Quality Tools and Education

In his April 5, 2011 blog post Quality Tools and Education, ASQ Executive Director Paul Borawski asks "How do we raise the voice of quality to capture the imagination of education leaders and support them in getting started? How can we encourage educators to join us in raising the global voice of quality?"

As I reflect on my 30 years of manufacturing quality, my training as an ISO-9001 Lead Auditor and more recently as a Baldrige Examiner, I keep coming back to Dr. W. Edward Deming's System of Profound Knowledge, ISO’s eight Quality Management principles, and the statistical thinking philosophy.

As a review:

Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge consists of four parts:

• Appreciation of a system: understanding the overall processes involving suppliers, producers, and customers (or recipients) of goods and services; 
•  Knowledge of variation: the range and causes of variation in quality, and use of statistical sampling in measurements; 
• Theory of knowledge: the concepts explaining knowledge and the limits of what can be known;
• Knowledge of psychology: concepts of human nature.

Statistical Thinking is a philosophy of learning and action based on the following fundamental principles:

•  All work occurs in a system of interconnected processes,
• Variation exists in all processes, and
•  Understanding and reducing variation are keys to success.

The ISO 9000 series of standards align with eight key principles of quality management.  These principles facilitate the achievement of quality objectives and form the foundation for effective quality management. Per ISO-9001, "A quality management principle is a comprehensive and fundamental rule / belief, for leading and operating an organization, aimed at continually improving performance over the long term by focusing on customers while addressing the needs of all other stake holders".  The 8 Quality Management principles of ISO are:

1. Customer-Focused Organization
2. Leadership
3. Involvement of People
4. Process Approach
5. System Approach to Management
6. Continual Improvement
7. Factual Approach to Decision Making and
8. Mutually Beneficial Supplier Relationships.

Any discussion of improving America’s educational system has to take a systems approach, beginning with an understanding of customer requirements. Customers’ desired outcomes are then translated into a new educational model involving students, parents and all other stakeholders leading to a more robust system that delivers optimum value. So who are the customers of the educational system? Let us not confuse customers with suppliers, partners, gatekeepers, regulatory and government agencies, and other stakeholders.  Students, and parents of the students, are not customers – though the family unit plays a decidedly critical role in the education of the child.  Managing systemic variables such as nutrition, sleep, health, shelter and other human basic needs are all important elements to improving the educational system. Society at large benefits from a well-educated populace, yes, but employers and post-graduate Universities are the ultimate customer. Conversion of raw materials and other inputs into products and services that customers want and buy create wealth.  Innovation and creativity are the engines of economic growth. The USA is an aging population; as more and more Baby Boomers near retirement age there is a dire shortage of highly educated, skilled workers to fill the void. Furthermore, the US is experiencing a brain drain of new postgraduates as students from China, India and other developing nations - who typically remained in this country to apply their learning - are now choosing instead to return to their home countries where greater growth opportunities abound.  

Business process redesign is required to save and revitalize the American educational system, starting with the K-12 system to better prepare our children for college or trade schools. We need to encourage experimentation and discovery in the classroom to motivate curiosity and inspire lifelong learning. Evidence-based outcomes should be shared and replicated across school districts. How do we raise the voice of quality to capture the imagination of education leaders and support them in getting started? I would begin by asking our brethren in the quality community to volunteer on their local school board committees and PTA organizations to share your continuous improvement expertise in solving some chronic pain points. Start small and build on your successes. It should be noted that Baldrige Award recipients in the education sector use the Criteria to achieve superior results in the areas of:

• student learning outcomes
• student- and stakeholder-focused outcomes
• budgetary, financial, and market outcomes
• faculty and staff outcomes
• organizational effectiveness outcomes
• leadership and social responsibility outcomes

America’s future lies in our children’s capability and capacity to learn, adapt and thrive. Best wishes in your continuous improvement journey.

The Impact of Quality on Social Responsibility

The guidance standard ISO-26000:2010 Social Responsibility was published in November 2010. In applying ISO 26000:2010, organizations are advised to take into consideration societal, environmental, legal, cultural, political and organizational diversity, as well as differences in economic conditions, while being consistent with international norms of behavior. As Social Responsibility becomes increasingly important in corporate boardrooms, many organizations will turn to the Quality professional for assistance linking sustainability efforts to the strategic quality planning process to deliver business results. It is said what gets measured gets improved. In his latest blog post, ASQ Executive Director Paul Borawski asks, "how do we measure return on investment in SR to assess business value?".

On a macro scale, rather than measure a country's economic output as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or as GDP per capita, a SR look at the relative output might prorate GDP by each country's area (sq miles). Such a measurement recognizes a culture of sustainability where resources are used more efficiently. For example:

Country          GDP               Area         GDP/sq mile
USA        $14.6 Trillion    3,717,792      $ 3.9M/sq mile
Japan      $  4.3 Trillion       145,883     $29M/sq mile

On a micro-economic scale, a SR measure of Return on Investment for organizations might be a mathematical equation describing Loss to Society, incorporating terms for materials efficiency, energy use, greenhouse gas and VOC emissions, water conservation, biodiversity, etc.throughout a product's life cycle.

As one example, my employer, 3M, has had a "Pollution Prevention Pays" program since 1975. Engineering, manufacturing, laboratory, quality and EHS personnel have participated in over 8,100 PPP projects that have prevented over 2.96 Billion lbs of pollution in their first year, generating over $1.37 Billion in savings. Nearly every 3M manufacturing facility, globally, is ISO-14001 registered. 3M leadership constantly reinforces its values, principles, code of ethics and business conduct in all of our operations worldwide.

Implementation of SR is best managed using traditional quality improvement and project management tools and techniques. Development of new SR metrics for the balanced scorecard will help organizations focus on the long-term objectives.

Flawless Execution - It's All About Leadership

In his latest "A View from the Q" blog, Paul Borawksi (ASQ Exec Dir) reflects on the goal-setting process and challenges leaders everywhere to not simply act, but to execute.

Why do so many well-formulated strategic plans fail to deliver on their promises? It's all about execution - or the lack thereof. Counter to a quote attributed to Edgar Whitney, "A good design poorly executed is much to be preferred over a poor design well executed", it is my experience that a great plan poorly executed is no better than no plan at all. Mark Fields (Ford) once said, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." So true. Flawless execution requires diligence, accountability and a change acceptance strategy to assure organizational alignment. Human capital is our most important asset. Constant, consistent leadership communications, thorough policy deployment, an effective change agent, and a set of meaningful measures are required before any organizational change can be effectively implemented and internalized.

Having a clearly defined mission, compelling vision, shared purpose and an articulated code of conduct are a great start, but adopting an improvement framework such as the Baldrige Criteria brings a much-needed systems approach to achieve organizational performance excellence. Paul Grizzell (Core Values Partners, Inc.) - Baldrige consultant, Senior Alumni Baldrige Examiner, and previous Board member and judge with the MN Council for Quality - created this simple graphic demonstrating the improved organizational alignment achieved via the Baldrige model:








Finally, to drive effective execution we must stop the practice of 2-point comparisons and begin applying statistical thinking in the corner office and board rooms across America. Sustainable flawless execution requires real change with demonstrable new levels of performance with minimal variation. We must train ourselves to look for deeper root causes and not be satisfied with the quick fix, or be tempted to react to every undesirable data point as though it were due to a special cause. All processes have variation; effective leadership appreciates the differences between special cause, common cause; can distinguish trends and patterns; and, understands that management of variation requires systems thinking along with proper use of tools, methods and approaches. Flawless execution depends on it.

Business Conduct and Statistical Thinking in Commercialization

I had an interesting question posed to me the other day: Have I ever observed or perceived an instance of suspect integrity or questionable business conduct? And if so, what did I do about it? I thought this would make for an interesting discussion with respect to practicing more (better) statistical thinking and statistical engineering in one's new product introduction system and commercialization (NPI), and product management of change (MOC) processes . I offer two different hypothetical situations...

Scenario #1:
In an effort to be "first to market", a new-to-the-world product is fast-tracked through the organization's formal new product commercialization process. Early reviews from customers are favorable. Prototypes have been shown and customer orders taken early in the product development phase. Proper risk assessments have not been completed. Equipment, process and product validation studies have not been completed. Limited product has been made - maybe on the intended production line, but more than likely only on a pilot line. Just one "Qualification" run - a short-term "machine capability" study - has been evaluated... with acceptable results. The organization's operating plan has aggressive Top Line sales growth and Operating Income targets. The NPI Gatekeepers are deciding whether to go ahead with an accelerated "soft" launch in order to meet customer demand and generate revenue.

Sound familiar? What would you do?
Some questions for thought:

• How might the industry you are in, or the markets you serve, play a role in your decision-making?
• How much risk is the organization willing to accept? Have they even quantified the risk?
• What do you know about the customer's needs? (Basic, Stated, Unarticulated)
• How certain are you that tribal knowledge and presumed understanding of VOC have been adequately validated?
• Are the test methods relevant to the customer... do they predict fitness for use?
• Are the TMs adequate (Gage R&R, resolution, stability, etc.)?
• Has acceptable process capability been demonstrated: Short-term? Long-term?
• How were the product specifications established?
• How / where will product be sampled for testing?
• What do we know about the suppliers' process capabilities?
• How rugged is the product design?
  

What other questions should be asked?


Scenario #2:
The manufacturing plant manager is facing factory cost challenges due to the triple threat of high waste, rising raw material prices, and lower than forecasted sales volume. A second source of supply for a key RM is being evaluated for reduced cost and improved availability. The customer contract (perhaps the blanket purchase order) has a boilerplate template stating that it must be notified by the vendor of any planned process or product changes. The producer's product maintenance engineer resolutely believes, based on analytical assessments and bench testing, that this RM substitution will be transparent to the customer. The business has a formalized product management of change process, but it is not consistently deployed nor executed.

Should the customer be notified?

What questions would you have of the RM substitution project?
Some thoughts:

• Is this an approved supplier?
• Is this supplier ISO registered?
• Or, has a site evaluation been performed? Or, has a self-assessment been performed?
• Have you assessed the supplier's process capability?
• Have raw material - process interactions been modeled with this new supplier?
• How many distinct lots of raw material / components have been evaluated?
• What types of product testing have been completed:
•       Standard battery of manufacturing tests only?
•       Plus, product development tests (e.g. Consumer-use tests)?
•       Plus, any stress testing or accelerated life testing?
• When did we last we validate our customers' requirements?
  

Other thoughts?

What does it mean to apply statistical thinking and engineering? I don't think it has a lot to do with tools. We have the tools; and there are consultants who can teach us to use new tools. It comes down to leadership. Leadership and execution that integrates strategic quality plan deployment with effective and efficient systems and processes. So, how are you helping your organization to become more customer focused, apply statistical thinking for better decision making, and drive the right behaviors for sustainable operational excellence, growth, and customer satisfaction?

Raising the Global Awareness of Quality

In his January 2011 'A view from the Q' blog post, Paul Borawski, ASQ Executive Director, asks how we can raise the global awareness that Quality works. In my opinion, the best way to "engage" the C-Suite (i.e. win the hearts and minds of executives) is to move the dialogue from little q to Big Q - from quality control to strategic quality planning; from process improvement to business performance excellence.

How often have we heard the tired phrase, "Quality is a given"? What does that mean? More importantly, what does Top Management think the phrase means? Has Top Management truly embraced quality as a competitive weapon - a value differentiator - and a means to build sustainable organizational results? Or, does Top Management behave as though their organization's quality processes are working fine (e.g. on par with current competition) and therefore shift resources to the next big thing?

A common and all too frequently heard definition of quality is "Conformance to Requirements". I emphatically dislike this definition. It sets the bar at mediocrity and drives goal post mentality (in-spec is "good enough"). Where is the passion and vision for excellence? Then there is the argument that customer requirements are constantly changing; when was the last time we validated our customers' requirements? Are we just meeting requirements or are we delivering exciting quality? Meeting requirements may result in short-term customer satisfaction but does not address those value propositions leading to loyalty. Conformance to requirements evokes images of a statistical tool pharmacy - providing training to the masses and doling out tools and techniques of the month with little connection to what drives sustainable organizational success.

Success in an ever-increasingly competitive world requires enterprise-level strategic quality planning, structured quality management systems, and flawless execution. Top Management must champion investments and deploy visionary strategy that connect quality improvement to sustainable growth, meaningful results and customer satisfaction & loyalty.

Good food service is not a dish best served cold

It happens all too often...

I really dislike restaurants that use a server to bring you your food instead of the waiter/waitress who took your order. More often than not, the server takes your meal on a tour of the entire restaurant before finally finding your table, but not until after several other people have breathed on it and it is no longer at the desired serving temperature. The manager obligingly apologizes, offers a new meal - to be similarly delivered - or maybe even comp the meal, but the manager completely misses the point.

If the restaurant wants my repeat business, I am not interested in a quick fix or do-over. I do not want a 3rd party delivering my meal. I have established no rapport with that individual; whereas, the wait person who took my order knows where I am seated, and more importantly, has a sense of personal ownership to get my order right.

I assume the intent of the server position is to rush the meal to the guest's table. So when that does not happen I do not want to hear excuses or insincere, almost mechanical, apologies. I want to see evidence of customer focus and continuous improvement. Where is the root cause investigation? Why didn't the server take the few seconds to know my table number before leaving the kitchen?

The Baldrige Program is Safe for Now

It has been reported that the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR) has suggested the elimination of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program as a cost-cutting move to reduce the US national debt. An illustrative example from NCFRR states that the Baldrige Award Program - along with support of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership costs the US taxpayer approximately $120 Million. Compare this figure to the $16 Billion spent on ear marks or the $20 Billion wasted to purchase military hardware that the US military does not even want.

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Program was established in 1987 as a means to recognize performance excellence of public and private U.S. organizations, thereby promoting U.S. competitiveness. A network of state, regional, and local Baldrige-based award programs provide potential award applicants and examiners, promotes the use of the Criteria, and disseminates information regarding the Award process. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, manages the Baldrige National Quality Program; and the American Society for Quality (ASQ) assists in administering the Award Program Many enterprises around the globe now follow the Baldrige Criteria.

I am a 29 year Quality veteran, an ISO 9001 Lead Auditor, and a Baldrige Examiner for the State of Minnesota. I consider myself socially liberal but fiscally conservative, generally favoring a smaller central government. Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion of my personal political views, I believe a critical role of the U.S. Government is to protect the Republic, uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights, support human rights and protect civil liberties. Consider the federal Depts of Transportation and Commerce: just as a modern, efficient transportation system is critical to the flow of goods and services for economic growth and national security, the Baldrige Criteria are critical to assure the long-term viability of organizations, thereby protecting the competitiveness of the country in an increasingly global economy.

How ironic then, that the NCFRR has identified the Baldrige National Quality Program as wasteful, when it is the Baldrige Criteria that offer a long-term solution to waste reduction and performance improvement. Rather than cutting costs by freezing wages, eliminating jobs and reducing services, we need government to focus on eliminating waste and non value-added activities to improve its productivity, cost effectiveness and operational excellence. It's all about leadership, strategic planning, taxpayer and constituent focus, measurement and analysis, employee engagement, process management, and results. Sound familiar?

Quality is not an expense, it is an investment.