Definition Quality Assurance (QA) vs. Quality Control (QC) - What are the differences?

[tomjess]

Please can someone settle a problem I have.

I have tried to explain to the guys at work the difference between Quality Assurance and Quality Control.

So with the amount of people using this forum I should get a good couple of replies that will shut them up for ever.

thanking everyone in advance.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

So with the amount of people using this forum I should get a good couple of replies that will shut them up for ever.

This will probably not shut them up, (are you really sure that's what you want btw? ),but here is my take: I see QC as a part of QA. See the picture.

/Claes

 

[Marc]

Also see these discussion threads:
Quality Control (aka QC) - Definition
QA - Quality Assurance - Acronym
Quality Line Technician - QC (quality control) vs QA (quality assurance)
Juran - The difference between Quality Control and Quality Assurance

 

[sal881vw]

Hello tomjess,
IMHO - For all intents and purposes one can make reference to “Quality management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary – ISO/DIS 9000:2000” now replaced by BS EN ISO 9000:2005 which unfortunately I don’t have.
However with reference to the standards, briefly , they are defined as follows,
clauses
3.2.10 Quality control - to fulfill quality requirements.
In other words it is all of the processes where the requirements (variable and attributes) are measured or compared against customer requirements.
and,
3.2.11 Quality assurance - to provide confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled.
In other words it is all of the documentation, instructions, training, personnel, provision of qualified equipment / tools, materials and environment that will provide the customer with the product requested.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Please can someone settle a problem I have.

I have tried to explain to the guys at work the difference between Quality Assurance and Quality Control.

So with the amount of people using this forum I should get a good couple of replies that will shut them up for ever.

thanking everyone in advance.

When being eaten by a large reptile, whether it's a crocodile or an alligator is of little consequence. I've never been able to figure out why anyone considers control/assurance a meaningful distinction. Of course, the term "quality control" as it relates to an umbrella quality function is passé. ASQ went to a lot of trouble a few years ago to get rid of that pesky "C" and, imo, made fools of themselves in the process. The only thing that matters is the work, and making sure that customers get what they ask for in the most economical way possible. Everything else is facade and window dressing.

 

[Ron Rompen]

I've got to disagree here, and will try to sum up what I believe is the difference in the two...please feel free to contradict me (cite sources, be prepared to appear in court with LIVING witnesses, all that lawyer mumbo jumbo, etc).

QC (Quality Control): Detecting the defect AFTER it has occurred, but before it gets shipped to the customer

QA (Quality Assurance): Designing the process and controls so that the POTENTIAL for a defect will be detected (before the defect occurrs), allowing preventive action to take place.

QC is reactive, QA is pro-active (or should be).

Just my opinion (but dammit, I'm the boss now...it's the ONLY one that matters lol)

 

[Howard Atkins]

I've got to disagree here, and will try to sum up what I believe is the difference in the two...please feel free to contradict me (cite sources, be prepared to appear in court with LIVING witnesses, all that lawyer mumbo jumbo, etc).

QC (Quality Control): Detecting the defect AFTER it has occurred, but before it gets shipped to the customer

QA (Quality Assurance): Designing the process and controls so that the POTENTIAL for a defect will be detected (before the defect occurrs), allowing preventive action to take place.

QC is reactive, QA is pro-active (or should be).

Just my opinion (but dammit, I'm the boss now...it's the ONLY one that matters lol)

I agree
As in most issues there are a number of answers and each is correct for the specific usage.
In this case whilst the definitions are the definitions Silvio they do not go far enough and the way Ron paraphrases them are more useful to tomjess to deal with the questions.
It is another way of saying the Automotive adage, Prevention rather than Detection.
The earlier you engineer for quality the cheaper it is.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I agree
As in most issues there are a number of answers and each is correct for the specific usage.
In this case whilst the definitions are the definitions Silvio they do not go far enough and the way Ron paraphrases them are more useful to tomjess to deal with the questions.
It is another way of saying the Automotive adage, Prevention rather than Detection.
The earlier you engineer for quality the cheaper it is.

I'm still waiting (after twenty years or so) for someone to tell me the actual purpose the distinction is supposed to serve. I understand the distinction, I just don't understand why anyone cares about it. My experience has been that people in business rename things when they want to give the impression that something has changed or become more sophisticated, but don't want to do the actual work that needs to be done in order to actually improve things. How is "Information Technology" any better than "Data Processing"? What does a "Human Resources Generalist" do that a "Personnel Clerk" can't do? Did secretaries miraculously develop new skills and attributes when they became "Administrative Assistants"? I think not. But if you can make a person or a department seem somehow more important or impressive without actually giving the person or department more authority or anything of actual substance (which might cost money)...

As quality people, our jobs exist in large measure because management can't be trusted to design and implement efficacious processes. We compile the proof that the processes don't work, sometimes before a lot of bad stuff is made, and sometimes after. What you call the whole thing is irrelevant.

 

[ralphsulser]

Several years ago when I was being hired by a lagre company, the Vice President of Operations said they didn't know what to call me, Quality Control Manager, or Quality Assurance Manager.
I said how about just Quality Manager, and he liked that and settled on it.

 

[Statistical Steven]

I'm still waiting (after twenty years or so) for someone to tell me the actual purpose the distinction is supposed to serve. I understand the distinction, I just don't understand why anyone cares about it. My experience has been that people in business rename things when they want to give the impression that something has changed or become more sophisticated, but don't want to do the actual work that needs to be done in order to actually improve things. How is "Information Technology" any better than "Data Processing"? What does a "Human Resources Generalist" do that a "Personnel Clerk" can't do? Did secretaries miraculously develop new skills and attributes when they became "Administrative Assistants"? I think not. But if you can make a person or a department seem somehow more important or impressive without actually giving the person or department more authority or anything of actual substance (which might cost money)...

As quality people, our jobs exist in large measure because management can't be trusted to design and implement efficacious processes. We compile the proof that the processes don't work, sometimes before a lot of bad stuff is made, and sometimes after. What you call the whole thing is irrelevant.

Jim, you forgot what can a SSBB do that a CQE cannot

Actually, there is a distinction in many different regulated industries where Quality Control is required to release a product, and quality systems are required to "audit" the inspection process. Due to conflict of interest, they cannot be the same person.