Okay ladies and gentlemen - I just received the latest issue of Quality Digest (February 2002) and read the attached article. I read this thing three times before I actually believed what I was reading. I am submitting it for your review and comment. Please pardon the highlighted portions, I did that before I thought about soliciting your opinion.

Your comments will be eagerly anticipated. I am currently formulating my personal response to both the author and the editor....

For some reason the attachment didn't attach... let's try again...

Doesn't surprise me one bit. The Enron philosophy.

I take the guys point that quality has to talked of in terms of its relevence to the actual business (not quality for quality sake), but equally the guys at the top must realise the impact of quality on them achieving what they want for the business.

Sounds like this guys learning over his 45 years stopped some time in the late seventies, i.e. if its wrong blame the inspectors.

That is exactly what our CEO does. The conference rooms, we have two, are booked solid. We continually have to postpone Steering Committee meetings because the scheduled "smoozin" usually runs over. What do you do when the CEO wants to know how we doing on our ISO effort and he is the one who most consistantly interferes with our ISO implementation? On the other hand, if we don't grow the business and become profitable (we are a start up company), ISO Registration doesn't pay the employees. Without work, there's no business to operate! As for the Enron style of doing business, I venture to say that's just how big businesses are run these days. Personally, I'd rather get paid than audited.
:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Doesn't surprise me a bit either. This is the culture I've been accustomed to during my (30) years in industry. I learned very early on as a young Industrial Engineer that you have to sell it to management if you want their support. You have to "show them the money".

I agree with the sentence:

As quality professionals, we need to stop talking about quality as defects or distribution and focus instead upon the revenue results that improved quality will produce.

Hank Fowler

Business is about money. The top guys have to worry about the money, it's what makes a business work.

What brings money into the business is customers and this is what Mr. Harrington and ISO 9001 both recognize. Understand your customer to grow your market. The customer is king.

What keeps a business plugging along is keeping the money. Holding the line on expenses. Which is what a streamlined process and reduced scrap,etc. accomplishes.

This is really all that a quality management system is about. Managing a business that provides what the customer wants, in as efficient (read: cheap) a manner as possible.

Is there a controversy here?:confused:

The controversy, as I see it, is with Harrington's last statement. That is the lynchpin of the entire article. Not the stuff in the middle, that is just a justification. What he is saying is that quality is the quality managers, quality directors, etc. responsibility - not upper management's.

As with most of you, I have my hand in a great many things here, not just "quality." I understand that minimizing the cost of throughput, reducing wasted motion, purchasing the best raw materials for the lowest price, etc., is critical for sustaining and growing a business. Without profit, there won't be any expansion and innovation. I also understand the value of the customer and meeting/exceeding customer expectations. How is that done?
Through lower prices?
Not if you have poor quality. I don't care how cheap it is, if it doesn't work, people aren't going to buy it.
Is it through great customer service?
Not if you have poor quality. Great customer service only goes so far to stem the tide of rising resentment at having to constantly replace defective parts.
Is it through strategic alliances?
Nope - not when those alliances (I am assuming raw materials vendor) is not providing a quality raw material or upper management is too cheap to buy better quality raw materials. Cheaper (both price and quality) isn't always better.
Is it a great sales force?
Sorry, but no. You're sales force can be the best in the industry and they won't sell a darn thing if the quality of the product isn't what they are touting.

Yes, the goal of business is to make money. However, a business isn't going to make money in the long run if they don't have a quality product. The only way a company can produce a quality product is if upper management is firmly pushing quality throughout the organization. Quality cannot be foisted off on a middle manager and be expected to be effective.

That is my feeling - :bigwave: Am I out of line or mistaken? :confused:

All points well taken. However, I read it as a disassociation. It does not address top management not listening to the quality folks, not providing adequate resources, 'ship at any cost' and other real factors. To say if there is a problem with the quality system it is the fault of the quality professionals is pretty lame. Had he at least addressed the many real issues involved I might not be so disappointed. :thedeal:

As quality professionals, we need to stop talking about quality as defects or distribution and focus instead upon the revenue results that improved quality will produce. I won't dispute that because it also applies to safety & environmental management folks as well.

Visit the ISO 14001 threads and see what I have had to say on this subject.

It is my belief that professionals must communicate across all levels and a common denominator is to be able to answer "What will it cost? When can I get my money back?"

> It is my belief that professionals must communicate across
> all levels and a common denominator is to be able to
> answer "What will it cost? When can I get my money back?"

I agree with you, but there are other questions to be addressed as well. And there also has to be an understanding that in some cases a company will not get its money back. This is well known as a reality by some (many?) companies which go through ISO implementation and registration. For some companies (many?) there is no cost savings from ISO 9001 implementation and registration nor is there increased business (sales). Thus for many ISO 9001 registration is simply a new recurring business expense.

I won't start on the SA 8000 implications with respect to new recurring costs... :thedeal:

I can't really add much.
It is interesting that this person spent 40 years in "Quality Related" positions.
On the one hand he should Know better than to make a comment like his last line.
On the other hand, maybe his background has made him so aware of quality issues that he has fogotten much. Perhaps his support of quality is so imbedded in his thinking that he has forgotten the battles most of us fight to get things accomplished.

If the company culture is good and right, then his statements may be true, and relatively accurate.

If you work in the other 99.999999% of companies out there, keep your head down and your documentation up.

Just my vent.

James:ca:

I agree completely with what HFowler and Lucinda have posted. It is easy for quality professionals (or any other discipline professionals for that matter) to assume themselves to be at the center of everything. IMO, it is imortant to know why business owners do their business. Its mainly money. I also think this is why Six Sigma has caught fancy of the topmost management. Quality professionals, statisticians, CQEs and CREs have all known the techniques for years, but have not been able to translate them into money.

From my experience of participating in the Cove forums I have come to realize that there is much greater and wider awareness about Quality in the United States. In India, ISO and QS are considered to be the 'necessary evil', something that only has to be done to show the auditors. From the top management's point of view it is an item of expense. Management responsibility is something that has to be delegated to some poor soul called the MR. Naturally, quality initiatives are seldom effective. IMO, Quality can get the centerstage only when there is a fierce competition in the market and when customers are not prepared to settle for anything less than the very best.

I recently came across this nice quote while browsing the web: "The function of business is to create satisfied customers. Its purpose is to make money. Both masters must be served.".

-Atul.

Originally posted by Atul Khandekar
I agree completely with what HFowler and Lucinda have posted. It is easy for quality professionals (or any other discipline professionals for that matter) to assume themselves to be at the center of everything. IMO, it is imortant to know why business owners do their business. Its mainly money.
-Atul.

Us Quality professionals all think we are at the center of the universe! Besides making sure my pay is correct, I have no grasp for running a company. Nor do I want to. The gentleman who wrote the article has taken the stance towards Quality that all company owners have done since I first started in this field. :biglaugh: "That's what we have you for." And when the slow down comes, Quality is the first to go!:ko: :smokin:

when the slow down comes, Quality is the first to go!Very unfortunate but very true! Probably because when the slowdown comes its the question of survival and survival only. Fact is business owners dont see anything but money, shareholder value and such. On the other hand we also talk about quality being a culture. In my openion, Quality has to be driven by customers. I mean the end customers, not Ford but those who buy their cars. It is only then that the topmost management is going to sit up and take notice. Otherwise, quality will continue to get an 'F'.
JMHO
-Atul

Going back to the original article it is extremely short sighted and ignorant. The guy obviously has no appreciation of total cost, only sales revenue.

I'll bet he never actually achieved significant improvement towards his goals !!

What he says is true CEO's etc dont give two hoots about quality - that is a fact and we all know it and have to deal with it daily.

However to blame the quality department for what are basically the errrors of other people is plain stupid.

I am amazed the Quality Digest printed this. Perhaps they did it to provoke a reaction and sell their journal. Personally I would never buy it having read this rubbish.

Originally posted by Unregistered
I am amazed the Quality Digest printed this. Perhaps they did it to provoke a reaction and sell their journal. Personally I would never buy it having read this rubbish.

Since the subscription is free, my opportunity cost on this is zero. Still, it is one of the more widely read journals in the profession - so I have to agree, I'm amazed they printed this. :confused:

This is part of the reason that I've written a response to both the Editor of QD as well as Mr. Harrington. While I don't expect a response - I do want to at least voice my discontent.

Cheers!!

It's a trade magazine, folks. It has some good stuff now and again. Let's not take this and stretch it out of proportion. Free is free. I disagree with Mr. Harrington, but I'm not going to take it out on Quality Digest. Alturnate views fuel our passions and we may disagree, but it does present us with another view.

In this case many of us have expressed some strong opinions. Some of us would say "...There's an example of a quality professional gone bad..." or something similar. None the less, we should learn from it. You never know. One or more of us will probably be in the same position some day. Will we remember this 'lesson'? :thedeal:

Mike,

I like your letter a lot! I especially like the way you tied in some of Harrington’s former articles. I can see the editor scrambling for back issues now!!

First off, I believe in the statement, “Quality is born in the boardroom!”, WED.

Harrington’s view of what a business is ‘in business to do’ is but one view. He has a Western Manager’s perspective.

My conclusion from the article and the Western Management paradigm is a Policy like this:

“Through our adherence to Principles in Profit, we strive to sustain and grow the profitability of the organization through Sales & Marketing. We do so for our own benefit and the benefit of our shareholders by generating sales regardless of customer need, by generating money to cover costs by any means (unethically, immorally, or illegally) in lean sales times, and to attract enough attention to sell off the business with an AIM to get rich and get out!”

In reading the many posts here over the years, my conclusion is that for the most part, we Quality folks think this way:

“Through our adherence to Principles in Quality and Morality, we strive to sustain and improve the Value of the System by creating constancy of purpose for the benefit of everyone and everything in the System. We do so in a holistic fashion through our growing relationships as a single component in an ever expanding System.”

While we all agree profit and quality are not mutually exclusive, or at least, shouldn’t be, the two policy statements I have created are diametrically opposed. Perhaps I over embellished on both and made them distinctly opposite, but my experience is that profit often comes at the expense of quality, not the other way around. It’s a value statement folks.

The COO needs to spend time converting to my second offering and perhaps so should Mr. Harrington. It is the right thing to do. On a personal note, I once bought some of Mr. Harrington’s software to manage training records mid 1999 with the understanding that the software was Y2K ready. This was not the case. When I called to get technical support early 2000, they referred me to the Sales folks. They told me that I was misinformed and were willing to sell me the upgrade to the Y2K version for $199. I gave a scathing rant to the CS rep who said something to this effect, “Because of your noted dissatisfaction with the software, the Harrington Group is willing to give you the upgrade for $99.” This surely satisfied one of Mr. Harrington’s chief COO foci: to generate sales, in the short term anyway. But now I’ll never buy another thing from him. He lost a Customer for life since his focus was on Profit at any Cost!

More later…it’s somebody else’s turn.

Kevin

See http://16949.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4142 for some thoughts on top management.

Added Mon 2-11-02 @ 1.55am

The following is an article which is addresses venture capitalists. But the essence is some idealists put together a great company. Then, the MBA's (professionals) were brought in.... A good, thoughtful read.

From http://eveander.com/arsdigita-history

It starts out:

Diary of a Start-Up -- The rise and fall of ArsDigita
and lessons from the world of venture capital

by Eve Andersson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a story about a company. A company that was profitable from Day 1. A company that built products that were useful to many other companies. A company that had ethics, that treated the breadwinners (programmers) with respect, a company that could afford to help people and give away software and training, while still having enough left over to grow and save a few $million in the bank.

That is, until the venture capitalists arrived on the scene. Lying to customers and employees became commonplace. Greed replaced philanthropy as each of the company's unique programs was dropped. But, this is a company, and the goal is to make money -- any positive impact on the world is secondary, right? The real question is: how much money did they make?

The technical and managerial incompetence of the VCs and those they hired drove the company into the ground. All but 10 of the 240 employees were fired, laid off, or quit. All of the $40+ million in venture capital was squandered. The monthly operating profit turned to loss as more talentless executives were hired who threw out the company's old, useful products and put their blind faith in engineers who spent millions building complicated software that solved no business problems.

This is a story that will teach you something about building a software product, about profitably running a company, and about what can happen if unqualified organizations obtain control.

The Birth of ArsDigita
Since the early days of the Web, I had been building web sites for big-name clients in California with my friend Aurelius Prochazka. Meanwhile, Philip Greenspun and two of his friends, Jin Choi and Tracy Adams, were doing similar work out in Massachusetts. When I moved to Massachusetts in 1998, we joined forces and were quickly able to quickly attract high profile clients, such as Levi Strauss, Environmental Defense, and MIT Press.

Our band of programmers, called ArsDigita ("Digital Arts"), was profitable from the beginning. We had no office, no marketing staff, no letterhead. But we did have a few thousand dollars' worth of computer equipment and our five motivated selves

Great story Marc.

Perhaps Quality Digest could run this in its next issue !!

Why dont they teach this stuff at Business Schools ?

IMO I do not think Harrington is downplaying quality or bashing it. I think he is calling as it is in most companies.
1. top management tend not care about quality, unless there is something fouled up.
2. top management concern is bottom line, so we need to promote quality(improvement) as to its relationship to the bottom line.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Some top management are never tall enough to see over the Ca$h fence.

Sounds like the ramblings of a tired old man who now regrets what he has chosen as a career.

Well, it probably sounds like heresy but here goes.

In an time before computers IBM became king of the electric typwriter business under the direction of a gentleman named Clair Vough. In his book on productivity published in the early 1970's he addresses productivity in unique manner.

"Early in the game we had decided that the only two things that should affect a person's pay were productivity and quality. We soon realized that that wasn't pure enough. . .We pay for productivity. Only productivity. . . High quality cannot be a factor in a person's pay rate, but a condition of his employment."

In a corporation, top managemnt's sole job is to enhance stockholder value. For the most part they need to grow the business to accomplish that. They must focus on stockholder value if the business is to survive. That does not preclude the need for quality. In fact quality of product and service is part of what allows the company to retain existing and garner new customers. With regard to quality, top management's job, IMHO, is to retain competent people with the skills necessary to assure that quality. That quality job includes growing stockholder value.

Not to pick on Rick:

Top Management has many responsibilities, but none more important than their job to constantly improve the System. This requires a holistic view. Sole focus on enhancing stockholder value is a fragmented view of a single relationship. A Stockholder is a Supplier. How many organizations succeed looking to fulfill a Supplier in place of the Customer? If you are focusing on the stockholder, then you are looking in the wrong direction.

I don’t know anything about Vough so my comments are limited. What are the conditions for productivity? Meeting a quota? And as for Quality being the condition for employment: are workers given the tools and resources necessary for success? How will they measure Quality effort?

So what does it take to sustain and organization? How about a System for that matter? Is it Quality?

Kev

Excellent post Rick!

I'm having an awful time finding what the objection is to Mr. Harrington's article.

The article, as I read it, is predicated on "selling quality improvements to management", not on commitment of management to quality. He is simply saying we need to stop thinking in terms of improved Cpk and start thinking bottom line return to the company.

This is not saying to turn your back on quality tools but to "translate" the improvement into $$$.

The top management of the company is very committed to quality. They couldn't be more committed - they hired you! Harrington is saying as long as you hold up the quality end there is no need for the CEO to worry about quality.

If my system failed, I would feel I really fouled up. I wouldn't be much of an expert if the CEO had to concentrate on quality too. Translating my system improvements to a bottom line dosen't seem too unreasonable to me.

Although he said it in a different way, Mr. Harrington is saying the same thing we have recognized for years. If you want the top management to sit up and take notice, talk in dollars - not parts per million.

JMO - (I now prepare a pile of pillows for when I get jumped on) :ko:

Dave

Originally posted by Kevin Mader
Not to pick on Kevin:
A Stockholder is a Supplier. How many organizations succeed looking to fulfill a Supplier in place of the Customer? If you are focusing on the stockholder, then you are looking in the wrong direction.
Kev

Kev,

As a stockholder, I pay a company to give me a good return on my investment. I'm a Customer. Not many Suppliers have a vote in how a their Customer manages their capital. Not many suppliers attend Board of Directors meetings and with consensus, remove someone from the board. When I put my money into a bank, am I a Supplier? I'm a Customer and if they don't treat me right, I'm off to another bank that is more Customer oriented.:bonk: :ko: :smokin:

Kevin,

I never consider open discussion and healthy viewpoints as being picked on, but thanks for the consideration.

First, Vough's system for assuring quality was based on making the operator responsible for their own quality. He actually had his Lexington, Kentucky training group put together a course called Workmanship Analysis for all employees. At the heart of the course was problem solving for improvement. While a lot of the course was directed at improving workmanship and increasing productivity, it all really revolved around quality. The very first thing on day one of the training, the class would open boxes of typewriters taken from shipping and the class would inspect the product pretending to be customers. The instructor would then telephone a branch office field engineer and while the class listened, he had them describe the "out of the box" quality they were experiencing at customer locations. Day five was a presentation on purchasing and its relationship to quality. From my perspective, Vough was probably the first person to start thinking quality function deployment. He certainly had his shortcommings, but he believed quality was the responsibility of the person doing the job.

Back to the original topic. When I functioned as a line quality manager, I never thought it was my manager's job to instruct my peers on the importance of quality. I always thought that was why I was hired. If he didn't believe in the importance of quality, my position would not have existed. My approach to quality has always been based on Juran's philosophy of speaking my peer's language, money. I believe that quality is another component in the overall formula of why customers purchase and that it is an integral component of reducing costs.

I don't believe that my view point is in conflict with most of the other views I see here, just a different way of viewing my job.

Originally posted by Rick Goodson
Well, it probably sounds like heresy but here goes.

In an time before computers IBM became king of the electric typwriter business under the direction of a gentleman named Clair Vough. In his book on productivity published in the early 1970's he addresses productivity in unique manner.

"Early in the game we had decided that the only two things that should affect a person's pay were productivity and quality. We soon realized that that wasn't pure enough. . .We pay for productivity. Only productivity. . . High quality cannot be a factor in a person's pay rate, but a condition of his employment."

In a corporation, top managemnt's sole job is to enhance stockholder value. For the most part they need to grow the business to accomplish that. They must focus on stockholder value if the business is to survive. That does not preclude the need for quality. In fact quality of product and service is part of what allows the company to retain existing and garner new customers. With regard to quality, top management's job, IMHO, is to retain competent people with the skills necessary to assure that quality. That quality job includes growing stockholder value.

Rick - not to worry about heresy, I've been known to speak a little myself... :vfunny: and I'm not picking - you just happen to post this... :bigwave: so here's my spin and it's directed to the group:

I totally agree that top management's sole job is to enhance stockholder value. I would modify that just a little - call them stakeholders, not just stockholders, and the statement is even more true. Now it applies to any business. I will also agree that it is management's job to retain competent people with the skills necessary to ensure quality. That does not absolve top management from their duty to ensure that the desired level of quality is achieved and maintained.

If top management is not doing everything it can to retain customers through superior customer satisfaction, are they neglegent in their duties to stakeholders, since it costs upwards of 10 times the amount to obtain a new customer than it does to keep an old customer? If reworks are costing the company any money what-so-ever, is upper management guilty of failing to maximize stakeholder value? If there are any returned goods due to any customer dissatisfaction, is this not another example of upper management failing to maximize stakeholder wealth?

By not having a proactive hands-on approach to quality (since it impacts the bottom line so very prominently) it can be argued that upper management has abrogated their fiduciary duty to stakeholders....

Thoughts?

Cheers!!!

Originally posted by D.Scott
I'm having an awful time finding what the objection is to Mr. Harrington's article.

The article, as I read it, is predicated on "selling quality improvements to management", not on commitment of management to quality. He is simply saying we need to stop thinking in terms of improved Cpk and start thinking bottom line return to the company.

This is not saying to turn your back on quality tools but to "translate" the improvement into $$$.

The top management of the company is very committed to quality. They couldn't be more committed - they hired you! Harrington is saying as long as you hold up the quality end there is no need for the CEO to worry about quality.

If my system failed, I would feel I really fouled up. I wouldn't be much of an expert if the CEO had to concentrate on quality too. Translating my system improvements to a bottom line dosen't seem too unreasonable to me.

Although he said it in a different way, Mr. Harrington is saying the same thing we have recognized for years. If you want the top management to sit up and take notice, talk in dollars - not parts per million.

JMO - (I now prepare a pile of pillows for when I get jumped on) :ko:

Dave

DOG PILE ON DAVE!!!!! :vfunny: :biglaugh: :bigwave:

Yes, if my quality system fouled up, I'd feel terrible - UNLESS... I had been telling upper management that there were systemic issues that could not be resolved by a peon like me and needed the horsepower of the brass to take care of the issues. If they failed to assist, then they deserve what they get.

As soon as I have a title like Chief Quality Officer with the same authority as the Chief Operating Officer to make systemic changes to the corporate culture; to call into question the decisions of any other officer; to ensure that my decisions carry just as much weight as theirs - then, and only then, would I be willing to take on the sole responsibility of the quality system - it's success AND failure. As long as the chief advocate for quality resides in the middle management ranks - then he/she cannot be held responsible if the quality system isn't working. It isn't the Quality Manager that really fouled up - it's the culture that allows a flagrant disregard for quality that is really fouled up.l

While I have no discrepancy with talking $$$ vice PPM, what about those quality initiatives that have no attributable or measureable dollar value. What dollar value can I place on the reduced orders a customer is sending? If I use last year's figures and prognosticate into the future, I can guestimate that poor quality cost us XXX dollars - but that is only a WAG. How many in upper management will accept that?

Cheers!!!

then, and only then, would I be willing to take on the sole responsibility of the quality system - it's success AND failure. As long as the chief advocate for quality resides in the middle management ranks - then he/she cannot be held responsible if the quality system isn't working.

I guess that is the whole point. Harrington wasn't saying nobody else cared about quality. Of course you are responsible if the system falls apart, but that doesn't mean management is going to stand by and watch everything collapse. Harrington's last comment was that the CEO doesn't get involved unless there is a problem.

His point, and with this I'm sure you must agree, is that in the process of running our department must tune our corporate thinking to blend with the "bottom line" mentality when trying to justify continuous improvement projects.

His example of presenting an improvement which gained the company a six sigma status was perfect. The "pinnicle of excellence" has been attained. Sales can really use this. Under the "old quality" thinking, this is worth pursuing.

He asks us to look at the "bottom line" as well when presenting this initiative. In this case it was bad for the company because it put them into a monopoly situation.

Looking at continuous improvement initiatives from a purely quality perspective no longer is enough. He suggests we consider bottom line as well so we can make better corporate "sales pitches" for our continuous improvements.

I don't think he is advocating leaving quality issues unaddressed. If customer orders are falling off due to a quality issue, I would imagine those issues would be corrected without the involvement of the CEO (another of Harrington's points). If the CEO had to step in to correct it it must be a mess (another of his points). IMO he is saying use all the tools of quality to run the quality system but when you are looking for resources from management, present it in a way to get their attention - $$$$.

Dave

Hi Dave & all,

Perhaps it is Harrington's tone that set my teeth on edge... :confused:

You are correct, I doubt management will stand by and watch everything collapse, and, if everything is collapsing - then the Quality Manager has really fallen down on the job. However, the laissez faire tone really rubs me the wrong way ... Don't bug me until things are a problem and if things are a problem - you better start looking for another job.

Another thing that doesn't sit well is Harrington's list of "What concerns me as COO?" Second to the last on the list he finally mentions, "Are any of our current customers dissatisfed with our product?" This is not the same as, Are our customer satisfied with our product? It sounds to me like he doesn't care if customer are satisfied, just if there are any that are dissatisfed. And what if they are? As long as they are selling their quota for that quarter - what does it matter? As long as spending is within budget - what does it matter?

I don't want to beat a horse to death. I understand the financial aspects of business decisions and realize that there are a great many more considerations that go into business decisions than quality. I realize that in order to get the attention of the top brass we (quality professionals) have to speak their language. Perhaps that is the problem - we need a new language. However, I believe that relegating quality to the level I percieve Mr. Harrington has is extremely dangerous and one of the reasons why the United States has been trying to play catch-up with the Japanese for 20 years.

Am I way off base here?

I agree entirely Michael.

Not only do quality professionals need to appreciate business realities, top managers such as the guy who wrote the article need to realise the role quality can play in them achieving their primary objective of increased profits. That is where the article fails in a very bad way.

Both parties need to understand that they both in fact have the same interests at heart.

I dont like the thread in the article that seems to automatically blame quality for any quality problems. Yes the quality function has a responsibility for assuring the quality of the product or service, but it takes two to tango.

I'm rather surprised a Harrington article could generate such a buzz. Some interesting thoughts have been presented here and it makes for interesting reading.

But all you need to read is the title;

"When quality professionals do their jobs right, COO's don't think about quality."

IMO, that's part of the whole problem.

Just got back to catching up on this thread.
Very interesting discussion. I am intrigued by the Idea of shareholders as suppliers/customers/stakeholders. But I think there is another slant to this.

Maybe the "customers" the CEO is trying to delight aren't the same "customers" we are trying to delight.
Shareholders, at least the big ones, hold the key to many top managers jobs. If you don't run the company to our satisfaction then out you go and we'll bring in someone else.

The "shareholder/customer" will base his/her purchasing on what they consider to be the companies quality. Namely the price per share and the dividends received. If this "quality" is not delivered, then they sell their stake in the company - share price suffers - operating capital becomes tight - internal costs are cut etc etc etc.....

Downward spiral.

The long and the short of this is:
The CEO's de facto customers don't exactly match the ISO definition.

Cynical? Yes. Short sighted? Yes. The way of the world? Yes.

James

There are many systems running within an organization. Some recognize many: some only recognize a few, couple, or one. I think Harrington’s tone is what is setting some of us off. I get the impression that the COO is so consumed with running one system (business) that he hasn’t the time to be involved with the other (quality system) and Harrington’s article serves as a pardon. The Quality Manager is left to deal with the quality system and deals with the outcomes. In a result-oriented business, I’m afraid it doesn’t look too good.

Many Quality Managers/ISO Management Reps are given the Responsibility to make Quality and Quality Systems happen, but how many out there have the Authority to do this (right on Mike!)? I’ll bet a very small percentage: most COOs are power freaks who rarely give up the reigns of control. Instead, the Quality Manager must achieve critical mass to be truly effective, and this is not an easy task when the mantra is one of making profit, the means by which we have seen are not always above the level. With tremendous personal effort, the QM makes it happen, for the short term anyway. In the long run, however, the QM is doomed (if not by the proverbial axe, one searches for greener pastures).

James,

Shareholders are not Customers (unless they are buying the stuff you make). Even at that, it is a stretch to imagine that they are one in the same. It is a closer match to make the shareholder a supplier who supplies Capital in exchange for ROI in the form of dividends and higher stock prices. This should not be a short-term venture, but when one is looking at quarterly statements to run one's business, this is what you get.

However, your point is well taken: CEOs know who they need to please in order to remain in their position. However, many a time the game is played to maintain position at the cost of many others below. The higher you go, the harder it is to abandon a failing paradigm, the same one that brought you your current success.

Being the "way of the world": it is true of this time and this place (most places). However, this doesn't necessarily make it right .

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin,

I quite agree. :truce:
Never said it was right, just factual. :ca:

James

James,

No truce necessary. Your points are all valid and unfortunately so.

I would hardly think anything you said goes way out on the limb, so your backside is quite covered.

I am too much of a visionary for my own good sometimes. Dave usually gives me a shot here and there to get me back to reality, so I don't mind it much when others do it. I never take it personally.

My contention is this: those at the top risk the most when they play to the needs of the system. Investors/Boardmembers rarely have a systems view, and as such, see themselves at the center of it all. CEOs do what they can to create balance, and have better success when times are good. When things get tight, they start playing it closer to the needs of the Investors. They know where their bread is buttered and after all, they have families too.

The problem is that these folks are paid the best in the company. With risk comes greater compensation. However, if risk is mitigated through adherence to less than ethical/moral/legal practice, just what of theirs is hanging out? We will have to see how this Enron thing turns out. My guess: we might have Mr. Lay (?) in our backyard here in CT at the country-club prison. Just a slap on the hand.

Being paid more means you are compensated to do the right things in my opinion. If CEOs wave this responsibility/obligation, then in my opinion they are stealing the wage!!

Kevin

The birth of an Enron executive:

I go to a university, get a degree in management, and think I know that what I am doing is helping the company.....rather... destroying it. Quality, that makes productivity suffer. Profits are why we are in business. Oh yeah, I should go get an MBA too, that's what is required to be an executive. How could they know? How could they? Really?

This is by no means an endorsement of their actions. I try to shy away from how the media portrays stories like Enron's demise. The media is just as guilty for taking what organizations say for fact. Where did investigative reporting go?? What about both sides of the story??
I offer a few words of advice:

Perceive with your eyes, see with your mind.