Quality Operating Procedures - Eliminating the term 'Quality'

Patricia Ravanello

Quite Involved in Discussions
#21
After all, I hope you are not saying that a fast-food restaurant has no chance to achieve high "ISO quality" (no matter how clear their facilities are, how polite their stuff is, etc.) just because there are people who never like burgers and fries.

:mg:
Hi Yarik,

I hope that you don't think that "ISO Quality " = "High Quality"...it doesn't.

As I said earlier, ISO is about stability, predicabitliy and consistency of controlled processes. The "customer-defined" product may not need to be "high quality" (as in your company). In your case, as in all others, so-called "ISO Quality" is defined by conistently meeting or exceeding customer expectations (be it product, timing, service, delivery, warranty, etc.).

Are you meeting and/or exceeding your objectives of effectiveness and efficiency for product, timing, service, delivery and warranty? That's what you need to focus your organization's attention on...drop the "Q" word. It's ambiguous and confusing.

Patricia
 
Last edited:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#22
Hello Piney,

I'm very far from being an expert in this area (I've just started to work on a QMS for our small business from scratch, and we are not even aiming at certification yet). But I was pondering the same idea all the time lately. In fact, I am seriously considering elimination of the word "quality" wherever possible. And here is why:

Our company does not seem to be a case where the concept of "quality" is in a "ghetto", so my reasons are different. The main reason to avoid this term is that ISO's definition of this concept appears to be very controversial - somewhat out of sync with what regular people perceive as "quality". As a result, all the lingo related to QMS becomes extremely confusing for regular people.

Perhaps, the following simple example would help to convey my concern: let's take a typical fast-food restaurant and a typical upscale restaurant.

  • First, I am sure that most of the people unfamiliar with ISO's definition of "quality" would easily agree with a statement that the quality of food in the former is always much lower than in the latter, and that the fast-food restaurant always produces low quality meals. However, according to ISO's definition of "quality", the situation may be exactly opposite. ISO defines "quality" as degree of conformance of a product to the requirements determined for it. So, for example, a customer who ORDERED a burger and then got a well-cooked, fresh burger just cannot complain about low quality of the service he/she just received! According to ISO the customer must have been satisfied, right?
  • Now, let's take a look at the other side of the "fence"... Let's say I come to some fast-food restaurant and suggest to implement a QMS. The immediate reaction from everyone (including management) is like "No way! It is ridiculous to try to make our small restaurant compete with all those HIGH-QUALITY upscale restaurants downtown!"
I hope you get the idea...

As far as I can see, people are extremely resistant to accept ISO's definition of "quality"! In my case, I'm still struggling with explaining all this to our President, who is much more educated, smart and open-minded than most of the people I know. Explaining this to the clerks in our company appears to be a hopeless task.

So, I am also wondering what do professionals think abou adequacy of the term "quality" in ISO? Did ISO themselves manage to produce a high-quality term here? :confused: How reasonable is the idea of dropping this term from the vocabulary wherever possible? Obviously many people do it here and there, but how common is this approach?

FWIW, the book that I am reading right now - Craig Cochran's "ISO 9000 In Plain English" - also insists on dropping the word "quality", but the author seems to have slightly different reasoning for that...

I guess, I've raised more questions than I answered. Still, this issue bothers me quite a lot, so I could not resist and jumped in.

Best regards,
Yarik.
Wow, Yarik...you make some good points, and I agree with some of your thinking...but, you are WAY overthinking this. This much thinking and discussing just about what the procedures should be called... it's not necessary.

Since you said you are just starting, may I recommend start where the standard starts. Cl 4.1 says to think about your processes. Identify them, lay them out, define the details...

Once you are settled on the processes, and you have described them, then simply make a controlling document (procedure) for each process. If you have a purchasing process, make a procedure for that Purchasing process that describes whatever you want to say about doing Purchasing well.

Then, write specific work instructions for only those areas where you really need to say more.

Keep it simple, and slowly work your way to completion. That is much more important that what you call proceudres or work instructions.

Good luck.
 
Y

Yarik

#23
Hi Patricia,

I hope that you don't think that "ISO Quality " = "High Quality"...it doesn't.
I did not say that "ISO quality" is equivalent to "high quality" (whatever you mean by equivalence).

All I was saying is that

  • "ISO quality" (as a metric of how well does organization serve its customers) can be low, high, and everything in between. At least, that is what I think ISO 9000:2005 says (see 3.1.1 NOTE 1). I took the liberty to use adjectives "low" and "high" (instead of "poor" and "excellent" suggested by the standard), but I do not think that this deviation changes anything.
  • The concept of "low/med/high poor/good/excellent ISO quality" (in the ISO's model of the world) is difficult for people to grasp because it is not what they usually perceive as "low/med/high poor/good/excellent quality" in the real world.
The "customer-defined" product may not need to be "high quality" (as in your company). In your case, as in all others, so-called "ISO Quality" is defined by conistently meeting or exceeding customer expectations (be it product, timing, service, delivery, warranty, etc.).
Well, it does not have to be "high-quality" in common sense, but it should be "high-quality" in "ISO sense", right? As far as I understand ISO's definition of quality and other concepts, the the whole point of a QMS is to ensure that the organization consistently delivers products that are of high "ISO quality".

If "ISO quality" means "degree to which a set of inherent characteristics [of a product delivered to a customer] fulfils requirements [defined for the product by the customer, explicitly and implicitly]", and organization delivers a product with high degree of such fulfilment, isn't the "ISO quality" of such product high/excellent by definition? Now, replace "ISO quality" with just "quality" in all this, and try to explain all this to people who do not understand how a burger or a used electronic gadgets can be a high-quality product. Good luck!

Or are you saying that requirements and expectations of every visitor of a fast-food restaurant are always the same as requirements and expectations of every visitor of an upscale restaurant, and therefore the quality (ISO or not ISO) of the product/service delivered by a fast-food restaurant is doomed to be low, no matter how hard they try? I guess that's exactly what regular (ISO-unaware) people world say, and that's exactly the problem I was talking about: a serious mismatch between well defined concept of "ISO quality" and ambiguity of the word "quality" in common use.

Of course, McDonald's can never, ever deliver a high-quality product (ISO or not ISO) to a customer who walks in and tries to order NY steak (medium/rare!), well-steamed veggies, and a glass of 2002 merlot from XYZ vinery (and also expects to be seated in a secluded booth on a comfy sofa). But then again, it's not a McDonald's customer to begin with, right? Fortunately (for McDonald's and of it ilk) there are crowds and crowds of customers who walk in to order burger + fries + coke (no ice!) and can be fully satisfied - so long as the burger is fresh, fries are not oversalted, coke does not have ice in it (and the wait time is short, and the premises are clean, etc. etc.). IMHO, that means that "ISO quality" of McDonald's product/service can be high (and therefore QMS can be useful for McDonald's too). I hope you can agree with that. But that's exactly what is difficult to explain to a regular human being while using just the word "quality".

I think I do understand the meaning and purpose of QMS very well. All I'm saying is that the use of word "quality" in QMS documentation does not serve that purpose very well. (I see some great irony in that: according to the ISO's own definition of quality, the term "quality" itself - as one of the products/components delivered by ISO - just does not seem to have a very high quality. :))

Therefore, my feeling is that the less frequently the word "quality" is used in QMS documentation (or in any business documentation in general), the better. At least for some organizations. It's better to use less controversial terms (for instance, "customer satisfaction", "requirements fulfillment", etc.) instead.
 
Y

Yarik

#24
Wow, Yarik...you make some good points, and I agree with some of your thinking...but, you are WAY overthinking this. This much thinking and discussing just about what the procedures should be called... it's not necessary.
Well, I just wanted to point out yet another reason why people might want to avoid using the word "quality" in QMS documentation in general (and in procedure/process names in particular).

But I agree that my musings have obviously strayed the original discussion. For that I apologize. :eek:

Best regards,
Yarik.
 
J

JaneB

#25
My experience so far shows that people perceive the concept of quality very differently from how ISO defines it. It definitely takes some effort to make people "get it" and probably will take some effort to make people keep "getting it" afterwards.
That's why organisations need to come up with their own, organisation-specific one, to say what quality means to them - in their company, in their own words. Their unique quality policy. And keep it simple and clear. So they don't have to keep 'getting it'.

Talking of 'ISO quality' or using terms like 'high ISO quality' or 'low ISO quality' gets very confusing, and I'd advise against it.
 
J

JaneB

#26
After all, I hope you are not saying that a fast-food restaurant has no chance to achieve high "ISO quality" (no matter how clear their facilities are, how polite their stuff is, etc.) just because there are people who never like burgers and fries.
?? I don't follow this line of reasoning.
To take your analogy (although actually, restaurants don't often find 9001 useful I think) a fast food restaurant has every chance of achieving certification to ISO 9001. They just need to meet the requirements, that's all. No, they won't provide the same service & product as a 5-star restaurant - so what? That's the magic of ISO 9001, it's a generic standard. It says what, but not how.

Another analogy: a low-cost budget airline selling single-class seats to a restricted number of destinations, and an international airline selling first-class (as well as other classes) seats to a huge range of locations can both achieve ISO 9001. Different grades of seat? Yes. Different grades of service? Yes. Different passengers? Yes. Different purchase prices for same? Yes. But either is capable of delivering you to your location.
 
Y

Yarik

#27
That's why organisations need to come up with their own, organisation-specific one, to say what quality means to them - in their company, in their own words. Their unique quality policy. And keep it simple and clear. So they don't have to keep 'getting it'.
:yes: :yes: :yes: :agree1:

And this is yet another reason to abstain from using boilerplate templates...

Talking of 'ISO quality' or using terms like 'high ISO quality' or 'low ISO quality' gets very confusing, and I'd advise against it.
If you mean using the phrase "ISO quality" (with or without any adjectives) in any actual QMS docs - sure, there is no way I would even think about doing that.

I was suggesting to avoid using the very term "quality", remember? How could I advocate "ISO quality" after that? :)

I was using "ISO quality" only here, in the forum. Just to try to convey my points to the Cove audience (most of which, I presume, consists of people who develop QMS or help others with this task).

Thanks,
Yarik.
 
Y

Yarik

#28
Yarik said:
After all, I hope you are not saying that a fast-food restaurant has no chance to achieve high "ISO quality" (no matter how clear their facilities are, how polite their stuff is, etc.) just because there are people who never like burgers and fries.
?? I don't follow this line of reasoning.
Well, I think that's because I was trying to guess someone else's line of reasoning, not to provide mine. :confused:

It was supposed to be a possible line of reasoning of people who have hard time believing that high quality of product/service (in ISO's definition) is achievable by any organisation. By its very definition.

To take your analogy ... a fast food restaurant has every chance of achieving certification to ISO 9001. They just need to meet the requirements, that's all. No, they won't provide the same service & product as a 5-star restaurant - so what? That's the magic of ISO 9001, it's a generic standard. It says what, but not how.
Almost exactly my point: I was talking about actually achieving high quality of the product/service, though. Not just about getting certified to ISO 9001...
... Why is Jane sounding like she's arguing with me here?.. :confused:
... There must have been some miscommunication... :(

... I guess I should be working harder to improve my English writing skills... :frust:

... and to avoid using the word "quality" even at Cove forums, because it is even more confusing than I thought it is... :mg:
Anyway, :cool: all I was saying is that your point above is very difficult to sell to a fast-food restaurant if you talk about quality without explaining what does ISO mean by "high quality".

BTW, as you've just mentioned yourself, those restaurants are not exactly crowded in line to get ISO certifications. Do you think that one of the causes of this phenomenon could be exactly the difficulty of selling ISO 9000 ideas to people who work in that industry? Or do you think it's just too difficult for them (technically and/or financially) to implement a certifiable QMS?


Another analogy: a low-cost budget airline selling single-class seats to a restricted number of destinations, and an international airline selling first-class (as well as other classes) seats to a huge range of locations can both achieve ISO 9001. Different grades of seat? Yes. Different grades of service? Yes. Different passengers? Yes. Different purchase prices for same? Yes. But either is capable of delivering you to your location.
...and either is capable to meet (or even exceed) your requirements and expectations, right?
 

Patricia Ravanello

Quite Involved in Discussions
#29
Hi Patricia,



I did not say that "ISO quality" is equivalent to "high quality" (whatever you mean by equivalence).

All I was saying is that...


Therefore, my feeling is that the less frequently the word "quality" is used in QMS documentation (or in any business documentation in general), the better. At least for some organizations. It's better to use less controversial terms (for instance, "customer satisfaction", "requirements fulfillment", etc.) instead.
Hi Yarik,
You've made it clear that you understand very well the different nuances and interpretations of "quality", and I wholeheartedly support your inclination to reduce or totally abstain from the use of the word "quality", if its use would lead to ambiguity or confusion.

Thanks for sharing your thought-provoking perspective and input.

Patricia
 

Jim Wynne

Staff member
Admin
#30
Our company does not seem to be a case where the concept of "quality" is in a "ghetto", so my reasons are different. The main reason to avoid this term is that ISO's definition of this concept appears to be very controversial - somewhat out of sync with what regular people perceive as "quality". As a result, all the lingo related to QMS becomes extremely confusing for regular people.
I think "very controversial" is overstating the case a bit, and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "regular people." People have their own preconceptions of what constitutes quality, but I don't think there are many who don't adjust the definition to fit an individual context. You might want to have a look at Is "quality" just "fitness for use"? for some related discussion.

Perhaps, the following simple example would help to convey my concern: let's take a typical fast-food restaurant and a typical upscale restaurant.

  • First, I am sure that most of the people unfamiliar with ISO's definition of "quality" would easily agree with a statement that the quality of food in the former is always much lower than in the latter, and that the fast-food restaurant always produces low quality meals. However, according to ISO's definition of "quality", the situation may be exactly opposite. ISO defines "quality" as degree of conformance of a product to the requirements determined for it. So, for example, a customer who ORDERED a burger and then got a well-cooked, fresh burger just cannot complain about low quality of the service he/she just received! According to ISO the customer must have been satisfied, right?

  • Now, let's take a look at the other side of the "fence"... Let's say I come to some fast-food restaurant and suggest to implement a QMS. The immediate reaction from everyone (including management) is like "No way! It is ridiculous to try to make our small restaurant compete with all those HIGH-QUALITY upscale restaurants downtown!"
No one goes into McDonald's and expects white tablecloths and a maître d'. By the same token, no one goes into an expensive French restaurant and expects to have to get food for themselves. Quality exists in what we reasonably expect from a product or service. Whether or not a thing has quality is not dependent on the whims of unreasonable people. I think there are not many people who don't understand this.

As far as I can see, people are extremely resistant to accept ISO's definition of "quality"! In my case, I'm still struggling with explaining all this to our President, who is much more educated, smart and open-minded than most of the people I know. Explaining this to the clerks in our company appears to be a hopeless task.
I've never encountered the type of resistance you refer to, and I've been around the ISO block a few times. The definition of "quality" is somewhat malleable, but if people understand the requirements, why they exist and their individual responsibilities in meeting them it doesn't matter if a random bystander understands a particular definition or not. My personal opinion is that the word is too ductile to be of much use, but my personal opinion won't make the word go away.

So, I am also wondering what do professionals think abou adequacy of the term "quality" in ISO? Did ISO themselves manage to produce a high-quality term here? :confused: How reasonable is the idea of dropping this term from the vocabulary wherever possible? Obviously many people do it here and there, but how common is this approach?
It's possible to have quality without using the word. No matter what you call the container, the contents will be the same.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Quality Manual and Standard Operating Procedures - File attached Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 15
I Short SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) or Add to Quality Manual? Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 10
R Quality Assurance Procedures vs. Standard Operating Procedures Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 15
A Definition Difference between Quality System Procedure and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 4
G Adding AS9100 to a ISO/TS 16949 QOS (Quality Operating System) Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
P Quality Procedure vs. Operating Procedure - Is it necessary to have both? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
P FORD's QOS (Quality Operating System) - What is it? Customer and Company Specific Requirements 4
Marc Ford QOS (Quality Operating System) Forms Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
D Ford QOS (Quality Operating System) QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 2
T FORD's QOS (Quality Operating System) and Ford's Q1 QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 6
Marc Ford's QOS (Quality Operating System) and Q1 Customer and Company Specific Requirements 11
Marc FORD's QOS (Quality Operating System) Customer and Company Specific Requirements 0
N Guidance - Cost of Good Quality Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 2
D Quality plan for moving locations ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
was named killer Job Opportunity-Quality Engineer-Tampa Florida Job Openings, Consulting and Employment Opportunities 0
Marc Job Opportunity – Quality Assurance Specialist - Suspense 7 April 2021 Job Openings, Consulting and Employment Opportunities 0
C Requirement to link Quality Manual to ISO 9001 clause numbers? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
normhowe "The Problem with Quality Management: Process orientation, controllability and zero-defect processes as modern myths" Book, Video, Blog and Web Site Reviews and Recommendations 2
J Quality Objective for QMS prior to Certification AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 8
J Quality Objectives and resources ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
M PSA Suppliers - CSR matrix and need the quality manual of PSA APQP and PPAP 2
A Quality Control Datasheets Inspection, Prints (Drawings), Testing, Sampling and Related Topics 0
T Quality auditor legal right to see Board meeting minutes ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
D Any recommendations on where to find experienced quality hires in Chicago area? Job Openings, Consulting and Employment Opportunities 3
C Budgetary cost to obtain ASME NQA-1 Quality Program Certification Quality Management System (QMS) Manuals 0
O Soft and technical skills for a VP of Quality Career and Occupation Discussions 1
P MedWatch Report from a hospital due to a quality issue US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
Sidney Vianna Release of ISO 10013:2021, Quality management systems – Guidance for documented information Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 0
M Unique Quality Management System for 2 sites ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 5
G Application to Chartered Quality Institute - MCQI ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 2
K Quality Agreement MDR - The manufacturer is outside of EU Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
Sidney Vianna Informational APQP4Wind - Advanced Product Quality Planning for the Wind Power Supply Chain APQP and PPAP 3
T 21 CFR 820.20 - Quality Planning Requirements? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
S Supplier protocol for the Quality Supplier Quality Assurance and other Supplier Issues 6
bruceian Software Quality Metrics Software Quality Assurance 11
R Quality System Functional Safety Checklist / Guidance IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 0
Bev D Essential References for Practical Quality Engineering Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 0
optomist1 Automotive News The Cost of Inspecting In Quality IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
O Any info on release date of FDA “Computer Software Assurance for Manufacturing and Quality System Software” document? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
M Quality Manual - Where does Revision History Section go? Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 8
John Broomfield CIOB - Code of Quality Management Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 1
S Quality Audit Training Activities Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 2
D Are Supplier Quality Agreements Quality Records ? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 9
D Big companies suffer from quality management system? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
K Looking for a job as Quality Engineer Career and Occupation Discussions 2
B Two excellent examples of process capability analysis from Quality Magazine Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 5
Pau Calvo Quality Management process is mandatory in ISO9001? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 10
NDesouza No Quality Professional vs Having a Quality Professional Benchmarking 24
F Does anyone have an ESD quality/cooler talk to share? Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
R Monitor production quality - Internal KPIs Manufacturing and Related Processes 5

Similar threads

Top Bottom