dedicated quality manager will. I believe that our universities, colleges and other accredited educational institutions should incorporate quality science degrees into their programs, and promote them as valid career choices. Several educational institutions offer quality related courses, but few offer degrees in a quality science. I know, because I have been researching options for a graduate degree in quality. The problem seems so obvious to me – in industry and education, quality is just too ambiguous. I hope that in the future the title quality manager will carry significance in the same manner as doctor, pilot, janitor, lawyer, mortgage banker, cowboy, professional basketball player, etc.

 
At 10:06 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the word "Quality", is a lot like the word "nature", and it's attributes are just as varied.
I believe "Quality" is life enhancing, life affirming,and positive, and facilitates an attitude of appreciation, admiration, and respect by all that come into contact with whatever or whoever created the perception of "Quality". This includes workers, management, the community, and the environment. A focus on the bottom-line is the last thing that leads to "Quality".

The abbreviated definition of "Quality" is as follows; The opposite of the "Healthcare Industry"!

 
At 9:47 PM , Blogger Servant said...

In my opinion, quality profession going to be vanished because of the credibility obtained to that function is much less than anticipated. It is because of the reason that the quality function these days are nothing but an audit or inspection or policing job. What the industries are looking for some sort of proactive quality assurance functional management those who can hold the people and walk them through the process that produces the good outcome or yield. If any organization fail to invest in this area to bring up the people with this great caliber will be the ultimate users. World is very short now with the stroke of a key you may be able to reach other side of the world and reach out the capable people to support the industries. You have to come out of the box think globally and change of leadership. You cannot survive just counting the beans, so something proactive, be a leader, look high see the future bright, old is no more valid any longer.

 
At 5:59 AM , Blogger Abdul wasay said...

Spot on with this write-up, I actually believe this amazing site needs much more consideration. I’ll oftimes be once more to learn additional, thank you for that information. aerospace quality control

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home