Found this the other day and, although it may be old news to some, I found it interesting still.

Quality Hostile Assumptions
Management consultant David Nadler and other writers have noted that as many as seven out of ten organizations in the private sector that have espoused Total Quality Management have failed to incorporate it into their operations. They have, in other words, only given lip service to quality without altering their cultural values, dooming themselves ultimately to failure. Nadler cites the following 'quality-hostile' assumptions he finds in such organizations (adapted by D4 to government settings):

<OL>
We're smarter than our customers, we know what they really need.</LI>
Quality is not a major factor in customer decisions, they usually can't tell the difference.</LI>
Our primary and overriding purpose is to log near term achievements that this administration can point to at election time.</LI>
Our market is our bosses and the Congress, not the American public.</LI>
The primary way to influence agency and department performance is through skillful budgeting and creative accounting.</LI>
It costs more to provide a high quality product or service, and we won't recover the added costs.</LI>
We will never be able to compete with the private sector in anything; we're not good enough.</LI>
Managers are paid to make decisions; workers are paid to do, not to think.</LI>
Strategic success comes from large one-time innovative leaps, rather than from continuous improvement.</LI>
The job of senior management is strategy, not operations or implementation.</LI>
The key skills for senior managers are political know how, knowing how to compete and win, and budget manipulation.</LI>
To err is human, perfection is not an attainable or realistic goal.</LI>
Quality improvement can be delegated, it is something that the top can tell the middle to do to the bottom.</LI>
Never spend time looking at failures; there isn't much to be learned from them, and it's demoralizing.</LI>
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.</LI>[/list=a]

Provided by Tom Glenn, TQM BBS, 301-585-1164

Regards,
Don

Don,

I enjoyed the post. This topic can really get my blood hot!

To the top 15 assumptions:

1) How do they know? Born with this knowledge I suppose.

2) What are the key factors then? Again, must be born with this knowledge.

3) Short-term Financiers running the show.

4) Who is buying the product or service?

5) The Financiers strike again!

6) Quality is FREE!

7) The AIM is low, or the organization lacks AIM.

8) Only an arrogant fool believes this!

9) Making money in spite of themselves.

10) Strategies without plans are merely suggestions.

11) More fluffing of the numbers and a winner-loser philosophy.

12) Nothing about studying the process..."no hope for improvement (Deming)"

13) Quality is EVERYONE'S job!

14) More of #12

15) Caretaker syndrom (Crosby). This is how a dinasour is created!

Well, a good topic. It tickles my fancy. What are others thinking?

Back to the group....

Regards,

Kevin

All this is pretty much in line with what I'm used to on a daily basis. I've tried coining a phrase that is para-phrased from something I learned when I was a cop in Arkansas.

"Situational Quality"

Kind of like "Situational Ethics" (something else we use here).

The Quality Program is whatever you say it is at the time, regardless of what is written and agreed to, to suit or justify whatever the product or service is and how its turning out.

Bottom line -- do or say whatever it takes (within reason) to make the product (and us)look good.

[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 23 September 1999).]

Randy,

I like it. Situational Quality is exactly as you describe. I described it as <FONT COLOR="RED">off the cuff</FONT> quality, but yours is better.

Lets start with hostile assumption #1: We're smarter than our customers, we know what they really need.

To which Kevin replied: How do they know? Born with this knowledge I suppose.

Most of the 15 really get my goat, but I think this one is really too much.

Kevin, that is the point. They do not know. It is obvious. They know (think they know?) what their customers need, but do not know what they WANT.

Companies assume that the customer is someone who needs their product. A customer is someone driven by wants. Examples:

Need: A car. Wants: Reliable transportation.

Need: Fast lunch. Wants: Lunchtime meal.

Need: Low price. Wants: Value.

The list goes on, but you get my point.

Comments on #1 and then lets discuss #2.

Regards,
Don

------------------
Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Check Out dWizard's Lair:
www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html (http://www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html)

Don,

Thanks for the comment. This whole topic is something that aggravates eveybody, but few really have the appendages to attack.

I could go one for hours, but I'm the apprentice here.

Don,

Needs and Wants. Interesting separation. I like the car analogy best, so I'll start there.

Conditioning I suppose, paradigms of old control the way we look at things. From an individual perspective, the 'need' maybe all that I see (or conditioned to be able to see). On a subconsious level, I may reach several different conclusions and address the 'wants'.

I need a car to get to work. I reach this conclusion because I have done so forever, and because I see many, many, folks doing the samething. Are there other ways to get to work? Might they even be more reliable than a car? Have I given this a second thought? Nope! Took on face value, I need a car!

What I have also done is to treat a 'symptom' and have not addressed the root need. Addressing the root need might actually expose better solutions or alternatives. But unless I recognize that there are other ways to skin a cat, I will be forced to fall back on what I think I know. I must retrain how I view things, change the way I think if I am to identify the hidden desire.

As an organization, spending the additional time to truly identify the goal, you may do better to hit the actual target. Preconceptions must be dropped, or used with caution, and objectivity should override the process. Then you might have a fighting chance.

Anyway, just a few thoughts. Back to the group...

Regards,

Kevin

Depressing to think about sometimes.

The ultimate on this topic is the Challenger.

Classic example of "Situational Quality".

Cold but true.

The airlines use the cost payout factor in deciding what upgrades they do to aircraft.

Hmmm,makes me wonder what "payout" the airlines are looking at. Is the payout safety -related or whether to serve a meal on 2.5 hour flight! With life being so good for the American economy (for now, anyway), are we looking at a return to the pre-Deming days of "just razzle them and dazzle them" products and services? (I say this knowing full well that the philosophical discussions on this forum could go on for a long time!)

Example is the fire detectors in cargo holds.

For Financiers, things must be cost justified, even safety upgrades to aircraft.

<FONT COLOR="BLUE"><BLOCKQUOTE>But unless I recognize that there are other ways to skin a cat, I will be forced to fall back on what I think I know. I must retrain how I view things, change the way I think if I am to identify the hidden desire.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

What you have placed at a personal level, management must be able to place at a corporate level. Many of us can easily see the wants, it is rare that the needs are given consideration. But, it is also true that the inverse can also happen. Spending too much time on wants can distract from needs. QFD satisfies this somewhat, but not completely. Solutions? I do not know.

<FONT COLOR="BLUE"><BLOCKQUOTE>Depressing to think about sometimes.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

Indeed. A classic paradox.

<FONT COLOR="BLUE"><BLOCKQUOTE>The ultimate on this topic is the Challenger. Classic example of "Situational Quality". Cold but true.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

Possibly. I prefer to think of this particular case as a lack of systems thinking. Each of the solid boosters had three joints. The specification read that each joint had to have a less than 2% probability of failure during any single firing. The testing verified this to be the case (satisfied the specified requirements). Now, let us look at the system requirement.

Each system contained two solid rocket boosters, each with three seals that had met the 98% probability of success. What is the probability of a system failure?

This is defined as (0.98)^6 = 0.886 or 88.6% So, for each system launch, there is a 88.6% probability of success!!!!!! By the time STS-56 was launched, it only had a 50% chance of success. That is a lack of system thinking personified!

<FONT COLOR="BLUE"><BLOCKQUOTE>With life being so good for the American economy (for now, anyway), are we looking at a return to the pre-Deming days of "just razzle them and dazzle them" products and services?</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

Absolutely! It is already happening (seen the new Y2K model autos). But, as with anything, it runs in natural cycles. On the downside of this particular cycle, there will be a return to the Deming philosophy (I hope).

<FONT COLOR="BLUE"><BLOCKQUOTE>Example is the fire detectors in cargo holds.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

True enough. But, in an ideal systems world, the need for fire detectors would not have been required. There would have been zero risk of fire (the canisters would not have been present due to the inherent risk). Idealistic, I know. But, I can dream, can't I?

Regards,
Don

------------------
Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Check Out dWizard's Lair:
www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html (http://www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html)

Don,

I liked your example of system thinking. I am also waiting for the return of Deming's profound knowledge.

Too much is given to surface/face value discoveries. This isn't to say that these discoveries don't come with merit. Sometimes they do. Often they are incomplete or wrong.

QFD, true will help you to dig beyond the suface, but alone will not cover all the bases. A simple solution; I also don't have a solution. But I would hazard to guess that the solution isn't easier than accepting surface value data as fact. If that were the case, we would probably be doing that.

I see it as a two-fold problem (perhaps over simplified). First, to quote Deming, how could they know and who showed them the right way? Second, folks are always looking for the easiest way out, right or wrong. Perhaps this is laziness, or perhaps this is the very essence that drives system optimization. Doing the best with the least. Either way, this combination results in the acceptance of surface/face value data as fact, either confirming our own beliefs (right or wrong) or failing to reject the wrong ones. A case in point: how many inspectors would remeasure a part within spec? Should the inspector question the results? The part may be in fact, out of tolerance, but a measurement error allowed the inspector to accept the results (met expectations, face value). Result: wrong conclusion. It could be fatal!

Not ascertaining the Customer's needs and wants correctly can have the same tragic effect. Addressing only the needs will stifle innovation (what the customer wants, but doesn't know it yet). If TV manufacturers only addressed the needs, we would still be watching black and white TVs and continually adjusting the vertical and horizontal hold.

Still, the TV folks lend to contribute another valuable lesson. The Customer wanted a color TV with reliability and affordability. The American TV folks thought they just needed a color TV. How many American TV companies are left?

Oh well, I ramble on...

Regards,

Kevin

So true, so true. All that I read in this string is so true it's disheartening. But the one thing I learned years ago, negative energy begets negative energy, and if I start thinking or reacting in a negative mode, then it will be reflected in the work I do. And if I don't like where I'm at, or what I'm doing, I move on. If I can't make a difference, or when I stop adding value to the process, it's time to find new battles to fight. One statement of interest from D. Winton's original post:

"They have, in other words, only given lip service to quality without altering their cultural values,dooming themselves ultimately to failure."

While I would like to believe this to be true, how many of you out there have seen (or worked for) companies that make $ despite themselves?

Let's face it, EVERYTHING is driven by the bottom line! That's why companies are in business, and the cultural ethics and values of senior management will be reflected in the quality of the product they provide to their customer.

------------------

Don't mind us, Mike - we're just a bunch of depressives who sleep all day and bitch all night.... We could get nifty and start a forum on barter in Mesopotamia oh so many years ago! I wonder what complaints people voiced back then... Products were so much different. Much less specialization and such. And how about the Spaniards in South America and their rape (for want of a better word other than maybe genicide) of the continent - talk about bottom line in the eyes of upper management. I wonder how Marco Polo handled 'customer complaints'...

You know, it would be interesting to have a 'history' type of forum here...

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 28 September 1999).]

<FONT COLOR="#ff2400"><BLOCKQUOTE>Not ascertaining the Customer's needs and wants correctly can have the same tragic effect. Addressing only the needs will stifle innovation (what the customer wants, but doesn't know it yet).</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

Yea, I remember reading in one of the Kerridge papers about a Xerox example. When the idea for the photocopier came about, a market survey was commissioned to determine if the idea was worth pursuing. The results were dismal. No one seemed either interested in or wanted such a contraption. But, the flaw in the survey was they were asking customers their opinion about something they had never seen or heard of. Needless to say, the survey was not considered. Unfortunately, Xerox was not blessed with the same foresight when they developed the GUI. They sold (I think) that to Apple.

<FONT COLOR="#ff2400"><BLOCKQUOTE>All that I read in this string is so true it's disheartening.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

That is why we fight the good (?) fight.

<FONT COLOR="#ff2400"><BLOCKQUOTE>While I would like to believe this to be true, how many of you out there have seen (or worked for) companies that make $ despite themselves?</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

Too many, too many. The problem is, if they are making money, they sit back on their haunches and enjoy life. What they fail to realize is that if they would work to continuously make things more efficient, of higher quality at a lower cost, they would make more money. That is the problem: When things are good, it is OK. But, that begs the question: Can they be better?

<FONT COLOR="#ff2400"><BLOCKQUOTE>Let's face it, EVERYTHING is driven by the bottom line! That's why companies are in business, and the cultural ethics and values of senior management will be reflected in the quality of the product they provide to their customer.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

True enough. But quality is the bottom line. That is their failure, and ours. If we cannot explain to management, in language they understand, why this is, then where does the responsibility lie?

<FONT COLOR="#ff2400"><BLOCKQUOTE>You know, it would be interesting to have a 'history' type of forum here...</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

Yes, it would.

Regards,
Don

------------------
Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Check Out dWizard's Lair:
www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html (http://www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html)

Quality like a fluid, will seek the path of least resistance, and will have a natural tendancy to go downhill unless acted upon by an outside force.


Pretty good huh?

Have any of you been following this?

Subject: Re: Blood on my hands! /Hitchcock/Shadaksharaiah
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:35:18 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion <JENNEJOHNN@UWSTOUT.EDU>

>From: Al Hitchcock <ahitchcock@littleredtruck.com>
Subject: RE: Blood on my hands! /Hitchcock

I recently sent a supplier corrective action to one of our suppliers with a
manufacturing facility in China. By the way, the facility is ISO certified.

The response is this...

Investigation:

"Complaint 1). Our workers do not operate rightly."

Corrective Action (short term). "We have ask our workers to pay much attention to improve."

Corrective Action (long term). "We will punish our workers strickly if still do not operate rightly".

I can see the picture as I type this... someone in China is getting Hari Kari in the spirit of continuous improvement...

>WHAT HAVE I DONE?

The beatings will continue until morale (quality) improves.


Followed by screams and laughter.........

O.K., where to start.

"While I would like to believe this to be true, how many of you out there have seen (or worked for) companies that make $ despite themselves?"

You raise a good point. Probably all of us have been in this situation. But this type of thinking is consistent with taking things on surface/face value. We must be doing things right, we are making money after all (sorta like the inspector observing a within tolerance measurement when in fact the part is bad, fulfilment of prophecy). Don's point on how far they could have been if they didn't get fat and lazy (my adjectives) is indeed correct. Arrogance gets in the way.


"Let's face it, EVERYTHING is driven by the bottom line! That's why companies are in business, and the cultural ethics and values of senior management will be reflected in the quality of the product they provide to their customer."

Accurate statement and well stated. But the bottom line is only part of the equation, senior managers often miss the other parts. Businesses exist, sure enough, to create a profit for themselves, but they are also there to provide jobs, and fulfil the needs/wants of their customers. Bottom line organizations are run by Profiteers or Financiers whose interests are solely profit (my own projection here) and they are linear thinkers. Senior management should do better than that! They have a responsibility to organize the pieces and develop solutions inclusive of all parties affected by the system. System Optimization.

This has been a good thread. I enjoy reading the perspectives of others, even if we are a bit negative or complaining (a sympathetic ear or two).

Back to the group...

Marc,

I would send that Corrective Action back to the Supplier with a comment or two. I would almost never accept that the associate was the root cause for the problem. Two thoughts come to mind. Deming's comment on Management Owned problems being 85% or more. This would suggest that only 15% or less of the time that the associate would have control of the outcome. Also Deming's comments that only 6% of the time, a person is unchangeable or directly creates a problem. This suggests to me that fewer than 6% of the associates would be malicious enought to make bad parts. Therefor, I would accept fewer than 6% of the CARs coming back to me indicating that it was human error, and the explanation supplied would need to be quite convincing.

As far as the suggested Corrective Actions, management by intimidation (fear) is plain stupid! Seeing this on the report would make me wonder what kind of people we are working with. Just tragic to see this type of response. Yet, I have seen it! I have seen responses where the associate was fired. Unbelievable! Even if this were the case (the associate is a 6 percenter), I would hope that an organization wouldn't want to air their dirty laundry. I wouldn't.

Regards,

Kevin

<FONT COLOR="RED"><BLOCKQUOTE>Quality like a fluid, will seek the path of least resistance, and will have a natural tendancy to go downhill unless acted upon by an outside force.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

I like it!

<FONT COLOR="RED"><BLOCKQUOTE>Corrective Action (long term). "We will punish our workers strickly if still do not operate rightly".</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

The only difference between the response Marc posted and the responses received from other sources is the Chinese actually say what our domestic counterparts do not. Sure, we receive platitudes but, what they are really saying is, "If the person that caused this does it again, we will fire him." Sad, but true.

<FONT COLOR="RED"><BLOCKQUOTE>Bottom line organizations are run by Profiteers or Financier whose interests are solely profit (my own projection here) and they are linear thinkers. Senior management should do better than that! They have a responsibility to organize the pieces and develop solutions inclusive of all parties affected by the system. System Optimization.</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></P>

Well put Kevin. Well put.

Back later with comments on #2.

Regards,
Don

------------------
Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Check Out dWizard's Lair:
www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html (http://www.ficom.net/members/donwinton/home.html)

Don,

I'll be here.

Kevin

Regarding the Chinese response, I have seen USA suppliers respond in this fashion, and think it is acceptable.

In one of my classes, I tell APQP teams that if they put a production process in place that creates some percentage of defects, and the operators running that process create those defects, why not congratulate those operators for successfully accomplishing what you wanted? Heh heh...

Regarding the Challenger failure, I had the opportunity to view the "O" ring part of the FMEA. The failure mode was seperation of sections, the cause was low external air temperature, the effect was escape of fuel, and if memory serves this is a quote "...mission failure, loss of life..."

Someone overrode the known dangers. I am sure it wasn't the group that developed the FMEA, it certainly wasn't the support personnel, so it must have been someone higher up. Why? Likely COST!

Again, short sighted thinking vs quality.