Skip to main content

Quality Is NOT Ambitious Enough – And that’s fine

I read a recent post by ASQ CEO Bill Troy with interest. It talks about an interesting position many people take on quality – That it’s not ambitious enough to change the world. Or something similar. Bill has shared an article by Brooks Carder about quality not being ambitious enough. Read it here.

I find Brook’s argument interesting but a bit academic. Now I am not a pessimist of cynic. I am often accused of being optimistic when everything is falling apart and hoping for a yes when everyone is saying No! I am more a realist and like seeing things done that worry about vision and mission statements too much. Brook has picked ASQ’s mission statement as an argument that we aren't ambitious enough.

Frankly ASQ isn't all quality is about. It wants to be and should be but there are 1000s of quality professionals who are doing very well but aren't associated with ASQ. When we talk of quality in general, these professionals count. And to them and many in ASQ, I don’t think ASQ’s mission matters – what matters is what is it doing about it. Now, I am not saying ASQ’s mission doesn't matter. Of course it does. But I wouldn't fret on every word as long as we take some good action on it.

So – Is quality ambitious? No. Should it be? The answer is relative. Compared to leadership, production, and marketing, quality should be less ambitious. But compared to human resource management and compliance it should be more ambitious.

How do we define being ambitious? When we challenge the status-quo and reach out for much more than what most people expect us to – we are being ambitious.

Much of quality is also ensuring sure our organizations meet the minimum standards that they set for goods and services. I won’t want people challenging status-quo when in inspection and quality control. Just follow the guideline and keep the customer in mind. That’s it. Don’t be creative and ambitious every day. I know this sounds harsh but every role has a purpose and on most days the purpose must be followed.

The process improvement part of quality should be ambitious. We should not settle for 10% improvement – aim for 10 fold improvement. If Bob Galvin had not set an ambitious goal for Motorola in mid 1980s we would not have seen Six Sigma around.

But again, very lofty and high ambition can sometimes paralyze people. We must be able to break the problem into pieced. Cut the elephant into sizes (apologies to my vegetarian friends). You don’t run a marathon when you decide you will run one. You work towards and it could take many smaller goals to finally get there.


Finally, I think its fine for Quality to be moderately ambitious. Leadership should be ambitious about what quality can achieve. If people in the quality team can only follow what leadership expects, I am in general fine. Now again, I don’t mean to say that quality should not think beyond. It should. Just not daily. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Quality Gurus in India - Respond with your nominees.

It’s now been over two weeks with the post on ‘Top 10 Quality Gurus of India’ being out on my Blog and three groups on Linkedin.  We have had over 30 responses with multiple nominations.  Here are some quick insights.
My definition of Guru surely was not clear.  People have responded with names of quality managers (good ones I am sure) to P C Mahalanobis.  This points to the lack of clarity in my original post. Apologies.
We are seeking Gurus – so they have to be in between your managers and P C Mahalanobis. Gurus should have had some original and pioneering work. I agree consultants have an advantage here.  These Gurus should have done majority of their work in India.
I will be setting up a small panel to evaluate the nominations.  We have support from ASQ India to help in this study.
We may have to divide the list into Gurus and Leading Practioners (or a similar title).
Early nominations include:
Gurus P C Mahalanobis J J Irani Suresh Lulla R V Ramchandran Essae Chandran Manu Vohra Hans Bajaria G…

Juran Trilogy in Service Quality

How often have you not purchased a product when the accompanying service was not upto your expectations?  I am sure, several times.  As a keen observer of how I, my family, and others purchase products, I am convinced that increasingly we purchase a product as a package – with the accompanying service.  To add to this we buy a range of services regularly.  Are we then primarily buying services of products?  While writing about quality at Ford, in June 2011, I asked if Ford was a Service company or manufacturing one
This month Paul Borwaski, CEO of ASQ, highlights this question as well.  His question is inspired by a recent Conference Board paper on Answering the Conference Board CEO Challenge. While some wonder if we are predominantly a service economy, I think we are already in one. Unless we are buying iron ore or defense aircrafts.
So what are the things we buy? Groceries, Utilities, Clothing, Food, Entertainment, Phones, Cars… You get the drift.  Most of these products are si…

Declining Credibility of ISO 9000 Certifications

A friend and fellow Business Excellence Professional, Ramesh Rajagopal, recently asked a very troubling question - Who is responsible for declining credibility of ISO 9000 systems and what is the solution?

He further elaborated saying – In the recent years, ISO 9000 standards is losing its credibility. What role Accreditation bodies, Certification bodies, Top Management and Management Representatives have to play to bring back the spirit of ISO 9000.

Firstly, blame is the wrong word to start with. Why do we have to ‘blame’ someone? We are assuming that ISO 9000 had promised us something huge and delivered a lemon. From what I know, that’s not the case.

It’s critical to understand that ISO 9000 series was developed as a bare minimum standard for management. It did not promote excellence. That was left for the MBNQA.

Having said that I agree that all of us have failed in even maintaining the bare minimum status of ISO 9000. Quality professionals and auditors (all of us) have taken the conve…