One could argue that quality programs today share a common skeleton, with prototypes stretching back to the medieval guilds of 13th century Europe. The ISO 9001 quality management system (QMS), the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program, the Deming Prize, Six Sigma, the European EFQM, the FDA’s CDRH quality program, and others, including your own industry’s quality criteria, all have much in common, despite how the different camps may disagree (and bicker) with each other.
ADVERTISEMENT |
We know these awards, standards, and programs are different—with different purposes, structure, focus, processes, and administration—but don’t they all share a common skeleton, albeit with “bones” of varying shapes? Anyone with even a modest knowledge of quality knows that continuous improvement, prevention vs. inspection, employee involvement, customer focus, leadership participation by management, supplier participation, standardization, and documentation of procedures are all part of a quality management system.
…
Comments
Only one QMS concern
Mr. Dewar, thanks for the perspective.
It seems that only one of the quality "programs" appearing in this article actually fits the subtitle: "How quality management systems conform to the laws of evolution." ISO 9001 appears to be the only one of them that actually applies to quality management systems. The ISO 9000 family urges systemic application of PDCA, which is basically scientific method being applied systematically to everyday operations. Per ISO 9001, an established quality management system is supposed to demonstrate systemic application of PDCA (aka, the process approach). Moreover, ISO 9001 requires a comprehensive system for satisfying customers, to which PDCA is applied systemically to improve (or evolve).
ISO 9001 registration (if effectively administered) attests that a system is in place to assure quality product is delivered on time to customers. None of the rest of them does that. Once ISO 9001 is effectively implemented, we can rely on it to effectively distinguish between those who have systems in place to satisfy their customers from those who do not.
Six sigma, on the other hand, does not require, nor does operate upon, a management system for satisfying customers. At best, it operates within the system established to satisfy customers (a quality management system). Six sigma aids to assist improvement of this system (consistent with systemic application of PDCA), but it does not itself require a system considering common risks to quality performance (e.g., the risk of using uncontrolled documents in processing, the risk of employing incompetent personnel to perform work affecting quality, the risk of making promises that exceed abilities, the risk of not properly handling product, etc.). (While some may regard 6S as a “system,” it’s not a quality management system in the sense ISO uses the term.)
Excellence models are not focused primarily upon an organization's ability to consistently fulfill its obligations to customers; excellence models may include this facet of organizational endeavor, but they have a broader focus than just that system of processes outputting product to satisfy customers.
ISO 9001 registration (if effectively administered) attests that a system is in place to assure quality product is delivered on time to customers. Those using ISO 9001 as a supplier selection device may not be concerned in the least if their supplier is an excellent organization by anyone's criteria; these folks want their product to conform to their requirements and they want it to be delivered on time.
None of the rest of them do that. Once ISO 9001 is effectively implemented, we can rely on it to effectively distinguish between those who have systems in place to satisfy their customers from those who do not. Getting a prize or an award attesting to outstanding quality management is great. ISO 9001 doesn't focus on being great or excellent, its focus is on the effectiveness of the system outputting product to satisfy customers. It’s about keeping promises to customers.
promoting evolution?
How does lumping these concerns together in a common "skeleton" promote the evolution of any of them, or the evolution of quality management?
Add new comment