Tim Folkerts
17th March 2004, 06:35 PM
“quality”: meeting customer expectations; doing the right things right; lack of variation.
“Quality”: the collection of documents, people, and procedures in place to encourage and ensure that processes are correctly performed and procedures are correctly followed; the infrastructure and culture for doing things right.
Below are a few random musings from an “outsider” – a scientist by training, an educator by profession, a recent CQE & CRE by self-study. I have lurked here for a while and occasionally posted. I see certain themes and issues related to “Quality” and “quality” tied through many different threads.
“Quality” and “quality” are both important. They are symbiotic – neither one thriving without the other.
“Quality” should be a means of achieving “quality”, not an end unto itself. The greatest procedures in the world won’t actually improve “quality”.
“quality” is not simply about reducing variation or adding features. It is only “quality” if the changes are of some use to the customer.
ISO9000 provides guidelines related to “Quality”. In the right hands, it empowers an organization; in the wrong hands, it hopelessly bogs down an organization.
Effective “Quality” improvement requires leadership and management skills. Effective “quality” improvement requires technical and statistical skills. Few people excel at both. This dichotomy produces challenges within companies and within ASQ.
Six Sigma ties in strongly to both “Quality” and “quality”. Proponents of 6S see Black Belts as masters of both, driving improvements in both “Quality” and quality” throughout an organization. Opponents believe that responsibility for both “Quality” and “quality” becomes too concentrated, rather than ingrained into the culture of the organization. (Sort of like the debates about Reagan’s “trickle-down” theory of economics.)
Deming’s 14 Points address “Quality”. When properly applied, they free an organization to effectively pursue “quality”.
The recent thread recommending that people stop referring to the “ISO900 Manual” and instead speak about “our Quality Management Plan” speaks volumes. Both “Quality” and “quality” need to be part of a company’s culture, not viewed as regulations imposed by an outside authority.
Many other threads deal with interpreting specific clauses of ISO9000 and other standards. Why does “Quality” need to be so difficult? If “Quality” is so complicated that even quality professionals don’t understand it, what hope is there for management or line workers to embrace it?
In a recent thread, people discussed whether they considered themselves in “quality control” or “quality assurance”. Interestingly, these are both basically the same leg of Juran’s Quality Trilogy -- nobody said they were in “quality planning” or “quality improvement”.
“Quality” is much more generic and can be applied broadly across different companies and different industries. “quality” requires specific knowledge of the products and processes. Unfortunately, the people in an organization involved with “Quality” often don’t get involved with “quality”. Those involved with “quality” often don’t get involved with “Quality”.
Similar issues develop in many fields: “Labor” vs. “labor”, “Legal System” vs. “justice”, “Education” vs. “education”, “Health Care System” vs. “health”. Each of these pairs should be aimed toward common goals. Whenever the means overshadow the ends, whenever the process overshadows the results, big troubles are in store. (ASQ as an organization seems to be falling into this trap, becoming the “Voice Of Quality”, rather than the “voice of quality professionals”.)
Finally, keep in mind that “Quality” and “quality” are two very different things. Most people think “quality” when they hear the word. Most quality professionals think “Quality”. This can easily lead to people talking past each other, which in turn inhibits any true communication, understanding and progress.
Time to put on the asbestos underwear :ca: to prepare for the heat this will generate :mad:
Tim
“Quality”: the collection of documents, people, and procedures in place to encourage and ensure that processes are correctly performed and procedures are correctly followed; the infrastructure and culture for doing things right.
Below are a few random musings from an “outsider” – a scientist by training, an educator by profession, a recent CQE & CRE by self-study. I have lurked here for a while and occasionally posted. I see certain themes and issues related to “Quality” and “quality” tied through many different threads.
“Quality” and “quality” are both important. They are symbiotic – neither one thriving without the other.
“Quality” should be a means of achieving “quality”, not an end unto itself. The greatest procedures in the world won’t actually improve “quality”.
“quality” is not simply about reducing variation or adding features. It is only “quality” if the changes are of some use to the customer.
ISO9000 provides guidelines related to “Quality”. In the right hands, it empowers an organization; in the wrong hands, it hopelessly bogs down an organization.
Effective “Quality” improvement requires leadership and management skills. Effective “quality” improvement requires technical and statistical skills. Few people excel at both. This dichotomy produces challenges within companies and within ASQ.
Six Sigma ties in strongly to both “Quality” and “quality”. Proponents of 6S see Black Belts as masters of both, driving improvements in both “Quality” and quality” throughout an organization. Opponents believe that responsibility for both “Quality” and “quality” becomes too concentrated, rather than ingrained into the culture of the organization. (Sort of like the debates about Reagan’s “trickle-down” theory of economics.)
Deming’s 14 Points address “Quality”. When properly applied, they free an organization to effectively pursue “quality”.
The recent thread recommending that people stop referring to the “ISO900 Manual” and instead speak about “our Quality Management Plan” speaks volumes. Both “Quality” and “quality” need to be part of a company’s culture, not viewed as regulations imposed by an outside authority.
Many other threads deal with interpreting specific clauses of ISO9000 and other standards. Why does “Quality” need to be so difficult? If “Quality” is so complicated that even quality professionals don’t understand it, what hope is there for management or line workers to embrace it?
In a recent thread, people discussed whether they considered themselves in “quality control” or “quality assurance”. Interestingly, these are both basically the same leg of Juran’s Quality Trilogy -- nobody said they were in “quality planning” or “quality improvement”.
“Quality” is much more generic and can be applied broadly across different companies and different industries. “quality” requires specific knowledge of the products and processes. Unfortunately, the people in an organization involved with “Quality” often don’t get involved with “quality”. Those involved with “quality” often don’t get involved with “Quality”.
Similar issues develop in many fields: “Labor” vs. “labor”, “Legal System” vs. “justice”, “Education” vs. “education”, “Health Care System” vs. “health”. Each of these pairs should be aimed toward common goals. Whenever the means overshadow the ends, whenever the process overshadows the results, big troubles are in store. (ASQ as an organization seems to be falling into this trap, becoming the “Voice Of Quality”, rather than the “voice of quality professionals”.)
Finally, keep in mind that “Quality” and “quality” are two very different things. Most people think “quality” when they hear the word. Most quality professionals think “Quality”. This can easily lead to people talking past each other, which in turn inhibits any true communication, understanding and progress.
Time to put on the asbestos underwear :ca: to prepare for the heat this will generate :mad:
Tim
