What is quality?

The domain of the quality professional has changed. It is now expected, along with other infrastructure
professions, such as IT, HR and finance, to contribute at the organisational level. Unlike those other
professions, quality expertise can be hard to define, perhaps because there are many views of what
business-level quality means. David Straker considers current definitions of 'quality' and offers a new
one, considering its ramifications for the quality profession
At its simplest level, quality answers two questions: 'What is wanted?' and 'How do we do it?'
Accordingly, quality's stomping ground has always been the area of processes.
From the bread and butter of ISO 9000, to the heady heights of TQM, quality professionals specify,
measure, improve and reengineer processes to ensure that people get what they want. So where are we
now?
There are as many definitions of quality as there are quality consultants, but commonly accepted
variations include:
• 'conformance to requirements' - Crosby
• 'fitness for use' - Juran
• 'the totality of characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied
need' - ISO 8402:1994
• quality models for business, including the Deming Prize, the EFQM excellence model and the
Baldrige award
So what is wrong?
Philip Crosby's definition is easily toppled: if requirements are wrong, then failure is guaranteed. His
focus is the domain of QA where, without a specification, quality cannot be measured and controlled.
You cannot have zero defects without a standard against which to measure defectiveness.
This reflects the early days, where quality was clearly about product. Quality control, and later QA, was
our domain - we didn't care about customers; the R&D department was responsible for designing the job
and sales and marketing for selling it. But those halcyon days of definitive specifications and jobs for life
are long gone.
Though Juran takes a step further down the value chain, to the use of the product or service (at which
point customers had forced their way into the frame), he still presupposes that we can fully understand
how the product will be used, which is a great challenge (and not always possible). As Deming himself
said, some things are 'unknown and unknowable'.
ISO 8402 recognises this uncertainty with its 'implied need'. It uses the word 'entity' as opposed to the
'product or service' definition of its earlier (1986) version, indicating a broadening uncertainty. Still, it
suffers again from a simplistic, single-minded focus - all we need to do is to figure out what is wanted
and then deliver it.
The quality models are a step further into broader business. Here, although processes are important,
quality is much more about people: customers are there, but so too are stakeholders - employees,
partners, suppliers, shareholders and society. Perhaps wisely, the models avoid nailing down a specific
definition of quality, leaving us without a definition that encompasses a broader business view
ISO 9001:2000 steps in this direction, discussing 'customers and interested parties', but leaves the
definition of quality at a generalised 'degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils
requirements'.
Initial problems
Let's face it, quality is difficult to define. We want to be precise, to create a quality definition, yet
language is limited. Nor does it help that our domain has expanded from the relatively constrained
factory floor into the open realms of a broader business context, and beyond that, to environmental and
social domains.
The IQA dallies with all of the above definitions on its website (www.iqa.org), demonstrating the
difficulty of naming quality. In the end, it plumps for a customer focus of quality that ranges throughout
the product/service chain: but this is still not enough.
The perception of 'quality' as almost impossible to define, is not confined to our profession; in The
Timeless Way of Building, architect Christopher Alexander calls it 'the quality without a name'. In the
same way that we know a good room when we use one, but cannot define exactly what makes it good,
we can name the attributes of quality, but cannot define quality itself. One way to find a good definition
of anything is to take a broader view; Alexander does this in his definition of a 'pattern language' for
architecture, reducing the whole building and town design to 252 simple rule-sets. Can we find a new
definition for quality by looking at the bigger picture?
A new beginning
Having knocked the existing definitions of quality and acknowledged that definition is not easy, let's try
it nonetheless. In the words of Susan Jeffers, we should 'feel the fear and do it anyway'. The focus of our
definition will remain in the general business arena. This is where most of us make our living. What if we
follow the early quality mandate and ensure that we meet requirements? Of course, we can go out of
business by producing goods that do not sell. So, strike the product/requirements-only focus.
What if we gave customers everything they wanted? What if they were totally delighted? Sounds good.
But what if it cost us so much that we failed to make a profit? Again, we would go out of business. We
need customers and products and services to satisfy them, but this is not enough. Why are businesses
started? - To meet the needs of the people who start them, of course. So we must also meet the needs of
the owners of companies, not all of whom are interested solely in money. Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard
started HP to make a difference to society while having fun with the electronic engineering that was their
passion. But they were aware that they had to make a profit to pay for their higher goals. Public
companies are less egalitarian and have to toe the line that analysts and shareholders demand, which
means a return on investment.
Effectiveness and efficiency are words we often use to define quality. Effectiveness is about meeting
requirements, usually of customers. Efficiency is doing this at a minimal cost, which meets shareholders'
needs. Could we just focus on these? Skip the carpets and cafeterias; pay people the absolute minimum.
Perhaps not, as in these times of hyper-competitiveness and scarce talent, your people are your most
important asset.
Employees have both needs and legs, and if the former are not met, the latter get into action; when you
ask too much of your people, those with 'get-up-and-go' are the first to do just that. We can be effective
and efficient and still go out of business as our best employees leave and the rest repay our lack of care
for them with a lack of care for us. There are still people who can drive us out of business, from
uncooperative suppliers and partners to environmental pressure groups and punitive governments.
Where is the common thread? The phrase most commonly heard is 'going out of business'. Deming
recognised this when he pointed out that survival is optional. This is all somewhat negative, so let's turn
it around: quality means staying in business.
Testing the definition
A good definition will withstand all kinds of serious criticism. What about those people who need
things? Staying in business means keeping them all reasonably happy, so this works. What about
growth? This is an interesting question: why do so many companies seek to grow constantly? If
shareholders demand growth, and will take their money elsewhere otherwise, then it is still about staying
in business. If our competitors grow, we need to grow to stay in the game.
Growth can be a management trap: if it leads to over-extension or unmanageable diversity, such that the
business fails, this is not a quality situation. To quote Ricardo Semler: 'The biggest myth in the corporate
world is that every business needs to keep growing to be successful. That's baloney. The ultimate
measure of a business' success, I believe, is not how big it gets, but how long it survives.'
One of the frustrations we meet in quality is the focus on longer-term company survival; we know that
products containing defects will lead to dissatisfied customers. We know that incomplete customer
knowledge impairs our ability to correct external problems and repair internal processes. But we come
up constantly against managers who are working on short-term problems, such as getting a delivery out
today or pacifying an angry customer on the phone. So who is right, given our new definition of quality?
The answer is both. Our perspectives may be different and we can each benefit from sharing one
anothers' concerns, but we want to stay in business, which means focusing on both the short and long
term.
If quality means staying in business, how do we do that? Perhaps there is no single, simple answer, but
by exploring the issue, including going back-to-basics, we can take a few steps in the right direction.
What is business?
While we are rushing in where angels fear to tread, perhaps we should scrutinise what we mean by
'business'. At its most fundamental, business is barter: I will swap you two sheep for one cow; I will
invest in your business if you give me a good chance of getting rich quicker than the bank. What makes
barter work is that we value things differently: for example, I have plenty of sheep but no milk. Business
is not so much barter as value exchange.
If business were just about customers and ourselves, it would be easy. We would find what they wanted,
make it and sell it to them. But it is not that simple: our problems begin when we find we are at the
crossroads of many exchanges of value. There are shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers,
partners and governments, all engaged in a complex web of value exchange.
To make things worse, we cannot make all of the people happy all the time. With a limited pool of
resources, we try to keep customers happy, while being profitable enough for shareholders, while paying
our suppliers (eventually), while paying for the new employee rest rooms. Sorry folks, but there is not
enough cash to go around. Like any paymaster, we will need to make some tough decisions.
Staying in business then, means playing a dynamic balancing game, optimising value exchange, with an
awareness of the very real resource limitations with which we work. This gives us a second level of
detail we can use for our quality definition: Quality means optimising the whole system of value
exchange.
What does this mean for quality?
Casting a keen quality eye over this may lead to a certain queasiness. Optimising means making
compromises but we have the technology: remember Mr Pareto and his law and Juran's 'vital few'. We
are not counting defects but units of value, in terms of value created and of the levels and types of value
required to keep each player in the game.
A simple conceptual model is to imagine everyone putting coins into a central pot and then taking them
out again at a later time. As long as there is money in the pot, and there are people to play, the game
continues. Staying in business means keeping the game going.
A consideration within this game is that some players can easily leave. When they are critical value
contributors (as customers often are), they can demand a higher level of value in return. This can lead to
low-value customers, which many tolerate on the premise that 'the customer is always right'. What we
sometimes forget is that if someone is taking too much out of the pot, they can be asked to leave.
If quality is making this game work, then quality professionals need to understand the game. It does not
mean abandoning our concern for customers and products: far from it. But it does mean optimising the
system so that the whole thing continues to operate. Blind quality is what killed TQM in many
companies. Why should I map my processes? - Because it is the right thing to do. Why do I need to
empower everyone? - Because it works. The revised view of quality proposed here pushes against such
mantras. Thus, one more defining statement is: quality means understanding and optimising the whole
system of value exchange.
We must understand how things truly work, both individually and as systems; we must understand
people, what they value and how they effectively trade with others; and we must work out how these
imperfect systems can be optimised, so that our businesses thrive.
A Chinese emperor once asked his counsellor's advice about the greatest thing that could happen. The
counsellor said: 'Grandfather dies, father dies, son dies.' The emperor was shocked, until he realised that
changing this sequence of events would be far more traumatic. The same applies to our companies: we
can change and advise them in many ways, but the greatest thing we can do is to give them the strength
to outlive us
what is six sigma?
With businesses striving to focus on the customer and achieve competitiveness through consistently
reliable products and services, it should be no surprise that the issue of six sigma quality is now
attracting increasing attention from manufacturers and service providers in the UK and beyond.
Professor Tony Bendell, of the University of Leicester and Services Ltd who is working with Smallpeice
Enterprises Ltd, describes why six sigma is something we are going to hear a lot more about
In the past few years, major US corporations have made public the benefits attributed to their six sigma
programmes. AlliedSignals saved $175 million in 1995, and nearly double that in 1996. In 1997, General
Electric announced that it would save $500 million that year because of six sigma and by 1998 the
programme savings had risen to $1.2 billion. The bottom line is that corporations moving toward six
sigma levels of performance have saved billions of dollars, and boosted their stock values.
However, while the dollar signs do help to highlight the potential of this quality approach, they do little
to resolve the confusion that often surrounds all such 'quality movements' or explain how the benefits are
achieved.
The moment of conception
It was Motorola which conceptualised six sigma as a quality goal in the mid 1980s and first recognised
that modern technology was so complex that old ideas about acceptable quality levels were no longer
applicable. But the term, and the company's innovative six sigma programme, only came to real
prominence in 1989 when Motorola announced it would achieve a defect rate of not-more-than 3.4 parts
per million within five years. This claim effectively changed the focus of quality within the US, from one
where quality levels were measured in percentages (parts per hundred) to a discussion of parts per
million or even parts per billion. It was not long before many of the US giants - Xerox, Boeing, GE,
Kodak - were following Motorola's lead.
While few dispute this history, one area of confusion is the interpretation of the term six sigma. The
original industrial terminology is based on the established statistical approach which uses a sigma
measurement scale (ranging from two to six) to define how much of a product or process normal
distribution is contained within the specification. Essentially, the higher the sigma value the less likely it
is for a defect to occur, because more of the process distribution is contained within the specification.
Sliding scales
As the sigma scale describes defects in parts per million, the desire to achieve six sigma either side of the
nominal target inside the specification relates to very tight production characteristics or equivalently a
very low incidence of cases outside the specification, 'defects'. In fact, under the assumption of
normality, a product or process operating at six sigma quality would have a 99.999998 per cent yield, or
defects at 0.002 parts per million (two parts per billion). At the more typical three sigma quality level,
the yield will be 99.73 per cent or 2,700 defects per million opportunities.
By then taking into account that the product or process mean might vary from the nominal target by up
to 1.5 sigma, this translates into a yield at six sigma, of 99.99966 per cent or 3.4 defects per million - the
target declared by Motorola and now regarded as 'six sigma' quality by industry in general. By applying
the same 'worst case scenario' (a 1.5 sigma deviation) to the typical levels of three and four sigma
achieved by many manufacturing companies, the gulf between the world-class goal and average
performance is dramatically illustrated. At three sigma the yield falls steeply to only 93.32 per cent or
66,810 defects per million opportunities. Even at four sigma, the number of defects is 6,210 per million.
The six sigma philosophy
The other area where there is significant scope for misunderstanding is in the application of six sigma.
Some companies simply see it as a measure of quality that should just be used to strictly control the
delivery of defect-free product. However this is not the view held by those organisations, such as
Motorola, that have driven forward the six sigma approach, and have gained the major benefits from it.
Rather than a random application of a quality measure, these leading companies see six sigma as the
basis of a best-in-class philosophy, and a long-term business strategy. As such, six sigma becomes an
evolutionary phase of a company's quality strategy, serving to further enhance the results of existing
programs. For example, whilst six sigma relates to all of the criteria of the EFQM excellence model, its
primary impact is on the processes criterion.
The fundamental objective of this approach to six sigma is the implementation of a measurement-based
strategy that focuses on process improvement and variation reduction, often through the application of
improvement projects. In this way, waste and cost are driven out of the organisation as quality improves,
and customer satisfaction is increased through the continuous improvement in quality. Moreover, while
efforts have concentrated on Design for six sigma or project-based manufacturing improvements, there
is a growing realisation that six sigma is effectively applicable in every process and transaction within a
company. Using the common measurement index of 'defects per unit', where a unit can be virtually
anything including a line of code or an administrative form, companies have started to utilise the
approach to reduce defects in non-manufacturing operations.
Aiming for excellence
Crucially, because a six sigma programme in essence means overall excellence, implementation requires
more than simply explaining what six sigma means and expecting everyone to begin doing it
immediately. Now often referred to as six sigma programmes, this generic business encompassing
approach contains a number of key features (see box 1).
One established framework for this is the 'six steps towards six sigma'. There are actually various
versions of the six steps, which primarily change depending on the process being improved, but all are
aimed at ensuring that improvement activities maintain the link between customer quality requirements,
parts and processes. In general terms the steps are:
• identify requirements of end product
• determine the characteristics of the product components that are key to meeting the end
product requirements (applicable techniques include: cause and effect diagrams, failure mode
effects and criticality analysis (FMECA), quality function deployment (QFD), Taguchi
methodology/design of experiments)
• determine for each key characteristic, the process step that effects or controls it
• identify target value for each characteristic that minimises the impact of variation upon the end
product, and determine maximum allowable range or tolerance of that characteristic. (Robust
design, QFD, FMECA)
• identify actual or expected variation in each characteristic and determine capability of relevant
process step for that characteristic
• ensure that process steps are in statistical control and centred around the targets to be achieved
• Box 1: Implementing six sigma Companies implementing six sigma may: adopt a
systematic approach. define and establish roles and responsibilities within design, manufacturing and
throughout the organisation identify methods and techniques for the defining of processes and
customer requirements, and the identification of critical steps and key measures introduce practices
for benchmarking performance and processes for prioritising improvement opportunities use a
standard format to identify, reduce and control the sources of variation, allowing individuals or
project teams to focus on reducing the standard deviation within the process, rather than obsessing
over method. This also helps ensure the correct application of the powerful tools - such as statistical
analysis, experimental design and project management - that speed up the execution of improvement
activities
Respect for the masters
While six sigma programme implementation need not require any significant capital expenditure (other
than for training), it does warrant a long-term vision, management commitment and commensurate
attention and resources. It is also essential that investment is made in training designated staff in the
appropriate methods, tools and techniques, and then enabling them to manage the programme and guide
improvement projects. These people, particularly those now commonly referred to as master black belts,
black belts and green belts, are the core of the six sigma programme.
Typically, a black belt will have undertaken a training programme consisting of a minimum of 20-25 days
training, and carried out an improvement project over a three to six month training period. A green belt
will have undertaken around 10-15 days training. When fully trained a black belt will work full time on
improvement projects, while a green belt is likely to spend at least 20 per cent of their time on projects.
Master black belts are site experts and trainers of black and green belts. Experiences from US
organisations suggest that companies might train and maintain ten black belts per 1000 employees, and
one master black belt per 1000 employees.
Hard work ahead
Achieving six sigma is a challenge to any company and not all implementations succeed. Failure results
from weak leadership, slack goal setting, poor project management, and inadequate resources and
training. Moreover, establishing six sigma throughout an organisation is a long term programme -
essentially it is an ongoing process of continuous improvement where even the most dedicated company
sets goals of achieving six sigma within six to ten years. However, if properly introduced, companies
should experience financial benefits shortly after they begin. US companies have reported that a typical
black belt is expected to carry out four to six projects per year, and when deployed on high leverage
projects can achieve cost reductions of $200,000 per project.
Then, through ongoing deployment, a six sigma company generates and substantially saves money by
focusing on key customer critical issues and functioning on a higher level of efficiency. Reduced defects,
scrap and re-work lead to immediate bottom-line benefits, and as production line waste drops off the
company can make more efficient use of all resources. Improved design processes lead to better quality
and more reliable products with reduced lead times, and better transactional processes reduce errors and
increase productivity. As a result new customers begin purchasing from a company known for its high
quality goods, and so revenues increase.
Practice makes perfect
To compete in a world market, companies have to move toward a six sigma level of performance, and it
is not just the US giants who have recognised this. There are an increasing number of UK businesses
which are now following suit.
One UK operation that has fully adopted the six sigma philosophy, and endorses it unreservedly, is
General Domestic Appliances' (GDA) Refrigeration Factory in Peterborough. The six sigma approach
was introduced into the company in 1996 through its US co-owner GE. As the company's manufacturing
director, Jon Harper, readily admits, the UK managers were initially sceptical that this was just another
six month fad. But it only took a few projects to demonstrate to both the management team and
engineering staff that adopting the six sigma approach could make a major difference. The company
found it was able to solve problems that had been long running issues, and were able to get into sub-
1,000 parts per million problems and tackle them effectively.
Having adopted the six sigma philosophy, the underlying structured methodology and accompanying
techniques - including FMEA, Ishikawa diagrams, design of experiments, are now used throughout the
company to solve a wide variety of problems and, most importantly, improve customer satisfaction. For
example, one project has solved the problems caused by the companies shop floor data collection
system, which in some cases had lead to the wrong products being delivered to customers. A full
assessment and analysis of the issues resulted in both changes to the system, including the introduction
of more tracking and verification stations, and the introduction of better labelling which helps operators
identify the product more easily. Financially, this project saved the operation £47,000 (with such savings
recurring each year) and more importantly reduced the potential for customer dissatisfaction.
As GDA has recognised, six sigma is about more than just good engineering. It is about tackling
problems using a structured methodology, the right tools, within a team environment. According to Jon
Harper the team element of six sigma is a big part of its success. This is because operators have a great
deal more to offer than they are traditionally asked for, and by employing truly multi-disciplined project
teams, the six sigma methodology provides a way to unlock that potential.
As well as using multi-disciplined teams, there are some other key elements to GDA's six sigma
methodology. All projects are championed by a senior member of staff, and led by a green or black belt
whose task it is to form and guide the project team. Depending on the project this team could include
design engineers, manufacturing engineers, production operators, service staff, supplier representatives
etc. Also regular reviews are essential, and these are attended by the project champion and leader and a
master black belt. Moreover, all projects follow a six step process:
• define problem phase
• measurement phase
• analysis phase
• improve phase
• control phase
• transfer phase
A frost free example
An example of what happens in the above six sigma stages is provided by a recent project to improve
door sealing on the company's frost-free range of appliances.
With the overall aim of establishing the cause of this problem and tackling it at source, the define phase
of the six sigma project at GDA set about establishing the boundary of the problem. A brief analysis
showed that the problems could be due to a range of contributing factors - the seal itself, the body panel
designs and manufacture, the final product assembly, or the distribution process. Therefore to help
assess all the possibilities, the multi-disciplined project team included representatives from design,
service, production - including operators - and the seal supplier.
For the next step, the measurement phase, the team introduced some new internal measures to more
accurately check the seal fit prior to dispatch. Soon after the monitoring was started it became apparent
through simple Pareto analysis that a large majority of poor fit problems were centred around just three
measurement points. It was then a case of using further measurement approaches - such as tolerance
analysis of components in those areas, and paired comparisons - to pinpoint the defect cause. As a result
the main issue was traced to the design of the bottom hinge. Without having undertaking the structured
analysis and measurement tasks prescribed by the six sigma approach, there would have been little
chance of finding this error.
Within the analysis phase, the team assessed - through FMEA - all the findings, and as well as the hinge
itself, the team discovered some additional factors that were outside the areas normally considered,
which could also contribute to sealing problems. It also became obvious, due to the fact that there were
representatives from the seal suppliers on the team, that not only did the suppliers not fully understand
GDA's requirements for the seal, but that the company's designers did not understand the supplier's
processes. As a result of this analysis, it was possible to instigate a number of changes during the
project's improve phase. As well as employing design of experiments to determine the optimum
dimensions for a new bottom bracket that would ensure good sealing, changes were also made to the
suppliers systems and product packaging to better suit GDA's assembly processes.
The team then monitored these changes during the control phase, to ensure that the changes did bring
the process under control, and that the number of poor fitting seals was radically reduced. This stage
was also crucial for gaining the buy-in of the workforce to the implemented changes, and for establishing
those operators who were directly involved in the project team as 'champions' who will ensure that the
new controls are maintained. In the final transfer phase, the findings of the project were assessed for
relevance to other projects. In the case of this door-sealing project, which had concentrated on the
company's range of frost-free appliances, much of the data and insight gained was also applicable to the
company's larger volume static refrigeration products.
It is a money spinner
Within four months, the results of the project had reduced the service call rate for poor sealing doors
from 1.13 per cent to 0.6 per cent, which equated to a cost saving of £15,000 per annum, and
immeasurable benefits in improved customer satisfaction. This is just one of the many similar projects
undertaken by the factory, and since last year the operation's six sigma project has generated savings of
well over one million pounds.
Apart from such financial benefits, as an overall result of implementing six sigma, GDA has also seen the
manner in which engineers and operators approach improvement projects change significantly over the
past few years, and the confidence with which people propose solutions has grown enormously. Now,
using its experience, the company has more recently begun work on design for six sigma - moving from
problem solving into problem prevention. It has also refocused the effort from cost reduction onto
improving customer satisfaction and a key question for all projects is now: will the customer feel the
difference?