Philip Crosby vs. The Deming Philosophy

[Bryon C Simmons]

Good thread.

I recently had a quality issue at a customer( heaven forbid, but it happened). This happened at an international customer site. We happen to have a subsidiary plant of ours, about two miles away..we sent personnel from there to investigate. As it turned out, there was a small amount of product that had been assemble incorrectly. Long story short, the design guy at our plant there, got a lecture form the manufacturing engineers at the customer, on the IMPORTANCE of inspection at the end of our assembly lines. He relayed this information to me.......which launched me on a tirade of pro-deming, anti-inspection philosophy. I basically have cut the inspection processes (and the costs associated with it), by about 75% since my arrival at my current job. We have re-directed those energies, (and funds) into poka-yoke techniques in design and manufacture. Anyway, I ended my spiel by challenging to compare our costs of inspection, vs. customer rejects, (before my arrival), to the costs of prevention, and the subsequent reduction of customer problems, (after my arrival). By the way, the particular product which was a problem, had NO poka-yoke in the process, which was a failure of the system.

Deming???? You bet. Works for me. Prevention is the only thing that makes sense. It is disheartening to see, (again) that the old Taylor stuff is still alive and well in our midst.

Bryon

 

[Don Winton]

Bryon

the design guy at our plant there, got a lecture from the manufacturing engineers at the customer, on the IMPORTANCE of inspection at the end of our assembly lines.

I get this all the time. When it becomes totally irritating, I usually give the “giddy girl” test. You know, a story where you count the “g’s” with those being “defects.” After completion, usually most only get about 85% correct. Then I drop this:

If your inspection techniques are 85% effective, that is normally considered normal, right? Most replies, “Yea, but it could be better.” Then I ask, “Well, what is acceptable?” I then get something to the effect that 90-95% (any 100% answers are dismissed for reasons I have covered in other threads) would be considered acceptable. Then I drop this:

OK. We have decided that 95% effectiveness is acceptable. Under the assumption that 1000 items are inspected at 95% effectiveness, what is the probability that a product may ship with a defect? Blank stares. Then I demonstrate:

0.95^1000 = 5.29e-23. In other words, in 1000 opportunities, it is a virtual certainty that some product will ship with some nonconformity.

I readily admit that the devil is in the details. The above is not precisely correct, but it makes an impression.

Prevention is the only thing that makes sense.

Agreed. By implementing prevention, it raises the probability through redundancy. When effective prevention is implemented, effective inspection is not required.

Regards,
Don

 

[Kevin Mader]

Don,

Nobody looking for 100% effectiveness. I wonder why? What was it that Deming said? "Living in a world of defective product, as if it were necessary" (or something close). Inspection has it points, but catching product at the end of the line is "too late"! Nice diiscovery learning techniques applied (giddy girl). Nothing more concrete than learning by practical experience.

 

[Don Winton]

Inspection has it points, but catching product at the end of the line is "too late"!

Yea, Deming put is something like this: "Evacuating the hotel after the fire has started is not improvement." I am probably paraphrasing, but the point is still there. The hotel still burns.

Nice discovery learning techniques applied (giddy girl).

You would be surprised (maybe not) at the frustration managers exhibit when given this test. Especially when I am screaming over their shoulder "why ain't you done yet!" and interupting every few minutes asking what is the status of so-and-so project. (simulating a typical production environment).

Regards,
Don

 

[Batman]

Terrific thread. You guys said it all.

May I propose a favorite tool of mine that identifies INPUTS and facilitates control of causes - the FMEA. If I was to identify my biggest hurdle in managing quality, it would be bringing folks on board regarding the differences between causes and effects. A well done FMEA can help in this effort. Until a couple of years ago, we brought on new projects using FMEA development - flow diagram first, inputs/outputs, sources of variation, CAUSES and effects - as the most important single method of identifying potential and then "controlling" (eliminating when possible) causes. We also used past FMEA's as a tool in continuous improvement / problem solving efforts. We always started out with the idea that defects were unacceptable.


Can someone email me the "giddy girl" thing? I used to have a "fowl farmer" thing that I used to use in my classes, but I seem to have misplaced it. Thanks again.

 

[Don Winton]

Batman,

May I propose a favorite tool of mine that identifies INPUTS and facilitates control of causes - the FMEA.

Agreed, but there are other methods, Slater’s book, Integrated Process Management, identifies these. That is not to say whether one is better or superior over the other, just there is an alternative to the standard FMEA method. Your method of identifying INPUTS rather than OUTPUTS is an excellent method of systems improvement.

Can someone email me the "giddy girl" thing?

I have a Word 6.0 copy at work. Will send Monday. BTW, I have other versions of this test that I will attach as well. Some are more effective that others when getting the point across.

I particularly like interrupting the test takers asking “look into this” or “what is the status of” type of stuff while test taking. Simulates what inspectors experience and gives MANAGERS what they are expecting of their inspectors.

Regards,
Don

 

[Kevin Mader]

Don,

I have always enjoyed the discovery based learning approach. The realizations that are achieved outperform the* mere teacher-desk-pupil paradigm of learning (at least for me). The interuptions you insert into your practical learning methods epitomize real case settings. This test illustrates the paradigm of "Zero Defects" very well.

Batman,

The FMEA is a great tool for Risk Analysis. Big in the automotive world, lesser known in the Medical Device world (Essential Requirements). Either way, each serves the same purpose, elimination of potential risks (Prevention). It appears that your folks are utilizing several of the Statistical Tools. Good stuff! Statistical Thinking was a large part of Deming's world.

 

[Don Winton]

I have always enjoyed the discovery based learning approach.

Yea, you should see the stuff I get when I do the ‘Match’ test. The concept is communication. I ask the class to instruct me, without any prior knowledge whatsoever, to instruct me, in a written instruction, how to light a match. If you have any other examples, do share.

...lesser known in the Medical Device world...

Kevin, if you have experience in the Medical Device arena, do share. I am currently doing the same thing at my current employer (see Medical Device forum) and your inputs would be valuable.

For those interested, a variation on the ‘giddy girl’ test:

Fallacy Of 100% Inspection

Exercise:
º Count the letter “E” in the three paragraphs inside the frame
º Total and record the number
º You have 5 minutes to complete the exercise

SUPPLY OF OXYGEN AND REMOVAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE RARELY ARE CONSTRAINTS FOR AIR VOLUME; THE MOST COMMON CONSTRAINTS ARE ODOR REMOVAL OR TEMPERATURE CONTROL. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERS’ (ASHRAE) STANDARDS ARE GIVEN IN AIR VOLUME PER PERSON-MIN. TO ALLOW FOR VARYING OCCUPANCIES DURING A 24 HR PERIOD. AREAS WITH SMOKING REQUIRE MORE AIR CHANGES.

IT IS EXPENSIVE TO BRING SUPPLY AIR TO DESIRED TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, AND QUALITY; MOVE IT THROUGH A SPACE; AND THEN THROW IT AWAY. VENTILATION MAY USE AS MUCH AS 50% OF THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF AN OFFICE BUILDING. REUSE THE AIR. THE RECYCLED AIR, PROCESSED TO REMOVE POLLUTANTS AND ODORS, THEN IS MIXED WITH OUTSIDE AIR (FORMALLY CALLED FRESH AIR) AND BROUGHT TO THE DESIRED VALUES OF TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY. FOR INFORMATION ON AIR QUALITY, SEE CHAPTER 6.13.

FILTERS AND PRECIPITATORS ARE USED TO REMOVE CONTAMINANTS AND ODORS. REMOVE CONTAMINANTS LOCALLY (SUCH AS THROUGHT EXHAUST HOODS) RATHER THAN LETTING THEM SPREAD AND THEN HAVING TO PROCESS MANY TIMES THE VOLUME OF AIR WITH GENERAL VENTILATION PROCEDURES. BE SURE THE WORKER’S BREATHING ZONE IS NOT POSITIONED BETWEEN THE FUME SOURCE AND THE HOOD. EXHAUST AIR FROM “CLEAN” AREAS (SUCH AS OFFICES) CAN BE USED WITHOUT PROCESSING AS INPUT FOR LESS CRITICAL AREAS (SUCH AS PAINT BOOTHS, STORAGE). WARM AIR, WHEN RUN THROUGH HEAT EXCHANGERS, CAN PREVENT INPUT AIR AND THUS REDUCE HEATING LOADS. HEATED AIR NORMALLY WILL BE TRAPPED (STRATIFIED) NEAR THE CEILING. IN WINTER, USE A HEAT INVERTER (FAN AT THE TOP OF A VERTICAL DUCT) TO BRING THIS WARM AIR DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE PEOPLE. IN SUMMER, LET THE HEATED AIR REMAIN IN A STAGNANT UPPER LAYER AND KEEP THE AIR CONDITIONING DOWN AT THE LEVEL OF THE PEOPLE.

Regards,
Don

 

[Marc]

What's the accuracy supposed to be? 80%?

Never mind - re-read and it's 85%. Excuse me!

But - since I'm EDITING, I'll also say this:

I wonder what the definition of QUALITY was back centuries ago when - well, take the Aztecs or folks 5,000 years ago (language is such a wonderful thing!). I wonder how they defined QUALITY or what their equivalent 'word' was. The concept had to come to exist at some point in time. Wonder when....

Any anthropology folks out there?

 

[Don Winton]

I wonder what the definition of QUALITY was back centuries ago when…

I am not certain a ‘definition’ existed, but ‘quality’ was, IMHO, considered.

Funny you should mention this. In some of the training sessions I give, I ask a similar question. It goes something like this:

Prior to modern manufacturing techniques, by what standard do you think quality was judged? After discussion, it usually boils down to: form, fit and function.

For example, when the transition from bronze to iron was occurring, it is safe to assume that both cultures co-existed for some period of time. A tribe had made the transition from bronze to iron, whilst his neighbors to the north (or south, either can be used as an example) were still trying to implement the new method (iron). Under the assumption that tribal warfare existed, during battle, the tribe with iron swords would have higher ‘quality’ weapons than the tribe with bronze. Not sharper, just better, using form, fit and function as the criteria. When the scales were leveled (both cultures made the transition to iron), the outcome depended more so upon other factors, such as ‘quality’ of commanders, ‘quality’ of manpower, ‘quality’ of tactics, etc. The same could be said when Europeans started trading goods with Native Americans. The tribes with the European steel weapons were superior in war to those tribes still using stone weapons. The steel knives were higher ‘quality’ because they better satisfied the form, fit and function criteria.

As artisans and craftsmen were used as a source of goods, the craftsman knew that if his goods did not meet the buyer’s expectations, his livelihood was threatened. Going back to the sword example, if a particular craftsman’s sword failed in battle (broken, too short, dull or whatever), he knew that one, he had lost a customer (dead) and two, if word spread that his swords were not dependable in battle, he would not be getting new customers. After all, who would use a sword of questionable ‘quality’ when his life literally depended on it. The same could be said for housing, furniture or food.

In a war based culture, the artisan that developed superior (higher ‘quality’) weapons, his reputation was hailed. When his work was inferior, he was beheaded, or some other sort of example setting. This particular aspect of form, fit and function exists even to this day (more bang for the buck is the common expression used). Case in point: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy at the heart of the US-USSR arms race. Therefore, the artisan took great care in assuring his product was superior to his competitor, through probably what we consider benchmarking, inspection and testing.

I know there are examples of ‘quality’ as it related to measurement and specifications. After all, the pyramids and such were not built as they were through serendipity. There had to have been measurements taken and if the measurements were not within a range (tolerance), they were redone. I do not have specific examples to share, just logic REQUIRES that it had to be.

Regards,
Don