The motivation for initiating such quality programs is the perceived need for maintaining the organization's image as a supplier of quality products and services. The justification to commit to this program is usually based on the emotional issues of organizational pride and the moral duty to customers. There can be no quarrel with pride or moral duty as part of the overall objectives but their validity as motivators or justifiers for any activity in a business environment is at best questionable. As day to day business priorities gain visibility these issues always sink below the consideration threshold in the priority order. Only the operatives will participate and the original proponents will quickly become disillusioned with the program as well as its operatives.
A viable quality program must be motivated and justified on the basis that is sound business strategy. If it cannot be justified as a program that measurably contributes to the overall well being of the organization it should not be implemented.
A prevention oriented quality program will contribute to the overall health of the organization by conserving the financial, labor, and material resources that are expended as a result of defectiveness.
There are several ways to consider the potential benefits of a prevention type program. Suppose a manufacturing organization produces products that average 25% defective of which all but 1% are detected and removed or repaired prior to shipment. If the quality performance is evaluated by appraising the relative merits of the products delivered, it would appear to be better than average; however, the production capacity of this plant is required to be at least 24% greater than it would have to be if it originally produced only 1% defective. A prevention oriented quality program operates to allocate some of those lost resources to identify the causes and correct them thus preventing the defectiveness from occurring. The field results can be identical with a significant reduction in production resources.
Obviously the above illustrated is over simplified. Measurements in terms of floor space, production capacity, etc. have a lot of "Gee Whiz" value but are not practical for use as improvement tools. Before implementing a prevention oriented quality program it is necessary to establish objective measures that can be used to recognize the nature and timing of specific actions.
The first of these is the definition of quality itself. It must be recognized that this definition is a parameter and therefore, must be measurable.
Some insight into what quality means to others we deal with may be helpful.
What is the meaning of quality to:
- 1. CEO?
2. COO?
3. Sales and Marketing?
4. Engineering?
5. Customer Service?
6. Manufacturing
- Foreman?
- Worker?
7. Customer?
The Chief Operating Officer, particularly in a manufacturing business may view quality as an inspection function. Quality assurance people are assigned to sort out problems to assure shipments, decide which from a batch of defectives are good enough to use anyhow, get things signed off by engineering and deal with government quality representatives. In addition, they are expected to maintain the highest product quality and be "reasonable".
Sales and marketing usually equates quality with bells and whistles "bang for the buck". They seldom use real quality as something that sets their products apart from the competition. Reliability means "if it breaks bring it back we'll fix it".
Engineering likes to think of quality as state of the art sophistication, uniqueness or creative investment.
Customer service thinks a quality product is one that's easy to fix.
Manufacturing - It didn't come back.
Foreman - It resembles the print and will work.
Worker - It got passed inspection.
Customer - What he thought he was getting when he thought he was getting it.
Quality is defined as "conformance" to requirements and "fitness" for use. (Quality = Conformance & Probity)
There are two interrelated considerations in this definition of quality. The first applies to a defined product, procedure, or service. Quality, in this sense, is an event that occurs when the product, procedure, process or service meets the defined requirements, i.e., drawing, specifications, etc.
The other consideration relates the specifications to expectations, needs, and fitness for intended use, this is referred to as "probity".
Probity is a measure of the congruence of the specification to the requirements of the intended function".
The probity consideration is defined here because of the importance of avoiding confusion with the definition of quality as conformance to requirements. Conformance characteristics are often confused with the characteristics of design or the suitability of the specification (probity). By considering conformance and probity separate components of quality, dual objective views can be established which simplify, to some extent, the logical analysis of problems in either area.
"Conformance" is the first priority in establishing a prevention program. The producing elements of the organization must be well disciplined in conforming to the defined requirements before any other considerations are relevant, i.e., considerations as to the suitability of a product's design are of little value unless the products are actually produced to the requirements of that design. Once the organization is disciplined to perform to the defined requirements, existing conflicts in specifications and applications (probity questions) will arise; these can be resolved through systematic corrective action activities. Probity is achieved through qualification activities in product design and development areas, once conformance in the producing and supporting function is firmly established.
When these definitions are accepted, objectives can be established and a mechanism for measuring performance and managing their achievement can be initiated.
A performance measure in terms of cost will provide the greatest utility in that it is universally understood and provides for objective value assessments of alternative actions.
The rational basis for establishing cost as a quality performance measure is that non-conformity and improbity cost money. In the extremely idealistic sense the absence of non- conformity and improbity for the period beginning at a products conception and continuing through out its life will require no costs attributable to non-quality. The "cost of non-quality" measure then depicts the deviation from the ideal.
There are three categories of cost usually measured in a cost of non-quality measurement system: prevention, detection and failure.
Prevention costs - are those expended trying to keep things from going wrong... usually the most neglected area.
Detection costs - are those used to find out if anything went wrong... these are things like inspections and tests.
Failure costs - are those needed to fix the things that went wrong... rework, scrap, warranty, etc.
These are fairly easy to understand and on the surface seem similar to the normal expenses of operating a business; however, they are only the tip of the iceberg.
For example, rework is not just the cost of the labor for fixing something because labor resources have been diverted from productive activities; these and the attendant resources come straight out of plant capacity.
Scrap is not just the cost of items thrown away, but the cost of replacement, the cost of extra inventory required to cover shrinkage, the carrying cost of inventory stranded because of shortages, not to mention the expediting costs.
Warranty is not just the cost to replace or repair discrepant items delivered to the customer, but includes the cost of delayed accounts receivable, and the loss of customer confidence and lost productivity of any sales personnel involved in adjusting the complaint.
Obviously, all of these items do not show up directly on the cost of non-quality schedules, but the elements are all measurable with varying degrees of precision and are manageable with proven problem prevention techniques. With a concerted effort in reducing the cost of non-quality, current levels can be reduced by 20-50% per year.
Establishing conformance to requirements as a part of routine operations in most organizations is a conversion process.
Conversion is required because of past emphasis on completion of the tasks immediately at hand. Often the act of conforming to requirements is viewed as precluding timely achievement of the tasks at hand, especially in an operation where the level of improbity is high. Actually, with appropriate procedures in place, mandatory conformance will not impede product delivery objectives.
The impetus for conversion must come from the organization policy. The actual policy of the organization may not be written in the policy manual. Whether written or not, actual policy is established and communicated on the basis of perceived management actions in regard to the measures emphasized and the performance recognized and rewarded. It must be recognized that simply signing a policy statement will not establish policy; however, the act will communicate its objective and through reference and review provide a stable datum for maturation into an established policy. In the absence of an official policy statement, policy will exist without reference or review and will therefore be variable.
The policy adopted must address the ideals of conformity and probity without being so ridged that it will be abandoned when conflicts arise. Most people will sincerely accept an idealistic policy statement then later claim non-applicability when a situation is encountered where the alternatives that can be exercised are restricted by the policy; this action effectively changes the actual policy.
In organizations where the level of non-conformance and improbity are high it will be almost impossible to maintain the ideals of the policy and continue delivery of products unless there are procedures in place that define systematic methods for dealing with non- conformance. The first priority should be a procedure enabling temporary adjustments to the requirements; this will preclude policy violations through delivery of non-conforming products when business conditions dictate that delivery must be made in spite of deviations from the product specification.
Allowing temporary adjustments to the requirements may seem like a loophole in the policy or at least a side stepping maneuver; however, with a formal procedure, each adjustment actually reconfirms acceptance of the policy as it provides formality and visibility to an inevitable event which otherwise would have gone underground.
Identifying and fixing a problem that applies to one or a series of product items is only half the action required. Finding and eliminating the cause is often perceived as a much less urgent activity and can be overlooked; this activity must be stimulated externally as the event will not produce the initiative. The responsibility for identifying and initiating corrective action must be clearly defined and formally monitored to assure effectiveness.
Resources within the Quality function should be allocated to perform this activity. A procedure should be constructed and subscribed to that meets the following requirements:
- Identifies problem areas and the organizational element responsible.
Provides a closed loop communications system for follow-up and status reporting.
Provides for escalation of the level to which the request is directed in cases where actions are not timely.
Provides for an appraisal of actions taken to assure effectiveness.
Effective prevention activities will produce an environment for a very high probability of conformity in an organization's output. Since there is also some probability that a non- conformance can occur, provisions should be established for remedial reaction; i.e., a systematic procedure for suspending product shipments, services or producing processes when warranted.
Remedial reactions should be viewed as a failure of the Quality Program and result in some actions to improve program effectiveness. Maintaining this view will discourage the practice of suspending operations as a substitute for effectively managing the quality program. The authority to formally suspend operations should be vested in the quality function with appeal via the deviation procedure discussed earlier. A policy establishing this authority and a procedure defining its application should be prepared and meet the following requirements:
Suspension must be formal.
Although the authority is vested in the quality function all functions must be responsible for reporting situations that may warrant suspending operations.
Timely communication of the suspension including the reason, actions required, and action assignment must be mandatory.
`Timely communications of the release including the conditions for release must be mandatory.
The respondents must understand that the initiation of a remedial reaction is a hair trigger response often made without complete data; therefore, they are obligated to provide any information that may change or support quality's perception of the situation described.
Getting Support
Quality practitioners often complain about the lack of commitment to quality by management and their peers in other functions. This perception of non-commitment, aside from the complaining, often negatively influence their actions and performance and precludes their participation in the strategic planning of the business. This loss of energy, frustration and lack of effectiveness is unfortunate, and for the most part, unnecessary. A management group that is not committed to quality most likely has a quality function that has not communicated or exercised the leadership required to obtain the commitment.
What do we really want when we ask for management support and commitment? Actually it's not just one thing, its a series of elements that together mean management support.
- Clout - That is, representation on the staff equal to other functions.
Accessibility - To discuss concerns and ideas.
Resources - Sufficient for required quality activities.
Information - In sufficient depth to allow planning and operation of the quality function in concert with the company plans and objectives and current business conditions.
The authority to act.
A professional Quality Organization that is efficient and effective. Management cannot credibly support quality as an organizational objective unless the quality departments are competent and maintain an image of competence with peer functions.
Leadership - Achievement of the organizational quality objectives can be viewed as a project and the quality people are the project leaders. The success of this project requires not only the application of resources of the quality department, but the resources of other functions as well. Your effectiveness in team building for this activity will depend upon the authority of knowledge. The authority of knowledge cannot be granted by any office, it must be earned.
Integrity - Management must be able to count on the accuracy of what you tell them. Facts and opinions are wanted, but you must identify which is which. Also, talk to them in terms they can understand without an extensive course in Statistical Quality Control.
Be Helpful - Don't confine your activities to quality assurance activities. Participate in business discussions. Business plans should contain a quality section that is an important part of our overall business strategy. Your participation is important to your profession and company.
You Can't Sell Goodness
Most people think that quality is good. Sometimes quality professionals make the mistake of trying to sell goodness rather than quality. Everyone claims to believe in goodness and everybody wants it. What's to sell? When we try to sell goodness, people think in terms of trade offs. In other words, they only want a certain amount of goodness, usually just enough to get by. You see, goodness must compete with effort, cost, and time resources. Because it is subjective and it's competitors are objective, goodness becomes the only invisible variable. Who wins? You can bet its not goodness.
We might see the truth in this rule more clearly by considering a real work situation. Consider the process of gaining approval to purchase capital equipment for the manufacturing operation vs. the quality function. Manufacturing equipment is usually justified on the basis of more, cheaper, faster; these include cost illustrations, ROI analysis, and pay back periods. Can we make a justification for quality resources that will receive equal consideration based on goodness? How would "We need to purchase a $5000 hardness tester because it is good" be received by your management. I know this may sound like an over simplification, but it is a fact that many justifications for quality resources are constructed as a formality to gain approval when the real motivation is the perception of goodness on the part of the quality professional making the request.
Effectively selling a prevention type Quality Program involves abilities not normally provided for by our training. The Malsows and McGregors have given us rules for communicating with and motivating subordinates, but when it comes to our boss and peers new devices are called for.
Perhaps we could benefit by following the lead of our friends in marketing. They make a marketing strategy plan by finding out how their products or services can solve the customer's problems, then translate these into sales pitches and advertising campaigns.
We need to find the leading causes of happiness for management and our peers and demonstrate how quality can help achieve these objectives. Sometimes we talk in terms of problem avoidance, i.e., avoiding unhappiness. That may have limited success in maintaining the status quo; however, to really make progress the sale must create happiness.
What are the leading causes of happiness for:
- - Management?
- Engineering?
- Manufacturing?
Often the Quality Professional can lose sight of his relationship with his peers. Some realizations are important in selling any quality program. You will always be in competition with your peers for the resources of the company. The new machines in manufacturing and the Quality Engineer you want to hire must be provided for from the same source of funds. If your peers support your needs, allocations become less of a problem and implementation is not a contest.
Thank You
Copyright © 1986 Charles Prier
Click Here to E-Mail your Comments
Return to ALL ABOUT QUALITY