We've Lost Sight of Quality

We all feel your pain.

The buzz words etc. are to catch the interest of non technical types like production workers, accountants and senior managers, but once you get past the glitter you'll often find some clever ideas.

Remember lots of people aren't clever or conscientious and so need complete, detailed and insultingly obvious work instructions.

Pretty darn arrogant and elitist response.

Change and betterment more often comes from the floor, with management using it for career enhancement with little recognition.

"Pretty darn arrogant and elitist response" It wasn't meant to be.

Many quality control programs have a statistical component and often the maths/reasoning behind them aren't well understood by non technical types. So the sampling/pass-fail decisions are codified into a set of simple rules.

Of course, once there's a set of rules some people follow them to the letter regardless of whether they are appropriate for the situation. This can be frustrating to people who know what's going on.

Yes, a lot of change and improvement can come from the shop floor (all modern QA systems recognise and encourage this) but there is also often great resistance to change, entrenched work practices and general bloody mindedness.

I apologize then.

Word use conveys are meanings in procedures, manuals, documents, and reports.

Again, I apologize for My misunderstanding.

My apologies as well, I understand that things I (and we) say in emails can come across as rude or blunt.

It's a continual juggling act, make replies short & readable OR long, waffling and unreadable.

falconrt

Welcome to CR4 - good luck. Has it ever crossed your mind that one of the reasons that the "good old USA" is falling behind in the "product we make" is because people can not see or realise the benefit in some of the "crapola" that you dismiss so easily. This dismissal out of hand of these systems could also contribute to your work situation?

I have been through several iterations of these renaming and buzzword schemes. They are mostly marketing and slogans to sell the suit type and really contain the same things in new pricey packages. I have seen them applied to situations where they were never intended or needed to fill a square on some managers report so that they could say they applied what ever was the newest buzzword and get their Browne points. The problem with all this is not the system but the application and the dedication to real quality. The biggest improvement in quality comes from a move from Quality Control attempting to inspecting quality into a product in a punitive way to Quality Assurance working with the engineers and production personnel to make a quality product as a member of the team.

I could do a major rant on this topic, but suffice it to say there are too many people at all levels in all types of job who don't actually understand the producs they are making/advertising/marketing/selling/installing/financing/specifying/answering phone calls about etc.
The depth of technical knowledge is abysmal.
And as for 'customer services' don't get me started.
Never mind...I shall fill in and 'action request form' that'll solve all the problems.

Many businesses seem to have completely lost sight of the customer.
The other day I wanted to buy an item in a shop, they had one (unboxed) on the shelf, but wouldn't sell it to me...they wouldn't go out back to the warehouse and have a look because 'we have a stocktake tomorrow and everything is labelled'...
The shop girl called in a shiny suited, brain dead 'manager' who self evidently wan't equiped to either make a decision on his own or argue rationally...I didn't waste my breath or blood pressure in the end.

Del

The attitude seems to be these days, to do as little as possible for the most money they can make. Most people who work in the service provider areas, are not encouraged to make any kind of decision on their own. They are considered not capable of making a decision that won't hurt the company image or it's money tree. The employees therefore go along with the flow. "Don't try to be the best. just do what you are told, collect your paycheck and go home and do whatever it is you do when not working".

Hi Del,

I will take your inspiring, "eye opening" comment just a little further with this true example.

I bought a popular caliber carbine about 35 years ago. It is a fine little home defense as well as light caliber hunting rifle. About a year ago, while dispatching a couple of slaughter hogs, I some how managed to lose the front blade sight. About a month ago I got around to contacting the manufacturer seeking a replacement part. A nice young lady responded, looked into her computer inventory of parts and responded that the manufacturer no longer had parts available for this weapon because it was no longer manufactured, and no replacement parts were being kept in stock.

I was disappointed of course! HOWEVER: a week later I called again and this time I contacted an elderly gentleman who just happened to own a copy of the same model carbine and his opinion regarding this rifle mimicked my own. He looked into inventory and found the part. Here is the really interesting part of this event. The gentleman related to me, that the part would be sent to me by regular mail on the very next business day, "free of all costs including mailing and handling". Did the young lady simply make a mistake, or did she simply jump to a conclusion, I will never know. This is a classic example regarding one's need to look a little further at the picture or in this case inventory, and the seekers responsibility to make another effort when appropriate.

If I were an employee for some enterprise and I simply quit looking for a part for some piece of equipment because I was first told that no such part was available, my lack of effort might have cost my employer much income or expense to replace said equipment. Unfortunately this kind example happens all to often!

TMF

Nice story...I wonder if it was the girl or the old guy who was following company quality procedures. Product knowledge and pride in the product are hard to beat.
How is a blade front sight fitted? Does it slide into a dovetail groove or somesuch?
Del (We're not allowed guns over here..especially cats)

They probably all can converse in Swiss, French and German.

Although they have "schwizer duetsch" it is not a language, well, not really. Italian is the third. Precision and quality seem to flourish in such an environment. I wonder why?

High standard can not be measured in string although they are of the same length, Ky.

Your frustrations are appreciated. Customer satisfaction will most always trump the best intentions of organizations that have deployed a re-packaged Quality idea. I believe the challenge to top management is being astute enough to know whether they have established a topical or systemic system. E.g. would it be intuitive to the employee to sense you, the customer, was unhappy not due to a systems failure but simply a set of circumstances. Apparently the desk person and the mid manager do not have the authority to accommodate the customer with some innovative thinking that includes how to handle special cases. Repeatability is often the essence of a quality process. Unfortunately customer's needs are not as boring or consistent.

I applaud entrepreneurs who can repackage a sound idea in order to get the interest of an executive who at least knows he needs a systematic approach to be competitive. I would fault Business and Engineering schools that do not emphasize enough or teach the cause of customer satisfaction.

Hi Tom,

Today's businesses are, in very large part "me-too operations". Look around, the food, car, and many other products are made by companies cutting the same pie into smaller and smaller slices. The quality suffers because profitability is the leading ingredient of these businesses. Again, I have to emphasize that only "niche" businesses can produce quality. First, it's their interest to maintain the "niche" business and protect their "niche" market. Most of "niche" business creators come from "me-too" companies because they never have the chance to express their opinion on the realities of the business, what and how to do successfully. All "niche" businesses are based on high quality products or services because the initiators knew that quality cannot match by "me-too" operations.

Also, it's easier to make high quality products when you satisfy a "niche" market. You make only one or a few number of products or a few variations of the single and successful item.

In my life, I made products already on the market. The quality was superior from the larger and existing businesses' products. However, after a certain period of time the superior quality lost its punch, attacked by incumbents by cotting the price. I became the victim.

In the other hand, when I established a "niche" business without any competition, my high quality and special products and services still alive and so profitable than before. After more than 5 years, there is no another company who wants to involve itself to make "what and how" must be done.

Customer satisfaction comes when someone design a product or service filling to total contentment and fulfillment the needs and wants of the customer. Customer needs and wants are consistent and not boring at all. To create customer satisfaction, we have sometime to work hard, be genius to find the solution. This is enlightening work! Normally, customer has a problem and we have to solve it. Customer doesn't know what to do, customer just relate its problem. We, technicians, manufacturers, and other related people have to produce the solution to the problem. The solution is the customer satisfaction.

An example why customer doesn't know what to do. Customer has only a problem. Early years of the automobile era, we have wood tires. Later, the industry changed to rubber, and finally the industry and not the recommendation of customer(s) who created the actual and final form of tires what we have today. Customers never asked the industry to make from wood to rubber to the actual form, isn't it? Same for medicine and drugs, one person or a group create the products to solve a problem, never the customer tells to manufacturer what to do to solve that problem.

Also, in the paint industry, customer wants only to change the colour of the wall for example. Customer wants to use a paint, which is smell good and safe, doesn't drip off the roller, dries in a smooth and event surface without any visual differences in colour, sheen, or appearence. The cost of this paint is not a big importance. If the manufacturer can realize in one or two coats constently the same results, their business is in good shape.

If you disagree with this comment, please, answer to Gil.

I agree with your comment of a "niche" business. Another factor that affects that niche is, the popularity of that item in the market. When an item is on the market in small quantities, the big companies don't concern themselves with any competition by the niche company. If the item gets too popular; thats when big companies take notice and move in, driving the small company out of the market. It's better to stay small. I would be satisfied with < a million.

Hi Ronseto,

Yes, "small is beautiful"! You have an excellent idea of staying under $1 million "niche" business. The question is; How to grow this "niche" affair to a big one? Human think with $1 in his pocket: How I can make the second? Think what does P&G. They have 3 or 4 detergents for washing clothes. What they do? They create one with cold water. One protecting the dark colours. Another for sensitive to chemicals or you named. They differentiate their products for different people or different purposes. Same for shampoos!

I return to my favourites, paints. We already have the "niche" market label, so we can create another label and attach another selling price. The height of absurdity but extremely profitable, we create another company in another location, identical or improved of the first. We compete against us and against other existing paint companies. We can start with a warehouse and make the paints in the first place. When the volume of sales are enough high, we equip the second place and start over again. This theory is in practice for decades but not yet in the paint business, and very successful. Slowly, we can eliminate competition to a point where we make only profitable paint and let the low-end and high volume to the other companies. Imagine, we can embark to create a varnish and stain producing companies. Also, we can grow the companies to the limite of let say $1 million and create a second as mentionned earlier.

Here, I talking everything waterbourne without solvents and other dangerous ingredients. Safety! Safety for producers and users! Isn't it beautiful?

Don't tell me that you will start tomorrow morning? Ronseto, tell what you think about, Gil.

Maybe its because swear words are not generally put into quality specs for effective communications. (eg: "Define the gawdam customer expectations so the average @*?&$%^%*" worker on the effing shop floor can understand them")

because you know it isn't going to work until management gets that.

chris

Whether we like it or not, understand it or not, the the state of quality is as it is . That is with the jargon and buzzwords . However true quality is a real need in every product . One word Toyota. As one post said lurking in the titles and systems is real value. The successful companies and stakeholders will find and employ them continuously.

Excellent and terse reply Chris.

And, when I see articles like this, I wonder where GM will stumble next.

http://www.portfolio.com/industry-news/automotive/2010/02/08/whitacre-says-gm-will-seize-on-toyota-stumbles/?ana=e_pft

I personally believe that Toyota has done the best response to date working with recalls.

Seeing the cultural differences that Toyota Management has and the Multi National footprint of all assembling manufacturers, I was impressed.

And, on the note of recalls,how many of these have you heard addressed?

http://www.allworldauto.com/recalls/

Hi Chris,

You are right on that. The "conspiracy theory" works in many cases, and I think in this situation that is the reality. I think that the North-American car industry will die because we cannot support it as another businesses we can.

When someone attack someone else, the return of the flames are against and burn the attacker. The Chrysler's multi-help with billions became each times a fiasco within a few years later. GM imposed to buy, through charming people's ego, the famous Hammer number I, II, or III. Now the Chinese will sell to us the pieces to repair the remaining cars in the future.

When the North-American car buyer will be smart enough to see her/his interests, and not let fool by the advertisings. Wish the best, Gil.

GA!

Toyota is being punished by the stupid medias for doing the right thing!

(They did cause their problems but at least they are fixing them)

Meanwhile, other car mfg have worst quality issues but hide them.

I also agree with many respondent. The quality doesn't come from the QC department. It comes from ALL the worker! It starts with the CEO IMPOSING a real quality attitude in the company. This propagates down the ladder. If the CEO is sloppy, everybody else will follow.

Have you picked up mind reading now Chris?

No subtlety in this attempt to get a head start on a company that has been performing with out fail for many decades. You know what? Australians would not be were we are now with out them. They will survive and come out of it stronger than ever. I have never owned a tojo my self but know that the people that need a reliable and practically indestructible working machine will stick to what is good. GA!

To get to the point the OP is making:

Quality will always rule and fashions come and go and how top management treats underlings will come in waves. What will last is commitment to complete openness and scrutiny in all aspects of a product, what ever it may be. To rely, if only in part, on the gullibility of the customer or client is stupid, dumb, unintelligent and completely counter productive.

This asks for strong leadership and walking the walk (doing as best as one can) will become a desirable goal again, once it has been recognized that paper and what it is printed on it, counts for nothing if not read like a bible and not regulations but common sense prevail.

I have been in meetings lately that were just out of this world. Super smarts protecting their jobs and not listening to what is being proposed or suggested, because they lack the basics of what one has to know of the given challenge or subject. Cutting corners can be the downfall of an established or up and coming enterprise. The ink pissers will not rule forever, that is my optimistic stand point.

Once one gets to the senior partners all is much easier but their wish to be out fishing or playing golf keeps us apart. Good on them for still being able to be at the coal face and show support and help. I am not talking about buying some M16 bolts and nuts but am inquiring about complicated processes required to manufacture a reliable (if not perfect) product. Bad they leave the fort staffed with people with out true commitment to quality, looking after them selves and not the potential customer.

I will not deal with a sales person who is not informed (like Del, I get bodily functions going hay wire) and usually find back doors to get proper information. The net is not the solution to all and a basic talk with some one committed to a subject/product can save light years in deciding on the next move or part.

The biggest change I have noticed in the last twenty years is the competence of women in the sophisticated supplier business. Not only on the net but in engineering supply shops as well. The best thing is, they have this incredible sense of humor, which can brake the ice and one can get on with a chore or two.

I went to a shop a while back and needed some hands on view of a rotating valve union. I was greeted by a young Asian lady and I said "can I speak to manager" I was bowing the way a Japanese diplomat would greet his nemesis. She said "sure Mate what's it about? As broad Aussie accent as you could ever hear. She knew all about the subject and the manager was never needed. I did not buy the part but knew more about what is available and what could be sent how and when than I could have found on the computer. Guess were I am putting in my next larger order?

Hope all goes well, Ky.

Lets step back and recall where Mr. Toyoda got his education. The whole point of my original post was that quality and customer expectations are the driving force of profits. The point is that bull dung is bull dung. Ask toyota what happens when ones head gets too lean things move rapidly and won't stop. I have been involved off and on with designing quality for nearly 30 years and am tired of paying to learn new vernacular for the same recanned goodies. Until upper mgt and our gov't level the playing field meaning if an offshore customer charges tariffs we tariff their junk. Fair is fair.

Hi Falconrt,

Don't shoot me! I agree that the world is not running very well. Who is in trouble? The voters. They put the president or the prime minister in place with new consequences. Same is as we buy cars or other objects. By buying those offered items, we encourage companies to be alive and make the same products, good or bad. It sells!

Deming was educated in the US, and never was welcome to the US government, to US companies. The Japanese accepted him, his theories, and the game is done for the American industry in many occasion. Do we make televisions? It's a big market!

The Japanese company will get back in the positive side of the business and without attacking their opponents, they will pass them again. TV will be followed by the cars? Yes, I am serious. This is a simple but important question: first the unions, second the industry, and the last the government composed of different people in two rooms.

I would like to hear your opinion on that. Wait for it, Gil.

In a manufacturing environment, these buzz words serve those that can apply the systems that are sought: Greenbelt capabilities, Blackbelt, lean manufacturing, etc. These were derived from the old JIT/Cell manufacturing, and SQC concepts. The newer models for manufacturing change as quickly as new engineers (or CPAs)come out of college. Quality has not been left behind, they have been taken over by those who implement the programs developed by the Blackbelts, and so forth. The ASQC has long been a proponent of combining manufacturing and quality control systems into a unified effort. This is the world as it is. As a long time QC/QA professional (in the manufacturing environment and heavy construction), I have seen this change, and it is for the good. The changes are more prevalent in the manufacturing plant than in the field, but change has always been expected and should be anticipated by those who will be affected, most, the QC professional. My advise is for you to find the nearest ASQC meeting and find out how you can learn more about these systems about which you must learn if you are to survive in this QC arena. Find out why GE and others fill their rosters with people who are conversant with these buzz words in action and why the suppliers of GE are also finding it to their advantage to implement these systems. This is the future: join it or be left behind.

Hi Rod,

I think, and I was involved to improve a manufacture from A to Z and manage for bigger profits and better quality. All those words are the creation of people don't manage any manufacturing process, just talking about and writing thick books. It creates involvement from the industries, creats new jobs, and lots of talking about it! I followed E. Deming's words and it's working as the Japanese demonstrated. Deming was an American but was rejected by his fellows and the Japanese culture let the job done with results we see everywhere involved. We don't make any television, radio or similar products here in North-America. Why? We are stupid to do what they are doing? I don't think so! First, profit talks! Second, we check if it's good to produce here or let someone else to do it. We know the total costs to get the system and to involve the workers. Again, the workers are not involved at all. Decisions are made in the "Ivory Tower" and obedience is imposed to the lower levels. That way a worker does't care if her/his work is profitable or she/he can make better ways. The salary is the same! An American company can establish any system to produce what they want in foreign countries. They impose and people need to do what is asked, point! In North-America, with the power of the "unions", "This is not my job!" system is working. These people cannot produce quality, and in the service departments and with customers this attitude is maintained and destroys quality image. The workers don't know that the paycheque is supplied by customers, just signed by someone in the company.

Today, we build up businesses with the attention of not having any customer service because it's expensive. Also, we have many manufacturing operations that talking about TQS, JIT, and other Blackbelt systems but not able the make twice the same products. The best example is the paint industry, where two batch never was the same, and I talk about companies have sales in the billions. One thing is realistic in that industry is that everyone does the same imitation at the lower costs possible to steal the slice of the pie from the competition.

Any company can produce high quality products by following Deming's ideas as written practically 50 years ago. It takes observation and apply the PDCA and other simple improving processes to become the best of your trade. Wish the best to simplicity, Gil.

I must respectfully disagree with you. In a lot a cases the buzzword of the day becomes a slogan with no real meaningful change except to make sure the right word is used on the reports so the manager and the suit type gets his Browne point. They spend unbelievable amounts of money on these repackaged systems without making any real commitment to fixing the real problems. I do agree that this is driven by the MBA types fresh out of college with very little ar no ral knowledge or experience. Been there done that too many times.

Hi Jim, I agree with you in your disagreement. There are many facets to the issue of what management's in-put and control of the manufacturing process is (those not directly associated with it, but are instead in positions of corporate management, sales, etc.). Too many, I fear, for a forum such as this, though I suspect that in time many views will be expressed. Yours is one of which is true for some part of the total. We shall see what others have to share of their thoughts.

I agree with you on this also since I have experienced a number of occasions where the illusion of quality appears to be more important than actual quality. By illusion of quality I refer to these auditors who come in and are more concerned with the correctness of the paperwork than the quality of the product being made.

I ran a foundry where "quality and service" was the motto that the founder had used as part of his trademark. We had a "baseline audit" as part of our ISO-9000 training course. The Auditor in his closing said that all personnel were aware that making quality product was paramount, that using the correct metal and preventing cross contamination were highly important and that they seemed highly competence at their jobs and were well trained. For that we got the full 60% he could allow, however, our paper trail wasn't sufficient and he could only give us 10% for that part. This in spite of the fact that we could show through sample analysis and mechanical testing results that we had done for certifications that our product always was in the correct range (chemically and mechanically) that was required for the alloys.

Contrary to that I'd seen places that put out inferior products to ours but were ISO Certified and had a so-called paper trail to make the Auditors happy.

Where I'm currently at, an auditor-consultant for a customer came in, during the first 5 minutes asked for a report and when it was taken out of the file he stated that it wasn't initialized and dated and he proclaimed that we had no quality system in place and that the audit was over. There was nothing wrong with the results of the report but it had not been initialed and dated prior to filing so the paper trail(lack of initials) and not the results were the problem

Fortunately the customer and we had a long history with very few returns of our castings and we found out later that the consultant was let go.

I've been to some of the buzz word courses and many are not applicable to independent job shops. They pertain more to large facilities producing a product wherein they control stocking, manufacturing and output based on their predictions or market analysis. Small independents often have to take the ball and run with little advance notice and make delivery with time constraints. I used to have castings made and sitting on the shipping dock before some of our larger customers could produce a Purchase Order because they had "centralized" purchasing out of a main office. I actually had the local plants call me with the PO number so I could get it out to them.

Call me old fashioned if you will but Service meant something to me and Quality went without saying.

Here on CR4, the plan is to critique ideas and not people. Therefore, based on solely what you have presented, I would rate you lower too. A Quality System does a minimum three things:

• It specifies what 'Quality' is from the absolute point of view of the customer. (including all performance characteristics) (but written by the company and committed to. "this is what we are going to create". It is a manifesto.)
• It records evidence that what has been produced matches the original specification.
• It evaluates the evidence, and produces corrective action to better achieve the terms of the specification.

I think this is where you seem to be missing the point. These are not buzzwords, they are the absolute undeniable fundamentals of improvement. Comparison is the Ultimate form of intelligence. Without it, you know nothing. The specification forms half the comparison, and the recording of evidence forms the other half; both involve paperwork. Evaluation is the recording of the thought process and the actions taken. Be aware it is possible to design a quality system that is paperless. (electronic)

If you have 'quality' in hand, but fail an honest audit, it can only be because you have done these things, but did not do them thoroughly enough.

Respectfully,

Chris

Well Chris I didn't realize that I was critiquing "someone". Whomever it was I do apologize to. I thought that it was clear that my comments were more directed toward the concept of quality for the sake of product than the sake of paper work.

As to the reference to "buzzwords" I used it because that was what the initial thread was partially all about and also the thread to which I was agreeing with. I might assume from your reply that perhaps you have a personal interest in defending against a disparaging use of the terms as "buzzwords".

As far as missing the point I have already written up a QMS Manual, procedures, work instructions and the rest. I have been through two ISO (1994 & 2000) programs and the company was certified in 2009 on our first try. I firmly believe in electronic record keeping and do a far share of internal audits. So I do not feel that I am missing any points.

I do still believe that the importance of quality should be reflected in the product not in the paperwork and yes I do handle a lot of paperwork which backs up the record keeping process including signing off as a Level III in NDT.

its so hard to convey tone in text... I meant no disrespect, and in my mind, had a very friendly tone. and as I said, it was just based on 'what I read'...

as to critiquing, that was a general statement, and not directed 'at' you.. but to explain my own critical thinking.

Having been a quality manager, I knew that you had things largely in hand, based on what you said, but some I found some clarity missing from the whole implementation, and it took a long time to come to the clarity I have now. that is why I expressed the basics strongly.

level III.. I wish I had that... oh well..

best wishes.

Chris

Hi Spinco,

Your words are refreshing and make a clear picture what's ISO-9000 or other quality qualifier or certification. It creates gargantuan amount of paperwork, job creation, and revenue for other organizations but doesn't change big in your concernings, the quality of your products. Much more paper filling and handling but the accent is not on the products or services.

If all ISO certified companies produce their products as expected, we will dominate the market in every area. However, the reality is an other subject.

As I already mentionned, there are methods to obtain excellent quality without meeting the ISO, it doesn't fit to their specs. In the early 90s, my company wanted to be certified. Meetings started and when some conclusion get on the table from the company was hired and paid for it, we discover that all old equipment was approved for the better quality for future customers with the label mentionning that we "ARE" ISO-9000 certified. This was a joke and after discussion with the company's owner we decided to cancell everything and improve ourselves to our customers. And we did!

Simple way is, involving workers who know the machines, what and how to do everything. Ask them how they can do something with less physical involvement, and they have the surprisingly good answers. You compensate the individual with the idea, and she/he will start to look what's the next good idea for the next compensation. The human works that way, so involve fully them into the game.

I never was believer on any market analysis. When one customer tells you that your product is good, you can start produce because the sale is coming.

These theoricians tell you: When you sell a bad product around 5 to 9 person will know that you made a bad product. It cannot be true also that: When you sell an excellent product to one person, this person can tell to at least one another person that we are good? That way my sales are doubled, isn't it? So, we have to think about who is right and who is better, just to stay on the same side.

Name a big selling company with excellent service. In Toronto I didn't see one, or I cannot experience good service because I am 196 cm high? Please, let me laugh! I drink espressos, one day I stop a new Starbuck, and ask for a dopio in China. The young lady told me: Here we don't serve coffee in China, only in papercup. I asked for her name, and another employee probably heard the conversation, took a cup, China, and gave to the girl. And told her: Make it in that cup and fast, me I collect the money for it! It was charming how one person knows what the company is for and not the another. Service is human action with another human. Domination and/or fear, and many other psychological factors play a big role in communication. Spinco, it was a pleasure to talk to you, Gil.

The Chipper

The most telling element of this discussion is the identification of "insulting behavior" as one of the most difficult challenges to overcome, when trying to lead a group towards positive change. Respectful communication can result in positive change. Dis-respectful communication serves to disrupt positive change, and often results in negative change.

Change itself is inevitible in life, and especially evident in business. The business which does not change positively, continuously, will be over-run by the business which does. Therefore, the nature of business is to accelerate the pace of change. If you aren't pushing positive change, you're standing in the way of your company thriving.

The question then becomes, "How do we implement change, in a way that works? How do we influence every worker to accept the suggested changes, to put them into practice?"

The answer is, positive change will occur, when there is a spirit of respect between everyone in the company. You might say, "Well how can I respect that so and so, he makes way too much money and doesn't do anything?" Or, "How can I respect that person, he's not very well educated. What does he know, that can help improve our company?"

Comments such as these are rooted in an attitude of non-respect. That is, each of these people believe that only people in the same situation as they are in, can have respect. They each believe that they are "better" than other people.

The truth in life is, no person is better than another person. Oh, sure some people commit more mistakes, or demonstrate off-putting behavior more frequently than other people - but even they have their good points.

Through acceptance of self and others, we form the foundation to create respectful behavior - to foster respectful partnerships between people.

It's never the change itself that is difficult. Oh sure, people generally like to keep things the same, since routine and familiar processes make life simple. But people can see the benefits of change and be encouraged to embrace it, even to drive it forward when they see the reason to improve something.

What really stands in the way of positive change is the MANNER in which it is introduced, explained, ordered and implemented. When the supervisor, manager or co-worker charged with implementing change is respectful of his fellow workers, there is an opportunity for the changes to be accepted, and implemented. Without it, there is only grudging acceptance of the hierarchy of boss / employee, and no positive change actually occurs.

I remember well this story. A prominent door manufacturer was selling millions of dollars worth of high-end wooden entry doors. They were constantly losing money in this division and could not figure out why.

A consulting company sent in a new hire, a cleaning person. After about three weeks of "checking him out," his co-workers "trusted" him. So they reverted to their original behavior. Once the over-bearing, insulting, berating supervisor left the floor, they stationed a person on a cat walk, with a view through the window of the door leading down the hallway to the offices, to see when he was returning, to signal everyone to get back to work.

While he was gone, they picked up brand-new, just made, $5,000 valued doors, and fed them into the chipper - the machine on the floor used to reduce scrap lumber into sawdust. The level of anger against the supervisor was so extreme that the employees were willing to bankrupt the company. They no longer cared whether they had a job or not.

It's all about how we treat one another. And the worst kind of wrong treatment is that of a supervisor who is dis-respectful of his co-workers, when he treats them like sub-ordinates - even when they are "sub-ordinate" in rank, or title.

So . . . many times, the change which needs to occur is internal, to change one's heart, to remember that no person is "better" than another, nor is someone "lesser." In that spirit of equality, of demonstrating that every single person is valued for their contribution, in that spirit lies the path to progress, to positive change.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I was in the same situation to run a production with 5 to 6 workers. Was not possible because they were not able to accept changes. I sit down and think about. Finally, I quit the company, open my small business for 2 years, and I get an offer to run again a production. I took the well paying job because my idea was made what and how to do to become successful.

I write down all standard operating procedures, and created a page where was defined who I hire to work for me. I put an ad in the lo cal newspaper by saying that no experience needed for the work but not mentionning what we will make. I get all kinds of people. Young and old, man and woman, intellectuals and have difficulties to read. I told 4 persons who already worked in the industry that there is no work for them. I wanted people without knowledge in the industry that way they listen and I have no objection because for them everything was new. It worked fantastic, believe me. I worked with them like brothers and sisters. Finally, the team was 28 imaginative and collaborative individuals. The owner gived me free action because the production made him the profits he liked. No problems during 5 years, when the son of the original owner became the boss, the company went in the hole.

These people, the workers were originally ignorant of the work, they were admirable people to be handle and direct to the way I wanted but in return, I all the time get their help when something was to hard to execute or too much waste was involved. We have short and specific meetings with everyone together, absolutely everyone together, every week once or twice. We learned together to get better and produce the best of the industry. I still dream about that time and wish to restart one day the same.

I wish to everyone to start that way to build up a production. It's simple and involve only a line to follow. Innocence and simplicity works for the creation of better products and mainly for a better working atmosphere.

On our production meeting was only present the production and lab (QC and R&D) workers and me. No boss or other person, never. This was our job to talk honestly and positively because I originally specified that I was "equal to them within a team".

I understand your difficulties but if you want to get what I already have, you have to start the way I did. Take virgin people to the job, if is possible! After me, this is the only way to get what you want, Gil.

Thanks for writing to me about your experience. It was very informative. I can see from your writing that you take the time with people, to let them know that they are very important for the work to be done right.

I also have seen when a new boss comes in and upsets the entire work force. It's especially bad when that person is related to the owner. Although some who are related are actually very good working with people. It all depends.

My actual experience is running a call center, with employees who have good job assurance. I found that it is possible to find a way to train people who have been doing something "one way" for a long time. As you said, the result comes from treating the others with respect, as equals. It also required that I take a step back sometimes, when trying to get others to change, to let them not change for a few days. Then I ask again, and ask what specific difficulty they have to the change. I respond to each objection. Sometimes the response is, "The (big) company doesn't care about me (or us), look how they did such and such." I respond by agreeing with them, about their observation, and by telling them I also feel the same way about the situation, usually when something unfair occured. That helps the person see that their opinions, their feelings are valid. And by demonstrating that to this type of person, you give them an opportunity to see you as an ally, rather than a competitor, or worse still, an enemy.

I then turn the conversation back to the work at hand. "That's true," I say, "however, I don't have anything to do with that subject, and neither do you. There's nothing that you or I can do about it. So let's just focus on what we can do."

It usually works. For the truly challenged, those who are just plain obstinate about changing, eventually they will change for one reason or another - but more likely they get bumped or transferred or fired for other reasons, such as coming in late, etc.

Hi Tom,

I see that you have the same problems than all of us who need to manage people to produce something for customers. It's complicated because we are not the owner of the business. Many times, you inherit people trained well or badly by others, and these people don't accept easily the new manager and his ways to work. Also, you have the other managers, marketing, financial who protect their position and diminish yours. This is called internal competition, which is deadlier than coming from outside. And finally, you have the attitude of the big boss who most of the time don't understand people needs, including yours, personel and working requirements.

I worked for 22 different companies during my 40 years. The shortest was 3 months because they didn't accepted my method of making coatings, which satisfied the customer. After my understanding of business; The customers pay everything and they need to be satisfied to do business with us". If a company doesn't respect this principle, I step out.

The longest was more than 6 years, and was finished a profitable company into bankruptcy by the third generation within 16 months after the acquisition. These youngs know what and how to do things, they are killers!

I prefer to hire people don't work in the industry, with the same machines, with the same type of products. Why? Because I don't want to get the bad habits of other companies transferred to mine business. I want to create the atmosphere, working conditions, and people's attitude convenient to my system. At the longest place, I fired only 3 persons and I have 28 in production, warehouse, and lab including myself to produce more than 1.6 million gallons of house paints, varnishes, and stains per year. The business growth only through the quality of our products within 5 years. The company was simple without marketing or advertising. The owner's principle was the following by saying: I don't know nothing how to make paint. Your job (Told me) to make the best for the satisfaction of our customers that they can tell someone else that we make good paint. We did together and I learned lots during this period. Wish you the same boss to you, Gil.

NB: If you don't have a good boss, go out and find one who fits to you!

I like it! GA

Good answer.

I have actually been on site for an audit of ISO certified companies and found no Quality Manual and/or missing procedures.

One company asked me if I had a cut and paste manual so they could "cobble" one together over a weekend.

Talk about dismay.

But the buzzword banners flew throughout he facility and were used in conversations.

I have no doubt that there is much truth in what you and Del the Cat have to say. Perhaps it has been my good fortune that those companies that hired me hired me to develop a meaningful and implementable Manual that was used as a showcase, but also as the policy inherent for all work: from parts production to answering the phone. No doubt that I have had the good fortune to have worked with honorable people who understood the gravity of their own word as it was written into an audited document like a QA Manual. And, clearly some of the customers and suppliers payed lip-service to their own commitment to a formal quality program. That is the way of the world, sad t say. However, it seems to me that at a minimum the QC professional should always project a positive attitude towards his involvement with a QC or QA Program. If you don't, then who; if not now, then when?

Del,

For product quality, what you are saying is true; knowledge of your own product is critical. For passing an audit with flying colors, you have to cross every T and dot every I, and therefore, what he says is true..

There is a difference between knowing product quality and being the guy on the hot seat representing the Quality System.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I would like to add a little comment about "knowledge of your own product". In business we have no products or services, which are ours. All sellable products or services are for customers and to establish what is customer's needs and wants, we have to understand what customer needs ans wants are. We create a product or service to satisfy customer's demand, isn't it? After my opinion, this is the basis of any business. So, we have no our own product or service but we have product or service to satisfy customers. In other words, you sell what they want or need and you have a business or you don't sell and you have nothing. Chris, I am fine or not? Please, let me know, Gil.

Hi Gil,

A business can be viewed as a black box that produces value.

It produces value for:

1. The customer.
2. The owner(s).
3. The employees and contractors hired to produce said value (including mgt).
4. The community of people it hires from.
5. Other people and companies that it purchases from.

All businesses use Processes to transform inputs to outputs, regardless of whether that process is in someone's head alone, or is documented and trained.

The quality systems that I've worked with stipulate, as part of the primary process, that you define the customer's requirements This goes beyond mere product, to providing what they need and not just what they want. It also stipulates a feedback mechanism so that satisfaction is ensured, and that you document the feedback and corrective actions.

Depending on what additional specifications you are building to, you may have performance criteria to meet that the customer may not ever be aware of. All they want is the attached label that says "this produce was manufactured under spec ###) (We built hydraulic accumulator systems under ISO and API, and the API-16D was a performance spec, giving volume ratios, material spec, pressure ratings, etc)

The ISO spec is something that the Company conforms to (processes), and the API spec was something the Product conforms to, and they were bundled. Maybe this is the source of confusion on my part. I apologize. Our audits covered both aspects.

cheers,

Chris

Hi Chris, Thanks for the precisions. I made my comment or reply to yours in around an hour because I was interrupted with calls, and my old head has the difficulty to follow the idea already in progress.

Small addition: Suppliers > {Input > Processes > Output} > Customers.

We have to include Suppliers, they have knowledge behind products we use, which could influence the processes to staisfy the customers.

Absolutely right about data collection before, during, and after the use of product by the customer. Without data we cannot improve it.

Concerning ISO or other certification was refused by the company I worked and with reason, means nothing to paint buyers if you are ISO-9000 company or not. They buy satisfying products, that's all. Car buyers are the same. When they have difficulties with one make, they change for another. It's a safe operation.

In paint, Benjamin Moore never get somewhere with "environmentally friendly" paint. Every gallon still stay on shelf and rusting inside and out.

I understand, many industries need to supply what is specified. Pats for cars or other equipment is the same. Look the food industry, they make what is economical for them, that's it!

"Natural" yogourt contains 3 gram of sugar per 125 gram. The "blueberry" or other "fruit" yogourt contains 23 gram of sugar for the same quantity. Why?

Thanks again for your note, Gil.

Hi Rod,

Sorry but for me QC or quality control is the function of approving or refusing the production. I explain, I made coatings during 40 years. The batchmaker follow the standard operating procedures, does the same to let-down worker, and when the paint is concidered, Let say 20 minutes of mixing, get a sample and check in the lab the viscosity, the tinting strength, the gloss or sheen, the porosity for flats, and other characteristics of the paint and compare to the standard. It takes around 20 to 30 minutes. For the year 1996 we only have average time of 28 minutes for QC. The worker and another QC person compare this paint to the standard and judge acceptable or need to correct and recheck again. In 1996, we corrected 7 productions on 879 batches. You are the judge. To say, we have 3 KU as viscosity and 4 degrees on 60 gloss for variation. You are the judge again.

Here, it was a well teached and trained, ordinary worker who made the paint from A to Z, and was the QC person too. And he packed the full batch in the same day. However, the can labelling, raw material handling, and finished goods manipulation was done by others. Again, the production was designed that way. I know, in certain business it's not possible to do, so try to find your way to accomodate yourself the best way to satisfy your customers and make profits for the boss.

To define the paint, how it will perform, was established by the customer, and explained to me in the presence of the salesman. Being the chemist, I personally prepared sample(s) for approval, and when the customer said in front of the sales person and me; This is what I want! We made only that paint. Nobody has the chance, including myself, to change nothing in the formulation. If RM supplier's sales person proposed a less expensive replacement for one raw material, no one reacted, just refused. We never changed our raw material list! The economy is in the simplicity and keep it as is!

You have most of QC person never negotiate with customers. Same in corporations, chemists never have contact with customers and the big companies want to create good relationships with customers. Who creates formulations, good or bad? The chemist! So, she/he is in contact with customers and know what to do. I all my life I fighted to be present when the customer explain what they want because I will be in charge to supply that needs. Most QC person don't know how to make what customers ask. QC is a controlling work, everything is done before.

After my point of view, one person needs to know what and how to do what will satisfy the customers needs and wants. You cannot separate the "what" from the "how". If is separated, two opinions are created and deviations will occur and the customer never have the satisfaction as expected.

Today, in my personal business I create and make unique products for my niche market. I make only what my customers need. It's fine for me, satisfy them, and I don't have competition. Market domination, small or big, is coming from customization, from small volumes, from particular formulations, colours, application characteristics...

No critics just an adjustment for better understanding what and how we do. This was only my voice and my opinion. Again, sit down, think about it, and let me know what will be the future. Just cooked for a certain time. Wish you the best, Gil.

I concede your point.

"After my point of view, one person needs to know what and how to do what will satisfy the customers needs and wants. You cannot separate the "what" from the "how". If is separated, two opinions are created and deviations will occur and the customer never have the satisfaction as expected."

very good point. ga

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your words! You watch me or check me or you just follow the comments? I was fearful to make the comment but for me was so obvious.

Just a word more. In business, many people are involved without competence to make decisions. It's ridiculous. It's permitted and used.

See you the next time, Gil.

Falconrt, I agree with you that the rehashed renamed programs are silly. I suspect the people that are benefiting from this the most are the ones who are selling the classes/certifications. They all hope their version will become the "next big thing".

Other areas have the same problem. Just look at all the ink on reliability engineering, RE. Proper education and application of sound principals are important but when the motivation becomes to make money for the certifier, the whole thing is barfed up.

One serious side effect that that you mentioned "looking for quality position" is that non technical people that make decisions about technical things or technical peoples careers do not know enough about the subject so they choose to look progressive and choose the latest and highest sounding certification to fill there need.

This is very frustrating when it comes to personnel. If the "alphabet soup" is the only thing that is relied on because the personnel department knows no better, the company likely does not get the best candidate and the experienced people are overlooked.

GA, Milo. Back to basics.

I've been following this thread and have tried to come up with a comment that wasn't a longwinded thing people wouldn't read. No luck. So I googled "lean certified" and discovered what the belts were all about. (At this point any serious martial arts student is either cringing or laughing).

What I got in my search was a bunch of entrepreneurial types hawking their training programs with sparse real information about their content.

Then I came up with an article that seems to give an overview:

http://www.articlesbase.com/online-education-articles/brainmeasuresreduce-waste-and-earn-become-lean-certified-901286.html

Here's the key parts of the first paragraph:

"Lean management states that any expenditure or cost incurred on the books which does not create value to the end customer is a waste and needs to be scaled down. ....... Value is defined as a concept or objective where the customer is willing to pay for the services or goods ........ In simpler terms lean management can be defines (sic) as creating more value with less work."

Ed's comment: Ask a car salesman what the customer wants and the salesman will confide in you that they are the ones who decide what the customer wants and then convince them (most of the time) to pay for that. So at this point this "sacred" lean control loop is starting to smell fishy.

Further down in the article is:

"Toyota has first implemented lean management system to increase value for customers. Toyota practises on transferring philosophy and culture of lean whereas its counterparts in North America focus more on tools, resources and information to conduct lean management."

Ahhh Yes!! Toyota. They know what the customer wants. Can anyone remember if any Toyota customer ever told a salesman that what he wants is vehicle that will at least try to stop, ALWAYS, when he pushes on the brake pedal?

As most of us know now Toyota is facing an almost incomprehensible business disaster. Could it be that they took the lean philosophy a bit to seriously? I could forgive an American car manufacturer for such a gaff, given the unremitting emphasis on maximizing quarterly profit results. But Toyota?

Most large automobile companies have little interest in what their customers want and what they are willing to pay. (see my comment above about the fishy control loop) What they are interested in is what their dealers can sell and what it takes to keep warranty costs down. Ask anyone who owns a Toyota pickup truck from the last 10 years how many times the he's had to replace broken tailgate cables. The fix to the design is simple and would add pennies to the cost of the truck. But since this problem seldom if ever shows up under warranty it likely doesn't exist as far as the factory engineering and quality people are concerned. And somewhere back in Japan there is probably a small company making tailgate cables and working 3 shifts to keep up with the demand for these parts. But they are probably keeping quiet about it.

So much for "Lean". And the keeping manufacturing efficient and making parts to spec so they will fit and work is not solely a 21st century concept. 6 sigma (translation: "the real tolerance zone is the central 50% of the drawing tolerance") was a good idea and became practical with the advent of really accurate machining technologies. Do I really need a new vocabulary to learn that one?

Ed Weldon

Ed,

the basics of Lean are just about waste reduction, called Muda in japanese, and it is quite valid.

Large companies make smaller fiefdoms, and typically replicate many functions and features, where one would do. Lean tries to eliminate waste by eliminating such replication.

Every organization is different, and its waste is different, so Lean teaching tends to teach principles of waste reduction, as opposed to specific action lists.

James Womack is a long time leader and educator in this field. He has some audio & book products that are very interesting..

I do not know anything about 6-sigma, except there is lots of #$*&$^ about it.

Chris.

Hello Milo,

It seems like the "Lost Sight of Quality" at least where this thread has gone" relates to either the skill and attitude of quality control personal, the lowering of standards regarding product quality that is made available to the end user, possibly the tech. support for the use and or maintenance of some given product or service. and how all of this ultimately effects the bottom line for the producer.

I do not challenge your remarks as I gave you a GA for your comments. However I do feel that this basic subject should be looked at from a little different point, "a different pair of eyes, so to speak. However, when one expands the subject matter a little and moves into the Building Trades, the subject regarding the selection of the various levels of quality that must be attained, and the responsibility for producing said quality, tend to compromise the the results of even the best effort regarding "cost control," "(in sight but fore ever lost)" "(out of reach)!"

As a Superintendent, and as a Company Owner, I have hired many men from various Trades and Crafts, to perform work needed to construct an expanded variety of projects contracted for. Without expanding the explanation to the point of getting too windy here, I simply wish to state that often the specifications get compromised in the name of reducing the end cost for the contract.

This all falls under the term of "OR EQUAL". The or equal specification can provide the educated "Low Bidder" with a significant edge, if the estimator can come up with information and details that will provide savings for the owner that fall under the term Or Equal and can be provided at significant savings. As a matter of fact, "Artichokes" and "Inguneers" generally base their fees on a percentage of the contract, and therefore tend to spec. out excessively priced equipment and other such stuff to justify their price for their effort. Generally the or equal isn't really equal but the savings permit the exception.

Generally, the inclusion of multiple or equals also will diminish the end result and the over all quality of the work suffers.

TMF

Hi TMF. I cannot comment on "OR Equal" clauses from a Quality Assurance standpoint as in Quality Assurance the obligation is to Assure Conformance to Specification. Theres no such thing as an "Or Equal" in that world. Either it meets spec or it doesn't. Not to say that there is no engineering function for identifying your class of "or equal" substitutes. Just to say that if they are not fully conforming to spec as written, then they do not meet quality standard. I realize building trades are perhaps a different situation, but on the airplanes, automobile, and other safety critical technologies in my QA career, there is no opportunity for second chance. Either it meets spec or not. There is no "or equal." For proof, I would ask you to get your wife's counsel on the possibility of you enjoying a passionate weekend with another gal who you have determined, on perhaps the basis of low cost, to be an "Or Equal." (just kidding of course.) Great to hear from You. I have been busier than ever, and loving it. milo

ah, the perfect wife!

chris

It is almost invariable that when a company has an ineffective Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program, the response is to replace the managers of the department with successful leaders from other departments. The success of these leaders in their former positions is mostly credited to their innovative and creative management skills that they will now empower to turn things around for QA/QC. At their first staff meeting they announce important changes they are making to improve performance.

First we're changing the name of the department. We are now called the Integrated Department of Inspection and Oversight (IDIO). They go on to explain how this better describes what the department actually does and is more innovative than the former name. Next we're not going to provide auditing, any longer now we will provide oversight. When a former auditor asks if his job title is now Overseer the group chuckles, and the new director looks serious as he explains auditors are now called reviewers, and inspectors will now be called technicians. At this point the new inspection supervisor, his face beaming, reveals the new hardhats his techs will be issued. Printed in bold black letters across the front of white hard hat is "Integrated Department of Inspection and Oversight Technician (IDIOT)."

I have the same problem with "buzz words and renamed rehashed quality programs" as falconrt or at least what I believe his problem to be. I have been in Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for over 25 years. Since most of that was contract term employment, I have worked at many different facilities performing basically the same tasks: inspection, surveillance, and auditing. However; even tough I did the same basic work, I've had a least a dozen different job titles. QC Inspector, Quality Engineer, Quality Assurance Representative, even Materials Engineer; and by far the oddest, Oversight Technician. My current job title is Construction Engineer/Inspector.

Most of this work was in the stringently regulated nuclear power industry where one would think there would be more uniformity, but apparently creative management thinks that a certain title or department name makes for a more effective QA/QC program. You can call a nonconformance a discrepancy, deficiency, or a catfish. The point is you must have a program that works and if it doesn't you change the program not what you call it.

Hi P or Moon or both together,

I don't want to argue with you. Your definition of the most organizations is perfect! However, I make a correction for the final name of the "department" and not let the poor and hammerable technician as an "idividual" to get a name as is. The new department was a "team", isn't it? So, we can call them the "Integrated Department of Inspection and Oversight Team" and we get the (IDIOT). No harm to your explanation, very acceptable and correct but my words are some value too, Gil as a collaborator to an unnamed supervisionary task force.

NB: When we do things simply and become efficient?

Thanks Gil... that makes the whole department IDIOTS, but the story is true.

Amen to your sentiments.

In reviewing the posts, it may be time for someone with a rifle to shoot that poor old blind horse that lost sight of quality and that we've been kicking around so long and put him out of his misery. I'm not even sure that he is still alive.

Hi Spinco,

If my brain is working correctly this morning, you talk about delivering letters and small packages? In that case, we have to contact the "Amish" group and give them the work. They have the old fashion equipment to do the work and they are punctual reliable people. Just a suggestion for Monday morning in a new month, Gil.