The Non-Price of Quality
The Non-Price of Quality
Unclear Objectives. Other than an impressive mission statement, framed and displayed in the most visible places in the company, most organizations do not integrate their quality objectives in their short, medium, or long term strategic plans. Thus not committing them to a specific course of action. They also avoid approving any kind of formal core structure for the quality operation under a false belief that the quality missionaries should all be volunteers with no demands for resources. The problem here is that top management, in addition to losing focus on the objectives, would not have a tool to measure the performance of their quality system as a project.
The Program Approach. Most of the organizations deal with quality as a program rather than a process, which limits their vision for continuous improvement and their flexibility to change the approach or inject new ideas into the process.
Product oriented. The main concept in modern quality is the implementation of total quality management (TQM) which will naturally result in quality products, but the way organizations concentrate on the product only turns this concept into a quality control system that enforces quality measures without turning people in the organization into fanatic believers to whom quality becomes a second nature and who would eventually produce nothing but quality goods and services.
Tamed conditioned quality. With the management’s perspective of concentrating quality improvement programs (QIP) on products only, some organizations mistakenly put quality and production under the same manger. They believe that by doing this they avoid the conflict of enforcing standards between the two functions. The irony here is that management would support quality provided it does not interfere with the production operation.
No resources needed. Not too many organizations are ready to pay the price of quality (POQ) such as allocating enough funds for preparing quality material, hiring core staff, or conduct training programs. Sometimes, the core staff would not even have a meeting space to discuss plans or solve problems.
Unavailability for meetings. Other functions’ managers usually believe that quality meeting are time losers. Their enthusiasm for the program wanes after a while and they do not make their people available for meetings because they have work to do. Managers in this case create an adverse resistance to the quality programs in their organizations.
Lack of motivation. The more that quality circles work to solve their areas problems, the more punishment they get from their immediate supervisors who believe that quality problem solving meetings are nothing but a medium to criticize their performance and their ability to resolve problems. If the organization’s management allows the abortion of the quality circle’s solutions and gives them both the assurance and security they need, they would soon lose their momentum, interest, and motivation.
Demand of quick return on investment (ROI). Unless the management realizes that quality improvement programs (QIP) are by nature long term programs, they will be putting too much pressure on the system users, demanding generous return on their scant investment. A system approach to quality management will certainly provide the management with a clear vision of how the quality process works. It also highlights directions to develop a good monitoring and control system to the organization’s quality system.
In my opinion, if we have to have a quality triangle, it should consists of the customers at the top of the pyramid and the vendors and producers at the bottom with equally responsibility of defining their customers needs and excelling them in the course of offering their services. While the customers drive organizational operations and insisting on superior quality products and services, the vendors and their customers the producers jointly should do everything in their abilities to comply. Customers here become the CEOs of the organizations that serve them, and the market quality will consistently be enhanced.
The NonPrice of Quality - To learn more about this author, visit Dr. Fathi El-Nadi's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
Full of enthusiasm a quality coordinator, believing he is King Arthur of Quality, and assuming full management blessing, may get the shock of his life when all his demands for resources are turned down one after the other. The management would like him to make it happen for free. The following deficiencies seem to be common sins shared by most of the organizations of today in approaching their quality programs:
Unclear Objectives. Other than an impressive mission statement, framed and displayed in the most visible places in the company, most organizations do not integrate their quality objectives in their short, medium, or long term strategic plans. Thus not committing them to a specific course of action. They also avoid approving any kind of formal core structure for the quality operation under a false belief that the quality missionaries should all be volunteers with no demands for resources. The problem here is that top management, in addition to losing focus on the objectives, would not have a tool to measure the performance of their quality system as a project.
The Program Approach. Most of the organizations deal with quality as a program rather than a process, which limits their vision for continuous improvement and their flexibility to change the approach or inject new ideas into the process.
Product oriented. The main concept in modern quality is the implementation of total quality management (TQM) which will naturally result in quality products, but the way organizations concentrate on the product only turns this concept into a quality control system that enforces quality measures without turning people in the organization into fanatic believers to whom quality becomes a second nature and who would eventually produce nothing but quality goods and services.
Tamed conditioned quality. With the management’s perspective of concentrating quality improvement programs (QIP) on products only, some organizations mistakenly put quality and production under the same manger. They believe that by doing this they avoid the conflict of enforcing standards between the two functions. The irony here is that management would support quality provided it does not interfere with the production operation.
No resources needed. Not too many organizations are ready to pay the price of quality (POQ) such as allocating enough funds for preparing quality material, hiring core staff, or conduct training programs. Sometimes, the core staff would not even have a meeting space to discuss plans or solve problems.
Unavailability for meetings. Other functions’ managers usually believe that quality meeting are time losers. Their enthusiasm for the program wanes after a while and they do not make their people available for meetings because they have work to do. Managers in this case create an adverse resistance to the quality programs in their organizations.
Lack of motivation. The more that quality circles work to solve their areas problems, the more punishment they get from their immediate supervisors who believe that quality problem solving meetings are nothing but a medium to criticize their performance and their ability to resolve problems. If the organization’s management allows the abortion of the quality circle’s solutions and gives them both the assurance and security they need, they would soon lose their momentum, interest, and motivation.
Demand of quick return on investment (ROI). Unless the management realizes that quality improvement programs (QIP) are by nature long term programs, they will be putting too much pressure on the system users, demanding generous return on their scant investment. A system approach to quality management will certainly provide the management with a clear vision of how the quality process works. It also highlights directions to develop a good monitoring and control system to the organization’s quality system.
In my opinion, if we have to have a quality triangle, it should consists of the customers at the top of the pyramid and the vendors and producers at the bottom with equally responsibility of defining their customers needs and excelling them in the course of offering their services. While the customers drive organizational operations and insisting on superior quality products and services, the vendors and their customers the producers jointly should do everything in their abilities to comply. Customers here become the CEOs of the organizations that serve them, and the market quality will consistently be enhanced.
The NonPrice of Quality - To learn more about this author, visit Dr. Fathi El-Nadi's Website.
Like this article? Share it with your friends
 | |
 |
No article feedback found. |
| |
Leave Your Feedback |
 | |
| |||
|
To learn more about the Evan Elite Author Program please contact us. |
 | |
|  |
Subscribe to Dr. Fathi's articles
 | |
|
|  |
 | |
|
| |
 | |||||||
|
 | ||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
| ||
 |
| Have you written articles that would be of value to entrepreneurs? Become an expert on our site by publishing them! Expose yourself to a wide audience, drive more traffic to your website and get more sales! Click Here for details. |
|
|
 |
| Modeling the Masters: Learn the true secrets behind Walt Disney's business success factors & grow your company! Video produced by Phanta Media |
|
|
 |
"Learn straight from Evan how you can Make a Full Time Income (And More) from a Website"
Click Here To Learn More |
|
|
|
|
Get advice & tips from famous business owners, new articles by entrepreneur experts, my latest website updates, & special sneak peaks at what's to come!
|
|
|
 Take the Lead Eneterprise Readiness Romance to the Dance Working with Wisdom Future Networking |
|
 | ||
 |
Top 50 HR Blogs 2009
Top 50 HR Blogs 2009 | |
 |
Choose A PR Topic
Press Release Builder | |
| ||
 | ||||
| ||||
|
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Email us your ideas on how to make our website more valuable! Thank you Sharon from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for your suggestions to make the newsletter look like the website and profile younger entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez and Sean Combs!
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||