One of the comments when ISO 9001:2000 was issued was that the term "assurance" should not be used and that quality alone was more acceptable. However I still see lots of use of "assurance". Am I right in assuming that most quality personnel do not use the term "Quality Assurance"?

One of the comments when ISO 9001:2000 was issued was that the term "assurance" should not be used and that quality alone was more acceptable. However I still see lots of use of "assurance". Am I right in assuming that most quality personnel do not use the term "Quality Assurance"?

I'm not sure I understand your question.
Are you asking strictly withing teh context of the ISO9001 standard?
If so, it makes sense to just use "quality" in the standard becuase what on company calls quality assurance, another might call quality control.

In job titles and org charts, though, "assurance" is still used all over.

A quick internet search produced the following:

Quality Control
The managerial process during which actual process performance is evaluated and actions are taken on unusual performance. It is a process to ensure whether a product meets predefined standards and requisite action taken if the standards are not met. Quality Control measures both products and processes for conformance to quality requirements.

Quality Assurance
A planned and systematic set of activities to ensure that variances in processes are clearly identified, assessed and improving defined processes for fulfilling the requirements of customers and product or service makers. A planned and systematic pattern of all actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that the product optimally fulfils customer's expectations. A planned and systematic set of activities to ensure that requirements are clearly established and the defined process complies to these requirements.

ISO 9001:2000 is a Quality Management System standard that when followed is all about Quality Assurance and has very little to do with Quality Control.

One of the comments when ISO 9001:2000 was issued was that the term "assurance" should not be used and that quality alone was more acceptable. However I still see lots of use of "assurance". Am I right in assuming that most quality personnel do not use the term "Quality Assurance"?The terms are used so liberally, even among long time professionals in this field, that I wouldn't count on us as definitive and reliable sources during normal conversation. Here it is in a nutshell:

1. "Quality" is a very broad sense of what Dr. Juran terms "fitness for use."

2. "Quality Assurance" is the set of activities to see that #1 is achieved; has more to do with planning and prevention than "Quality Control", which is largely made up of intervention activities like inspection and what happens after that.

3. "Quality Management System" is the organization of #2.

So I hope you see why ISO does not want us to just say "Quality" when we mean the set of activities regarding the assurance and control of fitness for use in our products and services.

I hope this helps!

Dear Jennifer,

In response to your definition of QA which states that QA is 'set of activities to see that quality is achieved', surely 'quality control' also contributes as it often means measurement of quality and decisions based on measurement?

So QC is a part of QA?

Cheers.

Dear Jennifer,

In response to your definition of QA which states that QA is 'set of activities to see that quality is achieved', surely 'quality control' also contributes as it often means measurement of quality and decisions based on measurement?

So QC is a part of QA?

Cheers.Yes, you see how I have also liberally defined my terms, except that I did try to control myself by adding the parts about prevention and detection. Historically QA generally refers to planning and prevention, while QC generally applies to quality and decisions based on measurement--at least in the references I use.

So has QA been supplanted by the term quality management? Can you have QA without quality management?

Hi Curryassassin,

Quality Assurance is an implied system and the Quality Management is the Governing body of the body that runs the Quality Assurance.

Yes. Quality Managment as is it implies is a method of mangement whilst QA vs QC is a matter of setting methods in place for the producing of a "quality" product and control is a way of checking that the "quality" is in the product.

Think of assurance of giving instructions so a good product can be made and control as the way that you check and repair or scrap the parts.

Managment is for quality a method of controlling how a whole business is governed, back in the dim and distant past a manufacturing company would on see quality in terms of the production process and when Quality Management came along quality spread from the shop floor into the support areas.

I hope that is now a clear as mud

My experience has been that there are many 'quality assurance' programmes which are mainly derived from the military requirements for contractors, such as NATO AQAP1 and 2, Mil-Std-9858A, MoD Def-Stan 05/21, Ford Q1, GM Targets for Excellence, etc.

Most of these were based on the idea that as long as there were documented procedures and that the organization followed them, there was a (good) chance that the product would be to the agreed specification. Rarely were 'management' involved - with the exception, perhaps, of the Quality manager.

The (recent) recognition that 'quality' is broadly about (external) customer satisfaction and (internally) not wasting resources getting the product to the customer and that these are aligned with business objectives, has seen a move away from systems of (heavy procedural) documentation, and more towards process management. This is, I believe, at the heart of the changes to not just terminology but also a philosophical/strategic realignment of quality systems as a management tool.

it is TQM, by the Japanese, it is just called differently this days, but the Philosophy is still the same.

I'm afraid that you all have missed the point of my question. Let me briefly explain. At the time ISO 9001:2000 was issued one of the matters that was specifically changed in the standard was that the term "quality assurance" would not be used. This was due to many comments on difficulty with the language of the standard. Hence what used to be known as a Quality Assurance Management System and Quality Assurance became a Quality Management System and Quality, respectively. However I think you have answered my question as it seems that many quality personnel are not aware of this and still use the term "Assurance".

However I think you have answered my question as it seems that many quality personnel are not aware of this and still use the term "Assurance".Looks that way. Old habits die hard.

And it's not just in the use of terminology. There are still waaaaay too many 'Quality Professionals' who are vested in behaviours which keep them rooted to out moded, old fashioned QC techniques, product inspection, defect detection etc. etc. Also, let's not forget that this change is (relatively, 7 years is) recent for a change.

So QC is a part of QA?

Cheers.

:2cents: QC can be part of QA (and quite often is) but does not need to be included. QC is the inspection and SPC analysis to analyze and address control within limits (UCL/LCL/range etc). QA is the system that manages all the dealings to ensure (and assure the customer) that the quality criteria have been met...if that can be achieved without implementing QC, then QC is not required. <-- although still an excellent tool to use!

And it's not just in the use of terminology. There are still waaaaay too many 'Quality Professionals' who are vested in behaviours which keep them rooted to out moded, old fashioned QC techniques, product inspection, defect detection etc. etc. Also, let's not forget that this change is (relatively, 7 years is) recent for a change.


ya know, Andy, sometimes those old shoes just feel real comfortable...:D ...until they simply fall off our feet!

I'm afraid that you all have missed the point of my question. Let me briefly explain. At the time ISO 9001:2000 was issued one of the matters that was specifically changed in the standard was that the term "quality assurance" would not be used. This was due to many comments on difficulty with the language of the standard. Hence what used to be known as a Quality Assurance Management System and Quality Assurance became a Quality Management System and Quality, respectively. However I think you have answered my question as it seems that many quality personnel are not aware of this and still use the term "Assurance".


I am not aware of this "change" you describe. The ISO 9001 program in 1994 also referred to:

Quality systems - Model for quality
assurance in design, development,
production, installation and servicing.

Perhaps this change was just discussed in your region? I am not aware of any change in the west, per se. There has however, been a gradual change toward QA rather than just QC, but that trend has been developing for over 20 years.

Dear Hjilling,

I an aware that the 1994 version specifically mentioned Quality Assurance. That is why comments were made for the 2000 version. I may contact the CQA in the UK to clarify whether the strategy to drop the term "assurance" is still being pursued. Certainly in the UK the term is used less than before. However Andy hit the nail on the head, there are still quite a lot of quality dinasaurs about.

Dear Hjilling,

I an aware that the 1994 version specifically mentioned Quality Assurance. That is why comments were made for the 2000 version. I may contact the CQA in the UK to clarify whether the strategy to drop the term "assurance" is still being pursued. Certainly in the UK the term is used less than before. However Andy hit the nail on the head, there are still quite a lot of quality dinasaurs about.


I'm just not aware of any "strategy" to drop "Assurance" from "Quality Assurance." Just have not heard anyone suggest that before. Don't really see why we would want to, either.

Fantastic timing on this thread!
My job is newly created for the printing company that I work for. We have been bouncing "titles" around, and now with feedback from each of you in hand, I am better able to define myself/my job.:thanx:

If I think of the last 3 companies I worked for, each had a different name for the function addressing the quality system used to assure that customers received the product they ordered. Company 1 in 1992 to 1995 termed that function quality.
Company 2 in 1995 to 2001 termed that function quality systems, quality assurance was the group responsible for assessing whether product met specifications - our inspection group and our various testing labs (chemical, mechanical, electrical, etc.). Both quality sytems and quality assurance reported to the VP of quality.
Company 3 in 2001 to present terms the group responsible for testing product to assure it meets customer specification quality control (which reports to production), while the group responsible for the system is quality assurance.

I'm less hung up on names than I am on having an effective group addressing quality at the earliest phase possible - preferably design, and integrated throughtout the entire company.

The term "quality assurance" is absolutely fine... the more progressive term would be "quality", and when you really get it down you just call it "operations".

Also see:
Quality Assurance vs. Quality Control - What are the differences? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=15065)
Quality Control (aka QC) - Definition (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=12826)
Quality Control (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_control)
Quality Assurance (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance)
Quality Control vs. Quality Assurance - The difference according to Juran (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3458)

Hello Fellow Covers,

Are we getting too wrapped up in "quality" semantics here?

It's not really important how you call it; if in the end the Customer gets what they need and expect, while the company realizes a profit, who cares what you call the system and/or processes to make it happen?

Stijloor.

We old folks are just sitting here watching the evolution of quality assurance sector jargon (language).

I'm less hung up on names than I am on having an effective group addressing quality at the earliest phase possible - preferably design, and integrated throughtout the entire company.

:applause: I'm with you Kev.

Hello Fellow Covers,

Are we getting too wrapped up in "quality" semantics here?

It's not really important how you call it; if in the end the Customer gets what they need and expect, while the company realizes a profit, who cares what you call the system and/or processes to make it happen?

Stijloor.

No - that's why the ISO committees have published a vocabulary! It might not be important to those 'in the know', but I can assure you there's a bunch of folks out there (consultants included) who glibly use terminology and have not one clue that they're confusing people with mis-information.

BTW - you don't have to make a profit! I have seen not-for-profit organizations who have implemented ISO 9001 and done so with an eye to customers and reducing waste - a lesson a lot can learn from. Profits make management fat, dumb and happy, when waste is what they should go after....:notme:

Hello Fellow Covers,

Are we getting too wrapped up in "quality" semantics here?

It's not really important how you call it; if in the end the Customer gets what they need and expect, while the company realizes a profit, who cares what you call the system and/or processes to make it happen?

Stijloor.

No - that's why the ISO committees have published a vocabulary! It might not be important to those 'in the know', but I can assure you there's a bunch of folks out there (consultants included) who glibly use terminology and have not one clue that they're confusing people with mis-information.

I have to agree with Stijloor on this one. I've always felt that the control/assurance thing was a distinction without a real difference. Why people are so afraid of the phrase "quality control," I'll never know. If we look as development of quality as a process, and we acknowledge that processes must be controlled, then what could be the problem with "quality control"? People need to stop worrying about containers, and start being concerned with what they contain.

BTW - you don't have to make a profit! I have seen not-for-profit organizations who have implemented ISO 9001 and done so with an eye to customers and reducing waste - a lesson a lot can learn from. Profits make management fat, dumb and happy, when waste is what they should go after....:notme:

You're making the same semantic mistake that you seem to be arguing against; in the case of many non-profit, or not-for-profit entities, the fact remains that revenues, no matter what the source, must be greater than or equal to expenditures. Whether you refer to that differential as "profit" or not is a matter of accounting terminology, and has nothing to do with the fact that even non-profit entities must generate "profit."

I agree with Jim's response above.
Non-profits have to make money so they can pay the big bucks to the top execs.

As I said, Jim, for those 'in the know'.

My experience has been that terminology is very important. Its tough enough using language to convey understanding (as witnessed through these posts). People who post here use all kinds of vocabulary to describe their situations and often we find ourselves asking for clarification.

I guess you live in a different world. I, for one, have always tried to use the correct (not obscure) words to describe what I'm speaking about. specifically, in the world of calibration words are bandied about without clear understanding of concepts.

As I said, Jim, for those 'in the know'.

My experience has been that terminology is very important. Its tough enough using language to convey understanding (as witnessed through these posts). People who post here use all kinds of vocabulary to describe their situations and often we find ourselves asking for clarification.

Generalities about using proper terminology don't address the subject at hand. I think everyone agrees that we have to choose our words carefully, but when a predominant change in standard terminology only serves to make things more difficult to understand--as in the present case--it can't be considered a good thing. If some wayward soul hadn't decided it would be a good idea to differentiate between "control" and "assurance," we wouldn't be having this discussion, and if someone wanted to discuss quality control, no one would have much doubt what he was talking about. The bifurcation created the confusion.

I guess you live in a different world. I, for one, have always tried to use the correct (not obscure) words to describe what I'm speaking about.

I do my best to use the words that best describe the meaning I hope to convey. If that puts me in a different world, I'm happy to be here. Maybe you can come over and visit sometime. :D

When I was offered a job at an international company to implement the quality department, the VP OPs. asked what should we call you, Quality Control Manager, or Quality Assurance Manager.
I said in order to eliminate any confusion just call me "Quality Manager"

Worked fine for everyone and no further questions about what were our objectives.

Quality Assurance is delivered, it is not done.

It is the result of working systematically to meet requirements.

By working systematically (PDCA) we "provide confidence that requirements will be fulfilled".

This quotation is the internationally agreed definition of QA also adopted here in the USA (see ISO 9000:2005).

These days many quality professionals are focused on enabling their colleagues to work systematically to meet requirements by the development and upkeep of process-based management systems.

Quality Assurance is delivered, it is not done.

Very well stated!! I like how you put that!

Quality - this is a "thing" we strive to attain and retain.
Quality Assurance - an intangible deliverable
Quality Control - the tools and inspections used to assess the product/service in order to achieve the above two.

Thanks, I do not say QC anymore. I just say Process Control.

Thanks, I do not say QC anymore. I just say Process Control.

Yes, John. I've found that in many minds (non-Quality function, that is), the whole QC idea conjures up an image of the 'white coats at the end of the line' inspecting product, rather than the most appropriate 'process control' as you say........

BTW - you don't have to make a profit! I have seen not-for-profit organizations who have implemented ISO 9001 and done so with an eye to customers and reducing waste - a lesson a lot can learn from. Profits make management fat, dumb and happy, when waste is what they should go after....:notme:

I worked for a non-profit manufacturing assistance center, and I can assure you that "reducing waste" was not in their vocabulary. They wasted as much money as they could on conferences/meetings/trips and bonuses so they didn't have to show a "profit".

I worked for a non-profit manufacturing assistance center, and I can assure you that "reducing waste" was not in their vocabulary. They wasted as much money as they could on conferences/meetings/trips and bonuses so they didn't have to show a "profit".

Doh!:frust:

Yes, John. I've found that in many minds (non-Quality function, that is), the whole QC idea conjures up an image of the 'white coats at the end of the line' inspecting product, rather than the most appropriate 'process control' as you say........

We're probably all on the same playing field here. Nor do we have the "lab coats at the end of the line" but given the product we produce and the common variations they must be inspected throughout so we liken it to having "integrated quality control". :)

I worked for a non-profit manufacturing assistance center, and I can assure you that "reducing waste" was not in their vocabulary. They wasted as much money as they could on conferences/meetings/trips and bonuses so they didn't have to show a "profit".:topic:I know a few MEP's and they are, with very few exceptions, extremely dysfunctional, very top heavy, some fat cats at the top enjoying serious perks and the working folks never appreciated. I don't know how much money NIST is giving to the MEP's these days, but as a tax payer, I wished the money was better spent. Needless to say, most consulting organizations that I know hate the MEP competition due to the subsidies they enjoy.

:topic:I know a few MEP's and they are, with very few exceptions, extremely dysfunctional, very top heavy, some fat cats at the top enjoying serious perks and the working folks never appreciated. I don't know how much money NIST is giving to the MEP's these days, but as a tax payer, I wished the money was better spent. Needless to say, most consulting organizations that I know hate the MEP competition due to the subsidies they enjoy.

What you say is spot on Sidney. I worked for one for 5 years (1995-2000 before the funding cuts). I can't complain about the amount of training I received though. And the trips to nice places for conferences! :D