Lab (inhouse), that verifies a purchased product and makes final inspection of a produced product before its release is peforming a value adding process or support process?
I would say - both opinions are acceptable. But still.. which to choose when writing manual...

For the two examples you ask about, I don't categorize them as "value-added". In my mind they fall under a "cost avoidance" umbrella.

"Quality Control" (not exactly sure of your definition) can be viewed as "value-added" if the process is being monitored, proactively, in an attempt to prevent producing nonconforming product (this is just the first example that came to mind).

JMO

Does that make sense?

Bill

Hello MD

ISO 9000 recognizes -- so does normal good practice -- just two classes of process.

It uses the terms 'product realization' processes on one hand and 'QMS' processes [9001] or -- and this is better -- 'support' processes [9004] on the other.

The verification and final inspection you describe seems to me to be clearly 'product realization' (added value) and not support.

I can't agree Nosmo. IMO anything labeled as "inspection" or "verification" that happens as a separate operation (other than operator) is non-value added. The ultimate goal of a solid Quality or Business system should be to eliminate all inspection and achieve "Built-in Quality".

Depends on your definition of "value added" I think. I've seen different definitions. If it is defined as "something the customer is willing to pay for", I ask "which customer, internal or external"? If you use the tight definition of things an external customer is willing to pay for then you need to decide if the customer is willing to pay for the testing of the produced product or do they just expect to receive good product? We have some customers who are willing to pay for certain non-standard testing to be performed so they can see exact test data of the produced product, but most of our customers just want to receive in-spec. product and are not willing to pay for us to determine that it is in-spec. JMO.

In the classic 'cost of quality' model you would have prevention costs, and you would have failure and appraisal costs - the two groups being inversely proportional. Adding these costs would give you an overall cost of quality.

High prevention costs tend to lead to low failure and appraisal costs. Similarly Low prevention costs lead to high failure and appraisal costs. Naturally at some point you will reach a minimum overall cost, where the balance between prevention and appraisal costs is optimised.

Inspection in any form tends to be considered an appraisal cost. Hence to my mind it adds value if it contributes to lowering the overall costs towards the optimised minimum cost.

make any sense ?

Mike,
This is an item that can be debated. Is it value added because the customer is willing to pay for it? If they are paying for an SPC report or a study (Code-X, etc.) they are paying for a service, it doesn't add value to the part or product.

Martin,
IMO cost of quality or non-quality is different than something being value added. Inspection, verifications, etc. are part of the equation but to increase value of a part or product the non-value added operations need to be reduced. :agree:

Randy.

Sorry - you could be right, just got COQ on the brain at the moment.

I was thinking in terms of value to the organisation however, not necessarily value to the customer.

I believe it is value adding however because people are willing to pay for a quality product. In order to get a quality product the supplier must utilise an effective QMS, which brings us back to the balance of quality costs - I think !

I agree, Martin.

All work is a process, and all processes have variation. Inspection is a process, and it has variation. If our variable production process is making the occasional bad product, we depend on inspection to find it. But, our inspection varies, too, so some bad product may get through to our customers.

The inspection, then, would not be value added, unless the customer was willing to pay extra for it.

However, if the prevention part of the equation reduces inspection and/or improves outgoing quality, then IMO it would be a value-added addition.

Craig

Maybe we should back-up a tad and ask everyone to give their definition of "value added", and perhaps a few examples then of what (according to their definition) is and is not value added. Just a thought...because I think reasonable people can have different views on this. :bigwave:

Agree Mike.
IMO any inspection or operation outside normal "product realization" operations is non-value added. When someone does not physically change that part (stamping, fabricating, painting, etc.) inside the normal flow, it's not value added. Inspection departments are carried as overhead costs (at least here they are), or viewed as the cost of doing business, because they can't charge directly against a job. An operator doing their checks are part of the product realization portion of the operation. Once again this is my opinion! My product realization processes and procedures should be robust enough to ensure a quality product even with variation (X bar & R). We're not there yet, but that's our goal.
A few years ago we had 31 inspectors at 2 facilities for 2 shifts, we are now down to 19 for 2 shifts at 3 facilities. Please don't take that as I have done this myself, that's not it. We have put on a big push in Lean Manufacturing and Value Stream Mapping, that has been the main instrument.
I think that even if the customer is willing to pay $120/hr for CMM time, we are just supplying them with a service. Just because we get paid for it doesn't mean it's a value added operation.

OK, Mike, good idea.

For me, value added is simply anything that adds value to the final customer. Anything that does not is not.

I can see why there is confusion here. We are treading on a grey area, IMO, even though it really is a simple question.

This could get to be a very interesting thread...

Craig

Craig H. said:

it really is a simple question.



I think that's right, Craig -- and ISO 9000 -- actually 9004 (5.1.1) -- gives us the answer when it differentiates "product realization processes that provide added value to the organization" from "support processes that influence the effectiveness and efficiency of the realization processes".

In other words: product realization processes add value to the organization (by improving the product), support processes add value to product realization processes (by improving those processes).

Hi All,

Why do we need to differentiate between the two types of processes and why does MD need to place this in the Quality Manual? I was recertified to 9K2K last year and I do not remember having to nominate those processes that were value adding to the product/s

I am not trying to be dismissive (I think everyone should know what adds value and what is just a necessary evil) but maybe I am missing something in my processes.

Thanks for keeping me thinking.

Greg B

Good discussion. How about this angle?

I think quality control adds value. The customer requires us to perform it. If they thought it wouldn't add value, I seriously doubt if they would ask us to do it....

/Claes

'Control' by way of inspection does not add value - inspection is post-mortem. You can probably separate good parts from bad and ensure that only good ones go to the customer. There are costs involved which I am sure are charged to the customer. Does customer pay you to do this? Customer would prefer if quality is built into your processes. Make the process so robust that it does not produce defectives. Quality 'assurance' adds value. IMO

Hi Atul,

So that's what you look like... Good to see you friend :bigwave:

Atul Khandekar said:
'Control' by way of inspection does not add value - inspection is post-mortem. You can probably separate good parts from bad and ensure that only good ones go to the customer. There are costs involved which I am sure are charged to the customer. Does customer pay you to do this?
---X---

Exactly... They don't. But they always demand that we perform the inspection.

Atul Khandekar said:
---X---
Customer would prefer if quality is built into your processes. Make the process so robust that it does not produce defectives. Quality 'assurance' adds value. IMO

Yes. That's the way it should be, but more often than not isn't. Anyway, I was thinking along the line that the product has very limitid value until you know wether it is acc. to spec or not.

/Claes

Claes Gefvenberg said:

Yes. That's the way it should be, but more often than not isn't.



Yes, Claes is right. We are pingponging here between two things:

1 THEORY. What would be ideal: no inspection because quality is build in! Yes -- no argument.

2 PRACTICE. What we actually must do right here and now in the less-than-ideal situation where we DO -- in reality -- inspect product.

In case 1 (the ideal) we can argue that inspection is not adding value.

In case 2 (today's reality) we can argue that inspection does add value because that is our current method to assure quality.

The test of added value is to ask "can we stop doing it (e.g. inspection) and get equal or better results?" If yes, there is no added value. If no, there must be added value.

Claes stated, If they [the customer] really thought that it wouldn't add value, I seriously doubt that they would ask us to do it....

What if we gave the customer a choice? You pay us $###.## for our separate "inspection" effort and we'll provide you with a 90% confidence level that 99% of our product we send to you will be "good".

-or-

You pay us $###.## less than that original quote, and we'll ensure through SPC and operator self inspection that no more than 10 parts per million are defective.

I agree it is a grey area. I suggest if you ever get into this debate at work you clearly define what YOU consider value-added.

Consider this: Your customer wants a 2 cu. ft. capacity wheelbarrow, with fiberglass handles, and a 8" diameter pneumatic tire, and orders it from your catalog. Is it a value-added operation to install the tire on the wheelbarrow? Is it value-added to inflate it with air? Is it value added to test that the tire holds air? Is it value added to do a final "QC" check to verify (before shipping) that the wheelbarrow is exactly as ordered?

Nosmo King said:

The test of added value is to ask "can we stop doing it (e.g. inspection) and get equal or better results?" If yes, there is no added value. If no, there must be added value.

Exactly, Nosmo!

Every process in a management system must add value (if not, what is it for?).

That doesn't mean a process adds enough value or the optimum value. It doesn't mean the system is necessarily constructed correctly to reflect a particular philosophy or approach (QA versus QC, for example).

And it is certainly true - as Mike implies- that the value that is to be added needs definition for each specific process (perhaps even for each specific customer!). That definition is integral to the definition of a process as part of implementing the 'continual improvement' principle.

IMHO

I would tend to disagree that inspection is a value added activity. Just because of the fact that one can 100% inspect and get 20 % nonconforming shipped. Inspection adds cost to the product. It is what I would call an assurance added (cost) activity.

Value added in many instances is based on Customer perception. Time spent on non-value added activities has been estimated to between 45-60% of the activities of a manufacturing process. It goes back to inputs and outputs and the (mf) processes that has either value added or non-value added(cost added) activities. Most of the processes of your QMS are value added CA, PA, Mgm Review, Auditing, etc. If done correctly. That is why the key to the Process approach is an effective QMS which then will result in an effective mf process. JMO

IMO we must separate value add to the customer from value add to the product. Inspection may add value to the customer, in that they "may" receive fewer bad parts. But as for the product it does nothing. If the part is good it is redundant work, it adds no value to the product. If the part is bad, how does inspecting it make it a "good" part? It doesn't so it still doesn't add value to the product. As gpainter has stated, it adds costs. I have to maintain head count, machine costs, repair (PM's), calibration costs, etc. for an operation that does not change the part.
Even if the customer pays for the inspection it does not add value to the product, our bottom line maybe. For every customer required inspection there are 100's of "non paid" inspections then (annual part layout, etc.) so the benefits are minimal at best. I can not see where inspection is a value added operation.:agree:

Tom Harris said:

Exactly, Nosmo!

Every process in a management system must add value (if not, what is it for?).

IMHO
Seems several think inspection is value added. Is HR value added? Is the bathroom janitor value added? Again, I guess it is definitionally dependent. If memory serves though, most "management gurus" have a more narrow definition and would not include inspection, HR, etc. as value-added. Anybody have any mgt. books handy to see what the various "gurus" have to say on defining "value added"?

Is HR value added? Is the bathroom janitor value added?
What's the focus here? You could say these add value to the product in that the personnel are happier and work better. HR may be doing the training so the people perform better. I know management doesn't see them as "value added" but overhead. They could be considered value added to the company though, ever go through a contract talk with the union? I wouldn't want to do that without HR. So it's going to depend on the focus area. If we focus on value add to the product (i.e. CI, process improvement, etc) the value add for the customer is covered, IMO.

Here’s some mud:

Three categories of Value-added, Nonvalue-added but necessary, Waste.

Where does inspection fit?

I think Mike throws out a good point for thought: what is the definition for value added?

Is the customer willing to subsidize nonvalue added but necessary steps or waste if they were aware of the costs? Sometimes, but for the most part, not willing. The wheel on the wheel barrow might be nice if it were already on, but given the additional cost (known), the customer might have another idea. Where does the majority position reside? When it comes to the landing gear on a plane, then the customer might be willing to subsidize additional expense for a guaranteed safe landing, post mortem or not. Where does the majority position reside on this?

I think it comes down to the operational definition.

Kevin

Value Added: Activities or actions taken that add real value to the product or service.
Real Value: Attributes and features of a product or service that, in the eyes of customers, are worth paying for.

From SearchManufacturing.com (http://www.searchmanufacturing.com/Manufacturing/Lean/glossary.htm)

Given this definition, then inspection is NOT value added, unless the customer pays for it specifically. That is it can be a separate line item on the bill.

Kevin's comments about "Three categories of Value-added, Nonvalue-added but necessary, Waste. " fit right in here. Payroll is not value added, but necessary! This reinforces Nosmo's earlier post.

The bottom line might just be what difference does it make. If we can eliminate inspection through controls, would we not want to do it?

Stew, part of your comment centers around who "the customer" is.

It doesn't matter if it's internal or external customer. Inspection, even if the customer pays for it, does not add value to the part or product, period. Inspection is an evil the customer accepts because they'd rather pay for a better chance of having a good part (proactive) than see an assembly line or build shut down or held up.
How does inspection add "real value" to the part. Webster says value "is the quality of a product that makes it more or less desireable". So if we place that into your definition of value added we get "Actions or Activities that add real quality to . . . ". So how does inspection add "real quality" to a product? I don't see how it can. It does nothing for the part, product or service, it may validate my craftsmanship or product. But in itself adds nothing. :ko: :thedeal: :smokin:

db said:

Value Added: Activities or actions taken that add real value to the product or service.
Real Value: Attributes and features of a product or service that, in the eyes of customers, are worth paying for.

From SearchManufacturing.com (http://www.searchmanufacturing.com/Manufacturing/Lean/glossary.htm)

Given this definition, then inspection is NOT value added, unless the customer pays for it specifically. That is it can be a separate line item on the bill.

Kevin's comments about "Three categories of Value-added, Nonvalue-added but necessary, Waste. " fit right in here. Payroll is not value added, but necessary!
Now we're gettin' somewhere. A clear definition. While I believe that individual companies can define value-added differently if they want to, this is the type of definition I am most familiar with. And agree with. IMO payroll, inspection, HR, etc. are as Kevin said necessary, but not value added.

Stew, I'm not so sure we do disagree. My comment "Stew, part of your comment centers around who "the customer" is." was about your post:

What's the focus here? You could say these add value to the product in that the personnel are happier and work better.

If the process is payroll, or janitorial stuff, who is the customer. Is there a "value added" component to theses? I don't know. As far as inspection, I am in full agreement. It adds no value.

:agree:

Randy Stewart said:

It doesn't matter if it's internal or external customer. Inspection, even if the customer pays for it, does not add value to the part or product, period. How does inspection add "real value" to the part. It does nothing for the part, product or service, it may validate my craftsmanship or product. But in itself adds nothing. :ko: :thedeal: :smokin:
Stew,

Remember, we can sell services as well as products. I agree inspection is non-value added relative to checking those products at least 99%, if not 100%, of the time. But I can see "inspection" as a service the customer IS willing to pay for, so the act of inspecting becomes a value-added action. Heck, some companies make all their money doing inspection!

Did that make any sense???:confused:

Greg B said:

Hi All,

Why do we need to differentiate between the two types of processes and why does MD need to place this in the Quality Manual? I was recertified to 9K2K last year and I do not remember having to nominate those processes that were value adding to the product/s

I am not trying to be dismissive (I think everyone should know what adds value and what is just a necessary evil) but maybe I am missing something in my processes.

Thanks for keeping me thinking.

Greg B

This was in response to the first post from MD and IMO no one has answered him or I. MD wanted to know what he had to write in the manual and my question was why he had to write about value added product.

We value added by utilising our waste streams. We analysed the waste streams to ascertain the upper and lower criteria of our specifications and then went forth and marketed it to customers. We no longer have waste streams but lesser standard product, which is sold. We have 'Value Added' to the company and reduced 'Quality Costs' to current processes.


Greg B

Jim,

Thanks for the answer. That has cleared it up for me. I only recieved my copy of 9004 yesterday and have not had a chance to read it yet.

I managed to be upgraded to 9K2K and yet have never read 9004. I am going to use it to help Management understand the system better.

Thanks for your support.

Greg B

So far we've been talking about applying "value added" to the product, right? And I buy into the arguments that inspection can't "add" quality to the product, and therefore aren't value-added. With respect to the product.

But...can't we pull back and also define "value added" in terms of the company as a whole? I don't mean by looking at the internal customers and the products they receive. What I mean is...

Let's say the company is able to develop a strong reputation in the marketplace for having reliable goods. Their product has the lowest failure rate. They know their product is so good that they offer the market's strongest warranty. Their products are now highly desired and command top dollar.

This company has a good quality management program that ensures their products are good. They also use a strenuous testing and inspection process on their goods. Their products can only be as good as they were manufactured and inspection/testing won't improve that (add value), but the cost of weeding out the imperfects still adds value to the company's reputation and ensures a strong market share.

Quality management is more than <i>product</i>. It is about organizational financial health through delivering what the market requires.

IMO Cinda is on the right track here.

This is one of those areas where concensus is going to be difficult because our definition of 'value adding' depends on where we are looking from.

Our definition will change from internal to external customer, from individual product to the whole organisation.

If we are looking from the external customer's point of view on an individual item (or service) then Stew's points I feel are valid, inspection is not adding anything to 'that' item. However if we are considering a batch of goods, then inspection is helping to get 'the batch' correct.

Again, for example in a service company, inspection (post delivery) of a service, might not be seen as adding value to the external customer, but the results included in a contineous improvement system, are adding value to the company (internal customers point of view).

One thing, I think we agree on is Tom's point that every process must add value - or why are we doing it. It just depends on your view.

Lucinda said:

So far we've been talking about applying "value added" to the product, right?
---X---
Quality management is more than <i>product</i>. It is about organizational financial health through delivering what the market requires.

Yessss. Now then: The definition of product ?

ISO9000:2000:

-services
-software
-hardware
-processed materials...

...or a mix of the above...

We also need to determine what the product we're discussing really is...

/Claes

"Value added"? Are we talking intrensic or extrensic value?

By the time we perform the QC or Inspection process and identify deviation from whatever our criteria are it's too late. The QC activity doesn't add any real value to the organization and/or "product" per say, but the actions that are taken to "fix" the actual deviation can take the "product" from relative worthlessness to some level of worth but not at the original planned per capita worth - we may make some profit from it but not at the same level or we may actually see an actual loss even though the customer pays for it. You can sell/deliver all of your product and be operating at a negative profit rate at the same time if you are doing continual rework.

To be "value added" we need to address the direct causation of the deviations and correct them in such a fashion as to prevent reoccurrance (C/A & P/A). It must be understood that these actions may have cost factors assigned to them that can actually reduce or negate the "value" we think we are adding.

It's my opinion (and I understand that opinion's are like bung holes...everyone has one) that true "value added" begins at the input side of our processes where the costs are normally not as much. This is the original planning phase. We need to really take a strong look at where "deviation" can/might occur and take necessary steps to "Prevent" the occurance. This may entail some upfront cost, but the absorbtion of them is easier and less painless over the longterm rather than the short term.

Great debate folks and a good eye opener.
How does inspection work as a service provided? I just can't see it. Maybe I've put me blinders on but I'm having a rough time with it.
If I'm selling the CMM/digital scan time to the customer, at there request, how is that a value added operation. We do this all the time with PSW, Code-X parts, PIST, etc. They are used to "prove out" the process. How does that add value to the customer??? Is giving assurances adding value? I just don't or won't see it.
:eek: :(

Are we mixing our interpretations of "inspection", or is it just me?;) If inspection takes place as a part of the product realization process (i.e. inspect/verify by operator for SPC) then I can accept "inspection" as being value added (in that we are aiming to prevent nonconformity and the resulting the expense - the factory-in-a-factory).

But, if we are speaking of a separate operation, with the inherent expense of additional personnel, resulting repair, rework, scrap, etc. then I question that activity being "value added" for the customer (added cost to the product), or for the company (added waste/cost).

Real life scenario: My (fictitious) company has been providing a product to our customer for years. We have always provided them with high quality product, assured through inspection at our receiving, at various points during the processing, and a final look prior to delivery. Of course this added inspection effort is being supported by personnel dedicated to the repair/rework of defective product (since our regular workforce does not have the time to process product and perform the repair/rework). Now due to our overhead (factory-in-a-factory) we have to charge our customer a premium price (a price they have been willing to pay for the premium product we provide).

Recently our company has been faced with a new competitor. They are providing the same quality product to our customer, but at a reduced cost. It seems that they do not have a separate inspection and repair/rework force. They are forcing their suppliers, and line personnel to monitor/measure efforts, and ensure the continued acceptance of product. And when product is found defective they (the supplier or line personnel) are responsible for its correction, and any pursuant corrective action.
With this competitor's lower overhead, they are under pricing us and putting us out of business (but I sure am glad that we have our "value added" inspection efforts in place).:(

Jim said "In the terms of - and context of - ISO 9000, both are value-added processes. Here’s why.

According to 9004/5.1.1, there are two sorts of process:

1) Product realization processes that add value
2) Support processes that influence PR processes. "
________________

Jim, the FULL text is "Top management should consider actions such as..." (and one of many listed actions is) "...identifying the product realization processes that provide added value to the organization." The way I read this is there may also be PR processes that DO NOT "provide added value", but we are to identify the PR processes that DO "provide added value". Semantics? Maybe. Just another possibility. Also consider that ISO mentions the added value to the "organization", not the "product". Since ISO apparently does not define "value-added" clearly via a definition maybe we'll never know their intent, which I why I suggest any discussion of VA start with the operational definition of those in the discussion for clarity.

Stew said "How does inspection work as a service provided? I just can't see it. Maybe I've put me blinders on but I'm having a rough time with it."

Maybe it is semanitcs again, but here is how I think it can happen:

One company I know of provided inspection of the products made by another company as their sole service. Company A sent their manufactured parts to Company B who inspected them in a special manner and sent them to the end-user, Company C, who paid both A and B. I can also see Company C paying Company A extra to purchase special equipment and do special inspection (outside of their normal QA/QC) on their products.

Make any sense?

Company C, who paid both A and B.
Company A has just paid more for a part, how does the added inspection add value to the part. See Mike it is for documentation purposes only, it does not improve the quality of the part.
# 8 & 9 of the 12 Guiding Principles state:
- Introduce Jidoka or autonomation. Intelligent machines that work for you.
- Poka-Yoke or error proofing. Ensure Quality at the source and make it impossible to make a bad part!

The emphasis is mine, but this is where I'm coming from.

I don't know if this will help, but such is my intention...

I think we have two strands going here - both valuable and interesting, but currently unhelpfully intertwined.

Strand A is to do with: what is good quality practice, what should happen, is inspection a good way to go?

Answer IMO: No, it's better to build quality in.

Strand B is to do with: where we have chosen inspection as part of the work we do to get product to customer, does it add value?

Answer IMO: Of course it does; all PR processes (also known as Key or Operating processes) add value, by definition.

They add value to one or more outputs of the process and thereby to one or more outcomes of the business, as desired by customers and/or other stakeholders (interested parties).

The value added may be suboptimal, inefficiently achieved or antediluvian in its approach, whatever. But it is value added.

Stew,

Comapny A did not pay for any parts; Comapny C did.

Sometimes, Jidoka or autonomation or intelligent machines or that other stuff won't do it alone.

Example: Sometimes, the requirements of a customer are beyond ANY company's state-of-the-art to produce them, so sorting and special testing is required for certain critical applications. Say a critical application required that the capacitance of every capacitor be known to the nearest 2 fF (fempto Farad). The customer can use any cap. between 1000 and 1100 fF, and the state-of-the-art in mfg. is +/- 20 fF. The end-user must know the value of each cap. so they must be sorted (inspected) and labeled or binned. The end customer is willing to pay for this special inspection, realizing that NO supplier can do it by "quality at the source", SPC, or the other stuff. The end customer feels it adds value to the part achievable in no other way, and is willing to pay for it, and who is to argue with them? Not me.

Okay Mike, but I still don't see it. Just because your process won't make the product doesn't mean the inspection has added value to the part.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Randy Stewart said:

Company A has just paid more for a part, how does the added inspection add value to the part. See Mike it is for documentation purposes only, it does not improve the quality of the part.
# 8 & 9 of the 12 Guiding Principles state:
- Introduce Jidoka or autonomation. Intelligent machines that work for you.
- Poka-Yoke or error proofing. Ensure Quality at the source and make it impossible to make a bad part!

The emphasis is mine, but this is where I'm coming from.

This is a good discussion. I'd like you all to consider this angle:

Events seem to indicate that most of us think about series production when we discuss this subject. I don't always do that. We are a process industy, and we frequently buy just one single item... One unique product, often very expensive, just once, never to be repeated. That leaves little room for ironing out production bugs.

When we do that, we often buy the vendors inspection and records as part of the product. Why? Because we want to make certain that the product is what we ordered. So, does it add value? Well, you judge it for yourself, but we don't much enjoy the prospect of finding out that a spare part is unusable when a line has already been shut down for maintainance. Every minute of down time costs serious money.

/Claes

Tom

But if we consider the Cost of Quality model we will appreciate that there is an optimum cost of quality which balances prevention costs against appraisal costs (including inspection costs).

Hence in what manner is total prevention the right way to go ? If we go all the way with prevention our Cost of Quality will go through the roof, and also the exponential nature of the curve of prevention costs means we get fewer and fewer gains for more and more money spent.

Or are we simply talking in terms of prevention of the customer receiving defective product, by means of internal preventive and inspection control ??

M Greenaway said:

Tom

But if we consider the Cost of Quality model we will appreciate that there is an optimum cost of quality which balances prevention costs against appraisal costs (including inspection costs).

Hence in what manner is total prevention the right way to go ? If we go all the way with prevention our Cost of Quality will go through the roof, and also the exponential nature of the curve of prevention costs means we get fewer and fewer gains for more and more money spent.

Or are we simply talking in terms of prevention of the customer receiving defective product, by means of internal preventive and inspection control ??

Hello there MG

I guess you're referring to my Strand A?

As in all things, there are no absolutes.

I guess the principle is "it's better to find stuff that may go wrong earlier on rather than later on" to prevent, as you say, the customer (internal or external) from receiving defective product.

Martin raises a very good point in this discussion. Cost is a consideration.

Juran offers his “Economic Models of Quality of Conformance” that illustrate Martin’s point. It is an important consideration. Others might be familiar with the law of diminishing returns. I think balance has something to do with it too.

Funny thing of it was that when I first read this question, I thought that the answer was clear to me. I was wrong.

Consider Value:

For me, it is the center of the Universal System. People value things, businesses value things, suppliers value things. The thing of it is that we all Value something different. Customers value ontime delivery, low costs and high quality (Robert Rodin calls them Free, Perfect and Now). The Environment Values an undisturbed ecosystem. Suppliers value happy customers and ontime payment. Organizations Value profit, innovation, and happy customers. Workers Value jobs, interesting work, and good work conditions. The thing of it is that VALUE is something different and difficult to achieve without understanding the Value Statements of other System Components. Rarely are there overlaps.

When looking at Inspection through the eyes of the different components, I think it is fair to say that in some instances, Inspection might be Value Added while in others, it is Nonvalue Added (necessary or not; waste).

What do you think?

Back to the group…

Kevin

So is it true to say of any process:

EITHER it adds value (however poorly) in the opinion of a stakeholder

OR we can safely eliminate it as useless from our system?

:( I'm crushed:(

How come nobody even said.."that's silly Randy" or even "huh!"

Hi Randy,

Maybe because it wasn't silly? ;)

/Claes

Nosmo King said:

So is it true to say of any process:

EITHER it adds value (however poorly) in the opinion of a stakeholder

OR we can safely eliminate it as useless from our system?

Hmmmm.... I think so.... Yes. If it adds no value to a single stakeholder it must be 100% useless. Still, I will throw in a wild card: In some cases the true benefits may not become obvious until a good while after you've thrown stuff out...

/Claes

Claes stated:
We are a process industy, and we frequently buy just one single item... One unique product, often very expensive,
Our company is in the prototype business - 40 parts at once is a big run for us. We don't have large batch SPC data to look back on and it is rare to reload and run the same part. In addition unless it is a stamping study (PIST or Code-X) the customer doesn't like to pay for CMM or digital scan time. In order to be competitive in a shrinking market our processes have to be world class. So Claes I'm on the other side from you, we supply those unique parts.
The inspection reports that you buy, only endorses those processes used to manufacture your part. The reports may remove a need for you to validate the part so in that case I can see where it saves you money, but how does that report increase the value of the part?
I once worked for a company that was in the habit of picking out specific parts to run for the inspection report so the Histogram looked good and the CPK would be above 1.67! Pick and choose 48 parts out of a 5000 part shipment and run a report. I don't believe that's what the customer wanted but they never complained about the report!
:)

Tom

As you say there are no absolutes.

In certain instances it may not be better, in terms of cost to the organisation, to find defects before the customer does.

For example the production of high volume, low cost, non-safety critical items in a market sector with little or no competition.

Am I just theorising a load of crap again, or could such a scenario exist ?

To M. Greenway who said:
As you say there are no absolutes.

Absolutely! :biglaugh:

In certain instances it may not be better, in terms of cost to the organisation, to find defects before the customer does.

I agree, look at the Yugo. Obviously little time or money went into finding defects before those cars hit the shores of the US, and look at how well they are selling today.:eek: :D

For example the production of high volume, low cost, non-safety critical items in a market sector with little or no competition.

On the other hand how many of us spend time and effort shopping around for the best (fewest amount of defects) mouse trap, clothes pin, tooth pick, match, etc.

Am I just theorising a load of crap again, or could such a scenario exist ?

So no, I don't believe that you're just theorising. :agree:

Randy Stewart said:
---X---
The reports may remove a need for you to validate the part so in that case I can see where it saves you money, but how does that report increase the value of the part?
The validation is a big thing, yes. We don't have the resources (staff) it would take. Apart from that? Well, for one thing, the record is a legal document, and our suppliers know that.

Randy Stewart said:
I once worked for a company that was in the habit of picking out specific parts to run for the inspection report so the Histogram looked good and the CPK would be above 1.67! Pick and choose 48 parts out of a 5000 part shipment and run a report. I don't believe that's what the customer wanted but they never complained about the report!
:)

Ouch! :eek: Ok, I admit that wouldn't be hard to do. However it would also be quite easy to detect, either by running your own inspection or because of the fact that it wouldn't produce a true normal distribution. And last but not least: Wouldn't that be fraudulent behaviour...?

/Claes

All the comments in this thread are great, as usual on the Cove. Maybe this comment "adds no value" to this thread ... but I wonder if the very reasons and comments discussed so far in this thread is why the word INSPECTION does not apper at all in the 2000 standard. Does this simple omission support the "non-value added" perception?

MrPhish said:

the word INSPECTION does not apper at all in the 2000 standard.

I disagree ...

ISO 9004 has several references, ISO 9000 defines the word in 3.8.2, and ISO 9001 mentions inspection twice [at least]: inspection of created product in clause 7.1 c) and inspection of purchased product in 7.4.3

I've got to do two things:
1) get my word search and replace engine fixed, (my mistake) and 2) I forgot to be anal specific in my comments to avoid any "Sea Lawyer" trouble ... I meant to say 9001:2000 only, clauses 5 through 8. Good catch.

MrPhish said:
I meant to say 9001:2000 only, clauses 5 through 8.

That would have left you still with egg on the old face, McPhish. Clauses 5 through 6 would have done the trick, though!. ;)

First it's MrPhish. Second ... I do have egg on my face and I know it already (just wish there were some hot peppers to go along with this egg). That's called a mistake ... and from my historical database I've concluded I make em from time to time.
The point that was missed from my original comment is instead of dissecting my incorrect statement (which may be necessary to clarify the intent ... you've got me there) let's look at the point I was trying to make that the word INSPECTION has almost been deleted (as compared to the old 1994 version) from the new 9001:2000 standard clauses 5 thru 8 (not including guidance provided in 9004). Does this imply anything useful for this thread? If not, that's OK with me ... no problemo ... just let's not get sidetracked into these little off-shoots that IMHO tend to dilute the original thread. I think this forum is great for discussing quality related thoughts and interpretations (I purposely used the word interpretations here) so that we all can improve our business processes. Just trying to participate in a constructive manner ... no offence taken ... none intended. (NOTE: not responsible for spelling errors ... it's one of my known weak spots)

My apologies, MrPhish.

Firstly for "McPhish" - a slip of the phinger.

Secondly (and more seriously) for concentrating more on scoring a point than taking your point.

And indeed you may have a point. The '94 version of 9001/2 rather majored on inspection and testing (despite professing itself to be a standard for QA).

While the present 9001 (masquerading now as it does as a standard for QM) does seem to downplay inspection.

I'm not sure I can take the point further than that ... any one else??

Inspection, dissection, reflection, whatever.....do what you want, when you, however often you want!!!

1st and foremost whatever it is that we do has to ultimately achieve/exceed customer expectations/satisfaction.

Remember? The cycle begins and ends with the customer.

Value added is initially for the customer and secondly for us. We need to address those issues that maximizes the value added benefit for both parties, while minimizing what needs to be done in order to do so. The more you do, the more cost, either intrinsic or extrensic and therefore the less value added potential to both. Applying "what if" to our planning processes can assist in the achievement of maximization of value vs. minimization of effort.

JMHO of course:)

Leave it to Randy to ruin a perfectly good philosophical conversation with a dose of reality. :vfunny: :bigwave:

All

Think they just re-named 'inspection' as 'monitoring and measurement of product'.

Why ??

Fcuk knows !!

Guess its all ot do with that process management thingy that none of us understands. :vfunny:

Matt!! Have you ever made an enjoyable cup of Earl Grey for a guest ? If you have, you have performed the "process management thingy". DUH!

Jim Wade said:

Seems to me one doesn't perform a process, one performs a procedure.

rgds Jim
Two demerits for not paying attention Jim. Randy said "Matt" would have performed process management, not "perform a process" as you stated. :p

process [ME proces, L prosessus] ...something going on; a series of actions or operations leading to an end; a continous operation or trearment esp. in manufacture

In "process management" we manage the actions, activities or operations needed to achieve desired results, this includes managing whatever materials, people, and supporting elements go into the mix.

Randy said:

We need to address those issues that maximizes the value added benefit for both parties, while minimizing what needs to be done in order to do so.



Great point Randy.

It seems like you are pretty much reinforcing the concepts of EFFECTIVENESS and EFFICIENCY talked about in the standards.

IMO, you need to first consider effectiveness - doing the right thing, meeting customer requirements, etc... If the specific characteristics of your processes require inspection in order to be effective, then inspection is a value added part of the realization process.

Once processes are under control and are deemed to be effective, attention can be turned to improving the efficiency - doing the right thing at the lowest cost possible. If it turns out that the inspection can be eliminated by some other change in the process for an overall net savings (without impacting effectiveness) then the inspection should be eliminated.

It seems logical to me that 9001 does not talk much about inspection as inspection is a specific technique that may or may not be appropriate for a particular process. I believe that 9001 simply requires that we use "suitable" monitoring and mesurement methods in order to ensure effectiveness and that they be planned in advance.

Effective and Efficient?

It would be effective to rid oneself of employees that don't toe the company line in all areas, but would that lead to efficiency of the workforce? Hmmmm...........!

This game has been played many times...to the greatest extent it was played for about 70 years or so by an organization formerly known as the Soviet Union, to a lesser degree by Cuba, Romania, Bulgaria and a few other places. We can look back at the Roman's, they were effective, but were they really efficient?

Ask yourself....Does it work? and Will it last?

Ha

Unfortunately I cannot keep pace with the discussion these days due to being busy doing something real and interesting for a change.

Good point made by Jim, however Mrs Greenaway manages by fear alone, and tends to shirk her responsibilities and delegate a lot, with commands such as 'get it yer bleedin self' :biglaugh:

PS Roger, my name is Martin - not Matt.

Randy said:

It would be effective to rid oneself of employees that don't toe the company line in all areas, but would that lead to efficiency of the workforce? Hmmmm...........!



Randy -

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you are trying to say that effectiveness and efficiency are both important and you can not ignore one at the expense of the other, I agreee.

My point is that I believe that is better to the right thing ineffeciently than to do the wrong thing very efficiently.

Systems and process thinking provide some great tools to make sure you keep the proper balance between effectiveness and efficiency and make sure improvements are really improvements.

BTW - I would not say that it is effective to get rid of employees that don't toe the line if the result of that action has a lot of other unintended consequences such as poor morale, fear, etc.... Effectiveness can really only be defined in terms of the total system and it is often difficult to tell in advance whether a change will improve or degrade effectiveness. That is why I believe that we put way too much emphasis on efficiency and that we should be more focused on effectiveness.

NYHawkeye said:

That is why I believe that we put way too much emphasis on efficiency and that we should be more focused on effectiveness.

Very good! You just went broke and everyone is unemployed.
;)

The lack of efficiency results in costs. Costs come from the bottom line (profit). Businesses do not operate to give people something to do. Businesses operate to generate PROFIT. To generate PROFIT you have to control costs. To control costs you need to be efficient in your operations.

You can be as effective as all H#ll all the way to bankruptcy court.

Try again.:bigwave:

Randy said:

The lack of efficiency results in costs. Costs come from the bottom line (profit). Businesses do not operate to give people something to do. Businesses operate to generate PROFIT. To generate PROFIT you have to control costs. To control costs you need to be efficient in your operations.

To generate profit you have to control both costs and revenue, but I accept your point.

Remember that many people here (in this thread, and in this forum) seem to spend their whole working lives caught up in the ISO 9001 certification/auditing processes.

Part of the false thinking of those certification/auditing processes is that it is a good thing to reward an organization for having a formal system that deliberately ignores efficiency considerations (ref ISO 9001/0.3).

Clearly you refute that thinking. So do I, but we are a minority. :)

Randy said:


The lack of efficiency results in costs. Costs come from the bottom line (profit).



Sorry - I tend to look at things from a different angle.

A lack of effectiveness results in a lack of customers and without a top line (sales) there is no bottom line.

I am not saying that efficiency can ever be ignored....only that the balance in most companies is wrong and that improving efficiency can result in either no additional profit or worse yet, less profit. Efficiency improvements are important but usually only in a few select areas and must always be done keeping an eye on effectivness.

There is a finite limit to the amount of cost you can take out of a business - you can only downsize or "rightsize" for so long. I don't believe that there is a finite limit to the amount of sales you can generate if you continually find a way to have the right products available to meet the needs of customers.

The "Big 3" were very effective in generating sales volume of their products in the 50's, 60's 70's and into the 80's, but then little old efficient Toyota started doing its thing.

To have long term effectiveness you need to be efficient, the opposite is not necessarily so.

If you don't have a healthy amount of both efficiency and effectiveness your business is likely to be dead, so why argue. Would you rather give up your heart or your lungs? JMO.

improving efficiency can result in either no additional profit or worse yet, less profit.

If you see less profit you are not efficient. How can you make something for less (maintaining quality) and see less profit if you are selling it for the same price?
It just doesn't make sense or cents. I would like to see an example of what you are referring to.
In todays market if we are not lowering our overhead and internal costs we can not be competitive. I don't care how effective you are, without cost cuts you're not going to make it.
GM could still be making cars that got 8 miles to the gallon of gas (BIG Caddilacs, GTO's, TransAMs, Z28's, Station Wagons, etc.). They were effective transportation but I don't think they would be doing much in overall sales. They weren't efficient transportation.
You won't get into any market without an effective product but would won't stay in any market without an efficient product.

Randy said:

The "Big 3" were very effective in generating sales volume of their products in the 50's, 60's 70's and into the 80's, but then little old efficient Toyota started doing its thing.



Randy -

I think we are spinning down the semantics rat hole! You would claim that Toyota has been successful because the TPS is highly efficient. I would claim that Toyota has been successful because the TPS is highly effective.:bonk:

To me JIT can be highly effective if used in the right situations whereas you might claim JIT is highly efficient.

Maybe we are both saying the same thing.:confused:

The bottom line for me is that I would rather invest my money in a highly effective business that may have some efficiency issues than a highly efficient company with effectiveness problems.

My original point was not that efficiency improvements are not important. Rather, I was trying to say that I believe that many companies have a priority issue and are often pursuing efficiency at the expense of effectiveness.

It is generally much easier to attack and eliminate waste than to create the value in the first place. I believe many companies spend too much time on efficiency improvements because effectiveness improvements are inherently more complex and difficult to achieve.

Here is an interesting article to look at: www.kybiz.com/lanereport/issues/may99/feat-manufacture599.html (http://www.kybiz.com/lanereport/issues/may99/feat-manufacture599.html)

Which would be better, efficiently effective or effectively efficient? Hmmmm......

Takers?

Randy said:

Which would be better, efficiently effective or effectively efficient? Hmmmm......

Takers?

In my mind it is no contest - efficiently effective.

It is always better to fail trying to do the right thing than to succeed doing the wrong thing.

Hawkeye,

You're fast. Are you living on this thing or what?:vfunny:

Which one was Coca Cola in 1985?

No, not living on this thing - just bored while I eat lunch.

What do you mean by "effectively efficient"?

I think the question might be would you rather be inefficiently effective or efficiently ineffective?

I'm done.:truce:

Very good line of thought!;)

What we need to do is to define parameters as to what is effective and what is efficient. Anything outside of defined parameters will need to be avoided. By avoiding the areas of in-efficiency and in-effectiveness we should be able to come to some reasonable conclusion/middle ground thats meets our needs as well as our customers, making us both more "profitable".

What do you think?

Randy said:

The "Big 3" were very effective in generating sales volume of their products in the 50's, 60's 70's and into the 80's, but then little old efficient Toyota started doing its thing.

To have long term effectiveness you need to be efficient, the opposite is not necessarily so.


I agree 100%....But sometimes we need to have short term effectiveness to have the opportunity for long term efficiency

You say potato, I say potato :vfunny:

Seems to me that effectiveness is all important in its very widest context. Having good efficiency certainly helps achieve effectiveness, we cannot be inefficient and effective as we would simply go bust, which is a pretty ineffective business if we consider the purpose of any business is surely to stay in business.

Gee now im doing it :biglaugh:

6MARINE stated: But sometimes we need to have short term effectiveness to have the opportunity for long term efficiency.

Continuing with the Big 3 -Vs- Toyota scenerio just a bit: Do any of you remember the quality of the first Toyota's in this country?

I would pose that both effectiveness AND efficiency need to continue to be evaluated/improved.

If Toyota had attempted to continue selling product in the states without measuring/monitoring the effectiveness of the product in the market, and increasing the efficiency at which it was being produced, they would have very quickly been out of the market.

In case no one has been watching, The Big 3 have continued to revise their products to make them more effective in the market, and have continued increasing production efficiencies to make them more competitive. It is only through this continuing process of ensuring marketing effectiveness with increasing efficiencies that any manufacturer can remain in business.

Then of course there's the case for watching out for "the better mouse trap" (lest we forget the buggy whip, Swiss mechanical watch movements, and many other industries that where so tunnel visioned that they didn't recognize the future as it approached).

ddhartma said:

I would pose that both effectiveness AND efficiency need to continue to be evaluated/improved.



I agree!

Randy said:

What we need to do is to define parameters as to what is effective and what is efficient.



I think the definitions in 9000 are way too simplistic. Let me try and provide more detail based on a couple of well know systems thinkers that support the idea that while both are important that effectiveness needs to be the first priority:

Deming - Efficiency of a system is similar to the mean performance of a process while effectiveness is similar to the variance of a process. In order to improve the efficiency of a system it must first be effective. Trying to improve the efficiency of an ineffective system is the same as trying to improve the performance of a process that is not under control.

Ackoff - Efficiency is to effectiveness as intelligence is to wisdom. It takes intelligence in order to know how and why a system works and to improve its efficiency while it takes wisdom to improve effectiveness. In order to improve effectiveness you not only have to understand how and why a system works today but you have to have the wisdom to understand what will make it work in the future.

I think both believe(d) that it takes good management to make a system more efficient but it takes leadership to make a system more effective.

Jim Wade said:

What then are the correct (or at least more realistic and helpful) definitions of the two words?



I would never claim the following are correct but they have been at least helpful to me:

Effectiveness = doing the right thing.

Efficiency = doing the thing right.

Twaddle Quotient = :confused:

NYHawkeye said:

Deming - Efficiency of a system is similar to the mean performance of a process while effectiveness is similar to the variance of a process. In order to improve the efficiency of a system it must first be effective. Trying to improve the efficiency of an ineffective system is the same as trying to improve the performance of a process that is not under control.

Ackoff - Efficiency is to effectiveness as intelligence is to wisdom. It takes intelligence in order to know how and why a system works and to improve its efficiency while it takes wisdom to improve effectiveness. In order to improve effectiveness you not only have to understand how and why a system works today but you have to have the wisdom to understand what will make it work in the future.

I think both believe(d) that it takes good management to make a system more efficient but it takes leadership to make a system more effective.

I think you're right.

This thread continues to be interesting and challenging.

Regards,

Kevin

Jim Wade said:

So I think I'd plump for ISO 9000's definition over yours (for 'effectiveness' at least; for 'efficiency', I dunno - brain hurts!)



Jim -

I think we are getting the heart of the matter now. Systems thinking and improving effectiveness are complex issues with no correct answers. ISO's definition of effectiveness is a little too simple for me...are you really effective as long as you get the planned result??? What if the planned result was misguided???

Efficiency, on the other hand, is a little more straight forward as long as you find a way to measure your results correctly and make sure you don't suboptimize the system for the sake of a single process improvement.

I think ISO 9001 is correct in taking the approach it does because it is very difficult to judge whether or not the objectives of a system are the "right" objectives in advance. Since it takes the ability to look into the future to be effective then effectiveness can only be judged after the fact.

My guess is that most companies are monitoring efficiency objectives in their QMS more than effectiveness objectives. Given the history of ISO 9000 this is probably very appropriate. I have personally been tasked to try and use our QMS to drive overall business process improvements, so I am struggling with how to make the objectives more effectiveness (strategic) based yet remain measurable, easy to understand, and auditable.

So.....how does this relate to inspection being value added? If you look at the world through efficiency glasses then I would guess you think inspection is a non-value added waste that must be eliminated. If you look at the world through effectiveness glasses and inspection is required for you to get the planned result then you might say inspection is value added.

I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle but it is not a simple question to answer.

"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand wrong answers".

GROSSMAN'S MISQUOTE OF H L MENCKEN

NYHawkeye said:

Jim -

I think we are getting the heart of the matter now. Systems thinking and improving effectiveness are complex issues with no correct answers.



Hawk,

I think you're going towards the direction I was pointing all along. To get here we just followed a pathway blazed by Plato way back when.

There is no absolute right or wrong way with systems, each organization has to establish its own meaning of effective and efficient. The establishment of individual guidelines should be backed by some type of "guidance principles" but ultimately the decision rests with the systems owner. Because of the uniqueness of systems when management system standard design theory (that's all ISO 9001 and those others are, design theory) in turned into reality, absoluteness is absent.

This is a great thread!!

The responses and thinking in this thread are outstanding. The days of having objectives of 100% on time delivery and 0 PPM are over. These objectives are expected.

What’s it all mean?

An effective QMS is one that meets and exceeds the requirements of the customer and still makes a profit. And how do you do that? By perpetually improving the efficiency of the product (or products used), process and system

My thoughts only

OK, my 2 cents worth...

QC vs. QA
Effectiveness vs. Efficiency

We can be effective and run a business, even make money. It is really the first thing we should strive for in a new business venture. Be effective, gain market share, maybe even inspect the crap out of product so we make the customer happy. We could operate this way forever, right?

But then, along comes the competion. Now, we have to learn how to be efficient. Cut those costs, bring our product/man hour up, save money by assuring that product is good. SPC vs. 100% inspection? In line non-destructive testing vs. off-line inspection? Reduce scrap loss, reuse, reduce, recycle. If we become efficient, our market share should go up because we can sell at a reduced price, making more customers happy and thus returning an even higher return on assets.

And so, IMHO QC does not add value, QA does; effectiveness is a stepping stone to efficiency.

But, as has been pointed out in the Cove, the majority of us are too immersed in ISO certification to understand how business works, and I have no higher education in business administration, so I may be all wrong. :confused: :ko: :p

OK, my 2 cents worth...

QC vs. QA
Effectiveness vs. Efficiency

We can be effective and run a business, even make money. It is really the first thing we should strive for in a new business venture. Be effective, gain market share, maybe even inspect the crap out of product so we make the customer happy. We could operate this way forever, right?

But then, along comes the competion. Now, we have to learn how to be efficient. Cut those costs, bring our product/man hour up, save money by assuring that product is good. SPC vs. 100% inspection? In line non-destructive testing vs. off-line inspection? Reduce scrap loss, reuse, reduce, recycle. If we become efficient, our market share should go up because we can sell at a reduced price, making more customers happy and thus returning an even higher return on assets.

And so, IMHO QC does not add value, QA does; effectiveness is a stepping stone to efficiency.

But, as has been pointed out in the Cove, the majority of us are too immersed in ISO certification to understand how business works, and I have no higher education in business administration, so I may be all wrong. :confused: :ko: :p

Hey Jim,

Well, I don’t know if there are broadly accepted definitions for either. I guess ISO’s might be that. But I think that what Dr. Deming and Russel Ackoff did was probably the best way for me to think of it: more on a concept level than as precise definitions.

Up until this thread, I had followed the definition presented by Peter Scholtes in The Leader’s Handbook. If memory serves, his interpretation was the direct influence of one of his contemporaries, quite possibly Ackoff. His comment was that one needs both to achieve the highest levels of results, or more specifically, profound results. Being Effective and Efficient meant doing the “right things right.” When I read that, it seemed to me to be right, so I adopted it.

From my perspective, the operational definition needs to be established when folks find themselves in disagreement when in fact they thought they did agree. Additionally, operational definitions need to be established when things can’t be left to interpretation. Plato may be right: no absolutes.

Kevin

6Marine,

What's it all mean?

Something different from person to person, I suppose. But hopefully, traditional definitions help to get folks to arrive to similar conclusions.

By the way, I agree with your assessment.

Kevin

SteelMaiden said:

We can be effective and run a business, even make money. It is really the first thing we should strive for in a new business venture. Be effective, gain market share, maybe even inspect the crap out of product so we make the customer happy. We could operate this way forever, right?

But then, along comes the competion. Now, we have to learn how to be efficient. Cut those costs, bring our product/man hour up, save money by assuring that product is good. SPC vs. 100% inspection? In line non-destructive testing vs. off-line inspection? Reduce scrap loss, reuse, reduce, recycle. If we become efficient, our market share should go up because we can sell at a reduced price, making more customers happy and thus returning an even higher return on assets.



Steel -

Excellent analysis - and very accurate it seems, especially looking at the early stages of a business.

The concern I have is the next step in the life cycle of a business. It seems that companies tend to get enamored with efficiency gains and take their eye off of redefining effectiveness as their markets and customers change. Eventually they may become very efficient but are very poor at meeting new and future customer needs.

Question - how many of you think it makes sense to try and tackle these types of abstract issues in the QMS? ISO 9001 seems to be one of the few standards out there that encourages a business to take a systems and process view of things. Is it too much to think one of the missions of the "Quality" function of the future might be to help guide the business by ensuring that a reasonable balance is maintained between efficiency and effectiveness?

M Greenaway said:

You say potato, I say potato :vfunny:

Seems to me that effectiveness is all important in its very widest context. Having good efficiency certainly helps achieve effectiveness, we cannot be inefficient and effective as we would simply go bust, which is a pretty ineffective business if we consider the purpose of any business is surely to stay in business.

Gee now im doing it :biglaugh:

I'll take mine without the ketchup.

Do you guys ever really take a step back and look at what you worry about? Seriously. Sorry, but I just had to get my 1 cents worth. Is this what is missing in my life? Effective-ineffectiveness-efficient-inefficient. Take a breath. And, before you get all incensed, I visit this thread a lot and I read it very carefully. Is this an intellectual exercise designed to weed out those that just can't get it? Another thread where we visit and just, somehow, come up short? Foregive me, but round and round we go. That's my take and I'm getting a headache. Okay?

If you suggest that we visit other threads less enlightening because we can't keep up, I'll dig it. I think that you are only ones "digging it".

A reminder: This thread is about Quality Control being a value/non-value. If it's about something else, maybe, just maybe, it belongs in the "Philosophy" thread. A place I avoid like the plague. It's all about intellectual mutual masturbation and not a place for those that, like me, are a cut below in the educational field!:rolleyes:

Cripes! You say potato, I say potato :vfunny: I like that!

:ko: :smokin:

I am actually with you on this one energy - hope my sarcasm wasnt too veiled.

By the way do you say tomato ?

M Greenaway said:

I am actually with you on this one energy - hope my sarcasm wasnt too veiled.

By the way do you say tomato ?

I say tomato as toe-may-toe. Do you say toe-mott-toe? Is it just as effective?
:vfunny: :agree: :smokin:

Jim Wade said:

But don't the misguided creators and purveyors of ISO 9001 undermine that apparent intent by telling us that we must seek to continually improve effectiveness while ignoring improvements of "overall performance and efficiency" (this latter held to be in the separate domain of ISO 9004)?



Jim -

I guess I don't read 9001 as being that black and white.

I agree that 9001 is not focused on efficiency improvements. I don't agree, however, that 9001 suggests that we should totally ignore overall performance and efficiency. To me 9001 is suggesting that other approaches such as 9004 or business performance standards should also be used in conjunction with 9001 (if management is interested).

I am not a quality professional but have been working in companies operating to the 1994 standard for many years. Many outside quality (and inside I suspect) view the 1994 standard as a joke - very little impact on business results and very isolated from the true issues facing companies. The 2000 standard seems like a decent step in the right direction but it appears to me that many in quality want to stay in the comfort zone of QC, QA, and maybe assisting with a manufacturing efficiency improvement every now and then. It will be a shame if the new standard is shot down by the very group that might have the most to gain.

Someone said it earlier in this thread - the efficiency gains should be "no brainers" for the quality function and they should not have to be stressed in the standard. Customers and companies are looking for more and maybe it is time for quality to step up. Maybe then we will see some CEOs coming from the quality function.:)

p.s - if we want to move this to the philosophy thread to keep the irritation levels down that is fine by me.

NYHawkeye said:

Jim -

I guess I don't read 9001 as being that black and white.

p.s - if we want to move this to the philosophy thread to keep the irritation levels down that is fine by me.

hawk,

I promise to keep my irritating flap shut if you decide to. This can go on for a fortnight. No disrespect intended. But, I'm also all for keeping it "real". :agree: :ko:

Hi All,

I agree with Energy. I think this thread took a detour and Socrates intervened. Jim Wade had the best go at answering the original question by the thread stater (MD) back at the end of Page three.
I would have used quotes but I did not know how to grab the relevant quotes from the different pages.

I don't know why I keep returning to this page - it must be the masochist in me. Do we have a fishing thread??? We should have.

Have a Happy Easter.


Greg B :rolleyes

I used the same style here as I do in the courses I instruct. My purpose was to get the juices flowing and people out of the rut where they exist. Too many times functional area professionals (like quality, environmental, financial, and others) don't, cannot or refuse to look beyond their own little fifedoms, knowledge and experience when trying to find solutions for issues. That was starting to happen here as in other threads. Follow the flow of the conversation and you'll see what I mean. We escaped the pure Q krap and started to come up with solutions.

Jim Wade said:

Hey, energy! We could learn a lot from Greg. He sees good not only in me (pretty easy and obvious, I have to admit ;) ) but also in you.

Talk about a broad church! The guy's a genius!

rgds Jim

What'd you expect? He's from Australia. Like a few other Aussie Bloke members, they cut right to the chase. However, his discernible eye for talent appears to be his strong suit. :vfunny: Now, I'm leaving this thread because Monday is a different day and I hate wearing head gear!
:ko: :smokin:

energy said:

hawk,

I promise to keep my irritating flap shut if you decide to.



Sounds fine to me. I'll go back to lurking and maybe pick up a tidbit of "real" information now and then.

These forums have helped me get through a 9001-2000 audit over the past year and come up to speed on some quality issues.

As an outsider to quality I don't have a lot to add on the nuts and bolts issues but I enjoy the type of discussions Randy talks about in his post above. It looks like the walls of this silo are very thick and few are willing to think beyond the wonderful world of quality.

Maybe that is why there is so much consternation regarding 9001-2000 because if it is implemented broadly the walls of the silo might require a few windows!

:bigwave:

Hey Hawk....

If you can't find a window, knock a few holes in the stinkin' walls!!

Randy said:

That was starting to happen here as in other threads. Follow the flow of the conversation and you'll see what I mean. We escaped the pure Q krap and started to come up with solutions.

Solutions? To what.? Looked another mensa meeting to me and a few others. Has nothing to do with real answers to anything. More like a dog chasing it's tail. Round and round he goes. Rather than lurk or sulk, start a new thread called Outside the Silo.
:vfunny: :smokin:

energy said:

More like a dog chasing it's tail. Round and round he goes.



OK - I won't lurk (or even sulk), this is too interesting to give up at this point.

The dog seemed to be chasing it's tail well before this thread took a diversion.

Many questions such as this one aren't black and white, right or wrong. IMO the best you can do with these is either not ask them or at least try and understand one another's viewpoint and challenge yourself and each other a little.

While the discussion of effectiveness and efficiency can get a little circular at times I believe that the discussion is/was useful and can shed some new light on 9001 and the role Quality can play in the larger scheme of managing a business.

NYHawkeye said:

While the discussion of effectiveness and efficiency can get a little circular at times I believe that the discussion is/was useful and can shed some new light on 9001 and the role Quality can play in the larger scheme of managing a business.

Exactly;)

Quality doesn't exist on its own and definitley not in a vacume. Everything (function, activity, process, whatever) in an organization is linked somewhere and somehow. When we start addressing becoming more efficient or more effective there are ripples that will effect other business aspects that may be negative in nature causing a subsequent reduction in the gain we were trying to achieve. The goal should be to look at the "WHOLE" picture with panoramic vision (planning of process so to speak) instead of through a soda straw (just thinking of the "Q" aspect alone).

Real good thinking Hawk
:agree:

Randy said:

Exactly;)

Quality doesn't exist on its own and definitley not in a vacume. Everything (function, activity, process, whatever) in an organization is linked somewhere and somehow. When we start addressing becoming more efficient or more effective there are ripples that will effect other business aspects that may be negative in nature causing a subsequent reduction in the gain we were trying to achieve. The goal should be to look at the "WHOLE" picture with panoramic vision (planning of process so to speak) instead of through a soda straw (just thinking of the "Q" aspect alone).

Real good thinking Hawk
:agree:

Read it carefully and please tell me what it says! :bonk:

Randy said:

I used the same style here as I do in the courses I instruct. My purpose was to get the juices flowing and people out of the rut where they exist. Too many times functional area professionals (like quality, environmental, financial, and others) don't, cannot or refuse to look beyond their own little fifedoms, knowledge and experience when trying to find solutions for issues.

Well, why didn't you say so? If I thought for one minute I was being instructed and the professors were trying to get our collective "juices" flowing, assuming I was one of those special people that can look beyond my knowledge and experience and "get it", I would have been more appreciative of this "little circular" discussion. Well, hesh my mouf! No sense in stinking up the place. Pwew! Is that me?:vfunny: :ko: :smokin: