Unrealistic/Undefined Customer Requirements?
The post below from Joe Gliksman is representative of a number of posts I've received about my Curmudgeon School post:
I think you missed a key point with this blog--quality is in the eye of the beholder or customer. To some, if it is cheap they are happy--to some, lowest price IS quality--a quality deal or experience no matter what else. To some, if it is fast, the rest does not matter, etc. Finally, some will never be happy and never find quality... the author maybe?
Although I agree with Joe that quality is defined by some people as "the lowest price," I think he (and many others) missed my point: There are certain basic customer requirements that organizations fail to recognize. As a customer, I expect a toy water gun to last more than two hours even if I have only paid $1 for it. I think that almost anyone who bought that toy would have the same expectations. The toy manufacturer has no excuse to be ignorant of these basic requirements. It's easy to survey customers, benchmark other manufacturers, and--yes--use common sense.
The only "lesson" that I have learned as a customer is that I shouldn't buy that toy (or other toys) from that company again. As a parent, I buy cheap toys for my kids all the time (we all do it). Most of them don't break after two hours. In fact, I usually throw them out or they get lost before they break. (McDonald's Happy Meal toys are practically indestructible.)
The only "lesson" that I have learned as a customer is that I shouldn't buy that toy (or other toys) from that company again. As a parent, I buy cheap toys for my kids all the time (we all do it). Most of them don't break after two hours. In fact, I usually throw them out or they get lost before they break. (McDonald's Happy Meal toys are practically indestructible.)
posted by Scott Paton @ 12:25 PM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Allow me to point out (again) that you have offered no evidence whatsoever that the toy gun in question (which failed after two days, or two hours, depending on which version of the story you're telling at the moment) was representative of the population from whence it emanated. You would apparently like for it to be so, but in your quality world, making judgements without data doesn't seem to be a problem.
The only population that matters to me (and to a four-year-old boy) is the population of the one toy that I purchased.
Unbelievable. The arrogance and hubris are truly amazing. Rather than admit that your original contention was unreasonable, you dig yourself a deeper hole. Have fun down there.
Bryan said,
Strictly speaking from the view of a customer - does it really matter if Scott's toy gun was the only one that broke?
Imagine if you buy a digital camera and it falls a apart almost immediately. Will you rush out and buy the exact same camera again?
Bryan, if you were the quality manager in the plant that made the toy, and you had overseen the production of [fill in big number here] of them without any evidence of a defect, how would you react? Certainly you'd want to see the defective product if possible and examine it for potential process and/or product improvements, but at a retail selling price of $1, there's only so much you can do. Do you believe, as Paton apparently does, that regardless of the pertinent statistics, that some major corrective action process should commence?
You also make the same category error that Paton does, in comparing a relatively expensive digital camera to a $1 squirt gun. Do you really believe that the durability expectations should be the same?
The cost of the product shouldn't matter when it comes to Quality. I mean, thats why we're in quality. To see that top notch products and services are delivered to the customer regardless of whether it is a 25 cent widget or a $500,000 widget.
The customer who pays 25 cents is no less deserving of a high quality product than is the customer who purchases a multi-million dollar mansion.
Sorry Bryan, but this makes no sense whatsoever. As I pointed out somewhere else, Paton had a choice between $1 squirt guns and $10 squirt guns. If there is no difference in quality levels, why would anyone ever buy the more expensive variety? One answer might be that the $10 squirt gun has more features, of course, but neither you nor Paton answer the relevant question with regard to requirements. What is acceptable if two days/two hours isn't? A week? Twelve years? If the $1 squirt gun lasts for six months and the $10 gun falls apart after two years, is that OK? What are the requirements?
The "you get what you pay for" philosophy is ridiculous and is one of the major problems we have such a quality gap today. As long as Quality Professionals look at things on a quality by the price basis, then how can we ever expect it to improve?
Pfft. Let me see if I understand you correctly. We have a "quality gap" because some people expect to get what they pay for? Are you serious, or are we not in Kansas anymore? Let me ask again with regard to the case at hand: if the squirt gun that fell apart was some kind of serious outlier, do you think its allegedly untimely demise should result in a (costly) improvement project? Let's say, just for fun, that your answer is "yes." What are you willing to spend? How far are you willing to allow costs to increase in order to change 1 in 10,000 to say, 1 in 100,000? Continuing the fantasy, let's say that you make the necessary improvements, you improve your PPM level to 10, and the retail price goes from $1 to $2 as a result. Then let's say that one of those 10 in a million gets bought by Scott Paton, who is still going to whine. What's been improved?
Is Scott arrogant for saying that the only population that matters is him? Perhaps. But then by that logic so is much of the rest of the country, even the world.
I recieve terrible service at Toys'R'Us almost everytime I go there. I don't go there anymore and I discourage my family from doing the same. Does that make me arrogant as well, to want to be treated decently?
Again with the non sequiturs. If you go to a store where you're not treated the way you expect to be treated, you're certainly within your rights to shop elsewhere, Just as Paton has the right to never shop at Target again (should he so choose) because of the non-problem he's been whining about. What does any of this have to do with anything? Now--if you were to go to Toys R Us with expectations that most rational people would consider unreasonable, and then write a blog post simpering about how you think the world should change just because of your unreasonable thinking, then yes, I would call that arrogant, and it would be charitable to do so.
It seems to me that your posts hint at an underlying contention. I would be very interested if you were to share it. Your posts do little more than blast the author and fail to offer much in the way of constructive criticism.
I don't know what you mean by "posts,"; if you're referring to my comments here, you should go here and then read the other posts (there's total of three, I think) on this subject.
Jim,
If I was the Quality Manager, yes, I would want to initiate correct action to try to understand the nature of the problem. I would want to fix it.
Think back to the original issue, the trigger broke. This is probably something as simple as the piece of plastic that holds the trigger in not being equal to
the task.
Not all corrective processes are major events. You never know know until you try.
Since you didn't like my digital camera idea, lets try something less expensive. Consider, if you will, a package of Wrigley's chewing gum. A standard 5 piece package comes in at 32 cents. If Wrigley's just sold whatever came out of the factory, regardless of the quality, they would still be in business?
I apologize for the poor wording of the 25 cent versus $500,000 widget. The point I am trying to make is this: The price of the product doesn't matter. If you make crap, no one will buy it. If no one buys your crap, you go out of business.
I don't really feel the need to respond to your paragraph beginning with "pfft". I would suggest you get over your hatred of Scott Paton. It drops what would have been an objective response to the level of something petty.
I was referring to your comments here, although I did go to your own blog and scan over the posts. Since you brought it up, I would like to ask this: Because there is such a lack of leadership and ASQ is, in your opinion, fairly worthless, then my question is this: What are you doing about it? Besides posting a blog, what are you doing about it?
To sum it all up, the point I am trying to get across is this: your product is only as good as your customer thinks it is. If you make a poor product that no one buys, do you really expect to stay in business for very long? If your business is making $1 squirt guns then you should make the best $1 squirt gun you can.
Bryan,
It's instructive, I think, that you failed to respond to the most relevant question, the one in the paragraph that offended you so much.
Jim,
I would like to say that I wasn't offended by your paragraph. My reason for not responding to it is simply that I feel no need to. If you can phrase it in an adult and professional manner without resorting to insult and rhetoric, then I will be happy to weigh in on it. But when it comes do to it, is there really a point to responding to it? I've reviewed your blog and the various responses you provide and I don't believe that there is.
There is no doubt that you are a very intelligent individual, that much is certain. Your grasp of basic rhetoric is well used in your own posts and comments. However, it becomes an exercise in futility. You have a grudge against Scott Paton and ASQ. I don't know why, but you do. You also hold a grudge against anyone who disagrees with you and use your blog as a vehicle for blasting them. Take your post "Whats that buzzing sound" as a prime example.
It doesn't really matter how I were to respond. Your opinion is already set in stone.
I also have noted something constructive from your response. For all of your complaining and insults, you failed to answer my question to you, see the seventh paragraph of my last post.
I look forward to being blasted on your blog as one of the buzzers or some other catchy little title.
Does all this boil down to the $1 toy squirt gun that "broke" -- for an unspecified / undetermined reason -- within 2 hours of play?
There has been some discussion about whether the individual toy is representative of the population, and whether we (as Quality Professionals) should care either way. Scott has also gushed about "Stellar Customer Service" from Orbitz, after he found AN error in billing. Due to his previous experiences with Orbitz, he probably concluded that this ONE incident was not representative of the entire population of Orbitz's transactions.
I wonder if he gave the (unknown) manufacturer of the $1 toy squirt gun the same opportunity to demonstrate if, indeed, the 1st sample was representative of the production lot, and in the same stroke gave Target stores the same opportunity to provide him with stellar customer service by replacing the "defective" toy?
The rather sad fact is that the manufacturers are probably delivering exactly what they think their customers expect. As long as customers continue, through their buying practices, to send the message: "We expect a $1 toy to last about 1 hour" that's what they'll get. For them, it may be a very cheap way to keep kids quiet for about an hour, after which time many of them lose interest. In that case, the parents aren't really purchasing a toy; they're buying an hour of peace and quiet. At one dollar, it's a bargain.
This actually presents an excellent metaphor for customers in other industries, like software, who don't clearly define their needs and expectations. In the end, they get what the software developer thought they wanted--not necessarily what they required. Both share accountablity: the customer for not saying what they want and the supplier for not requesting more information.
Denise,
Thank you. That is the message I was trying to get across!
So how do I "define my needs" to the toy manufacturer? My only method of communication with it is to either buy or not to buy the product. It's the toy manufacturer's responsibility to determine customer needs.
Yes, my toy may have been the only one that was defective, but I don't know that, and it doesn't matter to me or to my son.
There are processes available to the manufacturer to ensure that the toy doesn't break within two hours. If the manufacturer is making thousands (or millions) of toys per year, the cost to implement such a system is miniscule compared to the potential savings.
What would the damage be to McDonald's if even one Happy Meal toy was defective and seriously injured a child? That's why its "cheap" toys are practically indestructible.
For those who think that my sample is too small to be representative, how many times should I continue to buy the toy guns that break before I can make the decision that there is a quality problem? Does anyone really think that consumers buy products this way? If so, update you resume and look for a new job. If your company is delivering product based on your assumption that the goal should be anything less than perfection, you won't have a job for long.
Scott Paton said,
So how do I "define my needs" to the toy manufacturer? My only method of communication with it is to either buy or not to buy the product. It's the toy manufacturer's responsibility to determine customer needs.
Yes, but not the "needs" of individual, unreasonable customers. As has been pointed out before, your orginal application of a Crosby principle was ill-placed, and just doesn't apply in this situation.
Yes, my toy may have been the only one that was defective, but I don't know that, and it doesn't matter to me or to my son.
There are processes available to the manufacturer to ensure that the toy doesn't break within two hours. If the manufacturer is making thousands (or millions) of toys per year, the cost to implement such a system is miniscule compared to the potential savings.
What would the damage be to McDonald's if even one Happy Meal toy was defective and seriously injured a child? That's why its "cheap" toys are practically indestructible.
You must think that supernatural controls can sometimes be invoked. What if whatever caused the problem happened after the thing was out of the manufacturer's control? You have no evidence to the contrary, do you? As for the McDonald's allusion, please don't move the goalposts. How did we get from a trigger falling off of a cheap squirt gun to children being seriously injured by McDonald's toys? Do you think we would be having this conversation if the issue were significant safety issues in children's toys?
For those who think that my sample is too small to be representative, how many times should I continue to buy the toy guns that break before I can make the decision that there is a quality problem? Does anyone really think that consumers buy products this way? If so, update you resume and look for a new job. If your company is delivering product based on your assumption that the goal should be anything less than perfection, you won't have a job for long.
You would be bereft of arguments if you didn't have false dilemmas to rely on. The sample size has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you ever buy another $1 squirt gun; the point is that you have no way of making broad judgements regarding the manufacturer's processes if your sample size is 1, and you don't even know whether the defective in question occurred due to manufacturing or design problems. So go ahead an whine, but don't blame your hangups on other people unless you have actual evidence to support your contentions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home