I was just rereading George Orwell's famous 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language" (you can read it here: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html) and got to thinking about the quality profession in general, and quality policies in particular. We all know that most, if not all ISO-mandated quality policies are nothing more that motherhood statements at best, and fatuous gobbeldygook at worst. The only purpose they serve in most instances is satisfaction of the ISO requirement, which is the worst possible reason for having a policy. In the essay, Orwell said, "Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." If you leave out the part about murder, you have a perfect description of quality policies.
So why not just get rid of the word "quality," as its nebulous and subjective definitions seem to be the pleasing facade covering all manner of heinous industrial dishonesty? In the essay Orwell makes an example of the word "democracy," which in many ways is the political equivalent of "quality":
"In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."
And so every manufacturer, without regard for the actual state of his products, will make a claim for quality, and because the word has become functionally meaningless, it is impossible to argue against such claims.
If we banish "quality" from the lexicon, how shall we replace it? There happens to be a perfect substitute, one that by definition includes an assurance of fitness for use (which is what we usually mean by "quality," I think). I am referring to efficacy. It's well known in the medical and pharmaceutical worlds. It means "having the ability to perform as expected or as desiged." Something that works as it's supposed to is efficacious. If you make high-quality medical devices that kill patients, you can't say that they're efficacious. And you quality policy can't be referred to as having efficacy if it doesn't contribute materially to the efficacy of your products.
I have no illusions about actually getting rid of "quality." It's just to easy too abuse the word and seem like you're doing something worthwhile. It's the naked emperor's coat of many colors.But if we don't rage against the dying of the light, we'll all be stumbling around in the darkness, bumping into one another while mumbling something about enhancing core competencies or leveraging best practices in order to facilitate a new paradigm. And there's no efficacy in that.
So why not just get rid of the word "quality," as its nebulous and subjective definitions seem to be the pleasing facade covering all manner of heinous industrial dishonesty? In the essay Orwell makes an example of the word "democracy," which in many ways is the political equivalent of "quality":
"In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different."
And so every manufacturer, without regard for the actual state of his products, will make a claim for quality, and because the word has become functionally meaningless, it is impossible to argue against such claims.
If we banish "quality" from the lexicon, how shall we replace it? There happens to be a perfect substitute, one that by definition includes an assurance of fitness for use (which is what we usually mean by "quality," I think). I am referring to efficacy. It's well known in the medical and pharmaceutical worlds. It means "having the ability to perform as expected or as desiged." Something that works as it's supposed to is efficacious. If you make high-quality medical devices that kill patients, you can't say that they're efficacious. And you quality policy can't be referred to as having efficacy if it doesn't contribute materially to the efficacy of your products.
I have no illusions about actually getting rid of "quality." It's just to easy too abuse the word and seem like you're doing something worthwhile. It's the naked emperor's coat of many colors.But if we don't rage against the dying of the light, we'll all be stumbling around in the darkness, bumping into one another while mumbling something about enhancing core competencies or leveraging best practices in order to facilitate a new paradigm. And there's no efficacy in that.
Last edited:
