A Brave New World for Quality
Last month I wrote about the future of our industry. I argued that a new millennium demanded a new definition of quality. The economic world we live in today is radically different than the one experienced by the architects of quality.
Much of today’s quality thinking comes from the work of Walter A. Shewhart, Joseph M. Juran, W. Edwards Deming, Armand V. Feigenbaum and Philip B. Crosby. These gentlemen developed quality theories that were appropriate to their time and the economic world they lived in.
There are a number of significant changes to our economy that require new ways of thinking about quality. However, to understand where we are today and where we’re headed, we must know where we’ve come from. Let’s look at a brief history of quality:
• The 1920s. In the giddy, pre-Depression days at AT&T, Shewhart develops systems to deal with an unprecedented level of mass production for a product and a public that tolerates few defects. Along the way, he invents the control chart and the plan-do-check-act cycle, and mentors Deming and Juran.
• The 1930s and 1940s. World War II forces the entire planet to alter its economy and focus on building weapons of war. Developing systems and processes to reliably deliver safe and accurate materiel was one of Juran’s greatest contributions (and one of the least known).
• The 1950s. Post-World War II Japan needs to restart is economy to survive and turns to Deming and Juran to show it the way. America focuses on rebuilding Europe, winning the Cold War and becoming the world’s leading economy, and largely ignores Feigenbaum’s total quality management and the work done by Deming and Juran in Japan.
• The 1960s. Crosby tells us that our standard has to be zero defects. Juran’s work is more appreciated among managers than quality professionals.
• The 1970s. Crosby tells us that quality is free and makes it seem easy. The electronics industry in the United States virtually disappears. An NBC documentary, “If Japan Can, Why Can’t We?” introduces Deming to America.
• The 1980s. Corporate America goes crazy for Deming and Juran. At last, the contributions of these two great quality thinkers are appreciated in the United States, even if they are sometimes misunderstood. Toward the end of the decade, the world gets its first taste of ISO 9000, based initially on the military quality standards of the 1950s and 1960s.
• The 1990s. ISO 9000 becomes a global phenomenon, fueled in large part by the European Union’s mandate that all products sold within the EU must be from ISO 9001-registered companies. Six Sigma catches the attention of senior management in the second half of the decade when GE’s charismatic CEO Jack Welch briefly makes Six Sigma every CEO’s must-have
program.
• The 00s. ISO 9000 gets a major revision with the year 2000 version, focusing on a process approach to managing business. Six Sigma moves from the boardroom to the shop floor and into design.
Now that we know where we’ve been, where are we going? If history is any guide, we’re going to learn some tough lessons from three areas: a new business paradigm, the military and our foreign competitors.
The telecommunications revolution of the early 20th century gave us the foundation for modern quality control through the work of Shewhart, Deming and Juran. The computer software/Internet revolution of the late 20th/early 21st century will shape the future of quality just as dramatically. There is serious, pioneering, scholarly work being done by a number of people (including Capers Jones and R. Timothy Stein) to reduce defects in software development, computer system design and the entire computer system life cycle. Others are working hard to manage variation, reduce defects and improve the quality of the Internet. I’m not just talking about buying books or plane tickets online. Almost every industry, every profession, every segment of society is deeply intertwined with the Internet. This massive integration requires massive quality control.
Just as World War II required new ways of managing processes and systems to deliver safe and accurate materiel, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terrorism are bound to demand new thinking. We’ve already seen massive failures in our ability to provide armor and other supplies to our troops. Plus, we’ve had huge problems rebuilding the infrastructures of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Japan taught us striking new lessons in quality during the 1980s and 1990s. Now, China’s dominance in manufacturing promises to teach us again. What lessons in quality will we learn from the Chinese? Can we set aside our anger, resentment and frustration long enough to listen?
What are your thoughts on the history of quality and the new challenges from our changing global economy?
posted by Scott Paton @ 2:42 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
The articel was both a summary of the opinions of many of us with over two decades "in the business", and an expose for the new folks to get up to speed. I appreciate the message, and though the chronology was sparse, the limitations of the article forced that anorexia. Still the question at hand remains, what of quality in the new Millenium?
Obviously the cost of quality is driven by local econiomic factors, but in a world where "global economy" is shifting the job market thousands of miles a day without respect to borders or governments, the monetary discrepancies certainly put some domestic manufacturers at a distinct disadvantage - until COST is examined in lieu of PRICE. Ask the .COM folks about their efforts to utilize non-english-speaking resources, and the impact on communications will become lbatantly apparaent. The shift to Asia as a "coming market" is short-sighted, at best [how can anyone making $1000 a year afford a $25,000 automobile, for example] and the rush to that market is leaving a vacuum in the States that seems bent on making 1929 seem like a speed bump in time... we folks in the quality business have to balance our "costs" against these risks, and the answer is a tightrope that requires precise balance and accurate presentation - all supported by the pillars of Management and Finance.
At some point, those of you who make your living trying to sell quality to businesses will have to face the fact that quality is what the customer says it is - nothing more and nothing less. Those companies who deliver what a customer wants, when he wants it, at a price he is willing to pay are the ones delivering quality products. Those companies who can not satisfy their customers in those three areas will not long survive.
Great article Scott but I take exception to the fact that the we cannot provide armor to our troops. The facts are that the Military Industrial Complex is about money not material to Soldiers. The Stryker has failed testing multiple times but we continue to pore money into the system. Quality must also embrace reliability. To have both it is absolutely necessary to have a clear target. The US Army is currently guessing about it's mission, targets, and objectives. Showmanship has replaced the true presentation of facts and as good quality representatives we know where that leaves everyone.
We cannot force our culture upon anouther society but we can revive our own! We must stop trying to rescue and appease others and get our country back together.
Wow....the word "quality" sure brings up a lot of interesting view points. I agree with one of the previous posts regarding the showmanship and lip service that has replaced genuine concern for quality of life. Until that changes, it will be more of the same, dressed up with new buzz words.
Docs made a great point. Day to day I buy a variety of cheap, disposable products (mostly Chinese, it seems). I expect some defects - and the items are simply too cheap to care about it. They met my cost, delivery, and quality expectations. I think this is typical. The greater the price tag on the item, the more "quality" means in the value calculation. When the transmission on my new car (the 2nd most expensive item I'd ever bought) failed after 1700 miles, THAT I cared about. It met my cost and delivery expectations, but failed the quality expectation miserably - not only because the item failed but also because of the shoddy customer service I recieved during the process of fixing that failure. If in this new century someone devises a way to get companies to understand this calculation and really live by it, that will indeed be a glorious innovation. Speaking for my own industry (automotive) it's desperately needed. In my 11 years in quality I've personally overseen the scrapping of tens of thousands of dollars worth of perfectly good product, that any end consumer would be perfectly happy with. Legalism, print-worship, and the idea that perfect "quality" is a metaphysical moral good have caused almost as much waste of time and money as actual bad parts have. The human cost in needless stress and resentment is unmeasureable, of course, but also bound to be high.
As for what China has to teach, I eagerly await the volumes that will shed light on their mysterious Eastern quality wisdom. Hopefully someone will share their secrets with us in the West. I promise to put my anger aside for a bit and give it a fair hearing. But so far all I've seen demonstrated is that slave labor can be made cheap and effective. That bit of insight is not much use in my shop - my employees are actually free to find other employment, and if I mistreat them there will be serious negative repercussions for me. Heck - they won't even settle for basic food and shelter as payment. Free societies are so very cost inefficient, it seems.
Scott wrote "the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and on terrorism are bound to demand new thinking. We’ve already seen massive failures in our ability to provide armor and other supplies to our troops. Plus, we’ve had huge problems rebuilding the infrastructures of Iraq and Afghanistan". Scott what do you mean "we"? I didn't vote for the current President and I am opposed to the invasion of Iraq. I agree with you on the need for new thinking - like rethinking our foreign policy of global interventionism.
You may have not voted for the current president and you may disagree with U.S. foreign policy, but I assume that you are a U.S. citizen, so as much as you may dislike it, the pronoun "we" does apply because in a democracy we are all subject to the will of the majority of voters. In the Iraq of Saddam Hussein there was no democracy and the people were subject to the will of a brutal dictator. I agree that the people of Iraq are suffering, but at least there is hope for their freedom. That is something that wasn't possible under Saddam Hussein.
Scott wrote: "You may have not voted for the current president and you may disagree with U.S. foreign policy, but I assume that you are a U.S. citizen, so as much as you may dislike it, the pronoun "we" does apply because in a democracy we are all subject to the will of the majority of voters. In the Iraq of Saddam Hussein there was no democracy and the people were subject to the will of a brutal dictator."
Scott - Hitler was an elected official. We are a republic, not just a democracy, and that means certain principles are not up for majority rule. If we employ return-on-investment thinking, sober resource management (like a balanced budget), and root cause analysis (example: "5 Why's" on why September 11th happened)- I don't see how the invasion of Iraq can be justified.
Scott,
In regards to the U.S. foreign policy in Iraq:
I respectfully ask that you be more specific and refrain from generalize by using the word "we". This is because there are many of us that strongly oppose what the U.S. is doing in Iraq. Moreover, such persistence in trying to force your beliefs on us only fuels the unfortunate division we currently have in this country.
I would like to respectfully ask that the perspective be kept on quality issues, not foreign policy. This isn't a foreing policy blog. My comments about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were about the lessons we would learn from them from a quality perspective. You are free to oppose the war, just as I am free to publish my opinions. I'd just prefer you do it in your own magazine column and blog.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home