Subject: Re: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Taormnia/Turner/Summerfield
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 15:32:33 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: George Summerfield
Subject: Re: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Taormnia/Turner/Summerfield

Beg to differ, but quality has more than only two aspects. Consider...

Performance: the product's primary operating characteristics( auto acceleration, braking distance, steering, etc).

Features: the "bells and whistles" of a product (auto = CD player, antilock brakes).

Reliability: the proven history of a product (auto) being able to start on cold days and last many years without rusting.

Conformance: the degree to which the product meets preestablished standards.

Durability: the amount of use a product provides before it physically wears out.

Serviceability: speed, courtesy, and competence of repair work.

Aesthetics: how a product looks, feels, sounds, tastes, or smells.

Perceived Quality: subjective assessment of quality resulting from the image that a very good Marketing office has built for the product.

You have to consider what the customer wants and then gear your product to that (form, fit, function). Basic principles of doing business.

George

The derivitive thread entry:

>From: Turner Associates
>Subject: RE: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Smith/Taormnia/Turner
>
>At the risk of once again recycling an old topic:
>
>The trouble with the word "quality" is that it has two interpretations:
>
>1) Quality = a perception that something has high value or specification, or
>that it's pretty or shiny or whatever: as in "a Mercedes is a quality car".
>This "quality" may be difficult or impossible to measure. In the context of
>a discussion about ISO 900x, this definition of quality has little utility.
>
>2) Quality = conformance to (customer) requirement. This is the basis of
>ISO 900X. If the requirement is clearly stated (as it should be, contract
>review etc) then quality according to this definition can be measured quite
>easily.
>
>Bob Turner
>
>PS: while I generally agree with Tom's sentiments on process improvement,
>shouldn't the customer come in somewhere?
>
>
>> From: Virtuiso
>> Subject: RE: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Ohri/Smith/Taormnia
>>
>> << Quality is an impossible thing to measure, because it's just
>> an attribute
>> and does not stand by its own. >>
>>
>> Just another compelling reason to remove "quality" from our lexicon and
>> concentrate on business process improvement based on everyone being
>> responsible for their own measurable actions. What a concept.
>>
>> Tom Taormina

Subject: Re: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Smith/Ohri/Smith
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 16:34:05 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: "Gary V. Smith"
Subject: RE: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Smith/Ohri/Smith

>From: Edith Ohri
>Subject: RE: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Ohri/Smith/Ohri
>
>> Oh, my! Would that what you say were true. Then I wouldn't have to
>> generate all those quality performance and quality trend reports.
>
>I said two separate things - that quality can't be measured and that it's
>better to have other quantitative methods rather then financial - which of
>them you find to be wrong? Or maybe the both?!
>Also, sorry, but the non-financial analysis wouldn't save you the need for
>performance reports...

Quality is either subjective or objective. Quality "measured" subjectively is ordinarily perception based and attributive, like comparing Mercedes and Yugos. This is difficult, at best, to quantify because it's virtually dimensionless. However, quality measured objectively relys on hard numbers that can be derived from several sources, like dimensions, visual standards and costs. Actual numerical limits can be established within which acceptable quality levels are specified. And, you are right that quality performance reports are due whether, or not, I'm capturing cost data.

>> May I direct you to the body of knowledge under the heading of cost of (poor)
>> quality.

>I've researched the problem of cost management some nine years ago, and have
>not seen since then any major change happening. If you know of a good article
>with an opposite view to mine, why not sending it over to me, promise to give
>back a review.
>
>> It includes detailed measurables in conventional spreadsheet format.
>
>Of course one can take any set of data and present it in nice spreadsheets, the
>question is what all this number crunching mean? Can those figures be
>traced to specific causes? Do they catch the whole quality effect or just an
>accidental facet? Are they consistent and objective? and so forth.

As with any data, the numbers must be properly "mined" for specific information, but that information is there for anyone who wishes to dig it out. When costs of poor quality are broken down into the cost of prevention, appraisal, external and internal failure, then certain trends can be obvious.

In an earlier reply I recommended a good cost of quality software and a source of cost of quality literature. I haven't seen that message on the reflector but it may have been perceived as a commercial endorsement and suppressed. If you'd like those resources then you may e-mail me personally.

Gary V. Smith

Subject: Re: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Tribaldos/Ohri/Hankwitz
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:06:01 -0600
From: "Hankwitz, John "

>Subject: Re: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Billings/Tribaldos/Ohri
>
>From: Edith Ohri
>
> This put a whole new meaning to "dumping" merchandise, it
> says in effect that any product goes if it happens to have
> somewhere customers?! Why using then the word QUALITY?
> "specified whatever" would suit better.

Edith,

Quality is a combination of objective a subjective things.

Objective:
Conformance;
Reliability;
Serviceability;
Durability;
Features;
Benefits;
Price; and
Cost.

Subjective:
Perception; and
Emotion

Once basic "objective qualities" have been met, people will always make their purchasing decision based on emotion. (but that's a whole different story)

All product has variation. Believing that only "perfect" product can be considered "quality" is unreasonable.

Take the computer CPU market for instance. The 350 MHz Pentium or G3 CPU in your computer was manufactured using the same process as those rated at 300 MHz, 266 MHz, and so on. When the CPUs come off the end of the line, they are tested to determine how fast they are safely able to operate. (The variation is measured) Once sorted, they are marked and sold at a price appropriate for the market.

The same happens with high quality photographic lenses. About 20 years ago, Schneider would put it's brand name on about 20% of the lenses it made. They charged thousands of dollars for these lenses. The next 20% or so of the lenses were brokered and sold for less than half the price under other brand names. The bottom 60% were scrapped.

In both cases, the customer includes the cost of the product into their "quality" equation. They are more than happy to spend 30% less for a computer that runs at 300 MHz the one that runs at 350 MHz. They are both considered to be high quality products by the customer.

John Hankwitz

Subject: Re: What is Quality? /Hellmann/Hankwitz
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:57:58 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: "Hankwitz, John "


> Subject: Q: What is Quality? /Hellmann
> From: JJH2000
>
> What is QUALITY?
> How can it be defined?
> Can it be quantified, measured and documented?
>
> John

John,

Yes, and no.

Quality can be defined to some degree by an individual in a particular place and time. It is next to impossible to fully define it for someone else. Also, it changes form moment to moment because of it's subjective aspects.

The objective aspects of quality are:

Conformance:
Does it conform to the customers design.
Serviceability:
Is it easy to service when appropriate.

Features & Benefits:
Do the design features provide the benefits the customer is
looking for and actually needs.

Reliability:
Will it operate and function as expected.

Durability:
Will it stand up to all conditions of use.

Price:
How much does the customer have to pay to get it.

Cost:
How much will the customer have to pay over it's lifetime.

The subjective aspects are:

Visual, Emotional & Psychological:
Does it's appearance get the customer excited.
How does the customer think others view them while
they use it.
How does the product relate to customer past experiences.
How well does the customer relate to the salesman.
What have the customers friends said about the product.
What experiences has the customer had with the supplier.
and on and on and on.....

Any salesman will tell you the most sales are made on emotion, not
subjective aspects of the product.

That's why most use: Windows rather than Mac OS
VHS rather than Beta
Cassette rather than 8-Track
Internet Explorer rather than Netscape Navigator
Budweiser rather than Leinenkugel

All the latter are far superior to the former in subjective terms, but emotional issues put them in second place. (Like, when was the last time you saw Budweiser actually advertise beer? They now advertise frogs spitting at each other, and it works emotionally for their target market)

John Hankwitz

Subject: Re: What is Quality? /Hellmann/Billings
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 10:59:50 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: "Billings, Tracy"

What is quality? Well, this is like asking how long a piece of string is!

David Hoyle in his book "ISO 9000 Quality systems Handbook" explains quality as being "a composite of three parameters: quality of design, quality of conformance and quality of use.

Quality of design is the extent to which the design reflects a product or service that satisifies customer needs. All the necessary characteristics need to be designed into the product or service at the outset.

Quality of conformance is the exotent to which the product or service conforms to the design standard. The design has to be faithfully reproduced in the product or service.

Quality of use is the extent by which the suer is able to secure continuity of use from the product or service. Product need to have a low cost of ownership, be safe and reliable, maintainable in use and easy to use."

He also said that in addition to the parameters, there are three dimensions of quality: the business quality dimension, product quality dimension and organization quality dimension.

I see many companies who concentrate solely on prduct quality and forget the rest. But in all seriousness the three are interelated. If you don't have the business and company quality dimensions, then you are not going to get quality.

How can it be defined? Well, I think that I have covered that in the above. But basically defining quality is dependent on the company and how they see quality!

Can it be quantified, measured and documented? Well, this is a very good one. It really depends on what you mean by documented! I am going to concentrate on the first two parts of this question.

Quantifying and measuring quality is all subjective. To be able to say a product or service is a quality prduct or service is all subjective. There is no hard and fast rules and regulations by which you can measure the quality. As a company you need to define what you mean by a quality product/service. For example: if a company decided that they were going to make hairbrushes quickly and cheaply, and then produced the hairbrush quickly and cheaply. The company would be able to say that "we have a quailty hairbrush here!"

If you could clarify what you mean by "documented" I will try and put something in writing on this area!

Hope you find this of use to you.

Tracy

"Quality" is "meeting or exceeding customer expectations at a price the customer is willing to pay"

When we consider all we try to put into "quality" as demonstrated above, it matters not if we do not meet customer expectations. This applies to products and/or service. If we fail to meet the customer's expectations, that customer is gone.

If we fail to provide value to the customer (i.e., a price the customer is willing to pay), that customer is gone. Conversely, if we provide the price, but our costs exceed this and we cannot generate a profit, WE will be gone.

This is, to me, the most easily understood, readily and universally accepted definition of "Quality" I have ever used. It is certainly customer-focused. Enjoy it and use it to your heart's content.

I liked this one:

-----------------snippo---------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:41:25 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Ganor/Hellmann/Hankwitz

From: "Hankwitz, John "

> Subject: RE: What is Quality? /../Hellmann/Ganor/Hellmann
> From: JJH2000
>
> >Quality is the extent that a product or service satisfy the
> customer needs.
>
> First of all, a customer need may include or even mandate
> the lowest price for the offered goods or services. (For
> example, many local municipalities have mandated by law that
> the lowest bidder be awarded construction projects. The
> cheapest vender be awarded the contract for supplies and or
> services. And so on).
>
> Not necessarily, but invariably, the result is the lowest
> quality.
>
> The question still stands, "WHAT IS QUALITY?"

------(SNIP)---------

Here is where you are having your problem with this. The customer in your example has defined "quality" as that having the lowest price, then you turn around and apply your own personal definition as to what you think quality is. How can you do this? The customer purchased using their criteria, and got exactly what they ordered... price. since there was no criteria or specifications covering reliability, fitness for use, serviceability, or any of the other quality related criteria, what they got was exactly what they wanted, a "quality" product. As JJH2000 stated, "Quality is the extent that a product or service satisfy the customer needs." Since they got the lowest price, their quality needs were fully satisfied.

John Hankwitz

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:49:43 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Ganor/Hellmann/Kozenko

From: Write9000

> The question still stands, "WHAT IS QUALITY?"

IMHO, a "Kozenko-ism" to further discussion on this thread --

"QUALITY is an intangible subjective aspect (a "state of being" as it were) of a maker's product and/or service that embeds within itself the philosphy and ethics of its maker, due to the imutable universal law of truth (vs. non-truth); it is subjectively detectable but only to the extent of the command of "quality knowledge" resident within the detector. QUALITY bears a natural law resistance to objective expression: such resistance is available to the maker in direct proportion to the extent of "quality knowledge" resident in the detector."

The proliferation of the ISO9000 Series as a "standard" for QUALITY measurement has simply opened the worldwide forum for chipping away at those intangible aspects of any product and/or service that arise from the application of the imutable universal law of truth, so that the intellectuals can attempt to make a science out of something that is, by its very nature, a combination of science and a pure art form.

The "bottom line" on QUALITY as a definable term goes something like this:

No one told Piccasso what a quality painting was -- he inherently knew, and performed to his own system of beliefs. No one told Madam Curie what quality science was. She performed to the cost of her very life. No one told Michelango what a quality Chapel ceiling was (among many other things). He inherently knew, and performed to his own beliefs. We marvel still today at these quality pioneers, and miss their contrbution to QUALITY as defined by Crosby, Peach, Jung, Juran, et als. (That is, until now.)

The frustrations of this list's posters are frequently observed by me when a conflict arises between the postee's own sense of "quality" (which is equally as valid as any that Piccasso, Curie, or Michelango may have had) vs. the corporate brand of "quality" in which the postee is supposed to "shoehorn" his/her own beliefs and practices so that they somehow fit within the somewhat artificial boundaries of corporate barbed-wire fences. This assessment of mine is far from objective -- it is as subjective and artistic as any forum of expression will allow, but in context with this post, it's absolutely perfect.

In the final analysis, "QUALITY" is an art form that expresses the truth as an intrinsic property of the released-to-marketplace product and/or service. And if you apply my definition to any of the other worldwide recognizable quality experts, you would see that it's not only complementary, but it positively augments the intent of any scientific and/or objectivity-based assessment system.

As a corollary, the evolution of the upcoming revisions to the ISO Standards are indeed "catching up" with the notion that "QUALITY" is an expression of some universal display of truth, which indicates that the quality professionals of tomorrow must be capable of functioning in the dual environment enjoyed by those who can function with both artistic and scientific comprehension (i.e. left-right "brainers"), and the delicate balance that must exist there between the two.

I witness the current confusion and consternation concerning the evolution of ISO9000:2000DIS as an outpouring from those individuals who are not so capable of mixing art with science, and I predict that with the ISO9000:2005 revisions, those exact individuals who are today confused, will either have learned to augment their quality understanding by incorporating the interrelationship between an art form and a scientific exposition into their viewpoint, or they'll have other duties and responsibilities more suitable to their narrower understanding of the big picture, outside the direct art and science (combined) of Quality Management.

Commentary invited.

David M. Kozenko

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:11:54 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Hellmann/Scalies/Hellmann

From: JJH2000

> ISO defines it as satisfying the customer, which is both highly generic
> and, in itself, less unsatisfying than eating rice cakes.

I once found a placard that reads "Rule Number 1: If you don't satisfy the customer, somebody else will." (Actually, I found it in a trash container which is not to impinge on its inherent value nor to imply that trash picking is something I often do.) While this now sits in plain view on my desk, I have never considered it to be an adjunct to the definition of quality. Perhaps it is.

However, something's missing in the defintion of quality as being "...the extend to which the customer is satisfied..." It's like .....well, rice cakes.

My old man was a salesman. He once told me that there are two kinds of salesmen. One kind that sells themselves. The other, sells their product. Satisfying the customer can also take different forms too. A dinner, hockey tickets, a golf outing, a vacation, kickbacks etc. can elicit customer satisfaction. But is this quality?

To begin with, quality is not a "thing" or an entity. Quality is a process. A resolution of the contradiction between producer and customer, and between the physical forces of nature.

Any thoughts?

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:35:52 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Hankwitz/Hellmann/Hankwitz

From: "Hankwitz, John "

> Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Hellmann/Hankwitz/Hellmann

>
> John, John, John,
---(snip)---
> But to declare they got a "quality" product and service ....
> such cynicism!!!!
>
> As a provider of goods and service, one must be able to
> define, quantify, document and deliver quality. If the
> customer won't or can't accept a competitive price based
> upon the cost of labor and materials, then this need
> has contradicted, rather negated, other customer needs....
> like a flushing toilet.
---(snip)---
> John Hellmann

Sorry John, but although I have to agree that the provider may be able to define, quantify, document and deliver quality, they are contracted with the customer to supply what they have defined as quality.

As an example. Several years ago, the Milwaukee School Board discovered that there was extreme variation in the orange juice they were getting for their school breakfast and lunch program. It was decided that they would define the quality of this product to get things under control.

They had experts operationally define all the appropriate parameters that would define the quality they wanted. This included things like pH, viscosity, clarity, specific gravity, color, sugar content, and on and on. All their suppliers were notified that they would have to meet this criteria, and the order would go to the lowest bidder.

They ordered and received what they had defined as the quality they specified. Variation was minimized at a cost they could afford. After more than a year of consuming this quality product, and congratulating themselves on a job well done, some parents discovered that what their children were getting was not orange juice, but a chemical concoction of multiple artificial ingredients.

The School Board's response was that it was the suppliers fault that the kids were not getting real orange juice.

I find that to be absurd! If the supplier would have tried to provide real orange juice, they would have never have been able to fulfill the customers requirements.

As stated in many of my messages on this subject, as well as from others, quality is defined by the customer, not the supplier. Also, the customer's definition of quality often changes from minute to minute. That's what makes this subject so interesting.

Back to you...

John Hankwitz

Marc,

A good post once again.

"As stated in many of my messages on this subject, as well as from others, quality is defined by the customer, not the supplier. Also, the customer's definition of quality often changes from minute to minute. That's what makes this subject so interesting."

This is consistent with my own beliefs. But there is merit to having an operational definition of what Quality is to the supplier.

An organization needs to know where the definition is at any given time and adjust accordingly. Many things make up the reason why a customer buys one item over another, 'quality' be amongst them. Items such as 'availability' or 'value (price)' also play heavily on decision making. An organization needs to know why their customers buy their products and services and look to improve these areas appropriately (VoC).

Regards,

Kevin

Another view....

------snippo--------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:48:42 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Hellmann/Hankwitz/Hellmann

From: JJH2000

> As stated in many of my messages on this subject, as well as from
> others, quality is defined by the customer, not the supplier. Also,
> the customer's definition of quality often changes from minute to
> minute. That's what makes this subject so interesting.

If quality is a shadow of the customer's fancy, then what is the point of education and training of the workforce? Why pursue developments in existing products if the customer appears (and is) satisfied with what is?

As you so well put, the customer's defintion of quality often changes....where is the standard here? I'll go even further and state that the customer often doesn't even know what they want, let alone what a quality product would be. The producer/provider is in a better position to determine what quality is simply because they have had the training and experience to do so.

Case in point, a recent construction project at an international telecommunications facility went sour. It's not that the construction firms did not install the project as per scope of work and specifications. It's because they did.

This phenomenal is so prevalent in construction today that bid packages from the customer include, in the fine print, that if the successful contractor discovers a flaw in the design or blueprints then it is their contractural responsibility to report it and correct it. The provider contractor customarily generates a set of "as-built" prints to be delivered to the customer at the end of the job which supercede the customer's originals.

Quality is a process defined by the contradiction between producer and customer. This process can be laid out and documented to assure compliance.

To maintain that quality is determined by customer satisfaction alone is to leave quality as being undefinable.

The Definition of Quality has been a moving target since I landed in quality years ago. So - I gotta add one more opinion:

------------snippo----------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:49:39 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Billings/Hellmann/Arbuckle

From: Don Arbuckle

I have tried not to respond in this thread, instead, choosing to enjoy the many sides of the discussion, but alas, here I am... Since so many have voiced their opinion, I felt compelled to enter mine.

It is my strong conviction that quality is what the customer wants it to be. I hold with those of you that say that the customer defines quality. That makes it easy for me to fall in line with the ISO definition of quality ("totality of features and charateristics of a product or service that bear on its abililty to meet stated or implied needs") What I have seen in a number of responses, and clearly so in this one from John, is the definition of the word excellence in place of quality.

i.e. I think everyone has to agree that Michael Jordan was an excellent basketball player, but from a quality standpoint, I am sure you will find detractors. This happens because there are a number of metrics to greatness (excellence) and each of us gets to select the criteria we choose to monitor quality. Those who believe that the most important metric lies in the defensive attributes might feel that MJ was not a quality player. Those who revel in shooting percentages might take the same stance. So, as I look at it, quality is in the eye of the beholder - as someone said earlier.

In John's example of the ratchet socket sets from Pep Boys, we find an excellent example of the quality vs excellence dilemma. If there was no one to buy the sets at $9, then they would disappear from the market, but, there are people who buy them. On a lark, today I happened to be at a store that sells inexpensive tools and asked an older gentleman who was purchasing a $1.50 set of screwdrivers, why was he buying it instead of a more expensive set that was "lifetime guaranteed." His reply was that he wanted to keep a set under the sink in the kitchen for quick repairs and wasn't as concerned about longevity as price. Here we find a guy who has a different set of criteria and is satisfied that this product met his requirements.

I apologize that this is so long, but the bottom line is that the customer defines quality and we shouldn't confuse quality with excellence.

Don Arbuckle

Another view!

-------snippo------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:27:49 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Kozenko

From: Write9000

The "Standards Writers" defined quality in ISO 8402:1995 as "entity characteristics" that focus on the ENTITY's ability to produce a product and/or service of planned quality.

A Kiwi Bird, as an entity, then (call it Kiwi Bird, Inc.) could plan for (say) express delivery of standard sized envelopes anywhere in any city within (say) two hours.

The fact that Kiwi Birds don't fly, they walk, would be a characteristic that has bearing on the ENTITY's ability to produce the planned quality in its product. If delivery was advertised as though the Kiwi Bird could fly, then we have a major NCR with no low-tech CAR to hope for.

If "two days walking" was Kiwi Bird, Inc's planned quality, then a radius could be drawn on a city map to determine the extent of Kiwi's ability to achieve planned quality (i.e. how far can a Kiwi Bird walk in two days, carrying an envelope in its beak?).

ISO 8402 further explains that "conformance to requirements" and "degree of excellence" are confusing applications of defining "quality" in terms of the ISO9000 Standards (see Introduction, Paragraph 4).

The revisions in the upcoming draft do not, in my opinion, veer far off course from the ISO 8402 intent, that ENTITY characteristics that bear on ENTITY's ability to produce planned quality (whatever that quality may be, as decided by ENTITY) are still the focus.

Another way of saying the same thing (i.e. yet another KAZ-ism...) -- The Standard's focus is on the Entity's QUALITY SYSTEM and it's proper application to the Entity's operations so that "Plan, Do, Check, Review/Revise" is effectively implemented, properly measured including meaningful measurement data capture, and then such data objectively shows that the "alive and well" QUALITY SYSTEM gives rise to objectively measurable continuous improvement within the Entity.

Granted, one or two of such measures may be "degree of excellence" of the product or service, or evidence that the product or service meets stated and implied requirements. Further and more confusing, "degree of excellence" or "meets requirements" might be applied to internal, cross functional or intercompany activities as well as dealings with the buying marketplace (locally, globally, or anywhere in between) but the point is, that's a very narrow definition of "quality" from either side of the "quality refers to the PRODUCT or SERVICE going out the door" camp.

Think of "quality" as a term that describes an entity's ability to say what it does, do what it says, and prove it, and you'll be on the same playing field as the Standards Writers.

So "Joe's 5 cent Widgets, L.L.C" can plan to make a profit selling five cent widgets that will give the buyer what he paid for, but Joe's won't become certified (or get registered -- take your pick) unless "quality" of the characteristics of the entity are objectively detectable and such characteristics demonstrate their ability to show the entity's ability to say what it does, do what it says, and prove it.

This criteria further expands under I-2-K to include the entity's ability to objectively demonstrate a continuous improvement loop, not by logical inference as in ISO9001:1994, but instead by specific requirement under I-2-K.

Clear as mud?

David Kozenko

From: "Pete Hall"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: My 1st Quality Manual
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:00:58 -0000
Organization: Atlantech Technologies Ltd

Jacques D. Vandersleyen wrote in message ...
>Marc Smith a Ècrit dans le message :
...
>> On 2/24/00 8:50 PM in article 894n4k$p1n$1@nnrp1.deja.com, sky at
>> skycollinswrote :
>>
>
>> Please take a minute or two and tell us your definition of quality.
>
>A certain sense of hunour! In a study published in the "Quality management
>journal" in 1998, Neil Hardie*, a qualiticien, made a report of 43
different
>analysis on TQM. The way you understand it depend what is your position
into
>business of quality: customers, workers, managers...
>If a so complete study cannot give a definition of Quality, how could it be
>done in a minute?

It may also be pointed out that Robert Pirsig wrote a (seminal) novel on the subject of Quality in the 1970s - his definition (and I'm simplifying and paraphrasing here) was - if you take away the Not-Quality stuff what you're left wih is Quality.

In other words everyone knows what it's not...

Duane Floyd who is known here has a web page covering common and not so common definitions of Quality - Duane are you out there for a URL?

My view on the original subject FWIW is that the QM is something unique to an individual organisation - and the content must be generated each time - there is probably a common structure which can be used (NOT the 20 paras of the standard :-)

Cheery

Pete Hall

Jacques Vandersleyen
misc.industry.quality
Re: What is Quality?

"Quality...
...is like a good sauce! It's depend what you put in it!"
H. Sérieyx
From "Entreprise du troisième type" Edt. Seuil (not sure!)

"Quality is usefull, necessary and free! It's our most profitable product"
H.S. Geneen
From: "Comprendre et réaliser la Qualité totale" Jospeh Kélada; Edt. Quafec

Best regards

Jacques D. Vandersleyen
607, rue des ruisseaux
Pintendre; G6C 1N1
Québec, Canada

A recent entry I liked:
******************
From: Charley Scalies
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: Define "Quality" in 25 words or less.
Date: 10 Jul 2001 02:54:33 -0700

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message news:<9ie7np$3ju$1@husk.cso.niu.edu>...
> Quality is like the sex act. A lot of work while doing it,
> and later one finds innumerable ways to have done it better.
>
> Jim Stewart

Maybe you are correct. On the one hand, if you don't sweat when making love, you're doing it wrong. On the other hand, copious amounts of perspiration are no guarantee that you are doing it right.

How about quality in 8 words?
Quality means never having to say you're sorry.

Charley

Refer to the latest issue of "Quality Progress" for the definitions of quality by the top ten Gurus.
JMHO, juran and crosby make the most sense.

Sam,

Why is that?

Regards,

Kevin

I guess Sam missed this one.

From the misc.industry.quality NG:

From: "Michael Schlueter" - Philips.com
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality
Subject: Re: How to define quality?
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 16:53:55 +0100

Hi,

May be your customer can't compare and know, what can be expected - but you probably can.

I still find Taguchi's definition of quality very logical and striking; can you adapt it to your situation? His basic assumption is simple: any product causes monetary loss in the hand of its customer. E.g. if it does not work as it should, you have to complain or throw it away; if the service is not as expected, somebody else must be called in. No matter how, the customer loses money.

If you can estimate or measure this amount, you have a clear indicator of your qualtiy level. Taguchi's definition reads:

"The quality of a product is the monetary loss passed to society once the product has been build and shipped."

In other words: the product (your service) is no longer under your control - it is shipped out - your customer deals with the results of your service ... Customers do to it whatever they do. If your product incures monetary loss, somebody has to pay it: your customer by a higher price, the end-user by a higher price, society by eliminating waste and disposals (such as computers, service-folders, waste from travel incurred by consultancy etc.). Somebody (society) pays the price of *bad* quality. - How much?

The opposite conclusion from Taguchi is even more interesting, in my view: do anything to minimize total loss. In other words: find ways to create excellent service at low cost for you and low loss to society.

From this perspective "beloved" indicators like response-time for helpdesk calls, amounts on bills,...( what you mentioned) reveal their true nature: they tend to miss the point AND indicate something important at the same time.

E.g. what is the drama with a long response time? Why is it bad? Is a response time of 1h good or bad? When is it bad and when not? - I think this becomes self-evident when we look at the *consequences* - they cause a certain monetary loss.

If my car is repaired after 1h - this is probably excellent. If I have to wait at the dentist to easy my pain for an hour - this is probably absolutely bad. If I have to wait 1h until my computer responds - this is #@!!! Why?

If I can not use my car for 1h the incurred monetary loss is - probably smaller than in the dentist or computer case.

In other words: just try it - and reveal the important aspects of your business: how you (or something else) create loss inevitably to your customers ;-) Then improve.

Michael Schlueter

PS:
The car example is a good way to understand how cranked our perception of quality is. If my car is down somebody has to repair it. Once it is repaired I pay a lot of money for it. Why? Did I buy the car to spend more money on it lateron? - No, I bought it to drive it. If I can not drive it I should get money back after repair. "We repaired your car at no cextra-cost for you and give you $1.000 for your inconvenience." That would be quality - low loss for me ! - Try to figure out the minimum quality requirements for such a (repair) service, which is profitable ;-)


Answer:
The repair service needs another source of income, because its customers do not pay, they take. Who is the logical source for funding? Who built-in the bad quality (low time to repair)? - The manufacturer of the car is a logical source of income for the repair service. He/she should be charged by the $1.000+extra_costs. - As a consequence, this manufacturer would develop a sense of urgency for quality ... This holds for other products, too. ... Ultimately, this would lead to excellent cars and die-out of repair stations. At this point we need creativity and innovation: what other useful job should the people do, who run a repair service before? - How could they contribute to lower loss to society while prospering as individuals?

(Try to get this from counting bills ;-)

You see, when we want to improve - and if we really succeed - we need other means to avoid inhuman decisions (such as lay-offs of jobs). How to avoid inhuman actions in quality improvement? This is the real task.

To stay human, at some point I, as a christian, have to put the quality improvement activity back into Gods hand; because he cares and I tend to be inhuman (or sinfull) - that's my nature as a human.

But, for the less-religous readers: such inhuman decisions from improvement *can* be measured by quality loss again: the more inhuman the consequences, the more poor people are 'produced' => total quality loss increases, if counted correctly.

So evaluate total monetary loss - and do it completely and correctly.

From: "Jean-Philippe Hubin"
Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality

Subject: Re: How to define quality?
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:26:08 +0100

If the definitions of quality from Deming, Juran, or Ishikawa don't match the theories of V. Packard, don't question the definitions but the theories. (IMHO. Unless you want to write a doctoral thesis on this subject). Doing so will give you some perfectly acceptable definitions of quality. I personaly find the good old "Fit for use, conform to requirements" very useful.

Measuring the quality in services is often more tricky than in manufacturing. For two main reasons:

1. We have been writing requirements and specifications for manufacturing products for years and gained experience and knowledge about it. Quality of services is a newer concept, requirements for services have not been developed for as long.

2. As you mention, measuring quality in services often (but not always) involves trying to measure subjectives concept (cleanliness, friendliness, etc.). If you really want to measure these expectations (qualitative), try to transform them into measurable concepts (quantitative). For example if you want to know if a bill is readable enough, submit it to a group of users and prepare a list of questions about the bill. You can then evaluate the answers and determine a kind of readability score. But there will always be a subjective part when you need to take a decision based on the results (is 8/10 an acceptable score?)

But this is not particular to services, it corresponds to the tolerances in the industry.

Hope it helped

Jean-Philippe Hubin

There is some recent Definition of Quality related discussion here --> http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4452&perpage=10&pagenumber=5

Kevin, I apligise for not responding. Marc is right somehow I missed this post.

I like juran because he provides something you can get your hands on from a technical standpoint; The handbook, guidance on planning, problem solving tools, & SPC tools. Everything just seems to flow together.
I like Crosby because of his common sense approach and his bold statement concerining the quest for "Zero Defects". Too this day I believe there are few people that understand this concept. I still have pictures from the 60's of various people I worked receiving Zero Defects awards. Although Juran and Deming talked about it in the 80's, Crosby was the first to pronounce public awareness of the need to meet customer requirements. He was also the first to place emphasis on "Quality Costs" as a method to building an effective system. His thinking was light years ahead of the much touted "six sigma".

Originally posted by Jim Wade
My 2 centsworth FWIW

All the gurus (see Note) have good stuff to say about 'quality' - lots to learn and to reflect on from them all.

BUT, as far as a definition of quality goes, the only one that matters is the one that any one organisation's management team agrees on (taking into account of course the wants and needs of all stakeholders). That definition is contained - for good or for bad - in the organization's objectives.

rgds

Jim

Note: a guru is the chief theoretician of a cult or sect - makes you think, doesn't it?

Jim,

Just a thought.... while an organization's operational definition of quality may be documented in the organization's objectives - I propose that the organization's true definition of quality is expressed in its culture.

Cheers!

Mike

and say that if the definition of quality is to be dependant on the agreement of a corporate management team, we will never get to see the true definition of quality.

I contend the definition of quality has been and always will be determined by the customer. There can't be a definitive statement of quality because the perception of quality changes with every customer and with every mood swing. To meet the requirements of the customer can't stop with dimensional requirements on a print. It can't even be judged by compliance with every word in a contract.

Customer perception of quality is like Inspector 14 in reverse. "It won't say (quality) till I say it says (quality)." Does that say the customer is going to reject the parts? - No. The parts can meet all the requirements and work fine but to the customer, your quality can "suck". Sure, we can say "Hey! Those are good parts - show me where my quality is bad". Does it help? It is the customers perception that has the final say.

The customer may not always be right (which is something we have all learned), but the customer is always the customer. As the guy placing the order, the customer presides as judge and jury of quality.

Dave

I fully agree that it is the customer that defines quality. I do not like tomatoes, so no matter how good "quality" the sandwich you think you made, if it has tomatoes on it I will not consider it satisfactory. (I know that sentence is linguistically incorrect, but I can’t figure out how to say it better).

On the other hand customer defined quality depends on a customer that is also truthful and does not play games with the supplier (like rejecting known good parts), or waiting until the sandwich is delivered to specify no tomatoes.

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Interesting, Mike

Do you mean (for example and in ISO 9000 terms) in the behaviors that demonstrate the degree to which the organization's management has adopted the eight principles?

rgds JimI needed to change this a bit...

I don't like to look at things in terms of ISO anything. If it makes good business sense and is capable of enhancing customer satisfaction - sure. If it happens to fit within the ISO scheme... great. If it doesn't - that doesn't mean it won't be implemented.

So, how about this: The behaviors that demonstrate the degree to which management is dedicated to customer satisfaction and communicates this dedication to every employee in the shop, no matter what the function. This could be evidenced by every employee knowing and understanding how his/her job contributes to customer satisfaction and the ability of those employees to suggest (and after approval, implement) improvements in their respective processes that can contribute to enhanced customer satisfaction and ultimately better business practices. (Whew!!)

Frankly, whether this is in ISO terms or not is really immaterial. A company can do this and not be ISO registered and another company can be ISO registered and not doing this. Which one do you think will be more successful?

Now... to really throw a spanner in the works... :eek: What is the customer saying about the level of acceptable quality when they accept a product that has been deemed "defective" or "nonconforming", but accepted with (or without) concession? Is the accepted product now the quality standard, regardless of what the customer specs say? Your sandwich has tomato on it, but you're hungry enough to eat it anyway, but only pay $1.50 instead of $3.00 or you get a free soda.

Thoughts?

Cheers!!!

Mike

Ok guys, here's my definition of quality. It's the one I give to all of our employees in orientation.

"Doing the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason"

In other words, the definition of quality is defined by the situation. There is no one definition, quality is a way of life (business) not a tangible commodity.

IMHO.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. BTW, they've finally beaten me down, I now admit my error Y'all is not the proper spellling of Ya'll.

Ya'll have a good day now, y'hear!

Originally posted by SteelMaiden
BTW, they've finally beaten me down, I now admit my error Y'all is not the proper spellling of Ya'll.
You are now an honorary Real Southerner! :vfunny: That's how you can always tell the difference between a real Southerner and a pretender to the throne. I have a devil of a time trying to convince Yankees that ya'll is most definitely the right spelling. They try to use the argument that it is a contraction of "you" and "all" and therefore the apostrophe is replacing the "ou".

Well, at least you have found the true path now SteelMaiden! :)

But those objectives are driven by INTERNAL customers. The perception is always theirs no matter what we feel as the provider.

A day care center can be the best in the city, but if it serves peanut butter sandwiches without jelly, someone is sure to think it lacks in quality. On the other hand if they do serve jelly, someone else might consider that a drop in quality.

Your point is well taken, you can establish quality objectives on any level. However, these have to remain only as objectives and not a definition of quality. Even the success in meeting the objectives becomes subjective once perceived from different perspectives by the authors of the objectives.

IMHO a lot would be lost if quality were restricted to satisfaction of outside customers only.

Dave

Originally posted by Lucinda

I have a devil of a time trying to convince Yankees that ya'll is most definitely the right spelling. They try to use the argument that it is a contraction of "you" and "all" and therefore the apostrophe is replacing the "ou".

Well, at least you have found the true path now SteelMaiden! :)

Now all I have to do is convince the Southerners that those of us whose ancesters were fighting to keep their lands west of the wide Missouri during the war between the states are not Yankees!:frust: :biglaugh:

Originally posted by Jim Wade
We might choose to have objectives (part of a definition of 'quality') not driven by the customer - and from which the customer might not even benefit.
rgds JimJim,

I don't see that in my Dictionary. Maybe you have a later edition?
I see things like superiority, excellence, distinction, fineness, etc..No objectives. When someone doesn't get what they ordered, or the product is incomplete or damaged, they blame it on poor quality. If all this "Quality" bashing is correct, I should not be afraid to respond to my Customer, "It not poor quality, it's just a broken part or missing hardware. We don't use that word around here because the term quality is not clearly defined. In fact, while talking to you, I keep seeing yellow flashcards every time I say Quality. Man oh Man. And you think I have too much time on my hands? I'm really having a hard time with this thread. I'm reading slower, trying desparately to keep up. How am I doing?

Please remember that you are not addressing that female QC Mgr who spends too much time in the Cove, mentioned in your post. She would probably spank you with a cricket bat! I'm nicer than that. :ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Lucinda
You are now an honorary Real Southerner! :vfunny: That's how you can always tell the difference between a real Southerner and a pretender to the throne. I have a devil of a time trying to convince Yankees that ya'll is most definitely the right spelling. They try to use the argument that it is a contraction of "you" and "all" and therefore the apostrophe is replacing the "ou".

Well, at least you have found the true path now SteelMaiden! :) Here's the test of a real Sutherner... :eek:

Steel, how do ya'll like your grits? :ko:

Cheers!!!

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Certainly the customer is crucially important and has a BIG say in our definition of 'quality' (especially in terms of product and service delivered), but the customer doesn't necessarily fully define 'quality' for us.

We might choose to have objectives (part of a definition of 'quality') not driven by the customer - and from which the customer might not even benefit.

For example: ISO 9001 requires us to continually improve processes. Some of those improvements might not be required by a customer - nor even of benefit to them (e.g. we might reduce cost but maintain price and improve profit).

Other examples of such objectives are:

• Provide improved childcare facilities for employees.

• Improve return on capital employed

ISO 9004 reminds us that a business has stakeholders other than the customer.

rgds JimJim,

You raise interesting points. Just one comment - or question, rather... why bring ISO into this at all? Regardless of whether ISO is involved, these continual improvement processes (whether internal or external customer driven) should be implemented if upper management wants to enhance their business operations.

I could also argue that your examples DO benefit customers.
For example: Improved childcare facilities for employees = happier employees = more job satisfaction = better product = fewer defects = happier customers.

Cheers!!

Originally posted by Michael T


Here's the test of a real Sutherner... :eek:

Steel, how do ya'll like your grits? :ko:

Cheers!!!

With mild and sugar, out of a bowl, just like cream of wheat! And I will never voluntarily ask someone to serve me collards. I apologize to all the "real Sutherners" but they are just NASTY! I truly think that the South is ignoring one of their most renewable natural resources by not figuring out how to turn collards into rain coats.

I'll justify this post by saying that it fits my definition of quality!:biglaugh:

Originally posted by SteelMaiden


With mild and sugar, out of a bowl, just like cream of wheat! And I will never voluntarily ask someone to serve me collards. I apologize to all the "real Sutherners" but they are just NASTY! I truly think that the South is ignoring one of their most renewable natural resources by not figuring out how to turn collards into rain coats.

I'll justify this post by saying that it fits my definition of quality!:biglaugh:

Doooooohhhhhhhhh....

Milk and sugar!?!?!?! Yankee blasphemer!!! :biglaugh: :vfunny:

The ONLY way to eat grits... butter, salt & light pepper - mixed with your scrambled eggs & cheese. :lick: :smokin:


Gotta agree with the collards though.... yeeeeuuuck! Never could get into them. That or buttermilk. My dad & grandma swear by it.

I think the sutherners are trying to figure out how to make Kudzu into raincoats... *laff*

Cheers!!!

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Right again - blimey, you're good! Yes, almost anything that makes us better could well be argued to be in the customers' interest. [Looks like you might be familiar with the workings of the Balanced Scorecard?]

But the end customers don't drive or define ALL that we might want to improve or achieve. Agreed?

rgds JimJim,

I am familiar with balanced score card - but don't use it. In this instance I was simply applying some of Deming's philosophies.

I'm still cogitating on whether or not customers should be the driving force behind all improvement endeavors. At this point I want to say they should be, but I'm not quite convinced of that yet. Achievement is a different animal. We might want to achieve enormous profits. If customers had their way, we wouldn't because we'd be selling our goods or services for next to nothing.

Cheers!!

Okay Jim, I'll concede that the customer (defined as those who purchase our products/services) does not drive or define all that we might want to improve or achieve. For example, we may want to lower our toxic wastes to a certain level below what is mandated by government. Why would we want to do this? We are stewards of our environment - it makes sense - it makes the other members of our community happy... etc. etc. This improvement has no significant impact on our customers other than to make them feel good about buying our environmentally sensitive products. With that "warm fuzzy" and $0.30 I can buy you a cup of coffee (that closely resembles toxic waste... :vfunny: )

BTW, yes - my Q dictionaries (plural) are well thumbed, dog-eared, coffee stained, grease stained, highlighted and generally mangled. They are available to anyone in the plant who wants to read them and I encourage it any chance I can get. :smokin:

Cheers!!!

Okay now to set you all straight. First of all, sorry I’ve missed so much. My employer has this funny thing about me doing those things he pays me for. Imagine that!


First Quality
If we understand the Kano model, we can see that no matter what “extras” we add, if we fail to satisfy the basics, the customer will not accept our product/service as quality. For example, I you buy a car from me and I throw in the greatest sound system ever produced, you will not think the car is a “quality” car if it does not come with wheels, and there is no way to put wheels on it. On the other hand, if all the “basics” are met, it doesn’t take many extras to add “wow”. But next time the extras will probably be considered basics. In both cases, the customer still defines “quality”:smokin:

Second Southerners
You kaint call yourself a southerner unless you have dug a new hole for the outhouse, and have eaten soup beans, fried potatoes and cornbread at least four times a week. And if you add just a bit of vinegar to them greens they can be eaten with no difficulty. But I really don’t think this is the proper thread to discuss soul food. (or roadkill)
:biglaugh:

Quote from Michael T
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay Jim, I'll concede that the customer (defined as those who purchase our products/services) does not drive or define all that we might want to improve or achieve. For example, we may want to lower our toxic wastes to a certain level below what is mandated by government. Why would we want to do this? We are stewards of our environment - it makes sense - it makes the other members of our community happy... etc. etc. This improvement has no significant impact on our customers other than to make them feel good about buying our environmentally sensitive products. With that "warm fuzzy" and $0.30 I can buy you a cup of coffee (that closely resembles toxic waste...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael, perhaps I’m missing something. It seems we have progressed from customers defining “quality” to customer determining what we should improve. Sometimes they are the same, but I’m having trouble finding the definition of quality in your example. I cannot argue what you are saying, and wouldn’t dare to. Even if we were to stretch the point to “quality of life”, then the customers (those who are affected by our toxic waste, or our elected officials) are still defining quality.

I think?

Originally posted by db
Michael, perhaps I’m missing something. It seems we have progressed from customers defining “quality” to customer determining what we should improve. Sometimes they are the same, but I’m having trouble finding the definition of quality in your example. I cannot argue what you are saying, and wouldn’t dare to. Even if we were to stretch the point to “quality of life”, then the customers (those who are affected by our toxic waste, or our elected officials) are still defining quality.

I think? Dave,

What I was referring to was quality objectives that are customer centered. In particular, I was reply to Jim's quote:We might choose to have objectives (part of a definition of 'quality') not driven by the customer - and from which the customer might not even benefit.Perhaps I misinterpreted the point he was trying to make. I was trying to come up with a quality objective that might not have the customer as its focus. At first I couldn't think of any type of quality objective that wouldn't be customer centric, but then, as I thought more about it... quality objectives should be stakeholder focused, not just customer focused. Perhaps I'm confused? :confused: Sure wouldn't be the first time. :D

Jim, Jim, Jim...


I was one of those who missed it. I hadn't thought about "quality" in those exact terms, and I guess that I am still having trouble absorbing it. I don’t see how it fits. But, I’ll chew on it a bit. My early comments would definitely not fit your second scenario…and I can see why. I’ve really got to think about this. You sir, are twisting my paradigm (I hate that word, but it does work here) on the subject.

Isn’t that what the Cove is all about?

Okay now...I just downloaded this from a "Business" website. I won't say which country. Suffice to say it wasn't the USA. Let's do the recommended substitution of business terms in place of "Quality". I can't do it. I must be trapped in my paradigm? I am respectively asking for help on this. Show me the light!:eek:

quality assurance
Those activities associated with assuring the quality of a product or service.

quality at the source
A method of process control whereby each worker is responsible for his or her own work and performs needed inspections at each stage of the process.

quality circles
Brainstorming sessions involving employees of a firm whose goal is improving processes and process capability.

quality control
The process relating to gathering process data and analyzing the data to determine whether the process exhibits nonrandom variation.

quality dimensions
Aspects of quality that help to better define what quality is. These include perceived quality, conformance, reliability, durability, and so on.

quality function deployment (QFD)
QFD involves developing a matrix that includes customer preferences and product attributes. A QFD matrix allows a firm to quantitatively analyze the relationship between customer needs and design attributes.

quality improvement system
The result of the interactions between the various components that defines the quality policy in a firm.

quality loss function (QLF)
A function that determines economic penalties that the customer incurs as a result of purchasing a nonconforming product.

quality management
The management processes that overarch and tie together quality control and quality assurance activities.

quality maturity analysis (QMA)
A study in which a firm’s level of maturity relating to quality practices is assessed.

quality measures
Ratios that are used to measure a firm’s performance in the area of quality management.


:ko: :smokin:

Originally posted by Jim Wade
Hi energy

Now in my real world (yeah - I do have one too!) I find that sometimes the same question, even in the same organization, might come out with a different valid answer from time to time if there have been changes of customer or supplier or product range or production technology or packaging or market or regualtion or standards etc. etc.

So if we just say 'quality' without defining exactly what we are talking about, it might mask the fact that we are talking at cross purposes.

rgds

Jim

If I asked a dozen colleagues here what the word "Quality" meant to them, there would probably be 10 different answers. Each answer would be the view from that department. I've heard "Quality Problems" to describe every situation where something went awry. Short example: Order entry error. "We have a problem with the Quality of this person's work." How do we change that? It's not worth the effort. That would be a full time job all by it's self. Sometimes, when a person who is addressing a group, the use of the "Q" word lends an air of sophistication to their boring presentation. So we suffer through this nuisance and keep on chuggin!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Wade
[B]Dammit! I was looking for a simple way to express what I meant and you have given me the answer: "If I asked a dozen colleagues here what the word "Quality" meant to them, there would probably be 10 different answers"

Exactly - and as long in any one use of the word we all know exactly what we are talking about - no problem.

On the other hand, as you imply, it can impress to use big and strange words - as long as there's no obfuscation :)

and this quote: So if we just say 'quality' without defining exactly what we are talking about, it might mask the fact that we are talking at cross purposes.

___________________________________________________
As Jim constantly points out, the definition of quality can be variable depending on circumstances, audience, etc. So Jim suggests we do away with using that ambiguous "Qword". But consider the words "objectives" and "principals" -- I think these words can suffer the same "problem" -- the definition can be variable depending on the circumstances, audience, etc. (Have I not seen threads in the Cove asking what the differences are between words like "policy", "objective", "principals" and the like?) Even consider the word "customer". I believe we've seen where many people agree this ("C-word"?) can mean many different things -- again depending on the situation (direct customer, indirect customer, internal customer, external customer, etc.) But somehow we have used these words for years upon years. So, is it truly a real problem in communication or is it an imagined one?

(Not trying to pick on you Jim.)

Mike S.

Originally posted by Jim Wade
No problem Mike - I don't feel picked on.
And you make a good point - many words might help miscommunication unless defined. I just happen to believe that we use 'quality' particularly vaguely and meaninglessly.
rgds Jim

Especially like "obfuscation". Showoff!:biglaugh: :ko: :smokin:

I thought "obfuscation" was just a typo. How in the world is that pronounced. Is sounds like some messy medical or biological thing.

"Ol' Roy is obfuscating again!"

:biglaugh:

Originally posted by db
"Ol' Roy is obfuscating again!"

:biglaugh:

db,

That sounds like one of those things that should be classified as "more than I needed to know!":eek:

Jim,

You American had to be the first to come up with such a definition did'nt you... I don't know where you think them up from.

(only kidding)

rgds Geoff

Typical 'Janet and John' rolled into a meaningless opening line !

I would say that quality is a characteristic of a product and/or service that can (and must) be meaningfully defined into tangeable specifications. Tools such as Quality Function Deployment serve to translate the meaningless broad concept of 'quality' into real product/service characteristics.

Dare I say it in such simple language,

:D "Quality is defined by the realization of value added steps, driven by needs that fulfils a desired outcome":D

Wallace.:bigwave:

I have to get the people at my company to stop looking as the customer requiremnt as acceptabel to print. I thought I put all of your comments to gether and talk to them about it. Perhaps post the definiton. Does anyoen have any other ideas how to change the culture?

Jim Wade said:

"Quality is measured by the degree to which we miss our objectives"

Discuss.

rgds Jim


Jim, that approach is similar to Crosby's "...conformance to requirements" definition, but from the negative rather than the positive ("miss" rather than "conform").

What I see lacking in both definitions is that the formation of the objectives (requirements) may be flawed or incomplete.

But then, it seems that fault can be found with any attempt at a definition, doesn't it? We know quality when we see it, but can't quite define what it is.

Craig

Jim Wade said:

All objectives are missed (eventually) to some degree...

rgds Jim
Why do you say that, Jim? Quite a pessimistic opinion! I disagree and can think of examples where this is not the case, unless by "eventually" you mean because everyone dies eventually, or that no company lasts forever. Am I missing something again? Anyone? :confused:

Looked at another way, if "missing the objective" means both over- and under- shooting it, the Taguchi loss function would apply, as well.

:eek: So if your objective for 2002 was to increase market share by 20% and increase profits by 20%, but you increased both by 25% that's bad? I don't think Mr. Taguchi's loss function was intended to apply here.

Mike S. said:

:eek: So if your objective for 2002 was to increase market share by 20% and increase profits by 20%, but you increased both by 25% that's bad? I don't think Mr. Taguchi's loss function was intended to apply here.


Mike, of course it doesn't, but there are many other areas where being "off target" high or low that the function would apply to.

Really, I don't know why I let myself get drawn into this. I have had this debate so many times I can't count them. Heck, for one of my beginning classes I even train that there are different definitions of quality.

It is an interesting subject, but I would be astounded if even the smart folks on the Cove could concoct a definition that everyone who visits the Cove could agree on, much less everyone else.

The important thing is that we decide what is important for the organization to measure, and how we interpret the results. We can call the process by any name we wish (some consultants have that one figured out already).

Craig

Jim

I think what you talk of, and have experienced, is the natural variance that is resident in all processes.

All process will vary around a mean value, if in control, and like you say more often than not we will miss our mean value or 'target'.

Which is why careful statistical analysis of our measures is so useful.

Yes Jim.

'Quality' improvement is commonly considered to be two things - reducing variation, or shifting the mean value or 'target'.

This is all only achievable when all special causes, as you mention, have been removed and we have established that our process is in statistical control.

1999 to 2003 - A Blast from the PAST. Many of you have contributed to this thread, but as I move through threads, some like this come up that I want to bring to the forefront for another look. Or at least to think about. In this case it's the ever changing, perspective related opinion of what quality is.

I thought of this especially because I was at a meeting yesterday. A fellow had been to a GM (General Motors) meeting with suppliers. GM said they are redefining Quality as What the Customer (car buyer) Perceives to be quality. I have to admit I chuckled to myself - That's new???

Has anyone else involved with GM getting this line?

I've heard this or read while studies or somwere else and remembered it:

"quality is then, when your client is happy"

and I personally haven't heard any better definition since then.

"quality is then, when your client is happy"


What happens when a customer is never happy?

Jaime

What happens when a customer is never happy?

JaimeDepending upon how unhappy that makes you, it may be time to "fire the customer!"

Philip Crosby stated:
"QUALITY IS CONFORMANCE TO REQUIREMENTS"

I like to add
"QUALITY IS CONTINUOUS CONFORMANCE TO REQUIREMENTS"
If you conform to requirements sometimes that's not quality that's luck.

Now the big question is "WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS?"
To answer this we need to ask "What does it take to make the customer successful?" (Customer satisfaction is a myth). If we focus on customer (external and internal) success we find that requirements are more that just the functional attributes of a product or service.

Juran said "Fit for Use" this is very small statement which means a lot. Implied includes function, appearance, cost, durability and of course customer satisfaction.
How can anyone make a customer "Happy", you cannot not make anyone happy. Happy is a state of mind. Only you can make yourself "Happy".
Can you even make your spouse "Happy", no- but you can contribute to ones satisfaction of the circumstances. Even if a customer says they are happy with your product and service, they would no longer be happy when your competitor lowers the price.

How about this definition of quality:

"Quality is a momentary perception that occurs when something in our environment interacts with us, in the pre-intellectual awareness that comes before rational thought takes over and begins establishing order. Judgment of the resulting order is then reported as good or bad quality value."

I can almost hear the sitar and smell the incense.

Depending upon how unhappy that makes you, it may be time to "fire the customer!"
I have felt like that many times. The funny part is that we would be firing a customer because we tried to give them too much quality. :confused:

I have felt like that many times. The funny part is that we would be firing a customer because we tried to give them too much quality. :confused:Attorney Johnny Cochran has been quoted as saying, "You get as much justice as you pay for."

Perhaps we need to have the strength to tell some customers, "You get as much quality as you pay for."

The president of a company I use to work for always said "Everyone wants quality but no one wants to pay for it".
I remember watching a TV interview of a very famous Chrysler CEO. He stated that Chrysler products are of the highest quality, they have fuel injection, turbo charge, etc.
As I recall, I thought to myself, heres a very successfull CEO that thinks quality is a bunch of add-on gizmos, bells and whistles. This perhaps plays to the customer perception of quality. :nopity:

The president of a company I use to work for always said "Everyone wants quality but no one wants to pay for it".
I remember watching a TV interview of a very famous Chrysler CEO. He stated that Chrysler products are of the highest quality, they have fuel injection, turbo charge, etc.
As I recall, I thought to myself, heres a very successfull CEO that thinks quality is a bunch of add-on gizmos, bells and whistles. This perhaps plays to the customer perception of quality. :nopity:
If that CEO was Lee Ioccoa then I can personally attest to his commitment to quality having been in the Chrysler/Dodge plants before and after his arrival. Prior to his arrival the quality was ho hum and visibly poor paint, fit and finish. After -there were immediate improvements, and relplacements of plant quality managers with daily reviews at the end of the lines with cars marked with arrows pointing to unacceptable results.

Attorney Johnny Cochran has been quoted as saying, "You get as much justice as you pay for."

Perhaps we need to have the strength to tell some customers, "You get as much quality as you pay for."

I've always felt uneasy with this answer. after all if quality is 'confomance to requirements' or 'continuous conformance to requirements'. why would you ever make it a matter of $$$ to do as what you claim to do? if the price is to low, aren't you ethically bound to raise the price so that you can do what you promise to do?

Certaintly performance and variation is a matter of money. but the degree that such performance or variation meets your agreed upon specification should be perfectly clear. the company should make a financial and legal effort to make sure the company is meeting requirements; and THAT is why every company should pay for an effective quality system. whether they make ROLEX watches or 2 cent ballpoint pens.

let me put it another way- if you buy a 'lemon' car, does it really matter to YOU if GM built 100 or 10,000 cars without defects. does a car that blows up coming home from the dealership have any more innate value, because they are 10,000 similar cars that didn't??

IMHO, no. that is why every company needs to measure and ensure a quality system. its cheaper and better to not make bad product in the first place; but barring that still the companies role to prevent bad product from passing a thorough inspection.


so, wes - are you sure??

so, wes - are you sure??Yep. If I make a pen for two pennies, my customer who buys it needs to understand it is a two cent pen, not a $1000.00 Montblanc, and that the quality and performance will not match a Montblanc.

A customer who harries me for Montblanc quality in a two cent pen is definitely going to be invited to be an ex-customer.

In a fair world, you get what you pay for. Similarly, if it is a $1,000 Montblanc I'm making, it darn well better be able to meet the most exacting criteria, or my customer has the right to be an ex-customer at his option. ("Sauce for the goose . . .")

This leads us to identifying the requirements. Requirements are more than just the functional attributes of a product or service. They can include price, delivery, environmental impact .......

Dear Covers:

Let me chime in here with the following news article about Mercedes Benz.

Bucking an industry trend, Mercedes-Benz is eliminating free maintenance during the warranty period beginning with the 2005 model year.

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=100772

Customers who used to get free service checkups, labor and many parts will pay for them individually or buy a maintenance package that Mercedes dealerships will start selling.

Mercedes-Benz will save money, but some experts say it may lose a competitive edge......

Is MB doing the right thing? Is the EXPECTATION of service, previously provided, mean MB is offering less to the customer now and is therefore going downhill from a QUALITY perspective?

Quality, at least from a business standpoint, IMHO, is what a company is willing to provide at a price and also guarantee that the product meets certain minimum standards of performance, safety, etc.... Does this include what MB was providing its customers to date at no cost, FOR FREE, that is?

***************

I have pasted the full article below for future reference in case the link becomes inactive.

Mercedes dropping free warranty period maintenance starting with '05 models
DIANA T. KURYLKO | Automotive News
Posted Date: 9/8/04

Bucking an industry trend, Mercedes-Benz is eliminating free maintenance during the warranty period beginning with the 2005 model year.

Customers who used to get free service checkups, labor and many parts will pay for them individually or buy a maintenance package that Mercedes dealerships will start selling.

Mercedes-Benz will save money, but some experts say it may lose a competitive edge because other luxury makes continue to offer free maintenance programs.

Mercedes-Benz executives say the service program launched four years ago was not totally free. For example, customers still had to pay for parts that were replaced due to normal wear and tear, such as brake pads and wiper blades. Mercedes says this confused owners.

Industry experts say the move could affect sales or customer satisfaction ratings from conquest buyers.

"It will hurt them. Free maintenance is a big selling point for the industry in that segment. It's almost the price of entry into that class," says Bob Kurilko, vice president of marketing for Edmunds.com, a consumer Web site for car shoppers.

Under the new program, Mercedes-Benz owners won't be charged for their first visit between 1,000 and 3,000 miles and the first tire rotation at 6,500 miles. After that, the customer pays for everything including labor.

Dealers will sell new maintenance packages that, for example, range on a C-Class from $576 for two years to $1,312 for four years. Owners will receive a maintenance book spelling out what services are needed when.

Archrival BMW says it is sticking to the program it began in the 2003 model year covering all service costs, even wipers and oil filters, for four years or 50,000 miles.

sorry, charmed but IMHO- this isn't an issue in quality. Its a question of value- because there is a company commtiment to stated requirement( or specification)

I think it is important to be specific and relatively limited in the definition of quality, so that we as quality professionals can be unequivable about the our commitment in quality. 2 cent or 200 hundred dollar pens, aside we will do all that is possible to meet our product claims.

We don't want to have our commitment for quality to be tossed aside for economic reasons. its not merely a matter of business. its a matter of ethics. does you company stand behind workers whom don't don't meet stated requirements? there's forgiveness for the human element- the lack of perfection, yes. but fundementally, a company expects workers to meet stated requirements- period.

A company should have the same commitment for quality as it has for safety. we don't allow safety to be comprimised for economic reasons and we shouldn't allow quality.
that said, I spend a lot of time of issues of performance- and I suspect many QA managers do, as well.

BUT even if process improvement X or performance issue Y can't be done. we should still need to meet a stated requirement.

about mercedes, time will tell if that decision was a bad idea. the market is effective at ridding, expensive courtesies that aren't fully valued--consider full service gas stations and the many services they USE to do every time you pulled up at the pump. I'm sure somebody questioned whether that was a good idea, too.

PS. BTW, I have become an ex-customer of the cheapest of pens for this very reason. I'd understand if they would just wear quickly-- but only getting 1-2 of a dozen that ever actually work, I'd give the QA manager heck every time.

Attorney Johnny Cochran has been quoted as saying, "You get as much justice as you pay for."

Perhaps we need to have the strength to tell some customers, "You get as much quality as you pay for."
Wes,

Funny you should mention this. I posted the following not long ago:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9040

It has taking me a couple of years to get used to "Give the customer as much quality as he/she is willing to pay for."

I first heard this quote where I now work. However, I have personally practiced this (without realizing it) for a very long time.

Thanks for bringing it up in this post. I am steadily growing more comfortable with the following:
Customers will only pay for as much quality as they are willing to have. Therefore, suppliers should build as much quality into a product as the customer is paying for.

Jaime

Wes,

Funny you should mention this. I posted the following not long ago:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9040

It has taking me a couple of years to get used to "Give the customer as much quality as he/she is willing to pay for."

I first heard this quote where I now work. However, I have personally practiced this (without realizing it) for a very long time.

Thanks for bringing it up in this post. I am steadily growing more comfortable with the following:
Customers will only pay for as much quality as they are willing to have. Therefore, suppliers should build as much quality into a product as the customer is paying for.

Jaime
Not to be disagreeable, but I have been ever-increasingly against the phrase.

I suspect some differences might go away if we allowed the limited clear definition of quality to be ‘conformance to requirements.’

If we considered companies to be like individuals, what would we say about an individual whom promised something for money, then didn’t do it.
Possibly fraudulent, right? Even if it wasn’t the person’s fault, wouldn’t you expect him to do all he could to do it? At the very least it certainly IS a question of ethics, ethically when you pay a person to do something, you expect that person to do it.

If it’s an employee, you fire him (particularly if he does this regularly). Would you Not fire him because the person said??,
“ I didn’t do want was expected of me, because I wasn’t paid enough’. You wouldn’t buy that, would you???
Why do we want to give our companies a big break on this issue?

Companies that don’t do what they say they do are bad for society (tagushi loss) and can’t Possibly inspire enough consumer loyalty to stay in business. Your own job is on the line for that. Remember three business facts:
A CEO or other top individual can prosper by having trashed a company. He only has to grab big stock options, make promises he can’t keep, reap the small rise in stock price, and get out on a ‘golden parachute’. There livelihood is NOT on the line, yours is.
All companies keep prices to a minimum, if we wait for the bean counters to pronounce ‘there’s profit to spare’ and you will be waiting a long line.
Lastly and most personally, you and everything you do are that commitment to quality. Tell businesses in has to be in a high profit industry to afford you, and well their announce new cost savings (your job included).

No, the phrase is a threat not a fact of life. A defense from the constant erosion in price. If your prices go too low, there won’t be money for quality. This should be scary. No quality, no ethical meeting of the requirements you have, means no future.

There’s another quality phrase that’s much more powerful, and a better message to management. ‘Do what you say, say what you do’.

Granted there’s a lot of games and a little ambiguity about requirements. You can only be ethically bound to the requirements YOUR company makes. Meeting those requirements is the issue of quality we all need to be absolute about, the actual requirements and their fitness for the customer, those are issues of performance. Even issues of variability within the requirements ARE still not strictly (in this definition) Quality.

FOR, How can we be absolute about variability?? That would mean we would have to insist on the best processing that can be bought, which is ridiculous for some products. Buy poor processes and you can still have good quality-how, by incessant inspection. Thus inefficient processes make quality Expensive.

You can argue or give way about reducing variation, or using a better component for longer life. You are not necessarily compromising quality (although you may be hurting profitability). Send stuff out that doesn’t meet your claims- your compromising quality, being unethical, and possibly fraudulent. You and your company will not survive that.

Enough of the soapbox. :soap:

Do those that are unswayed- when and whom would you say such a phrase to? Would you actually answer a corrective action with ‘insuffiicent resources to address’? What about products with high costs and low margins- are they immune from high quality requirements, because there is no money to make sure they are good?? What about bulk processes with millions of parts, even a high margin could get pretty small by the time you divide into each part? What about ISO requirements that the ISO 9001:2000 8.3 ‘organization shall ensure that product which does not conform to product requirements (my definition of product with low quality) is identified and controlled to prevent its unintended use or delivery.’ OR 8.5.2 ‘the organization shall take action to eliminate the cause of nonconformities…’ How do you tell an auditor that the product just isn’t expensive enough to warrant removing non-conforming product or doing corrective actions (OR doing them effectively, after all why do them, if you’re not actually trying to stop nonconforming product).

Good discussion, even if it is a little redundant. IMHO quality (doing what you say) is about right and wrong, not just $$$ and margins.

At the very least it certainly IS a question of ethics, ethically when you pay a person to do something, you expect that person to do it.

If it’s an employee, you fire him (particularly if he does this regularly). Would you Not fire him because the person said??,
“ I didn’t do want was expected of me, because I wasn’t paid enough’. Come on, wes! You wouldn’t buy that, would you??? :nope:

Enough of the soapbox. :soap:

I do make a distinction between getting what I bargained for (or paid for) and the situation where the customer who shops on price then complains the low-priced product isn't as good as the high-priced product.

Everyone who reads this will probably have one anecdote about something similar to the one where a guy buys a supposedly "hot" watch from a guy on the street one night, thinking he has a "Rolex," only to find out in the cold light of day he has bought a "Rolecks." The idiotic part is when he goes looking for the "fence" who sold him the watch to complain it doesn't keep time.

In my mind, I respect the right of a buyer who has laid out all his requirements in advance to complain if the product doesn't meet those requirements, regardless of the price paid. Shame on the supplier who promised to meet those requirements and didn't.

I do not respect the buyer who imposes quality criteria AFTER the product is delivered, regardless of the price paid. In the case of the Montblanc pen, the manufacturer advertises what to expect, the buyer therefore bargains to get what is advertised.

When a worker says, "I wasn't paid enough." after the fact, he is in the same position as the buyer of the Rolecks - he wanted more than he bargained for.

When an employer adds conditions AFTER the pay rate has been established, it is like saying to the worker, "I hired you for 8 hours and I will pay you for 8 hours, but you must work 12 hours or I won't pay you after all."

As a matter of fact, new employment laws address this very matter.

Not to be disagreeable, but I have been ever-increasingly against the phrase.

On the contrary. I am glad to learn about the other side of the argument. I am still not totally sold on the phrase either. Especially when we are an ISO registered shop. I mean that alone implies we should give quality a priority. However, I was told that the organization cannot ignore other matters to make quality the top priority. After all, the organization has to make a profit to stay in business. Or so I was told.

I guess that is why sometimes it is better to fire a customer that increasingly demands more quality than he/she paid for, along with employees that think they can do less work for more money.

Jaime

The last several posts seem to prove my point that customer satisfaction is a myth. If quality is conformance to requirements and you base the requirements on making your customers do a happy dance, you'll soon be out of business because you're broke.

If you base the requirements on making you customer successful, your customer will make more and you will make more.

If you help make your customers successful they may not always be happy but they will always be your customers.

The question should not be "What is Quality?" the question should be "What are requirements?".

If you base the requirements on making you customer successful, your customer will make more and you will make more.

If you help make your customers successful they may not always be happy but they will always be your customers.

Very good point :applause:

Top Management where I work has defined customer satisfaction as customer loyalty.

Jaime

If that CEO was Lee Ioccoa then I can personally attest to his commitment to quality having been in the Chrysler/Dodge plants before and after his arrival. Prior to his arrival the quality was ho hum and visibly poor paint, fit and finish. After -there were immediate improvements, and relplacements of plant quality managers with daily reviews at the end of the lines with cars marked with arrows pointing to unacceptable results.

It was Lee Ioccoa but I now remember it was not an interview but a commercial. I am glad to hear that he did attempt to improve the quality of product. My experience with the Dodge 400 was abysmal.
It was at that point in time that I seen Lee on the TV and it may have been the 400 that biased my perception.

What happens when a customer is never happy?

Jaime

Let's say that every relation in life and also in business is a sort of transaction between paire (or more than two). Every side is motivated to this transaction by needs which will be through it satisfied.

For instance in private life you look for a partner 'couse for a reason (love, lonelines, prove that you can do it, and so on..), in business you may want to buy or sell somenthing. In the end all sides of any transaction need each other. Without this fact they wouldn't approach each other.

But in business is like in life some transactions make you "happy" some not. When they make you unhappy or/and never made you happy, perhaps you schould realy "fire" the other side for better future? I another words: when one side of transaction's needs are not fulfilled then then there is no need for the other side.

Of course relations are mostly more complicated than this very simple example.

Anyone have anything else to add? (This is a 'Blast from the Past' thread bump...)

Anyone have anything else to add? (This is a 'Blast from the Past' thread bump...)

"Quality is to product as grammar is to language,"
Regards,
Govind.

Anyone have anything else to add? (This is a 'Blast from the Past' thread bump...)

This may not be understandable to all(!), but it is taken from my recently published book "Dee the Business" - "a tongue-in-cheek guide to business and IT concepts and terminology in Doric" (the dialect of the North East of Scotland). [It also includes Doric Haiku versions of Microsoft error messages and Doric “emoticons,” through Eddie Demin’s Fowerteen Pynts and a North East view of the impact of external standards, to what happened when “A bubblyjock wis bletherin til a bull.” It comes with an English translation.] (I've added one or two other definitions below - email me if you want some more examples)

Quality: "Fit wye a thingie’s fit fir fit it’s supposed ti fit" [The way in which something is suitable for its intended purpose]

Competency: "Fit ye’re fit fir" [What you are capable of]

Business Risk: "Onythin aat kin mak an erse o fit ye’re tryin ti dee" [Anything which can make a real mess of what you are trying to do]

Resources: "Handy things ti hae handy" [Convenient or useful things to have at hand]

Anyone have anything else to add? (This is a 'Blast from the Past' thread bump...)

Sure... We all have our own definitions, but how about this?

Quality will make the customer happy.
A happy customer will make the company profitable.
A profitable company will make the owner happy.
A happy owner will allow the company stay in business.
A company that stays in business will keep paying your wages.
The wages will make you happy.

Thus, quality = happines. :D I also think it is safe to say that lack of quality makes a lot of people unhappy...

/Claes