|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Letters Misleading Statement I recently came across an article from your June 1995 issue in which Amy Zuckerman and Patrick Townsend were interviewed about international quality standards ["QualityView"]. In this article, Ms. Zuckerman incorrectly states, "In fact, the RAB has eliminated at least 30 companies from their original list of accredited registrars in the last few years." This statement gives the impression that 30 registrars have lost their accreditation and that is totally false. The Registrar Accreditation Board has never revoked accreditation from a registrar. Perhaps what Ms. Zuckerman is referring to is a change that was made to our registrar list in early 1994. Before April 1994, we produced a registrar list that included registrars, with or without accreditation, operating in North America. RAB made a business decision to revise our list to include only those registrars with ANSI-RAB accreditation or those in application for accreditation. This change in no way signaled that the registrars dropped from our list were "unacceptable" or had lost accreditation, but rather was intended to promote those registrars with ANSI-RAB accreditation. Granted, the misstatement is relatively minor in nature, but it nonetheless paints an inaccurate image of our accredited registrars. -- Janet Jacobsen
Politically incorrect [Regarding the "Message From Richard Riley" in the September 1995 Quality Digest,] why would a piece of self-serving political propaganda be included in a magazine devoted to quality? Is it a sample of how not to communicate? The essence of the message was: "If you don't support giving more money to my department, you are against education." This statement is insupportable, and even went unsupported in the article. I strive to cut quality costs in my job -- that doesn't mean that I am against quality. It just means that I seek more efficient ways to achieve it. Where is the data supporting the contention that more money for the U.S. Department of Education will lead to better-educated students? It was not given; I can only conclude that such data does not exist. Mr. Riley points out that surveys show that the U.S. public believes that continued support for the Department of Education is important. This is not evidence that the Department of Education contributes to better education -- it may just be evidence that the U.S. public has been duped by Richard Riley and his colleagues. It is also possible to be for "continued support" while being for "reduced funding." We need scientific thinking, not political diatribes. I am disappointed that you would include such an overtly political piece in a magazine devoted to quality. -- Tom Slaughter
Performance pay stunts productivity Philip Ricciardi's article titled "Simplify Your Approach to Measuring Performance" [August 1995] is a bean counter's dream, but a nightmare to workers and their supervisors. Clearly the concept of basing a reward system on subtracting reworked tasks from an individual's productivity encourages workers to ignore necessary and corrective rework while seeking to artificially increase output in hopes that quality deficiencies will be attributed to other faceless factors. It is also quite easy to predict that once a majority of workers can demonstrate a consistent performance rating over 100 percent (which would be determined by unilateral stipulation), then most organizations' production managers will surely increase the "output" criteria needed to earn the incentive pay. The result would be to demoralize the work force and actually stunt future productivity ("The more I do, the more they will expect" syndrome). My experience indicates that employees increase productivity and quality when they believe they are appreciated as human beings capable of independent thought, making important contributions and are treated as valued members of a synergistic corporate team; not when their pay is dependent on some efficiency expert's arbitrary performance quotient. -- Tom McPartland
Deming surely rolled over in his grave when you published "Simplify Your Approach to Measuring Performance." Observation and measurement, good. Recognition, good. Incentive pay for "better" work, bad. A dark cloud of competition will soon overshadow workers' attempts to take joy in their work. What of those who contributed to Claire's high performance score? After that first volley of incentive payments, former team players will become independent bread winners. And when Claire's efforts are even more laudable next period, but she receives a low performance score because "work is slow for the company," how will she feel? She will wonder how she went from winner to loser. In fact, she may wonder how the whole organization went from win-win to win-lose and is headed toward lose-lose. -- L. Gary Schultz
ISO 9000 vs. the Baldrige Your editorial dealing with a "battle" between ISO 9000 and the Baldrige Award was very interesting ["First Word," August 1995]. In all honesty, I can't see where one excludes the other. In fact, it seems to me that ISO 9000 would be a major part of Baldrige, and ISO 9000 certification would shorten the Baldrige process. I think the major difference in the success rate of either requirement is that businesses view both as a way to improve sales, not improve quality. Almost anyone can get ISO 9000 certification if they pay the price. They just do everything by the book, and everyone wins! But with Baldrige, a company can pay the price and lose the game. After all is said and done, there are only six winners a year. It is very possible that only a small difference exists between a winner and a whole bunch of "losers." Losers don't run double-page ads in The Wall Street Journal to pat themselves on the back, so we don't know about them. -- David C. Crosby
Winning is relative, and the triumph you speak of (for ISO 9000) is not as clear as you purport it to be ["First Word," August 1995]. You do comment that ISO 9000 and the Baldrige Award complement each other -- this is mostly true. However, my experience has shown that a company that succeeds at either system will have actually succeeded at both systems. ISO 9000 cannot succeed without leadership, employee involvement, customer satisfaction, information and data management, etc., and the Baldrige Award cannot succeed without the basic systems and structures indirectly mandated by ISO 9000. I view the two systems as being "vertical complements" -- ISO 9000 is the foundation, and the Baldrige Award is the structure. Our quality focus should be on supporting the further synthesis of ISO 9000 and the Baldrige Award exclusive of all other external industry-specific forces. We could call it many things, the Malcolm Baldrige-9000 or the ISO-MB-9000. ISO 9000 and the Baldrige Award -- win-win. -- David W. Aldridge
I enjoyed your editorial on ISO 9000 and the Baldrige Award in the August 1995 issue. I also agree with your assessment. BASF has a Chairman's Quality Award that is based on the Baldrige Award. I have been the ISO 9000 management representative and quality manager for the Freeport site since 1991, which has all 18 production units certified under one registration through ABS QE of Houston. My experience is that the units which have worked on meeting the requirements of our CQA have gone beyond the requirements of ISO 9000, and it is evident in their results. We also have more sites that have been registered to ISO 9000 than have won our CQA. -- Tom Chaffin
Flowcharts are OK I enjoyed the article "10 Tips on Writing for ISO 9000" [August 1995]. Having served as the SE Regional Director for NQA, USA (an ISO 9000 registrar), I thought it was quite good. Short and to the point (as the author suggests in the article). However, I would like to make one comment. In tip #3, the author states that ". . . flowcharts are not a substitute for narrative in an ISO 9000 procedure . . ." This point may vary among registrars. NQA has always had a policy of accepting flowcharts as procedures, provided that they prove effective. We quite often found that they worked very well (particularly where employees are virtually illiterate). NQA also accepts cartoons, pictograms, etc. Note: Standardized conventions for flowcharts have been established by several different countries and/or organizations. However, most are now adopting ISO 5807: 1985, "Information processing -- Documentation symbols and conventions for data, program and system flowcharts, program network charts and system resources charts." -- Richard C. Randall
No disrespect intended I was startled to learn that many people thought I was being disrespectful of Dr. Deming when I suggested that the sources of his concepts and ideas might be examined one day ["Letters," April 1995]. Educational institutions spend all their time doing just that to those who have written and spoken in the past. Shakespeare is under the microscope all the time. Past and current history revolves around the work of public people. Certainly they do not expect the work of someone as influential as Dr. Deming to be frozen in time. At any rate, I apologize to those whom I may have offended, however inadvertently. It was not my intention to show any disrespect to Dr. Deming or his memory. I never did it during his lifetime and certainly wouldn't now. -- Philip B. Crosby
|
|