As a measure of work, quality can be beautiful, and it can be brutally honest. Processes successfully aspiring to a higher standard are indeed beautiful. For all of the talk, the word quality is vulnerable because it is now comprised of real and imaginary parts; a solidity of purpose, yet a buzz of incredible possibilities. I dislike buzzwords and avoid people who dedicate professions to smithing with them. Now that the clamor is finally abating, I face the double jeopardy of inviting a closer scrutiny of my own work and violating the awaited absence of the word quality from vast numbers of front covers of publications. This issue of the Review is dedicated to the topic of quality not for its possibilities but for its accomplishments.
What Is Quality About?
The pursuit of quality improvement is reminiscent of numerical integration-ever better, ever slower because exact answers are more easily conceptualized than attained. Perspectives on the definition and role of quality will vary. For some it is the binding of pride and performance; for others it is a path I to follow. It ought not to be only a discussion topic interfering with real work. As I see it, organizations: and their people delve into quality for one of three reasons: attraction, mandate, and desperation. The matter of attraction seems bi-modal: some like the message and others are drawn to the messenger. Competitive losses and a lack of alternatives can identify improved quality as a last chance. Whether by choice, or by lack of choice, organizations must then herd many thousands more into their newfound visions of always doing everything better. Commitment to such processes impacts procedure, product, organization, and individual. Done right it saves money.
But Not Always
Fierce competition, a weak economy, the will to be number one or number two, an urgency to survive, and the resulting escalation of restructurings and downsizings marked a time that coincided with the quality message. The message became the rage: there could not be enough written, said, or done regarding quality. This insatiable market spawned the business of quality: books, conferences, consulting, training, and prizes. As big money entered the fray, it became tough to keep charlatans away and to keep common reason in. Thus there are now almost as many stories of failure as success, though the latter are still more likeable.
I am contrary by nature and must admit that the preponderance of quality-speak became increasingly unstimulating. Perhaps this opinion was shared among millions in industry and can thus be thanked for finally putting the pop culture of quality, that imaginary part, to death.
Past Doubling
Time is a wonderful lens. Imagery is put aside and we are left with enduring realities. Customers tell us of their problems, and it is they who pay when they are satisfied. We pay when they are not. Like it or not, the customer counts-that is what quality says.
It seems that competitiveness is now evident almost everywhere. Many companies are more robust than they were, a pride has returned, and confidence for the future is asserted. Enough record exists to confirm that improved quality can improve competitiveness, increase market penetration, and fatten' margins. Record also shows that unimproved quality does not. That customers seem to be more satisfied implies that quality is a common thread.
An Advocacy
Quality emphasizes customers. Providing what they want, when and how they want it, and at a profit, sustains business viability. Impediments should be averted. This means reducing scrap, inefficiency, delay, discontent, excessive costs, poor design, and inadequate service. However, true quality initiatives are proactive, not reactive. Thus they advocate rethinking system processes like design, manufacture, service, and administration. Quality is an advocacy for knowledge that is current, accurate, sufficient, and available. The product is better understanding, improved performance, and greater satisfaction all around.
Quality and technology are a particularly good fit. High technology without quality is very expensive and has given us some of our most spectacular failures. Conversely, quality makes technology believable and saleable. This also benefits engineering employment.
The committed organizations may be populated with many skeptics, but when new processes are shown to work, my experience is that appreciation is broadly evident. Quality believers are those who pursue it because they have seen that, done right, it always works, not because it might be lucrative. These practicing believers are best able to explain the successes still continuing to unfold in industry. Two such individuals are Kevin Dooley of the University of Minnesota and Farzad Mahmoodi of Clarkson University. From education to industry, from customer to supplier, their work is dedicated to seeing things work better. From what I have seen, their work is as good as their belief. That is to our benefit.
I am most grateful for their significant effort in putting this issue together. I hope that now the noise has died down, this will help the reader make some sense of that real part of quality.
Regarding Vancouver
A comment regarding the upcoming EMS Conference on Virtual Organizations. I can assure you that there are two reasons to attend. First, EMS has the making of a fascinating conference on the important developing topic of virtual enterprise. This will also be the focal topic of the summer issue of the Review. Second, in the span of a short three-day visit, Vancouver, B.C., has become my very favorite city. Relaxed, strikingly beautiful, and inviting are the first words that come to mind.
I urge anyone with even a peripheral interest in the subject to save Aug. 18-20 for Vancouver. In fact, a train ride out and a week's vacation are not out of the question . . .
A Paper Shuffle
For sake of look and feel, the use of uncoated paper in this publication has been adopted. When first considering this possibility, I learned that cost does not change much, that uncoated paper lasts longer for archival purposes, and that it also recycles more easily. It became an easy decision.
Comments?
You may have comments regarding articles you have read in the Review. We want your feedback and will publish selected letters.
David J. Wells is the Director of Clarkson University Interdisciplinary Engineering and Management Program, teaches several engineering courses, and is author of Managing Your First Years industry, published by IEEE Press. Prior to his current academic position, Dave worked in the nuclear systems services industry, where his functional responsibilities included engineering, project planning, project management, proposal development, safety analysis, program management, and management. His research areas have included fuzzy diagnostics, probabilistic robotic positioning accuracy, engineering management, and career management.