I am not sure if I know where the concepts overlap or how they complement each other. QA seems to be the whole approach for quality management, including QC (statistical quality control), which is an instrument for measuring performance. I would say QA depends on QC but QC can be independent. An organization could have QC (not necessarily in an effective way, rather in a corrective way) without QA. Since Correction of product failures generally lies outside the ambit of Quality Control, it would be unlikely to establish quality without a QA system in place. Quality is mainly attitude which is not measure by statistical approach. These are fundamental concepts to be understood before discussing the quality system implementation strategy with your company. What are your thoughts on that?:confused:

QA = Quality Assurance (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_Assurance)
QC = Quality Control (http://elsmar.com/wiki/index.php/Quality_control)

Ana,

I look at it this way, QA is proactive. It ensures (assures) that things are done right from the start to produce conforming material. It relies on planning and use data to eliminate defective material.

QC is reactive, it only looks at product after it has been produced or during production and then fix or rebuild the product. It relies on inspection to find and segregate defective material.

I am not sure if I know where the concepts overlap or how they complement each other. QA seems to be the whole approach for quality management, including QC (statistical quality control), which is an instrument for measuring performance. I would say QA depends on QC but QC can be independent. An organization could have QC (not necessarily in an effective way, rather in a corrective way) without QA. Since Correction of product failures generally lies outside the ambit of Quality Control, it would be unlikely to establish quality without a QA system in place. Quality is mainly attitude which is not measure by statistical approach. These are fundamental concepts to be understood before discussing the quality system implementation strategy with your company. What are your thoughts on that?:confused:

I have never thought that making a distinction between QA and QC adds any value to anything. It doesn't make any difference what you call something like this; all that matters is what you do.

I agree with the answers so far, but would like to add my opinion that many organizations have QC, but all organizations have QA. Quality Assurance may not be called that, and the QA effort may be sorely lacking, but when the product or service is defined, a QA event has occurred.

Of course I am talking semantics here, I guess.

I have never thought that making a distinction between QA and QC adds any value to anything. It doesn't make any difference what you call something like this; all that matters is what you do.
Actually it does Jimmy. If you are in the process of involving the staff in the quality program implementation, it is good to name, and to conceptualize it the right way. QA is about attitude, QC is an instrument; QA would be a department, and QC a division of this department if you will. It is about doing, but knowing what you are doing. Starting off with a well defined concept of your quality approach is the key to succeed. I am bring that up because I have seen many people mixing up the concepts, and companies ended up summarizing their quality efforts in a bunch of Six sigma results. Isn't Quality a quest for excellence?

Actually it does Jimmy. If you are in the process of involving the staff in the quality program implementation, it is good to name, and to conceptualize it the right way. QA is about attitude, QC is an instrument; QA would be a department, and QC a division of this department if you will. It is about doing, but knowing what you are doing. Starting off with a well defined concept of your quality approach is the key to succeed. I am bring that up because I have seen many people mixing up the concepts, and companies ended up summarizing their quality efforts in a bunch of Six sigma results. Isn't Quality a quest for excellence?

As you might have noticed from my initial response, you are certainly free to make any distinctions you wish, and name them anything you want to name them. It seems to me that any "quest for excellence" should begin by making sure that everyone understands the requirements, and elucidating them is in no way dependent upon (or affected by) what they are called. I just don't see how focusing on an alleged significance between two sets of words is helpful when trying to make things better. If you can demonstrate a meaningful correlation between what a quality program is called and the results of the program, I'll be happy to concede the point.

QC - QA
Same horse different jockey
I have worked for a company which had both
QC - Dealing with raw material issues
QA - Dealing with finished goods
I have to agree with Jim “It doesn't make any difference what you call something like this; all that matters is what you do.”

I once worked for a company that made this distinction:

QA engineers had college degrees
QC engineers had no degrees

:lmao:

We make this distinction:
QC is about product control - I guess quality has to be inspected into the parts (we've had a few production managers who truly think this!)
QA is about process control - control the process and the product quality should pretty much fall into place.
We do not have a QC department. Machine operators are the QC when they do their quality checks.

Things are defined by what they are called. A chair, is a chair; a table is a table and so on. Would you like to be called John? Would it matter? Of course. You are Jym, not John. People identify/Recognize things by their names. I couldn't agree more with you when you say that more important than definitions is to make things work out for the clients.You can't accomplish that, however, without definitions/concepts, and the values/meanings they carry with them. People in command need to understand these concepts to buy in your quality program. The quest for excellence should start by defining excellence, the requirements are consequences. Thanks for your comments!

Excellent!

Things are defined by what they are called. A chair, is a chair; a table is a table and so on. Would you like to be called John? Would it matter? Of course. You are Jym, not John.

No, I'm Jim, not Jym, but I still knew who you were referring to, so the distinction wasn't important. :D

I am sorry about that Jim. I really meant Jim. Thanks for debating this with all of us.

Things are defined by what they are called. A chair, is a chair; a table is a table and so on. Would you like to be called John? Would it matter? Of course. You are Jym, not John. People identify/Recognize things by their names. I couldn't agree more with you when you say that more important than definitions is to make things work out for the clients.You can't accomplish that, however, without definitions/concepts, and the values/meanings they carry with them. People in command need to understand these concepts to buy in your quality program. The quest for excellence should start by defining excellence, the requirements are consequences. Thanks for your comments!

Jym's words will help you if you pay heed.

Better you learn the organization's language, culture and SWOT before you begin to define the "quality program."

Listen hard, think hard, deliver value, and you'll have all the buy in you're ever going to need.

Completely agree with Jim. Furthermore, if we look into all of the mantra's that we as quality professionals hear in all of the standards, magazines, letters, and mission statements, quality is suppose to go across the board and filter through every part of the organization regardless of title or position.
An Inspector should understand and be able to interpret an FMEA, Control Plan, Process Map or statistical data with just as much vision as a QA associate - they are living documents and processes that need to be addressed by all in order to be successful. Just as a QA Engineer should be able to pick up a micrometer, program a CMM, measure on a comparator and understand functionality.
We are so focused on titles, degrees and positions that somewhere along the way, we lost our ability to focus on the task at hand and get the job done. No organization manufactures quality as its end product that I know of. We get hung up on the "Quality Union" of sorts ie - the inspector can't have input on the Control Plan because that's the QE / QA Engineers job, or, the Engineer can't measure the part, that's a QC function.
This type of thinking sunk the Auto industry as it pertains to keeping job functions contained and siloed - forget about the title and do the job.

Both the intent mean QUALITY but with a difference -

Quality Assurance -

1. makes sure you are doing the right things, the right way
2. Process related or process based.
3. Focusses on building Quality and hence prevents defects
4. Preventive process
5. Identifying, developing and organising best quality process.

Quality Control -

1. makes sure the results of what you've done are what you expected
2. Product based
3. focuses on testing for quality and thereby detect defects
4. Corrective process
5. implementing the process developed by QA.

Both the intent mean QUALITY but with a difference -

Quality Assurance -

1. makes sure you are doing the right things, the right way
2. Process related or process based.
3. Focusses on building Quality and hence prevents defects
4. Preventive process
5. Identifying, developing and organising best quality process.

Quality Control -

1. makes sure the results of what you've done are what you expected
2. Product based
3. focuses on testing for quality and thereby detect defects
4. Corrective process
5. implementing the process developed by QA.

If "quality control" is strictly product-based, then I guess you don't need to control the quality of anything else?? How can you assure anything without controlling it first?

If "quality control" is strictly product-based, then I guess you don't need to control the quality of anything else?? How can you assure anything without controlling it first?

Sorry Jim - these are the standard definitions that I have not written ;)

Sorry Jim - these are the standard definitions that I have not written ;)

There are no standard definitions. You can call your quality functions whatever you want to call them, but we should all be careful not to create distinctions where no distinctions are necessary. Call it Lean Terminology.

There are no standard definitions. You can call your quality functions whatever you want to call them, but we should all be careful not to create distinctions where no distinctions are necessary. Call it Lean Terminology.

I donot know under which context you say that there are no standard definitions for QA and QC. If you google for the these definitions, you will get numerous pages citing that QC is product based whilst QA is process based.

One such link is http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QualityAssuranceIsNotQualityControl

I totally agree that people are coming up with their own versions of Quality terms. Like in my previous company, we had Quality Services, Operational Quality, Central Quality Lab and so on.

Quality in general has changed so much over the years that the meanings have blurred.

Quality Control is an old term used to describe Quality when it only consisted of inspection and nothing more.

As Quality began to grow and become more than just inspection, Quality Assurance was added to define these new areas of Quality and to distinguish them from the old. Some large companies had separate departments with a QC Manager to manage the inspectors and a QA Manager to manage the new areas.

As Quality has continued to evolve and spread to smaller companies that could not support separate departments the distinctions blurred because a single department was responsible for both and had to choose one or the other or neither term, hence QC Manager, QA Manager, or plain Quality Manager. Each company had its own reasons for adopting each term.

Ultimately, a purist can successfully argue that there is a difference between the two, and the definitions provided by Qualityalways are definitely correct. But I would have to side with Jim because Quality has grown beyond these two terms.

Using either of them is self-limiting when Quality now includes both QC and QA, and in many companies also includes laboratory and reliability testing, Lean Six Sigma and more.

I donot know under which context you say that there are no standard definitions for QA and QC. If you google for the these definitions, you will get numerous pages citing that QC is product based whilst QA is process based.

One such link is http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QualityAssuranceIsNotQualityControl

I totally agree that people are coming up with their own versions of Quality terms. Like in my previous company, we had Quality Services, Operational Quality, Central Quality Lab and so on.

When I said there is no standard, I meant that there is no standard that is universally recognized. If I own a company, I might require my suppliers to call their quality functions something different from QA, QC, or whatever. That requirement becomes the standard for dealing with my company. There might be standards, but unless I accept them, they're not binding on me.

It's kind of funny that in the time it has taken to get to this point with this post, I have had over 25K worth of junk manufactured in different facets within my facility.
Upon further investigation, it seems that the QC guy did not check the part correctly in conjunction with the operator, because the QA guy did not write up the correct IP Instructions and the QE can't decide whether the measrument technique is even robust enough after analyzing the initial submission of the MSA.
Now, I really don't care what title each of the 3 people mentioned above and directly involved here has, but, between them and our manufacturing personel - they had better come up with a solution to the problem - and quickly. I also really don't care who graduated from where and what their business card says. I don't care who writes, who speaks and who thinks. Fix the problem, learn from it, and apply what you learn in the future. I don't care if the "QC" guy writes the next Control Plan and the "QA" guy has to measure parts, but, someone better lead, follow, or get out of the way.
My point in summary is this - techniques and information along with proper application can be used and implemented by ANYONE and you are better off for it if you can teach them all to do so.
To limit the function of a certain group or person is to limit the effectiveness of efficiency.

Agree that the terms have changed over time and will still continuw doing so but my post was in response not forgetting the "traditional terms" and keeping in line with the OP.

Its true that if I am given the liberty to assign the names for Quality units, I would probably not stick to the traditional QA and QC but will come up with something new ;)

Its true that if I am given the liberty to assign the names for Quality units, I would probably not stick to the traditional QA and QC but will come up with something new ;)

But don't spend too much time on it; just do the work. :)

But don't spend too much time on it; just do the work. :)

Jim, should I tell you one most important thing about you ???

At least, I can not win over you in words :D You are superlative ;)

Jim, should I tell you one most important thing about you ???

At least, I can not win over you in words :D You are superlative ;)

Thanks, my friend, but don't sell yourself short. If I could do as good a job in Chinese as you do in English, we might have something to talk about. :D