posted 14 October 1999 12:18 PM            

From: George Summerfield
Subject: Re: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Taormnia/Turner/Summerfield

Beg to differ, but quality has more than only two aspects. Consider...

Performance: the product's primary operating characteristics( auto acceleration, braking distance, steering, etc).

Features: the "bells and whistles" of a product (auto = CD player, antilock brakes).

Reliability: the proven history of a product (auto) being able to start on cold days and last many years without rusting.

Conformance: the degree to which the product meets preestablished standards.

Durability: the amount of use a product provides before it physically wears out.

Serviceability: speed, courtesy, and competence of repair work.

Aesthetics: how a product looks, feels, sounds, tastes, or smells.

Perceived Quality: subjective assessment of quality resulting from the image that a very good Marketing office has built for the product.

You have to consider what the customer wants and then gear your product to that (form, fit, function). Basic principles of doing business.

posted 14 October 1999 12:25 PM            

From: "Gary V. Smith"
Subject: RE: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Smith/Ohri/Smith

>From: Edith Ohri
>Subject: RE: Q: ISO Cost Effectiveness /../Ohri/Smith/Ohri
>
>> Oh, my! Would that what you say were true. Then I wouldn't have to
>> generate all those quality performance and quality trend reports.
>
>I said two separate things - that quality can't be measured and that it's
>better to have other quantitative methods rather then financial - which of
>them you find to be wrong? Or maybe the both?!
>Also, sorry, but the non-financial analysis wouldn't save you the need for
>performance reports...

Quality is either subjective or objective. Quality "measured" subjectively is ordinarily perception based and attributive, like comparing Mercedes and Yugos. This is difficult, at best, to quantify because it's virtually dimensionless. However, quality measured objectively relys on hard numbers that can be derived from several sources, like dimensions, visual standards and costs. Actual numerical limits can be established within which acceptable quality levels are specified. And, you are right that quality performance reports are due whether, or not, I'm capturing cost data.

>> May I direct you to the body of knowledge under the heading of cost of (poor)
>> quality.

>I've researched the problem of cost management some nine years ago, and have
>not seen since then any major change happening. If you know of a good article
>with an opposite view to mine, why not sending it over to me, promise to give
>back a review.
>
>> It includes detailed measurables in conventional spreadsheet format.
>
>Of course one can take any set of data and present it in nice spreadsheets, the
>question is what all this number crunching mean? Can those figures be
>traced to specific causes? Do they catch the whole quality effect or just an
>accidental facet? Are they consistent and objective? and so forth.

As with any data, the numbers must be properly "mined" for specific information, but that information is there for anyone who wishes to dig it out. When costs of poor quality are broken down into the cost of prevention, appraisal, external and internal failure, then certain trends can be obvious.

In an earlier reply I recommended a good cost of quality software and a source of cost of quality literature. I haven't seen that message on the reflector but it may have been perceived as a commercial endorsement and suppressed. If you'd like those resources then you may e-mail me personally.

posted 24 November 1999 07:32 AM               

From: "Hankwitz, John " [email protected]

> Subject: Q: What is Quality? /Hellmann
> From: [email protected]
>
> What is QUALITY?
> How can it be defined?
> Can it be quantified, measured and documented?
>
> John

John,

Yes, and no.

Quality can be defined to some degree by an individual in a particular place and time. It is next to impossible to fully define it for someone else. Also, it changes form moment to moment because of it's subjective aspects.

The objective aspects of quality are:

Conformance:
Does it conform to the customers design.
Serviceability:
Is it easy to service when appropriate.

Features & Benefits:
Do the design features provide the benefits the customer is
looking for and actually needs.

Reliability:
Will it operate and function as expected.

Durability:
Will it stand up to all conditions of use.

Price:
How much does the customer have to pay to get it.

Cost:
How much will the customer have to pay over it's lifetime.

The subjective aspects are:

Visual, Emotional & Psychological:
Does it's appearance get the customer excited.
How does the customer think others view them while
they use it.
How does the product relate to customer past experiences.
How well does the customer relate to the salesman.
What have the customers friends said about the product.
What experiences has the customer had with the supplier.
and on and on and on.....

Any salesman will tell you the most sales are made on emotion, not
subjective aspects of the product.

That's why most use: Windows rather than Mac OS
VHS rather than Beta
Cassette rather than 8-Track
Internet Explorer rather than Netscape Navigator
Budweiser rather than Leinenkugel

All the latter are far superior to the former in subjective terms, but emotional issues put them in second place. (Like, when was the last time you saw Budweiser actually advertise beer? They now advertise frogs spitting at each other, and it works emotionally for their target market)

posted 08 December 1999 07:23 PM               

From: "Billings, Tracy"

What is quality? Well, this is like asking how long a piece of string is!

David Hoyle in his book "ISO 9000 Quality systems Handbook" explains quality as being "a composite of three parameters: quality of design, quality of conformance and quality of use.

Quality of design is the extent to which the design reflects a product or service that satisifies customer needs. All the necessary characteristics need to be designed into the product or service at the outset.

Quality of conformance is the exotent to which the product or service conforms to the design standard. The design has to be faithfully reproduced in the product or service.

Quality of use is the extent by which the suer is able to secure continuity of use from the product or service. Product need to have a low cost of ownership, be safe and reliable, maintainable in use and easy to use."

He also said that in addition to the parameters, there are three dimensions of quality: the business quality dimension, product quality dimension and organization quality dimension.

I see many companies who concentrate solely on prduct quality and forget the rest. But in all seriousness the three are interelated. If you don't have the business and company quality dimensions, then you are not going to get quality.

How can it be defined? Well, I think that I have covered that in the above. But basically defining quality is dependent on the company and how they see quality!

Can it be quantified, measured and documented? Well, this is a very good one. It really depends on what you mean by documented! I am going to concentrate on the first two parts of this question.

Quantifying and measuring quality is all subjective. To be able to say a product or service is a quality prduct or service is all subjective. There is no hard and fast rules and regulations by which you can measure the quality. As a company you need to define what you mean by a quality product/service. For example: if a company decided that they were going to make hairbrushes quickly and cheaply, and then produced the hairbrush quickly and cheaply. The company would be able to say that "we have a quailty hairbrush here!"

If you could clarify what you mean by "documented" I will try and put something in writing on this area!

Hope you find this of use to you.

posted 09 December 1999 05:38 PM               

When we consider all we try to put into "quality" as demonstrated above, it matters not if we do not meet customer expectations. This applies to products and/or service. If we fail to meet the customer's expectations, that customer is gone.

If we fail to provide value to the customer (i.e., a price the customer is willing to pay), that customer is gone. Conversely, if we provide the price, but our costs exceed this and we cannot generate a profit, WE will be gone.

posted 16 December 1999 05:31 PM               

-----------------snippo---------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 15:41:25 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Ganor/Hellmann/Hankwitz

From: "Hankwitz, John "

> Subject: RE: What is Quality? /../Hellmann/Ganor/Hellmann
> From: [email protected]
>
> >Quality is the extent that a product or service satisfy the
> customer needs.
>
> First of all, a customer need may include or even mandate
> the lowest price for the offered goods or services. (For
> example, many local municipalities have mandated by law that
> the lowest bidder be awarded construction projects. The
> cheapest vender be awarded the contract for supplies and or
> services. And so on).
>
> Not necessarily, but invariably, the result is the lowest
> quality.
>
> The question still stands, "WHAT IS QUALITY?"

------(SNIP)---------

Here is where you are having your problem with this. The customer in your example has defined "quality" as that having the lowest price, then you turn around and apply your own personal definition as to what you think quality is. How can you do this? The customer purchased using their criteria, and got exactly what they ordered... price. since there was no criteria or specifications covering reliability, fitness for use, serviceability, or any of the other quality related criteria, what they got was exactly what they wanted, a "quality" product. As [email protected] stated, "Quality is the extent that a product or service satisfy the customer needs." Since they got the lowest price, their quality needs were fully satisfied.

posted 16 December 1999 05:54 PM               

From: [email protected]

> The question still stands, "WHAT IS QUALITY?"

IMHO, a "Kozenko-ism" to further discussion on this thread --

"QUALITY is an intangible subjective aspect (a "state of being" as it were) of a maker's product and/or service that embeds within itself the philosphy and ethics of its maker, due to the imutable universal law of truth (vs. non-truth); it is subjectively detectable but only to the extent of the command of "quality knowledge" resident within the detector. QUALITY bears a natural law resistance to objective expression: such resistance is available to the maker in direct proportion to the extent of "quality knowledge" resident in the detector."

The proliferation of the ISO9000 Series as a "standard" for QUALITY measurement has simply opened the worldwide forum for chipping away at those intangible aspects of any product and/or service that arise from the application of the imutable universal law of truth, so that the intellectuals can attempt to make a science out of something that is, by its very nature, a combination of science and a pure art form.

The "bottom line" on QUALITY as a definable term goes something like this:

No one told Piccasso what a quality painting was -- he inherently knew, and performed to his own system of beliefs. No one told Madam Curie what quality science was. She performed to the cost of her very life. No one told Michelango what a quality Chapel ceiling was (among many other things). He inherently knew, and performed to his own beliefs. We marvel still today at these quality pioneers, and miss their contrbution to QUALITY as defined by Crosby, Peach, Jung, Juran, et als. (That is, until now.)

The frustrations of this list's posters are frequently observed by me when a conflict arises between the postee's own sense of "quality" (which is equally as valid as any that Piccasso, Curie, or Michelango may have had) vs. the corporate brand of "quality" in which the postee is supposed to "shoehorn" his/her own beliefs and practices so that they somehow fit within the somewhat artificial boundaries of corporate barbed-wire fences. This assessment of mine is far from objective -- it is as subjective and artistic as any forum of expression will allow, but in context with this post, it's absolutely perfect.

In the final analysis, "QUALITY" is an art form that expresses the truth as an intrinsic property of the released-to-marketplace product and/or service. And if you apply my definition to any of the other worldwide recognizable quality experts, you would see that it's not only complementary, but it positively augments the intent of any scientific and/or objectivity-based assessment system.

As a corollary, the evolution of the upcoming revisions to the ISO Standards are indeed "catching up" with the notion that "QUALITY" is an expression of some universal display of truth, which indicates that the quality professionals of tomorrow must be capable of functioning in the dual environment enjoyed by those who can function with both artistic and scientific comprehension (i.e. left-right "brainers"), and the delicate balance that must exist there between the two.

I witness the current confusion and consternation concerning the evolution of ISO9000:2000DIS as an outpouring from those individuals who are not so capable of mixing art with science, and I predict that with the ISO9000:2005 revisions, those exact individuals who are today confused, will either have learned to augment their quality understanding by incorporating the interrelationship between an art form and a scientific exposition into their viewpoint, or they'll have other duties and responsibilities more suitable to their narrower understanding of the big picture, outside the direct art and science (combined) of Quality Management.

Commentary invited.

posted 16 December 1999 05:57 PM               

From: [email protected]

> ISO defines it as satisfying the customer, which is both highly generic
> and, in itself, less unsatisfying than eating rice cakes.

I once found a placard that reads "Rule Number 1: If you don't satisfy the customer, somebody else will." (Actually, I found it in a trash container which is not to impinge on its inherent value nor to imply that trash picking is something I often do.) While this now sits in plain view on my desk, I have never considered it to be an adjunct to the definition of quality. Perhaps it is.

However, something's missing in the defintion of quality as being "...the extend to which the customer is satisfied..." It's like .....well, rice cakes.

My old man was a salesman. He once told me that there are two kinds of salesmen. One kind that sells themselves. The other, sells their product. Satisfying the customer can also take different forms too. A dinner, hockey tickets, a golf outing, a vacation, kickbacks etc. can elicit customer satisfaction. But is this quality?

To begin with, quality is not a "thing" or an entity. Quality is a process. A resolution of the contradiction between producer and customer, and between the physical forces of nature.

posted 16 December 1999 06:33 PM               

From: "Hankwitz, John "

> Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Hellmann/Hankwitz/Hellmann
> From: [email protected]
>
> John, John, John,
---(snip)---
> But to declare they got a "quality" product and service ....
> such cynicism!!!!
>
> As a provider of goods and service, one must be able to
> define, quantify, document and deliver quality. If the
> customer won't or can't accept a competitive price based
> upon the cost of labor and materials, then this need
> has contradicted, rather negated, other customer needs....
> like a flushing toilet.
---(snip)---
> John Hellmann

Sorry John, but although I have to agree that the provider may be able to define, quantify, document and deliver quality, they are contracted with the customer to supply what they have defined as quality.

As an example. Several years ago, the Milwaukee School Board discovered that there was extreme variation in the orange juice they were getting for their school breakfast and lunch program. It was decided that they would define the quality of this product to get things under control.

They had experts operationally define all the appropriate parameters that would define the quality they wanted. This included things like pH, viscosity, clarity, specific gravity, color, sugar content, and on and on. All their suppliers were notified that they would have to meet this criteria, and the order would go to the lowest bidder.

They ordered and received what they had defined as the quality they specified. Variation was minimized at a cost they could afford. After more than a year of consuming this quality product, and congratulating themselves on a job well done, some parents discovered that what their children were getting was not orange juice, but a chemical concoction of multiple artificial ingredients.

The School Board's response was that it was the suppliers fault that the kids were not getting real orange juice.

I find that to be absurd! If the supplier would have tried to provide real orange juice, they would have never have been able to fulfill the customers requirements.

As stated in many of my messages on this subject, as well as from others, quality is defined by the customer, not the supplier. Also, the customer's definition of quality often changes from minute to minute. That's what makes this subject so interesting.

Back to you...

posted 17 December 1999 10:30 AM               

A good post once again.

"As stated in many of my messages on this subject, as well as from others, quality is defined by the customer, not the supplier. Also, the customer's definition of quality often changes from minute to minute. That's what makes this subject so interesting."

This is consistent with my own beliefs. But there is merit to having an operational definition of what Quality is to the supplier.

An organization needs to know where the definition is at any given time and adjust accordingly. Many things make up the reason why a customer buys one item over another, 'quality' be amongst them. Items such as 'availability' or 'value (price)' also play heavily on decision making. An organization needs to know why their customers buy their products and services and look to improve these areas appropriately (VoC).

Regards,

posted 18 December 1999 02:01 PM               

------snippo--------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:48:42 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Hellmann/Hankwitz/Hellmann

From: [email protected]

> As stated in many of my messages on this subject, as well as from
> others, quality is defined by the customer, not the supplier. Also,
> the customer's definition of quality often changes from minute to
> minute. That's what makes this subject so interesting.

If quality is a shadow of the customer's fancy, then what is the point of education and training of the workforce? Why pursue developments in existing products if the customer appears (and is) satisfied with what is?

As you so well put, the customer's defintion of quality often changes....where is the standard here? I'll go even further and state that the customer often doesn't even know what they want, let alone what a quality product would be. The producer/provider is in a better position to determine what quality is simply because they have had the training and experience to do so.

Case in point, a recent construction project at an international telecommunications facility went sour. It's not that the construction firms did not install the project as per scope of work and specifications. It's because they did.

This phenomenal is so prevalent in construction today that bid packages from the customer include, in the fine print, that if the successful contractor discovers a flaw in the design or blueprints then it is their contractural responsibility to report it and correct it. The provider contractor customarily generates a set of "as-built" prints to be delivered to the customer at the end of the job which supercede the customer's originals.

Quality is a process defined by the contradiction between producer and customer. This process can be laid out and documented to assure compliance.

posted 18 December 1999 02:06 PM               

------------snippo----------

From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:49:39 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Billings/Hellmann/Arbuckle

From: Don Arbuckle

I have tried not to respond in this thread, instead, choosing to enjoy the many sides of the discussion, but alas, here I am... Since so many have voiced their opinion, I felt compelled to enter mine.

It is my strong conviction that quality is what the customer wants it to be. I hold with those of you that say that the customer defines quality. That makes it easy for me to fall in line with the ISO definition of quality ("totality of features and charateristics of a product or service that bear on its abililty to meet stated or implied needs") What I have seen in a number of responses, and clearly so in this one from John, is the definition of the word excellence in place of quality.

i.e. I think everyone has to agree that Michael Jordan was an excellent basketball player, but from a quality standpoint, I am sure you will find detractors. This happens because there are a number of metrics to greatness (excellence) and each of us gets to select the criteria we choose to monitor quality. Those who believe that the most important metric lies in the defensive attributes might feel that MJ was not a quality player. Those who revel in shooting percentages might take the same stance. So, as I look at it, quality is in the eye of the beholder - as someone said earlier.

In John's example of the ratchet socket sets from Pep Boys, we find an excellent example of the quality vs excellence dilemma. If there was no one to buy the sets at $9, then they would disappear from the market, but, there are people who buy them. On a lark, today I happened to be at a store that sells inexpensive tools and asked an older gentleman who was purchasing a $1.50 set of screwdrivers, why was he buying it instead of a more expensive set that was "lifetime guaranteed." His reply was that he wanted to keep a set under the sink in the kitchen for quick repairs and wasn't as concerned about longevity as price. Here we find a guy who has a different set of criteria and is satisfied that this product met his requirements.

I apologize that this is so long, but the bottom line is that the customer defines quality and we shouldn't confuse quality with excellence.

posted 09 January 2000 09:21 PM               

-------snippo------

From: ISO Standards Discussion [email protected]
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:27:49 -0600
Subject: Re: What is Quality? /../Kozenko

From: [email protected]

The "Standards Writers" defined quality in ISO 8402:1995 as "entity characteristics" that focus on the ENTITY's ability to produce a product and/or service of planned quality.

A Kiwi Bird, as an entity, then (call it Kiwi Bird, Inc.) could plan for (say) express delivery of standard sized envelopes anywhere in any city within (say) two hours.

The fact that Kiwi Birds don't fly, they walk, would be a characteristic that has bearing on the ENTITY's ability to produce the planned quality in its product. If delivery was advertised as though the Kiwi Bird could fly, then we have a major NCR with no low-tech CAR to hope for.

If "two days walking" was Kiwi Bird, Inc's planned quality, then a radius could be drawn on a city map to determine the extent of Kiwi's ability to achieve planned quality (i.e. how far can a Kiwi Bird walk in two days, carrying an envelope in its beak?).

ISO 8402 further explains that "conformance to requirements" and "degree of excellence" are confusing applications of defining "quality" in terms of the ISO9000 Standards (see Introduction, Paragraph 4).

The revisions in the upcoming draft do not, in my opinion, veer far off course from the ISO 8402 intent, that ENTITY characteristics that bear on ENTITY's ability to produce planned quality (whatever that quality may be, as decided by ENTITY) are still the focus.

Another way of saying the same thing (i.e. yet another KAZ-ism...) -- The Standard's focus is on the Entity's QUALITY SYSTEM and it's proper application to the Entity's operations so that "Plan, Do, Check, Review/Revise" is effectively implemented, properly measured including meaningful measurement data capture, and then such data objectively shows that the "alive and well" QUALITY SYSTEM gives rise to objectively measurable continuous improvement within the Entity.

Granted, one or two of such measures may be "degree of excellence" of the product or service, or evidence that the product or service meets stated and implied requirements. Further and more confusing, "degree of excellence" or "meets requirements" might be applied to internal, cross functional or intercompany activities as well as dealings with the buying marketplace (locally, globally, or anywhere in between) but the point is, that's a very narrow definition of "quality" from either side of the "quality refers to the PRODUCT or SERVICE going out the door" camp.

Think of "quality" as a term that describes an entity's ability to say what it does, do what it says, and prove it, and you'll be on the same playing field as the Standards Writers.

So "Joe's 5 cent Widgets, L.L.C" can plan to make a profit selling five cent widgets that will give the buyer what he paid for, but Joe's won't become certified (or get registered -- take your pick) unless "quality" of the characteristics of the entity are objectively detectable and such characteristics demonstrate their ability to show the entity's ability to say what it does, do what it says, and prove it.

This criteria further expands under I-2-K to include the entity's ability to objectively demonstrate a continuous improvement loop, not by logical inference as in ISO9001:1994, but instead by specific requirement under I-2-K.

Clear as mud?

posted 29 March 2000 10:03 AM               

"Quality...
...is like a good sauce! It's depend what you put in it!"
H. SŽrieyx
From "Entreprise du troisi�me type" Edt. Seuil (not sure!)

"Quality is usefull, necessary and free! It's our most profitable product"
H.S. Geneen
From: "Comprendre et rŽaliser la QualitŽ totale" Jospeh KŽlada; Edt. Quafec

Best regards