posted 13 February 1999 08:38 AM               

This posting relates to several recent threads, such as Zero Defects and its proponents, Poka Yoke, etc.

I do not have experience either teaching or implementing Deming "philosophy" in an organizational context, and perhaps that gives me an advantage in evaluating the relations between Defects and Systems.

For me Donald Wheeler's distinction between "the voice of the customer" and "the voice of the process" is "intuitive".

When I buy an item I want it to have zero defects, in that I want it to meet all its specifications so that I can "know" what I have bought. It is admirable of organizations if they can provide me with such conforming goods.

But it is not _all_ that I want of a manufacturer, retailer, service organization, etc. I want the product to work _better_ than its specification. I want the specification to represent what I "know" about the product, that which I am willing to admit is within the capabilities of the product, but this does not set a limit on what I would _like_ from the product. If two products both conform to the same specifications, but B is nevertheless _better_ than A, then I want B.

But moreover I want a manufacturer, retailer, service organization, etc., to _surprise_ me. I do not want to always know ahead of time what my world has in store for me tomorrow. I am not a big fanatic of electronic gadgets; it is especially in service that I want to be surprised, or in door hinges, or in shockingly low prices, or in unexpected applications, or whatnot.

And I don't know what else.

It seems to me that the only clear statement that comes out of my "mouth" here, as a customer, is that I want the product to conform to its specification, but on top of that there is unsaid or vaguely said an array of expectations that have very little to do with specifications. A manufacturer, retailer, service organization, etc., to "win" must satisfy these expectations. The presence or absence of defects is simply easier to verbalize, _not more important_ than other aspects.

And perhaps there is a simplifying framework in which "meeting specifications" comes about as a consequence of meeting my expectations in general. Maybe Shewhart, Deming, Wheeler, etc., formulated such a framework.

Deming, in particular, seems to have emphasized that the organization should _exist_ to do more than what is easy to verbalize, such as "meet specifications", "make a yearly profit", etc. Again, maybe it helps that I am not a manager or consultant. I can see that I want more than that out of a human life -- that to me a person should do more than live up to prior expectations, that no one should live solely to maximize his or her monetary profit, etc. Not being associated with running a corporation, I can afford to say that I don't want corporations to exist, in general, if that's to be "all" that they are to be about. If corporations aren't to be more than that, then maybe we should eliminate them from our society rather than figure out how to make them more efficient. They are, after all, creations of convention, and in principle we can change the conventions. But even then we would have to fill the void with _some_ kind of communal "being". I do not object in general to meeting expectations, making profits, etc., _personally or communally_, but I do object to having these as _personal or communal_ life aims.

I do not believe I am that unusual in expecting "more" out of life than meeting goals, making profits, etc. I'm not politically radical, and I have money in stocks and bonds and so forth, and I want my money to grow, etc., but some things are just easier to say than others. I suspect that there is a widespread unvoiced expectation that organizations should do more than meet specifications, make profits, etc. They should help make the world a better place in which to live, for otherwise why bother having them?

Does much in the way of "public relations" and exist to give the _impression_ that a company makes the world a better place? If so, then does this present evidence that people besides me want the "real thing"?

Etc.

Barry Schwartz
Pioneer Software Development, Inc.
work: schwartz@pioneer-software.com
home: Barry.Schwartz@acm.org
-------End Snip-------

Comments, anyone.

posted 22 March 1999 12:24 PM               

Ansel Adams

Marc,

That question always gives me angst. I generally try to sum it up something like this: What the customer needs when he needs it, every time. But even that is subjective. Note I stated NEEDS, not WANTS. He wants a toaster, but he needs a toaster that works as expected, has a long functional life and give him value (more toaster for the buck sorta thing), etc.

He WANTS a car, but NEEDS personal, reliable transportation.
He WANTS medical treatment, but he NEEDS diagnosis and possibly cured.
He WANTS a cell phone, but he NEEDS portable, reliable communication.
He WANTS a new ignition module for an â89 Ford Tempo, but he NEEDS a fully functional one (personal example. ARGHHHHHHHH!).

And so on. Sorta like the symptom/problem thing. That is part of the reason I try to stay away from the generic definitions offered by the popular press and gurus for the classes I give. I ask the attendees to offer their definitions and I try to illustrate a case example based upon their inputs. But one thing I personally believe is definite: Quality is defined by the customer, regardless of the product.

This Îdefinitionâ thing is also part of the reasoning for me (as yourself, I believe) trying to use a systems and process approach in a Quality Management System. Defining quality as inspection to specifications is, IMHO, silly. Measuring 5 out of every 100 widgets and issuing a Îdeclarationâ (read C of C) the product is Îqualityâ is waste. I think I have mentioned this before, but here I go again:

Quality is not inspection. Quality is not customer surveys. Quality is not conformance to requirements. Quality is not ÎThe totality of features·.ä Quality is not having control charts posted at inspection stations and declaring the process controlled. Quality is not a registration stamp issued by some third party. Quality is not having employees meeting the third Thursday of every other month except on a full moon and holidays and calling it a Quality Circle. Quality is not mass training in statistical techniques. Quality is all of these and quality is none of these.

Just the ramblings of an old wizard warrior.

posted 22 March 1999 03:00 PM               

I saw this while browsing the DEN. My initial thoughts centered about this statement made by Barry Schwartz.

Barry states: "It seems to me that the only clear statement that comes out of my "mouth" here, as a customer, is that I want the product to conform to its specification, but on top of that there is unsaid or vaguely said an array of expectations that have very little to do with specifications. A manufacturer, retailer, service organization, etc., to "win" must satisfy these expectations. The presence or absence of defects is simply easier to verbalize, _not more important_ than other aspects."

The verbiage used by Barry still leaves me a bit confused so my intpretation may be inaccurate, but the conclusion I arrive to is that he isn't easily pleased. Building to specifications, in this case, speaks to the product requirements as determined by Marketing. If Marketing creates an innovative design concept, then how can the Customer know in advance what the specifications are? They can't. Meeting requirements is not enough, especially in the future of an organization. This is driving by the review mirror and what Deming warns against. While Barry may be very satisfied with a product, what keeps him loyal to the manufacturer? I ask this understanding that a satisfied customer is not a loyal customer, one who will return every time to buy from you (the one you have delighted by exceeding the expectations). While many organizations live comfortably off the innovation of other organizations, do they contribute anything more? Perhaps their only contribution is to keep the leader in the industry...innovative. These are the folks who do not live to specifications, they create and define them.

As for defining Quality...I agree with you. The whole definition thing grows tediously mundane in the industry (perhaps QS program documentation is to blame here). Let each define it for themself.

As I have read here many times, defining Quality, which Guru's QS to deploy, or "which" is better than "what" should be left to the individual. The input of anyone, gurus or Cove contributors, should be weighed against the options and the situation. Enough of my ramble.

posted 22 March 1999 09:12 PM               

quote:

---

Building to specifications, in this case, speaks to the product requirements as determined by Marketing. If Marketing creates an innovative design concept, then how can the Customer know in advance what the specifications are?

---

Kevin,

I could not agree more. When someone speaks about Îbuilding to specificationsâ just bring up software as the subject. What are the specifications for Windows 98 and is it up to specs?

I bring this up, not a criticism of Windows, just to make a point, which is:

quote:

---

...is that I want the product to conform to its specification, but on top of that there is unsaid or vaguely said an array of expectations that have very little to do with specifications.

---

What specification? What expectations? Are the bugs (many so far I have seen) part of the specification? Is 5% of code acceptable as 'nonconforming?

quote:

---

Let each define it for themselves.

---

I preach this over and over. Can any one single model fulfill the Îone size fits allâ paradigm. I think not. You hit the nail on the head.

quote:

---

The input of anyone, gurus or Cove contributors, should be weighed against the options and the situation.

---

I have said it over and over, as you well know. Do not read what people said they said, read what they said. Then decide what is appropriate.

posted 23 March 1999 10:32 AM               

Kevin & Don,

Maybe I'm still too new to these ideas, 5 months in "quality", but is it that subjective? As I read and listen to you & others that are veterans in this field it seems that things get fuzzier. Is there not an objective to put before managment, employees, customers, suppliers, and ourselves that we can strive for? Quality and excellance is something to strive for, even as we at times settle for less. I know there is alot of good things being done by folks posting to these boards, but sometimes these heavy discussions are almost depressing. They do make me think about the issues though, even if I don't post often. I appreciate the big picture discussions as well as the more focused forum.

Now I'm rambling. Just want to know there is something to grasp a hold of in quality.

posted 23 March 1999 12:25 PM               

You ask a very good question for being in the field for such a short time. What is the aim of an organization regarding Quality?

First, what follows is my opinion, so careful reading. I project a bunch here.

I would suggest reading Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming. Just reading through chapter three will give you great insight to your question: "Is there not an objective to put before managment, employees, customers, suppliers, and ourselves that we can strive for?". Remember as you read, this is one guru's opinion and may not suit all your needs. I think you will find several objectives listed within Deming's 14 Points and 7 Deadly Sins. IMHO, these are the best set of objectives, but they aren't the only ones.

But don't stop there. Keep reading. Read on other gurus (Juran, Crosby, Fiegenbaum, Taguchi, Iami are favorites of mine) and perhaps a few of the folks the gurus warn against (Drucker come to mind). This helps to keep you objective when making your decision on how you want to perceive "Quality". Quality is what you make of it. Borrow from what you learn, invent how you recognize Quality. Keep in mind that this may differ from how an organization, perhaps even your own, views Quality. In these circumstances, you need to find a way to work the organizational agenda while working your own.

What can you grasp a hold of in Quality? Well, everyone wants it at some level. Can you ever know the limits? I don't think so, but that is where the 'subjectivity' of Quality is born. It is also what I find that drives me. Trying to find perfection, the perfect Quality solution, not really concerned if I ever really find it or not. My guess: I won't. It is in the journey, at least for me.

Now Quality as an organizational aim. Who defines this in your organization? The president? The Quality Manager? The Customer does. So how many Customers does your organization have (subjectivity)? Are their needs all the same? The trick it trying to determine the key driving forces that your Customers find important. What satisfies your Customer? Price, conformance to specifications, meeting expectations? What makes your Customers loyal to you (going beyond expectations)? What you find today maybe different tomorrow. Don't worry. That's job security of a sort. Quality constantly evolves, so that is why definitions are inaccurate, even at the vaguest levels. They deal with what we already now today, not what the future holds.

Well now. That was kind of refreshing for me. Time to turn it over to the group. Perhaps this is the topic to bring you out into the forum more regularly?

posted 23 March 1999 01:07 PM               

quote:

---

·but is it that subjective?

---

Yes, it is. Granted some concepts are universal, but most are subjective. Statistical concepts are universal. How these concepts need to be applied are subjective. ÎQualityâ is a moving target and customer focused. It is defined by the customer and developed by an organization to meet or exceed the customerâs needs.

quote:

---

As I read and listen to you & others that are veterans in this field it seems that things get fuzzier.

---

As stated above, there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. Everyone (including myself) thinks they know what Îqualityâ is, but when asked to actually define it and apply that definition, things get murky (including myself). I equate it to Îpushing a rope.â It can be done, but not easily. BTW, do not equate Îveteransâ with Îexperts.â As for myself, I am NOT an expert, just a humble practitioner.

quote:

---

Is there not an objective to put before managment, employees, customers, suppliers, and ourselves that we can strive for?

---

Yes. It is defined by you and your organization based on customerâs needs. The point I try to make is that any single model is probably less than appropriate. ISO 9000, in and of itself, is as stated in the document; a quality Îmodel.â No more, no less. Does an ISO 9000 system mean quality product? Does it mean increased efficiency? Increased profit? Increased customer satisfaction? Or QS 9000 for that matter. Or Deming, Crosby, Slater, Juran or the host of others. I think they all would be the first to admit that the system must be right for the organization, they are all just Îmodels.â Your objective may be ÎZero Defectsâ (I know Kevin, but I had to have some example). That is fine. Now, you strive for Zero Defects. But, HOW you achieve this is up to you. Your objective may be ISO9000, QS 9000, or whatever. The same thing goes, it is up to you how.

Before implementing any Quality Management System, questions of this type must be asked and answered. What is your Îobjective?â A companyâs first priority is to stay in business. It does this by making money. It makes money by selling product and reducing waste. It sells product by defining, supplying and pleasing customers. It pleases customers by giving them what they need. It reduces waste by defining areas of potential improvement and improving them, continuously. For example, Crosbyâs Îconformance to requirementsâ concept. Whose requirements? Satisfy just yours and the customer may not be pleased. Satisfy just the customerâs and shareholders may not be pleased. Satisfy both yours and your customerâs and most will probably be pleased.

quote:

---

They do make me think about the issues though·

---

Good. I like to think that if I can get someone to think about these types of things, then that, at least, is something.

quote:

---

Just want to know there is something to grasp a hold of in quality.

---

Of all the things I could have put here, I thought of this.

ãThose who enter the quality field must be open of mind and fiery of spirit, for the task before you is immense.ä

posted 24 March 1999 08:58 AM               

You brought up a group that I often overlook, the shareholder. An interesting group at that.

Is this why Management by Numbers was created? Keep the shareholder happy by fluffing the numbers? Hmmm? Got me thinking. Dangerous! I could short out here at my desk. 911........

posted 24 March 1999 11:52 AM               

quote:

---

Keep the shareholder happy by fluffing the numbers?

---

Yea, that falls under Îdoing the wrong thing for the right reason.â I mention shareholders because, like yourself and myself, many often overlook them. But, they are an integral portion of the system. And systems management is a key ingredient to the overall stew, so to speak.

quote:

---

Got me thinking.

---

Then you are going to LOVE this. Now the standard disclaimer: The quality of an organization IS defined by the customer. With that said, the quality of an organization is NOT established by the customer. That is our job. Done correctly, the customer gets what he needs. Done incorrectly he may or may not get what he wants. There is an old adage: ÎThe Customer is Always Right.â Baloney!! The customer is not always right. BUT, he is always the customer! When asked the value of pre-market surveys, Deming once replied, ãWhy ask him. What does he know.ä His point might have been that a customer may know what he wants but customer NEEDS are our job. But since the original source of that quote is lost in the fog of time, I am not sure. But, that is why I try to draw a distinction between WANTS and NEEDS (see above).

There are those that would focus on customer wants so intently they would drive the organization to the brink of extinction. I have seen it before and I see it now. But these are the same folks that see a system as a sum of its parts, which is not true. I will try to expound this at another time.

Linear thinkers would have you believe that in order to capture new market share, you must try to meet EVERY customerâs wants. Systems or circular thinkers realize that 20% of those potential customers will be 80% of your base and plan a strategy accordingly.

I guess what I am trying to say is that to concentrate on any singular portion of a system without regard to the rest of the components of that system is doomed to failure, with the degree of that failure proportional to the lack of concentration on the balance of the components. Keep gas in a car, but do not maintain the engine and there is engine failure. Maintain the engine without fuel, and how far will you travel. Maintain fuel and engine maintenance but ignore the drive train, and what happens. Etc, Etc. Concentrate only on shareholderâs needs leads to ÎManagement by Numbersâ which is not good. Concentrate only on customerâs wants leads to ÎManagement without regard to Numbersâ which is not good. Concentrate on both but ignore the organizationâs culture and what happens?

Systems knowledge is critical. Profound knowledge is critical. Where does that lead us? Demingâs System of Profound Knowledge. As a quality professional, I have believed that a circular view is needed. But sometimes I find myself so embroiled in a discussion of Îconformance to requirementsâ and Îrightâ versus Îwrongâ my thinking becomes linear, which I try to avoid with a passion.

Just the ramblings of an old wizard warrior.

BTW, thanks also, Batman.

Regards,
Don

posted 24 March 1999 01:24 PM               

I am trying to remember a posting in the DEN files by Myron. He had a bulls eye target that was pretty interesting. It eludes to the several layers within an organization, all the systems within the whole. I thought that it was a pretty neat perspective. To your point, all things must be considered. The trick: knowing what to keep and what to throw away (I think the Vital Few prevails here). I only hope that I can reasonably achieve finding, what is for me, the answer to that question. I am still in the building stages, amassing information, ideas for my strategy. I'll let you know how it turns out.........say in twenty years or so.

Regards,

posted 24 February 2000 09:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Mader:

...I'll let you know how it turns out.........say in twenty years or so...

---