Is Quality Central or Peripheral to Lean?

Four different answers discuss where quality methods fit into lean.

The most stunning accomplishment of Toyota during the last 50 years is its turnaround from making “junk” to virtually redefining quality in the auto industry. Toyota was influenced to the core by W. Edwards Deming and quality is evident everywhere in the company. The objective of the Toyota Production System (TPS) is presented as quality, cost, delivery, safety, and morale. Any metric board in Toyota will include quality indicators.

Every lean consultant or lean training course I know emphasizes quality. Anyone who claims that lean focuses only on cost and efficiency has missed the point. On the other hand, I am not aware of any lean training course or lean consultation that focuses on the details of building a complete quality system. There’s a great deal to developing a world-class quality system and great quality departments that do amazing work. When we consider processes such as failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), quality-function deployment, statistical quality methods, reliability engineering, and more, there is certainly a lot to learn and do. So why are these detailed methods not taught in lean courses or focused on in lean engagements?

…

Want to continue?

By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.

Create a FREE account

Forgot My Password

Comments

Process-approach in ISO9001:2008 is central to Lean and Quality

G'Day Jeff,

Your timing is brilliant as it surprises me too how many Quality, Lean and Six Sigma folk introduce such programs and do not look to their Quality Systems. Sadly, most QMS's have been documented by simply copying the Elements of ISO9001:2008 and other ISO Standards, to then document their Quality Manuals and supporting policies and procedures under such headings - contrary to the required ISO9001:2008 'Process-approach'. As you said in your Toyota Way book page 135 "the essence of building quality has got lost in bureaucratic and technical details" - such Element-based not Process-approach and based documentation, leaves Executives slighted and disinterested that their QMS has no relation to Lean, Kaizen, Six Sigma, BPR and so on.

Consultancies abound exciting executives about conducting "As-Is" and "To-Be" Process Mapping and Analysis to then determine the 'Performance Gaps' and suggest improvement inititives like Lean/Six Sigma etc that can reduce such gaps. I agree with your view that many Quality folk do not step-up or propose, usually not even consulted, about referring to such QMS for the Should-Be process for process stability and compliance. With an Element -based QMS Manuals and documentation, cannot provide that House of Quality Foundation stones / Toyota Systems (Amasaka "Toyota's New JIT").

'Lean Thinking' by Womack and Jones page 19 provides support for this and your QD article in that most Value Stream Mapping activities do conduct the three 'Tasks' for such VSM being a] Transformation b] Information and c] Problem Solving Tasks. Value Analysis of non-Value adding activities within the VSM is as Dr Deming said, sub-optimal as rarely do we see the use of the Work Study/Work Simplification Flow Process Charts (A Mogensen fame).

So thank you for your article - it was indeed a timely reminder and wake-up call for many seeking to sustain the Quality, Lean, Six Sigma improvements that they may care to look at their QMS and 'Check' (PDCA) if they are Element-based and then reengineer them to the Process-approach for better value and embedding the process changes - 'Study' in PDSA as Dr Deming changed it too courtesy of Ford Motor Coy back in the late '80s.

Michael W McLean
Managing Director
McLean Management Consultants Pty Ltd
Embedding Strategic Change (Established.1988)
PO Box 917 North Ryde BC 1670 NSW Australia
M: +61 419 225 996
P: +61 2 9706 8566
F: +61 2 9706 8366
E:michael@mclean-mc.com.