The Government/Quality Puzzle

Posted on May 8, 2012 by borawski

I’ve been thinking a lot about quality and government lately. There have been a lot of cues to think about it. The recent election in France. The continued struggles of Greece.  The 10-year quality plan created by AQSIQ in China.  The topic came up in Stockholm recently in a Future of Quality workshop sponsored by the Swedish Quality Institute. Government, the audience said, is an essential force of change for quality. Government influences quality through purchasing policy, through public policy, and through its use of (or lack of use) quality in the management of government.   

In 2007 by Executive Order of then President George W. Bush, every federal agency of the United States government was required to name a Performance Improvement Officer.  In 2010, the Partnership for Public Service commissioned Grant Thornton, a large public accounting firm, to review the progress that has been made. It wasn’t encouraging. Take a look if you’d like.

Government has such a large impact on our lives, our economic security, and our children’s future–yet in any discussion I’ve ever had about the cost of quality, everyone laughs when I say, “In an average manufacturing business, 20 cents of every revenue dollar is lost to the cost of poor quality. In the service industry, 30 cents on a dollar.  In health care, 70 cents on a dollar.  And in government, no one really knows but always guesses that it’s worse than healthcare.” We laugh because the alternative is tears.

So, the big question of course is–why?  Why do citizens expect and demand so little accountability for the poor use of resources in government?  Why do so few leaders charged with leading countries, states, provinces, and cities require improved performance? I have great regard for the men and women who serve as public employees. I have no doubt whatsoever that they desire to do good work.  I’ve listened to many of their stories of frustration, and sometimes desperation.    

I’m sure none of us doubt the direct applicability of quality concepts, techniques, and tools to assure improved performance in the public sector. I know there are thousands of public service success stories to serve as proof positive the quality works. (Here’s one example: One ASQ member has spent the last 15 years mentoring government leaders in Botswana, and helping to create a remarkable quality transformation.)

Yet the adoption rate versus the opportunity is remarkably low. I don’t sense any positive momentum.  It seems we can do as much as we want in manufacturing, service, education, and healthcare, but if government doesn’t likewise move along in its own journey to performance excellence, we won’t be able to assure our ability to enjoy an improved quality of life.

If you know of a good public service story, please share it. Look to the stories  in the countries where you live, were educated, or work. If you have ideas of what it would take to make quality in government the rule rather than the far-too-seldom exception, please tell us. If your view on the prevalence of quality in government differs, please share your view as well.

Market forces will ultimately weed out the best from worst in the for-profit sector.  As consumers, we speak.  What ultimately assures the same in government?

Posted in Current Events, Global, Government, Management, case for quality | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments

April Roundup: Are Quality Professionals Happy?

Posted on May 4, 2012 by borawski

Are quality professionals happy in their jobs? This was the question posed to ASQ’s Influential Voices last month, sparked by this article in Forbes that named software quality engineers as the happiest professionals in the U.S. 

The answer appears to be yes…and no. The Influential Voices cited the satisfaction of working to ensure quality in their organizations, products, and processes.  Many drew from personal experience, but also looked to psychology, management philosophy, and beyond. 

Key factors for job happiness:

Manu Vora looks back on his personal experience in school and in his career, recognizing that good teachers and job mentors made him happy at work. Jimena Calfa, a software quality engineer, also draws on her experience on the job, and cites satisfying challenges and relationships with her boss and co-workers as key to her happiness on the job.

Robert Mitchell says he is indeed happy on the job—and credits mentors, autonomy, and, yes, his ASQ membership and involvement. Rajan Thiyagarajan also writes about networking opportunities and workshops, including one hosted by ASQ in our headquarters in Milwaukee, Wis., as key to his happiness. David Levy  and Aimee Siegler analyze the variety of factors that go into job happiness—from engaging work to compensation to the commute.

Statistician Laura Freeman has a simple answer to what makes her happy at work: Statistics! The work is interesting and the field is ranked “as being one of the best in the country in terms of compensation, job satisfaction, and employment opportunities.” And Guy Wallace has some fun with this question by looking to a classic comedy routine for the answer.

The importance of quality culture:

Mark Graban recommends working for an organization that truly values quality: “Being problem solvers, the quality professionals want to try to fix things. But, if the root cause of the organization’s poor quality (and lack of improvement) is out of their control, it’s often better to leave for greener pastures than to stay put and be miserable.” Nergis Solomyez agrees. “Working with a group of people who share the same views on quality and an organization that embraces continuous improvement are must-haves for job satisfaction in quality,” she writes.

Likewise, for Chris Hermenitt, a quality culture says is essential to job happiness. “I think that quality as an idea needs to be more integrated into the business rather than as a separate concept.” Scott Rutherford writes that breaking through the barriers of poor management is important for a quality professional’s happiness. On a related note, quality professionals must work through the inevitable frustration in the quality field, says John Hunter. “I think the field does have a fairly high level of frustration as many are stuck in systems that are moving much too slowly to improve management practices. This is the biggest concern I find from most in the quality improvement field.”

What makes us happy?

Deborah Mackin looks to the work of Frederick Herzberg, a motivational theorist who identified competency, choice, progress and meaningfulness as key factors in job happiness.
John Priebe draws from the book, “The Great Workplace by Michael Burchell and Jennifer Robin,” for the five factors in job happiness: 1) credibility, 2) respect, 3) fairness, 4) pride, and 5) camaraderie. Jennifer Stepniowski also looks to psychological theory (including Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) and cites four factors in job happiness: Dynamic, autonomy, meaning, and respect. Sameer Chougle suggests four more factors: Is the work interesting, frustrating, rewarding, and challenging?

Speaking of Maslow, Dr. Lotto Lai conducted a survey of quality professionals in Hong Kong, and used Maslow’s five-level hierarchy to analyze the results. (The five levels are physiological, safety, belongingness and love, esteem, and self-actualization.) Freedom and challenges equate to happiness at work, Dr. Lai found.

And Anshuman Tiwari reflects on what makes quality professionals happy—as opposed to other professionals. He writes: “Quality professionals appear to be happy when they are involved in improvement projects and their inputs are valued and appreciated. I have come to realize that a quality professional generally is more emotional than the ones in sales and operations.”

Whose job is it to make us happy?

Cesar Diaz Guevara writes that be happy in quality, one must want to make a difference—rather than having to do it.  The quality field is what you make it, says Tim McMahon, so make it good. ”Quality assurance is all about character, courage, activism and passion representing the moral qualities, ethical standards and principles to fight for quality.”

 Nicole Radziwill says we have it within our power to make the entire organization happier. “As improvement specialists, I suggest that as quality professionals, we are perfectly situated to use our skills to help everyone in an organization become happier… and thus more productive!”

Dr. Robert Burney, in the meantime, suggests that happiness is a relative term. Perhaps, he writes, we should look to happiness outside of work. Interestingly, Kerrie Anne Christian interviews her husband, a IT quality manager, about what makes him happy at work, coming to the conclusion that: “Happiness at work helps for happiness at home – and vice versa.”

So—are you happy on the job? Do you agree with the Influential Voices? Let me know in the comments. I hope this conversation helps to inspire and encourage quality professionals to raise their voice.

Posted in Current Events, Management, Quality, Uncategorized, Young Professionals, career | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

164th Management Improvement Carnival

Posted on April 20, 2012 by borawski

I’m happy to host the 164th Management Improvement Carnival on View From the Q this month. What’s the Management Improvement Carnival? It’s a monthly feature hosted by ASQ Influential Voices blogger John Hunter where he or a guest collects and discusses interesting, timely articles on quality, improvement, innovation–you name it.

Thank you to John for allowing me to host and participate in the community discussion! (Check out another Management Carnival recently hosted by fellow ASQ Influential Voice Nicole Radziwill. ) Let’s jump to the articles for discussion:

Culture of Quality: “I am surprised at how many organizations don’t recognize the importance of sharing with others their success,” writes Quality Doc, the blogger behind Making Medical Lab Quality Relevant. Are many organizations secretive about their success and if so—why? Quality Doc writes: “Reporting and promoting success is a critical part of the culture of quality.”

Another “quality culture” topic comes from blogger David M. Kasprzak of My Flexible Pencil. David discusses the office “supply chain.”  Why do we go back to “suppliers” (vendors, employees) who fail us? This was a popular article on ASQ’s Twitter, and seems to be a common problem.

Employee Engagement: This New Yorker piece brings an interesting glimpse into the hiring and training policies at the Japanese clothing manufacturer Uniqlo, which “hires a lot of people, and spends a lot of time training them.” Article conclusion: more full-time workers and better, more intense employee training can equal success for retailers.

Training and Learning: Speaking of training, Kevin Meyer of the Evolving Excellence blog writes about the purpose of knowledge in the 21st century. Should we specialize in one subject, or should we know a lot about a lot of topics? I’m curious about what quality professionals think.

Innovation and Manufacturing: What does innovation look like in a tradition-based industry of matzo manufacturing? What lessons can we learn about innovation in a challenging field? The Manufacturing Innovation blog discusses a recent New York Times article on two matzo producers: Manischewitz and Streit’s.

Email Management: This Fast Company article discusses email overload and tools that help organize the deluge (for example, “activity streams” that file emails by topic). For another look at controlling email, read the March QP cover story on how one company got email under control.

Making Quality Fun: Finally, I’m always delighted to see the creative and unique posts produced by the Minitab blog, Statistics and Quality Improvement. In April, Minitab featured topics like the NFL draft, Titanic survival rates, and, perhaps my favorite, Designing Experiments with Gummi Bears. Yes, Gummi bears. What a way to make statistics and quality fun, creative, and topical!

Posted in Current Events, Quality, Uncategorized, case for quality, innovation, manufacturing | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Are Quality Professionals Happy On the Job?

Posted on April 9, 2012 by borawski

No one said it’s easy to be a quality professional.  Interesting—yes. Frustrating—sometimes. (Just see feedback to last month’s post on “selling” quality.) Rewarding—it can be; we’re making a difference. Challenging—that’s a given.

Maybe it shouldn’t be easy. After all, some of the most rewarding things in life aren’t easily achieved. Yet most of us in quality will say that the job can be satisfying. Maybe we feel job satisfaction when we ensure that our companies produce a quality product that serves our customers well. (Call it Raising the Voice of Quality!) Maybe it’s when we help eliminate waste and rework. Maybe when lives are saved.  Maybe it’s when we use the skills that we’ve worked for years to develop and sharpen: math, statistics, problem-solving. Or maybe it’s when we see that we’re making a difference.

So I wasn’t surprised that Forbes Magazine named software quality assurance engineer as the “happiest job” in the U.S.

As Forbes says, “Professionals with this job title are typically involved in the entire software development process to ensure the quality of the final product…Software quality assurance engineers feel rewarded at work, as they are typically the last stop before software goes live and correctly feel that they are an integral part of the job being done at the company.”

Great news for software quality engineers—but what about other quality professionals? This month, let’s talk about happiness and job satisfaction in the quality field, worldwide. Are you happy on the job? If yes,  why? If no—what would help you raise the voice of quality with a passion?

Posted in Current Events, Quality, Uncategorized, career, case for quality | Tagged , , , , | 8 Comments

March Roundup: Can We “Sell” Quality?

Posted on April 5, 2012 by borawski

Do we need to make the case for “selling” quality in 2012? Is “selling” the wrong term for showing the C-suite the value of what we do? What would Deming say?

These themes ran through the many passionate responses by the Influential Voices bloggers and beyond in reply to my March post on “selling” quality. The responses ranged from philosophical reflections on selling quality—is “educating” a more accurate term?—to tips on communicating the value of quality to peers and executives. I encourage you to read the blogs cited below. There’s a wealth of knowledge, experience, and resources.

Why sell quality? Is it futile to “sell” quality to an organization that doesn’t understand the intrinsic value of quality? Dr. Robert Burney writes that quality can’t be “sold”—but that organizations can create a quality culture. Mark Graban comments: “I think if we’re having to convince our CEO that quality matters, then our organization might be a lost cause and maybe it’s time to find a new job.”

Things that work: Deb Mackin asks quality professionals for their advice, and compiles feedback on getting a seat at the table. Dr. Lotto Lai makes the case for convincing top executives that quality is worthwhile, while persuading one’s peers. Sameer Chougle encourages us to demonstrate the value of quality by “doing” rather than “selling.” John Priebe focuses on metrics and scorecards. Manu Vora says, “Sell value–not quality.” Suresh Lulla says, “Speak the language of management–money!”

University professor Paulo Sampaio offers an interesting academic perspective on the role of quality.  Guy Wallace created a 10-minute, step-by-step instructional video with ideas on “selling” quality. Rajan Thiyagarajan blogs about several case studies and success stories of companies that used quality successfully (including Infosys and Suziki). Anshuman Tiwari looks to both Apple and street vendors for lessons in selling and deploying quality.

Jennifer Stepniowski draws on her personal experience in “selling” quality, and offers suggestions (“know your stuff”). Jimena Calfa, too, offers advice based on her experience in the software quality industry (focus on numbers and data, and don’t forget to be friendly).  John Hunter suggests ways to approach different types of executives and organizations. Just don’t fall for or offer what Dr. Deming called “instant pudding” solutions, he adds. 

Chris Hermenitt makes the case for educating others about quality, rather than selling.  Tim McMahon emphasis two key principles that must be part of every “selling quality” strategy: focus on safety and built-in quality. Scott Rutherford offers two blog posts: One on selling both parts of quality–conformance to standard and performance improvement. The other post is a reflection on making quality count rather than bundling it up in a training program. 

Don’t forget the customer: Nicole Radziwill writes that consumers, too, have a role in the “selling” quality debate—they must be willing to spend their money on quality products.  Nergis Soylemez points out that selling high quality at low prices is key to success. David Levy writes that we must sell quality to everyone: our customers, our suppliers, our peers. Robert Mitchell encourages organizations to look at the total customer experience, which can lead to quality selling itself. 

Are you—the quality professional—doing your part? Aimee Siegler wonders if quality professionals are hesitant to point out the importance of quality to top management. And Cesar Diaz Guevara writes that, above all, quality must be your personal mindset and philosophy. Is it?

Posted in Deming, Quality, Uncategorized, case for quality | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

25 Years of ISO 9000

Posted on March 22, 2012 by borawski

March 15 marked the 25th anniversary of the ISO 9000 series standards.  (If you’ve been around for a while, you know that British standard BS 5179 preceded the ISO standard and the U.S. Mil-Q-9858 predated the British standard.)  So the notion of auditable quality system standards go back nearly 45 years, but the real impact certainly launched on a worldwide basis with the release and adoption of the ISO 9000 series standards.  Since the standards were released in 1987, they have gone through three revisions: 1994, 2000, and 2008.

According to the International Organization for Standardization, as of 2009, the total number of organizations certified to ISO 9000 exceeded one million!

I’m of the opinion that the ISO 9000 series of standards have helped usher quality into many organizations.  I’ve met a lot of senior executives who swear by the value of being certified and who can tell me chapter and verse how they have used the standards and certification process to drive improvement and sustainable gains in their organization.  I always say, “Good – get the word out!”  I’ve also heard a few stories that getting certified is just a necessary expense of doing business and not a driver of improvement, so I know not everyone gets it.

I also remember the good Dr. Juran in his last address in Europe admonishing the quality community’s fervor for audited systems.  He cited the financial community’s long history of auditing financials and the uncertain outcomes.  While I didn’t always agree with Dr. Juran, I certainly considered his insights worth remembering and thinking about.

So, here we are 25 years later.  A whole industry has arisen from the need for third-party audits to system standards.  ISO 9000 began as a promise of a single series of standards for world-wide adoption and mutual recognition.  Have we realized the promise?  In what ways has ISO 9000 advanced the practice of quality and the realization of sustained improvement?  Has ISO 9000 created any unintentional setbacks to the full realization of quality’s benefits?   What’s the future of management system standards?

My applause and appreciation to the volunteers on the U.S. TAG to ISO/TC 176 (the group that writes and revises the ISO 9000 series for the U.S., which is administered by ASQ), and to the other national committees that contribute to the development of ISO 9000. These committees, as well as the many thought leaders who have served the community with their vision, knowledge, experience, and practiced wisdom have made ISO 9000 perhaps the most notable quality development of the late 20th century.

Here’s to the first 25 years with hope of even greater realized impact in the next 25!

Posted in Juran, Standards, iso 9000 | Tagged , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

How Do You “Sell” Quality?

Posted on March 12, 2012 by borawski

In my role as CEO of ASQ, I have many opportunities to explain quality. And here and there I have a chance to “sell” quality to a decision-maker.  What happen as a result of these explanations and sales pitches is uncertain to me, but I welcome any opportunity to raise the voice of quality and spread the word.

I was in Stockholm, Sweden, last Wednesday, conducting a Future of Quality workshop for the Swedish Institute for Quality (SIQ.) Over the years I’ve conducted these workshops all over the world and we end the workshop with a question.  “Given all I’ve learned about the future of quality, and the changes in quality management that I can now anticipate, the pressing question I’d most like an answer to is….?”

Nearly every workshop will include some variation of this question.  How do I convince senior executives (often CEOs) and public officials that quality is important and an essential strategy for–pick your ending–performance excellence, competitiveness, growth, sustainability, survival, efficiency, effectiveness?

I know this question has plagued the quality community for close to 70 years.  I can hear the good Dr. Deming answer, “You don’t have to change (use quality). Survival isn’t mandatory.” Dr. Deming had a good way of challenging thought. 

Those of you who “sell” quality, and have the opportunity to pitch to senior decision makers:  What have you found to be the essential answer? And for those who have the experience of taking the message globally, does the same pitch work everywhere, or do you have to adjust the story to accommodate cultural differences?

(I reference the Future of Quality workshop, which is based on the triennial ASQ Future of Quality Study. I also recommend a companion work by Greg Watson, Chairman of the International Academy of Quality.)

Posted in Current Events, Deming, Global, Quality, Uncategorized, case for quality | Tagged , , , , , | 18 Comments

February Roundup: STEM

Posted on March 2, 2012 by borawski

If there’s a topic in the quality blogosphere that has steam, it’s STEM. As I noted in my February post, February marked National Engineers Week in the U.S. In conjunction with this event, ASQ conducted two surveys: one found that students are wary of the STEM fields, but the other showed that current engineers are happy with their career choice. The question remains: how do we encourage the incoming generation of students to pursue STEM? I posed the question to ASQ’s 28 Influential Voices bloggers—who had much insight to share on the state of STEM worldwide. (STEM, by the way, stands for science, technology, engineering, and math.) I encourage you to read their thoughtful, wise, and sometimes-controversial responses. Some common themes:

We must do a better job of teaching STEM:

Rajan Thiyagarajan outlines seven key components of STEM education. Nicole Radziwill offers four steps to improving STEM education, including instituting a Kanban system and getting rid of grades. Bob Mitchell looks to Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge and statistical thinking to improve STEM. And Guy Wallace shares an in-depth action plan for success that he created for his grandson.

Other bloggers looked for ways to make students passionate about STEM. We must show students that there’s more to engineering that sitting in a lab or behind a desk, says Mark Graban. John Hunter argues that curiosity, creativity and fun are essential components of learning STEM.  Laura Freeman advocates the use of case studies in teaching STEM.  And Kerrie Ann Christian describes innovative ways that STEM is taught and promoted in Australia, while Dr. Lotto Lai describes STEM education in China.

Good mentors, teachers, and parents make the crucial difference:

“There is probably no greater gift you can give someone than the ability to solve problems based on a foundation of math, science, and technology,” says Tim McMahon. Aimee Siegler is concerned that her son isn’t challenged enough in math and science at school. Manu Vora writes about recruiting teachers who love math and science.  Anshuman Tiwari looks to governments and parents to do a better job of teaching STEM.

On the bright side, John Priebe remembers a mentor who helped him appreciate math, while Nergis Soylemez–Sayed reflects on her parents’ help with the subject.  David Levy writes that many teenagers he knows are pursuing the STEM fields.

Is STEM necessary for the quality field?

Scott Rutherford argues that while STEM “is a foundation of quality, it shouldn’t be the primary or preferred entry point into quality.” Jennifer Stepniowski reflects on her mixed relationship with math. Meanwhile, Cesar Diaz Guevara writes that it’s never too late to discover STEM (ASQ certifications can help!).

STEM outside the U.S.:

Jimena Calfa and Paulo Sampaio reflects on similar challenges in attracting and retaining STEM students in their native countries—Argentina and Portugal, respectively. Meanwhile, Sameer Chougle writes that many students pursue engineering in India—but he isn’t sure if that’s necessarily a good thing. And, writing from China, Chris Hermenitt argues that “STEM education in Asia is a driving force for the success of the region.”

(On a different topic, another good read this month is Deb Mackin doing the math on how quality can affect your bottom line. I’m happy to see that ASQ bloggers are posting on a variety of topics throughout the month. The more the merrier!)

Posted in Current Events, Education, STEM, Uncategorized, Young Professionals, engineering, engineers, science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

New Bloggers, STEM & More

Posted on February 6, 2012 by borawski

The recent months mark the first anniversary of ASQ’s Influential Voices program and my View from the Q blog. The goal of this effort is to help raise the voice of quality and extend the reach of the quality community. For years, ASQ assumed it was our job to tell the story of quality and we’ve had great success by some measures. But there’s more work to do and ASQ can’t do it alone. We’re creatively looking for ways to encourage more people to raise their voice. Among the folks who’ve taken on this challenge are the Influential Voices bloggers.

A bit of history: The Influential Voices blogging program launched in late 2010, and is continuing into 2012 with 16 new bloggers (13 original Influential Voices are also continuing into this year). These bloggers are digitally active quality professionals from around the world who have agreed to blog at least once a month on behalf of ASQ on their personal blogs. Of course, many blog on all things quality and more throughout the month! You can see a complete list of all participants on the blogroll at right. I’m one voice getting the ball rolling with a monthly blog topic for discussion on View From the Q. While I don’t think I’m in the best position to speak for quality, I concede that being the CEO of ASQ gives me a stream of information that’s pretty unique.

So, thank you to the 2011 Influential Voices, and welcome to the 2012 Influential Voices! The global community is growing, and we have much to do.

Part of that “to-do” is making sure there will be a generation of engineers and scientists to carry on the work of advancing the field. This hits close to home for me. I have an 18-year-old who wants to be a civil engineer and I spent last weekend with him in Bozeman, Montana, looking at a university. I think they set the hook, and he’s excited about studying engineering. The associate dean was an articulate spokesperson for the opportunities in engineering. She referenced the startling statistic of the U.S. Federal Government’s expectation that 30% of the workforce will retire in the next four to six years. That’s going to create one heck of a demand for new talent. And I’ve been in enough places around the world to know that demand is rising steeply, whether it’s through an aging workforce or growing economies.

Having been trained long ago as an engineer, I have a deep appreciation for the skills of a good engineer. The need for talented scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians is an important ingredient in the advancement of civilization, and the solution to the problems a growing population creates. Yet how under-recognized, and perhaps under-rewarded, our engineering community is! I’m going to find an engineer, a scientist, and a mathematician to thank today. Thank them for all they do to make the world safer and more enjoyable. 

Here in the U.S., National Engineers Week will be observed February 19-25.   In observance of the week, ASQ commissioned some research on teens’ pursuit of STEM careers.  The good news is that teens understand that engineering will be second only to medicine for available jobs. However, teens are a bit reluctant to pursue STEM fields because they perceive the programs will be costly and demanding. There is a lot of fear when it comes to math, which was reinforced in my university tour last weekend.

Now, I’m amongst the small percent of the population who loved math. Did then, still do. Don’t know that I ever used calculus but loved the mental discipline to learn it. I don’t know if enjoying math was something I was born to, or was the gift of remarkable teachers. As a parent, I tried to show and involve our children in using math to solve our problems and make decisions. It made math relevant, and sometimes even exciting.

How do we do more of this? How can we, those who understand, use, and love science and technology, pass it along? I invite your thoughts! For those outside the U.S., how is STEM taught and encouraged in your county?

Posted in Current Events, Education, Global, Quality | Tagged , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Measuring the Value of Quality

Posted on January 16, 2012 by borawski

I suspect many of you, like me, are always looking for the fact-based argument for quality. When pressed, I typically fall back on the cost-of-quality (poor quality) argument, and cite the statistics I’ve heard over the years.

Twenty cents of every dollar of revenue in manufacturing is lost to poor quality. Thirty cents of every revenue dollar in service is lost to poor quality. Seventy cents in healthcare, and I’ve never heard a number cited for government but everyone agrees it’s north of 70%. Often these numbers will capture the interest of the discussion enough that I can delve into a more elaborate explanation for what contributes to the cost of quality other than scrape and rework. I often end my epistle with something like, “And this 20% (30%, 70% or more) is available to every company without raising prices, or finding new customers. Twenty percent to the bottom line!”

I’m then troubled when lines don’t form at the door for more of this quality stuff. I just don’t get it.

I often wonder, then, what the unrealized benefit of quality is to society. Of course, I admit that I don’t have tools that are sophisticated enough to undertake the answer to the question and then move on to wondering who might have those tools. Do economists have tools that would make a compelling argument for the cost of poor quality at a societal level?

Well, short of an answer to my exact question, economists Albert N. Link, and John T. Scott (University of North Carolina, and Dartmouth College, respectively) used their economic tools to measure the net social value of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. It’s an interesting study and I recommend it to you.

And for two reasons. First, in the explanation of methodology they describe the “counterfactual evaluation method,” they used (pages 6 to 8), which goes along with the figures 1 and 2 (pages 23 and 24). Together the explanation and the figures offer a very interesting account of the market impact of improved quality performance. I’ve not seen this account before.

Secondly, the study describes the net social value of the Baldrige program. In 2001, when this study was first performed, the net social value had been found to be 207:1. Ten years later, with the expansion of the program to include healthcare, education, and the not-for-profit sectors, the value has grown to 820:1. Now, to be careful, this study is aimed at deriving the value of the Baldrige Program and the use of “public funds,” but the insights related to the larger question of the social value of quality are strong.

As governments and policy makers around the world look for approaches and tools to improve their economies – this study provides compelling evidence that quality is a known, and proven, contributor to improved and sustainable performance.

Posted in Baldrige, Current Events, Quality | Tagged , , , , , | 13 Comments