The Quality Curmudgeon

New Home for the Quality Curmudgeon

2009-02-18T22:31:00.000-08:00

The Quality Curmudgeon has moved! Visit the new, improved Quality Curmudgeon blog at:

www.qualitycurmudgeon.com

Quality Afterthoughts

2007-12-19T16:20:00.000-08:00

I've been writing about quality issues since 1984—23 long years. In that time I've interviewed hundreds of quality professionals, gurus, practitioners, authors, consultants, you name it. Although each person had a unique perspective on quality, each claimed that improved quality (usually as a result of following his or her quality recipe) was right around the corner.

Unfortunately, I don't think we've turned that corner. In fact, in my humble opinion, quality for the most part still stinks. (I say for the most part because the "hard" side of quality—metrology—has made tremendous strides in the last two decades. Unfortunately, the "soft" side of quality—the human side—has fallen farther behind in many quality aspects, particularly with regard to service quality.

Although we see excellent examples of design, product, and service quality all the time, I'm afraid the bad (or more precisely, the mediocre) still outweighs the good.

It's getting to the point where we can't even trust the food we eat, the bridges we drive over, the toys our children play with, the cars we drive in, and the pills we pop. And when we do have a problem, we can't really trust the so-called "customer service" representatives who are supposed to help us through our hour of need.

It's frustrating that after going through zero defects, quality circles, total quality management, reengineering, benchmarking, ISO 9000, Six Sigma, lean, and all of their derivations, that quality is still so bad.

I know that many organizations have had great success with each of the aforementioned programs. Unfortunately, many have not. It seems to me that the ones who have been successful (and by that I mean have high-quality products and/or services; a happy, involved work force; a large and growing market share; and happy stockholders/stakeholders) have made these programs their own. They don't do ISO 9001 for the sake of meeting customer requirements. They don't have an employee involvement program because it's hip; they don't implement Six Sigma because the CEO's golfing buddy's company does.

A more telling sign of an organization's success with these quality initiatives is that they are done because the organization knows that they will result in better products and services, a happier work force, better sales, and long-term growth. The company integrates these "programs" into the company works. It doesn't have to make them separate fiefdoms and wage war against the company culture. It's just the way things work; it's not some onerous process.

Before, you send me the "Duh!" e-mail, stop and think about it. How many programs have you seen come and go over the years. Think about the successes and failures in your own organization. Think, too, about your experiences as a consumer. Are you really happy with the products and/or services your organization produces? More important, are you customers? How do you know? As I asked last month, how do you know you're improving? How do you know your customers are satisfied? Are you actively working to make sure that your customers are satisfied now and will be in the future? Are you really satisfied with the goods you buy? Are you getting the kind of service you think you should?

If you're like me, the answer is no. I'm not satisfied as a business owner with my organization's products and services. I want to make them better. As a consumer, I constantly amazed at the poor quality products I buy and the lousy service I receive. I am constantly amazed at the poor service I receive from customer service reps. I am leery of the food I eat. I worry that my children might be playing with lead-tainted toys. (For this I blame the company whose name is on the product, not the entire nation of China.) It just seems as though things are worse now than they were 20 years ago in many respects.

For example, flight delays and airline dissatisfaction are at their highest levels ever. New whiz-bang products are increasingly difficult to use. Online products and services are great unless they don't work or you have a question, then good luck finding a real person to talk to for help. In fact, many companies go out of their way to avoid interacting with you. How many times when you call for help are you told to "go online"? And, perhaps most telling of all, aren't you just delighted when you receive good service? If I actually get help with a problem or see someone go the extra mile to help it really stands out, even though that's what should happen every time.

You may be a quality manager at an organization. Your job may be to ensure that the widgets your company makes get out the door according to spec. But what are you doing beyond that? Are you collecting data on customer satisfaction with your products, your services, your billing, your technical support, your Web site, your product design, your distributors, your packaging, your advertising. If you say those aren't your job, you just might not have one down the road.

Trick or Treat?

2007-12-19T16:18:00.000-08:00

It’s October and one of my favorite holidays is near: Halloween. Although this year’s holiday holds more tricks than treats as our economy teeters on the edge of recession thanks to an unstable housing market.

As we look forward to a new year that’s likely to be full of more economic bad news, it’s a good time to take a hard look at your organization’s quality system. After all, your goal as a quality professional is to help design products, systems, procedure, work instructions, data analysis and reporting systems, and more that help your organization to be as efficient, competitive, and profitable as possible.

I think it’s a great time for you—Mr. or Ms. quality professional—to ask yourself if your organization’s quality is better today than it was last month? Last year? Ten years ago? How do you know if it is better or worse? How do you define better or worse? Do you measure your quality success in terms of defects? Satisfied customers? Profits? Employee retention? Stock price? What may have been important last year or last month may not matter as much to your organization and your customers as something else today.

You may have the most accurate gages, the highest tolerances, the highest performing product, and lousy customer service. Or, you might have the best service in the industry and lousy products. What matters more? More important, what matters now? And, most important of all, what will matter tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade?

The “what will matter” question is one that Japanese manufacturers have excelled at for decades. And it’s a question that few U.S. manufacturers have been able to comprehend. Take U.S. automakers, for example. They’ve spent two decades catching up to the Japanese. And, they’ve succeeded. Their defects per thousand are on par with the Japanese, but they failed to accurately comprehend where the U.S. consumer would be today. And, I would venture to say that they have failed to guess where consumers will be next year, five years and 10 years from now.

Toyota and Honda accurately predicted that all things being equal in terms of fuel economy, defects, reliability and such, that the consumer would be drawn to functionality and design. (Although I must say that General Motors seems to be closer to hitting this mark than its rivals.)

The Korean automakers have learned from the Japanese. They’ve managed to bring their quality levels to world-class standards in a relatively short time frame. They, too, are now focusing on the future.

The Big Three should take some solace from the knowledge that the Chinese automakers with their low labor costs and government support haven’t seem to caught onto this concept—yet. They, too, are running in catch-up mode.

Another industry where forward-thinking companies are cleaning up is major home appliances. Ten years ago our kitchens and laundry rooms were filled with Kenmores, GEs, Amanas, Frigidaires, and other U.S. brands. Now, LG, Samsung, Bosch, and other non-U.S. brands are popping up everywhere. European and Korean appliance manufacturers correctly met current market needs for more energy efficient appliances that are quieter, with larger capacities, and that have more functionality.

Six years ago I bought a matching Maytag washer and dryer. I was thrilled with my purchase. At that time, it was difficult to find an appliance brand in this country that had a better reputation for quality. Sadly, I didn’t realize that Maytag’s quality had gone down the drain. My Maytag repairman is anything but lonely. We’ve had our washing machine serviced so many times that I’ve lost count. My wife (She Who Must Be Obeyed) longingly eyes the new front-loading washers every time we pass them at Lowes.

So, here’s my Halloween trick (or treat, depending on your perspective) for you: Answer these three questions:

Is your quality better today than last year? How do you know the answer to this? Do you have accurate metrics to compare? What are you measuring? How do these measurements affect your products (e.g., defects, tolerances, reliability, etc.), services (e.g., customer satisfaction, retention, etc.), employees (e.g., satisfaction, turnover, productivity, etc.), stockholders (e.g., share price, market share, etc.), and regulators (local, state, federal, and foreign governments) (e.g., environmental, health and safety compliance, etc.).
What does “better” mean to your organization? What are you striving to improve and why? Obviously, your answer will include all of the above, but what else? What is happening in your organization and with your customers and the market that you as a quality professional need to know about? Is it cheap Chinese-made goods? Is it a new government regulation? A new competitor? Start from scratch. Reevaluate your quality system. See what matters to your customers now.
What are you doing today to ensure that your organization’s products and/or services are meeting the needs of your customers next year? What are you doing to determine these future needs? A crystal ball won’t help, but customer surveys, focus groups, and the like can. I know that many quality professionals believe that this is the domain of marketing or sales, but if you don’t know what customers think of your organization and your products now and what they are looking for down the road, you’re doomed.

OK, I know this column read a lot more like a college lecture than normal, but, hey, it’s almost Halloween.

The Future of Quality

2007-12-19T16:09:00.000-08:00

One of the fun parts of being a columnist is that you get to opine on whatever strikes your fancy, as long as it somewhat relevant to the magazine’s general content. You also get to make predictions without having to worry about having a ton of supporting data. Sure, I can be wrong, but as long as what I write is moderately informative/interesting/amusing/entertaining, the editors will keep publishing it.

So, having laid the foundation for what comes next, it’s time to once again to gaze into my crystal ball and make predictions about the future of quality. I periodically have this ridiculous urge to make predictions. I am frequently wrong, (and occasionally right), but, hey, who’s perfect?

Prediction no. 1: After declining for the past decade, quality will take on a new importance within organizations and the government. There are several reasons for this. First, the much-touted “new global economy” (or flat world) is finally here. And despite all the wonders it has wrought, quality has suffered. Tainted pet food, poisoned tooth paste, and lead-coated toys are just a few of the more obvious signs that quality basics like design, auditing, inspection, calibration, etc. are still essential to protecting customers. Although we in the West may disregard such flagrant signs of poor quality as those I mentioned earlier, don’t forget that it was Western companies that had these products made for them. Therefore, we need to do a better job of managing our suppliers (and their quality systems).

Second, our aging infrastructure needs help. Collapsing bridges are just one of the more obvious signs that our industrial revolution infrastructure is getting pretty old. We will need to spend billions of dollars updating and retrofitting it. And we will want to make sure that it is of the highest quality.

Third, despite your feelings about Al Gore (and who doesn’t have strong feelings about Al, one way or the other?) and global warming, there is no doubt that our economy will adjust to it (the hype about global warming that is, not Al). We are already selling hybrid vehicles, installing solar panels on millions of buildings, building ethanol processing facilities, and replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent ones. I believe that these changes will continue to accelerate, culminating in a new and nonpolluting energy source that makes oil (and the countries that produce and export it) obsolete.

This will be the equivalent of a new industrial revolution, creating millions of new jobs and powering a dynamic economy. The solution to our energy/global warming crisis will probably be many faceted and complex, but there’s no doubt that new production facilities and whole new infrastructures will be required. (Let’s hope it is the U.S. economy that benefits.) Of course, all this new technology will require quality professionals to make sure that good quality processes are designed, implemented, and followed.

Of course, new industries/technologies/professions will require new regulations and new standards. That leads me to prediction no. 2: Standards will be become even more widespread and diverse than they are now.

As most of you know, ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 are due to be updated next year. In fact, most of the work on the revision is already done and the committee charged with revising the standard—ISO/TC 176—is putting the finishing touches on the revision and making sure all the different countries involved in approving the standard are happy, which is no easy task. ISO 9001:2008 will then go through several rounds of voting before it is approved.

My sources on the committee tell me that the revisions are pretty minor. This is probably a good thing, both in terms of keeping companies who are using the standard happy and to keep the standard generic, so that it can continue to be used as a platform for industry-specific standards like ISO/TS 16949 and AS9100.

It will also allow the standard to continue to be widely implemented globally in this new flat world. China is already has the most ISO 9001-registered companies in the world, but it has a long way to go both in registering companies and improving its certification process.

Of course, this continued focus on standards and the new standards spawned by new technologies will require quality professionals and auditors. It will also require an even greater knowledge of quality principles by management and workers at all levels. This leads us back to my first prediction.

So, prediction no. 4 is that all those people out there who have been predicting the death of quality will have to eat their words.

Quality Hacks

2007-12-19T16:02:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite Web sites is www.lifehacker.com. The site posts an ever-changing cornucopia of tips, tools and techniques for hacking (i.e., improving) your personal and business life. Lifehacker is updated constantly, and I usually check it a couple of times during the day. It’s a great little break during the workday.

Lifehacker has all kinds of nifty tips, such as using e-mail more effectively, managing your time better, tweaking software to make it easier to use and more productive, and do-it-yourself projects that are fun and meaningful. I’ve discovered a lot of really useful information on the site that I use daily to make my job (and my life) a little easier.

For example, Lifehacker has featured some excellent tutorials on a very cool piece of software for Mac users called Quicksilver, which is a very nifty application that eliminates the need to look for nearly any application, document, file, picture, address or just about anything else you commonly search for on your computer. (Sorry, Windows devotees, but there really isn’t a Quicksilver equivalent for you yet. Launchy is close, but not so much.)

Lifehacker has also taught me how to use Google’s nifty e-mail service Gmail much more efficiently, how to fix a dent in my car, how to make my own paper, and it’s even taught me how to organize the mass of cables that run all over my desk. (OK, I actually haven’t fixed the dents, made the paper or cleaned up the cables, but at least I know how now.)

Recently, while checking out Lifehacker, I got to thinking that there really should be a place to share quality hacks—all those cool time-saving tips and techniques that quality professionals use in the course of their jobs to make their lives a little easier.

To help facilitate the sharing of quality hacks, I’ve just launched a new Web site called, aptly enough, QualityHacks (www.qualityhacks.com) where you can post your quality hacks and check out other hacks that quality professionals have posted. It’s a free site; I’ve just created it to give the quality community a forum to post hacks. Because it’s free, it’s pretty basic for now. If it proves to be popular, I’ll upgrade it.

In order for the site to be useful, it has to contain information. This is where you come in. I invite (beg, plead, urge—you get the idea) you to post your quality hacks on the site. They don’t have to be complicated or fancy. In fact, simpler is preferred. And you don’t have to worry about spelling and grammar and such. We’ll clean it up for you. We just want to give you an easy way to share your tips and techniques.

Here are some possible topics:

How have you modified the SPC software package you use to work better?

How have you set up your document control system?

How do you manage your gage calibration scheduling?

How do you communicate quality issues to employees, customers, and suppliers?

How do you motivate your internal auditors?

How do you recognize and reward team members?

How do you use everyday applications like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. in your quality processes?

How did you select that last piece of measuring equipment you bought?

If these sound like questions you’d like to see the answers to, you’re probably not alone. If they sound like questions you’d like to answer, rest assured that there a lot of people out there who would really like to know how you answered. Don’t be shy! Your peers are in the same situation you are.

Check out www.qualityhacks.com. Read, post and grow!

A Reader Responds...

2007-05-03T20:40:00.000-07:00

I seem to have struck a nerve with "The Death of Civility." Here's what one reader has to add:

Yep, civility is dead. I attribute it to the "special" factor as much as the other reasons you've listed. You know the "special" people--the self-anointed folks who don't have to wait in line in their cars, and feel free to drive up the "turn only" lane until the last minute, then cut you off (as you've sat through three or my cycles of the light)? The ones who blithely ignore the "10 items or less" rule in the grocery store, holding up 5 other customers with a few items each, all so that they didn't have to wait in the longer, non-express line themselves? The ones who push and bully their way to what they want, and others be damned? We all know these folks--and I work very hard not to BE one of these folks, every day.

They also see no reason to explain or apologize for their actions. Why should they? They're "special."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The Death of Civility

2007-04-30T13:56:00.000-07:00

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend during the last few years: the death of civility. The first symptoms of civility’s demise showed when e-mail was born. The symptoms worsened with the introduction of instant and text messaging. Civility took to its deathbed with discussion boards and listservs. The final nail in the coffin was driven with the advent of blogging.

Let me back up a bit. Those under 30 may not remember life before e-mail. But way back when IBM Selectric typewriters roamed the Earth—before e-mail, instant messaging, iPods, PDAs, laptops, cell phones, Blackberries and all those other oh-so-essential gadgets—people communicated in three basic ways: face-to-face, over the telephone, and by letter.

When you wrote a letter to someone, you had to take some time to think about what you were writing (you didn’t want to have to use White-Out or correction tape). When you called someone on the phone (you know that thing on your desk with the light that flashes to tell you that you have a voice mail message) you spoke to a real person, usually either the person you were intending to call or a receptionist or secretary. You actually got to hear the person’s reaction to what you were saying, so you could adjust your tone (and your message) accordingly. And, of course, when you had to actually make the Herculean effort to get up from your desk and walk down the hall to speak to someone face to face, you didn’t want to come off as a jerk, so you were careful with what you said and how you said it.

Now, of course, we communicate primarily through the electronic media: e-mail, instant messaging, text messages, blogs, discussion board, listservs, voice mail messages, video conferences, and the like.

When e-mail first arrived, it was oh so cool. You could send a letter to someone, like, instantly. At first, many people treated it the same way they did writing a letter. Soon, though, particularly as young people who never used a typewriter entered the work force, e-mails began to deteriorate into quick-and-dirty rapid-fire messages.

I know that I’m a bit picky—hence the Quality Curmudgeon title—but I am constantly amazed at the misspelled words, poor grammar and carelessness of the e-mails I receive. I can forgive spelling and grammar errors, but I cannot forgive and do not understand the sheer rudeness of many of the e-mails I receive. People seem to fire off the first thought that enters their head when responding to e-mails.

It’s amazing that a medium that is so fast and so easy to use usually requires three or four back and forth exchanges. This occurs because even though you may ask two, three, four or more questions in your original e-mail, the person responding almost always only answers the first question. So, you have e-mail again and again and again.

This kind of communication isn’t limited to e-mails. Text messages and instant messaging is worse. Of course, nothing can match the smug, venom-filled screed that permeates blogs, discussion groups and listservs. Make a post to your blog that someone disagrees with or post something to a discussion board that someone doesn’t like (and I write from personal experience) and you’re in for it. Rather than send a well-written, thoughtful response, they feel free to excoriate you in public. I wonder if these people would stand up in the middle of a sermon at their church and publicly abuse their spiritual leader or speak to their neighbor/spouse/colleague in the same way.

By far the worst consequence of this phenomenon is how it has affected other aspects of our daily lives. I think people are much freer to be rude to your face because they are so used to being that way in their electronic communications. Look at the increased incidences of road rage, for example.

Another disturbing trend is the death of civility in corporate America. Remember when the customer was always right? Now it seems as though the customer is wrong until he or she proves him or herself to be right. Store return policies are increasingly restrictive and employees are increasingly indifferent and rude to customers. I’ve seen young, able-bodied flight attendants shriek at elderly, infirmed passengers who ask for assistance with their bags. I’ve been hung up on by “customer service” reps because they didn’t like my questions. I’ve seen politicians on both sides of the aisle behave so poorly to one another that it makes the idea of bringing back pistol duels appealing.

IBM had a famous one-word slogan that was in every one of its offices around the world for decades. I wish Microsoft would put the slogan on the send button in Outlook. The message? “Think.”

What do you think of the state of civility these days? Please, be civil. Your mother might be reading.

TQM Explained, Part 1

2007-03-27T09:35:00.000-07:00

Here's part one of a TQM training video made by a group of students at a Scottish university. Check out the German-Scottish-Yoda accent! I'll post part two soon.

Just Do It!

2007-03-27T09:11:00.000-07:00

What I really meant to say. . .

As a small-business owner I face an array of challenges every day: finance, marketing, human resources, quality, customer service, new product development, inventory control, and the like. Of course, this is in addition to being a husband, a father, a son, a friend, and looking after my own physical and mental well-being. I constantly struggle with making the right choices at the right time. I know that I’m not alone in making these choices. Whether you’re a small-business owner like me or a quality manager or an auditor or a machine tool operator, you’ve got a mountain of choices of your own to make every day.

Luckily, there are countless time-saving options for all of us overworked, overstressed, overlooked heroes. For example, there’s software, which promises to automate just about any aspect of our lives: time management, document control, weight management, planning, you name it. Of course, you’ll have to determine which software package comes closest to your particular needs.

Once you choose your software package, you’ll then need to ~~whine~~ ~~beg~~ ~~plead~~ convince your boss to authorize its purchase. Once you have approval and you make the purchase, you’ll then ~~spend countless hours on the phone with technical support~~ install it and learn how to use it. (Of course, if others in your organization are to use it too, you’ll ~~have to force it on them~~ to do some significant training.) After you’ve used it for a while, you’ll discover ~~you’ve wasted a lot of time and money~~ you need to modify it to fit your particular needs. Remember, once you’ve become proficient in its use, ~~it will suddenly become obsolete~~ the manufacturer will update it, so you’ll have to relearn the software and retrain everyone to use it. Of course, ~~keep your fingers crossed that Microsoft doesn’t release some new operating system that will make your new software obsolete~~ remember to plan to replace your software every few years.

There are other time-saving options besides software. Maybe if you knew more about a particular aspect of your job, you’d do it better and have more free time. Why not attend a seminar? Of course, you’ll need considerable ~~whining~~ time to convince your boss to send you. But just imagine ~~the horror~~ it: An entire day or two or maybe even a whole week learning to do your job better. Plus, you’ll probably get to travel to ~~the cheapest and nearest seminar location~~ some exotic locale. (Maybe you can even learn a few things about quality, productivity and efficiency from those cheerful TSA folks as you wait in line at the airport.) Ah, but you’ll be ~~worn out~~ superproductive when you return. (At least that’s the way to position it your boss when ~~begging for~~ requesting permission to go.)

Of course, someone will have to cover for you while you’re gone, so you’ll have to ~~work overtime~~ set aside some time to train the other person to do your job for you. This person probably won’t ~~really do anything but screw things up~~ have time to effectively do his or her job and yours while you’re gone, leaving you with even more work to do when you get back, so be sure to set aside some extra time for that when you get back. Oh, and don’t forget that your boss will be expecting a report on what you learned at the seminar so ~~the cheapskate won’t have to send anyone else to a seminar~~ you can share what you learned with everyone else in the organization.

You’ll probably learn that ~~you know more than your seminar instructor~~ you’ve been ~~working with complete idiots~~ doing things ~~totally wrong~~ less efficiently than possible, so be sure to allow a good amount of time for ~~second guessing~~ analyzing your current system when you return. Of course, after a good deal of time has been ~~wasted~~ invested, you’ll discover that ~~the whole thing was a waste of time~~ the way things worked before you went to the seminar was ~~a hell of a lot better~~ probably good enough. Be sure to allow some time to put things back the way they were.

If a seminar isn’t your cup of tea, why not use the Internet to save time? Take some time from ~~surfing porn~~ ~~playing games~~ ~~instant messenging~~ doing market research and Google your way to better time management. Just type in whatever you need and ~~tons of useless listings~~ the answer will instantly appear on your computer screen. For example, I Googled “time management” and got back 1.12 billion responses. ~~What a waste of time.~~ Amazing isn’t it!

I narrowed my search to ~~“learn Klingon”~~ “time management for curmudgeons.” Wow, ~~908,000 hits for “learn Klingon”~~ only 37,000 hits. (Who knew there were so many of us?) OK, don’t get discouraged. You can immediately toss out the paid listings that show up. ~~Your boss isn’t going to cough up any dough after that failed software implementation and you’ve spent your training budget on that useless seminar you attended.~~ So, now we’re down to a more manageable 36,974 listings.

These are just thee options to help you manage your time more effectively. ~~Maybe if I spent as much time just getting the job done as I did trying to do it better, I might actually get something done.~~

What’s your favorite time-saving trick? Post your thoughts here. ~~Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.~~

Do the ISO 9000 Dance

2007-03-14T15:39:00.000-07:00

Now, here's somebody really happy about his company's ISO 9001 certification.

Prescription for Success… Or Failure?

2007-03-05T17:08:00.000-08:00

The city in which I live—Chico, California—is a wonderful place. It’s a relatively small city (about 75,000 residents), but it’s home to California State University, Chico, so there’s always a lot of fun stuff going on. Chico is safe, clean, and has most of the modern amenities considered vital in today’s world: Starbucks, Barnes & Noble, Costco, etc.

Oddly enough, however, Chico only has one 24-hour pharmacy: Walgreens. This is problematic for those of us with small children, who are prone to get sick after the doctor’s offices and regular pharmacies have closed.

A few days ago, all three of my kids came down with some nasty bug. So we loaded up the minivan and headed off to the local after-hours clinic. The doctor phoned in three prescriptions of antibiotics for the kids. Walgreens was our only option. After we loaded up the kids for the ride home, my wife remembered that we had a little bit of antibiotic left over from the last illness so we decided to pick up our prescription the next day.

The following day I head to Walgreens to pick up the prescriptions. I wait 10 minutes in line only to be told that they haven’t been filled yet. I remind the woman behind the counter that the prescription had been called in 16 hours earlier (remember, this is a 24-hour pharmacy). She tells me that the best they can do is fill them in about 10 minutes.

I wait 10 minutes and then get back in line for another 10-minute wait. When I get to the counter again, I am told that they didn’t bill my insurance, so I’ll have to wait another 10 minutes while they do the insurance billing.

OK, at this point, the Quality Curmudgeon’s blood is boiling. I am mad, mad, mad! Such incompetence! I vow never again to use this pharmacy (even though I know I will have to). I realize that my anger really was out of proportion to the situation. So, being the nice guy that I am, I didn’t say anything. I just waited along with everyone else.

After another 10-minute wait, I am called back to the window and told that Blue Cross doesn’t seem to have my daughter in their system. OK, I was about to lose it at this point, but something curious happened. My anger at Walgreens and Blue Cross turned into sympathy and compassion for Andrea, young woman who was helping me. Rather than just say, “Sorry, I can’t help you,” she called Blue Cross and spent 15 minutes on the phone arguing on my behalf. When a supervisor at Blue Cross finally told her that my daughter didn’t exist and there was nothing Blue Cross could do, Andrea just hung up and called back. She spoke to a different person who was able to find my daughter in the system and (hopefully) fixed the problem for good.

I thanked Andrea for her help. “This happens all the time,” she said shrugging her shoulders. “It’s no big deal.”

Andrea then told me that she had to have a pharmacist check the prescription before she could sell it to me, so I had to wait another five minutes. When I was called back to the counter to pay, Walgreens’ computer system wouldn’t let them sell me one of the prescriptions. At this point, I wasn’t really so much angry as I was amused. Five different employees tried in vain to override the computer system. Finally, one of the pharmacists told the cashier to just manually enter the info and sell me my prescription.

I was in the pharmacy for over an hour. In that time, I went from annoyed, to angry, to exasperated, to sympathetic, to amused.

So, what lessons did I take away from all of this? Who’s fault was it? Mine for not encasing my children in a plastic bubble? Greedy lawyers for driving up the cost of health insurance with frivolous lawsuits? Incompetent management at Walgreens for not designing a better process? Computer software manufacturers for not designing better software? Blue Cross for a lack of training and inefficient processes? So how can I improve this situation for the future? Let’s examine my options:
• Move to a bigger city.
• Encase the children in plastic bubbles.
• Try to get to the doctor earlier in the day so I can use a different pharmacy (though given the state of health care these days, there’s no guarantee that I will have a different experience with a different pharmacy).
• Switch insurance companies. Again, there’s no guarantee that would be a better solution.
• Accept the fact there are some things that I just don’t have any control over, do the best that I can and not be so intolerant of those caught up in the process.

I think the last solution is probably best. I know that Andrea and the other people at Walgreens were doing the best they could with the system they had to work in. The same is probably true of the reps at Blue Cross. Many of our readers face similar scenarios every day. You’ve got to follow somebody else’s processes and make the best of it. Isn’t that what this quality stuff is all about? Making the best of somebody else’s process and adapting your organization’s capabilities to meet the customers’ (external and internal) needs.

What processes drive you crazy. Share your experiences here.

Alec Baldwin on Six Sigma

2007-01-26T10:18:00.001-08:00

At last. Six Sigma explained!

Is Quality Slipping at Toyota?

2007-01-26T10:06:00.000-08:00

Does another Toyota recall signal slipping quality? Has Toyota grown too large? Nope. Here's an interesting link from Bloomberg's Doron Levin on the subject:

Has the most-admired, most-copied, most-studied and most- envied automaker of the past 20 years suddenly and disastrously lost its way? Most quality experts say no. Toyota has had recalls before, as have all automakers. In fact, the number of vehicles the company recalled in 2006 plunged from the year earlier.

Though Toyota's quality ratings have slipped from their once-lofty heights, they remain at or near the top of most scales of measurement. In the closely watched J.D. Power & Associates initial quality study for 2006, Toyota was rated No. 2, after Hyundai, for non-luxury brands. Among luxury brands, Toyota's Lexus was second, behind Porsche.

Read the rest of the story here.

Sunset for Detroit?

2006-12-21T11:48:00.000-08:00

A smaller, more humble Detroit might just be the best thing for the U.S. auto industry.

It won’t be much longer now. We’ve known for some time that the Big Three’s reign would one day come to an end. Refusing to learn from their mistakes, General Motors Corp., Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. continued to churn out gas-guzzling clunkers that consumers just didn’t want. The first of the Big Three to fall was Chrysler, absorbed in a laughable “merger of equals” with Daimler-Benz in 1998. That left the Big Two: Ford and GM.

Despite a legacy dating back to the “inventor” of the automobile, Ford is practically melting away. Its “Way Forward” campaign aims to reduce its work force by 30,000 employees and shutter 14 manufacturing plants. Chairman Bill Ford’s actions have made it clear that the family’s goal is to preserve its wealth over preserving the company.

That leaves GM, currently the world’s largest automaker. Like Ford, GM has been hemorrhaging jobs, market share, plants and cash. GM recently refused to consider a proposed global alliance with Carlos Ghosn’s Renault-Nissan, preferring to go it alone.

The Big Three’s losses have been the Japanese and Korean automakers’ gains. Toyota will soon replace GM as the world’s No. 1 automaker. But, as GM and Ford (and DaimlerChrysler, too) discovered, bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better. Toyota’s ascendancy to the No. 1 spot may be exactly what Detroit needs to revitalize: By being smaller, more nimble and more driven (pardon the pun), U.S. automakers may be able to compete more effectively against their larger Japanese rivals.

Already Toyota is worried about being too big and too slow to react to the market. A recent Wall Street Journal article discusses Toyota CEO Katsuaki Watanabe’s fears. Forget kaizen, the relentless focus on incremental improvement. According to The Wall Street Journal, Watanabe wants kakushin—revolutionary change in how Toyota designs cars and factories. “His ultimate aim: Cut at least a trillion yen ($8.68 billion) in vehicle costs in the next three to four years—the equivalent of about $1,000 a vehicle—and keep slashing costs at similar rates thereafter,” says Norihiko Shirouzu, writing in the Dec. 9, 2006, issue of the Wall Street Journal. “That is on top of one trillion yen Toyota squeezed out of its parts purchasing from 2000 through 2004, an effort led by Mr. Watanabe in an earlier role.” Does this sound like a man content to let Toyota rest on its laurels?

GM and Ford have seen disastrous results in product design and innovation from their narrow focus on cost cutting. Let’s hope that Toyota doesn’t forget about the customer in its drive to slash costs.

So far Toyota’s growth in market share has been matched by growth in profitability. But remember how profitable Ford and GM were in the 1980s and 1990s? Toyota has also seen an increase in the number of vehicle recalls and quality problems. Some chinks in Toyota’s armor are beginning to appear. “In the U.S., the number of Toyota recalls hit 2.38 million vehicles last year, more than the 2.26 million vehicles the automaker sold the same year,” writes Shirouzu in the Dec. 11, 2006, issue of the Wall Street Journal.

Back in the days when quality was supposedly “job one” at Ford, lean and mean Toyota and Honda pecked away at the Big Three’s market share by focusing their resources on building exactly what the consumer wanted and relentlessly improving existing models. Honda introduced the Civic in 1972, and has refined and improved it ever since. U.S. automakers can’t stand to keep a model in production for more than a few years before killing it off in favor of something new. Remember the Taurus? Once America’s best-selling car, it slipped quietly away and recently ceased production.

The new leaner and meaner Detroit might have a chance to beat the Japanese, Koreans and, quite probably, the Chinese at their own game. If they can use their smaller work force, flattened bureaucracy, and (hopefully) a newfound humbleness to regain a focus on improving quality and giving consumers what they want, they can compete. If not, don’t be surprised if one day you’re checking out a new Toyota Mustang or Hyundai Corvette. Think it can’t happen? Not many people thought they would be driving a Daimler-made Chrysler, a Ford-made Volvo or a GM-made Saab.

There is hope for Detroit. As Shirouzu wrote in his Dec. 9, Wall Street Journal article, “Toyota is finding that there are limits to its efficiency drive, with each incremental improvement increasingly hard to win. In 1998, it took the Japanese company 21.6 hours to assemble one car in North America, more than 10 hours faster than GM. By last year, Toyota had improved only marginally, to 21.3, while GM had almost caught up.” It’s easy to see why Toyota’s Watanabe is worried.

What are your thoughts on the future of U.S. auto manufacturing? Will Ford and GM remain independent? Should they? Can they successfully compete against Japan, Korea, China and the Europeans?

Parenting a Business

2006-12-06T20:31:00.000-08:00

It’s been more than a year since I left the august position of publisher of Quality Digest. In that year, my life has changed dramatically: I have two more children—a boy and a girl who are now eight months old, in addition to my five-year-old son—a business that is growing in ways I never imagined and a new perspective on growing a family and a business.

Growing your family is a never-ending job full of worry, excitement, laughter and anticipation. Growing a business is very similar: There are high expectations when it’s being developed, birthing pains when it’s launched, and the same mix of worry, excitement, laughter and anticipation while it’s growing.

Of course, while I was at Quality Digest, I was also running a business. I always treated my job at Quality Digest as if it were my own because I always believed that that’s the only way to work. Now that I’ve left, I realize my folly. Of course, it wasn’t my business, so no matter how much I acted that way, I couldn’t be fully invested. So while I worried and planned and hoped, I was always worrying, planning and hoping for someone else’s business. I realize now that it was kind of like babysitting. (And sometimes, it really felt like I was babysitting.)
Now that I have my own business to run full time, it’s like raising my own children. The parallels are remarkable:

You can’t be a part-time parent or part-time business owner. They are both 24-hour, seven-day-a-week jobs. If the baby cries at 3:00 a.m., you are there. If your alarm system goes off at your office at 1:00 a.m., you are there. Waking up in the middle of the night worrying about meeting payroll or worrying about paying for college results in the same lack of sleep.
You must constantly adapt. The skills I used to parent my five-year-old son Ian are very different from the skills I used when he was two. Not only have I learned from my mistakes but he has grown and developed and requires different parenting now. My business is very similar. Now that I have more employees, different products and services, and different income needs, I must run my business differently.
You must invest for the future. Right after each of my kids was born, I opened a college savings fund. I have a set amount automatically transferred from my checking account to their college funds. It’s not always easy to see that money being siphoned away, but I know it has to be done if I want my kids to have a shot at a decent college education one day. The same is true for my business. I am constantly investing in new technology, new product development and developing my skills.
You must clearly define your expectations. It’s silly for me to get angry with my child because he does something I don’t like if I haven’t clearly defined the expectation. Of course, the same is true for my. What aren’t sometimes so obvious are the expectations I need to set for myself. As a parent, I need to be clear about what I need to do to meet the goals and objectives I have for my family (e.g., I must save for my children’s education now.). As a business owner I also have expectations for myself (e.g., I must work toward my goals, not just to get by.)
You must make education a priority. Mornings at the Paton household are chaotic at best. It’s my job to get Ian to school while my wife, Heidi, looks after the twins. Every weekday I somehow manage to deliver a somewhat reluctant five-year-old to his kindergarten class complete with backpack, snack, sharing item, library book and whatever else he needs. After school, Heidi helps him with his homework even though he’d rather be playing soccer, watching TV or riding his scooter. At night we read stories before bed and practice our letters. It’s amazing to see his progress. Now, I don’t read stories to my employees, but I do my best to help them grow in their job skills. It’s not easy for a small business to send employees off to training seminars or have them attend a webinar or take online training, but it’s essential for employee development and the growth of your business. It’s also just as rewarding to see an employee grow from newfound skills.
You’ve got to have faith. As a parent I sometimes just have to let go and have faith that everything will be OK. When Ian goes off to his grandma’s house for the weekend. I have to hope that he will behave, be safe and have fun. The same is true for my business. Although my business never goes off for a weekend with grandma, it is run in large part by my employees. I have to have faith that I’ve hired the right people and trained them well.
You have to work hard, very hard. Face it, raising kids isn’t glamorous and sometimes isn’t very fun. The same is true with running a business. Sometimes you just want to quit. But if you’re fully invested in your business (as you have to be with your kids), you can’t quit. In fact, the thought can’t even enter your mind. You have to be in it for the long haul or you won’t have the level of commitment you need to succeed. The good news is that even though your business probably won’t give the same thrill as seeing your baby take his or her first step, it can be very fulfilling to see the results of your hard work come to fruition in a new product or the extraordinary work of an employee.

As I said these are just a few of the parallels. Post your thoughts on running a business or raising kids (I need all the help I can get).

Online Document Control

2006-09-06T16:52:00.000-07:00

Here's a new online application that holds promise for those looking for a simple and free document control system.

Share Your Documents. Anywhere, Anytime.

Approver.com makes it easy for you to share documents and ideas with friends and colleagues.

You can use Approver.com to create or upload notes or documents. When you're ready, you can use Approver.com to invite friends or colleagues to provide feedback. When colleagues have reviewed your document, you'll receive an alert. If they forget to review the document, we'll bug them in email so you don't have to.

Looks pretty cool, albeit basic. But, hey, it's free. For more info, check out www.approver.com.

Blog New World

2006-09-05T12:39:00.000-07:00

It’s been more than a year since I started this blog. Pretty impressive for a guy who didn’t even know what a blog was until a few months before. Thanks to Dennis Arter for introducing me to the “blogosphere” (i.e., what geeks call the world of blogs).

Blogs are a great way to create dialogue and share information. Their interactive nature adds depth to the topic being covered. The best blogs provide open access and discussion about a particular subject.

In the quality world, there are several blogs worth visiting:

The Audit Guy—www.auditguy.blogspot.com. This blog by Dennis Arter, known in certain circles as “The Audit Guy,” discusses a wide range of issues, from quality auditing to technology. Dennis is a quality expert and technology guru, a nice combination.
PDCA Auditing—www.pdcauditing.com. This blog by Paul Palmes discusses auditing issues and includes podcast (a downloadable audio file) interviews with quality professionals.
The Quality Weblog—www.qualityweblog.com. This blog features discussion on a wide range of quality issues and is hosted by Darryl VanDorp.
Sarbanes-Oxley—www4.asq.org/blogs/sarbanes-oxley . This blog features discussion on Sarbanes-Oxley (SOx) and is moderated by John Walz. Although not technically a quality issue, SOx is certainly important to quality professionals. The American Society for Quality hosts this site.

ASQ has a blog section on its Web site (www.asq.org/blog). Unfortunately, it has only four blogs listed at present, including John Walz’s SOx blog. However, there is a link to suggest blog topics and potential moderators. This seems like a logical place for ASQ sections and divisions to post their blogs. I don’t know if the reason they aren’t listed here is because none of the sections or divisions have blogs, or if I just can’t find them on ASQ’s rather labyrinthine site.

There are a couple of other nonquality blogs that I visit frequently and I highly recommend:

Lifehacker—www.lifehacker.com. This blog’s description says it all: “Computers make us more productive. Yeah, right. Lifehacker recommends the software downloads and Web sites that actually save time. Don’t live to geek; geek to live.”
43 Folders—www.43folders.com. This blog is about personal productivity, life hacks and simple ways to make your life a little better. It features a lot of good information about David Allen’s “Getting Things Done” methodology.

I’m sure there are some great blogs out there that I haven’t mentioned; please post your favorites here.

User input makes blogs even more interesting. Most blogs allow visitors to post comments, and most bloggers appreciate visitor input. One caveat, however: Be polite and have something useful to say. Some people think blogs are an open invitation to personally attack others. What would your mother say?

If you think the blogosphere is pretty cool and might want to start one of your own, you’re in luck. Setting up a blog is simple and free. A number of services, including Blogger (www.blogger.com) and Word Press (www.wordpress.org), provide free online software and hosting for blogs. I use Blogger, which happens to be owned by Google. Blogger includes a variety of templates to vary the look of your blog. In addition to text postings, you can add links to other blogs and Web sites, images, and audio or video clips. I set up my blog and began posting in less than 10 minutes. If you do set up your own quality blog, let me know about it. I’d like to feature some quality blogs on mine and provide links to them. Adding links to your blog is a great way to drive traffic (i.e., users) to your site.

If you’re uncomfortable with newfangled terms like blog, blogosphere, Web log, podcast and such, relax. They’re entering the mainstream. Toss them around at your next company meeting or with your kids. Your co-workers will think you’re hip; your kids probably won’t. Still confused? Look in Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), the free online user-compiled encyclopedia. (Another nod to Dennis Arter for enlightening me about this useful tool.)

Toyota Takes Action to Improve Quality

2006-08-25T09:14:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting story from Yahoo about an automaker taking steps to deal with its quality problems:

Toyota May Delay Some New Models

OYAMA, Japan - Toyota may delay some of its new models, the company's president said Friday, as the world's No. 2 automaker tries to improve its quality control process in order to reduce a spate of recalls that is threatening its reputation.

(Read the full story here.)

As Toyota grows and adds an increasingly complex product line, there are bound to be some quality problems but it's encouraging to see an automaker take such public steps prior to introducing models to address potential quality issues. The U.S. automakers' approach seems to be to hide quality issues and address them behind closed doors after the fact.

I'm still mystified why Ford and GM are still so far behind the Japanese in quality, product design, reliability, fuel efficiency, etc. Many of the Japanese autos sold in the United States are designed and built here so I don't believe it's a cultural issue. What do you think? If you disagree, then explain the decline in market share--and there's more to it than rising gas prices.

Let's Blame China!

2006-08-21T21:02:00.000-07:00

Here's two interesting headlines on the homepage of American Society for Quality's Web site today:

Dell’s Recall Sparks Worry About Foreign Manufacturing Quality

U.S. Automakers Closing Quality Gap; Dell Bounces Back After Service Slide

Just when Dell seemed to be "bouncing back," disaster strikes!

I think it's interesting that the first article puts the blame on "China" and not Dell or Sony, which had the batteries manufactured for it in China and then sold to Dell. Isn't it Dell's and Sony's responsibility to ensure that their suppliers are manufacturing according to specifications? Aren't they auditing their suppliers? Inspecting product? Testing product?

Another point in the first article that caught my eye: "An industry group is meeting in September to, among other things, examine ways to create industry-wide standards dealing with quality control." Hmm. I thought we had international groups that developed standards for quality. Haven't they heard of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)?

Unrealistic/Undefined Customer Requirements?

2006-08-18T12:25:00.000-07:00

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.)

Stellar Customer Service

2006-08-09T10:30:00.000-07:00

As you may already know, I have little tolerance for poor customer service. In fact, I've been burned so many times that when I do have to call customer service to resolve a problem, I enter the conversation with fear and loathing. However, I recently had an experience with an online service that launched my feelings about their service into orbit.

Or should I say, "Orbitz," a leading online travel Web site. I use Orbitz four or five times a month to book travel for me or the trainers who work with Paton Press. I've always been impressed with the site's low fares and easy-to-navigate interface. Despite having purchased hundreds of airline tickets through the site, I never had an occasion to call customer service until recently. (I guess that in itself says something about the quality of the service I've received.)

While reviewing my last American Express statement, I noticed two charges for the same amount and the same itinerary. I knew that this was a mistake because I had only purchased one ticket. I logged onto the Orbitz site and looked at my past trips. I saw that there was only one booked itinerary for that person for that week. Orbitz had made a mistake.

I knew I would have to call the company to get the error corrected, and I began to experience that uneasy feeling I get whenever I have to call customer service. Where would my call get routed? Would they believe me? Had I made a $335 error?

I began the process by going to the Orbitz home page. I was impressed. At the top of the page in large, easy-to-read type was a tab that said "Customer Service." Probably a link to a "Frequently Asked Questions" database, I thought. To my surprise, when I clicked on the tab, there were three options: an FAQ database, an e-mail link and a toll-free number to call for help. The customer service department is open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. This is impressive, especially when traveling. OK. This was looking good, but how would my call be answered?

I dialed the number and was immediately connected to the Orbitz voice mail system, which asked for my home phone number. Apparently, this let them know where I was calling from. After entering my phone number, I was led through a surprisingly quick and easy voice mail navigation system that divides calls by type of inquiry. I generally hate these kinds of voice mail systems, but Orbitz's system was painless. I was through it in a matter of seconds.

When I selected "help," my call was answered within a minute. A pleasant woman asked how she could help me. I explained that upon reviewing my American Express statement it appeared as though I had been double charged. Her first reaction was to apologize.

"I'm sorry you had a problem," she said. "Let's see what we can do to resolve it for you."

She asked me for some information and then asked me to hold while she checked on the problem. When she came back on the line after about two minutes, she apologized for leaving me on hold. The Orbitz system had indeed double charged me. She explained that Orbitz would refund my money and that it might take 30 to 60 days to show up on my American Express card statement, depending on when my statement was issued. She again apologized and asked if there was anything else she could do and if I was satisfied with the problem resolution.

About one week later, I received a letter from Orbitz apologizing for the problem with an explanation for what had occurred. The letter also included a $50 discount coupon toward my next Orbitz purchase.

Why was this a good experience? Orbitz did everything right:

• It had an easy-to-find customer service area on its Web site. Many sites don't offer this. Check www.amazon.com or www.walmart.com, for example. I couldn't find a phone number on either of these sites, or a general customer service link.

• It provided me with multiple options for getting help: an FAQ database, an e-mail link and a 24/7 toll-free phone number.

• It quickly channeled my call to the correct person. I didn't feel like I was lost in voice mail hell.

• Its customer service rep was a well-spoken, pleasant, sympathetic person. I didn't feel as if she were reading from a script. This woman genuinely wanted to make things right. Plus she told me that she could tell from my purchase history that I clearly knew how to use the site. (A good ego-stroke never hurts.)

• It didn't leave me on hold for 15 minutes. The customer service rep was back on the line within two minutes with an answer and a solution to my problem.

• Its solution was logical: A full refund. No arguments, no complicated explanations.

• Its customer service rep summarized the problem and solution, and she made sure that I was happy with the resolution. In addition, she thanked me for being an Orbitz customer. This is so simple and yet so often overlooked.

• It followed up a week later with a letter that included an apology, an explanation and an incentive to use the service again. Will I? You bet.

How about you? Post your thoughts on what makes customer service out of this world.

The Customer Should Have Known Better

2006-07-26T11:02:00.000-07:00

In last month’s column I ran a quiz with some fairly typical everyday quality scenarios. I presented 10 situations and asked if the experience was a “quality” one. I received some interesting feedback.

A number of readers disagreed with my answers to the quiz, believing that it was unfair of me to expect a different outcome because I hadn’t communicated my requirements to the supplier or that I had unrealistic expectations. Several people told me that I had misinterpreted Phil Crosby’s definition of quality: conformance to requirements. One reader told me that I really should have used “conformance to stated requirements” as my definition.

This kind of thinking—what I call “the customer should have known better” thinking or CSHKB—is responsible for a great deal of customer dissatisfaction these days. It’s not my responsibility to communicate my requirements; it is the supplier’s responsibility to determine them. In most cases (especially in the 10 scenarios I presented), it’s not difficult to determine basic customer requirements. For example, in my quiz I stated that I had to wait 15 minutes for an elevator each time I wanted to go to my room in a four star hotel I stayed at in New York City. I think most people would agree that a 15-minute wait for an elevator in a hotel is far too long. It doesn’t matter if the hotel is in New York City or Mayberry.

CSHKB thinking is responsible for a whole host of quality problems in a range of industries. The airline industry has been beset with huge losses during the last decade. However, in my quiz when I said that I expected my luggage to arrive at my destination at the same time I did regardless of the price of the ticket, one reader told me that for the price ($198), I was lucky that my luggage didn’t end up in Kazakhstan. Talk about low expectations! I hope this guy isn’t responsible for any bridges that I’ll be driving over anytime soon. It’s this kind of thinking that has driven nearly every major airline into bankruptcy in the last 10 years. It may be cliché to mention Southwest Airlines, but it somehow manages to get people to their destinations—with their luggage—for pretty low prices. They understand their customers’ requirements and meet or exceed them. They also manage to consistently make a profit.

The issues I presented in my quiz aren’t so much conformance-to-requirements problems as they are a total disregard for the customer. An organization that cares about its customers (and therefore its own survival) takes the time to determine what the customers’ requirements are and then makes sure they are met, every time. It doesn’t matter if the organization is producing $1 toy guns or $45,000 SUVs.

One reader says I am naïve to expect much from a $1 toy gun. Let’s examine that more closely. I was dissatisfied with the toy because it broke within a few days of purchasing it. The failure was not as a result of my son being too rough with the toy. The trigger simply fell off. Because I was dissatisfied, I won’t buy one of those toys again. I imagine that most people who experience the same problem won’t buy the toy again. If enough people have the problem, the toy manufacturer goes out of business. The same is true with automobiles. If enough people have enough problems with the cars they buy, the automaker will be in trouble.

In most cases determining customers’ requirements is simply a matter of asking them. Countless books, articles and seminars exist to show you how. In other cases, requirements can be gleaned from research or other data.

Sometimes quality professionals focus so much on customer specifications that they forget customer requirements, in all their forms. Crosby’s definition of quality as conformance to requirements goes beyond stated customer requirements or specifications; it applies to the implied or unstated requirements as well.

When I purchase a plane ticket, I don’t send my requirements to the airline. I assume that part of the deal will be that my luggage will arrive at my destination the same time that I do. As a consumer, I also understand that different vendors will provide me with different service levels. For example, when I buy a ticket on American Airlines, I understand that I will have an assigned seat and will have a decent shot at upgrading because of my frequent flier status. When I choose to travel on Southwest Airlines, I understand that I need to check in online as early as possible and get to the airport early to avoid getting stuck in a middle seat. But in either case, I expect both airlines to depart on time and get me and my luggage safely to my destination.

CSHKB thinking is deadly to business. It’s the organization’s responsibility to determine its customers’ requirements in all their forms.

Curmudgeon School

2006-06-26T17:27:00.000-07:00

Welcome students to the new session of Curmudgeon School! I am delighted you could join me for today’s lesson. Today we are going to have a pop quiz. I know, you all hate quizzes, but my job as professor of Curmudgeonliness is to ensure that you all have the knowledge you need to succeed.

I am going to present 10 scenarios and I want you to tell me if they were “quality” experiences. The answers are at the end. Base your answers on Philip Crosby’s definition of quality: “conformance to requirements.” Remember, the provider of the product or service needs to deliver it in a manner that meets the requirements of its customers.

Problems
1. I buy my son a $1 water gun at Target. He plays with it for two hours and the trigger breaks. It no longer squirts water but he continues to play with it.
2. I buy a $45,000 SUV. Within 12 months, the power seat needs to be repaired, the power mirrors needs to be replaced and it averages 11 miles per gallon, which is much lower than the dealer told me it would get.
3. I buy a $20,000 Toyota Camry. After signing all the paperwork I notice that there is a small scratch on the hood of my new car. The dealer promises to make it as good as new. In fact, the dealer does repair the scratch and I can’t tell that it was ever there.
4. I purchase a round trip airline ticket from San Francisco to New York for $198. I am in a middle seat both ways. No food was served. The airline lost my luggage on the way to New York. The luggage was delivered to my hotel in New York the morning after I arrived.
5. I check into a four star hotel in New York. My $279 a night room is on the 27th floor. I have to wait between five to 10 minutes for the elevators each time I want to go up or down.
6. I check into a Motel 6. My room costs $49. There is no elevator, and I have to carry my luggage to the second story room. The room is clean but very spartan.
7. I go through the drive thru at McDonald’s at noon and order an Asian Salad with grilled chicken. I am told that I have to go park and wait 10 minutes while my chicken is cooked. The salad is delicious.
8. I buy a new computer from a warehouse club retailer. The computer is plagued with problems and I eventually return it after eight months for a full refund.
9. I have 3,000 books printed. The printer promises me they will be delivered within four weeks. They arrive after only three weeks. However, the books are missing 16 pages. The printer reprints and reships the books to me at no additional cost. I receive them five weeks after I originally ordered the books.
10. I read a very engaging article in a magazine. I notice that there are two misspelled words and that the table of contents points me to the wrong page for another article I wish to read.

Answers
1. No. And don’t give me that “What do you expect for $1?” nonsense. If you can’t make a toy that will last for $1, then don’t sell it for $1.
2. No. I expect everything to work right, and I expect to be told the truth. The fuel economy didn’t come close to what I was promised.
3. No. A new car should be blemish-free. If I had wanted a scratched car, I would have bought a used one. Although the dealer did make it right, they should have made it right before I purchased the car.
4. No, even though the price was great. The seat was lousy and the lack of food was annoying but those issues didn’t affect the quality of the product. I know that airlines only have so many aisle and window seats available, so there is a chance I will get a middle seat. Also, anyone who has traveled recently knows that airlines don’t feed you anymore. The issue was the lost luggage. I expect the airline to get my bag to my destination the same time it gets me there.
5. No. The hotel should be designed so that I don’t have to wait an eternity for an elevator.
6. Yes. I know what I am getting with Motel 6. I don’t expect a fancy room or elevator service.
7. No. The whole point of a drive thru is for speedy service. Although the salad was delicious, a 10-minute wait for an item in the drive thru is ridiculous.
8. No (and yes). Clearly, there was a problem with the computer and so I didn’t have a quality experience with it. However, I did have a quality experience with the store. It accepted the computer back and gave me a full refund eight months after I purchased it. That exceeded my expectations.
9. No. Although I really appreciate the printer for correcting the error in such a timely manner, it should have printed the books correctly the first time.
10. No. It is the responsibility of the magazine’s editors to make sure that the articles are error-free.

Class dismissed.

Quality Apathy

2006-04-28T12:13:00.000-07:00

I’ve written extensively in the last year about the state of quality today. I’ve recounted my customer service horror stories from Wal-Mart, Target, AT&T and others. Not surprisingly, I’ve received many letters and had numerous postings to my blog that question my motives. Readers complain that I’m too hard on a particular company or I don’t understand a certain industry or tell me that I shouldn’t let one isolated incident frame my perception of an organization. Although I acknowledge that I am not an expert on many things, I am expert on how I expect my quality requirements to be met. I may not always know how to define poor service or bad quality, but I sure know it when I experience it.

The letters defending the poor service that I received are indicative of a general quality apathy in this country (and most of the Western world). Consumers are either afraid to speak up when they receive poor service, defeated in their attempts to counter it or don’t have an alternative. Unfortunately, this same apathy is shared by organizational leadership. Therefore, we expect poor quality and we are given it.

This apathy is pushing us toward a tipping point that may strip us of our ability to effectively compete with the rest of the world. Thomas Friedman points out in his excellent book, The World Is Flat, that technology, innovation, capital and free enterprise systems around the world are converging to make doing business in India as easy as it is in Indianapolis. (By the way, if you haven’t already read The World Is Flat, buy it now. It should be required reading for anyone who works for a living.) We’re losing not just manufacturing jobs to places like China and Mexico, but we’re also beginning to lose the high-paying white collar jobs that are the engine of economic growth. Jobs like tax preparation, software engineering, project managers, and administrative assistants can now be done in India for a fraction of the cost of doing them in the United States.

If you read my column regularly, you probably know that I am a staunch advocate of free trade. I believe that free and open trade will benefit our country in the long run. However, we’ve got to start paying attention to what’s going on in the rest of the world. There is no quality apathy in China. The government and the people are passionately committed to it. They know that a commitment to quality is vital to success of their economy.

Unfortunately, I’ve received many letters from readers who believe that China is one big slave labor camp. This is nonsense. I agree that the Chinese people do not have the same liberties and basic human rights that we do. However, the Chinese are desperate to catch up with the rest of the world, and they are doing it. The transformation of China is nothing short of miraculous. And China is just one example. India, South Korea, Malaysia, and others are following the same model.

Our country has always thrived in the face adversity. Competition will make us stronger, if we meet it head on. Some people believe that trade barriers are the only answer to save our industrial base. I believe that trade barriers only prolong the evitable and make the consumer suffer with high prices and poor quality. The only solution is to improve the quality of the products and services we deliver.

For corporate America the time has come to wake up and smell the coffee, perhaps literally. Take Starbucks, for example. What could be more mundane that selling a cup of coffee? Starbucks has raised it to an art form. It delivers a consistently good product with terrific service in a welcome environment. And, guess what? Starbucks is thriving in China. A U.S. company doing terrific business in China for the same reason it does well at home.

We’ve got to reverse the quality apathy, and it has to start at the top. Senior management has to be passionate about designing, building, delivering, and servicing products that people are excited about. Apple Computer’s Steve Jobs is a perfect example. Apple dominates the portable music player market because it built a really cool product that works exceptionally well and is easy to use. Jobs’ latest coup, a Macintosh that runs both the Mac OS and Windows, is another stroke of genius.

General Motors and Ford have got to start designing and building vehicles that people actually prefer to Hondas and Toyotas. Chrysler has had some success with its PT Cruiser and the 300M, but it, too, has a long way to go. It’s absolutely inexcusable that nearly 30 years after we rediscovered the works of W. Edwards Deming and Joseph Juran that Detroit is still losing market share and building vehicles that can’t compete with the Japanese, South Koreans, Germans and (soon) the Chinese. It’s time for Detroit to stop obsessing over the latest quarter’s financial results and to start focusing on quality.

What do you think? Is quality apathy rampant? How is the flattening world affecting your business?

Playing Monopoly

2006-04-19T10:05:00.000-07:00

Remember when you were a kid and playing Monopoly was a fun way to pass the time? I recently had the opportunity to play monopoly and it wasn’t fun at all. That’s because I wasn’t playing the Parker Brothers version. I was playing the AT&T brand of monopoly.

In case you haven’t noticed, Ma Bell has come back to life. Like the creepy creatures from B-grade horror movies, AT&T has risen from the ashes. And just like the reincarnated zombies from those movies, the reanimated AT&T is a little off kilter.

Let me explain. When I was publisher of Quality Digest, I had a business phone line with DSL installed in my home. When I did this, I disconnected my home DSL service because I didn’t need two DSL lines. Now that I have officially left Quality Digest’s employment, it’s time for me to sever the ties (and the free DSL).

About the time I decided to do all of this, SBC, formerly just one of the so-called Baby Bells, which used to be known as Southwestern Bell, acquired the old AT&T and took the AT&T name. It also recently announced its acquisition of Southern Bell, which will make it the largest telecommunications firm in the world. By the way, in addition to owning most of the old AT&T system, the new AT&T will also own all of Cingular when it completes its acquisition of Southern Bell.

When I decided to disconnect my home phone line and reinstall DSL on my home line, I logged on to AT&T’s Web site to sign up for its $12.99 per month DSL special. I began the process by typing in my home phone number. I was surprised by the result: “We’re sorry but AT&T high-speed Internet service is not available in your area.” Now, this was surprising because I was sitting in my home office using my home business DSL line.

This is just some confusion due to the merger of SBC and AT&T, I thought. I’ll just give them a call. When, after navigating through seemingly endless levels of voice mail hell, I actually managed to talk to a woman who thanked me for calling SBC (I guess she hadn’t heard about the merger). I explained my situation to her. She told me that the Web site was correct and that DSL service was not available in my area.

“But I have DSL in my home now on my business line, and I had at home on my regular home line prior to that. I use it every day; how can it not be available?”

“I’m sorry, sir, but it’s not available in your area,” she explained.

“Uh, I just told you that I already have in my home. It has to be available.”

“No, it isn’t available.”

“Can you tell me why?” I asked.

“No. I am just showing no availability in your area. I will transfer you to the DSL department; maybe they can find the cause of the problem.”

Then she cut me off. Argh. Back through the 17 levels of voice mail hell again. And again I get the same answer, “DSL service is not available in your area.”

I whine. I plead. I protest. I am put on hold for five minutes.

“I found out why you can’t have DSL service in your home, sir,” the AT&T representative explains. “We are required to provide DSL lines to our competitors, and we have run out of lines to give out in your area.”

“But, if I am cancelling service on one line, that will free up a line to add to my home line, right?”

“No. If you cancel your DSL service through your business line, we will not able to give you DSL service again.”

“OK. Can you tell who your competitors are so I can contact them?”

“No.”

Argh! I give up.

The AT&T monopoly may be back, but 2006 is a much different world than when Ma Bell was broken up the first time. This is a very different competitive environment with much different customer expectations. There are also a lot more options today. For example, I can find out who those AT&T competitors are with a simple Google search.

I can now get phone service from my cable provider and from Internet service providers, such as EarthLink. I can also get Internet service from a radio signal beamed to my home. I can talk to business associates in places such as Australia and China using voice over Internet technology, such as Skype for free. In other words, AT&T is acting like a monopoly but it really isn’t. Its customers now have the power to pull the plug on this reanimated beast. Sheer size won’t help it maintain customers. It must provide quality products and services. Sure $12.99 a month for DSL is one heck of deal (if you can get it), but acquiring and keeping customers requires excellent customer service, high-quality products and services, and innovative, customer-focused employees. Based on what I’ve seen of the new AT&T, they’ve got a long way to go.

What are your thoughts on monopolies and the new business model of today?

A Brave New World for Quality

2006-02-27T14:42:00.000-08:00

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?

The Future of Quality

2006-01-30T16:11:00.000-08:00

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?

The Cost of Quality

2006-01-04T15:16:00.000-08:00

How much do you pay for quality? OK, that’s a loaded question. Do I mean how much does quality “cost” your organization or how much are you willing to pay for a “quality” product? Are these two questions related? And, does the cost of quality affect the price of the good or service I produce? Does my demand for a quality product determine the price I am willing to pay?

These questions are particularly relevant in today’s fast-changing global economy. As consumers, we are faced with making economic decisions based on a variety of factors: price, features, quality, availability, etc. For example, the cost of product seems to be more important to many U.S. consumers than their desire to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States. The desire to buy “Made in the U.S.A.” goods doesn’t outweigh the desire to pay the lowest cost for goods or to have products with the latest and greatest features and a long, trouble-free lifespan (the key to success for Japanese manufacturers).

The cost of quality to a consumer isn’t usually a conscious decision. It generally comes from personal experience with a company or product or the product’s reputation. For example, you might hear someone at the Honda dealer say, “I drove my last Honda Accord for 10 years and never had any trouble with it. Therefore, I’m going to buy another one.”

Generally speaking, consumers are willing to pay more for quality, but only as much as they need or can afford. That’s why the Toyota Camry consistently outsells the Roll-Royce Phantom. However, both meet the quality needs of their respective buyers.

As businesspeople, we must make economic decisions based on many factors: the cost of labor, competition, market share, return on investment, quality, etc. Although quality isn’t as high on the CEO’s to do list as most quality professionals would like it to be, I believe that they do make decisions regarding quality. Unfortunately, rather than asking “What is the price of quality?” they ask, “What is the cost of quality?” This is a critical distinction. Because organizations that view quality as a cost instead as an investment are missing the bigger picture. The same executive who decides to build a $400 million factory because he realizes the profit it will produce may balk at spending $5,000 on quality training or $10,000 on customer surveys or $25,000 for a new coordinate measuring machine. When Corporate America thinks quality, it thinks cost.

U.S. business looks for the least expensive way to “buy” quality. And as we all know, you get what you pay for. On the other hand, Japanese business regards quality as an investment. Japanese managers actively look for ways to build quality in to product design, to continuously improve processes, to reward workers for quality initiatives.

In Japan, quality is everyone’s job because quality is viewed as a key element of the organization. In the United States, quality departments are disappearing and quality is becoming “everyone’s” job merely as a means to save money, not to invest for the future.

Here’s another interesting way of looking at the cost/price of quality. At Toyota, quality is a key element of the organization. In fact, Toyota regards quality as a top priority. Toyota’s investment in quality from design through manufacture and on to delivery is enormous, yet its products are competitively priced (because Toyota’s investment in quality yields huge money-saving returns) and it is poised to become the world’s number one automaker. Toyota has the highest possible bond rating, and its profit is estimated to be $10 billion this year. Contrast that with General Motors. GM is expected to lose $4 billion and has the worst possible bond rating. GM is forced to offer huge incentives to sell its products, is downsizing, losing market share and blaming the competition, the workforce and even the consumer for its decline. Which automaker has made the best “investment” in quality?

Many blame the U.S. workforce for the huge disparity between these two automotive titans. Nonsense. Many of the Toyotas driven in North America are built in North America. Plus, many of the Toyotas driven in North America are designed in North America. Toyota and other Japanese automakers may enjoy a slight advantage in the cost of labor compared to GM and Ford, due primarily to lower health care and benefit costs, but this doesn’t explain such huge losses in sales and market share.

Unless U.S. manufacturing begins to see quality as an investment for its future success, it will continue to lose out to those who have figured it out. The Japanese quality revolution in the 1980s was a powerful wake up call for U.S. industry. Unfortunately, we seem to have hit the snooze button and rolled over.

What do you think of the price of quality? How invested in quality is your organization? Will we wake up in time to reverse our decline? Let me know what you think!

Report from Shanghai

2005-12-05T21:47:00.000-08:00

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?

Ni Hao, America!

2005-10-30T08:30:00.000-08:00

According a recent article in Inc. magazine there are now more people in China learning to speak English than there are people in the United States who speak English. I don’t have any data to support my theory, but I suspect that the percentage of people in the United States who are learning to speak Chinese is miniscule in comparison.

We Americans have always been a self-centered bunch, unwilling to learn other languages or cultures. How many Americans speak Japanese despite the Japanese “invasion” of the 1980s? Despite huge numbers of Spanish-speaking Hispanics living in the United States, few Americans learn to speak Spanish. Even many second-generation Hispanics don’t learn Spanish, and many are encouraged by their families to speak only English.

Anyone who has traveled much outside of the United States has heard our global neighbors complain about our arrogance and unwillingness to learn other languages or understand other cultures. Despite the world’s disdain for our inward-looking focus, other nations have tolerated our behavior because there wasn’t much else they could do. And English has become the default language for the global economy (much to the consternation of the French).

However, the times are quickly changing, and if we don’t begin to change our attitudes about our place in the global economy, we will continue to lose market share and political clout to China, Japan, South Korea, India, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Mexico and others.

All this geopolitical talk may seem out of place in a magazine focused on quality professionals. But our readers deal with these issues daily: inspecting incoming parts from foreign suppliers or subsidiaries, competing with companies from other nations that can produce higher quality parts and lower prices, communicating with an increasingly diverse workforce, and more.

I’m not suggesting that everyone take a Berlitz course in Mandarin Chinese. But I do think that everyone in every industry in this country needs to dial back the anti-China, anti-Japan, anti-if-it-ain’t-made-here paranoia and begin to look our organizations’ roles in the global economy, not just the local one.

If I am buying parts from a supplier in Cleveland, I expect them to be built to my specifications. If am selling parts to a company in Phoenix, I am expected to speak the language of my customer and deliver goods that meet his or her specifications. The same is true if we’re buying or selling in Shanghai, Tokyo or Berlin.

The quality world is full of great concepts like listening to the voice of the customer. It’s also largely based on a premise that quality is defined as conformance to requirements. So isn’t time we began listening to the voice of the customers no matter where in the world they are and met their requirements no matter the language?

In addition, we are responsible for some of the outsourcing. We are, in effect, handing business to companies in other countries. For example, call centers in India.

Joe De Feo, president of the Juran Institute, made an interesting observation at the recent Outlook on Quality Systems conference. “People are worried about call centers in India,” he said. “India isn’t the problem. We are outsourcing our cost of poor quality to India and other nations because we can’t prevent the problems that cause customers to call the centers.” This isn’t an outsourcing issue; it’s a quality problem.

China scares the hell out of most people, and rightly so. The cheap labor pool is nearly inexhaustible, the government is determine is to make China an economic superpower and it’s a place few Americans know much about or understand.

Having traveled in China, I can tell you that the Chinese people are warm, friendly, hard-working and intelligent. They are eager to be part of the world economy, and they deserve it. I think they can be tremendous allies. Of course, that doesn’t mean we have to shutter the doors of U.S. manufacturers. But to keep those doors open, we’d better start working to understand the Chinese (and to improve the quality of the goods and services we provide).

Frankly, in some cases, sending jobs to China might make the most sense for some companies and industries. In the 1970s and 1980s it seemed as if Japan would destroy us. Our entire electronics manufacturing industry virtually disappeared, moving to Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico and elsewhere. We survived that. We also survived the huge influx of Japanese automobiles into North America. Not only did the consumer benefit, but many of the Japanese cars on the road today are built in North America by well-paid Americans with good benefits.

Expect to see similar shifts because of China. It might be painful in the short-term, but we will adapt and survive if we can learn to understand our competitors and work with them.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on America’s place in the global economy and China, in particular. Also, let me know how your job as a quality professional is being affected by the global economy. I’ll try to respond to and share as many of these comments as possible.

All Aboard!

2005-10-07T20:32:00.000-07:00

My office is located just down the street from the Amtrak station and about 50 yards from the tracks. This means that I get to hear the charming rumble of trains pass by several times a day. I also get to hear the not-so-charming blare of the trains' horns, but after a while you tend to tune such things out.

I recently had to work in the office on a Saturday. As usual, the Amtrak train stopped at the Chico station around 10 a.m. I heard the rumble of the train and the clanging of bells at the street crossing and looked up to see the train stopped across the street from my office. The train is usually stopped for about five to 10 minutes while it picks up and/or drops off passengers. I didn't think much of it, and I was pretty engrossed in my project.

I kept hearing a rumble and the crossing bells ringing, though. A lot of trains going through town today, I thought. I looked out the window about an hour later and discovered that it was the same train, diesel engines humming away and crossing bells clanging. About an hour after that, I left the office to meet my wife and son for lunch. The train was still there.

During lunch I mentioned that the Amtrak train had been stopped for about two hours across the street. "Those poor passengers," my wife said. "They must be anxious to be on their way."

When I got back to my office, the train was still there, diesel engines rumbling and the crossing guard bells still clanging. I cranked up my iPod and got back to work.

About two hours later, I got up to take a break and saw that the train was still there, engines still running. This is ridiculous, I thought.

As it turned out, the train sat on the tracks for more than six hours, blocking the street, engines running and, of course, bells clanging. By the way, the passengers weren't allowed to disembark.

The train didn't really bother me. I wasn't stuck on it, and it wasn't blocking my way. But I kept thinking of those giant engines burning through hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel while the train was stopped. As we all know, diesel fuel isn't exactly cheap these days.

I never did learn why the train sat there for six hours. I don't pretend to know the economics of train travel, but I do know that running the diesel engines on two locomotives for six hours, even at idle, is ridiculously expensive when the train isn't moving. I also know that Amtrak is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government (i.e., taxpayers like you and me). The inefficiency was maddening.

And while I'm on the subject of massive inefficiency, two more airlines filed for bankruptcy this month, Delta and Northwest. Just as Continental, America West, United and U.S. Airways have done in bankruptcy before, Delta and Northwest will undoubtedly use the process to wring huge pay cuts from their work forces. What will this accomplish? It will level the playing field between the legacy carriers (American, America West, Continental, Delta, Northwest, United and U.S. Airways) and the discounters (AirTran, ATA, Frontier, JetBlue, Midwest Express, Southwest and Spirit). Big deal. How will all these airlines compete once they can't lower their labor costs any more? The answer is that they won't be able to. The problem isn't high labor costs; it's poor quality and overcapacity. Have the airlines figured out what they'll do once they all have the same labor costs?

Unfortunately, the transportation system in this country is the picture of inefficiency. Our national passenger rail system, Amtrak, is a joke. It's become the very essence of failed bureaucracy. Our airlines (at least the legacy carriers) are so out of touch with the reality of the flying public as to be downright insulting to their customers. They treat their employees like overpaid inconveniences, who in turn treat their passengers like cattle. And the government rushes in to bail the airlines out at the first sign of trouble.

Inefficiency and waste breed poor quality, and poor quality results in dissatisfied customers, which means bankruptcy (and not the kind you recover from). Remember Pan Am? Braniff? Eastern? These airlines had abysmal quality and poor management. They're no longer around, and for good reason.

The U.S. government needs to cut Amtrak off. Let it become self-sufficient. It will either fail or become stronger. If it fails, perhaps another, more efficient private rail system will take its place. The government also needs to stay out of the airline business. Don't bail out the next airline that fails. The system needs to remove capacity. It may be tough on the employees, but they will find work with another airline or with a new start-up.

Private enterprise works. Quality matters. Sometimes you just have to get out of their way and let them work.

Off-Target?

2005-07-17T18:22:00.000-07:00

Target has been flying high in recent years due to its nice selection of merchandise and well-designed stores, which are especially popular with women. Target has also benefited from some anti-Wal-Mart backlash.

I’ve been pretty critical of Wal-Mart recently, but at least Wal-Mart will let you make a return without treating you like a criminal. A recent experience in poor customer service left me feeling that Target is a little off-target.

My wife purchased some items for our baby Ella’s nursery that didn't quite work out. She wanted to return two curtain panels and a valance. She didn’t have the receipt, so we knew that we wouldn’t get our money back. No big deal. We thought we’d get a store credit. Here's what transpired:

“We’d like to return these items,” I said to the red-shirted teenager at the customer service desk. “And we don’t have a receipt.”

“I can't give you your money back,” he replied. “You’ll have to do an exchange.”

“Yeah, we figured,” I said. “That’s not a problem.”

He also informed us that this was only allowed if we hadn’t made more than two returns in the last 12 months, and that we were only allowed two returns, not three. “OK,” I said rather smugly. “She’s returning two items and I’m returning one.”

“I’ll need to see each of your IDs,” he replied, looking rather annoyed.

I started to get that nagging little feeling that this wasn’t going to go well.

After punching in enough digits on his register to program the Mars rover, he handed our IDs back and pronounced us clear for take off.

“You’ve got three items, totaling about $52, so, you’ll need to get $52 worth of merchandise from the same department,” he explained.

“You mean we can’t exchange it for anything in the store?” I asked.

“No, it has to be from the same department,” he said. “Sorry, but that's our policy.”

My wife, knowing that I have little tolerance for such things said, “It’s OK. Let’s just go and find something else for Ella’s room.”

We marched off to the domestics department, found some other items that totaled about $52, and returned to the customer service desk. The same red-and-khaki-clad teenager then informed us that we could only exchange an item for an item. So, we really didn’t have one $52 exchange; we had three exchanges that totaled $16, $16, and $20 each. Therefore, we could only get three items that were of those values or more and pay the difference. If the value was less, we were out the difference. “Uh, sorry I forgot to mention that the first time,” he said.

At this point, I’m afraid I lost it. “I know this isn’t your fault, but your policy is terrible,” I said. “I’m being treated like a criminal because I don’t have a receipt. I understand why you can’t give me my money back, but I don’t understand why I can’t exchange my merchandise for whatever I want in your store.”

“That’s the policy,” he said.

Well, it’s my policy not to shop at stores that treat me like I’m a criminal or an inconvenience. I understand that there are people who take advantage of return policies to steal from stores and there is a cost involved restocking merchandise, but that’s a cost of doing business that stores like Wal-Mart and Costco accept to keep their customers happy.

I’ll target my spending elsewhere.

Shortly after my Target experience, I attempted to return some telephone equipment Quality Digest had purchased from Circuit City and Best Buy. Because we had kept the equipment for about six months, I wasn’t expecting much, perhaps a store credit. Even though I had the receipts, both stores told me that their policy was no returns after 30 days. I realize that six months is a long time to keep something and expect a refund or even a store credit, but 30 days?

Even though Circuit City’s and Best Buy’s return policies may be more Draconian than Target’s, I wasn’t nearly as annoyed by them. I think it’s because it was absolute. There was no attempt to make me find items from the same department and spend exactly the same amount of money. Also, I expect electronic equipment becomes obsolete faster than curtain panels.

These Are a Few of My Favorite Things

2005-07-01T17:39:00.000-07:00

At the end of last month's column in Quality Digest I promised to write about some of the things that I like. Instead of my usual rants, I'll focus on a few companies that understand the whole quality and customer service equation. Believe it or not, I'm not always so grumpy, and I do take genuine delight with companies that deliver great products and service.

Here's my short list, in no particular order:

1. Starbucks. I know some people think of Starbucks primarily as a symbol of U.S. glo-bal dominance, and you may disagree with my opinion that they brew a damn fine cup of joe, but Starbucks gets it. They understand the need to make really good coffee and serve it in a clean, hip environment. Sure, the baristas sometimes have an attitude and you might see a pierced body part, tattoo or neon hair, but that's part of the Starbucks experience. These people have an attitude because they like what they do, not because they resent it. That makes a critical difference. As a customer, I'll take an air of superiority over defeated resentment any day.

In addition, Starbucks constantly experiments with new products and new ideas, without losing its focus or confusing its customers. Take its recent foray into music. The company has found a way to sell hip music that its core coffee-drinking customers really dig. Its recent Ray Charles tribute was a chart topper.

By the way, I'm well aware of the Starbucks vs. Dunkin' Donuts debate. In my humble opinion, Dunkin' Donuts just doesn't get it. I could be wrong. Maybe it's a boxers vs. briefs kinda thing.

2. Costco. I love this place. It's like digging through your grandfather's desk drawer. It's full of cool stuff. Yes, it's a big ugly warehouse full of loud, beeping forklifts, and help is practically nonexistent, but it doesn't matter. Costco manages to combine rock-bottom prices and quality inventory. The food is always good (even if the packaging is huge). The selection may be limited, but it almost seems as if someone has taken the time to do the work for me. I don't have to decide between 150 different TVs or garden hoses or batteries. I know that whatever I buy is good, and if not, I know I can return it with absolutely zero hassle.

3. Disney. I'm talking primarily about Disneyland and Walt Disney World. I'm 41 years old, and I still get a thrill out of going to Disneyland. Again, I'm sure there are those who think Disney is yet another sign of all that is wrong with globalization, but I think Mickey & Co. are pretty cool.

Disney is fanatical about hiring good people and training them well. I had an opportunity a few years ago to attend Walt Disney World's 25th anniversary celebration and go behind the scenes at the Disney casting center (its term for human resources). I also had an opportunity to interview Disney's vice president of quality and attend a Disney training class on quality and customer service. The company has done an enormous amount of research on who attends the park and why. It understands who its customers are and what they expect. To meet those needs, it makes sure it has the right people in the right place.

Ask a street sweeper on Main Street in Disneyland what time the three o'clock parade is and instead of getting an "are you an idiot" look, you'll hear, "That's a good question. Where will you be in the park at 3 p.m.?" The cast member knows that the parade will be in a different part of the park at different times.

Disney knows that it has to keep its parks spotless to maintain its reputation. So it knows that its street sweepers will get asked a lot of questions. So, rather than treat the street sweeper as a low-paid, disposable person, it treats that position as one of its most important customer contact points. In fact, most park employees start as street sweepers.

4. Trader Joe's. If the Costco experience is like digging through your grandfather's desk drawer, Trader Joe's is like sneaking through your best friend's mother's pantry. Remember when you were a kid and your friend's mom always had cool, exotic stuff in her refrigerator? Trader Joe's is a funky, fun grocery store that sells a limited variety of cool groceries. The stores are small and crowded, the very antithesis of a Wal-Mart Supercenter, but Trader Joe's keeps the prices reasonable because almost everything it sells has its own label on it. You won't find Heinz ketchup or Kellogg's Corn Flakes at a Trader Joe's. Instead you'll find cool stuff, smartly packaged.

Trader Joe's has such a loyal following that its customers will drive hours to the nearest store. My wife and I rarely drive the 90 minutes to Sacramento without including a stop at Trader Joe's. In fact, some loyal shoppers have actually started petitions to demonstrate to the store that their town really wants a Trader Joe's of its own. (If this column happens to land on some kindly Trader Joe's executive's desk, the good citizens of Chico, California, would greatly appreciate a store in our town!)

See, your humble columnist can gush over what I perceive as good quality. Next month, I'll get back to the griping.

People. Always People

2005-06-01T19:26:00.000-07:00

Two months ago in Quality Digest I wrote of some of my experiences with Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer. I even got Wal-Mart's attention. Barbara Brown, Wal-Mart's vice president of customer service responded.

When relating my experiences, I wrote about some rather unhelpful Wal-Mart employees who didn't have a very good grasp of the English language. Although the majority of the many letters we received agreed with my perspective, a few found my comments to be racist.
I think that racism and discrimination are alive and well in America today. Neither of them should be tolerated anywhere, at any time, by anyone, particularly in a business setting.
Having said this, I think that those few letter-writers who found my comments to be racist need to check their Webster's for the meaning of the word "racism." Commenting on someone's ability to communicate doesn't make one a racist. If I had written that the employee didn't perform his or her job well because of his or her race, national origin, religion, sexual preference/identity, gender or age, then I would have been guilty of discrimination and/or racism.

Those who found my comments to be racist missed the point. A person who cannot communicate well in the native language of the majority of his or her customers does not belong in a customer contact position. I don't care if the person is red, white, black, blue or green. I've had terrific service from Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, Caucasians and just about every other ethnic group. (I say "just about" because I haven't met every ethnic group yet.)

My other point was that the employees were either unable or unwilling to help. The cashier was unable to help because of a policy that prevented her from opening her drawer to give me change. The Wal-Mart employee who wouldn't help me at the service desk was either a jerk or unable to help because of management's requirement that something other than assisting a customer was a priority.

All this talk of racism and poor customer service may leave you wondering what this column is doing in a quality magazine. It has everything to do with quality because quality is about people.
People run coordinate measuring machines, design software, interpret data, build processes, deliver service, take orders, hire, set policy, audit, report, and on and on.

Organizations in this country still tend to think of quality in terms of manufacturing: "How many defect-free widgets can we manufacture this quarter?" Or, in terms of delivery: "How many on-time deliveries can we make from the distribution center to the store this quarter?" They still don't see the interaction between employee and customer as a process that's every bit, if not more, vital than the process that manufactured or delivered the part that the customer is buying.

Let's look at Wal-Mart again. Sam's baby has state-of-the art software systems that manage its distribution. It has talented people who decide where to locate its stores for maximum return. It knows exactly how much of each product to order to maximize sales and minimize inventory. Yet when I walk into a Wal-Mart at midnight and I can't get my questions answered or I can't find what I'm looking for, those state-of-the-art systems are worthless.

If quality is conformance to requirements, then Wal-Mart is succeeding at one level and failing on another. It's doing a terrific job of keeping products in stock, selling them for low prices and generating a decent return on its investments. But it's failing to meet the requirement espoused by Barbara Brown in her letter this month: "Regardless of how late at night you shop at a Wal-Mart store, our expectation is the same: We're here to serve the customer. We want you to be satisfied every time you walk through our doors."

Will employing an individual who can't or won't answer my questions satisfy me? Will inane policies that prevent employees from assisting me satisfy me? Will closing the customer service desk at 11 p.m. in a store that's open 24 hours a day satisfy me? What's Wal-Mart's definition of customer satisfaction, anyway?

Speaking of customer service, several of our letter-writers mentioned that there is no customer service or complaint link at www.walmart.com. This isn't entirely true. There is a customer service link for Wal-Mart shoppers who buy online. Those of you really interested in Wal-Mart should check out www.walmartfacts.com. It's Wal-Mart's response to its multitude of critics.
Wal-Mart's slogan is "Always Low Prices. Always." Perhaps Wal-Mart should rethink that slogan. How about: "Always Excellent Service. Always." Or, "Always Excellent People. Always." That might give it a focus it's so sorely lacking.

I don't mean to pick on Wal-Mart. There are many other organizations that I could mention as well. But, frankly, the reaction to my Wal-Mart editorial was so incredible that there must be a lot of people out there who feel the same as I do.

I look forward to your comments. Let me know what you think about the people element of quality and what organizations such as Wal-Mart can do to improve.
Next month--just for a change--I'll tell you what I do like.

Quality People

2005-05-01T21:34:00.000-07:00

In the May issue of Quality Digest, Dirk Dusharme’s wrote a brilliant defense of my last column. To read it, click here. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

In his column, Dirk responds to a cranky reader who thought I was expecting too much from a Wal-Mart greeter because he wasn’t highly paid. The reader also refers to a burger flipper at Burger King as “not exactly a rocket scientist” because he works for minimum wage. And you thought I was an elitist snob.

Dirk rightly notes that we should expect good service from everyone all the time. People should perform well no matter how much money they make. He thinks that organizations with problem employees should help them through their difficult times. He suggests that you get to know your employees so that you’re better equipped to help them solve their personal problems.

These are noble goals, and I hope every organization follows Dirk’s advice. But (you knew it was coming), although I agree that we should expect excellent service from every employee of every organization that we deal with, I don’t believe that the organization is entirely responsible for ensuring that every employee is capable of providing it. Some employees just aren’t worth saving.

Before you send me an e-mail, think about the pain-in-the-ass employee whom your boss just couldn’t fire fast enough to suit you. We’ve all worked with them, and we certainly encounter them on almost a daily basis when we shop or interact with customers, vendors, utilities, you name it.

As any dairy farmer knows, cream rises. Those who do good work rise above their situations. Those who are motivated get educations and get promotions and, while they’re in their current positions, they do great work.

My experience at Wal-Mart late one night a few months ago was miserable. (See my column last month for the gruesome details.) I was faced with employees who didn’t speak English well enough to communicate with me, employees who couldn’t be bothered to make change and inane policies that required me to fill out a form to get a 50-cent refund. Was my miserable experience Wal-Mart’s fault? Yes. Could Wal-Mart make all those employees I encountered excellent providers of customer service? No.

Having read Dirk’s column as I requested, you’ll remember that Quality Digest's art director, Caylen Balmain (by the way, he’s one heck of a nice guy), flipped burgers in high school. (He flips burgers at Quality Digest company lunches, too.) The reason that Caylen is now the art director for a magazine and making somewhat more money than your average burger-flipper is because he wanted something more. He’s a hard-working guy driven to do good work. It’s the same reason I’m not still washing dogs at Newport Dog Groomery. I was a damn good dog washer. I just wasn’t too fond of the smell of wet fur in the morning.

But there are those, such as the grumpy Wal-Mart greeter, who will never give good service. I don’t care how much Wal-Mart invests in him or pays him. That doesn’t mean I as a customer should have to deal with him. I don’t care if it’s 3 p.m. or 3 a.m., Wal-Mart should find someone who will provide me with excellent service no matter the time, the location, the duty or the pay.
I don’t think we should lower our expectations as consumers, employers or employees.
As a consumer, I expect and deserve excellent service every time, no matter how much the employee is being paid or how menial some may consider the service. The employee performing the work certainly doesn't consider the job menial.

As an employer, I expect my employees to deliver excellent service to their customers and co-workers. This includes delivering high-quality products, too, be it from an entry-level data entry clerk or an extremely well-paid editor in chief.

As an employee, I expect, as Dirk suggests, that my employer do its best to help me deliver that excellent product and/or service. I also expect each of my co-workers to do the same. I don’t want to work with someone who doesn’t want to do his or her best.

An excellent example of an organization that hires good people is the Walt Disney Co. Your average street sweeper at a Disney theme park isn’t exactly driving a Jaguar to work every day, but Disney hires that employee (or cast member, as Disney calls them) as carefully as any other. Disney looks for friendly, outgoing people who will meet its strict personal grooming standards and who can communicate well. Disney views the street sweeper position as a critical customer service opportunity, not as a menial position.

We can talk all day about cultural sensitivity, motivational programs, pay for performance or group hugs, but it all boils down to personal accountability and responsibility.
Smart organizations hire good people, support them and have them do great things.

Has Wal-Mart Lost Its Way?

2005-04-01T19:33:00.000-08:00

Because I travel frequently I’m often in unfamiliar towns at odd hours. And because I’m somewhat forgetful, I’m also likely to be at a Wal-Mart at odd hours. Although I’m always glad to be able to get what I need when I need it, I’ve come to approach Wal-Mart with a mix of hope and fear.

Sam Walton, the shrewd good ol’ boy that he was, understood that his customers wanted to buy stuff at low prices in clean, easy-to-navigate stores filled with helpful, courteous employees. Unfortunately, aside from rock-bottom prices, little of Sam Walton’s dream is left.

I wonder if Wal-Mart executives ever venture outside of Wal-Mart’s Bentonville, Arkansas, headquarters. Have they ever wandered the aisles of a Wal-Mart at midnight in search of a toothbrush, diapers or cold medicine?

I wish Sam could have been with me when I was stranded in Minneapolis late one night. Of course, the only store open was a Wal-Mart. My wife, Heidi, needed some makeup, so she asked a Wal-Mart employee for assistance. The young woman held up her hand, gave us the “talk to the hand” look and then proceeded to take a massager from its box, plug it in, give herself a back massage, put it back in the box and return it to the shelf. She then wandered away.
What would Sam have thought?

I also wish that he could have been with me during my visit to a Wal-Mart in Miami. Again, I was shopping late. This time I had my wife and three-year-old son, Ian, with me. While I was paying for my items, Ian asked to ride the ride at the front of the store. I agreed, but I had no change.

“May I have change for a dollar?” I asked the cashier.

“No,” she replied. “You pay with debit card. I not open drawer.”

“OK, where can I get change?”

“At service desk.”

I made my way to the customer service desk at the front of the store.

“We closed! We closed!” I was told before I could even open my mouth.

“But your store is open 24 hours, and I need change for the machine out front,” I said.

“We closed! Go to cashier.” Then she walked off.

I waited in stunned disbelief for a minute or two, pondering my next move: A showdown with the world’s largest retailer or explaining to a jet-lagged three-year-old that he couldn’t ride the ride. I decided to take on Wal-Mart.

Another employee walked over to the customer service desk, ignoring me.

“I need change for the machine out front,” I said.

“We closed! See cashier!”

“Please. My son is crying.”

“OK,” he answered, snatching my dollar bill and disappearing behind a door. I could hear a heated exchange. Words like “dinero,” “gringo” and “chico” were tossed back and forth. He reappeared two minutes later with four quarters, thrust them into my wife’s hand and left.
At least Ian will get his ride, I thought. Of course, when we dropped the coins into the machine, it didn’t work. More tears were shed.

Now I was a man on a mission. I marched over to the greeter ready to do battle.

In the commercials, Wal-Mart greeters are always kindly grandfathers or sweet grandmothers. This guy looked like he just got out of jail.

“The machine took my coins but isn’t working,” I said.

“Go service desk,” he mumbled.

“They’re closed.”

“Go! Service desk!” he said, pointing at the deserted customer service counter.

So, off to the customer service desk again. “Hello! Can anybody help me?”

The same woman who wouldn’t help me the first time appeared.

“We close…”

“Yes, I know you’re closed, but your machine took my money and isn’t working!”

“Go see lady in red vest,” she said, pointing toward the middle of the store.

I turned to look, saw no woman and no red vest. So, I walked into the middle of the checkout area and started yelling, “Where is the lady in the red vest? Where is the lady in the red vest?” Surprisingly, the police didn’t show up, but neither did the lady in the red vest. I began to walk the aisles and soon spotted my elusive quarry. She was huddled with several other red-vested ladies.

“Are you the lady in the red vest?” I asked.

“Yes,” she said calmly. I’m sure she thought I was color-blind, drunk or high.

“Your machine took my money. Your cashier wouldn’t give change. The service desk is closed. Help!”

I was fairly certain she thought I was crazy, but a remarkable thing happened. “I’m sorry,” she said. “Come with me.”

She actually said, “I’m sorry.” It was like manna from heaven. She led me to the closed customer service desk. I babbled all the way there. “I’m sorry. It’s not the money; it’s the principle.”

“I know,” she said. “If someone took even 10 cents from me, I’d be mad too.”

She disappeared behind the door and reappeared with a form. A form for 50 cents?

Is this the Wal-Mart of Sam Walton?

Take my advice, Bentonville boys: Get out of Arkansas and go visit your stores late at night. And take a toddler with you.