Early in my career, I was fortunate enough to spend several years working in Ford Electronics' Divisional Quality Office as an internal quality consultant. During these years, I worked with a number of manufacturing facilities, engineering groups, and suppliers to provide training in quality and engineering disciplines, as well as work with them to solve problems and improve the quality of their processes and products.
As I've progressed through my career, I've spent many years building on those experiences, sharing them, and working with a very wide variety of companies across a broad spectrum of industries and technologies, and have been frequently surprised at how so many of the problems I encounter are so similar.
I've also seen a very wide variety of definitions of quality, but to date, I've never encountered one I like better than the following:
"Quality is meeting or exceeding your customer's expectations at a cost that represents value."
This definition hits on several key factors.
1. Meeting or exceeding your customer's expectations. This seems like a "no-brainer", but in fact, the number of times I've seen suppliers miss meeting this would astound you. It's not always the fault of the supplier, by the way, but that's a different issue.
2. The word "customer" is not always the person or company to which you sell your product. "Customer" also refers to the next step in your value chain, or even the next operator down the line. In fact, if you're not considering EVERY person that needs you to provide something specific as a "customer", you're missing out on ultimate "customer satisfaction". EVERYONE who gets your product (whether it's a drawing, a specification, a design, an in-process part in manufacturing, the company to which you provide your part for inclusion into some other assembly, or the person who takes your product home or to his business, is your customer. Not recognizing that, and not making sure EVERY employee in your company recognizes that, will hurt you every time.
3. "Customer's Expectations" are important. How do you define them? Where do they come from? If you are a "full service supplier" who designs parts for a customer, based on their specifications, were you involved in the preparation of those specification? Is the part manufacturable in your processes? If not, why did you accept the specification and design? You should ALWAYS be involved in that process, even if you have to absorb the cost of doing so. You will save that cost in spades by making sure the design is rational for your processes.
4. Cost. My favorite of the factors. Which is higher quality vehicle - a Mercedes, or a Yugo? Most people will say, immediately, that it is the Mercedes. But, if a Mercedes is not in your budget, that may not be true. One needs to compare apples to apples, cost to cost, for a true comparison.
Yes, objectively, the Mercedes may have fewer defects per vehicle, but at what cost?
It's no different in the manufacturing world. If I'm buying a screw, how good a screw do I need? What forces does it have to withstand? What kind of vibration? How many of them do I need? What is the cost of each? If I use the more expensive screw when I don't need to, have I improved the quality of my design, or have I just made it more expensive?
We can design products that will never fail. The technology exists. But, at what cost? If I design a "widget" that will last for 100 years, but it costs $5 million, how many will I sell if there's a comparable "widget" on the market for $5 that will last 5-10 years? I might sell some of the more expensive ones if the application is safety and longevity critical, such as, perhaps, a critical component on a railroad, or a dam, or a nuclear reactor, but for most people, the less expensive part may be more than adequate.
Quality is a relative term. Ignoring that can put you out of business.
Today, most people have high expectations for the longevity of many types of products. We are turned off by failures and defects that we expect should never occur, and we are almost never impressed by things that never fail, because that is our expectation.
Generally, we should be designing products that will last longer than we anticipate people will use them, and not worrying excessively about the 0.00005% of people who will use them longer, as that is not "cost-effective". There always has to be a balance.
If you like this article, and are interested in exploring our consulting and training services, please contact me, John Poris, directly at 248-535-9576, or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
You can also take a look at our website for more information on our services - www.poris-associates.com