Quality Gets an ‘F’?
	That was my question, when I spotted a headline in the October, 2001 issue of Quality Progress magazine of the American Society for Quality (ASQ). “Surely this can not be the case,” I thought. Yet, since I founded the Quality SIG of the STC in 1991, I've become much more involved in working on product development processes than on quality processes. My commitment had not wavered, and since I saw the headline, I've resumed efforts to advance quality, chiefly as editor of the newsletter of the Rochester Section of ASQ. There is no question that advancing quality requires continual attention by everyone to preventing problems and improving processes.
The Article	In the article, “Why Quality Gets an ‘F’,” author R.W. Hoyer draws on his expertise as a professor of quantitative methods to point out that checking conformance in a management system focused on financial objectives is not a way to achieve defect-free products. The example Hoyer uses is the Ford-Firestone tire failures that were the focus of media attention at the time. We can all think of examples of product and service failures, some with devastating consequences. Abstracting Hoyer's arguments briefly, we note he begins with the dismayed observation that few quality professionals are commenting on disastrous failures and their causes. Blame for such failures is often assigned to the supplier of the failed component. Suppliers tend to blame product design. Companies and Congressional investigators see major components as “added” during the manufacturing process, sometimes at the end. Hoyer continues by pointing out that components are not separate entities added on during assembly, but integrated at every stage of design and development. The “V” model of Ford Systems Engineering illustrates this. Systems engineering characterizes the system as a network of parts and processes, and “partitions” these into manageable subsystems and components. Through attention to these elements and their interfaces, engineers optimize for maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the product. The V model shows that design begins with considering the overall product. Quantitative requirements are cascaded down, and components and subsystems are then integrated on the up side of the V. Hoyer identifies several barriers to this cascade and integration, including the transition by manufacturers to primarily assembly operations. Suppliers provide components, typically according to specifications of the manufacturer. A major barrier to integration occurs when any component is covered by a warranty separate from that of the overall product. This is often the case with tires, since warranty terms and expiration play a part in encouraging customers to buy new tires and switch brands. Manufacturers must obtain performance data, even for components not warranted by the manufacturer. Obtaining performance data from all suppliers is only part of a quality model that assures defect-free operation. Sometimes putting monitoring systems in the product is proposed, but that is ineffective, as is relying on inspection in the assembly process. Hoyer repeats a concern that the ISO 9000 system provides “the appearance of quality” through documentation, without quantitative demonstration of output or outcome. The focus on quality may prevail for a time, but often gives way to a primary focus on financial results. Focusing on ISO certification may save expense. “Partnerships” with suppliers often focus on cutting prices for components. Suppliers cut quality assurance to fund essential research and returns to their investors. In this environment, manufacturers assign more and more responsibility for design and development to suppliers, often without maintaining expertise in the subsystem. Systems engineering can suffer. Hoyer offers no suggestions for strengthening quality and systems engineering, only the conclusion that for all the effort Ford has devoted to quality, the results seem to deserve an ‘F.’ Hoyer's criticism of ISO 9000 is especially strong. Hoyer's article drew responses in letters from members of ASQ, published in the January 2002 issue of Quality Progress.
The Response	One writer observed that large companies rely too much on the word of suppliers, rather than on inspection and experimentation. Beyond inspection, it is necessary to validate the way components are used and to improve processes continually. Another writer observes we have not found ways to prevent making defective products, but we have been increasingly successful at preventing defects from reaching customers. Another writer points out that ISO 9000 must not be a “scapegoat” for disastrous defects. The standards are implemented to establish, at minimum, a documented quality system. The system must be improved continually to prevent defects.
Another Perspective: PDCA versus ISO 9001	In “Where does Quality Begin?” (Quality Progress, March, 2002), Dale K. Gordon reports asking quality professionals to describe their quality system and how it prevents problems. All agreed the quality system is ISO 9001, but Gordon argues that standards do not make a quality system. The system is made up of subsystems, processes, knowledge, people, and variation. Asked to identify the primary problem with the quality system, quality professionals point to corrective and preventive action, and process and supplier control. These factors are reported to be involved with 80 percent of the problems. Gordon suggests design control is a better candidate, but professionals report no findings in that area. This reflects a way of thinking that can lead to defects. Continuing to abstract Gordon's arguments, we note that practitioners are adept at the do and check parts of the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle. There is less emphasis on the plan and act parts, although ISO standards call for design planning with consideration of particular design inputs. The standards omit mention of learning from failures, and designing to eliminate and prevent repeat failures. Although the PDCA cycle is mentioned in the ISO standards, the cycle is not associated in the standards with the design stage, where planning is critical and the acting must occur. Among the questions Gordon advocates asking are: Do we understand why suppliers fail repeatedly to deliver to specification? Do we match process capability to what the design demands? Do we understand the sources of variation and have action plans to eliminate them? Lean thinking and Six Sigma quality provide ways to address these issues, but often are implemented outside the quality system. Problems are addressed long after design is complete and defects have surfaced. Integration of quality practices into design requires implementing design reviews and audits that evaluate how well the design is being manufactured and delivered to customers. ISO 9000 systems do not address the needed practices. Documentation of corrective action is emphasized over determination of causes. There is no reference to examining the design. The focus is on the quality system, rather than examining component processes. Six Sigma quality or systematic continual improvement and associated tools are seldom documented as preventive measures in a quality system. Even when they are in use, they may be regarded as outside of the quality system because they are not in the ISO requirements. Gordon exhorts quality professionals to avoid thinking of ISO standards as the quality system, and to implement the PDCA cycle in design of products, processes, and the quality system itself. Variation is the “enemy.” The quality system is more “internal culture” than an actual artifact. Learning, and acting based on what is learned, prevent recurring problems.
The Path Forward	Moving from work with quality to product development processes has come full circle for me. Product development requires data and facts for evaluation at each gate in the development process, and the quality system must provide the needed data and help with interpretation. STC members who participate in design teams are in a good position to advocate integration of design with quality. Those who document ISO systems can point out the need for integration too. We have many exciting challenges ahead as we continually endeavor to improve quality.
	About the Author: Ann L. Wiley, STC Associate Fellow - Rochester Chapter, has an MSLS and a Ph.D. in instructional development, both from Syracuse University. She is president of Ann L. Wiley Consultants Inc. and specializes in design, development, and evaluation of processes and the communications needed to deploy them. Please share your thoughts on the future of quality models and systems. Write to ann@annlwiley.com. Back to top